If there were an organisation higher in rank than the United Nations, maybe the British Southern Cameroonians could sue the UN there.
Africa in her geopolitical structure as we have it today, is the fruit of an arbitrary division by the European Colonisers, mapped out in history as booty in proportion to each one's taste at the time, but for Ethiopia and Liberia.
After the defeat of Germany, whom most Cameroonians still love in the First World War, The League of Nations amongst other penalties seized Kamerun which had hitherto been a German colony and handed her over to the British and the French colonial masters to prepare for independence in spite of their distinct Colonial policies: the British, the policy of Indirect Rule and the French, the infamous policy of Assimilation. Curiously, the League broke up the colony that under the Germans into two distinct parts, each with the definitive goal of independence. This is where the problem starts.
With the rise of the Second World War and the eventual collapse of the League of Nations, the United Nations saw the light of day and amongst her many tasks was that of leading the territories of the British Southern Cameroons, La Republique du Cameroun and and other African Nations there were still under the colonial yoke to independence and self rule. This is not my story. It is history and the UN, the British and the French know this better to say nothing of their documentation on the subject matter.
In the British colonial policy names above, the indegenous people were given the freedom to form political parties and engage in open politicking with one another in their pursuit of self governance. This enabled them to conserve their cultural heritage, retain their institutions and belief systems and to look up to the British just for coaching. Under this framework they raised their national assembly and council of chiefs amongst others and learnt to confront and bring their democratically elected leaders to order when they did not represent the opinion of the the common man, his electorate. "Agere sequitur esse" is a Latin expression which means that as a being is so does it act, for every being acts according to its nature. Freedom of speech therefore has been the lot of the British Southern Cameroonian, and history attests to this. Democratic principles have governed his society from the post First World War days. Calling the leaders for the British Southern Cameroonian is not a taboo topic but a right. According to the legal heritage they picked up from the British, an accused person is still innocent until proven guilty before the law. This is how he was formed. This has been his orientation. And this is why he acts the way he does. And this is just not compatible with the orientation forced through his brother who lived in La Republique du Cameroun under the French.
In La Republique du Cameroun under the French, the policy of Assimilation was practised , not just there, but in all other French colonial territories in the world. How was this colonial policy applied by France and what was their real intention? Since the French did not have any intention to leave her colonies, nor give them any independence, the real objective of assimilation was to destroy the values of the indegenous people and their social structures, teach them to look up only to France as their liberator and exemplar. It aimed at teaching them to believe that a truly civilised person was an assimilated species, assuring them of an eutopia of "fraternité, egalité and liberté". It was not therefore surprising that their cultural heritage was hacked and ruined and the capacity of free and democratic leadership was not enhanced. No wonder then that prior to the independence of La Republique du Cameroun on the First of January 1961, the French colonial despots obliged the local leadership of Yaounde to sign inter alia: to allow France all latitudes on economic policy and monetary matters, the role to chose the government for La Republique du Cameroun, assistance in crushing all rebellion and assistance in her internal security and the recognition that all mineral and natural resources "belonged" to France. No wonder then, that in the wake of her independence the French colonial army descended on the real patriots of the Cameroun masses in order to install a weaker authority in Yaounde which they could manipulate at will. The French know this much more than any African and have better documentation about this than everyone else.
But how does the UN seem to be responsible for the crisis in the British Southern Cameroons, the nation that was aborted by them when in a surprising ploy she was lured into a union with La Republique du Cameroun with whom they had enjoyed unity under the colonial era of the Germans? How could the UN receive a mandate from the League of Nations to complete the process of self rule for people and later abort the scheme? Was this in good fate or it was only to defend the egoism of France, one of the unmoved movers with veto rights under the UN? Can anyone call this fair business?
I don't fully blame the authorities in Yaounde for acting the way they have done. That is how their orientation is. That is the political vision they have known. France breathes through them and if they change their pace and perspectives, the consequences are obviously going to be a repetition of what has shown up in other French colonies. How can one expect an environment that has never been drilled in listening to the voice and opinion of the masses to act otherwise? Are those who speak English enemies to those who speak French enemies in Africa? No! They live together always and happily, but when talking about democratic principles, it is a different story altogether. And the French know this better as the economic ransack and pillage of Africa has recently been articulated by one of their own Jacques Chirac.
Do I blame the English speaking population that receives authority from Yaounde for their rise and quests? "Agere sequitur esse". They were trained to be democratic. They are a free people in their historical orientation. They call their leaders to order. They demand for accountability as a right to the common man. They like to use their own natural resources and to forment their own Educational Curriculum that is relevant to their course and vision. This is who they are.
From all these analysis there is an inclination to blame to the greatest extent the United Nations for a job started and aborted. To blame them for watching people maimed, raped, tortured, arbitrarily imprisoned according to the civil law module which maintains that everyone is found guilty before the law until proven innocent. Had these protests been centred around the interests of any of the major signatories of the UN would this silence have been the answer? I remember in tears how the UN watched the drama in Rwanda in which French arms almost brought to extinction an entire nation, and I contrast it with the show of solidarity with France by all and sundry when the Islamic terrorists stroke Paris last year.
The uprising in Cameroun looks like two brothers set into a chain reaction by a heartless father who sits somewhere enjoying the show, ready to supply, sell or lend arms.
Can the UN wash her hands clean from this crisis?