Opinion Piece: Why the Ambazonian Lockdowns Continue to Miss the Mark

Fondong’s argument is rooted in the futility of the separatists’ reliance on lockdowns to force international attention and garner sympathy for their cause, particularly when these lockdowns compromise the future of children by targeting school resumption. But while his analysis is sharp, it deserves further dissection.

Let’s begin with the issue of the “genocide” claims, which Ambazonian separatists regularly use to justify their struggle. According to Fondong, this rhetoric does not stand up to scrutiny. Genocide implies the deliberate and systematic extermination of a people. Yet, as he highlights, many Anglophones are fleeing not to Nigeria, which would seem the logical move if they were under genocidal threat, but instead to Francophone regions of Cameroon—regions supposedly controlled by the very government that they accuse of trying to exterminate them.

This observation is worth pondering: why would people flee to their alleged oppressors for safety? The data, sourced from institutions like the UNHCR and Human Rights Watch, indicates that a significant portion of Anglophone Cameroonians displaced by the conflict have found relative security in Francophone areas. While some contest these figures, arguing they don't reflect the true scale of displacement to rural areas or Nigeria, the general pattern remains significant. It raises uncomfortable questions for the separatists about the legitimacy of their "genocide" narrative, which seems increasingly tenuous when the evidence is closely examined.

Moving to the issue of school boycotts, this strategy represents another fundamental misstep by Ambazonian forces. As Fondong rightly points out, the use of children’s education as a pawn in a political struggle is a tactic that will not only fail to draw international support but also damage their cause irreparably. In modern conflicts, the protection of children's rights, especially their right to education, has become sacrosanct. Even during the height of the US-Taliban negotiations, the right of Afghan girls to education became a critical bargaining chip. If a group as ideologically rigid as the Taliban could understand the importance of schooling in shaping international perceptions, why do Ambazonian separatists fail to grasp this?

This miscalculation undermines their moral standing. By blocking schools, the separatists alienate the very international bodies they wish to court. The United Nations and other global actors are unlikely to support a cause that so blatantly violates children’s fundamental rights. The separatists seem unaware that their actions, particularly targeting schools, have led to widespread indignation rather than sympathy.

However, critics of Fondong's analysis—especially those sympathetic to the Ambazonian cause—are quick to point out that the origins of this crisis cannot be solely attributed to separatist actions. They argue that the initial grievances stem from systemic discrimination and neglect by the Cameroonian government. The 2016 teachers’ and lawyers’ strikes, which originally sparked the unrest, were never adequately addressed by the state, leading to the radicalization of some factions. In this sense, the separatists, however extreme their methods, are responding to an entrenched sense of injustice.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that the separatists are losing the moral high ground by allowing children to become casualties of this war—not through bullets or bombs, but through the denial of their future. No international entity will endorse a cause that views the education of its youth as expendable collateral in a political struggle.

Another area where Fondong’s article deserves amplification is the role of the international community. The separatists continue to cling to the belief that global powers, particularly the United Nations, will swoop in and resolve the conflict by granting Ambazonia independence. Yet, as Fondong rightly notes, the UN does not grant independence; it recognizes it based on established legal processes, typically involving a referendum or plebiscite. Southern Cameroons had their plebiscite in 1961 and voted to join Cameroon. Any current grievances, no matter how legitimate, are seen by the UN as an internal matter, not one requiring its intervention.

Fondong’s piece was particularly blunt in its advice to separatists: stop targeting schools and end the lockdowns. These tactics not only deepen the suffering of ordinary citizens but also weaken the separatist cause in the eyes of the global community. Yet, many separatist supporters counter that the central government’s own actions have been far from flawless. Instances of state violence and impunity have certainly fed the cycle of rebellion. However, even if the government is guilty of its own excesses, that does not absolve the separatists of the responsibility to conduct their struggle in a way that respects basic human rights.

In conclusion, while Fondong makes a compelling case that the Ambazonian leadership has erred in its approach, both sides in this protracted conflict must reflect on their roles in perpetuating the suffering of civilians. The Ambazonian leadership must understand that in the eyes of the world, education is not a tool to be manipulated. Until they prioritize the protection of children’s rights, they will continue to lose not only international support but also the hearts and minds of the very people they claim to fight for.