Yes, a pity. Perhaps we are very holy people: we
ceratinly love our enemies just as you say.  Still,
let's construct hope from where we each are, with each
other.

mbullih_tn

--- Immanuel TatahMentan <inmentan@...> wrote:
> Dear Comrades,
> Is it not a pity that a people at war can split and
> conquer themselves for their enemy to fire the
> gunshot
> of victory?
> Let us atage a serious rethink about our pontifical
> statements.
> Tatah Mentan
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Dear Comrades,
Is it not a pity that a people at war can split and
conquer themselves for their enemy to fire the gunshot
of victory?
Let us atage a serious rethink about our pontifical
statements.
Tatah Mentan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

De Gaulle/Messmer --- the same people who claimed that
the Southern Cameroons was "un petit cadeau de la
reine d'Angleterre a la France."?

CA

--- soucam2003 <soucam2003@...> wrote:
> Ex-minister sued over Algeria war
>
> One of the last surviving members of the government
> of French
> President Charles de Gaulle is being sued over the
> deaths of
> thousands of Algerians.
> A lawsuit being filed in Paris on Tuesday alleges
> that, in a
> deliberately racist policy, white settlers were
> evacuated and pro-
> French Algerians were abandoned to their fate as the
> independence war
> drew to a close.
>
> Tens of thousands of them died in the brutal
> reprisals which followed
> at the hands of the victorious Algerian National
> Liberation Front.
>
> Now, 87-year-old former armed forces minister Pierre
> Messmer is being
> sued over the deaths by representatives of the
> pro-French Algerians,
> known as "harkis".
>
>
> It was a genuine act of ethnic cleansing
> Emmanuel Altit
> Algerians' lawyer
> The legal action is based on a new book alleging
> that Mr De Gaulle
> refused any escape route to loyal Algerians in 1962.
>
> The book, A French Lie by Georges-Marc Benamou, says
> Mr De Gaulle's
> decision was motivated by racism - a charge strongly
> denied by
> supporters of the late French president.
>
> Mr Messmer has said that Algerians who fought for
> France were offered
> the choice between integration into the French army
> or a small pay-
> off, and most took the latter.
>
> The lawsuit accuses Mr Messmer of crimes against
> humanity over the
> affair.
>
> 'Therapy'
>
> Lawyer Emmanuel Altit, representing the Algerians,
> said the case had
> several aims.
>
> "It was a genuine act of ethnic cleansing," he said.
>
>
> "Startling new documents are appearing from the
> period and people
> want to speak out.
>
> "The aim of our plea is judicial... but it is also
> an act of
> education and of therapy. France's perception of its
> victims has
> changed."
>
>
> White settlers - known as "pieds-noirs" were hastily
> pulled out of
> Algeria, but most of the "harkis" were unable to
> escape the reprisals
> which followed.
> It is estimated that between 70,000 and 150,000 of
> them died. Around
> 40,000 escaped to France.
>
> The book claims to have access to government
> documents from the time,
> and quotes Mr De Gaulle as saying the harkis were a
> "rag-tag" army
> who "served absolutely no purpose and of whom we
> must rid ourselves
> as soon as possible".
>
> He was later recorded as exclaiming, "French - those
> people? With
> their turbans and djellabas (long robes)!", the book
> alleges.
>
> The Charles de Gaulle Institute has denied the
> racism claims.
>
>
> Story from BBC NEWS:
>
>
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Ex-minister sued over Algeria war

One of the last surviving members of the government of French
President Charles de Gaulle is being sued over the deaths of
thousands of Algerians.
A lawsuit being filed in Paris on Tuesday alleges that, in a
deliberately racist policy, white settlers were evacuated and pro-
French Algerians were abandoned to their fate as the independence war
drew to a close.

Tens of thousands of them died in the brutal reprisals which followed
at the hands of the victorious Algerian National Liberation Front.

Now, 87-year-old former armed forces minister Pierre Messmer is being
sued over the deaths by representatives of the pro-French Algerians,
known as "harkis".


It was a genuine act of ethnic cleansing
Emmanuel Altit
Algerians' lawyer
The legal action is based on a new book alleging that Mr De Gaulle
refused any escape route to loyal Algerians in 1962.
The book, A French Lie by Georges-Marc Benamou, says Mr De Gaulle's
decision was motivated by racism - a charge strongly denied by
supporters of the late French president.

Mr Messmer has said that Algerians who fought for France were offered
the choice between integration into the French army or a small pay-
off, and most took the latter.

The lawsuit accuses Mr Messmer of crimes against humanity over the
affair.

'Therapy'

Lawyer Emmanuel Altit, representing the Algerians, said the case had
several aims.

"It was a genuine act of ethnic cleansing," he said.

"Startling new documents are appearing from the period and people
want to speak out.

"The aim of our plea is judicial... but it is also an act of
education and of therapy. France's perception of its victims has
changed."


White settlers - known as "pieds-noirs" were hastily pulled out of
Algeria, but most of the "harkis" were unable to escape the reprisals
which followed.
It is estimated that between 70,000 and 150,000 of them died. Around
40,000 escaped to France.

The book claims to have access to government documents from the time,
and quotes Mr De Gaulle as saying the harkis were a "rag-tag" army
who "served absolutely no purpose and of whom we must rid ourselves
as soon as possible".

He was later recorded as exclaiming, "French - those people? With
their turbans and djellabas (long robes)!", the book alleges.

The Charles de Gaulle Institute has denied the racism claims.


Story from BBC NEWS:

Opposition Mounts As Federal Government Bids to Hand Over 33 Towns to
Cameroun

Vanguard (Lagos)
NEWS
November 2, 2003
Posted to the web November 3, 2003

By Emma Aziken


THE move by the Federal Government to begin the process of handing
over of 33 border towns near Lake Chad to Cameroun by December 31,
based on the ruling in October last year of the International Court
of Justice (ICJ), may run into a hitch if the affected towns make
good their threat to halt the bid.

Leading the assault against the decision of the government to comply
with the ICJ ruling at the weekend were Senator Bassey Henshaw (PDP,
Cross River), representing the affected towns in the Senate and the
monarch of Bakassi, Etinyin Etim Oko Edet, whose domain, the oil rich
Bakassi Peninsula, is due to be ceded to the Francophone country by
May 2004, if the government's plans were to be executed to the
letter.

The Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Chief
Akin Olujimi (SAN), had at the opening session of the
Nigerian/Cameroun Mixed Commission meeting last Wednesday in Abuja
announced government's intention to begin the implementation of the
ICJ judgment by December 31. Faulting the decision, Henshaw, who
spoke, weekend, notwithstanding the order by his party barring
members, especially those in the National Assembly, from criticising
the policies of the PDP-led federal administration, regretted that
the government's move fell below expectations and assurances to the
Bakassi people that they would be properly protected from dislocation
by the ICJ judgment.

Vehement in his position that the affected towns would refuse to be
pushed across the border, the senator told Sunday Vanguard that the
government decision contradicted the United Nations (UN) Charter on
self-determination.

Asserting the people's quest to determine their fate and not to be
pushed away from the Nigerian federation, the lawmaker said: "The
people are determined not to be pushed to any other country, they are
Nigerians and are determined to stay in their country. Let them
decide where they are going to stay, it is a fundamental right which
should not be taken away from them."

Right to a plebiscite

"The people have the right to self-determination under United Nations
guidelines and supervision. The United Nations has granted self
determination to other people seeking such in Africa and the case of
Western Sahara is a case in point and what we are saying is that the
people of Bakassi are entitled to similar rights. They have a right
to a plebiscite to say where they want to go or remain as has been
granted to others in Africa." According to him, the decision, if
carried out, would significantly impair the relationships between the
people in the affected region who, he said, share common Efik
ancestry.

The government's plan also elicited similar reaction from the monarch
of Bakassi, Etinyin Etim Okon Edet, who accused the Obasanjo
administration of betrayal. Edet vowed that he and his people would
not go to the neighbouring country. "The entire people of Bakassi
will never, never shift from their natural and God-given land", the
natural ruler stated.

Sounding disturbed by the hand-over plan, Etinyin Edet warned that
current events in Iraq would be child's play compared to what would
happen in Bakassi should any attempt be made to make his people
Camerounians. Said he: "Bakassi people will not accept anything but
for us to decide where we want to belong. That is the right that the
international law allows. We have the right to determine where we
want to belong. It's not the court of law, it is not the Federal
Government of Nigeria. It is even not Cameroun. The last option will
be for us to determine where we want to belong. The issue of Bakassi
is not the same as that of Borno, Lake Chad or Adamawa.

"We are going to take our destiny into our own hands. After all we
had been existing in Bakassi before Nigeria. We had our own
government, we had everything. We stayed there until Nigeria came,
until government even came. Even local government, we didn't have
both, we were still there. So, if at the end of the day they say they
don't want us, I mean Nigeria, we will say thank you and bye-bye. We
will now ask the United Nations: 'We want to stand by ourselves, we
want to determine where we want to be'. So, we have various options."

How desperate for breakthrough these relics can be that they will submit
demands to police officers, send out press  release when traitors kiss the
flag and at the same time condemning others for being traitors and
ex-convicts.At the appropriate hour they will all like Peter refuse they
have never known the SCNC

HOPE EVERYONE OF YOU IS CARRYING ON WELL. WELL HERE ATTACHED ARE
SOME DOCUMENTS  I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO HAVE IT AND READ AS WELL AS
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE YOUR OPINION.
MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL

CHIEF AYAMBA E. OTUM

CHAIRMAN,

SCNC.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FDR_SouthernCameroonsPeople-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .





To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FDR_SouthernCameroonsPeople-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Dear all,

Check on the attached request and respond if necessary


Prince L Ayamba

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

INDEPENDENCE BAMBOOZLERS

To plain Southern Cameroons people, it's not funny to suggest that
they should have elected those who have recently volunteered
(unasked!) to drive out France and its mask Cameroun.

To plain people, it does not make sense that they should "[assemble]
in large numbers" inside an occupied territory especially in order to
"choose...leaders [he means volunteers]" who will drive out
France/Cameroun. No sense because plain people know that such
assemblies have already raised our independence struggle to its
current level.

But to bamboozlers, such elections make sense during foreign
occupation of our homeland.

Beware the bamboozlers!

Bamboozlers are not like ordinary Southern Cameroonians people. They
squint at issues (instead of just looking with open eyes); they point
to edges (not to cores); they mean: "Let me think for you because you
cannot think for yourself". Bamboozlers never cheer any daring move;
they discourage and chide and coach – always from the safety of their
computerized desks or from the comfort of their arm chairs. Like this
one:

"Dr. Yongbang`s analogy is correct. We must therefore give credit to
where credit is due. Charity begins at home. To de-emphasis the
impotence/importance of representative government, is to err on the
side of caution. By now this struggle should have embraced an entrench
premise of representation, that Southern Cameroonians must continue to
Assemble in large numbers_AAC, Southern Cameroon conference, ETC., and
chose their leaders. It is only through such a mass movement/assembly
"In The Federal Republic of Southern Cameroon," that will bring about
the conclusive finality of this struggle. To announce you have a
military wing is in fact the mockery of this struggle. You have never
capped a thing. Such a caricature is interesting. Then there is this
joke of "I, SEC of State" appoint you ..."The struggle also progress's
on the remise, that criticism is as inevitable as breathing is to
man." The dictum now becomes "na wona ben take we go-make na wona
bring we back." The panoply of contemporary politics must be
understood. To undercut representation is to violate an important
ingredient of parliamentary democracy. Hence, the question, is this
the SDF cabinet that emanated from Washington?"

Hunh? Panoply of contemporary...conclusive finality...You have never
(implying therefore you will never)...parliamentary democracy (meaning
among dispersed Southern Cameroonians!!)... Bamboozler? He too should
try volunteering instead.

To close,

- After WW II, most people expected Winston Churchill to win
re-election; he was soundly defeated. "Never mind, my dear, it's a
blessing in disguise", said his supportive spouse. "Yes," he is said
to have replied, "It is a blessing, and it's VERY disguised".
Churchill was a volunteer...

- Our independence task has already cost many Southern Cameroonians
their lives, and may cost many more others their lives in the future.
Just remember: these are volunteers...

- Debating independence will amass many of us so many "enemies" that
they could never win an election after independence. Just remember:
these too are volunteers...

- Plain people of Southern Cameroons don't ask a volunteer "Who voted
you into SOCADEF?" Or "Who elected you into the (volunteer) government
controlling SOCADEF?" How many people anywhere volunteer to increase
their chances of getting killed?

"Everybody!" some bamboozlers seem to be saying. If they are right,
Southern Cameroons is up to a great start with 6 million dutiful
patriots who will be rushing to sign up for National Service, first at
SOCADEF and second in the government, such being the order of need.

Those who attended the Minnesota Conference remember that a lean (very
small government) was agreed. But, thanks to a most flexible and
accommodating attitude, the government expanded into the numerous
secretaries we now have; yet people whose pressure created this fat
government are also contributing criticism (I'll name some later).
Let's just accept Southern Cameroonians as they are: competitive like
other people everywhere else.


Mbullih_TNgenge, Ph.D.


---------original---------
>
> "...As recently as Saturday, October 18, 2003, in the
> course
> of a field trip, one can still hear caustic remarks
> from tested compatriots of the Southern Zone like
> "the
> Bamenda man wants everything for himself".......

> the New Southern
> Cameroons like Zonal and cantonal imbalance.
>
> Best regards.
> Dr.A.B.Yongbang.
>


Dr. Youngbang`s analogy is correct. We must therefore give credit to
where
credit is due. Charity begins at home. To de-emphasis the
impotence/importance
of representative government, is to err on the side of caution. By now
this
struggle should have embraced an entrench premise of representation, that
Southern
Cameroonians must continue to Assemble in large numbers_AAC, Southern
Cameroon conference, ETC., and chose their leaders. It is only through
such a
mass movement/assembly "In The Federal Republic of Southern Cameroon,"
that
will bring about the conclusive finality of this struggle. To announce
you have
a military wing is in fact the mockery of this struggle. You have never
capped a thing. Such a caricature is interesting. Then there is this
joke of "I,
SEC of State" appoint you ..."The struggle also progress's on the
premise,
that criticism is as inevitable as breathing is to man." The dictum
now becomes
"na wona ben take we go-make na wona bring we back." The panoply of
contemporary politics must be understood. To undercut representation
is to violate an
important ingredient of parliamentary democracy. Hence, the question,
is this
the SDF cabinet that emanated from Washington? Fike

We won't go to Cameroun

– Bakassi ruler

NDIDI OKAFOR, Deputy Political Editor, COSMAS EKPUNOBI, Abuja and TOM
MOSES, Calabar

WITH Nigeria ceding 33 border villages by December and set to hand
over oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroun next May, monarch of
Bakassi, Etinyin Etim Okon Edet yesterday accused Nigeria of
betrayal. He vowed that he and his people will not go to the
neighbouring country.

The development came as senators said they were yet to be briefed on
the reported plan, to surrender the 33 border villages near Lake Chad
to the francophone country.

Speaking yesterday with Daily Champion in Calabar, Cross River State,
where he attended a meeting on the Peninsula matter, Etinyin Edet
described the planned hand-over of Bakassi as a betrayal by the
Nigerian government.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), or the World Court, at The
Hague had last October ruled on the protracted boundary dispute
between Nigeria and Cameroun on their 1,600 km frontier, ceding
Bakassi and several Nigerian communities to the francophone country.

But the Bakassi monarch vowed that his people would never go to
Cameroun.

"The entire people of Bakassi will never, never shift from their
natural and God-given land," he declared.

Sounding disturbed by the hand-over plan, Etinyin Edet warned that
current events in Iraq will be child's play compared to what will
happen in Bakassi should any attempt be made to make his people
Camerounians.

Said he: "Bakassi people will not accept anything than for us to
decide where we want to belong. That is the right that the
international law allows. We have the right to determine where we
want to belong. It is not the court of law, it is not the federal
government of Nigeria, it is even not Cameroun. The last option will
be for us to determine where we want to belong.

"The issue of Bakassi is not the same as that of Borno, Lake Chad or
Adamawa. Maybe they were occupying peoples' land. Because of the
Lake
Chad water, maybe they were fishing there and as the water was going
down, they were following it and they went down and left Nigerian
territory. Our own is not so. Our water has never gone down. Bakassi
is our land and we will not accept anything than for us to stay in
our God-given area, territory and in Nigeria.

"We are going to take our destiny into our own hands. After all we
had been existing in Bakassi before Nigeria. We had our own
government, we had everything. We stayed there until Nigeria came,
until government even came. Even local government, we didn't have
both, we were still there. So, if at the end of the day, they say the
don't want us, I mean Nigeria, we will say, thank you and bye-bye.

"We will now ask the United Nations, `We want to stand by
ourselves,
we want to determine where we want to be.' So, we have various
options."

Also the lawmaker representing Bakassi local government area in the
Cross River State House of Assembly, Hon. Joe Etene, reacted sharply
to government's plan.

He corroborated the paramount ruler's statement that government
has
betrayed the Bakassi people.

He noted that Cameroun has not been able to manage its affairs as the
people of Southern Camerouns are agitating to break out of Cameroun
Republic to form their own Ambazoria Republic and wondered what the
situation would be like should Bakassi people join them.

"So, to cede a Nigerian territory and then push the people to
forceful exile and slavery is a situation we cannot accept. It is
either we remain in Nigeria or we pursue our right to self-
determination as a people recognised by the African Charter and the
United Nations Charter. We have a right to self-determination," the
legislator maintained.

In the National Assembly, Senator David Brigidi (Bayelsa) said that
the Senate was yet to be briefed on the proposed surrendering of 33
villages to Cameroun.

Senator Brigidi said that the Senate is supposed to be briefed by the
executive arm of government regarding the "full implementation of the
ICJ ruling."

He said he would not make further comments until "we are briefed
because it borders on country to country relationship. We should
know."

Speculation was rife in the House of Representatives that the South
South caucus of the National Assembly will meet this weekend over the
decision to cede the 33 villages to Cameroun.

However, most lawmakers yesterday declined comment on the planned
surrender.

Some lawmakers who were contacted declined comment on the ground that
they were yet to be properly briefed on the circumstances leading to
the said decision to cede the 33 villages.

Some lawmakers said "we need to understand what informed such sudden
decision before we can comment on the decision to surrender the 33
villages to Cameroun."

Chairman of the House Committee on Internal Affairs, Hon West Idahosa
(Edo) and his counterpart on the Navy, Hon. Tony Asiegbemi (Edo),
said it would not be proper for them to react now without a formal
briefing.

According to Hon. Idahosa, officials of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs are more competent to comment on the matter.

Hon. Asigbemi simply added "please, come back on Monday for my
reaction so that I can study the report."

But Dr. Harry Oranesi (Anambra) said "I will like to first know the
conditions for the said decision."

"We should know what Cameroun will give in turn to Nigeria to have
the said 33 villages," he added.




© 2001 @ Champion Newspapers Limited (All Right Reserved).

Who speaks for Akwanga's government? Who speaks for this most
important initiative since Justice Ebong splashed cold water on our
faces in 1999? Where are those who spoke for Ebong then? We did not
chide him for not having consulted A, B, D. Instead, we raised funds,
as we had not done for Ebenezer Akwanga in 1997...

The leaders who succeed in decolonizing their homelands don't look
different from other compatriots. That is why NOBODY can tell by
looking which of the present leaders will generate the sufficient
support. In 1997, some blamed Akwanga aloud (as others would later
blame Ebong in whispers); some demoted Akwanga's courage into
foolhardiness. Declaring Ebong President while he was in jail showed
the world that we too could close ranks around our dynamic figures.
Even though we did so in mere REACTION.

When Ebong went to jail, admiration for his courage rose loud
everywhere. In North America, the SCNC consensus at that time favoured
supporting Ebong's government TOTALLY; the SCNC consensus favoured
forming an Ebong Fund; the SCNC consensus favoured giving him high
visibility on the SCNC website http://www.southerncameroons.org.

And Southern Cameroonians sought to explain the roots of Ebong's
courage. None dismissed him as a youthful adventurer (he was in his
50s); none dismissed him as irrational (a Justice is the standard for
rationality in law). Ultimately, for me at least, it was Dr. Tandap's
explanation that settled, for Dr. Tandap cited Ebong's education in
Russia to explain his deliberateness relative to his Western-trained
fellow Southern Cameroonians. Once again, it is Ebong who has
demonstrated another kind of courage: the courage to compromise for
the greater good. Ebong again! Let those who know the future and the
bringer of independence downplay his ready availability for daring
roles, for roles that risk his very life...in the SCYL
tradition...once again...

Consider Minnesota. Here was another bold initiative. Like Ebong's
1999 initiative, Minnesota and the Akwanga Government have lifted our
prospects for independence to the new levels you must be deaf to
ignore. But unlike Ebong's initiative, Minnesota invited insights
TOWARDS the outcome of the Conference. The Youth League (SCYL) sought
consensus from everyone and from every group at every point during the
planning! The SNC-NA and my humble self COLLABORATED to word the
invitation to Minnesota so carefully that all who came would know
beforehand that the conference would strive to coalesce the willing,
not the unwilling, not the doubters, just the willing individual or
group. (In fact, only Ambazonia's Delegate General came as unwilling,
much to the integrity of his group...)

After all, "the battle is not [guaranteed] to the strong, nor the race
to the swift"; nor to the cautious, nor to the overly cautious; nor to
the calculating, nor to the overly calculating; nor to the reckless...
My God, independence is not guaranteed to those who just pray or just
fight.

A "balanced representation" in our situation is ABSURD! God does not
balance his gift of courage according to counties in Southern
Cameroons. In these situations, tasks select the heroes; people CANNOT
vote the braves out of the woodwork!  So "let us not forget that we
are in a war situation... that the full interplay of democracy and
regional balance can hardly apply in...a 'war' situation where
individuals have to be willing to step forward and be ready to pay
even the ultimate price...". That is Professor Anyangwe spiking, and I
wish more Southern Cameroonians listened now, instead of supposing
that he is saying something other than that the Akwanga move is just
another opportunity for Southern Cameroonians to close ranks as we did
when Ebong went to jail!

Anyone who doubts that this is a wartime Government certainly did not
come to Minnesota. Or did not follow deliberations there. Or
misunderstood it all.

We have here another opportunity for you and I to take a solidary
stand behind this Government. It truly is our separate and collective
right to drive out our colonizer. Yes, by any effective means,
including those that the United States used to drive out its own
oppressor.

The right to SEIZE the initiative from others is also universal, for
no group can GURANTEE that its methods will produce independence
before other methods. So it is this Government's right to seize the
initiative from others, and our DUTY to support its right to that
initiative.

To those who prefer talk and prayer for decolonization, we fraternally
advise that this France/Cameroun enemy is not like Britain in India
(with the semblance of a conscience): it France in Rwanda! Let us not
pretend to the world that our First Government is different (in a bad
way) from other self-defense groups that drove out colonizers
elsewhere. Telling the world that our First Government is bad is like
releasing your chickens into the moonlight: wait for dawn... and the
Sign of the Rising Sun.

Mullih TayQyoba Ngenge, Ph.D.

Fellow members:

For the month of November 2003, and in continuation of our series of
articles to provide a global and strategic context in DeGaulle's "gift [The
Southern Cameroons] to France from the Queen of England," we bring you another
article about the instincts and policies of the French government in Africa.

After the under-reported genocide (200,000 to 300,000 killed) in the Bamileke
country of La Republique du Cameroun running up to her independence on January
1, 1960, Rwanda became another laboratory for the showcase of a Gaullist
France facing nationalistic resistance.

The French government's role in Rwanda is telling, and resonates with
her official view of self-determining African peoples.







An Active French Role in the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda


----------------------------------------------------------------------

By William Pfaff - International Herald Tribune

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PARIS - The rumors were right. A devastating series of articles just
published in the Paris newspaper Le Figaro by its Africa specialist,
Patrick de Saint-Exupéry, documents French official implication in
the genocide committed in Rwanda in 1994.
Le Figaro quotes aid workers, officials and soldiers, together with
evidence acquired by the United Nations in Rwanda and by a
comprehensive Belgian parliamentary investigation whose damning
results were published last month.

The newspaper says French forces took an active but secret part in
fighting rebel Tutsi infiltration of Rwanda from 1992 forward,
operating at front-line level. They were present during the 1994
genocide, and did not intervene. They helped the authors of genocide
to escape.

The Tutsi invasion of Rwanda began in 1990, launched from English-
speaking Uganda and supported by the Ugandan government. It was an
attempt by this ethnic minority (some 10 percent of the Rwandan
population) to reconquer a country they had ruled for the better part
of the last two centuries. Most Tutsi leaders had been driven into
exile in the 1960s and 1970s.

The Hutu numerical predominance in Rwanda and presumed democratic
legitimacy are why France originally backed them against the
invaders. But France was also motivated by what Mr. de
Saint-Exupéry
calls the ''Fashoda syndrome'' - President François Mitterrand's
conviction that the Tutsi invasion was part of an effort by the
United States to end French influence in Africa.

(In 1898, France and Britain came close to war over control of the
upper Nile region when French and British expeditions confronted one
another at the town of Fashoda, in what now is southern Sudan.)

Murders of Tutsi civilians began in early 1992. Belgian intelligence
reported the existence of a secret Hutu government command charged
with ''exterminating the Tutsi of Rwanda ... in order to make a final
solution to the ethnic problem, and also to crush the (moderate) Hutu
political opposition.''

Western ambassadors made a joint protest to the Rwandan government in
1992 about the killings. The French ambassador refused to take part,
saying the reports of mass murder were ''only rumors.''

At roughly that same time, the Ugandan-based leader of the Tutsi
visited Paris, and was told at the Foreign Ministry that unless the
invasion stopped, ''your brothers and families ... will all be
massacred.''

In February 1993, an international commission denounced ''acts of
genocide'' in Rwanda. President Mitterrand reportedly remarked to an
associate the following summer: ''In countries like that, a genocide
is not very important.''

The genocide proper began on April 6, 1994. By July more than a
million Tutsi of Rwanda were slaughtered by Hutu fellow citizens,
encouraged in this terrifying campaign by their government.

France's collaboration with the Hutu authorities continued for at
least another month. There was a delivery of arms by way of Goma in
Zaire as late as July 18, long after a United Nations embargo had
mandated a halt to all arms shipments.

A French military intervention was launched at the end of June. It
was announced as a humanitarian mission but actually covered the
retreat into Zaire of Hutu soldiers, militias and the officials
responsible for the massacres - including those responsible for the
fanatical ethnic propaganda that had incited genocide.

This policy of supporting the authors of genocide was chiefly the
responsibility of Mr. Mitterrand, who under the French constitution
is the ultimate authority in foreign policy.

It was carried out, and covered up, by successive conservative and
Socialist governments, including the Socialist government now in
power.

At present, in Bordeaux, the trial continues of Maurice Papon, an
official of the wartime Vichy regime who is accused of crimes against
humanity for having collaborated in Vichy's handing over of foreign
and French Jews for extermination by Nazi Germany. His defense is
that as a civil servant he obeyed orders, and had little personal
latitude to resist.

This past week France celebrated the centenary of Emile Zola's famous
article ''J'accuse'' denouncing the gross injustice done to Captain
Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer falsely accused of espionage and
condemned to life imprisonment. Zola was forced into exile by that
article, but Dreyfus was later vindicated.

Mr. de Saint-Exupéry writes that there is much bitterness in the
French army today because of the role it was ordered to play in the
Rwandan genocide. He quotes an internal army document which speaks of
soldiers who ''cracked, not because of the corpses and violence and
hunting down of victims ... but because of a sense of guilt.''

There has been no open polemic, thanks to military discipline and
esprit de corps, as well as to ingrained cynicism about politicians.
The soldiers have been silent in public, although the articles in Le
Figaro clearly draw on private confidences.

The army has been abandoned before by French governments, left with
terrifying responsibilities for crimes committed by political
leaders. Yet it must re-cognize the irony in the coincidence of these
revelations with the Papon trial and with Zola's great cry for
justice.

How desperate for breakthrough these relics can be that they will submit
demands to police officers, send out press  release when traitors kiss the
flag and at the same time condemning others for being traitors and
ex-convicts.At the appropriate hour they will all like Peter refuse they
have never known the SCNC

HOPE EVERYONE OF YOU IS CARRYING ON WELL. WELL HERE ATTACHED ARE
SOME DOCUMENTS  I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO HAVE IT AND READ AS WELL AS
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE YOUR OPINION.
MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL

CHIEF AYAMBA E. OTUM

CHAIRMAN,

SCNC.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FDR_SouthernCameroonsPeople-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .

Dr. Ayim,
My guess is that everybody wants to be schooled on
this, not Dr. Atang alone. Is there any way you can
send us all the required information?

Bedes Tamasang


--- "Dr. Martin Ayim" <ayim46@...> wrote:

---------------------------------

Dr. Atang:

I will call you about it. Thanks

LongLive the Struggle for Self Determination;


Long Live The Federal Democratic Republic of Southern
Cameroons (www.southerncameroons.org)



Paradise Lost: Paradise Regained.



Martin Ayim Ph.D., MPH




"You may never know what results come from your
action.  But if you do nothing, there will be no
results." -  Gandhi








>From: "Dr. Christopher Atang"
>Reply-To: FDR_SouthernCameroonsPeople@yahoogroups.com

>To: fdr_southerncameroonspeople@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: [fdr_southerncameroonspeople] HOW TO
MAKE TAX DEDUCTIBE DONATIONS TO FOUNDATION
>Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:47:10 -0800 (PST)
>
>Martin:
>May I be informed about the relationship of this
Foundation with the Southern Cameroons struggle? No
explanation was advanced, hence my question to seek
clarification. Additionally, I have not heard of it in
official Southern Cameroons debates and discussions.
Can you, please, inform me?
>Christopher
>
>"Dr. Martin Ayim" wrote:
>
>
>Folks:
>
>This is how to make tax deductible DONATIONS to the
foundation. See attachment.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a
FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
>Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>fdr_southerncameroonspeople-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
>
>
> > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword
name=DONATIONS.doc
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears



---------------------------------
  Want to check if your PC is virus-infected?  Get a
FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
FDR_SouthernCameroonsPeople-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

HI ALL

HOPE EVERYONE OF YOU IS CARRYING ON WELL. WELL HERE ATTACHED ARE
SOME DOCUMENTS  I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO HAVE IT AND READ AS WELL AS
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE YOUR OPINION.
MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL

CHIEF AYAMBA E. OTUM

CHAIRMAN,

SCNC.

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Folks:

This is how to make tax deductible DONATIONS to the foundation. See attachment.

---

Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fdr_southerncameroonspeople-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword name=DONATIONS.doc

THE NON-EXECUTION OF UNO RESOLUTION 1608 (XV) & 5 OF 21/04/1961 ON THE
FUTURE OF THE TRUST TERRITORY OF THE SOUTHERN CAMEROONS UNDER UNITED KINGDOM
ADMINISTRATION:  NO TREATY OF THE UNION BETWEEN THE THEN GOVERNMENT OF
SOUTHERN CAMEROONS AND LA REPUBLIQUE DU CAMEROUN WAS WORKED OUT.

	 The SCNC is writing to call the attention of the United Nations to the
non-execution of the UNO Resolution 1608 (XV), & 5 of 21/04/1961, on the
Future of the Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons under United Kingdom
Administration:  No Treaty of the Union between the then Government of
Southern Cameroons and la Republique du Cameroun was worked out.
The above-mentioned paragraph states, viz:
& 5.  “Invites the Administering Authority, the Governments of the Southern
Cameroons and the Republic of Cameroon to immediately engage in talks in
view of taking, before 1 October 1961, necessary measures for the
implementation of policies agreed on and declared by the parties concerned”
								 (994th plenary session, 21 April 1961).

This required that, a Treaty of the Union between the Governments of
Southern Cameroons and la République du Cameroun with the United Kingdom, as
the Administering Authority of Southern Cameroons Trust Territory be worked
out, before 1 October 1961.  The Treaty was to protect the interests of both
Southern Cameroons and la République du Cameroun.  The worked-out Treaty
should have been ratified by the Southern Cameroons’ territorial Assembly
and the parliament of la République du Cameroun; and the Treaty should have
been registered and a copy deposited in the Secretariat of the Secretary
General of the United Nations Organisation in application of Article 102 (1)
of the United Nations Charter.

That Article states, viz, “Every Treaty and every international agreement
entered into by any member of the United Nations after the present Charter
comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the
Secretariat and published by it”.

La République du Cameroun had become a member of the UNO in September 1960.
So she was aware of the above Article.
Unfortunately, the Treaty was never worked out.  What is found today is the
following, viz;
	 1 – 1st September, 1961 in Yaounde, la République du Cameroun, Mr AHMADOU
AHIDJO, the then President of la République du Cameroun revised his
constitution of la République du Cameroun of 21st February 1960 and imposed
it on Southern Cameroonians and their territory on 1st October 1961.  This
is what Article 1 paragraph 1 and Article 59 of Mr AHIDJO’S constitution of
the Federal Republic of Cameroon which came into effect on 1st October 1961
state, viz;
	 Article 1 & 1 : “- the Federal Republic of Cameroon is formed, as from 1st
October 1961, of the territory of the Republic of Cameroon, henceforth
called East Cameroon, and the Territory of the Southern Cameroons formerly
under United Kingdom administration, henceforth called West Cameroon”.

Article 59 “- The present provisions, by which the constitution of the
Republic adopted on 21st February 1960 by the Cameroonian people is revised,
shall enter into force on 1st October1961.  The revised constitution shall
be published in French and in English, the French text being authentic”.

2- Mr AHIDJO’S Federal constitution of 01/09/1961 on Southern Cameroons’
territory was a violation of & 5 of the UNO Resolution 1608 (XV) of
21/04/1961 for a Treaty of the Union to be worked out between Southern
Cameroons’ territory and la République du Cameroun.

3- The United Kingdom signed an Edict on 27/09/1961 ending its
administration of Southern Cameroons’ Trust Territory without ensuring that
a Treaty was worked out between Southern Cameroons and la République du
Cameroun in execution both of the above UNO Resolution and the Trusteeship
Agreement signed on 13 December 1946 with the United Nations Organisation at
New York.

4- So Mr AHIDJO’S extension of his administration to Southern Cameroons’
territory was from the onset – 01/10/1961 – illegal and illegitimate in
international law.  It was an invasion.  It was a violation of Southern
Cameroonians’ right to self-determination and independence.  So the present
administration of Mr Paul BIYA on Southern Cameroons’ territory is still
illegal and illegitimate in international law.

5- The UNO Secretary General who should have ensured that UNO Resolution
1608 (XV) & 5 of 21/04/1961 was executed, His Excellency Dag Hammarskjold
died in a plane accident in Africa in September 1961.  His successor, His
Excellency, U Thant was appointed Acting Secretary General in November 1961.
And he was appointed full Secretary General in November 1962. So in
September 1961 and October 1961, there was no full Secretary General of the
UNO, who could have ensured the full and legal execution of the UNO
Resolution 1608 (XV) & 5 of 21/04/1961 on the southern Cameroons’ Future.

The Way Forward – Today

1. The quest for Self-Determination and Independence of Southern
Cameroonians and their territory is still a burning issue.  The UNO should
ensure that the Self-Determination and Independence of Southern Cameroons’
Territory is Rectified and Regularised according to Article 76 b of the UNO
Charter.

2. The present on-going Nigeria –La République du Cameroun mixed commission
on their border problems provides an opportunity for the Southern Cameroons’
independence issue to be raised and regularised.  Why?  Because since UNO
Resolution 1608 (XV) & 5 of 21/04/1961 was not executed according to
international law, la République du Cameroun had and has no legal right to
claim Sovereignty over Bakassi Penisula in Southern Cameroons.  This is in
accordance with Article 102 (2) of the UNO Charter with states, viz; “ –No
party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been
registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article
may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.
“La République du Cameroun should withdraw its illegal and illegitimate
administration from Southern Cameroons’ territory immediately and
progressively.  It should also encourage Southern Cameroonians to continue
to work for their sovereign self-determination and independence  through the
United Nations Organisation to ensure international peace and security.
Exiled Southern Cameroonians should be called back home.  All SCNC prisoners
too should be released.  And damages be paid to their families i.e. of those
alive or dead.

3. This means a UNO Transitional Adminstration should take over Southern
Cameroons’ territory to ensure that Southern Cameroonians prepare themselves
for their Independence and Future Government and Adminstration of their
territory.  The presence of the UNO Adminstration on Southern Cameroons’
territory will not only ensure international peace and security in Southern
Cameroons’ but will also reduce the unnecessary tensions between Southern
Cameroonians and la Republique du Cameroun.  Legitimacy and legality of
Southern Cameroons’ independence will be endorsed.  East Timor became
independent recently.  A war is not necessary.

So, the National Council is requesting the Secretary General of United
Nations, to make use of his “good offices” –drawing upon his stature and
impartiality –in the interests of “preventive diplomacy” –to bring to the
attention of the Security Council and the UNO General Assembly,
1. The Non-Execution of UNO Resolution 1608 (XV) & 5 of 21/04/1961 on
Southern Cameroons’ Future.
2. The urgent Rectification and Regularisation of the self-Determination and
Independence of Southern Cameroons’ territory in application of the UNO
Resolution 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960, Declaring on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
3. The Admission of the Southern Cameroons’ State after independence to the
United Nations Organisation as a full member in application of Art 4 of the
UNO Charter.

Just as UNO Resolution 1349 (XIII) & 1, 2 and & 3 of 13 March 1959, gave
Independence to the State of la République du Cameroun on 01/01/1960 and an
Assembly elections were conducted and it (Resolution) recommended that la
République be admitted as a member of the UNO in application of Article 4 of
the UNO Charter. So too, Southern Cameroonians today, want a UNO Resolution,
Granting them the right to enjoy their Independence and Admission as a
member of the United Nations Organisation in application of Article 4 of the
UNO Charter.

The Southern Cameroons National Council, (SCNC), is grateful to writers and
researchers on the Southern Cameroons’ Question.  The Council particularly
acknowledges Professor Martin CHIA ATEH.


Chief Ayamba Ette Otun
(National Chairman (SCNC)




This e-mail transmission and any attachments to it are intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain
confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient, your use, forwarding, printing, storing,
disseminating,distribution, or copying of this communication is prohibited.
If you received this communication in error, please notify the sender
immediately by replying to this message and delete it from your computer.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Fellow members:

Following the passing of UN Resolution 1608(XV)and the creation of
the Federal Republic of Cameroon (Ex-French Cameroon and Ex-British
Southern Cameroons), Charles DeGaulle declared that the ex-British
Southern Cameroons, "became a gift to France from the Queen of
England."
We will have an ongoing injection of articles in the forum which will
endeavour to put our ongoing colonization in the context of the
Gaullist view of Africa. This context, I believe our people must
understand as we seek to dislodge this persona which has been imposed
on the peoples of Ex-British Southern Cameroons.

Thank you,
The Moderator



HOWARD W. FRENCH
"France Seeks to Hold Africa in Its Grip,"
New York Times, December 6, 1996

----------------------------------------------------------------------

KINSHASA, Zaire -- When Jacques Chirac won the French
presidency last year, returning conservatives to power, champagne
toasts were offered in some African capitals by leaders who expected a
return of the cozy paternalism that had marked Gaullist policy toward
Africa for more than three decades.

Chirac had criticized his socialist predecessor, Francois Mitterrand,
for creating a policy that tied French aid to the continent to each
country's move toward democracy.

But far from ushering in a return to a comfortable past, Chirac's
tenure has coincided with one of the most turbulent periods in
France's long and deep involvement in Africa. Increasingly, in both
France and Africa,people have begun to wonder if Paris's special
relationship with the continent can or should survive.

Even as a biannual summit meeting of the French president with African
leaders opened on Thursday in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, Chirac's
speech on the planned theme of the two-day gathering -- "good
governance" -- was overshadowed by developments that seemed to
underscore Paris's waning influence.

On Thursday morning, army mutineers in the Central African Republic,
in the midst of their third uprising this year, launched a mortar
attack on the only international hotel in the capital, Bangui. The
attack drew return fire from French troops stationed in the area,
drawing Paris into a situation it had been hoping to avoid. France
helped President Ange-Felix Patasse
quell a revolt in May, but this time, the French defense minister has
said, "there is no question of French troops entering an internal
conflict."

Last month, explaining France's insistence that the United States and
other nations participate in a proposed military force to deliver
humanitarian relief to refugees displaced by the conflict in eastern
Zaire, Chirac told his Cabinet that the era of unilateral French
intervention in Africa was over.

As France's uncertainty has deepened, its attempts to manage the
affairs of increasingly independent-minded African countries are
facing growing challenges from other Western counties and from
Africans themselves.

"France is no longer capable of imposing itself in Africa," the U.S.
ambassador here, Daniel Simpson, was recently quoted as saying in an
unusually blunt interview with four Zairian newspapers. "Neo-
colonialism is no longer acceptable."

Simpson's comments, widely publicized in France, followed remarks in
October by Secretary of State Warren Christopher that "the days are
over when Africa could be divided into spheres of influence."

Christopher's statement, made in irritation over French criticisms of
the timing of his first Africa tour, toward the end of his time in
office, have been reverberating in France, already nervous about its
hold over its former African possessions. In addition to serving as a
major outlet for French trade, investment, and employment, the
political backing of Paris's African allies in forums such as the
United Nations is vital to France's continuing sense of itself as a
world power.

Throughout Zaire's recent crisis, Paris has been frustrated by the
effective veto -- backed by a threat to shoot at French soldiers --
that Rwanda and the Zairian rebels it supports have imposed on a
French military presence in eastern Zaire.

Led by a Tutsi elite that is English-speaking because of its long
years of exile in Uganda, Rwanda has been openly defiant of France
ever since the 1994 overthrow of the Hutu leadership that carried out
mass killings against Tutsi in that country.

Never before has a French-speaking African country so clearly escaped
Paris's orbit in Africa, and France now seems haunted by the prospect
that other countries may seek to go their own way as well.

This week, with Paris seeking to steer the choice of a new U.N.
secretary-general to a French-speaker, Cameroon publicly warned
France not to veto an African choice to succeed Boutros Boutros-Ghali
if he is not a French speaker. Other former French colonies -- from
Mali and Guinea to Senegal, Congo, and the Ivory Coast -- have
branched out as well, diversifying their economic and political ties.

Hoping to attract its former colonies back into a closer embrace,
Chirac opened the Ouagadougou meeting on Thursday with a pledge not to
allow the French-guaranteed currency used by 14 African countries to
be devalued when France adopts a new European currency in two years.

Rather than the predicted sighs of relief, the promise brought a tart
response from Congo's president, Pascal Lissouba, who recalled that
France's pledges to defend the African currency two years ago had been
abruptly broken. Lissouba asked that Paris put its commitment in
writing this time.

Clear, direct, in sharp focus... Congratulations! And thank you.

Mbullih TaQyoba Ngenge

fdr_southerncameroonspeople Moderator
<fdr_southerncameroonspeople-owner@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
>Hello,
>
>I've added you to my fdr_southerncameroonspeople group at Yahoo! Groups, a
free, easy-to-use email group service. As a member of this group, you
>may send messages to the entire group using just one email address:
>fdr_southerncameroonspeople@yahoogroups.com. Yahoo! Groups also makes it easy
to store photos and files, coordinate events, and more.
>
>Here's a description of the group:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
>people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
>another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate
>and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
>them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
>should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
>
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
>deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That
>whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
>it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
>new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing
>its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
>their Safety and Happiness."
>
>We invoke this declaration and its spirit, for the peoples of the
>former United Nations Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons under
>United Kingdom Administration, who are today under the colonial occupation
>of France operating as La Republique du Cameroun.
>
>Welcome to the Federal Democratic Republic of Southern Cameroons Peoples
>Forum.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Here's my introductory message for you:
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Fellow Southern Cameroonians and Friends of The Southern Cameroons:
>
>Please, lend your voices to the chorus as we move forward to Freedom Land.
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>TO START SENDING messages to members of this group, simply send email
>to fdr_southerncameroonspeople@yahoogroups.com
>
>If you do not wish to belong to the fdr_southerncameroonspeople group, you
>can unsubscribe by replying to this message, or by sending an email to
>fdr_southerncameroonspeople-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Moderator, fdr_southerncameroonspeople
>
>
>SPECIAL NOTE FROM Yahoo! Groups:  Because Yahoo! Groups values your privacy,
>it is a violation of our service rules for moderators to add subscribers
>to a group against their wishes. If you feel this has happened, please
>notify us at abuse@yahoogroups.com
>
>P.S.  If you would like to learn more about the fdr_southerncameroonspeople
group,
>please visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fdr_southerncameroonspeople
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________________
McAfee VirusScan Online from the Netscape Network.
Comprehensive protection for your entire computer. Get your free trial today!
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/computing/mcafee/index.jsp?promo=393397

Get AOL Instant Messenger 5.1 free of charge.  Download Now!
http://aim.aol.com/aimnew/Aim/register.adp?promo=380455

It never ceases to amaze how very hypocritical indeed French foreign
policy considerations can be especially when it comes to Africa. For
a country that has displayed unrelenting opposition to the ongoing US
and British military intervention in Iraq, France appears to be
basking in the global populist imagination as perhaps the country
that not only invented the concept of "non-intervention" in other
countries' internal affairs, but is guided unambiguously by this
principle in its own policy in practice.

The robust performance of Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin
during those dramatic January-March 2003 UN Security Council debates
on Iraq would have added vivid credibility to this assumption. In one
memorable session in these debates, de Villepin's opposition to
military intervention drew unprecedented applause from even usually
reticent diplomats. Such were the liberatory contents in de
Villepin's address that one would not have been too mistaken if they
thought that these had been derived unedited from the seminal papers
of Amilcar Cabral.

Yet, a few weeks after these declarations and coupled with the
preoccupation of an international media audience intensely focused on
the unfolding Iraqi crisis, France intervened militarily in the
Central African Republic (CAR). In the wake of a coup d'etat that had
toppled the Ange-Felix Patasse regime in Bangui (CAR capital), France
sent its troops into the country under the pretext of "protecting
French nationals" - the standard French rationalisation for its
military interventions in Africa in the past 43 years which, in
reality, are aimed at protecting the extensively entrenched socio-
economic and strategic interests that Paris still wields across its
former conquered African countries.

France's mid-March invasion of the CAR is its second military
intervention in Africa this year and the 48th since 1960. Earlier on
in January 2003, France had significantly escalated its 2002
intervention in Cote d'Ivorie, to the west, by reinforcing its
overall troops' deployment to about 4000 and expanding the so-called
sandwich territory between it and the forces of the Ivorian state and
northern-based insurgents. Given the frequency and the tally of its
military interventions in Africa since 1960, France has, contrary to
prevailing international perception, the worst record of Northern
World power state military intervention in the Southern World.

Africa has been the quintessential target of French military
interventionism during this period because immanent in the worldview
of the French political establishment, irrespective of
ideological/political colouration, none of the former French-
conquered and occupied African states is really independent or
sovereign by any breadth or shade of either of these definitions"
Instead, according to this conception, these are Francophonie
backwoods which, at best, have some measure of local administrative
autonomy (hence, "Francophone Africa"!), with ultimate sovereign
power lodged at the metropolitan centre in Paris.

If recent evidence from the highest level of political authority of
the French state is required to buttress this line of thought, we
should recall that very introspectively frank declaration made on the
subject in the early 1990s by the former socialist president of
France, Francois Mitterand: "Without Africa, France will have no
history in the 21st century." It was however Mitterand's conservative
Guallist party presidential counterpart, Charles de Gaulle, who, 50
years earlier, had inaugurated the now well known French obsession to
control Africa in perpetuity. The irony of the circumstances was
indeed not lost on anyone.

Despite France's early capitulation to Germany in 1940 in the
latter"s war of aggression against its neighbours, de Gaulle, then
exiled leader of the anti-German "French Free Forces" struggling
desperately to effect French liberation, was himself vociferously
opposed to the liberation of Africa. Africa, we mustn't forget, was
then under the jackboot of French occupation and those of its British
and Belgian wartime allies. During the 1944 Brazzaville conference of
French "overseas" governors which de Gaulle chaired, he was adamant
in what he saw as his vision of the future of French-occupied
Africa: "Self-government must be rejected - even in the more distant
future."

De Gaulle's supercilious antagonism to African liberation was of
course not unique at the time. Similar sentiments were evident in the
position of Winston Churchill, the British prime minister, who
insisted that he had not attained his position as head of government
to "preside over the liquidation of the British empire." The Belgian
king and government who barely resisted Germany's attack and overrun
of their country beyond three weeks in May 1940, were themselves
equally unwilling to discontinue their occupation of Congo (Congo
Democratic Republic) after Germany's eventual defeat in 1945.

This was in spite of the central role that the Congo played in the
financing of the Belgian war effort (including the entire expenses of
the country's exiled royal family and government in London) which
totalled the grand sum of £40 million.

As a result, Belgium neither borrowed any money to pay for the war
nor was its gold reserve used. But unlike British and Belgian
leaders, de Gaulle pursued France's long time ambitions in Africa
with megalomaniac intensity in the years after 1945 - opposing
African liberation projects in the western and central regions of the
continent under French occupation as well as on the islands off the
east coast in the Indian Ocean especially Madagascar.

However in 1958, de Gaulle changed track somewhat in his anti-African
independence drive. Stung and disillusioned by the 1954 spectacular
and humiliating defeat of French forces in Vietnam and the looming
disaster in its ongoing war in Algeria, de Gaulle produced a document
for a purported future of African freedom. In the main, this document
envisioned a circumscribed African independence outcome that would
ensure continuing French political and economic hegemony in Africa.
Apart from Guinea which opposed it when it was put to a referendum,
France succeeded in imposing the document on the rest of its occupied
states, with evident compliance with some segments of the African
leadership of the restoration-of-independence movement, and the all
too familiar tragic consequences since. The stage was now set for
France to invoke the licence, at its own choosing, to intervene in
the political process of any of its prized African lands of
Francophonie: invade, intimidate, manipulate, install, antagonise,
ingratiate, indemnify, expropriate, invade, intimidate.

Not one of the 22 countries that make up francophonie escaped this
epoch of witnessing the invasion of their territory by some
contingent of the French military from one of its numerous bases in
the region or from those further away in Corsica.

Countries such as Central African Republic (or Central African Empire
as it was known when it was ruled by the very francophile acolyte and
dictator, Jean-Bedel Bokassa), Rwanda (French military intervention
was ongoing in the country as the forces of the pro-French central
government perpetrated its dreadful genocide against the Tutsi in the
mid-1990s), Burundi, Djibouti and Chad bore the brunt of the
invasions as France sought to enforce or safeguard the fortunes of
one client regime or the other. But it was the Congo Democratic
Republic (or Zaire or Congo-Kinshasa), the jewel in the crown of
francophonie, which has the unenviable record of being the most
invaded of the lot.

Between 1961 and 1996, France intervened 17 times in the country to
prop up the notorious dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko which
destroyed one of Africa"s richest economies. For France, therefore,
its hegemonic control of "Francophone Africa" in the past 40 years
has been a lucrative and prestigious rearguard quest to maintain a
stranglehold of influence in the Southern World despite the obvious
militarily weakened position of its overall international status
after the end of the 1939-1945 war.

Jacques Godfrain, who was a former head of the French foreign
ministry, is perfectly right to observe: "A little country, with a
small amount of strength, we can move a planet because [of our] ...
relations... with 15 or 20 African countries." This factor is crucial
in understanding why the seemingly "humanist" tenor of French foreign
policy rhetoric the world has witnessed lately lacks resonance in the
African auditorium.

Yet, despite its near-monolithic activity in the lives of a
generation and the resultant semblance of durability, the importance
and influence of francophonie in Africa is beginning to wane. Events
in Africa in the past 10 years have seriously weakened and undermined
its efficacy. The anti-Tutsi genocide in Rwanda, organised
premeditatedly by France's ruthless local clients in power in Kigali
whilst a French expeditionary force was operating in the country, was
a monumental indictment of the entire francophonie project in Africa.
France could not escape some complicity in this horrific slaughter of
800,000 Africans.

Pointedly, there has been a partial eclipse of French influence in
this central/southern Africa region since the genocide. The popular
overthrow and subsequent death in exile of Congolese dictator Mobutu,
during the same period, was a further blow to the fortunes of
francophonie in the region. Elsewhere in the empire, the tentacles of
francophonie were also beginning to unravel.

The situation in the Cote d'Ivoire economic powerhouse was of
particular relevance. The sudden death in 1993 of Felix Houphouet-
Boigny, the Ivorian political colossus who had been state president
since 1960, created a serious crisis of succession in the country
that still remains unresolved. In 2002, it became the background of a
tragic war between the state and insurgents in its northern region
and the precipitate collapse of Africa's most successful economy. In
Senegal, France's attempt to continue to dictate its choice of
leaders in francophonie was massively rejected in the 2000
presidential elections when Abdoulaye Wade, the veteran opposition
politician, defeated Abdou Diouf, the incumbent president and Paris"s
preferred candidate.

In a desperate effort to stem the steady decline of francophonie,
France embarked on its biennial so-called African-French summit which
extends invitation to leaders of non-league states. It was in this
context of francophonie-extension in the 1990s that France intensely
courted the friendship of Sani Abacha, the Nigerian dictator, who was
at the time internationally quarantined as a result of his regime's
gross human rights violations.

Abacha's predictable appreciation at this gesture of breaking out of
painful political and economic isolation was followed by a deft
regime decision that keyed into the inner workings of the
infrastructure of francophonie: Nigeria would hence embark on an
intensive educational/allied cultural programme to adopt French as an
additional lingua franca to English! Paris was delighted. But it was
very short-lived indeed. The lingua franca opportunism died with the
dictator in 1998!

It was also in the context of the forum of fancophonie-extension that
President Jacques Chirac insisted on his invitation of Zimbabwean
President Mugabe to last February's summit between him and African
leaders in Paris despite the European Union ban on travels to member
states by principal Zimbabwean state leaders. Chirac was of course
not interested in discussing with his guests how to find lasting
solutions to the acute crises besetting Zimbabwe nor indeed those of
the wider continent. He had literally "summoned" these leaders of
francophonie-extension to Paris to endorse a solely French- prepared,
so-called African-French Declaration on Iraq.

This was nothing but the French position on its turbulent two-
cornered diplomatic stand-off on the possibilities of a US-led war in
Iraq - against Britain and Spain in the European Union, and against
the US, Britain and Spain at the United Nations. France brooked no
debate with the visiting Africans on the subject (not to mention the
central and east European prospective members of the European Union
that it had ordered to "shut up!" for daring to oppose its stance
whilst siding with the US"s) even though it exuded enormous pride in
debating its opposition openly against both the US and Britain. Most
disgracefully, the world did not know of the independent views of the
50 visiting African heads of state who had variously travelled 3000-
12000 miles for the summit.

It was left to Cheikh Tidiane Gadio, the affable Senegalese foreign
minister, to put a brave face on an awkward situation when he
claimed, albeit unconvincingly, that the African voice had not been
heard in Paris because "we Africans, we respect our host, you don't
challenge the host!"

There was of course nothing "African" in the behaviour of these
utterly failed and failing leaders to remain silent during those two
days in Paris. Africans know that Africans speak their minds whether
they are hosts or guests... It was clearly the choice of leaders who
most of the time are at war with their own populations, their own
people, to remain silent because they lacked the integrity to state
their positions on a subject whose varying facets and strands did in
fact expose the state of their ruinous regimes back home.

Even though Gadio was doing all he could to minimise the glaring
character of the disgrace that these leaders had brought on
themselves, the implication of his assertion was nonetheless
troubling. If these leaders had remained silent and endorsed the
French position of opposition to the impending war on Iraq because
they were "" Africans [who] respect [their] host", they would equally
have remained silent and endorsed the contrary British pro-war agenda
on Iraq (because they were "Africans [who] respect [their] host") if
only Prime Minister Blair had also "summoned" them to a London summit
soon after being wined and dined and all expenses paid by the Elysee
Palace.

It is now clear that the tenuousness of francophonie in Africa,
despite French propaganda to the contrary, lies right in its
foundational premise of operations: the incorporation of a league of
nations that exists to serve French interests whilst critically
dependent on its day to day operations on usually ruthless anti-
African local leaderships. This ruthlessness is a feature of its
overarching moral and intellectual bankruptcy which ensures that it
does the bidding of such projects as francophonie or francophonie-
extension because of the firm grip that it exercises on its home turf.

Paradoxically, though, this grip is all too brittle as can be seen in
the immediate consequences on francophonie in the event of the
overthrow or death of the dictator. The French find it extremely
difficult to contemplate that with the intense African grassroots'
pressure on their inept leaderships which can only increase,
francophonie has no long-term prospects in Africa. While the overall
socio-economic situation across the continent is currently in a state
of flux, Africa is unlikely to return to that spurious stability
epoch of the Houphouet-Boignys and Senghors or the murderous
repression of the Mobutus and Bokassas which enhanced the development
of francophonie.

France will realise much sooner than later that it cannot continue to
construct some phantom prestige in international relations based on
its control of the destiny of Africa and Africans. If there is any
single lesson that France should have learnt from the Iraqi debates
earlier on in the year, it is not to confuse Bangui or Brazzaville or
Bujumbura or Bamako for Baghdad or Basra; Ndjamena or Niamey or
Nouakchott for Nasiriya or Najaf; Kinshasa or Kigali for Karbala,
Kirkuk or Kut. For the first time since 1960, the French were
confronted, even if belatedly, with the Achilles" heel of
francophonie: Africa is at once the opportunity and the limit of
French foreign policy impact in the contemporary world.



Professor Ekwe-Ekwe, contributing editor of USAfricaonline.com and
The Black Business Journal and scholar at the London School of
Economics (LSE), is the author of the critically-acclaimed book,
African Literature in Defence of History: An essay on Chinua Achebe
(African Renaissance, 2001). He also wrote the essays 'Ban all Arms
Exports to Africa' and 'Obasanjo obsession with Biafra versus facts
of history.'

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate
and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of
the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

We invoke this declaration and its spirit, for the peoples of the
former United Nations Trust Territory of the Southern Cameroons under
United Kingdom Administration, who are today under the colonial
occupation of France operating as La Republique du Cameroun.

Welcome to the Federal Democratic Republic of Southern Cameroons
Peoples Forum.

Thank you,
The Moderator