A guest on an American TV show was posed the question of which country Obama’s father came from, and her instant answer was Africa. Her answer reflects the knowledge of many Americans about what Africa is. The same applies to policy makers who know nothing about the colonial legacies of the continent which are very important in talking about democracy, freedoms and economics.
There are marked differences between Francophone and Anglophone Africa. Firstly, One is ruled from outside and the other from the inside. This is a reflection of their colonial upbringings. Anglophone Africa had indirect rule, where the British shared power with locals who administered their subjects. These subjects could question those leaders with the backing of the colonial administrators. The French ruled theirs as a part of France. All authority came from Paris. Paris was thus their boss, and they were made to feel and think French. None could ever question the authority of France (administrators). They grew up with this centralized system till date. The president appoints from ministers, Senators right down to school principals. These basic distinctions are very important for policy makers from Washington and New York, who generalized the political and economic situations in Africa.
The Differences between Anglophone (british Cameroon) and francophone (French Cameroun)
An example is the situation between British Southern Cameroon (Anglophone) and French Cameroun (Francophone). While France and French Cameroun were busy killing their subjects in the 1950s, to entrench France’s domination, the British colony of Southern Cameroon was busy building its economic and political institutions in anticipation of her independence as stipulated by the UN Trusteeship Council. They severed links Democratically with Anglophone Nigeria in 1953 – Benevolence Neutrality. They walked out of the Eastern House of Assembly in Enugu, Nigeria, without firing a shot, after poor treatment by Nigeria and her citizens. The result was that they were made an autonomous thus self-governing territory in 1954, (by Queen Elizabeth II) with EML Endeley as its First Prim Minister. During this brief period between 1953 -1961, they became black Africa’s First DEMOCRACY – blossoming multiparty system, conducting peaceful elections in which the loser democratically handed power to a successor. In their short history of independence or self-rule, they had three Prime Ministers, and effective political parties. After the fake union with French Cameroun in 1961, the political parties were forcefully dissolved by the anti-democratic French Cameroun majority. Compare this , to French Cameroun (1961 – 2020), which has had 2 presidents, no democratic transition, the same political leadership since the 50s. Their economic and political life is remotely-controlled from the center – France.
“Parliamentary elections were held in British Cameroons on 24 January 1959. The result was a victory for the Kamerun National Democratic Party, which won 14 of the 26 seats in the House of Assembly” . Of the twelve seats won by the Kamerun National Congress–Kamerun People’s Party alliance, eight were won by the KNC and four by the KPP. (More)
| Party | Votes | % | Seats | +/– |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kamerun National Democratic Party | 73,305 | 53.4 | 14 | +9 |
| Kamerun National Congress–Kamerun People’s Party | 51,384 | 37.4 | 12 | +4 |
| One Kamerun | 2,021 | 1.5 | 0 | New |
| Independents | 10,509 | 7.7 | 0 | New |
| Total | 137,219 | 100 | 26 | +13 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 205,576 | – | – | |
| Source: (Wikipedia) |
The S. Sudan Civil War and the western Double Standard
Africa is repleted with this anomaly movie. Since 1990 several countries in Europe have re-adjusted their boundaries without bloodshed. The Latest are Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo (Former Yugoslavia). In Africa, the Western King-makers exercise the most flimsy diplomatic excuses while they sell arms to the warring factions. At the end, thousands are slaughtered to achieve what would have been achieved peacefully when the demands began, as most always begin peacefully. Thousands died in the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict, South vs North Sudan and now British Southern Cameroon vs French Cameroun. These conflicts have everything in common -The believe by the bigger country that MIGHT and not FACTS are right, and that the minority must be assimilated.
ln Kamerun, the minority British Cameroonians who as an independent territory joined French Cameroon in 1961, was described as two cubes of sugar waiting to be soluble in the large pond dropped into. They were reduced to sub-humans with names like dogs, foreigners etc. French Cameroun authorities claiming sovereignty over the people, later declared war on them and moved in with an extermination strategy that the U.S Ambassador to Cameroun, Mr. Henry Balerin calls, “Targeted Killings”. Villages are being razed and more than 20,000 have so far been killed. The embarrassing thing about this is that, the UN is the architects of these killings (Eritrea and British Cameroon were forcefully joined to inhumane and bigger countries, against their wishes and rules of the UN Trusteeship Council which was to prepare these territories to self-rule). The West that assigned itself the title of King-maker watches from the sideline while human life is wasted in conflicts arising out of such incompatibilities. For them their economic and geopolitical influence supersedes mostly “Third” World Lives. With modern technology, this pretense is now clearly documented. Programs like twitter and Facebook lay these happenings daily on the dinner tables of these Decision-makers.
In 2011, after fighting the same untrustworthy partner – North Sudan, the mostly Christian South that was persecuted by the North gained her independence. More than 2 million people are estimated to have died in the war leading to this separation. Little had they settled down to build their new country when another war erupted within South Sudan itself. As usual, the King-maker – West lump it within the narrative of a s..thole, savage continent, etc. The conflict was preventable, but because of economic interest, it was allowed to fester.
riek Machar
A key player in South Sudan’s war and politics is Riek Machar. Actually, during the Sudanese Civil War, more South Sudanese died from Mr. Machar’s armies and actions than from the North’s. Here we remember the more than 2000 civilians killed at Bor, and the resulting deaths of others due to famine and diseases. We know he got more arms from North Sudan to fight John Garang’s faction. Riek Machar is a power-hungry sanguinary leader, whose mission is to be head-of-state no matter how much misery or deaths he incur on his way to that mission. In the height of the liberation war, he aligned with Omar El Bashir, against the South before switching again. The BBC says Machar is, “reputed to be a wily operator, switching sides on several occasions during the long north-south conflict as he sought to strengthen his own position and that of his Nuer ethnic group in the murky political waters of Sudan, and later South Sudan”.
The road to Sudan’s 2011 independence was murky. The North formed and equipped several groups against John Garang’s SPLM. Riek Machar was one of the conduits. In October 1993 the US Congress even hosted a meeting between Garang and Machar. This is to illustrate the point that the perpetrator will always try to muddy the waters – try to portray the victim as a few trouble makers. They will buy Washington lobbyists to write public statements. These self-determination conflicts are settled in the West through referendums, but not in Africa, as the masterminds know that a referendum will lead to a repudiation of their lobbyists and talking points. The Genocidal War of Independence in British Cameroon is mirroring the same trajectory, except that it exposes the hitherto hidden hypocrisy of some of the global policy-makers. The killings and burning are all available to them through social media.
Western Hypocrisy and the South Sudan Civil War
This hypocrisy was in full display in December 2013 when South Sudan’s new President Salvar Kiir fired his Vice President Mr. Riek Machar. He accused him and ten others of planning a coup. Mr. Riek Machar later withdrew to pick up arms. Knowing fully well of his intentions, the West never threatened Mr. Machar with firm consequences. The U.S attempted an embargo in December 2016, that would have targeted Mr. Machar, as well, but it failed for obvious reasons. Mr. Machar and his SPLM-IO (Sudan People’s Liberation Movement In Opposition) has sponsors who are hoping to get new oil deals if he succeeds. The outcome is the continuation of the narrative of Africa as a “s..thole”, savage place etc. The worst is using this external conspiracy against South Sudan, as a reason to justify silence on the genocide in British Cameroon, when Genocide Experts such as former State Department official Dr, Greg Stanton, of Genocide Watch, have stated categorically that it is a Full Genocide.
President Trump has every right and power to fire his Vice – Mike Pence. What Mike Pence cannot do is dispute his firing by picking up arms to fight Donald Trump, instead of challenging him at the ballot box. Riek Machar is notorious in using rebellion to seek office or position. Sadly he has not been confronted with serious consequences. His return to Juba this time is not the last. Each time he has come closer to leadership, he has seen it as the best way to achieve his long dream of being Mr. President, rather than the peace and stability of Sudan. British Southern Cameroon has no Riek Machar, and so for the Congress woman Karen Bass, to be comparing these two scenarios in the course of a Genocide on the minority British Cameroonians is wrong, and frustrating to the mothers and children killed each day by French Cameroun soldiers. Representative Karen Bass, holds the power to stop the genocide in British Cameroon now.
As a black leader, European interest in Africa supersedes Human Rights. Since the U.S scaled back its assistance to French Cameroun citing credible Human Rights abuses, no European country has followed suit, thus begging the question of, HOW MANY HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS ARE THERE? As of now, more than 20,000 people have been killed, with almost 6000 killed in 2019 alone (Click here for more). It is time to correct the injustice forced on British Cameroon by the UN and allies because of her resources. Assuming the false narrative about South Sudan as a failed state, (with no external blame), it doesn’t justify INJUSTICE on these people who were asking for rights as every American has done throughout history. It is wrong to force one’s daughter with a broken eye, to stay in an abusive marriage simply because, you are scared she wouldn’t make it alone when she was the breadwinner of the marriage. What British Southern Cameroon needs is an honest truth about their history and whether they want to renew their vows like Scotland did in 2014 or move out as the UK just did with the EU. Why must Africans be allowed to kill each other over facts that the world knows and is pretending. The same powers that partitioned the continent for themselves in 1884, have suddenly turned around to defend the unity of two unrelated and irreconcilable people and territories. Shouldn’t black lives matter when an African Dictator is killing his own people? Thanks for Reading.
British Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) Genocide Library 
Published by