Politics

19, December 2019

Southern Cameroons granted special status by its colonial masters ⁰

Lawmakers in French Cameroun on Wednesday adopted a draft law on decentralization granting special status to the country’s two English-speaking regions, where a deadly conflict between the army and separatists has been going on for more than two years, according to national radio.

The Cameroonian radio station explained that if the law is approved by the Senate and promulgated, the regions will be allowed to develop public policies in the areas of education and justice.

This special status was the main recommendation agreed upon by the participants at the Grand National Dialogue convened by President Paul Biya in early October to end this crisis, which has left more than 3,000 people dead.

At a time when many voices were being raised to criticise the limited legislative follow-up to this major dialogue, the National Assembly met in extraordinary session on Friday to finally examine this bill.

Most of Cameroon’s Anglophones live in these regions, who consider themselves disadvantaged compared to the country’s Francophone majority. The crisis began in November 2016, with mainly demands from teachers or lawyers, calling for more representativeness for Anglophones. Most of them called for a return to federalism, but a minority demanded independence and the proclamation of a new state, Ambazonia.

But in the face of Yaoundé‘s intransigence and the repression of peaceful demonstrations, the conflict has intensified. At the end of 2017, some of the separatists took up arms.

Since then, fighting has been raging between the army and these armed groups, taking the population in hand. Over the past two years, more than 700,000 people have had to flee their homes.

After more than two years of conflict, Yaoundé decided at the end of September, under international pressure, to organize this dialogue to resolve the crisis.

Will a special status resolve crisis?

The boycott of this meeting by the main pro-independence leaders did not prevent the participants from advocating decentralization through the creation of this “special status”. A proposal far removed from federalist aspirations, for the most moderate, and independenceist for armed groups, but which had raised hopes of a return to the price after two years of inaction.

However, these discussions have so far not been successful in bringing peace. Worse still, fighting and violence against civilians have intensified, several NGOs reported in early December.

Parliamentary elections are scheduled to be held in Cameroon in February 2020, but the two main opposition parties have announced their intention to boycott the elections, which they consider to be unrealistic due to the fighting in these two regions.

AFP with additional editing from Camcordnews

19, December 2019

Things fall apart as Biya struggles to control Southern Cameroons ⁰

The clashes that erupted between Cameroon army soldiers and Ambazonia Restoration Forces has for the fourth year running not subsided as the French Cameroun head of state Paul Biya, worked to contain his worst internal crisis in his 37 years in power by placating the people of Southern Cameroons with the so-called Special Status.

Just a month after Biya told the world in Paris, France that French Cameroun’s diabolic harsh ploy to assimilate Southern Cameroonians have failed, his soldiers have continued to battle in the streets of Southern Cameroons with Ambazonian Restoration Forces who are making the territory ungovernable. Biya has been talking to the Southern Cameroonians in his regime and has painted the jailed leadership of the Ambazonia Interim Government as extremists and separatists.

But beneath that French Cameroun common ground with some pro Yaoundé CPDM Anglophone barons, a profound division remains between the French Cameroun surrogates such Prime Minister Dion Ngute and the Ambazonia Interim Government that presently has legitimate authority in Southern Cameroons.

Whereas Dr Dion Ngute and his cream of Anglophone CPDM leaders have embraced the special status solution that seems to offer Southern Cameroonians nothing new, the Ambazonia Interim Government is demanding the restoration of the independence of British Southern Cameroons. Mr. Biya and Dr Dion Ngute need the French government to realize their goal; the Ambazonia Interim Government regards the French government as a threat.

The fundamental disagreement over goals, layered with accumulated resentments, are, ultimately, the reason hundreds of Southern Cameroonians in the Republic of South Africa have urged the Ambazonia Vice President Dabney Yerima to endorse the creation of an Ambazonia National Army.

Both Yaoundé and the Ambazonia Interim Government now seemed alarmed by the fighting going on in Southern Cameroons which in some localities include Southern Cameroonians against Southern Cameroonians.

With international pressure mounting on the regime in Yaoundé and coming mainly from the United States, Mr. Biya and his inexperienced Beti Ewondo political elites appeared to be at a standoff — each afraid of the other, and each afraid of who is planning to use the Southern Cameroons crisis to replace Biya as head of state.

The nearly four years long conflict is entering an uncertain phase, as American pressure and Biya’s health situation is compelling the French government into forcing Yaoundé to the negotiating table. Peaceful negotiations would never result in the recognition of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia by Yaoundé and the French government, so the world is in for another prolong political crisis.

President Sisiku Ayuk Tabe and his Vice, Comrade Dabney Yerima may have no choice but to accept whatever the US and Europe brings to the table if the Ambazonia Interim Government wants to retain American support for the creation of a Southern Cameroons state.

By Asu Isong in London

19, December 2019

US House of Representatives votes to impeach Trump ⁰

Donald Trump on Wednesday became the third U.S. president to be impeached as the House of Representatives formally charged him with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in a historic step that will inflame partisan tensions across a deeply divided America.

The Democratic-led House’s passage of two articles of impeachment on a mostly party-line vote sets the stage for a trial next month in the Republican-controlled Senate – friendlier terrain for Trump – on whether to convict and remove him from office.

No president in the 243-year history of the United States has been removed from office by impeachment. That would require a two-thirds majority in the 100-member Senate, meaning at least 20 Republicans would have to join Democrats in voting against Trump – and none have indicated they will.

The Senate’s top Republican, Mitch McConnell, has predicted there is “no chance” his chamber will remove Trump when it holds its trial. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after the vote she would wait to name the House managers, or prosecutors, until she knew more about the procedures for the Senate trial. She did not specify when she would send the articles to the Senate.

“So far, we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us,” Pelosi told reporters.

Trump, 73, is accused of abusing his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden, a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, as well as a discredited theory that Democrats conspired with Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 election.

Joe Biden@JoeBiden

President Trump abused his power, violated his oath of office, and betrayed our nation. This is a solemn moment for our country. But in the United States of America, no one is above the law — not even the President.

Democrats said Trump held back $391 million in security aid intended to combat Russia-backed separatists and a coveted White House meeting for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy as leverage to coerce Kiev into interfering in the 2020 election by smearing Biden.

The second article accused Trump of obstruction of Congress by directing administration officials and agencies not to comply with lawful House subpoenas for testimony and documents related to impeachment.

Trump, who is seeking another four-year term in the November 2020 presidential election, has denied wrongdoing and called the impeachment inquiry launched by Pelosi in September a “witch hunt.”

At a raucous rally for his re-election in Battle Creek, Michigan, as the House voted, Trump said the impeachment would be a “mark of shame” for Democrats and Pelosi, and cost them in the 2020 election.

“This lawless, partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democrat Party,” Trump said. “They’re the ones who should be impeached, every one of them.”

‘Here to defend democracy’

During a daylong debate before the vote, Pelosi read the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance and said: “We are here to defend democracy for the people.”

“If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty. It is tragic that the president’s reckless actions make impeachment necessary,” Pelosi said.

As the debate unfolded, Republicans accused Democrats of seeking to use an unfair, rigged process to nullify the 2016 election and influence the 2020 vote.

“The matter before the House today is based solely on a fundamental hatred of our president. It’s a sham, a witch hunt – and it’s tantamount to a coup against the duly elected president of the United States,” Republican Representative Mike Rogers said.

Republican Representative Mike Kelly compared the impeachment to the Japanese attack on Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor in 1941, calling the House proceedings another “date that will live in infamy” – similar to the words Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt used to describe the raid that killed about 2,400 people and led to America’s entry into World War Two.

The abuse of power article was passed on a 230-197 vote and the obstruction article was passed 229-198. All of the House Republicans opposed the articles, and two Democrats, Collin Peterson and Jeff Van Drew, voted no on both. Democrat Jared Golden voted against the obstruction charge but for abuse of power.

“The only part of the vote that was bipartisan was in opposition. The President is just getting stronger while support for the Democrats’ political theater has faded,” Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement.

U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a Democratic presidential candidate, voted present on both articles, declaring in a statement: “I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.”

Polarised country

Trump’s election has polarised the United States, dividing families and friends and making it more difficult for politicians in Washington to find middle ground as they try to confront pressing challenges like the rise of China and climate change.

The impeachment vote comes ahead of Trump’s re-election campaign, which will pit him against the winner among a field of Democratic contenders, including Biden, who have repeatedly criticized Trump’s conduct in office and promised to make it a key issue.

“President Trump abused his power, violated his oath of office, and betrayed our nation,” Biden said on Twitter after the vote, adding: “In the United States of America, no one is above the law — not even the president.”

Reuters/Ipsos polls show that while most Democrats want to see him impeached, most Republicans do not. Televised hearings last month that were meant to build public support for impeachment appear to have pushed the two sides further apart.

The House vote on Wednesday was just the latest, but also unquestionably the biggest, in a string of controversies that have buffeted the turbulent presidency of the New York real estate mogul and former reality TV personality.

Central to the impeachment inquiry was a July 25 telephone call in which Trump asked Zelenskiy to investigate Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who had joined the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma while his father was U.S. vice president.

Trump has accused the Bidens of corruption without offering evidence. They have denied wrongdoing.

A rough transcript of the call released by the White House showed Trump asking Zelenskiy, elected only three months earlier and eager for American support, to “do us a favor” and conduct the investigations in coordination with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Giuliani in the prior months had engaged in a concerted effort to persuade Ukraine to carry out the investigations. Testimony before House committees showed that Giuliani helped engineer Trump’s removal last May of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who was perceived as a roadblock to those investigations.

Impeachment is a remedy devised by the United States’ founders, wary of a monarch on American soil after breaking away from Britain and King George III in the 18th century, to enable Congress to remove a president who has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Only two previous presidents have been impeached. The House in 1998 impeached President Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice arising from a sexual relationship he had with a White House intern, but the Senate acquitted him. The House impeached President Andrew Johnson in 1868, focused on his removal of the secretary of war, but he was acquitted by one vote in the Senate.

In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned after the House Judiciary Committee approved articles of impeachment in the Watergate corruption scandal but before the full House could pass them.

(REUTERS)

18, December 2019

In historic move, US House set to vote to impeach Trump ⁰

The US House of Representatives is set to take a momentous and deeply polarizing vote on Wednesday when it is likely to impeach President Donald Trump on charges of abusing his office and obstructing a congressional probe.

The vote in the Democratic-controlled House is expected to fall almost entirely along party lines, underscoring the deep divide in Congress over Trump’s conduct – and the larger political schism within the nation itself.

Trump would become only the third US president to be impeached, an extraordinary check on presidential power spelled out in the US Constitution for executives who commit “high crimes and misdemeanors.” No president has ever been removed from office under its terms.

The vote, expected in the afternoon or early evening, would result in a trial next month in the US Senate in which House members would act as prosecutors. That chamber is controlled by Republicans, who have shown little interest in removing Trump from office.

House Democrats accuse Trump of abusing his power by asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, a former US vice president and a leading Democratic contender in the 2020 election. Trump is also accused of obstructing the congressional investigation into the matter.

Trump has insisted he has done nothing wrong, and on Tuesday called the process “a total sham.” He sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a lengthy letter in which he accused her of engaging in a “perversion of justice.”

(Source: Reuters)

18, December 2019

Rwanda’s Kagame ‘most likely’ to step down in 2024 ⁰

Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame says it is possible that he will not be a candidate when next citizens go to the polls in 2024.

The 62-year-old was attending a summit in Doha when he was asked about whether he will run for office again, Bloomberg quotes him as saying he personally wanted to give way to others.

“Most likely no. I want to have some breathing space but given how things are and how they have been in the past, I have made up my mind where I am personally concerned, that it is not going to happen next time.”

Kagame has been been president of the tiny East African nation since 2000. He won his current mandate (his third term) in 2017 elections in which he scored 99% of the vote.

A controversial referendum in 2015 allowed the two-term constitutional limit to be lifted allowing him to contest in 2017. When the current seven-year term ends he could seek two more five-year terms according to the constitution.

In an interview with Jeune Afrique news website in 2017, Kagame stressed that Rwanda could thrive even in his absence, in response to whether or not he will contest beyond the 2017 elections.

‘I think so, yes. And it is likely that I will clarify this point soon when I enter the election campaign. There is a sort of contract between me, on the one hand, the RPF party and the Rwandan people, on the other.

“The fear you express would be justified if the Rwandan society was static, frozen. But it’s just the opposite. Like our economy, our institutions and our skills, our society evolves and enters into a virtuous dynamic.

“They wanted me, through the constitutional referendum of December 2015, to continue my work, which I accepted. But the time has come to tell them that they must start thinking, beyond my person,” Kagame said in response to stepping down.

But in 2012, Kagame expressly ruled out running for a third term. He told the World Policy Journal he was ready to respect constitutional limits and give way when the time came.

“We have the constitution in place. We have term limits. I’m serving my second and last term. I’m just hoping that another suitable person will come and continue with the work we are doing and not reverse it or break it up.”

Kagame, who won a third term in 2017, has faced mounting criticism for what human rights groups say are widespread abuses, a muzzling of independent media, and suppression of political opposition. He denies wrongdoing. He first came to power in 2000.

Paul Kagame, 62 years
Profession: Soldier
Became President: 2000 – till date
Predecessor: Pasteur Bizimungu
Presidential reign: 19 years

he man Paul Kagame – A brief profile

Paul Kagame was born in October 1957 in Rwanda’s Southern Province. His family fled pre-independence ethnic persecution and violence in 1960, crossing into Uganda where Kagame spent thirty years as a refugee.

Kagame joined current Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and his group of guerrilla fighters to launch a war to free Uganda from dictatorship. Under the new government, he served as a senior military officer.

In 1990, he returned to Rwanda to lead the Rwandan Patriotic Front’s (RPF) four-year struggle to liberate the country from the autocratic and divisive order established since independence.

Led by Kagame, the Rwanda Patriotic Army defeated the government in July 1994 and the RPF subsequently set Rwanda on its current course towards reconciliation, nation building and socio-economic development.

Paul Kagame was appointed Vice-President and Minister for Defense in the Government of National Unity on July 19, 1994, and four years later was elected Chairman of the RPF, a partner in the Government of National Unity.

On 22 April 2000, Paul Kagame took the oath of office as President of the Republic of Rwanda after being elected by the Transitional National Assembly. He won the first ever democratic elections held in Rwanda in August 2003 and was re-elected to a second seven-year mandate in August 2010.

In 2015, two years to this years’ polls which he was not eligible to stand in, he proposed a constitutional referendum which was largely endorsed allowing him to contest in the upcoming elections.

Source: Africa News

18, December 2019

US House Speaker Pelosi calls Trump impeachment letter ‘ridiculous’ and ‘really sick’ ⁰

US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi has blasted President Donald Trump’s insult-laden letter urging her to halt the impeachment proceedings, describing the letter’s content as “ridiculous” and “really sick.”

Pelosi, the highest ranking Democrat in Congress, told reporters on Tuesday that she had not gotten the opportunity to read the Republican president’s whole letter, which accused Democrats of waging an “unconstitutional abuse of power” by moving forward with an impeachment vote.

“It’s ridiculous,” she said. “I mean, I haven’t really fully read it, we’ve been working. I’ve seen the essence of it though and it’s really sick.”

The president’s letter accused Pelosi of putting on a “false display of solemnity” throughout the inquiry and declared that “no intelligent person believes what you are saying.”

In Trump’s letter to Pelosi earlier on Tuesday, he issued a stark warning to congressional Democrats, saying that if they pursue impeachment against him, they will be “declaring war on American democracy.”

Trump also called any impeachment effort an “illegal partisan coup.” He issued the charges one day before a possible House debate on approving articles of impeachment against Trump.

Trump is this week likely to become the third US president to be impeached.

The House is likely to take up impeachment on Wednesday, setting the stage for a vote this week on whether to approve charges stemming from his effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 23-17 on Friday along party lines to approve the two charges against Trump and to send the matter to the full chamber.

If the charges are approved in the House, the matter would be sent to the Republican-led Senate to hold a trial on whether to remove Trump from office.

Democrats, who enjoy a 36-seat majority in the House, are expected to win an impeachment vote, which requires a simple majority.

Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats in the Senate, where they appear likely to prevail in any trial against Trump, which would require a two-thirds majority of those present to remove him from office.

No US president has been removed as a direct result of impeachment.

Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before he could be removed, while Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached by the House, respectively in 1868 and 1998, but not convicted by the Senate.

Democrats have accused Trump of endangering the US Constitution, jeopardizing national security and undermining the integrity of next year’s US presidential election by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in a July phone call to investigate Biden and his son Hunter Biden, who was on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.

Republicans have defended Trump and accused Democrats of a partisan effort aimed at overturning his upset 2016 victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton. Trump has branded the entire impeachment drive a sham.

Source: Presstv

16, December 2019

US: President Trump posing ‘threat’ to national security ⁰

US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler has defended the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, calling the US president a “threat” to national security.

Nadler said in an interview with ABC News on Sunday that the “integrity” of US elections was at risk since Trump had solicited foreign interference in the previous vote.

“This president conspired, sought foreign interference in the 2016 election,” the House Judiciary Committee chairman said. “He is openly seeking interference in the 2020 election and he poses a continuing threat to our national security and to the integrity of our elections to our democratic system itself. We cannot permit that to continue.”

House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) speaks to the media after the Committee voted on the two articles of impeachment against US President Donald Trump in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill December 13, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by AFP)

Trump’s election campaign is accused of having colluded with the Russian government to try to influence the 2016 presidential election.

US intelligence agencies claim Moscow meddled in the election with a campaign of email hacking and online propaganda aimed at sowing discord in the United States, hurting Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and helping Trump.

Both Trump and Russia have repeatedly denied the accusations.

Schiff backs impeachment case

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff was the other leading Democrat that defended the the impeachment case against Trump and described obstruction of Congress as the “most serious of the articles” of impeachment against the US president.

Schiff also slammed his Republican colleagues for allowing the White House to ignore congressional subpoenas.

“Going to court is not an impeachable offense but stonewalling completely, refusing to comply with the oversight of Congress, particularly during an impeachment inquiry is,” Schiff said.

Schiff cautioned that if the Republican party is “prepared to say a president of the US can simply say no to any Congressional subpoena and tie up Congress for years in litigation, it is going to have to accept corruption, malfeasance, negligence, misconduct, in any future president, Democrat or Republican.”

“In many respects, I think this is the most serious of the articles because it would fundamentally alter the balance of power and allow for much greater misconduct in the chief executive of the country,” he said.

The US president is facing an impeachment inquiry in the US House over pressuring Ukraine to find dirt on his political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running to beat him in the 2020 election.

‘I’d impeach Obama if he did the same as Trump’

Elsewhere in his remarks, the House Intelligence Committee chairman said that he would even support impeaching former President Barack Obama if he had committed the same alleged offense that led to approving articles of impeachment against Trump.

“I don’t think any of us have any question that had Barack Obama engaged in the activity, the conduct which is the subject these articles of impeachment, every one of these Republicans would be voting to impeach him,” Schiff said. “And you know something, I have to hope to hell, George, if it were Barack Obama, I would vote to impeach him.”

Source: Presstv

15, December 2019

Southern Cameroons Special Status: Quotable Quote ⁰

The so-called special status is an insult. Did our parents, grandparents vote in 1961 for special status? Was the question in the plebiscite: Vote to join Nigeria or the Republic of Cameroon and acquire special status? What makes Southern Cameroon aka Ambazonians special? How special shall we be? I know since we are not citizens of the Republic of Cameroon, we can never become President of another man’s country. That is right.

However, why do Ambazonians have to have special status in the Republic of Cameroon? Is it on trade terms in relation to the other nations of the world? Is it special status so that we allow them exploit our natural resources and leave us hopeless?

La Republique du Cameroon can fool the so-called selfish self styled in Yaoundé but they cannot fool us the real Ambazonians. We gave them 57 years to think and change but they never did. They can give the special status to South Region of their country. What they are trying to do is called, Too little too late! Ambazonians

15, December 2019

Neocolonialism spurs ongoing crisis in Cameroon ⁰

In October 2019, Nebane Abienwi, a 37-year-old Cameroonian man, died in ICE custody in San Diego. Abienwi was one of at least 10,000 Cameroonians seeking asylum in the United States. The recent increase in Africans being detained at the U.S.-Mexico border is largely a result of this exodus of people from Cameroon.

Many factors are causing heightened emigration from Cameroon, perhaps the primary one being the “Anglophone crisis.” Since 2016, there has been significant unrest and government repression in the western English-speaking (Anglophone) regions of Cameroon. Much of the media coverage has depicted protesters in the western regions as fighting to defend their “Anglo-Saxon heritage.”

Of course, Cameroon is a West African country. Its peoples’ histories date back thousands of years, the vast majority of which were lived without the exploitative presence of British colonialism. So why in 2019, nearly 60 years after Cameroon’s official independence, is British “heritage” given so much consideration in this West African nation?

Cameroon: 1884 to the present

Cameroon’s changing boundaries. Orange=German Kamerun, Red=British Cameroons, Blue=French Cameroun, Green=Republic of Cameroon. By Roke – Self-made based on public domain CIA map Image:Cameroon Map.jpg, original svg file located here., CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=938868

To understand the current climate in Cameroon, one must understand its history. Germany claimed Cameroon as a colony in 1884 in the wake of the Berlin Conference, in which the major colonial powers of the time met to arbitrarily carve up the lands of Africa amongst themselves, without consideration for the desires of the incredibly diverse populations of Africa.

However, Germany’s control over Cameroon was short-lived. As capitalism entered its imperialist phase towards the turn of the 1900s, competition increased between the European powers over control of the various colonized nations, culminating in World War I. In 1919, after defeating Germany in WWI, France and England took possession of Germany’s colonies in the Global South, clearly revealing the inter-imperialist character of the war.

Cameroon — its borders already artificially constructed after the Berlin Conference — was once again arbitrarily reshaped. England took control of the smaller western regions of the country, and France claimed the eastern regions. As the 20th century progressed, like in most African nations, a national liberation movement developed in Cameroon. The movement was led by the Union of the Populations of Cameroon. The UPC led an armed struggle on the platform of national reunification and radical social proposals such as land redistribution, increased salaries for workers, and universal education.

In an attempt to undermine these growing, militant and principled movements, France strategically “granted” its many African colonies independence in 1959. In 1960, Cameroon and 12 other former French colonies were officially made independent. Far from an act of kindness, this was a strategic decision by France to install neocolonial governments in their former colonies — administrations that kept their nations’ people and resources subservient to French interests but led by native elites to present the appearance of national sovereignty.

In Cameroon, France appointed career politician Ahmadou Ahidjo as president. In a 1958 speech, Ahidjo described his allegiance to France, the nation that had exploited his own people for the past 40 years: “How can we conceive having any other partner than this country we know and love? How can we forget its accomplishment all these years that we have learned to understand and appreciate her. … ” (Takougang and Krieger, African State and Society in the 1990s, 1998) In collaboration with French military and intelligence agencies, Ahidjo’s government brutally crushed the UPC movement.

The English-controlled western regions were also granted independence in 1960. Part of the territory voted to join Nigeria, and the other part voted to join Cameroon. The French- and English-speaking regions of Cameroon designed a federated constitutional arrangement, and the English-speaking elites were folded into Ahidjo’s single-party administration. National reunification was at least partially achieved in 1961, but not in the manner the UPC and its supporters envisioned. When independence is granted and not won, it is done so on the terms of the colonizing powers.

In its 60 years of nominal independence, Cameroon has had two presidents: Ahidjo and Paul Biya, the current president. Both men were born in the French-speaking region of Cameroon, and both have maintained a subordinate position to France and the West more broadly. Major local industries are still owned and controlled by European interests.

For example, Cameroon’s largest export by far is oil. While there is a state-owned oil company in Cameroon, two of the largest and most profitable oil companies in the country, Total E&P and Perenco, are based in France (and Perenco is a Franco-British joint project). Perenco is the largest oil producer in Cameroon, while Total E&P is the largest distributor of finished petroleum products.

Additionally, after accepting an International Monetary Fund loan in 1988, Biya’s government bent to the West’s will to an even greater degree and implemented a Structural Adjustment Program, which included significant cuts to Cameroon’s national budget and the privatization of many “parastatal” companies (Takougang and Krieger, 1998). Finally, France still controls Cameroon’s currency and treasury.

Neocolonialism, neoliberalism, and the Cameroonian elite’s complicity in the continued exploitation of the Cameroonian masses have led to high inequality and low standards of living in much of the country.

Popular uprisings since the 1990s

In addition to neoliberal austerity and economic hardship, a major point of discontent in Cameroon has been the governance of the country, under both Ahidjo and Biya. Both have been criticized for altering the political structures of Cameroon to consolidate their own power, and for engaging in tribalism. Perhaps the most notable example was when Ahidjo’s government abolished the office of vice president in 1982. This angered some in the western English-speaking regions of Cameroon because as part of the country’s constitutional reunification agreement, the office of president was to be designated for a “Francophone” and vice president for an “Anglophone.”

Class society is always on uneven footing, and Cameroon erupted in the 1990s. A massive student movement broke out in 1991, and later that year, up to 2 million people participated in a tactic called “villes mortes/ghost towns” (similar to a general strike) to bring four provinces — two English-speaking and two French-speaking — to a grinding halt for months (Takougang and Krieger, 1998).

Some of the discontent was channeled into a growing “Anglophone” nationalist movement, which included organizations such as the Cameroon Anglophone Movement and the All Anglophone Conference. The government met these movements with both the carrot and the stick in an attempt to subvert their momentum: certain concessions, such as the introduction of multiparty elections in 1992, on one hand, and heavy repression, on the other. Eventually, the mass protest movements waned as the 1990s progressed.

Street of Buea (SW Region Cameroon) on a Ghost town day. Photo: DrAgach, CC-BY-SA-4.0

Street of Buea (SW Region Cameroon) on a Ghost town day, 2016. Photo: DrAgach, CC-BY-SA-4.0

Since 2016, mass protests have again emerged in the two English-speaking regions that helped anchor the ghost towns movement in 1991. This time, the protests have been mostly defined by their “Anglophone” character. They were sparked when teachers and lawyers in the two English-speaking regions went on strike to protest the appointment of French-speaking judges and teachers and the use of French documents in courts, with “no understanding of the common law and educational systems that operate in these areas.”

Ghost towns have once again become a popular tactic. An armed secessionist movement has also emerged, declaring the “Anglophone” regions of Cameroon to be a nation named Ambazonia. Economic crisis, mass arrests, repression of protests, and government clashes with armed militants have caused at least 2,000 deaths and displaced thousands more. The ramifications of this situation reach as far as the U.S.-Mexico border.

Colonialism is relationship of exploitation, not heritage

The elephant in the room is that colonialism is a relationship of exploitation, not heritage. While it may be true that President Biya has consolidated state power in the hands of his “Francophone” party and has mostly stacked government positions with French-speaking administrators, it is also true that Cameroon ranks near the bottom in global quality of life measurements. Poverty afflicts millions of people in Cameroon, regardless of which colonial language they speak.

Since the French installed Ahidjo and crushed the popular anti-colonial UPC movement, political life has largely been a playground of the elite in Cameroon. Even prominent “opposition” political leaders that emerged in the unrest of the 1990s, such as Samuel Eboua and Adamou Njoya, were former administrators in President Adhidjo’s government (Takougang and Krieger, 1998).

When Western and Eastern Cameroon agreed to reunify in 1961, the “Anglophone” elites brokered a deal to be absorbed into Ahidjo’s party and government — some with leadership positions, including the guarantee that an “Anglophone” would always hold the vice president’s office. Throughout the following decades, this power-sharing agreement between elites gradually eroded, with the “Anglophone” elites largely stripped of their influence. The colonial-inspired sectarian division of “Anglophone” versus “Francophone” misdirects the justified anger of the Cameroonian masses towards a battle that ultimately benefits the elites.

Additionally, while there is certainly an element of tribalism in Cameroon, the protest movements vary ideologically. For example, The Stand Up for Cameroon movement is a coalition of political parties and organizations — each with strengths and shortcomings — that are united against tribalism and in their calls for political transition in Cameroon. To reduce the ongoing conflict in the country to “Anglophone” versus “Francophone,” as many have, is inaccurate and characteristic of the racist trope that reduces conflict in Africa to an irrational tribalism, rather than tangible contradictions.

Strong movements rooted in national unity have precedent in Cameroon and reveal the political frailty of tribalism. The UPC became a force in the 1950s with its program of national liberation, reunification, and radical economic redistribution. In Cameroon’s first multiparty presidential elections in 1992, John Fru Ndi, the Social Democratic Front party’s candidate, won major support in both “Anglophone” and “Francophone” regions with a program that spoke to peoples’ widespread concerns. Many believe that Biya only won the 1992 election due to fraud.

As President Biya approaches 90 years of age and protests continue, Cameroon’s political future is unclear. However, history shows that only a movement that speaks to the root causes of the challenges that people are facing, rather than to the manufactured issue of colonial heritage, will be able to effectively energize a critical mass of Cameroonians to liberate the country from the strings of neocolonialism and capitalism.

Source: Liberation News

14, December 2019

Race For the White House: Biden says ‘I’m running to restore the soul of America’ ⁰

Former US Vice President and leading 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden says he is “running to restore the soul of America.”

In a statement issued on the seventh anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting on Saturday, Biden said he will prioritize efforts to combat the rise of gun violence in the United States should he win the presidency.

“I said when I got into this race that I’m running to restore the soul of America,” he said in a statement. “Few things make the need for that more clear than school shootings – what kind of nation are we if we simply accept that kids learn active shooter drills with their ABCs?”

“I know that we can defeat the NRA,” he continued. “I’m the only candidate in the race who has done it before – twice, when I was in the Senate. As president I’ll do it again.”

Biden has proposed to repeal the federal law that protects gun manufacturers from civil liability claims, and ban on the manufacturing and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and implementation of background checks for all gun sales.

He had called for a reinstatement of an assault weapons ban in the wake of two mass in August that killed 31 people.

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban bill was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton. It expired in September 2004. Since then an assault weapons ban hasn’t been in place in the US.

Biden claimed that along with Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) he got the bill passed in 1994, and said he “fought hard to extend” the ban in 2004, but failed to do so.

Biden said that data about mass shootings showed that from 1994 to 2004 there were fewer mass shootings in the country.

Trump’s 2020 Democratic rivals blame him for gun violence

On Saturday, the former vice president claimed that gun control could be a galvanizing issue heading into the 2020 race.

“There’s a straight line from the brave parents of Newtown, many of whom have organized at the grassroots level and in the courts, to the activism of the Parkland students, to the millions of others who’ve said ‘enough’ in the long years between and since then,” he said, referring to other school shootings.

“This call for change is growing louder and louder, and is using every tool of our democracy, in the streets, voting booths, and courts,” he added.

Many have called for measures such as an assault weapon ban, universal background checks and other gun control reforms long stymied by partisan fighting in Washington.

Democrats have criticized Republican President Donald Trump’s mixed messaging on possible support for some gun control measures.

Several 2020 Democratic presidential contenders have also said that they would use the executive powers of the presidency to pursue gun-control measures if Congress again fails to act.

Trump meanwhile has suggested that he could sway the nation’s powerful pro-gun lobby, the National Rifle Association (NRA), to drop its opposition to gun restrictions.

Firearms regulation advocates state that restricting and tracking gun access would result in safer communities, while gun rights advocates state that increased firearm ownership by citizens reduces crime and assert that criminals have always had easy access to firearms.

The firearms industry in the US is tempting children at very low ages to take up shooting by selling brightly colored guns.

On December 14, 2012, twenty children and six adults were fatally shot by Adam Lanza, the gunman who later killed himself at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in the town of Newtown in the US state of Connecticut.

Following the shooting, a task force funded by the NRA recommended more armed guards and teachers in schools. Now President Trump is voicing support for that recommendation.

Source: Presstv