DIVIDED WE STAND: La Republique du Cameroun vs. Southern Cameroons

Innocent Chia

Shame on me if anyone can point to any major speech addressing Cameroonians, either by the late Ahmadou Ahidjo or by Paul Biya of La Republique (Unie) du Cameroun, in which both Presidents fail to explicitly or implicitly call for “l’Unité Nationale”. Yet, on the eve of golden jubilee celebrations marking its Independence in 2010, the Cameroonian society is more factionalized and fragmented than the “divide-and-rule” policy institutionalized by the white colonialists.

On the one hand, one can argue that given the long-lasting impact of slavery and colonialism on Africa, it will be foolhardy to expect that current leaders would be able to undo these crippling centuries-old practices and policies a mere four decades after independence.

On the other hand, one cannot help but see through the gain of the current corrupt leaders and their desire to perpetuate the status-quo, even as they chime barren slogans like “Health For All by the Year 2000” or the timeless “United We Stand”. A final possibility is that all messages, actions and inactions come to naught because the people firmly believe in another message: DIVIDED WE STAND.

History
When America was attacked in July 1942, “United We Stand” was the slogan carried by almost every magazine or newspaper on the newsstands. It was a patriotic rallying cry dating back to the American Revolution that started in April 1775. Americans had sworn to create a new world that was different from the old one that they had left behind in England. In other words, “United We Stand” was a distress S.O.S cry against a common enemy of the emerging state. Once that common enemy was defeated, they focused on building America and making it the best country there ever was. The road was bumpy; the slave trade, civil rights movements, etc.

In our Africa, a sick mind can justifiably argue for those leaders who, at independence, made the rallying cry against the free minds – such as Osende Afana, Félix-Roland Moumié, Ernest Ouandié and Abel Kingué, all of Cameroun, Majhemout Diop of Senegal, Amilcar Cabral of Guinea-Bissau or Issa Shivji of Tanzania – who opposed pseudo-States in Africa. Under President Ahmadou Ahidjo, about half a million Bamilekes were killed in the attempt to crush the UPC rebellion, along with others who were accused of haboring the outlaws or “maquisards”. The success of these campaigns was laced up in the rallying cry of “United We Stand.”

Haunting questions do abound with each invocation of the slogan: Who is the messenger? What message does he bear? Who does he bear it for? Is he bearing the message for an interest group or is he for the people? What is the messenger gaining? What must he do to achieve his end? Is the best interest of the people to be united under him or will the interest of the majority best be served under another person with the same message or even a different message? Finally, must the people be united to stand, or can “Divided We Stand” be the untold truth?

Cyber Warfare
In the weeks leading up to every May 20th, Internet warfare peaks between Camerounians and Southern Cameroonians. Then there is an “encore” in the weeks leading to October 1. At issue is the struggle for independence of the former British Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons. According to its proponents, the marriage or union between La Republique du Cameroun (or the former French Cameroons) and Southern Cameroon was done under diplomatic coercion and gross disregard of UN resolutions and guidelines and, therefore, must be considered null and void. Furthermore, it is argued, if the Foumban accords of 1961 were anything to go by, its terms, especially with regard to the Federal nature of the Union, have been flagrantly abused and abandoned by La Republique du Cameroun. Finally, President Biya’s decree scrapping “United” from its post 1972” United Republic of Cameroon” name reverted both countries to their pre-unification status of separate and equal states: La Republique du Cameroun and Southern Cameroons.

As for opponents of an independent Southern Cameroon, their account of history has it that colonialism is to be blamed for the separation of a people who had always been brothers and sisters. This narrative, invariably, starts with German rule in Kamerun and ends with United Nations trusteeship under the French and English respectively in 1960 and 1961. What territory did it occupy before that? Were its people united under one King? These and other questions have not always been answered. The mantra, however, is that the two colonial cultures and people must now be united or face damnation. Curiously, the bearers of this doomsday message have not always been Francophones from La Republique du Cameroun. Its propaganda recruits have featured prominent Southern Cameroonians who prey upon the less informed, the less educated and their collective insecurities.

Leadership and Betrayal
But the story of betrayal by the “elite” of Southern Cameroon has never been conveyed more powerfully and truthfully as done in a parable narrated by Kevin Ngwang Gumme of the Southern Cameroons Peoples Organization (SCAPO), a pressure group turned political party in Southern Cameroons on May 20, 2006. It is titled “The parable of the favored Prisoner” and, starting with a preface, it reads:

“I am aware that many of our people who have attained positions of favor in La Republique du Cameroun are very jittery about the direction as well as the intensity of irreversibility of our struggle. They need not fear because this fight is for them and their children as much as it is for us. However, when the chips are down, let them not nurture the illusion that they will be able to prevent the people of the Southern Cameroons from reaching the Promised Land.

Let me therefore end by telling you the parable of the favored prisoner. It happened a long time ago in an African Kingdom of Kwichungong. The little known kingdom of Kwichungong has survived many centuries of tribal wars, slave trade, European colonialism and neocolonialism in its varied forms. The secret of its survival lies in the fact that from generation to generation, and by word of mouth, knowledge of a powerful and secret weapon of war was passed down. Whenever the survival of the kingdom of Kwichungong was threatened, the use of that weapon has consistently proven to be enough to guarantee the kingdom’s victory over its enemies.

It so happened in this kingdom that two identical twins brothers were convicted of a crime and sentenced to life imprisonment. This occurred at a time when the Kingdom was under occupation by a seemingly more powerful kingdom. The crime was actually committed by one of the twins but the court had no way of knowing which brother actually committed the crime. But the twins themselves did not want the court to know which one had done it. The innocent twin brother did not want to envisage life of freedom while his twin brother was in jail. By brotherly solidarity, the twin brothers simultaneously pleaded guilty to the crime and were sentenced to life imprisonment. The court decided that the tow twins should share the life term between themselves.

When they started serving their sentence, the guilty twin became very friendly with the prison warders. Before long, the warders were bringing good food, wine and other little favors to the guilty twin while the innocent twin was subjected to all manner of indignities. He was accused by the prison authorities of having “an attitude”.

As weeks, months and years passed by, the innocent twin became thin while the guilty twin put on weight. Slowly and steadily, the erstwhile identical twins began to look less and less identical. The innocent twin finally made up his mind to do everything possible to escape from prison. By contrast, as weeks, months and years passed by, the guilty twin began to feel as though prison was actually his home; the place where he wants to be and to spend the rest of his life. He had lost every sense of what it means to be free. He forgot that even the most favored prisoner in a penitentiary is still a prisoner; he forgot that even the Prime Minister of the Slave Kingdom is still a slave.

The guilty twin felt that the idea of escaping from prison was totally insane. He started spying on his twin brother and passing information to the prison authorities on his brothers escape plans in return for additional favors from the prison authorities. He frustrated every attempt of the innocent twin to escape from prison. Every failed attempt was followed by weeks of solidarity confinement and further deprivation for the innocent twin.

While in solidarity confinement the innocent twin had a lot of time to think. He asked himself the following questions: Shall we both die in prison? Should I escape alone to freedom? Should I escape with my brother who seems to be content with prison life? .....” (Copyright April 2006, SCAPO. Pages 5-6).

Looking Forward
The readership here is sophisticated enough to answer the questions raised in the text and even to ask more. In another essay, we will explore some obvious reasons as to why La Republique du Cameroun is holding on to Southern Cameroons. The essay will throw some more thought on why “Divided We Stand” makes more sense as a means to avoid a second genocide in its short history.

Comments

[Shufai]

Bobe Chia
Thanks for another constructive and mind provoking insight into the plight of the Southern cameroonians. This article addresses in context the reality of some southern cameroonians in denial of the truth about our freedom and a willingness to pass on indepedence in favor of staying with Biya at the table of occupation. We will see the light someday and that day will not come because the misguided twin found favor at the altar of his jailor, rather it will come when the reasonable twin finally comes to terms with his identity and realise that only his freedom will be the eye-opener for his stupid brother. Keep it coming and I look forward to more construtive views on this issue.
Shufai

[Joe abey]

For those who had not taken time to read this piece.....I think you should.Like most of you.I hate lengthy articles but this one I can assure you is an incredible piece of art from it's historical worthiness to an understandable reason why a divorce between the Southern Cameroons and La Republic may not be a cake walk.

The drawback of the Southern Cameroons separating doctrine to pick up steam is the failure of the Separatist movement to properly address how an independent Southern Cameroons will be any different from the Current union.What is the form of governemnet? How the power will not be limited to just a few etc.Until some of these concerns are addressed and a snapshot of the future of the common Southern Cameroonian is laid in plain view, many Anglophones understandably have every reason to still want to hang on to a devil they know,afterall "the need for separation should be more than just a geographical claim".

[Ma Mary]

Joe Abey, your concern is noted and it is the same concern as many in the movement. Democracy is born and sustained because the people participate. As an actor in the movement, I make no claims to having all the ideas. You are invited to join THIS FORUM (Please Click) and join your ideas with others to formulate the future democratic Southern Cameroons country and state.

[Arno]

September 21, 2007
Calls for a Breakup Grow Ever Louder in Belgium
By ELAINE SCIOLINO

BRUSSELS, Sept. 16 — Belgium has given the world Audrey Hepburn, René Magritte, the saxophone and deep-fried potato slices that somehow are called French.

But the back story of this flat, Maryland-size country of 10.4 million is of a bad marriage writ large — two nationalities living together that cannot stand each other. Now, more than three months after a general election, Belgium has failed to create a government, producing a crisis so profound that it has led to a flood of warnings, predictions, even promises that the country is about to disappear.

“We are two different nations, an artificial state created as a buffer between big powers, and we have nothing in common except a king, chocolate and beer,” said Filip Dewinter, the leader of Vlaams Belang, or Flemish Bloc, the extreme-right, xenophobic Flemish party, in an interview. “It’s ‘bye-bye, Belgium’ time.”

Radical Flemish separatists like Mr. Dewinter want to slice the country horizontally along ethnic and economic lines: to the north, their beloved Flanders — where Dutch (known locally as Flemish) is spoken and money is increasingly made — and to the south, French-speaking Wallonia, where a kind of provincial snobbery was once polished to a fine sheen and where today old factories dominate the gray landscape.

“There are two extremes, some screaming that Belgium will last forever and others saying that we are standing at the edge of a ravine,” said Caroline Sägesser, a Belgian political analyst at Crisp, a socio-political research organization in Brussels. “I don’t believe Belgium is about to split up right now. But in my lifetime? I’d be surprised if I were to die in Belgium.”

With the headquarters of both NATO and the European Union in Brussels, the crisis is not limited to this country because it could embolden other European separatist movements, among them the Basques, the Lombards and the Catalans.

Since the kingdom of Belgium was created as an obstacle to French expansionism in 1830, it has struggled for cohesion. Anyone who has spoken French in a Flemish city quickly gets a sense of the mutual hostility that is a part of daily life here. The current crisis dates from June 10, when the Flemish Christian Democrats, who demand greater autonomy for Flanders, came in first with one-fifth of the seats in Parliament.

Yves Leterme, the party leader, would have become prime minister if he had been able to put together a coalition government.

But he was rejected by French speakers because of his contempt for them — an oddity since his own father is a French speaker. He further alienated them, and even some moderate Flemish leaders, on Belgium’s national holiday, July 21, when he appeared unable — or unwilling — to sing Belgium’s national anthem.

Belgium’s mild-mannered, 73-year-old king, Albert II, has struggled to mediate, even though under the Constitution he has no power other than to appoint ministers and rubber-stamp laws passed by Parliament. He has welcomed a parade of politicians and elder statesmen to the Belvedere palace in Brussels, successively appointing four political leaders to resolve the crisis. All have failed.

On one level, there is normalcy and calm here. The country is governed largely by a patchwork of regional bureaucracies, so trains run on time, mail is delivered, garbage is collected, the police keep order.

Officials from the former government — including former Prime Minister Guy Verhhofstadt, who is ethnically Flemish — report for work every day and continue to collect salaries. The former government is allowed to pay bills, carry out previously decided policies and make urgent decisions on peace and security.

Earlier this month, for example, the governing Council of Ministers approved the deployment of 80 to 100 peacekeeping troops to Chad and a six-month extension for 400 Belgian peacekeepers stationed in Lebanon under United Nations mandates.

But a new government will be needed to approve a budget for next year.

Certainly, there are reasons why Belgium is likely to stay together, at least in the short term.

Brussels, the country’s overwhelmingly French-speaking capital, is located in Flanders and historically was a Flemish-speaking city. There would be overwhelming local and international resistance to turning Brussels into the capital of a country called Flanders.

The economies of the two regions are inextricably intertwined, and separation would be a fiscal nightmare.

Then there is the issue of the national debt (90 percent of Belgium’s gross domestic product) and how to divide it equitably.

But there is also deep resentment in Flanders that its much healthier economy must subsidize the French-speaking south, where unemployment is double that of the north.

[A poll by the private Field Research Institute released on Tuesday indicated that 66 percent of the inhabitants of Flanders believe that the country will split up “sooner or later,” and 46 percent favor such a division. The poll, which was conducted by telephone, interviewed 1,000 people.]

French speakers, meanwhile, favor the status quo. “Ladies and gentlemen, everything’s fine!” exclaimed Mayor Jacques Étienne of Namur, the Walloon capital, at the annual Walloon festival last Saturday.

Acknowledging that talk of a “divorce” had returned, he reminded the audience that this was a day to celebrate, saying, “We have to, if possible, forget about our personal worries and the anxieties of our time.”

Belgium has suffered through previous political crises and threats of partition. But a number of political analysts believe this one is different.

The turning point is widely believed to have been last December when RTBF, a French-language public television channel, broadcast a hoax on the breakup of Belgium.

The two-hour live television report showed images of cheering, flag-waving Flemish nationalists and crowds of French-speaking Walloons preparing to leave, while also reporting that the king had fled the country.

Panicked viewers called the station, and the prime minister’s office condemned the program as irresponsible and tasteless. But for the first time, in the public imagination, the possibility of a breakup seemed real.

Contributing to the difficulty in forming a new government now is the fact that all 11 parties in the national Parliament are local, not national, parties. The country has eight regional or language-based parliaments.

Oddly, there is no panic just now, just exasperation and a hint of embarrassment. “We must not worry too much,” said Baudouin Bruggeman, a 55-year-old schoolteacher, as he sipped Champagne at the festival in Namur. “Belgium has survived on compromise since 1830. Everyone puffs himself up in this banana republic. You have to remember that this is Magritte country, the country of surrealism. Anything can happen.”

Maia de la Baume contributed reporting from Namur.

[cheap sunglasses]

All these facts Cheap Sunglasses accomplish these Sunglasses Outlet one of the Cheap Sunglasses Outlet a lot of Sunglasses For Men admired choices for Cheap Oakely Sunglasses adventurists! If you Cheap Ray Ban Sunglasses wish to accompany Cheap RanBan Aviator Sunglasses out the chance Cheap RanBan Sunglasses in you with Cheap RanBan Wayfarer Sunglasses an able style,Cheap Police Brand Sunglasses again you will Cheap Dior Sunglasses charge a brace Cheap Coach Sunglasses of beautiful Costa Cheap Carrera Sunglasses Del Mar shades!Cheap Armani Sunglasses Reveal the adventurous Cheap Burberry Sunglasses ancillary of you Cheap Chael Sunglasses with these affordable Cheap D&G Sunglasses Costa Del Mar Cheap L.V Sunglasses. You can apprehend Cheap Fendi Sunglasses even the a lot of Cheap Prada Sunglasses bargain shades of Cheap Adidas Sunglasses this cast to be Cheap Puma Sunglasses top in quality!Cheap Ferrari Sunglasses To acquirement these sunglasses.