 |
|
Devoid of commitment into the theology
of self-determination, the Church in my homeland would remain outside the world
of our people…for the Church has to take its place at the creative centre of
culture. Gerald
Jumbam
|
This
essential duty of telling the truth makes the writing of History a thankless
and even dangerous enterprise, especially if the Historian has to reveal
unpleasant facts about people in high places – alive and powerful!
Bernard
Fonlon in The Genuine intellectual
As
the political fabrications, State fictions and lethal forgeries of La
Republique du Cameroun’s (LRC)government on Southern Cameroon’s agony continue
to infect media houses, it is perhaps more fitting than ever that we turn to
something which has always demanded that we look more closely for the root of
the Southern Cameroons problem.
The
high court of history is that thing. And therefore historical truth is widely
reckoned to be the most powerful weapon against bloodsucking oppression and colonial
propagandas – the type the Southern Cameroons is victim to in Africa, at the
moment. It was the eminent German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer who said
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Theodore Herzl
was laughed at when he conceived in 1896, the idea of a Jewish State. After a year,
he challenged his enemies: “At Basel I found the Jewish State, If I said this
out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. Perhaps in five
years and certainly in fifty years, everyone will know it.” On May 14, 1948,
exactly five decades after, the State of Israel came into existence. Today
everyone recognizes it, and this is preeminently self-determination –the type
that is gaining ground and taking root in the Southern Cameroons Ambazonia
nowadays.
I talk from – I must confess right away – the
standpoint of son of one ageless institution called the Church. Each time a
country is declared independent, each Pope earnestly cheers it. The Church
believes in freedom from tyranny of browbeaten peoples. One cannot engage in
matters of justice and peace and human dignity without involvement in
self-determination, in the sovereignty of constituted peoples, and in the
liberty of chained human beings.
Self-determination
is hinged on the principle that man is born free. That his dignity is inalienable. That man is
pinnacle of civilization. That there is a Creator. That man is image and
reflection of that Creator. That God communicates to everybody and that
conscience is that medium which this Higher Power talks to us.
The
theology of Self-determination à la Gerald Jumbam rules out armed struggle and
sees Mahatma Gandhi as the Morning Star. It believes that where there is truth
the Holy Spirit blows and where the Spirit is, the impossible is enabled. It is
hatched from God but takes flesh in man’s concreteness and daily doings. It eggs on members to change political
systems that unman, that enfeeble. It
believes in transforming structures rather than adopting colonial emasculating
vestiges. It faces empire theology head-on and says No to its debilitating
machinery. It believes that one culture is as good as another and so all of
them must go through a self-purification when they meet God. It looks at banana
republics as bastions of exploitation and is warrior against exploitation and
dehumanization. It is refuge of slaves
and voice to the voiceless. It believes with Aristotle that action is the way
forward in that “there is only one way to avoid criticism: do nothing, say
nothing, and be nothing.” It believes in the relevance of history and holds that
politics can only be service if its doings are connected to moral values and
anthropological bearings. These root-elements are absolute kings in the life of
each human person. Without these first principles, self-determination is
completely misunderstood.
The
theology of self-determination therefore finds concrete expression in the flesh
and bone of the ignominy of human suffering.
The victims of human calamity are the material of this creative theology. The Church faithful to her Incarnate Spouse Jesus would incarnate itself in the flesh and bone of our lives. She plays the role of whistle-blowing when tyrants strike the defenseless. She blows her whistle for non-violence by encouraging protest and moral defiance. Theology is either facing these particular practicalities and therefore at the very creative core of contemporary life or it is dead and buried. The one that flows in my blood and the veins of millions of British Southern Cameroonians today is theology of self-determination. Its dynamism in our hearts remind us of Pope Francis’ “the People of God is incarnate in the peoples of the earth. Devoid of commitment into the theology of self-determination, the Church in my homeland would remain outside the world of our people. It would masturbate with irrelevant phenomena and be dumped in the trashcan of history.
Were
we to follow the assessment of the diverse qualities involved in the theology
of self-determination, we should find that they can all be totaled in the word
‘redemption’. The demand for redemption – in other words liberation – makes the
self-determination theologian uncomfortable with narcissistic givens that allow
millions of poor miserable people wallow in yokes of oppression and wickedness.
This brings the Church to the market place. For the Church has to take its
place at the creative centre of culture for “each people is the creator of
their own culture and the protagonist of their own history”[2]
and therefore any God-oriented theology must return to and respect the people’s
anthropology and the people’s history.
How
does one begin to slash through this medley of connected matters of
self-determination’s theology in an embattled context like the British Southern
Cameroons? History bears us witness and furnishes tangible facts. It was Eduardo
Galeano who said: “History never really says goodbye. History says, ‘see you
later’”. The powerful rise today of the feeling of independence that has
invaded the hearts and minds of British Southern Cameroonians testify to the
relevance of Eduardo Galeano’s words above. The proof of this on the case of
the British Southern Cameroons nationalism is the burden of this write-up.
British and French Cultures:
Essentially different Worldviews
Since
we live in times in which silence is not only immoral but dangerous, to have
full knowledge of the tricks and intrigues surrounding the independence of the
British Southern Cameroons, is the most important thing to do now. To know
this, it is vital to delve into the history of Cameroon itself. Before 1914,
Cameroon including Northern Cameroon that is now part of Nigeria was ruled by
the Germans as one country. When the First World War broke out in 1914, France
and Britain in other to cut off supplies coming from German colonies to help
the German war machine in Europe, attacked Cameroon. The British led by General
Charles Dobell attacked Germans in Cameroon from the West and the North while
the French under General Joseph Aymerich attacked from the East and South. In 1916 the battle of Mora sanctioned the
complete conquest of German Cameroon by the French and British forces.
Between
1914 and 1916, Britain and France attempted to jointly rule the territory of
the Cameroons in a system of administration which has gone down into history as
the Condominium. In spite of the efforts at joint administration, the British and
French realized that their cultures and worldviews were essentially different
and that try as they could, French and British cultures could never peacefully
live together in one territory. Seeing how General Charles Dobell and the
British were behaving as if they were the sole rulers of Cameroon and seeing
that the French were playing only second fiddle in administrative matters, the
French administrator Picot suggested that German Cameroon should be partitioned
into two, so that, each foreign power could rule its own part of Cameroon
independently of the other.
For
this purpose, a conference of French and British diplomats was convened in
London in 1916 and by the London Agreement in 1916, Britain and France formally
debated and agreed upon the temporary partition of Cameroon into French
Cameroon and British Cameroon, along what became known as the Picot Line.
By this partition, Britain received roughly one-fifth of German Cameroon while France received about four-fifth of the territory. The main reason for this unequal sharing of Cameroon between Britain and France was that France argued that Britain had already conquered and taken German Tanganyika alone and could not therefore expect to get an equal share of Cameroon with France which had no share of Tanganyika.
By this partition, Britain received roughly one-fifth of German Cameroon while France received about four-fifth of the territory. The main reason for this unequal sharing of Cameroon between Britain and France was that France argued that Britain had already conquered and taken German Tanganyika alone and could not therefore expect to get an equal share of Cameroon with France which had no share of Tanganyika.
Cameroon is Permanently
Partitioned
When
the First World War came to an end in 1918, the world powers convened a
conference in Paris and its environs to attempt to redress the problem that had
been created by the war. At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, the world
powers asked Britain and France to decide what should be done to the territory
of German Cameroon which they had conquered during war. To meet the request of
the world powers, British and French foreign ministers met in a small conference
of their own to decide the future of German Cameroon. The final resolution of
this get-together known as the Milner-Simon Agreement of 1919 was that the
temporary partition of German Cameroon into French Cameroon and British
Cameroon along the Picot-Line should become a permanent partition. To reinforce
this permanent partition of Cameroon into French Cameroon and British Cameroon,
customs officers of the two foreign powers were jointly placed along the
Picot-Line. Hence you had customs offices at Munyah after Kutupit, at Santa in
Bamenda, and at Fontem in Lebialem. In fact an international boundary was
created between French and British Cameroon and Britain actually began building
concrete pillars from the coastal South West region of Cameroon to mark the new
international status of the British Cameroons.
And it is very clear that you do not have joint custom officers operating within the same country, but they operate only on the boundaries between one country and another.
That
is why when the League of Nations was created, the British Cameroons was
admitted on July 20 1922 as a completely separate mandate of the League:
separate, that is, from the French Cameroon mandate. The two independent
territories assumed the character of two different nations. And they were
acknowledged as Mandate “B” Territories of the League of Nations Mandate
Commission at Geneva in Switzerland. In the language of the Paris Peace
Conference of 1919, a Mandate was a territory that was either ripe for
independence or was being prepared for its independence. In the conference of
1919, only some territories in the Middle East qualified as Mandate “A”
Territories and were immediately given their independence.
No
African country in 1919 qualified for immediate independence, in spite of the
Pan-Africanist struggle of Dr. WEB DuBois. But by this arrangement, the British
Cameroons was named a Mandate “B” Territory, that is, a territory whose
independence could come in the foreseeable future. French Cameroon also
received the status of a Mandate “B” Territory and was ruled, guided and given
its independence by France in 1st January 1960.
The British Colonial Mischief
Now
instead of the British guiding and preparing their own territory for
independence as they were supposed to have done, they tried to do everything in
their power to bar the British Cameroons from achieving independence, as had
been expected when the League named Britain as the Mandatory Power of the
British Cameroons. In fact knowing fully well that independence went along with
education, the British Government throughout its stay in the British Cameroons
from 1914 to 1961 never established even a single secondary school in the
territory. The only effort at secondary education was undertaken solely by the
Catholics and the Protestants.
In
the British Northern Cameroons, primary schools were very few and far between,
and in many areas in the North, schools were completely inexistent. The highest
level of education anybody in the British Cameroons could therefore dream of attaining
was the First School Leaving Certificate and even those who had it could be
counted on your finger tips.
That
is why when the United Nations Organization (UNO)took over the affairs of the
defunct League of Nations and promoted the British Cameroons to a Trust
Territory, the British had nothing to show by way of preparation for the
territory’s independence. In fact, almost all first generation British Cameroon
politicians had nothing other than their First School Leaving Certificate to
rely upon in matters of independence and State governance. See the Fonchas, the
Munas, the Ngom Juas and the Mallam Abba Habibs.
Conscious
that it had failed in its duty to prepare the territory for its independence,
the British spent useful time trying to dissuade the British Cameroon
politicians from fighting for their independence. One of the false arguments
used by the British to scare British Cameroon politicians from the independence
option was the lie that the new State would not be economically viable to stand
on its own feet. The huge oil deposits in Limbe and Bakassi Peninsula today for
example, have proven beyond doubt the falsity of this argument. Moreover, as
the British did not create institutions of higher learning in the British
Cameroons, they felt that the territory did not have well-trained personnel,
that could run the different ministries in the event of the independence of the
territory. The thousands of the British Cameroonians working internationally in
such countries as Canada, Britain, USA, Belgium, South Africa and S. Korea show
very clearly that the time for British Cameroon independence is long overdue.
Finally America and Britain believed during the Cold War days that small states
such as the British Cameroons could easily be overrun in the face of Communist
expansion. But today Communism long collapsed in Russia in 1989 with the
arrival of Glasnosts and Perestroika under Mikhail Gorbachev. What then can
today stand in the way of the independence of the British Cameroons? Nothing.
Independence is Non-negotiable
We
remember how at the Mamfe Conference of 1959, after the deadlock caused by
Britain in the struggle to arrive at a consensus point for British Cameroon
independence, Britain went ahead to connive with the UNO to impose a plebiscite
on the British Cameroons on February 11 1961, in a territory where there was
not supposed to be any plebiscite, but outright independence. A plebiscite is
usually organized only in a territory where there is a mixed population as in
the German Sudetenland in 1938. In the case of the British Cameroons, which
nationalities were mixed with which? We were all one nationality – the British
Cameroons, and consequently there was absolutely no need for any Plebiscite.
What was absolutely necessary was the independence of the British Cameroons.
And both Britain and the UN all knew this very well. Hence the Plebiscite
question “Do you choose to gain
independence by joining the Federal Republic of Nigeria or by joining the
Republic of Cameroon”?
The
point to note from this so-called Plebiscite question is that you do not become
independent by becoming dependent on another territory. You become independent
by being on your own, and by taking your own destiny into your own hands.
As
we have seen, in their 47 years stay in Cameroon, the British never setup even
one secondary school in the British Cameroons. Consequently, the people to whom
the so-called Plebiscite question was asked could not reason out the fraud in
the whole Plebiscite exercise.
However
one thing remains clear from the so-called Plebiscite question: “Do you choose to gain independence” means that
the UNO knew fully well that they were supposed to grant independence to the
British Cameroons.
And
that is what the people of the British Cameroons are today asking Britain and
the UN to do. For is it not a shame that the UN should constitute itself into
an instrument of fraud over the British Cameroons question? Is it not a shame
that Britain that has protected human rights and liberties in other climes as
in the Magna Carta and the Habeas Corpus should be found trying to
suppress the right and liberty of its people whose care and protection she once
promised to ensure and guarantee when she took up the Mandate of the British
Cameroons in 1922?
UNO’s Task of Today
Believe
it or not, therefore, there is today in Cameroon a British Southern Cameroon
Problem. And this problem is simply the refusal by Britain ( the colonial
master) and the UNO (the guarantor of world peace) to grant independence to a
territory which was supposed to have its independence as other African
countries were doing in the 1960s.
If
Tanganyika a former German territory and Mandated territory of the League under
British rule was given its independence by Britain in 1961, what must have
happened to Britain from equally granting independence to the British Cameroons
which was also a former German territory and the Mandated Territory of the
League of Nations under British rule? If the British Cameroons were not
supposed to be independent, why then did France and the UNO go ahead to grant
independence to the Trust territory of French Cameroon on 1st
January 1960 without consulting British Cameroonians? The British Cameroons was
therefore not part of French Cameroon independence and was supposed to rightfully
as well have its own independence from Britain and the UNO.
Therefore
if the UNO does not turn round and look at what is happening in the British
Cameroons today, the UNO will be held responsible by future generations for the
bloodshed that is looming in this area of Africa. And it is this habit of
neglecting what the world calls little events which led to the outbreak of
World War I when Archduke Francis Ferdinand was murdered at Sarajevo in 1914.
So
this is the time for the UNO to step in and solve the problem she created in
1961, once and for all, in the interest of Africans and world peace.
And
nothing short of the independence of the British Cameroons can be the answer to
the dangers looming in the horizon in this troubled West African region.
Fortunately, political fraud can no longer do in the 21st century
what it once did in this part of Africa in the middle of the 20th
century.
In
fact those misguided British Southern Cameroonians who are calling for a Two
State Federation with La Republique du
Cameroun(LRC)are those who foolishly but wholeheartedly accept the results
of the so-called plebiscite of 1961. The independents/nationalists on the other
hand are those who argue that the plebiscite of 1961 was a violation of the
Milner-Simon Agreement of 1919 because the permanent partition of 1919 could
not become a temporary partition in 1961.
Whereas
the plebiscite of 1961 was tele-guided by Britain to suit her whims and
caprices, the Milner-Simon Agreement was ratified by Britain and France and
endorsed by the world powers of the time: America, Germany, Austria, Hungary,
Japan, Italy and South Africa, that is, by all the world leaders assembled at
the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
Indeed
the South African president Jan Smuth was one of those who endorsed the
Milner-Simon Agreement of 1919. Smuth actually went ahead and like Britain got
the Mandate over the other German colony of German South West Africa (today
Namibia). Is it any wonder then that South Africa has readily accommodated the
Southern Cameroons Broadcasting Corporation (SCBC) in its territory?
This is so because the South Africans know the story of the British Cameroons from inside since the South African Government was actually one of those countries which in 1919 endorsed the Milner-Simon Agreement when both the United Nations Organization(UNO) and African Union (AU) were not yet in existence. The story of the British Cameroons is obviously in the South African Government files of that time because South Africa got her independence from Britain in 1910 and in 1919 she was already nine years an independent country which had joined the Allied Powers to fight against Germany and the other central powers in World War I.
The Time is Now
And
therefore those who are still calling for a federation to LRC should stop it
because when the facts of the British
Cameroons Question would be examined from official files, the federalists would
be ashamed to learn that they have been stupidly backing the wrong horse. Historical
facts indeed don’t lie. History has been a great tool at the service of truth
as is steadily made evident through the clean lights it shines on the hopes and
aspirations of each and every evolving community. This is true of Cameroon history
which contrived a crossing of the paths of Britain and France. The crossing of
these paths let their loud footprints on the memory of the French and the
British Cameroons. Perhaps, the denial – by historical tricksters – to
acknowledge these footmarks in our memory is the crowning problem of the
British Southern Cameroons.
The
truth is that he who is oppressed, but seeks not to have his oppression eliminated,
is at once the most criminal and decadent of mortals. If at the same time, he
is okay and contented, if he takes this satisfaction as normal, or is cheerful
and thankful about so sorry a state, I have no word to depict so brainless a
person. It is the great object of self-determination to be adversary to such
tranquility, to establish the truth about the human being, to restore the
dignity of our human person, to give head-aches to the oppressing bully, and to
whistle-blow to the world that we are going to restore our independence come
what may. The ratiocinative instinct of freedom fighting, the certitude that
liberation is coming, and the strong
presentiment of a personal Higher Power that protects the just, is alive. The
truth of Southern Cameroons independence soars in its majesty, far above the
opinions of cock-and-bull stories. And those with eyes see victory coming.
By
Fr. Gerald Jumbam