In 1948, the State of Isreal was created and implanted on Palestinian Land by the newly created UN. The Jewish nation had not existed as a State for 300years prior to that. To put this in context, most of our tribal groups today hardly have a history dating back beyond 150yrs. Was this massive land grab legal?.

Well, it was created by the UN, there must have been some legal basis to it^. It was an unconscionable land grab that set a precedence, which, if applied globally, would result in some very strange the Nation States around the world and dissolve quite a few currently stable States.

Imagine what Africa was like 300years ago, and what it would look like today, if we could arbitrarily rollback our nation states to a status quo ante that far back. The truth is, we can’t and should not. The Palestinians are a people who have an overwhelming case for the non-existence of Isreal on their Land – one they had occupied consistently for over 300yrs prior to 1948 and yet they agreed to a two-state settlement of the current situation – in fact, it is Isreal that has been setting up most of the roadblocks to the resolution of this problem, albeit with the help of extremists from both sides.

The ANC, and black South Africans had a legitimate case to repatriate the whites and Indians following the atrocities in SA – note that Ghandi himself, in advocating for the rights of Indians in SA, argued that they are superior to Blacks and as such, should be a few rungs higher up in the ladder – he was OK with apartheid as long as it did not involve people of Indian decent and yet Mandela, the ANC and a large majority of black South Africans saw the benefit of an all including policy. They saw the benefits of a multicultural society, one which gave their disadvantaged children a fighting chance of a different future. The long years of apartheid would take many generations to undo. A truly equitable society would take consistent political will across several generations; with the help of affirmative action to achieve.

Along the way, there will always exist the temptation to rush the process – the case of Zimbabwe comes to mind with a geriatric leader suddenly rediscovering African nationalism during a tough election cycle.

General Mattis said he has always learned from the mistakes of others by reading – so should we. We should inform ourselves of our history and that of others.

The Federalist position in Cameroon, like the two state position of the Palestinians, or the compromises the ANC had to make to ascend to power, arose, not out of a legal vindication of the Cameroon Union, but out of a realistic cost-benefit assessment of our situation.

LRC has never appealed any of the international judgements against it – and none of the judgements against it come with any forceful tool to implement them. As a people, a realistic assessment of our options is critical for our survival. History is not on our side when it comes to a peaceful separation agenda. It is true we would like to believe we can set a precedent in this case and that might well be true. Predictable civil desobedience campaigns, that have a higher economic impact on our people than the oppressor, are unlikely to force them to cede such lucrative territory – would you? It would more likely tire out our people in the long run if viable alternative solutions are not proposed.

The International community will continue to be ambivalent at best or quietly supportive of a status quo they believe is least disruptive at worst. For separation to be an option violence must be escalated to untenable levels so as to cause a major disruption of political balance within the sub-region – an extremely expensive option for our people.

As pointed out earlier, the solution is political, not legal – a low cost, high impact International economic strategy to bring all parties to the negotiating table is most likely to yield positive results in incrementally resolving our current issues. There have been several iterations of the Southern Cameroons people’s uprisings since 1961, this one having had the most media impact and likely International attention. Controlled and sustained pressure on the ground is required to ensure the attention stays.

There is no second chance to make a first impression so let’s ensure that our most pragmatic option be the one on the table. It should not be one we all agree to. We saw how the tide quickly turned in Syria; how ambivalent international support and secret agreements turned the tides against the people.We have all seen what happened in Aleppo.

We are facing an impending change in power in the next few years in Cameroon… Our aspirations of statehood stand to benefit a lot if we adopt the right agenda, one that is most cost effective not just to us but to the International community.

Let’s avoid comparisons with South Sudan. Let’s choose our options wisely. A true Federal agenda is that low cost option with a clearer path to separation if we so desire. In it there is an inherent recognition of our state, both internally and internationally. There is the argument that it failed us before – Well, we know the lack of safeguards expedited that failure – something we can easily fix knowing what we know now.

The world is watching us, history beckons, let’s make informed pragmatic decisions understanding that today’s decisions could have profound impact on the lives of future generations. We are the present and would very shortly be the past – history would judge us like it continues to judge the Endeleys, the Fonchas, the Juas, the Munas. What side of history we find ourselves depends on our actions today.

Consortium