In the context of the ongoing conflict between the Southern Cameroons-Ambazonia and La République du Cameroun, it has become increasingly clear that a continuous fighting benefits the latter’s strategic interests.
As long as the government in Yaoundé believes that military superiority will allow it to maintain control over Ambazonia, there is little incentive for genuine negotiation.
The harsh reality is that negotiated settlements are often a byproduct of battlefield realities. Therefore, a ferocious and robust counter-military strategy is the only viable means to force La République du Cameroun to the table for a comprehensive settlement that addresses the root causes of the conflict.
The Just Peace Argument
Paul Biya believes from the very commencement of this war that he will come out victorious. His army brought beautifully stitched parade uniforms and well-polished boots to Ambazonia not combat gears.
They were hoping to win the war in less than a week and be greeted on the streets of Buea by a subdued, docile and enslaved populace as some sort of the new liongo’o.
Seven years have gone by yet the swift and decisive victory he had anticipated is shrouded in his mental incapacitation, his natural feebleness and the deadening greed of his Men of War.
The Myth of Diplomacy Without Leverage
History has shown that repressive regimes do not engage in meaningful negotiations unless they face significant pressure. Without a formidable military response from Ambazonian combatants, the current status quo will persist: halfhearted dialogue, cosmetic concessions, and continued occupation.
The lack of leverage in negotiations will only prolong the suffering of our people. A powerful and sustained military response with devastating surgical operations is not about promoting war but about making peace an urgent necessity for La République du Cameroun and the people of Ambazonia.
So, as long as Biya strongly believes that fighting benefits him, he has very minimal incentive to make a deal on the negotiating table. Sources close to the Republican Emperor states categorically that negotiation of any sort with Ambazonian leadership is no longer in consideration and anyone who dares raises the issue within the corridors of the sickening and deadening empire is considered a threat to the empire’s existence.
It is therefore pertinent that Ambazonians and allies of the Ambazonia CAUSE fully understand what is at stake and change this calculus and change it now.
The Path to a Comprehensive Settlement
- Deterrence through Strength: A robust counter-military approach will make it clear that Ambazonia is not a region to be subdued but a nation defending its sovereignty. Only when the cost of occupation outweighs its perceived benefits will Yaoundé seek a real settlement. However, it is important to know that historically, wars end either with a complete military victory, a ceasefire or a negotiated peace agreement. According to The Hague Center for Strategic Studies, only 16% of wars between 1946 and 2005 ended with a Negotiated Settlement. Among these peace agreements, 37% led to a renewed conflict, often within just two years. In other words, for a real settlement to be effective, the parties must have the urge to see negotiation as the ONLY CREDIBLE AND VIABLE WAY OUT of the conflict; they must be willing to be there; the parties must have an incentive to negotiate, to resolve the entirety of the issues that caused the conflict peacefully. By and large, if both sides feel returning to fighting will harm their interest, the prospect for a negotiated settlement increases. On the other hand, if one side feels the fighting is going in their favor and they can keep it going in their favor, the incentive structure for a negotiated settlement is reversed.
- Ending the Illusion of Victory: Yaoundé continues to wage war because it believes that it can win through attrition. A strategic and coordinated military response by Ambazonia combatants will shatter this illusion, forcing them to reconsider their stance. Ambazonians are fighting against an enemy willing to exhaust national resources and human capital to win. Biya can keep fighting until he finally have the Ambazonian objective crumble or he can get would-be-negotiators to prolong talks for years, giving fake hope to the people of Ambazonia and certainty of outright victory to Biya and his FINAL ASSIMILATION of the people and territory of Ambazonia.
- Shifting International Perception: A stronger resistance will attract international attention and put pressure on external actors to facilitate genuine negotiations. The world intervenes when conflicts reach a stage where maintaining the status quo is untenable. This is why Ambazonia must change the calculus and change it now.
- Forcing a Settlement that Addresses the Entirety of the Conflict: Previous pre-talks have been piecemeal, avoiding the fundamental issue of Ambazonian sovereignty, exposing the diplomatic thuggery of Yaoundé and its IRICian-diplomacy of lying, diversion, crookery, thievery and corruption. A robust military stance will ensure that any negotiations address the full spectrum of grievances, including selfdetermination.
Conclusion
The road to peace is often paved through struggle. La République du Cameroun will not negotiate a genuine resolution unless forced by battlefield realities. Therefore, a ferocious and robust counter-military strategy is not just an option – it is the only path to a comprehensive, lasting settlement. Ambazonia must meet force with force until Yaoundé recognizes that the cost of continued war is unsustainable. Only then can a meaningful and just peace emerge.
Author: Ebenezer Derek Akwanga, PhD
