Macron admits France's repressive violence in Cameroon's war for independence
It is France's first official acknowledgment of its repression of Cameroon's independence movement as a war.
The letter sent last month to Cameroonian President Paul Biya, follows a report released in January by a French-Cameroonian commission of historians. The report revealed that France carried out mass forced displacements, detained hundreds of thousands of Cameroonians in internment camps, and backed brutal militias to suppress the country's fight for independence and sovereignty between 1945 and 1971.
The commission was established by Macron during a 2022 visit to the capital Yaoundé. It examined France's role leading up to Cameroon's independence on Jan. 1, 1960, and in the years that followed.
'At the end of their work, the historians of the Commission clearly highlighted that a war had taken place in Cameroon, during which the colonial authorities and the French army carried out multiple forms of repressive violence in certain regions of the country — a war that continued beyond 1960 with France's support for actions carried out by the independent Cameroonian authorities,' the letter from Macron read.
Macron also acknowledged France's role in the deaths of independence leaders Ruben Um Nyobè, Paul Momo, Isaac Nyobè Pandjock and Jérémie Ndéléné, who were killed between 1958 and 1960 in military operations under French command.
Cameroon was a German colony until the end of World War I, when it was divided between Britain and France. The French-administered territory gained independence in 1960, and the southern British Cameroons joined in a federation the next year.
The independence war began in the 1950s when the nationalist UPC launched an armed struggle for full sovereignty and reunification. Even after independence, the French-backed government continued to fight the UPC for years,
The letter follows earlier moves by Macron to address France's colonial past, including his recognition of French responsibility in the 1994 Rwandan genocide and the massacre of Senegalese riflemen after World War II.
However, the French president has so far ruled out an official apology for torture and other abuses committed by French troops in Algeria.
The letter comes at a time when France's presence in its former colonies in Africa has become increasingly contested, particularly in the Sahel region.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
42 minutes ago
- Times
Whining about Scottish ‘austerity' is baseless, absurd and idiotic
Like Christmas and birthdays, the annual GERS festival seems to arrive sooner than you think. Has a year really passed since the last edition of the Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland figures was published? Why, yes it has. This year's numbers are remarkable, best accompanied by an indecently large dram of cask-strength liquor. For public spending in and for Scotland amounted to 52 per cent of Scottish GDP last year. That is lower than in France, Finland, Belgium and Austria but higher than in every other European country. Public spending in Sweden and Denmark, for instance, equals 48 per cent of GDP. In Norway, the figure is 46 per cent. Further afield, other countries with which the Scottish government sometimes likes to compare Scotland contrive to thrive with a much smaller public sector. Public spending in New Zealand is 42 per cent of GDP. This is the context in which to understand the claims made by Scottish government ministers that Scotland is once again enduring some form of 'austerity'. And the thing to understand about this whining is that it is baseless, absurd and idiotic. This is a country of Big Government. If government departments and other agencies struggle to meet their obligations despite this obvious largesse it is because they are inefficiently or incompetently run and because ministers lack the courage to say 'No' to demands for more and more spending. Mercifully, Scottish taxpayers are not required to pay for all of this. In 2024-25, £91.4 billion was raised in taxes in Scotland but government spending amounted to £117.6 billion. This is a notional deficit — notional because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom — of some £26.5 billion. That is equivalent to 11.7 per cent of GDP. John Swinney should pray to the ghost of the late Joel Barnett every night for it is his eponymous formula that grants Scotland its privileged place within the United Kingdom: a relatively wealthy part of the realm funded as though it were a poor one. By way of illustrating the scale of Scotland's deficit, it may be worthing noting that last year Zimbabwe ran a deficit equal to 10.4 per cent of GDP. Indeed, according to data compiled by the International Monetary Fund, the only independent countries running real deficits greater than Scotland's notional one are East Timor, Kiribati, the Maldives and Ukraine. At this point nationalists will customarily enter the chat to say that, look, GERS only tells us about Scotland's current fiscal position and of course an independent Scotland would do things differently. This is true. GERS offers a snapshot of the position from which an independent Scotland would begin life and GERS also makes it very clear that many things would have to be done very differently in an independent Scotland. To start with you would begin with something like £10 billion in tax increases and around another £10 billion in spending cuts. That would still leave Scotland running a deficit like most countries but it would be a manageable one of around 3 per cent of GDP. That, you will also recall, is the price of admission to the European Union. Every existing tax would doubtless be increased and new taxes created (on this front, if few others, Scotland's political class is endlessly resourceful). But to give an indication of the scale of tax hikes required, £10 billion is about half of total income tax receipts in Scotland last year. Swingeing tax increases of this sort would almost certainly encourage capital flight of a sort this country can ill afford. Just 5 per cent of Britain's top-rate tax-payers live in Scotland which is one reason why although Scotland has 8 per cent of the UK population it contributes just 6.8 per cent of income tax revenue. Tax increases of this sort, however, would only get the job half done. You would still need to cut £10 billion of public spending. That is roughly equivalent to 50 per cent of the NHS budget. Good luck winning an independence referendum on that manifesto. • The facts of life are demanding chiels. It is too often and too easily forgotten that in the years after the 2008 financial crisis Scotland's notional deficit was broadly the same as the UK's real one and, in some years and thanks to buoyant oil revenues, Scotland's relative fiscal position was marginally healthier than the UK's. This was unusual and atypical but it allowed Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon to sell independence as a financial opportunity, not, as it obviously is now, a giant leap into an enormous fiscal black hole. Even then, all lilies had to be gilded. As Sturgeon relates in her new memoir, oil prices were then high but Salmond 'spent a lot of time persuading the government economists to push their projections higher, raking them to the outer edges of credibility'. In other words, the Yes campaign suborned officials to present a fantastical vision of the riches an independent Scotland would enjoy. This is something worth remembering. The SNP are doubtless happy to win without lying but why take that risk when untruths may buttress the liberation cause? Economic self-interest does not always prevail and voters may cheerfully vote for their own impoverishment but, even so, this year's GERS festival is a reminder that the appeal of independence is for the time being strictly notional and hypothetical. That imaginary Scotland is a comfortable place to dwell but the nature of today's fiscal realities is such that even SNP politicians might be wary of asking the national question again. This is why, in the end, they are comfortable not asking it, for no amount of creative accountancy can make these sums add up.
BBC News
42 minutes ago
- BBC News
Viable chance of Russia-Ukraine ceasefire, says Keir Starmer
There is a "viable chance" of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has said, ahead of Friday's summit between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir two leaders are meeting in Alaska to discuss how to end the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other European leaders, who are not attending the meeting, held a joint call with Trump on Wednesday to reiterate their the call, Sir Keir said Ukraine's "territorial integrity" had to be protected and that "international borders cannot and must not be changed by force". Zelensky Last week Trump warned there could be "some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both", leading to fears Ukraine may have to give up some areas in order to end the bloody conflictUkraine has insisted it will not accept Russian control of land it has seized, including Crimea, while Moscow wants to maintain also wants assurances that Ukraine will not join the Nato military alliance and a limit on the size of its army. Addressing a virtual meeting of the European leaders following the call with Trump, Sir Keir said "any ceasefire would have to be lasting and to be lasting it would need security guarantees"."That is why we set up this coalition of the willing," he added. The coalition is a group of mainly European countries who have pledged to provide military support to Ukraine - including potentially boots on the ground - in order to deter Russia from breaching any agreed peace deal. Sir Keir said the coalition had "credible" military plans ready that could be used in the event of a ceasefire. He said the leaders of the group were also ready to increase economic pressure on Russia if necessary, for example through increasing sanctions. He also praised Trump's efforts to reach an agreement, saying: "For three-and-a-bit years this conflict has been going on and we haven't got anywhere near the prospect of an actually a viable solution, a viable way of bringing it to a ceasefire."Now we do have that chance, because of the work the president has put in."Following his call with European leaders, Trump told a press conference there was a chance of a meeting between Putin and said he would use his initial meeting with Putin to "find out where we are and what we're doing", adding: "We'll have a quick second meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky and myself, if they'd like to have me there."He also warned Putin that he would face "very severe consequences" if he did not agree to end the war after Friday's summit.
BBC News
42 minutes ago
- BBC News
Trump-Putin meeting: European leaders tentatively hopeful after call with Trump ahead of Ukraine summit
European leaders appeared cautiously optimistic after holding a virtual meeting with Donald Trump on Wednesday, two days before he meets his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska to discuss ending the war in reportedly told the Europeans that his goal for the summit was to obtain a ceasefire between Moscow and also agreed that any territorial issues had to be decided with Volodymyr Zelensky's involvement, and that security guarantees had to be part of the deal, according to France's Emmanuel to Trump had allowed him to "clarify his intentions" and gave the Europeans a chance to "express our expectations," Macron said. Trump and Vice-President JD Vance spoke to the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Finland and Poland as well as EU chief Ursula von der Leyen and Nato chief Mark Europeans have been sidelined from the hastily organised summit in Alaska and their phone call today was a last-ditch attempt to keep Ukraine's interests and the continent's security at the forefront of Trump's an extent, it seemed to work. On Wednesday evening Trump rated the meeting "a ten" and said Russia would face "very severe" consequences unless it halted its war in also said that if Friday's meeting went well he would try and organise a "quick second one" involving both Putin and in their statements European leaders restated the need for Kyiv to be involved in any final decision – betraying an underlying nervousness that Putin could ultimately persuade Trump to concede Ukrainian land in exchange for a ceasefire."It's most important thing that Europe convinces Donald Trump that one can't trust Russia," said Poland's Donald Tusk, while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stressed the leaders had "made it clear that Ukraine must be at the table as soon as follow-up meetings take place".If the Russian side refused to make any concessions, "then the United States and we Europeans should and must increase the pressure," Merz the US-Russia summit was announced last week, Trump has made several references to "land-swapping" between Kyiv and Moscow – sparking serious concerns in Ukraine and beyond that he could be preparing to give in to Putin's longstanding demand to seize large swathes of Ukrainian Wednesday morning Russia's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexey Fadeev reiterated that Russia's stance had not changed since Putin set it out in June the time Putin said a ceasefire would start the minute the Ukrainian government withdrew from four regions partially occupied by Russia - Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. He also said Ukraine would need to officially give up in its efforts to join the Nato military to know about Trump and Putin's meeting at an Alaska military baseWhy did Putin's Russia invade Ukraine?These are maximalist demands which neither Kyiv nor its European partners see as has said he is convinced that Russia would use any region it was allowed to keep as a springboard for future invasions.A way to counter this threat could be security guarantees - intended as commitments to ensure Ukraine's long-term statements issued after the phone call with Trump, several European leaders said such guarantees had been mentioned and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that "real progress" had been made in that the spring the UK and France have been spearheading efforts to create a so-called "Coalition of the Willing" - a group of nations who have pledged to deter Russia from further invading Wednesday the group said it stood "ready to play an active role" including by deploying "a reassurance force once hostilities have ceased" - although the shape, composition and role of such a force is yet on the front lines, Russia's summer offensive continues to press on. Referencing the sudden advance of Moscow's troops near Dobropillya, in the embattled Donetsk region, Zelensky said Putin was pretending that sanctions were not effective at damaging the Russian economy."I told Trump and our European allies that Putin is bluffing," the Ukrainian president said, urging them to apply "more pressure" on his part, Trump appeared to admit that even when he meets Putin face-to-face he may not be able to get him to stop killing civilians in Ukraine."I've had that conversation with him... but then I go home and see that a rocket has hit a nursing home or an apartment building and people are lying dead in the street."So I guess the answer to that is probably no."
