← RAMBLE in the JUNGLE: Debating Africa and the World

RAMBLE in the JUNGLE · Textbook · Unit 3: The Cameroons: History, Freedom and Institutions

Issue 3.1

Was Oil the Main Cause of the Cameroons' Troubles?

YESWanaku Verdzekov, Trouble in the Armpit of Africa: The Cameroons Puzzle? (excerpt, c. 2016)
NOEditorial counterpoint, Many Roots, Not One Pipeline (written for this book)

Learning outcomes

After reading this issue, you should be able to:

Place key events in Cameroon's history on a timeline.
Distinguish between facts that can be checked and interpretations.
Explain the idea of the "resource curse".
Evaluate single-cause and multi-cause explanations of history.
Write a historical argument that uses dates as evidence.

Introduction

If you are new to the Cameroons. Cameroon is a country in Central Africa, on the Gulf of Guinea, bordering Nigeria. It was a German colony from 1884. After the First World War it was divided: about four-fifths went to France and one-fifth, on the Nigerian border, to Britain. The British part was run together with Nigeria. In 1961, after a UN vote, the northern part of the British territory joined Nigeria and the southern part ("Southern Cameroons") joined the newly independent, French-speaking Republic of Cameroun in a federation. In 1972 the federation was replaced by a single, centralized state. Today, English is the main official language in the two western regions and French in the other eight. Since 2016, a conflict in the English-speaking regions has pitted separatist groups, who call the territory "Ambazonia", against government forces. See Appendix A for a full timeline.

Oil and politics. Oil was discovered in commercial quantities in the Niger Delta, in neighbouring Nigeria, in 1956. Nigeria's civil war (1967–1970), in which the south-eastern region tried to break away as "Biafra", took place in an oil-rich area and cost around a million lives, many from famine. Cameroon began producing its own oil, offshore near the Nigerian border, in the late 1970s. The border area of Bakassi, rich in fish and possibly oil, was disputed by Nigeria and Cameroon until the International Court of Justice ruled in Cameroon's favour in 2002.

Economists use the term resource curse for the pattern in which countries rich in oil or minerals often suffer more corruption, conflict and slower growth than might be expected, because governments can get rich without relying on their citizens.

The author, Wanaku Verdzekov, supports self-rule for the former Southern Cameroons. Her timeline argues that oil, and the interests of Britain and France in it, shaped the region's politics. Many of its interpretations are marked "my opinion". As you read, separate the dated facts from the interpretations.

As you read, ask: Can one cause explain a whole history? How would you test that?

YES

Trouble in the Armpit of Africa: The Cameroons Puzzle? (excerpt, c. 2016)

By Wanaku Verdzekov

A little history (so we don't repeat the mistakes).

[…]

Now to business… OIL!

1937 – Shell D'Arcy starts business in Nigeria. Shell (Royal Dutch Shell plc) is an Anglo-Dutch multinational oil and gas company, headquartered in the Netherlands and incorporated in the UK. Note the connection between Shell (Anglo-Dutch) and Nigeria (a British colony).

World War II

1939 – WWII begins (1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945).

1945 – WWII ends. The United Nations is established. The United States, the Soviet Union, China, the United Kingdom and France become the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

UPC: the first political party in French Cameroun

1948 – In French Cameroun (remember? a French territory since 1918), a political party called the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC) is formed. It leads the fight for independence, becomes radical, and is outlawed by the French for resorting to violence.

[…]

Oil is discovered in the Niger Delta: game-changing

1956 – Oloibiri Well #1 is drilled in June 1956 to a depth of 12,000 feet. Oil is discovered by Shell in Oloibiri, in the Niger Delta.

1958 – Oil exports begin.

KEEP THIS IN MIND AS YOU READ.

Southern British Cameroons elects its second Premier, J.N. Foncha

1959 – As Cameroun and Nigeria prepare for independence, Southern British Cameroons nationalists debate whether their best interests lie in union with Cameroun, union with Nigeria, or total independence. On 1 February, Endeley is defeated in elections by John Ngu Foncha.

French Cameroun and Nigeria become independent

1960 – 1 January: French Cameroun becomes independent.

1960 – 1 October: Nigeria gains independence from Britain.

1960 – 3 November: Félix-Roland Moumié, the UPC leader, dies in Geneva, Switzerland, poisoned a few weeks earlier. Assassinated, even in exile! Remember that.

The big question

French Cameroun is independent, and Nigeria is independent. What is the status of the British Cameroons? Talk, talk, talk…

1961 – 11 February: the UN plebiscite. The ballot offers two choices only: independence by joining Nigeria, or independence by joining Cameroun. Total independence is NOT on the ballot. Northern British Cameroons votes to join Nigeria; Southern British Cameroons votes to join Cameroun.

1961 – 1 June: the mostly Muslim Northern British Cameroons formally becomes part of Nigeria.

Foumban: Southern British Cameroons meets French Cameroun

1961 – 17–21 July: the Foumban Constitutional Conference. The plebiscite has already decided "independence by joining"; Foumban is supposed to settle the terms of the joining. Instead, Southern British Cameroons is bamboozled by Ahidjo, the French Cameroun leader, and his team of French lawyers. The Southern British Cameroons representatives, led by John Ngu Foncha (Premier since 1959), are literally run over. The terms are a done deal before anyone sits down.

1961 – 1 October: the mostly Christian Southern British Cameroons gains independence from Britain… by joining…

But hold on! Independence "by joining" a country in a CIVIL WAR?

Here is where things start to get interesting for the citizens of Southern [British] Cameroons. Southern [British] Cameroons gained independence by joining [French] Cameroun, which at the time had an ongoing civil war between the French Cameroun government and members of the UPC, formed in 1948.

A lot of people died in French Cameroun during what is sometimes referred to as a genocide. The French, and the French Cameroun government led by Ahmadou Ahidjo, did some really bad and despicable things to the citizens of French Cameroun, especially UPC members, forcing their leaders either to flee or to be summarily killed, even in exile!

So why? Why all the killing? That is the question. What would really move a human's muscles to twitch and consciously harm another? There must be a reason. Let's find out.

The root cause of the current dysfunction in the Cameroons

Here we are trying to put a finger on the root cause of the dysfunction in our own state, the State of Southern [British] Cameroons, in the current configuration of the Cameroons.

Big players in the sub-region: still Britain and France. The UN… maybe? So far, the big players in this sub-region after the world wars were Britain and France, with the UN a weak third (my opinion). Colonization, decolonization and post-colonial activity sound like politics, but in fact they are mostly about economics (my opinion).

Remember the oil discovered at Oloibiri in 1956? Shell, the Anglo-Dutch company, could only expand its production (and revenues). To the French, in full control of French Cameroun, Shell was "Britain" (my opinion). The discovery seemed like a windfall for Britain. Wouldn't the French want a piece of the oil pie too?

[…]

All hell breaks loose: the Nigerian Civil War

1967 – From July 1967 to January 1970: the south-eastern region of Nigeria breaks away and declares itself independent as Biafra. This is the same region where 13 Southern Cameroons representatives sat in the Eastern Nigeria House of Assembly in Enugu, before "independence by joining" French Cameroun. Britain backs the Nigerian government of Yakubu Gowon. Why? [Think Shell.]

[…]

Cameroun: another sledgehammer referendum

1972 – The Federal Republic of Cameroon becomes the United Republic of Cameroon through another sledgehammer referendum, code-named the "Peaceful Revolution" by Ahidjo.

[…]

Oil: the trigger for trouble?

It is obvious at this point that the trigger for major political change in this sub-region was, and is, oil. It is most probably why the children of the State of Southern British Cameroons are restless about the present and the future. Economic power supersedes political power, it seems.

One cannot eat oil. One cannot drink oil. To imagine the number of our people who have died just so oil can be extracted does not seem like a sustainable plan, at least to me. I think the oil can be extracted and people can still live. So why so much killing? How can one explain this so that even a child can understand?

It seems the French gave Ahidjo a goal: "Do all you can to assimilate the State of British Southern Cameroons into the French African ecosystem, and you can stay in power for as long as we can suck some of that black juice from under Mount Fako." Biya might be getting the same instructions as we speak. Why would France still be interested in the "Armpit of Africa", from the Niger Delta to Rio del Rey, even though Shell (or now mostly the Nigerian government) controls most of the Niger Delta's oil?

[…]

You may be asking yourself: is Biya in a similar situation?

Answer: smell the coffee. Potopoto flows from upstream to downstream. Do you think the wicked foot soldiers of the Cameroun government are acting on their own, or on some kind of professional principle? Think again.

We've got work to do, people. And it does not get easier.

Just remember: we cannot eat or drink oil.

TribalMonk

PS: Any mistakes or typos are mine. Please feel free to inform and educate on any details, respectfully. I will update as necessary.

— Wanaku Verdzekov

Written after November 2016; this excerpt covers 1937–1972 and the author's closing argument. Dates have been checked and corrected. […] marks a cut.

Many Roots, Not One Pipeline

Editorial counterpoint Written for this book, not by Wanaku Verdzekov.

This essay was written for this textbook to present the opposing side fairly. It is not by Wanaku Verdzekov.

Wanaku Verdzekov's timeline is a brave attempt to find a single thread in a tangled history. Oil is a good candidate: it is valuable, it was discovered in the region at a key moment, and foreign companies and governments have certainly cared about it. But a single cause rarely explains a whole history. When we look closely at the dates and at other evidence, oil turns out to be one strand in a rope of many.

The timing does not fit neatly

The key decisions that shaped the Cameroons came before Cameroon itself produced oil. The division of Kamerun after the First World War happened long before oil was found in the region. The 1961 plebiscite, which offered Southern Cameroons only two choices (joining Nigeria or joining Cameroun), was set by the United Nations and Britain. Cameroon's own oil production did not begin until the late 1970s, after the federation had already been replaced in 1972. Oil may have raised the stakes later, but it cannot easily explain decisions made before anyone was pumping it.

Language, law and identity mattered

The English-speaking and French-speaking parts of Cameroon had forty years of separate colonial rule. They had different languages, legal systems (common law and civil law), school systems and habits of government. When they joined, these differences did not disappear. Many of the grievances behind the protests of 2016, by lawyers against French-trained judges and by teachers against French-speaking staff in English schools, were about language, law and education, not oil.

Power and centralization

After independence, many African leaders concentrated power in the capital and in a single party. Cameroon's leaders did the same. Replacing a federation with a unitary state in 1972 fitted a pattern seen across the continent, where rulers feared that regions with their own governments might challenge them. A desire for control can explain centralization without any oil at all.

The Cold War and France's wider policy

France kept close ties with most of its former colonies, through military agreements, advisers and the CFA franc. It did this in countries with little oil as well as in countries with a lot. The Cold War also shaped decisions: Western powers preferred stable, friendly governments and feared radical movements such as the UPC. These wider interests explain much of France's behaviour in Cameroon.

Oil still matters

None of this means oil is irrelevant. Oil revenues help keep governments in power, and control of oil-rich areas such as the Bakassi peninsula has caused disputes (Nigeria and Cameroon took Bakassi to the International Court of Justice, which ruled in Cameroon's favour in 2002). Economists speak of a "resource curse", where oil wealth can feed corruption and conflict. But a curse that makes a problem worse is not the same as the cause of the problem.

Conclusion

The author asks us to keep oil "in mind" as we read, and it is a useful lens. But good historians follow many trails at once. The troubles of the Cameroons have roots in colonial division, United Nations decisions, language and law, the centralization of power, the Cold War and, yes, oil. To pull on only one root is to risk missing the others.

— Editorial counterpoint

Vocabulary

Word or phrase	Meaning in the readings
partition	division into parts
mandate	authority given by the League of Nations to govern a territory
multinational	operating in many countries
autonomous	self-governing
premier	head of a regional government
plebiscite	a direct vote by all citizens on one question
bamboozle	to trick or confuse
secede	to break away from a state
referendum	a vote on a single political question
windfall	an unexpected gain
assimilate	to absorb into a larger group
centralization	concentrating power in one central authority
resource curse	the pattern of resource-rich countries suffering corruption and conflict

Comprehension questions

Literal (find it in the text)

When and where was oil discovered by Shell, according to the timeline?
What two choices were on the 1961 plebiscite ballot?
What change took place in Cameroon in 1972?
According to the counterpoint, when did Cameroon's own oil production begin?
What did the International Court of Justice decide about Bakassi in 2002?

Inferential (read between the lines)

Why does the author write "KEEP THIS IN MIND AS YOU READ" after the oil discovery?
What link does the author suggest between Britain's support for Nigeria and Shell?
Why does the counterpoint say the timing "does not fit neatly"?
What is the difference between a cause of a problem and something that makes it worse, according to the counterpoint?

Critical (evaluate and respond)

Make two lists from the YES reading: facts that could be checked, and interpretations. Which interpretation do you find most and least convincing?
Is it more useful for a historian to look for one main cause or many? Use this issue as an example.
If "total independence" had been on the 1961 ballot, how might history have changed? Explain your reasoning.

Is there common ground?

Both writers agree that oil matters to the region, that foreign powers have had interests there, and that the 1961 plebiscite and the 1972 change to a unitary state were turning points. The counterpoint accepts that oil revenues and the Bakassi dispute have shaped politics.

They disagree about how much weight oil should carry. The author sees oil as the trigger behind many decisions. The counterpoint sees many causes: colonial division, UN decisions, language and law, centralization and the Cold War, with oil as one of them.

A historian might say both are asking the right question from different angles: Who benefited from each decision? is a good test, and sometimes the answer will be oil, and sometimes power, language or ideology.

Debate and writing prompt

Debate motion: This house believes that oil, more than any other factor, explains the troubles of the Cameroons.

Divide the class into proposition and opposition. Each side must use at least two pieces of evidence from its reading and answer the other side's strongest point.
After the debate, hold a vote, then discuss which arguments changed minds.

Writing task: (500–700 words) Choose one turning point from the timeline (for example the 1961 plebiscite or the 1972 referendum). Write a short historical essay explaining its causes. Use at least three dates as evidence and weigh at least two different causes.