Posted by Francis in General News | 13 Comments
Carlson Anyangwe…Too trusting a man?
Professor Carlson Anyangwe, Simon Munzu and Barrister Sam Ekontang Elad originally convened the Buea All Anglophone Conference in 1993 to examine the marginalization of English speaking Cameroonians . They were positioned to do this because they had been chosen by the government of LRC to be part of a constitutional draft committee to work out a “new” constitution for Cameroon. Eventually, despite their input and to their dismay, a pseudo French constitution was adopted for LRC. Their contributions were simply disregarded.
17 Years after the Buea AAC1, Dr Simon Munzu and Sam Ekongtang have taken different career paths that have taken them partly away from the struggle. Professor Carlson Anyangwe is however still directly involved in the fight. He recently published a ground breaking book “Betrayal of too trusting a people”. But can he be trusted? Can the long suffering people of Southern Cameroon put their faith in him and the handful of others spearheading the fight? The people now want answers which is why we conceived this series. After all, Southern Cameroonians have never voted for any leader since 1993 when the first AAC took place.
Prof Carlson Anyangwe and SCYL leader Ebenezer Akwanga
Prof Carlson Anyangwe now lives and works in Zambia and is adamant English speaking Cameroon will one day be independent, the delay tactics of LRC notwithstanding.
Francis Ngwa asked the questions.
Q Why has it been so difficult to unite the rather divided Southern Cameroons movements and why are there so many movements fighting for the same cause?
A
The reason is that those fighting occupation hardly ever do so under one constituted organization or structure. Ideology, tactics and strategy dictate this course. In the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa, there was the African National Congress, the United Democratic Front, COSATU, Black Consciousness Movement, Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania, Inkhata Freedom Movement, Black Sash etc. In Zimbabwe, there was ZANU and ZAPU amongst the most prominent. In Angola there was MPLA, UNITA , etc. The story was the same for Mozambique, Eritrea, East Timor, and so on. In Palestine, there is Hamas and the PLO. All these groups do constitute one Liberation Movement for their various peoples.
The Southern Cameroons is no exception. There is one Southern Cameroons Liberation Movement that is fighting for the sovereign independence of the former British Southern Cameroons. And yes, there are several groups such as the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), the Southern Cameroons Youth League (SCYL), the Southern Cameroons People Organization (SCAPO) and other groups that have been formed by fighters for freedom that are all are united in purpose for the common cause of freedom from colonial captivity. I would be surprised if you do not know that the occupying state, République du Cameroun expends a lot of time and huge sums of money on what are demonstrably futile efforts to scuttle our national liberation struggle: rented groups and paid individuals (including some of its own citizens) are deployed to cause confusion, diversion and give the perception of division. These are ancient but familiar and ineffectual rearguard actions of all colonial occupiers. No one has ever been fooled, and we are not.
Q.Initial assessments indicate there is little grassroots support for Anglophone nationalism primarily because they own no radio, TV, newspaper or any mass media outlet. Why is that the case?
A
You talk of ‘initial assessment’. Who did that, where and when? What is the evidence? And when can we expect the ‘final’ assessment? By ‘Anglophone nationalism’, a misnomer, I suppose you mean Southern Cameroons nationalism. Is there such a thing as Francophone or Lusophone or Mandarin or Hispanic nationalism?
I do not see how the absence of mass media ownership by any of the organizations in the Liberation Movement constitutes what you claim to be ‘a lack of grassroots support’ for Southern Cameroons nationalism. On the contrary, there is overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence that there is grassroots support for Southern Cameroons nationalism. In 1995, a signature referendum conducted in the entire territory of the Southern Cameroons secured over 300,000 signatures from the grassroots. This was accomplished despite a suffocating disruption and intimidation by the brutal gendarmes and other armed elements of the occupying state, and virtually without the signature of any Southern Cameroonian national serving in the civil service of the colonial occupying state. Let me also reveal to you that, as a lawyer for the Southern Cameroons people at the African Commission, our people coopted into administration of République du Cameroun look forward for an early resolution of the Southern Cameroons sovereignty questions in order for them to return home and join the rest of our people in rebuilding their shattered lives in peace and freedom. Southern Cameroons nationalism is alive and well in the soul of every single one of our people.
Q A Liberation Movement needs loads of money but that is glaringly absent in the Anglophone liberation fight. Isn’t this partly explained by the fact that with limited grassroots support, raising money is difficult? Why don’t you have foreign backers?
A
You keep harping on this fictional lack of grassroots support as if mandate to do so in the hope of conveying that impression to the world.
All liberation movements, ipso facto, face funding challenges, the primary reason being that they are not in control of their territory and resources. In the Southern Cameroons, the colonizer, République du Cameroun, long instituted a policy of pauperization and destroyed all institutions of commerce and business in our land. In this regard read the Banjul ruling and it recommendation on this specific matter. Airports and seaports were closed. The road network that facilitated trade within the territory is in total neglect. The municipality where the oil company is based pays taxes to Douala, in another municipality, in another country, in République du Cameroun. Your assumption that the Southern Cameroons lack foreign backers is speculation that I will let be for now.
Q Sincerely, do Anglophones need a separate state or do they need a well behaved government that will recognize and treat them as equal citizens in Cameroon? The Canadian example appears to be working well.
A
I dispute your continuing use of ‘Anglophone’ when in fact you ought to speak of the people of the Southern Cameroons. This matter has been finally laid to rest by the Banjul ruling. What do you mean by ‘sincerely’? And what do you mean by ‘need’? You might as well ask whether you need freedom of the press. You might as well ask whether any people on earth need a state. You might as well say independence for any colonial territory is sincerely not needed and that all a colonized people need is recognition and treatment on an equal footing with citizens of the colonial power. Colonialism is a negation of fundamental human rights and it is a crime against humanity in that it is a form of terrorism. Statehood is a right, a right that inheres in every people consistent with the law of self-determination. The people of the Southern Cameroons are entitled, as a matter of law, justice and history, to their government, instituted by themselves and for themselves. They do not want some imperial government, even if that government is benevolent, ‘well behaved’ and playing Father Christmas.
The Southern Cameroons has its internationally defined borders which are not being drawn today. When République du Cameroun became independent on January 1, 1960, the Southern Cameroons was not part of it. The Southern Cameroons was a separate state, with a government based in Buea, a parliament and a House of Chiefs. Yes, the Southern Cameroons needs a separate state and will eventually become one within its internationally defined borders that as I stated, are not being drawn today.
Yaoundé should behave well for the well being of its citizens. République du Cameroun is not Canada (which at regular intervals allows Quebec to vote on their status) and will never be Canada.
Q Complaining that Anglophones are treated badly is simply not good enough in this day and age. You used to be a lecturer at the Yaoundé University, how did university authorities treat you differently from your French-speaking colleagues.
You simplistically reduce this matter to what you call ‘bad treatment’ of those you persist in calling ‘Anglophones’, a denotation that suggests a certain state of mind. By so do you are consciously or unconsciously trivializing the legitimate struggle of the people of the Southern Cameroons to free themselves from colonial occupation and captivity. The Southern Cameroons has been annexed and is under occupation by a foreign state, République du Cameroun. Colonization is against international law; it is a threat to international peace and security; it is a crime against humanity. For you in this “day and age” to cheapen this struggle that concerns the very survival of a people, their dignity and their worth as “Anglophones [being] treated badly”, betrays, I would suggest, an absolute lack of appreciation of the severe consequences this colonial adventure is costing both the peoples of the Southern Cameroons and République du Cameroun.
Q Why has the fight for liberation been limited to emails and press releases?
A
Once more you got it all wrong. The creation and launch of the SDF party in 1990 in blood, inspired by the plight of Southern Cameroonians was not an email or press release. The All Anglophone Conference in Buea in 1993 was not an email or press release. The All Anglophone Conference in Bamenda in 1994 was not an email or press release. The Signature Referendum of 1995, with over three hundred thousand signatures was not an email or press release. The successful struggle to establish the GCE Board was not an email of press release. The law suit won against Nigeria in Abuja to take the Southern Cameroons case to the UN in 2002 was not an email or press release. The recent declaration by the African Commission of Human and Peoples Rights on Communication No. 226/2003 is not an email or press release. Should I go on?
Q If you had political power today, what practical things will you do to improve the lot of Southern Cameroonians?
A
Political power where? What political power? The real improvement of the lot of a slave can only come through manumission. The real improvement of the lot of a colonized people can only come through decolonization.
Q A frequent accusation against Southern Cameroonian leaders is that they are old, tired, unhappy men who did nothing while they were in active service. Your reaction, and any proposals to change this.
Who is this accuser, where and when was the accusation made and in what circumstances? Assuming there is such a thing let those making the accusation stand up and be counted. The Southern Cameroons needs its people, all of them: the young and the old, the tired and the vibrant, the happy and the not-so-happy, the clever and the not-so-clever, the fighters and fence sitters, including even the collaborationists. My appeal is for each one of us to ask ourselves: what can we do to secure justice, freedom, for the people of the Southern Cameroons. It starts by being informed about the history of the Southern Cameroons and its people. Allow me to recommend to you and others the last three books I wrote as starters: Imperialistic Politics in Cameroun, Betrayal of too trusting a People, and Secrets of an Aborted Decolonisation. These can be procured from amazon.com.
Imperialist Politics in Cameroun
Betrayal of too Trusting a People
A
As sure as the sun rises in the morning, yes, the Southern Cameroons SHALL be an independent country. As I mentioned above, the territory of the Southern Cameroons is already defined, the international borders have been established, and those boundaries are not being drawn today. The Southern Cameroons was already had an established government and was a functioning democracy. In a sense, we are talking of re-asserting the statehood and the independence of the Southern Cameroons suppressed through colonial occupation by Republique du Cameroun.
Justice always, always triumphs! Slavery lasted centuries, look who the president of the United States is. Colonialism lasted centuries and the sun was never to set on the British Empire. The USSR is no more. Hitler spoke of a thousand years of the Third Reich. Ian Smith spoke of a thousand years of white domination in Zimbabwe. And apartheid South Africa looked invincible.
Continuous occupation ultimately imposes an armed struggle on the Liberation Movement, and as I’ve mentioned a few times, the Southern Cameroons will not be exemption from the rules of liberation struggles. But I also believe there is a growing sentiment within certain circles in République du Cameroun that they have diminished themselves with this adventure in the Southern Cameroons. Republique du Cameroun will never be able to establish functional institutions of democracy and justice because under such conditions, their colonial occupation of the Southern Cameroons would become untenable. The new sentiment is that the adventure in the Southern Cameroons has really not benefitted their population. Thinking heads and perspicacious minds in Republique du Cameroun know that their country will never extricate itself from grinding poverty, disease, systemic corruption and rule by horse whip so long as the colonial adventure in the Southern Cameroons is not brought to an end.
Great interview FN. However the caption-’Too Trusting a man?” appears rather inconsistent with what follows in the rest of the interview.
There are not many Southern Cameroonians who can speak with greater authority on this subject than Professor Anyangwe. There are even fewer who have devoted as much in the struggle over the years.
Anyangwe gets it right when he points out that justice always triumphs and that the continuous use of “Anglophone” masks the issue which is the political unit called “Southern Cameroons”.
Whether or not the Southern Cameroons begin infighting among themselves should not be a reason why Cameroun should pack and go home. Remember, give me freedom or give me death. Only free people negotiate. What about independent nations? They too always have in fighting ,even in Nigeria. But they have also the dignity of belonging, as well as a nation to call their own, so, quit saying these French Cameroun divide and rule tactics, we have heard many times. Southern Cameroons is far worse off today under this Cameroun occupation than it was 50 years ago. That is a fact: no airport, seaport power company, water, schools, etc all intentionally destroyed or closed by French African colonizer, Cameroun. No point to support an evil enterprise in the world for any reason.
I read with joy the interview of the learned Prof. Carlson Anyangwe .There are a lot of clarifications and precisions on the Southern Cameroons’ issues. The fact is that many individuals spend their time vilifying people who have done so much for the struggle instead of encouraging them. We should be objective and constructive in critizing the leaders of the struggle. Some of us in the struggle are too hasty in whatever we contribute. Contributions like that of Prof. Carlson are the type we want read over the various information fora for struggle.
Thanks a great deal Prof.
Reaction from Dango Tumma culled from Southern Cameroon projects website:
Anglophone problem takes dramatic twists – Part 1
THE ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM IN THE CAMEROONS TAKES A DRAMATIC TWIST.
By Dr. Arnold B. Yongbang
Introduction:
This paper was prepared in 2006 at the request of Rev. Father Eric AKUE-GOEH, a Jesuit missionary from the Republic of Benin, and assistant parish priest of the Our Lady of the Annunciation Parish, Bonamoussadi, Douala, who was fascinated by the Anglophone problem, and invited me to make a presentation of the problem to the Anglophone Community in the parish, but had to be aborted because of strong objections from some of the Anglophone parishioners who felt that the presentation would be introducing politics into the Church. This is another dimension of the Anglophone Problem – the Anglophone up against himself / herself !
1. So what is the Anglophone Problem?
1.1 L’EFFORT Camerounais No. 315 of October 15 to October 28, 2003, pages 10 and 11, carried an interview by the paper’s then Editor-in-Chief, Rev. Fr. Antoine de Padoue Chonang, with our own outspoken and uncompromising moral authority, His Eminence Christian Wiyghan Cardinal TUMI, on the ‘ANGLOPHONE PROBLEM’. Here are some excerpts of the interview:
Fr. Antoine:
“In your opinion, is there an Anglophone problem in Cameroon?”
His Eminence:
“In Cameroon, yes. There is a real malaise, like I said in my open letter and elsewhere. Accumulated frustrations from the unilateral cancellation of the federation, to Fru Ndi’s victory in the 1992 elections as affirmed by ambassadors but which was not recognized, harassment of Anglophones and ill-treatment of all sorts, restriction of their legitimate political aspirations, etc…, create a real malaise. It is even said that there are posts that can never be occupied by an Anglophone, for example, an Anglophone has never been the Secretary-General of the Presidency…”.
1.2 That, in a nutshell is the ‘Anglophone Problem’ in the Cameroons. But it is not quite that simple: it is much more ramifying and complex. There is the very disturbing rider to the problem: the fact that so-called Anglophone intellectuals who, for purely selfish interests, allow themselves to be used by neo-colonisers to confuse the populations who look up to these same intellectuals for enlightenment and guidance in their struggle for their inherent and inalienable right of Self-determination and Independence. Some intellectuals claiming to be knowledgeable about international law have indeed misled, and still continue to mislead, the rank and file of the struggle to be masters of their own destiny by their ignorance of international law. This ignorance caused the struggle to spend nearly 43 years chasing the wrong shadow, namely, the independence of the Southern Cameroons, with various misleading names like AMBAZONIA or AMBAZANIA, instead of the independence of the former UN Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Trusteeship Agreement signed between the United Nations and His Majesty’s Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 13 December 1946 “to administer the Territory in such a manner as to achieve the basic objectives of the international trusteeship system laid down in Article 76 of the United Nations Charter”.
1.3 History has it that when Germany lost the First Word War in 1916 it also lost sovereignty over its African colonies. In 1919 Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles giving up all claims to her colonies including Kamerun. In 1922 under the League of Nations Mandates System, German kamerun was divided between Britain and France, the victorious allies; the larger eastern part of the country went to France and became known as French Cameroun while the smaller truncated western part went to Britain. Britain further divided its portion into North and South ostensibly for administrative convenience with its colony and protectorate of Nigeria. The British Northern Cameroons was administered as part of the Northern Region of Nigeria; while the British Southern Cameroons was administered as part of the Eastern Region of Nigeria.
1.4 With the creation of the united Nations Organisation in 1945, the Mandated Territories transmuted to TRUST TERRITORIES under its International Trusteeship System one of the basic objectives of which was:
“…to promote the political, economic, social and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each trust territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned”.
1.5 The 1922 boundary established between the two mandated territories is along the Simon / Milner Line traced in 1916 by Britain and France, delimited in 1919, and confirmed in 1922, literally making the two mandated territories two separate countries.
1.6 With the founding of the United Nations Organisation in 1945, territories that were placed under the Mandates System of the League of Nations were transmuted into the Trusteeship System of the United Nations Organisation and approved by the General Assembly on December 13, 1946.
2. Regional Autonomy for the Southern Cameroons was a cruel illusion:
2.1 With the introduction of internal self-government to the three regions of Nigeria in 1951 under the Macpherson Constitution, the British Government recognised that there were some profound ethnic differences between the peoples of the Southern Cameroons and those of the rest of the Eastern Region of Nigeria giving rise to a profound desire on the part of the peoples of the Southern Cameroons to develop an existence as a separate entity. For this reason the British Government agreed at the London Conference in 1953 that the Southern Cameroons should separate from the Eastern Region of Nigeria and become a quasi-federal territory within the Federation of Nigeria. It was under the 1953 Constitution that the Southern Cameroons had its own government, with Dr. E. M. L. Endeley as Leader of Government Business, and a legislature with prerogatives of legislation in all areas except those that were specifically on the exclusive legislative list of the government of the Federation of Nigeria.
2.2 At the Lagos Constitutional Conference of 1957, the Southern Cameroons requested and was granted a full Regional Self-Governing Status within the Federation of Nigeria; and so a cabinet system of government was introduced in the territory on May 15, 1958. To all intents and purposes, from 1st October 1960, when Nigeria became independent, the British Southern Cameroons had the standing of a de jure self-governing Territory. After attaining a full self-governing status, the next logical step was full independence. Regrettably, Britain and France and the United States of America, the cold war allies, all permanent members of the Security Council, conspired to deny the territory independence contrary to the expressed wishes of the inhabitants of the territory, the Charter of the United Nations and the Trusteeship Agreement.
2.4 In 1959, in anticipation of independence, France signed Co-operation Agreements with her African and Caribbean colonies, including French Cameroun, literally making these countries contractual colonies of France; and bringing their economies under the direct control of France. This was indeed neo-colonialism and the United Nations turned a blind eye to it. France, of course, is a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
3. The Bungled Termination of UN Trusteeship over the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration:
3.1 France granted “independance avec la France” to its trust-territory of Cameroun under French administration on January 1, 1960, and the country took on the name of la Republique du Cameroun. And despite the fact that there was a communist-backed insurrection ravaging the territory, no plebiscite nor referendum was held to ascertain whether the peoples of that territory wanted independence then or at some future date, or whether they would like to associate with any of its contiguous neighbours.
3.2 By contrast, on February 11 and 12, 1961, the United Nations imposed separate plebiscites in the Northern and Southern British Cameroons “to achieve independence by joining” either the Federation of Nigeria, with a population then of over 80 million inhabitants, or la Republique du Cameroun, with a population then of about 3.2 million people. Faced with this dilemma of two equally unacceptable alternatives, the peoples of the British Southern Cameroons, with a population of about 800.000 inhabitants, voted to join la Republique du Cameroun under a con-federal union, the broad outlines of which had been negotiated and agreed upon at meetings between Premier John Ngu Foncha’s Government of the Southern Cameroons and the Ahmadou Ahidjo Government of French Cameroun and incorporated into the United Nations manifesto, ‘THE TWO ALTERNATIVES’, that was widely used for the plebiscite-enlightenment campaigns. The Northern Cameroons on its part voted to join the Federation of Nigeria
3.3 After the plebiscite, the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) at its 15th Session, while endorsing the results of the plebiscite, had recommended to the General Assembly for adoption Draft Resolution A/C.4/L/685:
- Operative paragraph 5 reads:-
“… Invites the Administering Authority, the Governments of the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun to initiate urgent discussions with a view to finalising, before 1 October 1961, the arrangements by which the agreed and declared policies of the concerned parties for a Union of the Southern Cameroons with the Republic of Cameroun into a Federal United Kamerun Republic will be implemented. ‘’
-Operative paragraph 6 reads:-
“…Appoints a Commission of three constitutional and administrative experts to be nominated one each from three member states designated by the General Assembly to assist at the request of the parties concerned in the discussions referred to in paragraph 5 above”
3.4 Instead the United Nations General Assembly, at its 994th plenary meeting on
21 April 1961, passed Resolution 1608 (XV), and operative paragraph 5 reads:
“… Invites the administering authority, the governments of the Southern Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroun to initiate urgent discussions with a view to finalising, before 1st October, 1961, the arrangements by which the agreed policies of the concerned parties will be implemented’’.
3.5 The Plenary of the General Assembly, which normally approved without amendment draft resolutions submitted to it by the Fourth Committee, decided to amend the Committee’s draft to delete any reference to the ‘Commission of Experts’ or to the ‘Federal character of the Union’ between the British administered Southern Cameroons and la Republique du Cameroun. These happened following strong objections raised by the Foreign Minister of la Republique du Cameroun, Mr. Charles Okala. This action of the General Assembly represented a grave injustice to the peoples of the British Southern Cameroons and a betrayal of the Plebiscite Covenant by which the people had already decided their future believing that they were doing so in a Federal Union of equal partners with la Republique du Cameroun under United Nations guarantees.
3.6 Bluntly put, this was a fundamental breach of trust not only by the United Nations and the United Kingdom as administering authority, but also by the government of la Republique du Cameroun who had reneged on its assurances to the General Assembly and the union accords signed by Premier John Ngu Foncha and President Ahmadou Ahidjo in Yaoundé on October 14, 1960, and incorporated in the United Nations White Paper, “THE TWO ALTERNATIVES” referred to above.
4. The Post-Plebiscite Conference was a classical deception, Machiavellian style:
4.1 The weak and vulnerable position of the Southern Cameroons delegation at the Post-Plebiscite Conference, that held in the town of Foumban in la Republique du Cameroun, from July 17-21, 1961, has been adequately summed up by Pierre Mesmer, one time Haut Commissaire of French-administered Cameroun, who later became France’s Minister of the Armed Forces, and, still later, French Prime Minister, in his book titled ‘LES BLANCS S’EN VONT’. Récits de décolonisation. Edition Albin Michel, S.A., 1998, chapter V. pp. 114-135. Incidentally, the book is banned in the Cameroons. He concludes that chapter with the following very revealing statement:
“…….. En Exécution du référendum, une conférence constitutionnelle réunit les gouvernements à Foumban, en pays bamoun familier aux deux délégations, le 17 juillet. Le Président Ahidjo, an position de force, présenta un projet de constitution faussement fédérale soigneusement préparé par ses juristes français. Ngu Foncha n’avait aucun contreprojet. En position de faiblesse puisque la population qu’il représentait ne dépassait pas le quart de celle du Cameroun français et moins encore en termes économiques, il accepta sans discuter ce qui était, sauf en apparence, une annexion. La nouvelle Constitution entra en vigueur le 1er octobre 1961. Une plaisanterie circulait alors à Douala et à Yaoundé: ‘Le Cameroun réunifié est un pays bilingue francophone’”.
(Our Translation: ‘To implement the results of the plebiscite, the Governments (of the Southern Cameroons and of la Republique du Cameroun) met in a constitutional conference in Foumban, in Bamoun country, familiar to the two delegations, on July 17 (1961). President Ahidjo, from a position of strength, submitted for debate a fake federal draft constitution which had been carefully crafted by his French jurists. Ngu Foncha had no counter project. From a weak position, since the population which he represents does not exceed a quarter of that of French Cameroun even in economic terms, Ngu Foncha accepted without discussion what was in fact an annexation. The new constitution came into force on 1 October 1961. A joke became rife in Douala and Yaoundé that the reunified Cameroon was a bilingual francophone country’.)
4.2 What other revelation could be more stunning and compelling! If Mr. Mesmer, a frontline French policy maker at the time, contends that Foncha had no counter proposal to table at the Foumban talks, then what must have happened to the Constitutional Proposals adopted at the All Party Conference in Bamenda from June 26 – 30, 1961, barely two weeks before the Foumban Conference?
4.3 The answer is provided for in the eye-witness account of the Foumban Conference given by Mr. Samuel Njoya, who was the sub-prefect of Foumban at the time, as reported by journalist Xavier Deutchoua in Les Cahiers de Mutations, Vol 018, January 2004, a monthly French language newspaper, under the banner headline, “LA DUPERIE DU FOUMBAN”.. And so the post-plebiscite conference turned out to be an exercise in total deception and betrayal of the good will and trust of the peoples of the Southern Cameroons.
4.4 The co-conspirators, Britain, France and the United States of America, took advantage of the vacuum created by the death in September 1961 in a plane crash in Africa of His Excellency Dag Hammarskjold, the United Nations Secretary-General, who should have ensured the that UNO Resolution 1608 (XV) Para. 5 of 21/04/1961 were executed. His successor, His Excellency U Thant, was appointed Acting Secretary-General in November 1961. So in September 1961 and October 1961 there was no full Secretary-General of the United Nations Organisation who could have ensured the full and legal execution of the UNO Resolution 1608 (XV) paragraph 5 of 21/04/1961 on Southern Cameroons future. It is said that the plane crash was not unrelated to the UN scribe’s opposition to the programmed annexation of the British Cameroons to its contiguous neighbours.
Hello Mr. FN,
Thank you for the clarifications. I sincerely appreciate your efforts.
Eugene
Great interview Prof. However, we need more than eloquent oratory from you. Its time we start getting some real action. Most people are now getting impatient. Afterall, the “reasonable time ” La Republique was given to respond to the grievances of anglophones has since passed.
Lets start acting now
I like the questions and the responses from Prof Anyangwe and Dr Gumne. This makes me think of the good old days when we had interviews like these during the days of Paddy Mbawa and his boys of Cameroon post.
In as much as there is reason to cry about division in the struggle, it is not a major speedbrake. It has been a game plan of LRC to divide and rule us while giving the impression that we are a confused people. The more we talk of division the more wrong signals we are sending out which is wrong propaganda. We should be smart enough not to fall into cheap traps.
Hello Eugene
Thanks for pointing out those repetitions in the Interview. I could have edited out the repetitions when I was writing the introduction.
I however did not do that because I did not want to cut off any part of Profs answers (without his permission) because he can then claim rightly that the Interview is not a reflection of what he said. Lastly, I left the repetitions because despite those lapses, he still went on to give an answer to the initial question I asked.
The boarding of the liberation wagon by the Restoration Government led by Prof. Anyangwe was highly acclaimed by some of us as the focal point for the Struggle. But helas! It seems so far to be limited to an interview here and a press release there. LRC is drum-beating about their independence even on the streets of Bamenda and Buea. Biya is orgainsing a “national conference” in May to formalize reunification.Yet nothing is being done to counter, not even a strongly worded communique to the UN, for example. Some one should not come up to tell me that it is being done in secret because of strategy !
Mr. FN,
When you set out to interview someone you should be prepared to listen, understand the answers given by the interviewee and adjust your questions accordingly. Your continued assertion about “lack of grassroot support”, use of “Anglophones”, “English Speaking Cameroon” etc conveys the impression that either you do not listen or you listen and do not understand or you are just out there to score a cheap point.
Good interview! “It starts by being informed about the history of the Southern Cameroons and its people”, Dr Anyangwe puts it so rightly. The problem with our southern Cameroonian struggle is that many of the southern Cameroonians themselves having been tainted by the vices of LRC and are worse off than the originals. Nobody wants to do anything for themselves. When a people refuses to defend their interests for whatever reason they cannot decry the misfortunes that befall them thereafter.
In fairness to Mbangsi, I think there are always petty squabbles among siblings, but that does not detract from the fact that they will defend their common interests. When the imdomitable lions of football play, every cameroonian supports but they have their differences. These differences existed even in the days of the West Cameroon state but it was a functioning democracy. The press was surprisingly vibrant for a policy that was that young. That folks in their sexagenarian and plus years should weep of such glorious days compared to our present stuff tells me we as a people are walking on our heads. We don’t want to see what is broken to fix it. And as all politics is local, if the guy in Nsem Bafut cannot relate the positive impact of an action on his daily life, Africa as a continent will never move ahead. Everyone knows you must have and represent a constituency to want to really make a change for it to progress. Until then, we are all tenants on the patch of Land given different names by different people. We call it the Southern Cameroons. But what more do we do to deserve much more than tenancy? And who is a southern Cameroonian? Someone living on that patch of Land? Someone whose blood links are connceted to that patch of land? A good answer will enable this struggle get a better impetus.
From my own personal experience travelling across Cameroon, the economic,social and political problems that pertain to the former Southern Cameroons or Anglophones are also endemic to the rest of Cameroon as it exists today.
It is a fallacy to assume that the Anglophones’ lot will significantly improve with all out separation.
300000 signatures ,while an impressive amount, (in a “referendum”?/petition?) do not automatically translate to a majority vote in a population of several millions.
Would these Cameroonians not just be swapping one set of oppressors for another? One dominating tribe or political party for another? After all,Professor Anyangwe in a previous essay (Tribal cabals and the monopoly of Political Power …) delves into tribalism and hegemony. If LRC were out of the equation, it might just be a Bakossi vs Baba II affair instead for example.
In the United Nations organised Plebiscite of February 11 1961, the british administered trust territories voted to join LRC. On May 25th 1963, they chose further to join the OAU as a unitary republic.
(In a unitary government,as I believe,the central government is supreme and any administrative divisions exercise only powers that the central government choses to delegate)
Politicians and officials thirst for power the way students want exam success. They focus on power and positions full time. The problem perhaps with most of Africa, is that politicians up to now have put themselves first. The vision has been selfish.
The best heads in Cameroon should come together to tackle disease,poverty,education and infrastructure bottlenecks,etc. Never mind LRC. If the economic desperation continues, more and more Cameroonians from all corners,will swap their passports for foreign ones.