A.    Introduction

In an era of unprecedented interconnectedness which is at its peak, the international community often stands as the last judge against human atrocities. However, despite laid down rules and principles geared to protecting vulnerable populations, there is a clinical failure to in intervene when crises arise. The ongoing conflict in Cameroon which started since 2016, specifically in the two English speaking regions (North West and South West) aka “Ambazonia” starkly illustrates this dissonance of the lack of action. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a commitment enshrined to proactively prevent the most severe human rights abuses, including genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. In 2005, world leaders adopted the concept of R2P, which spelled out a shared commitment: governments are responsible for protecting their own populations, and if they are unable to do so, the international community has a duty to intervene.

This framework offers a proactive and cohesive strategy to prevent mass annihilation and protect human dignity. Nevertheless, the distressing situation in Cameroon’s English regions prompts a concerning inquiry: Has the global community really fulfilled its responsibility to protect (R2P) commitments? Despite the grave and rising crisis characterized by extreme violence and extensive suffering, the promises of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) remain unfulfilled. This post explores how the international applicability, or inapplicability, has undermined the core principles of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Cameroon while it was implemented in Libya that, putting the English-speaking areas at risk and raising doubts about the legitimacy of the concept. The Major National Dialogue manned by the government of Cameroon in resolving the conflicts seems to have inflated the conflict to another level with states proteges who attended.

B.     The Principle of R2P

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a global legal instrument adopted to take care of and prevent the most obnoxious human rights violations. R2P which was established by the United Nations in 2005, rest on three core principles that spells out the duties of governments and the international community during times of crises:

Pillar I: The Responsibility of the State to Protect Its Population

At its core, this pillar posits that states are charged with the main responsibility to safeguard its population against mass atrocities, including genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. It is mandatory therefore for all governments to protect their citizens and secure their security and welfare.

Pillar II: The International Community’s Role in Assisting States

When a state is unable or unwilling to fulfill its obligation, Pillar II invokes the responsibility of the international community in offering aid and assistance. This includes diplomatic initiatives, humanitarian assistance, and capacity-building strategies with the goal of assisting nations in fulfilling their obligations to protect.

Pillar III: The Responsibility to Take Timely and Decisive Action

Pillar III of the international community's response to mass crimes states that if a state is unable to safeguard its inhabitants and the situation worsens, the international community should promptly and resolutely intervene. This may include a variety of actions, including diplomatic interventions, sanctions, and, as a last option, military involvement, in order to avert more damage and adequately handle the situation.

The primary goal of R2P is to principally meant to avert large-scale acts of violence and safeguard human rights at a global level. By clearly defining these obligations, R2P seeks to guarantee that no community or country remains vulnerable to severe breaches, and to ensure that the international community remains vigilant and prompt in its response with cases such as Rwanda and Srebrenica still fresh.

C.     The Case of Cameroon

Overview of the Situation

Since 2016, Cameroon has been embroiled in a protracted internal war, mostly impacting its Anglophone regions. English-speaking attorneys and teachers, who felt marginalized by the mostly Francophone administration, spearheaded the nonviolent demonstration that culminated to a violent crackdown by security forces. The situation rapidly evolved into a fierce confrontation as separatist factions are persuading self-determination for the Anglophone areas aka “Ambazonia”. The war has resulted in extensive violence, including assaults on people, indiscriminate detentions, and grave violations of human rights. Reports indicate that the war has forced a large number of individuals to flee their homes, with many seeking refuge in nearby nations with Nigeria bearing the brunt. Meanwhile, others have made the dangerous “Mexico Trip” to the US seeking political asylum. The humanitarian situation is very severe, characterized by widespread food shortages, interrupted schooling, and a complete breakdown of basic services.

International Response

Despite the gravitational symbolism of the situation on the ground and the evident mass violation for human rights, the international community's reaction has been somewhat underwhelming. The United Nations and other international entities have voiced concern; however, their efforts have mostly consisted of advocating for discussion and providing restricted humanitarian assistance through UNDP and other humanitarian organizations. The French have been at the forefront in hindering the United Nations Security Council from implementing significant measures via its veto power. Cameroon, where the armed forces under long-standing leader Biya's control have perpetrated acts of extreme violence, has not adequately implemented the R2P framework, which mandates decisive intervention in cases when a state fails to safeguard its inhabitants. The “Ambazonia” liberation forces have also be accused of human rights violations. The inapplicability of R2P is in direct opposition to the principles stated in R2P, which emphasize the need for prompt and resolute actions to confront large-scale crimes. The African Union and other international organizations have also gone mute in relation to the conflict.

D. Analysis of Failures

Multiple factors contribute to the inapplicability of R2P principle in Cameroon. First and foremost, geopolitical interests have substantial influence. Cameroon's strategic significance, including its role as a regional partner in counterterrorism efforts and its economic ties, may have influenced the international community's reluctance to take strong action. Furthermore, the presence of political determination is another essential element with France having a substantial role in the country’s affairs.

Furthermore, a significant number of global players exhibit reluctance to participate in initiatives that have the potential to disturb regional stability or clash with their own national interests. The intricacy of the situation, along with the absence of a cohesive international strategy, has further impeded an effective response.

The absence of a cohesive strategy or agreement among global stakeholders has resulted in fragmented and ineffective solutions that fail to adequately address the situation in a comprehensive manner.

Affirmatively, the failure to uphold R2P in Cameroon highlights underlying problems within the global system, where strategic goals and political factors often take precedence over humanitarian obligations. This example underscores the pressing necessity for a more effective and ethically sound approach to ensure the observance of R2P pledges.

D.    Ramifications and Significance

Effects on Impacted Populations

The international community's lack of response to the Cameroonian issue has resulted in severe and harmful consequences for the population. The inhabitants residing in the Anglophone areas have experienced significant adversity, including instances of violent confrontations, coerced relocation, and acute scarcities of sustenance and healthcare facilities. Numerous individuals have been compelled to evacuate their residences, leading to an escalating refugee predicament in nearby nations such as in Nigeria, and those fleeing to the French regions have become IDPs sometimes are targets of the French denizens mostly in Yaoundé and Douala. The extensive violence has caused significant disruption to schooling and hindered access to crucial services, intensifying the distress experienced by already vulnerable communities. The lack of efficient action has not only extended the war but also intensified the humanitarian catastrophe, resulting in people in dire need of protection and assistance as the war goes on.

Wider ramifications

The ineffective implementation of R2P in Cameroon has wider ramifications for the concept as a whole. This raises substantial inquiries about the reliability and efficacy of international standards created to avert large-scale tragedies. Failure to meet the pledges of the R2P weakens the credibility of the concept and the dedication of the international community to safeguard human rights. This instance emphasizes the need for a more uniform and ethical approach to intervention, where political and strategic goals should not take precedence over humanitarian imperatives. The situation in Cameroon presents a crucial examination of the efficacy of the R2P doctrine and prompts the international community to reevaluate its commitment to safeguarding vulnerable communities.

E.     Conclusion

In conclusion, the situation in Cameroon exposes a significant violation of R2P paradigm. Despite the egregious human rights abuses and the intensifying unrest in the Anglophone areas, the international community has mostly been ineffective in taking significant action. Geopolitical interests and a lack of cohesive strategy drive significant deficiencies in the execution of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle. Consequently, the failure to honor the commitments of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has put millions of people in great danger.

To rectify these deficiencies and ensure more efficient safeguarding of susceptible populations in the future, it is imperative to enhance the R2P architecture. There need to a conflict resolution mechanism which should end the conflict either granting statehood to former the territory of former British southern Cameroons or great autonomy via a loose federation. Furthermore, promoting increased global collaboration, ensuring strong determination from governmental entities, and formulating explicit, practical approaches to involvement. It is essential to promote a strong and uniform implementation of international rules in order to avoid future acts of violence and protect human rights worldwide.

Looking at the situation in Cameroon, it is important to question whether we can really assert our commitment to the Responsibility to Protect R2P if we persist in prioritizing strategic goals above humanitarian considerations. We must recommit ourselves to ensure the effective implementation of the R2P principles, rather than merely providing hollow assurances. Let us participate in this crucial conversation and strive towards a future where the safety and dignity of every individual are respected.