As the “Canada agreement” continues to be debated it was always possible that LRC was playing for time as they did in the “Swiss Process”. It is their legitimate tactic to try to reduce the momentum of the Ambazonia Liberation Struggle.
While we the Ambazonians would prefer a quick negotiated resolution we need to face the reality that La Republique du Cameroun would not be so logical even in the face of defeat. If they reached for repression when they could get far more favourable terms why would they suddenly turn to logic now? They are a far more unstable leaderless rabble now so we must be wary of self-inflicted regression in our progress.
Ambazonia News understands many of our factions are fundraising.
It is absolutely right that we continue our Complementary Commitment by massively stepping up to provide for our Restoration Forces and our civilians to continue to exercise our sovereignty and dignity.
The Most High God is still Watching out for Ambazonia.
The IG has reiterated her engagement in the Canadian Mediation process outlined in the Global Affairs Canada announcement.
In a letter to the Hon Melanie Joly, the Minister in charge of GAC, the IG points out the outstanding conditions needed for Canada to meet the threshold for a fair and transparent mediation process. It is worth recalling that the IG had addressed a similar caution to the GAC officials during the pre-talks when when some of the practices left the pre-talks open to opaque participants and truncated preparation time for some of the Ambazonian stakeholders.
In the new correspondence, the IG flags the phraseology of “NW and SW regions of Cameroon” and perception created that the mediation, though clearly external, could be mistaken for internal.
Since Canada announced the agreement to talk for “peace in the NW and SW regions of Cameroon” reactions have emerged from many quarters.
Many Ambazonian stakeholders have voiced objections to the phraseology of Canada’s announcement, though other Canadian communications do speak of “talks between The former United Nations Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons and The Republic of Cameroon”. This latter comes, notably in tweets from the Canadian Diplomatic Mission in Cameroun.
A cross section of Ambazonian comments insist that the language in the Canadian communique is “diplomatic” and is the “best Amabzonia” will get until she regains her sovereignty. No explanation of how that sovereignty will be gained if the talks are framed as talks to settle a crisis in “the NW and SW regions of Cameroon”. This must be a faith that the kind international community, despite turning a blind eye to more intense and overt genocidal acts in Ambazonia for six years, is going to go in to bat for Ambazonian independence! Why? What is the new motivation? What of the La Republique du Cameroun Secession in 1984 which reset the boundaries to LRC (1960) and United Nations Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons – and does afford Ambazonia “state-status bar the exercise”? HCB28-92 outlines how this came about and was enshrined in the Bamenda High Court Ruling!
For their part La Republique du Cameroun has issued a statement through their Communication Minister, Sadi, denying any agreement to confer neither “facilitator nor mediator status to any country”. In the communique he references the internal National Dialogue of La Republique du Cameroun as the start of a solution … “which they have been busily implementing”. The language of Canada’s Communique does matter, but this outing from Sadi underlines the paradox of “NW and SW regions of Cameroon”, at first sight alluding to an internal self-determination; with a third-party mediator. At the very least, Ambazonian stakeholders need to regroup and avoid speeding into what would appear as half-a-loaf, but could be poisoned! In any case it was always going to be beneficial for the Ambazonian side to consolidate their position internally before embarking on any talks. This is particularly urgent as, while “officially” rubbishing the prospect of talks in Sadi’s communique, La Republique has wasted no time marshalling their propaganda effort to attempt to kill the momentum of the Ambazonian Liberation Struggle. Many “News papers” have “welcomed” the “agreement to talk” and already attributed calls to some of the Ambazonian stakeholders for the Restoration Forces to cease! The sooner Ambazonian Leaders wake up to this ploy, the better! Even if they don’t manage to come to an agree position, they must maintain the pressure on the ground.
Ambazonian Leaders need to keep channels open to avoid the confusion that La Republique will continue to seek to create and exploit. As it is it is clear that La Republique factions have different goals and ambitions and even at their most stable, they have proven time and again that their word cannot be relied on. The international community will be happy to say “never again” again after the fact – not because they are picking on Ambazonia, but because that is their method! We must “shine out eyes” and maintain our efforts.
Any Ambzonian leader thrusting their head out to be patted by the kind international community does so at their own peril if they do not first have their backs covered by “the Ambazonian Position”.
The Most High God has watched over us so many times. Let us not falter!
Global Affairs Canada (GAC), the Canadian government’s foreign affairs department, has announced an agreement between La Republique du Cameroun and a section of representatives of Southern Cameroon/Ambazonia. So far so good, except the press officer who published the news on GAC’s web page referred to “peace in Cameroon” and the ” NW and SW regions of Cameroon”
The participating Ambazonian stakeholders who were cited in the release “immediately” issued a statement expressing discontent at the phraseology. They objected to being referred to as regions of Cameroon. What they failed to tackle was the equally corrosive idea of listing several Ambazonian stakeholders in a blatant attempt to portray a semblance of inclusiveness. These points are not trivial as they make the difference between internal or external self-determination for Ambazonia. Ambazonia News understands from sources at the first pretalks that the Ambazonian stakeholders tackled – and agreed the issue of two state parties. This is bourne out by the language coming from the Canadian High Commission, that is Embassy, in Cameroun. They have tweeted about “an agreement for talks between The former United Nations Trust Territory of Southern Cameroons” in conformity with the statements of the pretalks delegates.
That gaf is far from the “facilitator’s” only faux pas. During the pretalks the facilitators failed to address questions from some participants, viz the IG that Ambazonia News knows of, pertaining to undefined yet prominent actors in the process. They then proceeded to exclude some of the previous delegates without explanation despite fair written depositions on concerns about transparency and representativeness. So GAC persisted in breaking both requirements to qualify as neutral impartial facilitators. Speeding up the “process” to meet La Republique du Cameroun’s timetable on at least one occasion, and accepting under-represented small group meetings as “valid” representation further point to shortcomings on the part of GAC… deliberate or just incompetence?
The final paragraph of the GAC communique therefore rings hollow as it expresses the “hope that many more groups would join the process to attain a lasting peace”.
The IG has responded to the communiqué by addressing a further letter to the head of GAC Hon. M Joly, in which they repeat the caution against the opacity and the non-representativeness of the process so far. The IG contends that justice cannot be attained with such flaws in the process and, therefore, nor can peace.
Over to GAC now to rectify the process if they are neutral facilitators/would-be-moderators.
For their part the Ambazonian stakeholders who have issued that statement including a “hope” that others will join must reflect on their part in rushing the previous few pretalks process to an extent to exclude some participants and square that with how hollow their “hope” rings!
The Most High God is the Watchman of Ambazonia. Our mistakes will not prove too costly!
Ambazonia News was waiting as eagerly as any other Ambazonian to get the presentation of the four “principals” from Canada. Instead, the “neutral” spokesman, in the person of Comrade John Akuroh, communicated the postponement “due to fast new developments”!
The good aspect of the communication was the clear and unequivocal declaration of the position on absolute and unconditional independence of Ambazonia, not to mention the implied deference to the people on any decision. This last part at least alleys the fear that, drunk on flattery, any or all of the “representatives” could “sign for” Ambazonia! Phew!
The fear of “drunkenness on flattery”, however, persists.
Despite claiming to be mindful of La Republique du Cameroun’s modus operandi, the fact remains that the “representatives” have allowed their “selection” to “go to their heads” to some extent.
Comrade Akuroh did use the phrase “selected to talk” or words to that effect. The question would be “selected by whom?”. This question does not go to those who were selected per se, except in a purely rhetorical invitation to consider that they might be underestimating their strength. More of this aspect later.
The IG raised this same question to the facilitators when asking for, among other conditions, transparency on each participant and their status. It is no secret that one of the parties does not meet this requirement and is not represented among the four who promised the now postponed update. That means they are going to persist in their opaque position of being very active in the process but not being declared!
As long as the four “representatives” know and are happy we can move on to cautioning about the danger of “flattery”.
Being invited individually and flattered should ring alarms among the “benificiaries” as the method La Republique du Cameroun used to break up the West Cameroon institutional strength and progressively attempt assimilation. To counter this tactic all “invitees” should know their strength comes from the strength of the independence movement as a collective and that if they succomb to flattery and undermine the movement body they could be turfed out as soon as La Republique du Cameroun can ascertain the momentum of the Liberation Struggle has diminished enough. If you turn up to the next gathering and cannot see the fellow “representatives” you saw last time do you know why they are not there? Who should you find out from? Build bridges and improve your strength.
Some will trust Canada’s position to be above the suspicion aired here but remember the run up to the plebiscite when many international partners implicitly denied us the self-determination we should have had! They had then, and have now, their own calculations and we cannot assume their neutrality in the process! They are not forthcoming on the aforementioned “opaque participant” and, therefore, not placing any importance on being viewed as neutral or impartial. Nothing personal, but they just do have their own interest. This brings us to the pressure tactics of “fast moving developments”.
We must take neutrality at face value. But can we? If so, our country’s affairs must not be rushed to meet anyone else’s timetable. The process belongs to us, rather than us to the process. Our representatives must keep open channels with the broadest base of leaders and deliberate extensively prior to any exchanges with the enemy side.
IG President Iya Marianta is set to address Ambazonians on the eve of the new year 2023.
After an eventful tenure characterized by “actions speaking louder than words” she may want to remind the people to stay resolute as the job is not yet done.
With the ongoing speculation about Canada pre-pre-talks Ambazonia News understands from sources that she could seek to clarify the IG’s position. She has consistently been of the view that Ambazonian Independence is unconditional and not up for negotiation.
She may also wish to highlight some of the outreaches the IG has carried out with the aim of empowering our civilians in both the refugee camps and the ground. One of the keys to Ambazonian future prosperity lies in the freedom of choice that education and self-sufficiency can engender. The resulting dignity and confidence will help Ambazonia to shed our choking victim mantle and strike out on a bright exciting future.
For over six years We the Ambazonia have marked our dignity with the simple act of abstention on Mondays. By this act, we have silently declared our independence from La Republique du Cameroun and her agents – sparing ourselves the gauntlet of extortion and intimidation by La Republique du Cameroun’s militias.
The effect of this routine act has started to open the eyes not only of LRC, but more of our people to become more aware of our history and rights.
Who should declare a pause to Contri Sundays?
We the Ambazonians have ignored all LRC ploys which surface every December preaching the merits of “normalcy”.
We the Ambazonians have ignored the hypocritical “peace” being preached while their militias still occupy our streets and fire on school children.
We the Ambazonians who live the experience of the La Republique du Cameroun occupation will see for ourselves when we are free of that occupation. We will decide and that will not be because any one sends us leaflets! When we are free we will not need leaflets to tell us!
We all remain resolute on our aim – the total and unconditional independence of Ambazonia.
Our independence and dignity are not in the gift of our neighbours LRC.
On May 18th 1992 the High Court of Bamenda the North West Province heard a curious case, that of the state of the Southern Cameroons alias Republic of Ambazonia, its Head of State His Excellency Fongum Gorji Dinka and The State of La Republique du Cameroun and its Head of State His Excellency Paul Biya.
The motion to show cause and the subsequent orders sought were not contested by La Republique of Cameroun and against all predictions the court handed down judgement in suit No HCB/28/92 in favour of the Republic of Ambazonia.
The High Court of Mezam holden at Bamenda BETWEEN:
1. The State of Southern Cameroons, alias the Republic of Ambazonia.
2. His Royal Excellency Fongum Gorji-Dinka
3. Blaise Berinyuy AND
1. The State of La Republique du Cameroun
2. His Excellency Paul Biya.
Very Brief summary:
On 1/1/60 the French Trust territory gained independence, for the sake of argument, and became La Republique du Cameroun with established and internationally recognized borders.
Until the British Trust Territories of Southern and Northern Cameroons gained their independence in October 1961, negotiations between leaders of those territories and the UN, GB, LRC produced various undertakings and promises which lead to the mistaken plebiscite where voters chose “Reunification” in Southern Cameroons and “Integration” in Northern Cameroons. Analysis shows that Southern Cameroonians voted for “reunification” in the mistaken belief they were joining a loose federation – certainly not a unitary state. Northern Cameroonians choice of “integration” meant throwing in their lot with the Nigerian Federation.
As Southern Cameroons [mis]understood they were joining a loose federation of equal independent states, their border was similarly established to the prior borders of LRC nearly two years earlier. The implicit establishment of these borders was not by design but just by the norms, and would not matter for a long time while Southern Cameroons, known then as West Cameroon to LRC’s East Cameroon remained in the Federation or union.
It is fair to say the federation turned out not be loose, as Southern Cameroonians had intended when voting in the plebiscite, but was taken further towards a unitary state than they would have accepted. There was dissention to the advent of the unitary state but …
When Mr Biya took over, contrary to the provisions of the United Republic’s “constitution” the union was still in place and still as illegal and there were individual dissenters who had no platform to voice their dissent. The more vocal dissenters ended up in prison and that could have been that until …
Mr Biya sought to deepen the unitary state by removing the paradox of the word “united”. Well a “united” Republic is “united” by virtue of being united, not by being called “united”, so he decided to outdo his predecessor in the “progress” towards “reunification” by renaming the URC to just La Republique du Cameroun by promulgating law 84/001 of 4/2/84. It could be debated whether being called “united” is more of a paradox than decreeing implied unity.
Whether intentionally or otherwise the effect of this act was to restore La Republique of 1960, complete with its borders at independence, which had transitioned through being called East Cameroon in the federation of equal states to subsuming itself in the United Republic of Cameroon. This was a secession by any other name and the effect of it was that Southern Cameroons had been similarly restored – and not being the secessionist either!
The implication of the restoration law was that La Republique du Cameroun’s presence in Southern Cameroons was illegal.
It is widely known that there are exploratory pre-talks ongoing in Canada. What is not known are the content and context.
Ambazonia News believes that the level secrecy is against Ambazonia interests as it is creating speculative and corrosive comments.
We Ambazonians should know and expect such occurrences in the context.
The IG has made representations to the facilitators to set out the thresholds for transparency and representativeness of the process. The IG trusts in the will of We The Ambazonians and trusts that any failures to meet the thresholds will delay our journey to Buea but not halt it.
The credibility of the process will have an impact on the reputations of the parties involved, not least those with banks of diplomatic capital and integrity and fairness in global affairs.
The question of representativeness arises from the presence of ill-defined parties whose status and roles the facilitator has failed to adequately explain. This lack of transparency was compounded when the last session was conducted without consulting or inviting the IG delegates.
While the IG did not expect the Canadian facilitator to be working for Ambazonia we expected, as a minimum, that they would be neutral and seek to uphold the integrity and credibility of the process.