Opinion: EU humanitarian aid to Cameroon; Dressing the wound while avoiding the disease.

However, beneath the headlines lies a more troubling reality—one that raises serious questions about the EU’s consistency, responsibility, and moral credibility.

For nearly a decade, Cameroon has been engulfed in a brutal and protracted conflict. Thousands of people in the Southern Cameroons have lost their lives. Entire communities have been destroyed, with reports indicating that over 400 towns and villages have been razed. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced internally, while many more have fled across borders as refugees. 

The crisis did not emerge overnight- it is the result of years of political failure, repression, and unresolved grievances under the regime in Yaounde.

Throughout this period, a critical question persists: where was the European Union? This question cannot be ignored, especially now that the EU appears to have suddenly awakened to the humanitarian consequences of the conflict.

The EU has long been aware of the nature of governance in Cameroon. President Paul Biya, now in his nineties, has remained in power for over four decades, making him one of the world’s longest-serving leaders. 

His tenure has been widely criticised for Constitutional manipulation, disputed elections, and a system that prioritises the consolidation of power over democratic renewal. 

These realities have been well documented and widely discussed on the global stage. Yet, the European Union has maintained what many would describe as a largely passive posture.

There were no meaningful sanctions, no sustained pressure for reforms, and no consistent urgency to mediate a conflict that steadily escalated into a humanitarian disaster. 

While other actors such as Canada and Switzerland, made attempts at mediation, the EU’s role remained limited and largely absent.

At key moments, the EU’s actions appeared to validate the existing political order. Elections that were widely questioned by observers were nevertheless endorsed, lending legitimacy to a system that many citizens view with deep skepticism.

Now, after years of little or no engagement, the EU has stepped forward with humanitarian aid—providing food, medical supplies, and essential services. 

While such support is undeniably necessary, it raises an important ethical question: can humanitarian assistance compensate for years of inaction?

Aid addresses the symptoms of a crisis; it does not resolve its causes. It cleans the wounds, but it does not stop the violence that continues to inflict them.

Providing food to displaced families and treating malnourished children are urgent and necessary interventions. However, these efforts do not confront the underlying political realities that produced the crisis. Without addressing governance failures, accountability deficits, and unresolved political tensions, the cycle of suffering is likely to persist.

It is within this context that accusations of hypocrisy begin to emerge. The same international actors that advocate democracy, the rule of law, and human rights often appear less assertive when those principles are under strain in contexts like Cameroon. 

Calls for dialogue have been muted, and pressure for structural reform has been limited. As the crisis deepened into armed conflict, meaningful intervention remained elusive.

The EU’s response, which focuses primarily on emergency relief, reflects a broader pattern that is not unique to Cameroon. 

It highlights a recurring tension in EU-Africa relations: the gap between stated values and practical engagement. When global actors respond more decisively to the consequences of crises than to their root causes, questions of credibility inevitably arise.

This inconsistency becomes even more apparent when compared to standards applied elsewhere. Issues such as leadership tenure, electoral integrity, and constitutional governance are often central to EU discourse. Yet, responses tend to vary, depending on geopolitical interests and strategic considerations.

For many Cameroonians, this disparity is difficult to reconcile. It is important to emphasise that the frustration is not with humanitarian aid itself. The need for such assistance is real and urgent. 

Rather, the concern lies with the timing, the framing, and the absence of earlier, more decisive engagement; when intervention might have altered the trajectory of the crisis.

If the European Union is to play a meaningful role in Cameroon’s future, its approach must go beyond emergency relief. 

It should include: Consistent support for genuine dialogue and conflict resolution; clear expectations regarding governance, accountability, and inclusivity, a willingness to address root causes, not just humanitarian outcomes. 

Aid can save lives, but only justice, reform, and meaningful political solutions can prevent those lives from being endangered in the first place. 

The people of Cameroon deserve both. Anything less risks reinforcing the perception that the EU’s response is reactive rather than principled; and that suffering is addressed only when it reaches critical levels.

That is the real challenge facing the European Union today: not simply to provide assistance, but to reflect, recalibrate, and engage with the depth and consistency that the situation in Cameroon has long required.

By Chris Anu*

This article was first published in The Guardian Post Edition No:3779 of Monday May 04, 2026