Cameroon-Nigeria relations: Will Biya’s personalised power sustain his otherwise unreserved political will?

After nearly half a century of uncertain relations, Cameroon has now decided to wholly embrace Nigeria, thanks to the abundant goodwill demonstrated by the successful handover of Bakassi. Yet another danger threatens the coming new relationship – the difference in outlooks of Cameroon and Nigeria. The one is an open society governed by institutionalised power while the other is ruled by personalised power. Will Paul Biya be able to sustain his otherwise unreserved political will to do business with Nigeria?

Te speed with which the authorities of Abuja and Yaounde resumed long stalled talks on bilateral relations following the completion of the handover of Bakassi Peninsula was impressive.

It was unmistakeable evidence of the willingness of both countries not to waste time any longer in working closely together in order to draw mutually from the rich benefits offered by the historical and cultural ties of their neighbourliness.

For the first time ever Paul Biya declared his unreserved will to have “a new era” of close relations with Nigeria. The cloud that always overcast relations between the two neighbours has cleared. The relaxed and confident atmosphere that prevailed at the bilateral talks last week in Yaounde was telling.

Paul Biya now sincerely believes that he can do business with Nigeria. Nigeria respected its word and returned Bakassi to Cameroon, something that Biya now considers as his most outstanding achievement and legacy for that matter.

In spite of mounting evidence to the contrary over the years, Yaounde’s policy towards Abuja has always been one of reservation borne of fears. First, was always the lingering fear that Nigeria would surreptitiously woo back Anglophones who voted against union with Nigeria in a 1961 referendum in preference to the newly independent (French) Cameroon.

Yaounde’s fears were strengthened over the years as Anglophones became openly dissatisfied with the place reserved for them in the union with Francophones. A related anxiety for Yaounde was the prospect of expansionism by the Nigerians, given their far superior military and economic power.

Yet another, if less obvious, motivation for Yaounde’s lukewarmness towards Nigeria was its deliberate policy of assimilation of Anglophones into francophone culture and the weakening, if not eventual erasure, of Anglophone values.

Then it became certain over the years that all of Yaounde’s fears about Nigeria were unjustified. Still Yaounde remained unenthusiastic about its giant neighbour.

Internal cohesion

Saddled with its own long-drawn problems of internal cohesion Nigeria has never tried to be expansionist, neither has it been interested in Anglophones’ disgruntlement with their Francophone rulers.

Ahmadou Ahidjo supported the federal government of Yakubu Gowon who defeated Odumegwu Ojukwu, the secessionist leader, in Nigeria’s civil war of secession (1967-1970) in which Eastern Nigeria wanted to break away,

That anti-secessionist posture was interpreted to reflect Ahidjo’s own policy against Anglophone break-way. The support opened a new era of opportunities for Cameroon in its relations with Nigeria but Ahidjo remained unmoved.

The early 1970s ushered in a period of economic boom in Nigeria, thanks to a huge leap in crude oil production. Ahidjo still remained nonplussed. He shocked Nigerians by turning down repeated offers by the Gowon administration to develop the road from Ikom in Nigeria to Mamfe town.

Between 1963 and 1983 Cameroon and Nigeria signed some nine friendship and cooperation agreements covering all possible areas yet all that did not manage to generate warmth between the two countries.

Instead Ahidjo undertook in 1965 to initiate a central African sub-regional union intended to be a counter weight to the might of Nigeria. Unfortunately for him, UDEAC, the economic union that the political grouping began with never really worked.

Reason? Cameroon being the biggest economy of the sub-region, its leaders became suspicious of Ahidjo’s motives to dominate them or use them to further shore up his power! Strangely enough that happened to be one of Ahidjo’s main fears about Nigeria’s might. In spite of agreements signed and ratified there has never been integration, to say the least.

The same problems of mutual disagreements have rendered CEMAC, the successor of UDEAC a failed sub-regional project. There is presently mutual hostility between Yaounde and Malabo arising from sharp disagreements about positions within the common organisation. The relationship between Cameroon and other members of the sub-region is barely cordial.

The problems of both UDEAC and CEMAC and the long years of evidence that the early fears about Nigeria were all unjustified should since have been instructive to both Ahidjo and Biya his successor. They were not. It required the disaster of Bakassi and the long course of its resolution for Biya finally to admit that he could trust Nigeria and do business with it.

Yet there is another foreseeable problem. The failure of CEMAC and Paul Biya’s lack of enthusiasm for it raises important concerns about the sustainability of close working ties with Nigeria, given especially that the sub-region is made of ex-French colonies sharing the same outlook and concept of government and power.

Nigeria, for instance, is an open society governed institutionally whereas Cameroon is a closed society operated by personalised power. Paul Biya, Cameroonians are repeatedly told, is an incarnation of the nation’s institutions and is unanswerable to the people.

The implication here is that in spite of agreements made the president can always decide to no longer respect them as it suits him! He is as such unbound even by his own word.

Commonwealth

Cameroonians know only too well how often they accuse their president of disrespecting his own law or withdrawing with the left hand what he gives out with the right hand.

The Commonwealth once tried to get round this problem by insisting on the use of parliament to endorse some agreements only to realise that even parliament is itself wholly subjected to the president. This is something Nigeria must give thought to in its renewed relations with Cameroon.

By the way Paul Biya’s will for full-scale relations with Nigeria was put to the test at last week’s essentially exploratory talks between the two countries. The Nigerians asked him to cancel completely the residence permit requirement for Nigerians in Cameroon which has been a permanent source of headache for Nigerians. They say the 120,000 fcfa fee is exorbitant especially if you have a big household.

While examining this demand we think it is also high time for the Yaounde authorities to completely review its welcome to Nigerians living in Cameroon. The government should make it possible for Nigerian businessmen in Cameroon to feel committed to the future of their host country and settle here for good if they so will.

Paul Biya already guaranteed the safety of Nigerians living in Cameroon and their businesses. Nigerian banks are already in Cameroon earning profit in exchange for the services they render for the development of Cameroon.

The government should go for big Nigerian investment with corresponding big value added for the economy of Cameroon. The Douala stock exchange offers opportunities for Nigerians to invest in Cameroon.

For Nigerian authorities we believe they cannot ignore the welfare of the teeming four-million-plus of their citizens living in Cameroon. That population is bigger than that of many federated states of Nigeria. That is why it would make much sense for federal authorities to invest in human development infrastructure in Cameroon for the benefit of Nigerians, and Cameroonians, of course.

There is, for instance, a crying shortage of primary and secondary grammar and technical schools and of quality education at those levels in Cameroon. Presently, no number of these facilities is enough. The same holds true oformedical facilities.

The Nigerian government would also want to consider providing incentives to develop the fishing activities of the overwhelming number of Nigerian residents in Cameroon for the benefit of the two countries. In this connection the idea of creating border markets is much welcome.

In these and many other ways while inter-governmental and institutional cooperation goes on there will be a high volume of exchanges between peoples of the two countries at all levels. In the end the goal of cooperation between Nigeria and Cameroon is the social and economic well-being of the two peoples.

Just like Paul Biya is proud of the success of the return of Bakssi Peninsula, we hope he will someday point to the perfectly working relations between Cameroon and Nigeria as another treasured legacy.

Courtesy, The Herald