Exposed: The Two-Faced Game of International Organizations

The UN, Britain, and France operate less as arbiters of justice and more as custodians of their own interests.

By The Inddependentist editorial desk

International organizations often play a double game. They divide responsibility between two offices — one “political” and the other “technical.” The political arm negotiates, cuts deals, and avoids scandal; the technical arm later raises concerns to show credibility. This way, the institution shields itself while appearing to care.

The Case of Kamto

When Professor Maurice Kamto was sidelined from Cameroon’s 2018 elections and later jailed, the UN Secretariat — represented by Amina Mohammed in Yaoundé — said nothing. Smiles and photo opportunities took the place of accountability. Only later did the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva issue a statement of concern. Yes, the statement mattered — but why was it not raised when Mohammed was standing face-to-face with Biya? Why was the technical office left to play “catch-up,” while the political office stayed silent?

Britain and France: Complementary Roles

The British High Commission in Yaoundé has positioned itself as a “technical” actor — monitoring elections, issuing reports, speaking pidgin or Lamnso to reassure locals. Yet when it came to election day, they were largely absent from poll stations and refugee camps. Why did British diplomats not accompany the French?

France, for its part, has long been the “political” actor. Since 1992, credible reports have documented French Embassy vehicles transporting stuffed ballot boxes at night to secure Biya’s victories. Here, too, the roles are divided: Britain issues polite concerns, France secures the result. Both then fall silent.

The Limited Good — and the Deeper Hypocrisy

To be fair, there are moments when the UN, Britain, or even France support civil society, make valid criticisms, or fund humanitarian work. These should not be ignored. But they cannot erase the deeper pattern: when power and profit are at stake, diplomacy trumps democracy.

Dr. Sako’s Position

President Dr. Samuel Ikome Sako has been consistent: Ambazonians must not depend on international organizations for salvation. Their words may sound reassuring, but their actions repeatedly betray us. According to Dr. Sako, the UN, Britain, and France operate less as arbiters of justice and more as custodians of their own interests. He has warned that while Ambazonia should welcome any genuine support, our destiny lies in our own resistance, our own sacrifice, and our own determination — not in the promises of institutions that have enabled Biya’s dictatorship for decades.

The Lesson for Ambazonia

We must not fool ourselves into thinking that democracy in Africa will be guaranteed by those whose interests are served by dictatorship. The statements of “concern” from Geneva or Yaoundé may sound comforting, but they are rarely followed by action. Dictators like Biya know this, and exploit it masterfully.

Ambazonia, the message is clear: yes, listen to the words of international institutions, but judge them by their actions. They will not deliver our freedom. That burden, and that honor, rests on us. Truth in Resistance. Clarity in Crisis.

The Inddependentist editorial desk