Today, calls for “quick fixes” to the conflict ignore the significant international initiatives that have already taken place, and more importantly, the deliberate obstruction of these initiatives by French Cameroons.
By The Independentist news desk
It is misleading and dangerous to claim that the international community has “not helped” in the search for a resolution to the conflict between Ambazonia and French Cameroons. This is the false narrative French Cameroons has carefully cultivated: using diplomatic delay tactics to avoid credible, internationally mediated negotiations while blaming outsiders for inaction. Repeating this narrative — knowingly or not — plays directly into Yaoundé’s hands and risks repeating the historical errors that brought Ambazonia to this crisis.
This is not the first time the Ambazonian people have been encouraged to accept a “quick fix.” In the early 1960s, Dr Foncha accepted rushed arrangements to achieve independence, trusting assurances that were never honored. Britain then handed over sovereignty not to the democratically elected leadership of Southern Cameroons but to Ahmadou Ahidjo, a French-backed unelected ruler in Yaoundé. Many Ambazonians viewed this as punishment for their refusal to join Nigeria in the 1961 plebiscite. That fateful decision set the stage for six decades of constitutional manipulation, marginalization, and ultimately war.
Today, calls for “quick fixes” to the conflict ignore the significant international initiatives that have already taken place, and more importantly, the deliberate obstruction of these initiatives by French Cameroons.
Within the first year of the conflict, the international community did something it rarely does: it mobilized rapidly in favor of structured negotiations.
In 2020, U.S. Congressional Resolution 684 called on French Cameroons to negotiate with Ambazonia without preconditions, placing the dispute squarely in the realm of political and diplomatic resolution.
Around the same time, the Swiss-led Mediation Process, backed by multiple international actors, offered a neutral platform with third-party guarantees. This was exactly the kind of mediation used to resolve political conflicts worldwide. Yet Yaoundé flatly refused to attend, despite widespread support for the process.
Only two weeks later, the regime attempted to stage-manage its own “Canadian talks” — without neutral guarantees and using hand-picked proxies. For three months, discussions proceeded quietly. But when the Canadian Prime Minister announced Canada’s role as a third-party guarantor, French Cameroons abruptly denied any talks were happening at all. This diplomatic reversal exposed Yaoundé’s real strategy: control the narrative, avoid binding mediation, and maintain unilateral control.
The refusal to engage in genuine mediation is not tactical hesitation — it is deliberate political calculation. French Cameroons understands that credible, internationally guaranteed negotiations would place the conflict on its true legal and political footing: as a decolonization dispute governed by international law and UN resolutions, not as a mere internal security issue. Since 1961, the regime has used constitutional engineering, deceptive referenda, and assimilation policies to dismantle Ambazonia’s political status. Submitting to internationally mediated talks would expose these historical maneuvers and almost certainly lead to Ambazonia’s political restoration.
Some observers argue that the international community should simply intervene militarily. But that misunderstands how international diplomacy works. Military intervention is rarely the first tool; it comes after diplomatic and legal avenues have been fully exhausted. The fact that mediation was endorsed and supported less than a year into the conflict is exceptional. What has stalled the process is not international reluctance, but Yaoundé’s refusal to participate in good faith.
This conflict is the only one of its kind in recent decades where an internationally backed mediation framework was offered almost immediately, only for the state party to reject it outright. This is why claims that “the international community has done nothing” are so dangerous. They obscure where the real blockage lies: in Yaoundé’s strategic refusal to negotiate under terms it cannot manipulate.
French Cameroons is fully aware that meaningful negotiations would strip away the cover of “internal crisis” and force the question of self-determination. This is why it prefers endless delay, staged dialogues, and controlled narratives rather than facing Ambazonia across a neutral table with credible third-party guarantors.
The international community has, in fact, taken early and concrete steps. What it cannot do — at least not initially — is deploy troops to enforce a political settlement. That only happens after diplomatic mechanisms are exhausted, which is exactly what French Cameroons is trying to avoid.
The lesson from history is clear. Ambazonia is in this crisis today because of short-sighted compromises and misplaced trust in the early 1960s. Accepting narratives that downplay international involvement or push for quick, shallow settlements would only repeat the same error.
The real obstacle to peace is not a lack of international will, but a regime in Yaoundé that fears the political consequences of genuine mediation. Recognizing this fact is the first step toward a just and lasting resolution.
The Independentist news desk
