The crimes of French imperialism in Cameroon

The struggle waged by the people of Cameroon against imperialist oppression contains many lessons for revolutionaries throughout Africa and the world. And today, the legacy of the dirty war waged by French imperialism to crush that struggle can still be felt. In this article, Jules Legendre explains how France came to rule Cameroon, and the methods it used to maintain its domination, even after the country’s formal independence in 1960.

This article was originally published as part of issue 45 of In Defence of Marxism Magazine – the quarterly theoretical journal of the Revolutionary Communist International – subscribe and get your copy here!

Between 1955 and 1970, French imperialism waged a ruthless war on the masses of Cameroon to preserve its domination over the country. While the crimes of French imperialism in Algeria during the same period are now (begrudgingly) acknowledged by most bourgeois politicians, the crimes of the French ruling class in Cameroon continue to be denied or played down.

A growing number of works have begun to shed light on the methods by which French imperialism maintained its grip on Cameroon, even after its formal independence in 1960. This is a development that should be welcomed by communists, irrespective of the limited conclusions the academic authors of these works tend to draw. A study of the crimes of French imperialism in Cameroon, of the struggle waged by the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC), and of its eventual defeat, all hold important lessons for the fight against imperialism today.

Colonisation

Cameroon was not originally colonised by France. In the 1860s, German companies set up trading posts on the coast of the Gulf of Guinea, with the aim of exporting their goods to the interior of the African continent. In 1885, the Berlin Conference confirmed German sovereignty over what became known as ‘Kamerun’.

The main aim of colonisation was to guarantee fields for the export of capital / Image: public domain

The great wave of colonisation in the 19th century, which divided Asia and Africa between a handful of imperialist powers, was motivated neither by the thirst for conquest of a few power-hungry military officers or politicians, nor by the intention to ‘civilise’ these continents. The main aim of colonisation was to guarantee fields for the export of capital, sources of raw materials, and captive markets for the major powers. Super-profits were made through the brutal exploitation of the local population, while placing the new markets under the direct domination of the colonial metropolis enabled them to be protected from competition from other powers by a legal monopoly - or, at the very least, by exorbitant customs tariffs.

German capitalism developed later than its rivals and so arrived late to this race for imperialist domination. When it set out to conquer its own colonies in the 1880s, much of Africa and Asia had already been occupied by Great Britain, France, Spain and Portugal.

This situation was untenable from the standpoint of German capitalism. As its economy grew, Germany was increasingly squeezed by a lack of outlets for its products and capital. Berlin therefore entered into a confrontation with the already established colonial powers, led by France and Britain. It was this confrontation that led to the First World War.

After Germany's defeat in 1918, its few colonies were divided between the victors. To give this division a ‘humanitarian’ flavour, the League of Nations (forerunner of the United Nations) gave these colonies a special status: that of ‘mandated’ territories. Officially, the ‘mandatory power’ was responsible for working towards the ‘development’ of the indigenous peoples until they could become independent or autonomous. In practice, the mandated territories were managed like all the other colonies by their new colonisers. As for the League of Nations - that “thieves’ kitchen”, as Lenin put it - it had nothing further to say on the matter.

German Kamerun was thus divided in 1919. In the northwest, two small territories were added to the possessions of the British Empire, while the majority became French Cameroon. Deprived of all democratic rights, the indigenous population was subjected to forced labour. French companies completely dominated the territory's economy. Palm oil, bananas, rubber, cocoa, etc. - all these resources enriched the French bourgeoisie, who also found important markets in the colonies, which became France’s leading trading partners in the 1930s.

Union of the Peoples of Cameroon

The Second World War shook the French colonial empire. Its prestige was undermined by the defeat of 1940 and the Nazi occupation of France. Further, the leader of ‘Free France’, Charles De Gaulle, promised new rights for the indigenous population in order to win the support of the colonies in the war.

At the end of the war, the results of these reforms were derisory. The few rights granted enabled a handful of privileged indigenous people to sit in the National Assembly in Paris. But on the whole, the situation remained the same. The colonial authorities subjected the population to relentless control and fierce repression. In September 1945, for example, a strike by railway workers broke out in Douala and very quickly took on the character of a mass movement. Nearly 100 people were killed in the crackdown. Strikers were even bombed from the sky.

It was at this time that ‘Marxist Study Circles’ were formed in the French colonies of West Africa. Gathered around French trade unionists, who were members of the French Communist Party, young indigenous workers discovered the ideas of the European workers' movement and discussed the political problems facing the colonies. In Cameroon, the teacher Gaston Donnat organised a small circle in which a number of indigenous civil servants took part. Donnat was eventually expelled by the police, but it was from this circle that the leaders of the main political movement in the fight for independence emerged: the Union of the Peoples of Cameroon (UPC).

The UPC was officially founded in 1948 and grew rapidly, thanks in particular to its close links with the Cameroonian workers' movement and trade unions, from which most of the party's cadres came, starting with its main leader: Ruben Um Nyobé. From just 100 members in 1948, it had 7,000 by 1949 and 14,000 by 1950. In the first half of the 1950s, it had almost 20,000 members whose activities covered almost the entire country.

The UPC was officially founded in 1948 and grew rapidly, thanks in particular to its close links with the Cameroonian workers' movement and trade unions / Image: public domain

The "Upecists", as they were known, were determined fighters and did not hesitate to brave colonial repression, but their programme was thoroughly reformist. Their official aim was to force the colonial power to respect the terms of the mandate given by the League of Nations and confirmed by the UN in 1946: to prepare Cameroon for independence. To achieve this, the UPC intended to adhere strictly to the legal framework imposed by French colonialism, as a demonstration of seriousness and goodwill and to send complaints to the UN, from which it expected a positive reaction. The UPC claimed to rise above all "ideological divisions" - meaning, class divisions. The idea was to unite "all Cameroonians" in the fight against colonialism. In 1953, Nyobé asserted that "colonial peoples cannot pursue the politics of a party, nor that of a state, nor, even more so, that of a man. Colonial peoples make their own politics, which is the politics of liberation from the colonial yoke".

This absence of a clearly defined class point of view was one of the major flaws in the UPC's politics. Neither agrarian reform, which could have helped to mobilise the poorest peasants but would have angered the traditional chiefs, nor worker’s control in the few factories in Cameroon were included in its programme.

The indigenous bourgeoisie

The first obstacle in the UPC's path was its own totally unfounded belief that the UN could help colonised peoples. Like the League of Nations in its day, the UN is not independent of social classes or the major imperialist powers. Accordingly, the UPC's complaints to this institution elicited only indifference or, at best, purely verbal protests.

The UPC leaders' illusions about the role of the UN were an extension of their refusal to adopt a clearly defined class point of view. They sought to stand ‘above’ social classes. It has to be said that, at the time, this serious error was in line with what the Stalinist members of the PCF were teaching in the ‘Marxist Circles’ they organised in the colonies. The idea behind this error was summed up very well by a PCF theoretician of the time, Yves Benot, in 1960:

"The existence of the colonial fact makes unity in the national struggle a priority, above and beyond any differences that might emerge within the colonised nation... As long as colonial domination exists, the process of class differentiation is necessarily masked and slowed down by the demands of the national struggle, whereas this process can only accelerate after independence."

In other words, in the name of the "demands of the national struggle", the Cameroonian working class should not seek to lead this struggle and give it a socialist character, and instead should try to “unite all Cameroonians”.

This policy was in direct contradiction with objective reality. Contrary to the belief of Yves Benot, the indigenous population was indeed divided along class lines. For example, to secure its rule, the colonial power relied on so-called ‘indigenous chiefs’. Those were supposed to be ‘traditional’ community leaders, but they were in reality selected by the colonial administration, who recognised their authority and turned them into its official agents, favouring those who were loyal and replacing the others. The class division between the chiefs and the poor peasants was thus reinforced by French domination.

A small indigenous working class also developed, comprising employees of the few modern businesses established in the major towns such as Douala and Yaoundé, as well as the many petty civil servants in the colonial administration. Finally, the development of capitalism in Cameroon led to the emergence of a small commercial bourgeoisie - and even the emergence of an embryonic indigenous bourgeoisie, which served as an intermediary for French capital, and occupied the seats granted to Cameroon in the French National Assembly.

These social classes did not all have the same interests. The tiny indigenous bourgeoisie was completely dependent on French imperialism, from which it had no desire to break. For their part, the traditional chiefs were radically hostile to any idea of agrarian reform, without which it would be impossible to lift the mass of peasants out of poverty. The working class and the poor peasants therefore had to contend not only with the colonial regime, but also with the fraction of the indigenous population that benefited from it. By trying to unite all these classes in one common struggle, the UPC was condemning itself to failure.

Permanent Revolution

This situation is not unique to Cameroon. It can be found in all countries where capitalism developed late and was introduced from outside, through the influx of foreign capital. It was to find a solution to a similar problem in tsarist Russia that the Marxist Leon Trotsky developed his theory of ‘permanent revolution’ back in 1905. Since the Russian bourgeoisie was at once subject to the interests of imperialist investors, tied to the big landowners and dependent on the tsarist state, it could not seriously combat any of them and drag the country out of its state of extreme backwardness.

Therefore, Trotsky explained, the leadership of the revolution had to fall to the working class, which had to win the support of the peasantry and, on that basis, take power. Then the working class could complete the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution: the overthrow of tsarist despotism and the granting of democratic rights; equality for the oppressed nationalities in the empire; the expropriation of the landed aristocracy and the church; and the distribution of the land to the peasantry. However, by taking power, the working class would inevitably begin to carry out the tasks of the socialist revolution, which could only be consolidated if the revolution developed on an international scale.

Adopted by the Bolsheviks in 1917, with Lenin’s April Theses, it was this perspective that led to the victory of the Russian Revolution. However, it was completely abandoned by the Stalinist counter-revolution in the USSR, which infected the Communist International with an opportunist, ‘stagist’ approach to the colonial revolution. All over the world, the Stalinised Communist Parties bound the advanced workers hand and foot to the so-called ‘progressive’ or ‘patriotic’ bourgeoisie in the colonies, with disastrous results.

Nevertheless, the theory of permanent revolution has remained indispensable ever since, in all the countries subjected to the yoke of colonialism or imperialism. The struggle for genuine national liberation was - and remains - inseparable from the class struggle and the struggle for socialism. The history of Cameroon is a perfect demonstration of this, but tragically a negative one.

Ferocious repression

Although the UPC's demands and methods were very moderate, the simple democratic demand for equal rights for both natives and colonists was nonetheless a direct attack on the colonial order. Further, the UPC was also arguing for the end of French domination of Africa and proclaiming its solidarity with the “heroic struggle” of the Vietnamese people against French colonialism. All this provoked the open hostility of the French administration and colonists, as well as the privileged layer of the indigenous population who benefited from colonisation and aspired to maintain the status quo.

The UPC was subjected to constant harassment. The party's premises were regularly raided, its archives seized and its activists arrested or beaten up every time they tried to organise a public event. The colonial authorities also orchestrated a systematic propaganda campaign against the party. Catholic priests lent their support to this crusade against the so-called "communist and pagan" danger.

To weaken the party, the French administration did not hesitate to create rival indigenous parties, which took up the UPC’s independence slogans but gave them a different content. For instance, these parties advocated for “independence”, but only within the “French Union”, the new official disguise of the French colonial empire after the Second World War.

Supported by the colonial authorities, these puppet parties won all the elections by stuffing ballot boxes. In his memoirs, the colonial civil servant Guy Georgy boasted that he had launched the political career of the future Cameroonian president Ahmadou Ahidjo: "I had him elected as a delegate to the Territorial Assembly. We practically got people to vote for him by stuffing ballot papers into the ballot box.” This mockery of democracy was all the more useful to the colonial powers as it enabled them to have at their disposal ‘elected representatives’ of the Cameroonian people, whom they could then show off at UN assemblies.

Under these conditions, the UPC became more radical and, in 1955, demanded Cameroon's immediate independence, outside of the French Union. At the end of May 1955, after UPC demonstrations had once again been banned by the colonial authorities, riots broke out in many towns and were ferociously suppressed. The colonial administration seized on this pretext to unleash a vicious campaign of terror against the UPC. Throughout the country, its offices were ransacked and set on fire. The authorities also mobilised pro-French indigenous chiefs, who set up militias to massacre the Upecists. In July 1955, the UPC was officially banned. Its activists and leaders who had escaped arrest and assassination went underground. It was the start of a colonial war that was to take place in the shadows.

Colonial war

While the Algerian war, which broke out at the end of 1954, often appears in the pages of the bourgeois press in France, the repression of the Upecist guerillas is largely ignored. Yet it occurred on a massive scale. With no material support and no modern weapons, but with solid popular support in many regions, the UPC resistance was mercilessly hunted down by the French army and police, as well as their Cameroonian auxiliaries.

As in Indochina (Vietnam) and Algeria, the forces of repression targeted the civilian population to deprive the rebellion of its base of support. Entire villages were ‘displaced’, i.e. deported. At the same time, the direct economic interests of the imperialists were not overlooked: the displaced populations were sometimes forced to work for French companies.

Torture and summary executions, often followed by the public display of the bodies, became commonplace. After he was killed by the French army in 1958, the body of Ruben Um Nyobé was displayed in his home village by French forces. In some regions, particularly in the west of the country, entire villages were massacred by the French army and its auxiliaries. The repression even extended beyond Cameroon's borders: one of the leaders of the UPC, Felix Moumié, was assassinated by the French secret services in Geneva. In total, the repression resulted in at least tens of thousands of deaths, perhaps as many as 200,000, and countless injuries.

Despite this relentless repression, the UPC rebellion showed heroic resilience and held out until the early 1960s. The last UPC fighters were not ‘liquidated’ until 1970, a decade after Cameroon officially gained ‘independence’.

Façade of independence

On the question of independence, French imperialism changed its approach from 1958 onwards. Faced with a growing number of national liberation movements, it chose to replace direct colonial control with indirect domination. The idea was simple: to transform the African colonies into small states that were formally independent, but in reality ruled by pro-French despots. Their economy, defence and foreign policy would be subject to direct French control, under the guise of ‘cooperation’ and ‘assistance’.

On the question of independence, French imperialism changed its approach from 1958 onwards / Image: public domain

Envisaged as early as 1956 under the name of ‘territorial autonomy’, this policy took several successive forms before culminating in 1960, when 14 French territories in Africa became officially independent countries. But the vast majority of them remained completely dependent on French imperialism.

French ‘advisors’ drew up their budgets, ran their armies and supervised their administrations. Their currency was printed in Paris by the Banque de France. Secret defence agreements allowed France to intervene militarily whenever it wished. Between 1960 and 1990, French troops intervened almost 20 times in sub-Saharan Africa. Of course, French companies were pampered by the new regimes, who in return received bribes - some of which ended up in the pockets of French politicians. This was the beginning of what has become known as "la Françafrique".

Cameroon was one of these 14 formally independent countries. In 1960, the pro-French politician, Ahmadou Ahidjo, established a brutal dictatorship. Under the guidance of French advisors, the police and army hunted down opponents, starting with the surviving Upecists.

The UPC's situation was made all the more difficult by the fact that its main objective, independence, had been formally achieved. Lacking any perspective that went beyond this aim, and without a socialist programme that could have helped to mobilise the workers and the poor peasants against the domination of French companies and the big landowners, the movement gradually disappeared under the blows of the state.

Meanwhile, in 1961, French imperialism succeeded in getting its hands on parts of the former British colonies. In the name of ‘national unity’, half of British Cameroon was annexed under the guise of the ‘Federal Republic of Cameroon’. Less than a decade later, most of the national rights of the English-speaking minority were abolished and the autonomy of the former British Cameroon was revoked.

Perspectives

The lessons of Cameroon’s ‘forgotten’ war have never been more relevant. Today, the domination of French imperialism over its former colonies is being challenged throughout Africa. But France is still present in Cameroon. French companies continue to plunder the country's wealth.

The consequences of this imperialist domination are obvious. Although Cameroon is rich in fertile land and natural resources (oil, cobalt, iron, uranium, etc.), 40 percent of its population lives below the poverty line, 34 percent has no access to drinking water and almost 65 percent is underemployed (unemployed or in casual, precarious work).

The regime of terror put in place by Ahidjo in 1960 did not disappear with his departure in 1982. His replacement, Paul Biya, has maintained its spirit, if not its form. In power for more than 40 years, he was ‘re-elected’ in 2018 after winning more than 70 percent of the vote in largely rigged elections. This did not stop the French Foreign Minister at the time, Jean-Yves Le Drian, from sending Biya his "best wishes for success". A few months before this benevolent message, the Biya regime had unleashed a civil war - which is still raging - against the populations of the country's English-speaking regions.

The lessons of Cameroon’s ‘forgotten’ war have never been more relevant / Image: public domain

So the question remains: how can Cameroon be liberated from imperialist domination? Cameroon's bourgeoisie - weak and utterly corrupt - is incapable of challenging it, let alone overthrowing it. It lives essentially off the subsidies it receives from foreign companies and the plundering of public budgets. It is incapable of seriously opposing either the Biya regime or its imperialist protectors. They are part and parcel of the regime, feeding off the crumbs of the imperialist plunder of Cameroon’s resources.

This is reflected in the character of the bourgeois or reformist opposition parties, who are incapable of imagining a future for Cameroon outside imperialist domination. Demoralised by Paul Biya's long and ferocious dictatorship, ‘progressive’ Cameroonian intellectuals are debating whether it would not be preferable for Cameroon, emancipating itself from Paris, to come under the domination of Chinese or Russian imperialism.

Russian and Chinese imperialism are indeed trying to dislodge French imperialism from its historic positions in Central Africa, and are succeeding. In June 2021, the French ambassador to Cameroon complained, “The market share controlled by French companies in Cameroon has dropped from 40% in the 1990s to 10% nowadays,” because China “has been dominating practically all the infrastructure contracts in Cameroon.” But this has nothing to do with an anti-imperialist struggle.

Chinese corporations exploit African workers as mercilessly as their French counterparts, and when China loans money to African governments, it is to build infrastructures destined to help its imperialist exploitation of the continent. Replacing Paris with Moscow or Beijing will not improve the situation of the Cameroonian workers and peasants by an inch.

Today, as before independence, the only way out for the Cameroonian people is socialist revolution. The Cameroonian working class remains the only social force capable of organising itself independently, bringing all exploited people together and leading them to victory. But only if it is led by an independent, revolutionary communist party.

This perspective is inseparable from the development of the revolution in the Gulf of Guinea as a whole, and in Nigeria in particular, which has the strongest working class in the region. The crisis of capitalism is destabilising capitalist rule all over the world. The old order in Africa is crumbling as a revolutionary mood is sweeping the continent. Armed with the lessons of the past, a new generation of communists must face up to the tasks posed by history: liberation from imperialist oppression, the eradication of want, and the socialist emancipation of the entire human race.