Opinion | By Mark Bareta
The words used to describe a conflict shape the response to it. That is why I take issue with the term “community dialogue” as a framework for resolving the conflict between Cameroun and Southern Cameroons.
I am only now hearing this term used in this context. In my view, it presents a political conflict as an internal community dispute. That framing risks avoiding the very question any serious peace process must confront: who needs to sit at the negotiating table?
Do not reduce the conflict to a dispute between communities
Community dialogue has its place. It could help resolve a dispute between communities in different divisions, or between villages within Bui. Such examples are hypothetical; they illustrate the distinction I am making.
But that is not how I understand the Southern Cameroons conflict. To present it principally as a disagreement among local communities is, in my view, to dilute its political character and the demands at its centre.
A process that brings people together without addressing those demands may produce meetings and statements. It cannot, by that fact alone, deliver a permanent settlement.
The right parties must be at the table
My position is straightforward: a sustainable solution requires direct dialogue between representatives of the Cameroun Government and representatives of Southern Cameroons movements, alongside experts and elites who can contribute to the process.
I refer to that Southern Cameroons side as “Team Ambazonia.” I use the expression here to describe the representation I believe is needed, rather than to announce an already constituted negotiating delegation.
Consultation among Southern Cameroonians can help clarify priorities and prepare positions. But talking among ourselves cannot replace negotiations with the government whose policies and political position are central to the dispute.
“For a permanent solution, dialogue must bring together representatives of the Cameroun Government and representatives of Southern Cameroons movements, experts and elites — Team Ambazonia.”
A permanent solution requires a serious negotiating process
The question is not simply whether another meeting can be organised. It is whether the process will bring the relevant parties together to address the substance of the conflict.
For me, the necessary framework is clear: Cameroun Government representatives across the table from Southern Cameroons representatives, with a genuine opportunity to negotiate.
Calling a process “community dialogue” does not answer that challenge. A permanent solution requires the political dispute to be confronted directly and the appropriate representatives to be heard.
That is the sustainable path I am calling for.
Mark Bareta
Adapted from Mark Bareta’s supplied position statement. This article expresses the author’s views.
