The Cameroon-Nigeria Border Dispute. Management and Resolution, 1981-2011: Management and Resolution, 1981-2011

Conclusion

179 Conclusion The study set out to examine how the protracted border skirmishes between Cameroon and Nigeria from 1981 were managed and eventually resolved by 2011. Through the historical analysis of the Cameroon-Nigeria border dispute, its causes were grasped. This causality was then linked to the settlement and resolution of the dispute thereby giving a total picture of its nature and dynamics. Generally, the findings respected the logic that in international relations, there are no permanent friends or enemies but permanent interests.Cameroon and Nigeria therefore engaged in conflict or disagreed when their interests were threatened. Furthermore, the process of the resolution of the dispute in spite of certain peculiarities, notably the employment of a UN Mixed Commission, was a logical process in dipute resolution especially as it had to do with the elimination of the causes of the dispute and confidence building. Generally, although various socio-economic, historicodiplomatic , security and strategic considerations was at the root cause of the border dispute; Nigeria’s dilatory and diversionary tactics very much caused the border dispute because such behaviour contributed to the non application of bilateral border agreements reached by the two countries after independence. This behavior therefore orchestrated the confusion, consternation and consequently dispute between the two countries. Nigeria’s dilatory and diversionary behavior even continued after 2002; during the implementation phase of the ICJ verdict on the border dispute case. For example, the non respect of the September 15, 2004 deadline by Nigeria to withdraw from Bakassi and the eight months break in the meetings of the ad hoc Mixed Commission between the 12th and 13th sessions, while meetings of the Commission were to be held after every two months, was blamed on Nigeria’s intransigence. The Cameroon-Nigeria border dispute was managed through bilateral and multilateral initiatives. Bilaterally, Cameroon and Nigeria managed the dispute through the use of Mixed Boundary Commissions, standing Joint Commission, diplomatic interventions, seminar workshop, and by maintaining bilateral cooperation even at 180 the time of crisis over the Bakassi Peninsula from 1993-2008. These bilateral management initiatives; in spite of their regularity and encompassing decisions did not lead to the implementation of the decisions taken. This was particularly because there was the lack of mutual trust, mutual assurance of goodwill and the absence of a multilateral actor to guarantee and enforce the decisions taken.Thus, inspite of the fact that Nigeria continued to hark on bilateral management initiatives where she could have a greater leverage to manipulate; Cameroon in 1994 because of loss of faith in bilateral negotiations and frustration over Nigeria’s claim to her territory of Bakassi, decided to involve multilateral actors notably the UN Security Council, the ICJ and the OAU. The role of multilateral actors impinged greatly on the border dispute. The mediation of Togo brought to the limelight the will of the disputing parties to peacefully resolve the dispute, especially as it led to the meeting of the Presidents of Nigeria and Cameroon during the OAU summit in Tunis in 1994. In the same vein, French conciliation efforts paid dividends as she was able to couch and coax Nigeria to move away from her intransigent and obstinate position into a pacific posture. This success story in trilateral management and resolution of Africa’s conflicts was confirmed two decades ago, in 1991, by Zartman when he opined that; “Despite the precariousness of mediation, trilateral management and resolution of conflicts has a much better record in Africa than does bilateral management.”1 Further, the use of pressure and coordination of good offices by states in the international arena equally diffuse tension and encouraged the conflicting parties to think more creatively about the resolution of the border dispute. Collective effort at the level of regional and international organisations notably the LCBC, OAU, UNO, EU and UDEAC, through the legitimisation of the choice of mediators, issuing of declarations pertaining to their stance in the face of the dispute, the call for normalisation, organisation of 1. Zartman, “Conflict Resolution: Prevention, Management and Resolution,” p. 313. 181 conferences for dialogue, and the provision of good offices for negotiation equally helped in various ways to dissipate tension between the disputing parties.Apart from the LCBC which took steps to delimit and demarcate the common boundary in the Lake Chad region—although its efforts were reneged by Nigeria—the role of the OAU, UNO, EU, and UDEAC was limited to declarations and recommendations, notably the...