At a time when the people of the North West and South West regions are being overwhelmed by desperation and uncertainty about their future, any pronouncements coming from above and leaning towards some semblance of a solution can always sound consoling. It will certainly raise hopes for the desperate. Following the Head of State’s instructions, the Prime Minister, Head of Government on June 20 unveiled a FCFA 12.7 billion emergency humanitarian assistance plan in the North West and South West Regions to provide relief to victims affected by the on-going crisis and to embark on the reconstruction of damaged infrastructure in these areas. This is some good news after all. But to cynics, however, it is a projection to be watched keenly.
The plan involves raising money with which the hand of solidarity will be extended to victims of the war declared by the Head of State on the so-called secessionists of the two Anglophone regions. It is no longer a secret that most of those to whom we are only now extending our hand of solidarity, have been for more than a year rendered homeless. Some have lost their beloved ones and forced to flee from the carnage only to take refuge either in bushes, neighbouring villages and cities or, even neighbouring countries.
While we welcome the initiative of the Head of State, we think it has not just come a little too late after second thought but also not likely to make much difference. We are also certain that this initiative stands out far from what can be seen as a lasting solution to the present crisis and that government is simply hardening its stand against what has been the general call for an inclusive genuine dialogue.
We are therefore hereby ascertaining our belief that government has always assured itself that the best way to solve the problems of this country to the best of its advantage is to brandish money as a bait to calm down tempers. It hardly ends up with the expected results.
Two years since the eruption of this problem, which started with the Common Law Lawyers and Teachers, is time enough for government to have realised that every attempt proposed and carried out in their own perception of a solution has always been a colossal failure. The Musonge National Commission for the Promotion of Bilingualism and Multiculturalism made some inroads in which the reports showed that federalism was the ultimate solution right from the onset. Yet since this report was presented to government, government has simply displayed its unwillingness to accept this truth, pressing rather for its war option. Should this therefore be taken as government not having confidence even in its own commissions? We think government is only complicating issues instead of being honest to itself and the Anglophones.
For instance, in announcing the Head of State’s National Solidarity Plan for Anglophones, the Minister of communications, Issa Tchiroma further complicated issues when he posed the question at a press conference in his office when he doubted with who shall government dialogue? Minister Tchiroma might only be ignoring the fact that in a genuine, inclusive and honest dialogue which seeks to settle a problem once and for all, such questions have no place in the process. No preconditions are likely to provide a level ground for such a lofty mission as dialogue for reconciliation and not for war. Therefore if it is to be the inclusive dialogue that is being preached, even the so-called terrorists should be included. It worked in Colombia which ended many years of fighting.
In the first place Mr. Tchiroma ought to have understood that even the commissions and emissaries who have been sent out in the name of dialogue, beginning with Common Law Lawyers and then Teachers, are not competent enough to dig deep into the real problems of the Anglophones, which is why they failed because they merely scratched the surface. If the Minister therefore persists on his question of who to dialogue with, we consider it pertinent to throw back the same question in another way: who did government dialogue with during the Tripartite Talks in the early nineties?
Under the present circumstance, call them terrorists or bandits; the world acknowledges them as a group that must be having some grievances to address. That they have leaders, some of whom have been arrested and are believed to be in the custody of government is only pertinent for us to hide our pride and self-righteousness into the mud of history for the sole purpose of seeking a lasting solution to this crisis and include them in the dialogue process. Our pride and ego will obviously lead us to nowhere near a solution. Nor would a military victory provide the much parroted national unity and national integration.
In another development, we welcome the latest appeal by the governor of the South West region, Bernard Okalia Bilai for those still hiding in the bushes to return home, so that a peaceful dialogue could be held. We welcome his appeal only because it mentions the words a ‘’peaceful dialogue.’’ We have always re-iterated the necessity for dialogue.
But what constantly intrigues us whenever the mention of dialogue comes from such men as the governor or others in government is that the form of such dialogue has never been stated with sincerity. It is difficult to believe that such an appeal can easily convince the victims of this war to feel safe if and when they decide to go back to their homes.
We think there is a lot to be done, one of which is for the Head of State to call for an unconditional cease-fire on both sides, in the supreme interest of peace. We have certainly arrived at the point where guns must be silenced to pave the way for the organisation of a broad-based, inclusive, honest dialogue void of prejudice.