Causes of the Hostile Bilateral Relations between Nigeria and Cameroon

Causes of the Hostile Bilateral Relations between Nigeria and Cameroon

In order to have a better understanding of the dynamic tauter of Nigeria-Cameroon relations, it will be necessary to go deeper into several issues that transpired between the two countries.

a.   Territorial Claims

The Bakassi conflict is a classic example of a conflict between two states contesting sovereignty over the territory. In cussing the different aspects that describe the nature and Nigeria-Cameroon boundary disputes, the territories are given pre-eminence. Although Bakassi is merely 1OO0sq.km big and generally considered unattractive, ceding territory to another nation is always a problematic issue. In the Constitutions of both countries, there are clauses which directly address the issue of sovereignty over all of their respective territories and the responsibility to protect their territorial integrity.

In prior to the partition, inter-European conflict in the coastal of what later emerged as Nigeria and Cameroon occurred due to claims of incompatible lights by virtue with African coastal rulers. The scramble for territories was actually acrimonious in nature and introduced in its wake a land of conflict described by T.F. Elliot as ‘elbowing’. It was not unusual for Britain or Germany to out-smart each other through force of logic, reason or deceit in their rush to secure endorsement treaties. The very elastic nature of protectorate treaties bred acrimony. For instance, the protection treaties by the king of old Calabar although did not mention adjourning territories, was interpreted by the British colonialist as having a transcendental effect on Bakassi due to its corresponding ethnic homogeneity and trade arteries of Old Calabar. This was a position German traders and agents were neither willing to accept or respect.

Germany’s quest for the control of inland waterways of Akpayafe and Nolan to access the interior and also to divert trade from the interior to Duala against the arrangement which was from the interior to Calabar brought her into conflict with Britain. To establish an exclusive competence in the intervening zone, German agents resorted to burning down several Efik trading stations on the banks of Akpayafe.⁹ The Anglo-German boundary delimitation of 1909 otherwise known as the Milner-Simon Line and its affirmation in the 1913 treaty were benefits of ethnographic considerations. Perhaps, the Efik-Ibibio-Oron groups that inhabited the Bakassi Peninsula were thought of as marooned people by the Germans. Similarly, the authority of Efik kings over the intervening the territory was considered doubtful and exaggerated. Whereas, the peninsula should have been allocated to Britain using the Kith and Kin theory, reliable data gathered by British agents on “ethnic” distribution and trade pattern were deliberately disregarded by the Germans in their proposals for territorial allocation.

To the successor-states of Nigeria and Cameroon, the neglected realities in the colonial territorial allocation bequeathed on them the legacy of conflicting claims. While Nigeria relied strongly on cultural affinity, commendable intercourse and effective occupation, Cameroon buttressed the legality of her claim on the territorial allocation spelled out in “Article 20 of the 1913 Anglo- German Treaty”. Not leaving anything to chance, Cameroon embarked on the policy of effective “cameroonisation” of the peninsula by changing Nigerian names of villages to Cameroonian. or instance, Atabong I and II, were changed to Idabato 1 and II; bana to Jabane, Ine Akpa to Neonjo among others. Similarly, Nigeria elevated the peninsula to the status of a local government area under the Cross River State much to the consternation and chagrin of Cameroon. An added twist to the territorial disputes is the separatist agitations of South-West Cameroonians who realized after the plebiscite of 1961 that they were ‘strange-bed-fellows’ in the United Republic of Cameroon. Some leaders of the separatist groups and their families were alleged by the Cameroonian authorities to be using the Nigerian neigbouring towns of Ikom and Calabar as operational bases and sanctuary.¹⁰ Efforts by Cameroonian government to ensure a water-tight and exclusionary southern boundary with Nigeria in order to frustrate the separatist movement often brought her into conflict with the authorities. In reaction, the separatist movements under the auspices of the Still-born Ambazonia Republic sought an injunction from a Nigerian High Court sitting in Abuja, to restrain Nigeria after the ICJ ruling from handing over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon. The separatists also sought an order mandating the Nigerian government. to hold the territory in trust pending when independence of the still-born republic would be recognized by the United Nations Organisation¹¹. Although the orders were not granted, the actions of the South-west Cameroon ‘nationalists’ were sufficient pointers to the fact of a territorial conflict between Nigeria and Cameroon.

With the declaration of Cameroon sovereignty over Bakassi peninsula by the International Court of Justice and the eventual handing over of the territory by Nigeria, an Efik-Ibibio-Oron cultural melting point was lost to Cameroon. The rejection of the session by 95% of the inhabitants of the peninsula and the Nigerian national assembly.¹² was also enough pointers to the fact that the territorial dispute was not going to be over soon.

Natural Resources

Despite the fact that this point is closely related to the economic aspect, it is still very expedient to mention it on its own merit as it is very fundamental to the conflict. Just as the other border dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria in the Lake Chad area the Bakassi dispute revolved around the one of environment such as oil and fish. At the time of the Anglo-German struggle for the llttoral sphere, the Bakassi peninsula did not offer any attraction. Major Claude Macdonald in his correspondence to the British Foreign Office dated January 21, 1893, described the peninsula as a ‘dismal swamp, peopled by a few miserable fisher-folk . ¹³

The seeming lack of interest by Germany and Britain left Bakassi as an intervening no man's land. The peninsula later became a bone of contention between the two successor-states of Nigeria and Cameroon in the 1970s owing to the discovery of rich hydrocarbon deposits in the area. Other resource endowments within the southern borderlands whose exploitation by Nigerians contributed to disputes between Nigeria and Cameroon induced forestry resources and fisheries Due to the endowment of these resources within the demarcated sector, Nigerian loggers and fishermen were always harassed, arrested, detained or even killed by Cameroonian gendarmes for timber-logging and fishing respectively. It was crystal clear that these resources were potentials for economic leverage to either contending party, hence the conflict.¹⁴

Though both countries continued to refuse and deny allegations that their interests in the area was focused on the huge oil reserves, the dispute was essentially over natural resources.

Social Perspective

Since the two Cameroons united to form the United Republic of Cameron in the 20th century, the Cameroonian central government did not do anything concrete to develop the social capacity of Bakassi. Nigeria, on the other hand, populated the area constructed a few schools, hospitals and also tried to improve infrastructure. The Efik-speaking people who generally see themselves as Nigerians could not imagine either to evacuate the land they lived in for centuries or to suddenly become Cameroonians overnight. Also, these people had earned their Livelihood through fishing, and all these put pressure on the federal government to adopt a tough stand on the issue.

Security

The issue of security has always played matters relating to the Bakassi peninsula. between the chiefs of Old Calabar.Old Calabar and consequently Bakassi to Britain was the “Treaty of Protection. Britain later on ceded Bakassi to German Kamerun because she wanted to secure passage to the Calabar and because of she wanted to assure the Germans would not seek any further eastward expansion, that is toward Cameroon.

It should be noted that security here is seen in its wider to encompass both the security of the state as well as security¹⁵. It is, therefore, in line with this that during the year of military confrontations, both countries advanced security reason as excuses for resorting to direct military force. In 1981, Cameroon claimed that Nigeria had entered her sphere of influence and thus posing a threat to her national security and territorial sovereignty (state security). Nigeria, on the other hand, justified the deployment of soldiers to Bakassi saying, she did so to protect the security of Nigerian fishermen and traders who were subject to harassment and unfair treatment in the hands of Cameroonian gendarmes (human security)¹⁶.

On the strategic level, Cameron’s ownership of Bakassi was seen as a threat to Nigeria’s access to the Port of Calabar.¹⁷ Nigeria would lose its eastern access to the Atlantic Ocean with the far-reaching security implication that her naval ships would not or may only be able to freely move from there to southern Africa with permission from Cameroon. Ultimately, Nigeria claimed that sovereignty over Bakassi was not a matter of oil or natural resources or both or. In coastal waters but that she was merely interested in the well-being and welfare of Nigerians in their country ¹⁸.