There Was Disparity Between Biya's Professed Policies And Reality -Former British Ambassador

Interviewed By Georgiana Magho Kometa

Former British Ambassador to Cameroon (1991 - 1995), William Quantrill, has assessed President Paul Biya whom he met on a number of occasions. Quantrill, who spoke on his personal behalf in an exclusive interview granted The Post in Oxford, Britain, said he found President Biya a courteous person who professed policies that made sense.

Unfortunately, he said, there was a disparity between the President's professed policies and what actually happened because of Biya's lack of dynamism. Quantrill, who served in Cameroon during the turbulent years of Cameroon's nascent democratic experience, also analysed how the opposition SDF party squandered an opportunity to rule Cameroon.

The former Ambassador equally addressed a wide range of issues like development aid, human rights, and the Anglophone problem, amongst others. Excerpts:

The Post: You were in Cameroon when multipartyism was re-introduced in the country. What was your opinion about the electoral process and the outcome of the 1992 Presidential election?

William Quantrill: 1991-1992 was a very interesting time to be in Cameroon. It was a return to multi-party democracy. Ever since independence, the government of Cameroon has always had constitutional legitimacy.

The single party system was introduced by agreement between most of the political parties, in the belief that the interests of the country at that stage of development were best met by everybody working together.

By the late 1980s, there was a worldwide movement towards the creation of liberal democracies, including the freedom to create political parties. This movement affected Africa as much as any continent, and Cameroon was not immune.

The opening up of the political system with the creation of new political parties in 1990-91 caused a lot of excitement. Mistakes and misjudgements were made, often through inexperience. As in every democracy, the party in power enjoyed certain advantages, which they did not hesitate to exploit.

But no democratic system is perfect and I believe the SDF made a major misjudgement when they decided to boycott the 1992 parliamentary elections. Had they not done so, they would certainly have been in a stronger position to contest the presidential election later in the year.

They might even have been in a position to ensure that the electoral law was amended to provide for a second round of voting in the presidential election if no candidate had an overall majority in the first round. If this had happened, there was a fair chance that the SDF candidate would have won on the second round - though this is by no means certain. 

One of Britain’s policies is to continue to press for the strengthening of democracy in Central African the sub-region. One of such ways is by working with governments to ensure free, fair and transparent elections. What particular role did you play during and after the 1992 presidential election?

The representatives of all the Western democracies took every opportunity in dialogue with the Cameroon government to convince them of the benefits of liberalising the political system.

As British Ambassador, I was part of that collective effort, both in my bilateral contacts and through such multilateral agencies as the European Union, the Commonwealth and the UN institutions.

There is a general belief that Western powers, especially France, encouraged the incumbent regime to rig the election. Do you share that opinion?

No, I saw no evidence to support such a belief.

Good governance is one of the principles of building a strong democracy. Can you say the Cameroon government is striving towards that?

"Striving" is perhaps too strong a term. The government's declared policies were fine in principle, but the execution of those policies could be somewhat disappointing. "Drifting in the right direction" is perhaps a more accurate description of the situation.

When you were leaving Cameroon, there was this argument from some politicians and pressure groups in the English-speaking provinces of Cameroon that the country should not be admitted into the Commonwealth for a number of reasons. Some of the arguments included the alleged oppression of English-speaking Cameroonians and the country's appalling human rights record. Yet, Cameroon was admitted. What role did Britain play to facilitate Cameroon's admission in spite of this strong internal opposition?

I was aware at the time that some Anglophone Cameroonians felt that the government had not done enough to meet the conditions for membership of the Commonwealth, in terms of political freedoms and respect for human rights. I was also aware of an equally strong movement in favour of membership.

Over the country as a whole, I believe there was a majority in favour. The decision to admit Cameroon was of course taken by the Commonwealth as a whole (in which Britain 's was only one voice among fifty), on the basis of a report by the Commonwealth Secretary General, following a mission, which he led to Cameroon in 1994.

Some diplomats have been outspoken in denouncing corruption, dictatorship and human rights violations. Did you speak out during your mission in Cameroon?

Where there was evidence of such shortcomings (particularly human rights violations) I did not hesitate to make the disapproval of the British government known to the Cameroonian authorities. Public denunciations are rarely an appropriate - or effective - way of conducting diplomatic relations.

You surely met President Paul Biya on a number of occasions while in Cameroon. What impression did you have about him?

I always found him courteous and friendly. On questions of policy, what he said seemed to make sense. His main failing, I believe, was a lack of dynamism, which meant that, too often, there was a disparity between the policies he professed and what actually happened.

The situation was aggravated by his apparent reluctance to delegate responsibility, with the result that decisions, often relatively trivial, could be delayed for ages before he got round to considering them.

Development aid from Western industrialised countries is allegedly misused by governments in countries like Cameroon, yet aid keeps pouring in. Today, Tony Blair's Commission for Africa is advocating even more development aid to Africa. Are you optimistic that such aid would be properly used in countries like Cameroon?

There is now a campaign gaining momentum across the industrialised world to "make poverty history". To achieve this, we need to find ways not just of transferring more resources from the rich countries to the developing world, but of ensuring that those resources are efficiently used in the recipient countries.

Much progress in this direction has already been achieved. The end of the Cold War means that aid is no longer used to prop dictators simply because they are on the right side in an ideologically polarised world. The decision by Britain's New Labour government to end the link between aid and trade means that aid can be more efficiently deployed.

Aid donors, bilateral and multilateral, have, for several decades now, tried to build mechanisms into their programmes to ensure that aid money is not diverted from its intended purpose. Some of these mechanisms have been more successful than others, but lessons have been learnt.

As a result I believe it is more difficult now for recipient governments to blatantly misuse aid money. A bigger problem is the inadequacy of local infrastructures to make good use of aid. Cumbersome local bureaucracies and inflated public sectors mean that money intended to finance development is frittered away on current expenditure.

The changes necessary to correct this imbalance can be painful (and certainly politically difficult - not helped by the well-meaning opposition of some international NGOs to the conditionality attached to programmes by the World Bank and others).

The creation of the Commission for Africa is a very positive move. The fact that it includes prominent Africans makes it a genuine co-operative effort to tackle the blight of poverty in the continent. I am not blind to the continuing difficulties but I am optimistic that progress in the right direction can, and will be made.

How did you assess the investment climate in Cameroon during your stay there?

It was not, alas, very propitious. There was too much bureaucracy and far too much government interference. There were some very good technocrats in the government who knew what should be done to improve matters, but unfortunately they tended to be over-ruled by people with a political agenda or vested interests.

Did you serve in other African countries? If so, how do you rate Cameroon vis-à-vis those other countries?

The only other African country in which I served was Nigeria. It would be invidious for me to make comparisons. But I believe that most other countries in Africa must envy Cameroon; its human and natural resources, its relatively peaceful history, its natural beauty - and its football team.

While in Cameroon, did you have the impression that English and French were two official languages with the same status?

On the whole, no. Lip-service was paid towards the principle of bilingualism, but when it came down to everyday use, there was no doubt that French predominated. With 80 percent of the population Francophone, this was perhaps inevitable.

Many English-speaking Cameroonians blame the UK government for not speaking out against the oppression of the people from the territory of the ex-British Southern Cameroons. What do you say about that?

I think it is a great exaggeration to speak of the "oppression" of the people of the formerly British administered territory of Southern Cameroons. Certainly, there were some injustices in the way the majority, educated in the very different French tradition, treated the Anglophone minority, though this was often through lack of understanding rather than any deliberate intention to dominate.

But in my experience, the people of Southwest and Northwest Provinces were well able to stick up for themselves and did not need the UK to intervene on their behalf - even if it had been appropriate for us to do so.

Any last word?

I would like to repeat the sentiments I expressed in my speech at the farewell dinner on the eve of our departure from Cameroon. I want to thank the people of Cameroon for all the friendliness, generosity and hospitality shown towards my family and myself during our four years in Cameroon.

My stay in the country made me realise how much we, in a country like Britain, have to learn from you, particularly about the virtues of hard work, mutual support, family values and loyalty towards those who depend on you and those on whom you depend.

Comments

[Janvier Tchouteu]

During revolutionary moments, the suffering, oppressed and struggling masses need legendary leaders who can get ahead of the people from the impasse and futile consensus and find new grounds to chart a unique course of the people’s destiny.

That has been the case of living legends like Mandela to recent ones like Roosevelt, Che Guevara, Lenin, Simon Bolivar or ancient ones like Moses. Lands that have never been blessed by or that never recognized their great, wise, legendary or canonical leaders tend to get haunted for long or even forever and may find themselves trapped in futility forever like a lost man in a desert going around in circles because he lacks a compass. We failed in crushing and burying this system during this phase of the struggle because our political leaders did not embrace a national ideal and failed to distinguish the interest of the struggle and their personal interest. They failed to emulate the positive legacies of our dead legends and heroes.

That is a case in kamerun. Many of us grew up without relating to figures with progressive and embracing political ideologies who never considered it a price for putting their lives at risk or sacrificing it, and who never hesitated to put the interest of the struggle above their personal considerations. Many held that those dead legends and heroes never won the struggle and never got power, so they were failures. However, we failed to understand that even figures like Mandela etc built on the legacies and ideals of their legendary predecessors in order to win the struggle.

In an article of 1988, I wrote, “CAN OUR HISTORY BE REWRITTEN?” That was because I realized our country is a land with “...a mysterious way of transforming heroes into victims and villains into masters....”

That is why outsiders cherish our heroes when we have been taught to know them as villains. That is why the villains, who betrayed kamerun since its pre-independence days and killed the heroes, got worshipped and are in power today. That is why we excuse those who tacitly or openly ensured their survival because we have come to accept that it is “NORMAL” to use the people to achieve wealth, power and glory. We even call it “Long Sense” when other peoples and nations with a sense of honor and integrity call it “BETRAYAL”.

During moments like this, we should dig into the recess of our history and consciously reassess it. Those beautiful Kamerunian minds who never betrayed and who got defeated by the villains should be honored, even posthumously. In addition, we should ponder their ideas and draw strength from them.

In moments of crisis and weakness, nations and people often draw inspiration from their heroes and legends (dead or alive). You find Americans holding onto the legacies of Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt. Russians fall back on Peter the Great, Catherine the Great or Lenin etc. The British on Churchill, Disraeli etc.

In Kamerun today, I personally cannot identify any known political figure that has a positive legacy. However, I can identify great figures in our history who professed selfless, unifying and advance ideals; and whose legacies have been denigrated by the evil system and those who claim to be in the opposition and who felt threatened by them.

I am glad to observe a gradual transformation in the thinking of our population, especially those who have been expressing their views here, even those who profess hostility to my opinions. People are beginning to dissociate themselves from myths and the badly infected mindset caused by the system. It is a gradual psychological process of healing that would end up in us dwelling on the ideals that would realize a new kamerun.

[Edna]

Mr Javier Tchouteu, please read the Post's guidelines:

Comments which are too long to fit into the comments section should be emailed straight to the Post for publication on the main page.

[TATA EAM]

Dear Ambassador Quantrill:

I was stunned when I read your "interview responses" about Paul Biya and his administration.

First of all, your responses betray your lack of understanding of the politics and social order of Cameroon since Biya came to power.

This is obvious when you said that the Anglophones are not exploited by the Francophones. West Cameroon has resources like oil, timber, palm oil, etc that contribute to the GDP of Cameroon. However, West Cameroon has not benefited from these resources. West Cameroon has the worst major roads. Biya has refused to develop the natural seaport of Limbe despite pleas from many of us. West Cameroon has no airports, well-equipped government hospitals. There are no foreign investments in this part of the country.

Sir, what you also failed to observe during your stay in Cameroon was the rate of corruption and theft in Biya's administration. Close friend's of Biya (including some of his ministers)were stealing government funds. Biya himself is a victim of malfeasance. Many of these people went unpunished by the law.

Under Biya's watch, Cameroon has become known as the most corrupt country in the world. The government has become a complete oligarchy. One out of three Cameroonians is living in social distress - poverty, poor medical care, unprecedented levels of unemployment, declining standards of living, dusty roads, shorter life spans and so on.

The majority of university graduates can't find jobs. Biya has openly encouraged tribalism and nepotism in his government. He has loaded his administration with his Ewondo brothers and sisters. Most political and ministerial appointments are given to the French speaking provinces. It is clear that the Francophone provinces make the majority; however, Biya has failed to exercise proportionality and fairness in his political appointments.

Mr. Ambassador, I would suggest that you read various disciplines on Democracy and Administration. Clearly, Biya is a dictator who does not want to give up power. Effective leadership is not marked by corruption, short-sightedness, and indifference; rather, it is marked by integrity, fairness, and foresightedness. Biya has been in power for so many years and it is time for him to give way to another person.

[ateba]

People like this should not be interviewed for they are of no good. When he was ambassador, what did he do if he realized that there was disparity between what was said and what was done.And the anglophone problem, I don't think he is ripe enough to make any assessments. Dear readers, don't take him serious.I think you anglophones have a case whether this man thinks so or not. He hasn't the shoe on, so he does not know where it pinches. I was in UB and the South West and I think anglophones have the right to ask for some things.

[Charles Forkwa]

The man is a diplomat. What do you expect. Britain has a vested interest in the status quo, so he can say no less. Interviewing him was a waste of time for two reasons: 1) For those who know the history of Cameroon he is being disingeneous 2) Those who don't know the history will come away with the wrong impression that what is going on, although misguided, is tolerable. Both premises are wrong.
Britian abandoned Southern Cameroons(SC) and have yet to acknowledge it and make amends.
The least that SC expected from Britain was advice going into the union, the type of advice Ahidjo got from the French, which would have perhaps leveled the playing field.
There is nothing worst than entering into negotiations blindsided - lacking intelligence about your oponent and strategy, all of which the British had but never shared with SC.