The handing over of the Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon that may take place on the 14th of this month is a sad story especially for the inhabitants who we all know dread the Cameroonian government; Resettling them in an already inhabited community is also a bad choice by the FGN.
Going over the whole story of the Bakassi people and mistakes made by all concerned is just as painful as the wound, however, .the most painful of all is the crying of Nigerians which is summarized by these words from The Chief of Defence Staff, General Owoye Azazi,"……..I want to believe that if anything happens between Nigeria and Cameroon, the defence treaty between France and Cameroon would be called to force. They have such treaty with their former colonies. We don't have defence treaty with any country; we only have training agreements……………………" http://allafrica.com/stories/200807170436.html
In another interview a Nigerian officer bemoaned our stars because our defence agreement with Britain is worthless according to him. Is it not shameful that at this 'age' Nigeria or any African country should cry because she has no OYIBO (Whitman) to rush to help her beat-up her neighbouring African sister? It is a shame.
In the '80s before the sell out of the peninsular by those we know, the Nigerian armed forces (Army, Navy and Air force) did a spectacular military manoeuvre in that area (operation Sea Dog) probably to send a massage to Cameroon or to show 'we can be pugnacious at times if you step on my toes'. I lived in Enugu then, and we were all proud of the military movements/shipments toward Calabar area , but also wished those 'idle soldiers' did some other important social work for the community instead of going to play war games, eating fish pepper-soup and beer in Calabar creeks.
France did not waste a day in sending a matching force to Cameroon. Mirage jets started flying over the air spaces of Cameroon and we learnt even provoking the Nigerian military manoeuvres inside Nigeria spaces. The planes were taking off from an Aircraft carrier because the never cared to build any airport fit for such crafts for their ex-colonies and friends.
Now Nigeria is mourning because France wont allow her beat up Cameron and Britain may not come to our side to assist us because we do not have an 'all inclusive' defence pact with the Queen.
On the other hand Cameroon is happy because 'now our master is at the corner waiting for those big fools from Nigeria to cough loud in our direction….. after all said and done through them and their (ELF) oil company , the petroleum in Bakassi will soon make us better than Nigeria- that prodigal son of Africa"
These deep-rooted colonial mentality at his century is the most worrying aspect of this Bakassi issue.
Why must we at this age allow the colonial wolves come back to show us our boundaries. Is it of whose interest that these boundaries are shifted right or left?
It is a shame ladies and gentlemen.
Chukwubike .O Charles
![PEOPLE [Obama]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNzwHiLRtDuKiaZMLxyWzJWeGWRuzHPH7agS6pE5XKqaJ07OOnUnPBHmYMO9LuAD755pVZf9CVdmMZe3C86-LSMctDE0ou-zp-IE5EL-0CZ8iHYPlVqar_DWhyphenhyphenyBNzGnpFoHfC1cPRnRo/s228/temp_flashheader.jpg){kind=small}
3 comments:
The TRUE story of Bakassi still has not been heard. To prevent further conflict let this TRUTH promote JUSTICE for all in this Mid-West Central African Subregion where should reside in peace four sovereiogn states: Nigeria, Aambazonia, Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon. Anything else is simply a very bad case of DENIALISM and reason why instability will be permanently lodged in this sub-region. (cut and pasted Ambazonian story below)
-----------------------------------
The United Nations has confirmed per the Human Rights Committee judgment in the case of the exiled Ambazonian Head of State ‘Gorji-Dinka –v- Cameroon’: (a) that the Cameroon Restoration Law 84/01 dissolved the French and English speaking Cameroon Union created in 1961; (b) that it restored the French nation back as the republic of Cameroon while English speaking Cameroon took its native name Ambazonia; (c) that thereafter, Cameroon presence in Ambazonia is indeed an act of continuing aggression which must be terminated. The Committee’s judgment inter alia reads… “As a result of the subjugation of Ambazonians, whose human rights were allegedly severely violated by members of the Franco-Cameroon armed forces, as well as militia groups, riots broke out In 1993, prompting parliament to enact the Restoration law 84/01, which dissolved the Union of the two countries. The author then became head of the “Ambazonian Restoration Council” and published several articles, which called on President Paul Biya of the Republic of Cameroon to comply with the Restoration Law and to withdraw from Ambazonia.”
[Excerpt from ICCPR Communication # 1134/2002]
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.C.83.D.1134.2002.En?Opendocument
-----------------------------------
(Sketch Map # 1)
----------------------------------
On the dispute over the Bakassi Peninsular, both Cameroon and Nigeria conceded at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the peninsular belongs to neither of them but to Ambazonia ex British Southern Cameroons). The ICJ judgment reads: ….“Republic of Cameroon points out that the map attached to the report of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner shows that the Bakassi Peninsular formed part of the Victoria South West plebiscite district in the Southwest corner of Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia). This would show that the peninsular was recognized by the United Nations as being part of the Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia)” {excerpt 2002 ICJ judgment paragraph. 210.
“Nigeria on its part….claims to have acted in self-defense. It further contends that if the Court should find that Cameroon has sovereignty over these areas, the Nigeria presence there was a result of ‘reasonable mistake.” ICJ paragraph 311. The ICJ accordingly ruled:….. “Nigeria is under an obligation expeditiously and without condition to withdraw its administration and its military and its police forces from the areas of Lake Chad which fall within Cameroon’s sovereignty and from the Bakassi Peninsular.” ICJ paragraph 314
Nigeria withdrew from the Lake Chad area and 37 villages reverted to Cameroon administration without such thing as a Greentree Agreement! In like manner, Nigeria is to withdraw from the Bakassi peninsular and it would revert to Ambazonian administration; which would be set up by the exiled Ambazonian Head of State either with the help of the United Nations peace keeping force or with some alternative security arrangements, while waiting for the Cameroon President Biya to withdraw from the Ambazonian mainland in compliance with commitments which the United Nations Secretary General Koffi Annan flew to Cameroon in January 2005 and obtained from him which reads: “ I President Paul Biya of the Republic of Cameroon do here by in a bid to provide lasting peace to the Bakassi conflict, commit myself and my government to respect the territorial boundaries of my country as obtained at independence.”
This is a self incriminating admission that Ambazonia is not part of Cameroon, but a sovereign state; and that Cameroon’s occupation of Ambazonia is a source of the Bakassi conflict. That for lasting peace in Bakassi, Cameroon must withdraw from Ambazonia. Yet by the June 12, 2006 Greentree Agreement, Nigeria offers to giver Cameroon the very Bakassi Peninsular which by their admission and the ICJ judgment belongs to Ambazonia. Now as reported in the Nigeria’s authoritative news ‘BusinessDay” of May 21, 2008, Nigeria former Attorney General and Ad hoc ICJ Judge, Honorable Ajiobola’s testimony at Nigeria’s Congressional hearing is that the agreement to alter the ICJ judgment was procured with a Cameroon bribe of $300 billion oil bloc. ://www.businessdayonline.com/analysis/comments/10089.html?print
Did the UN Secretary General, and the Ambassadors of the USA, UK, France and Germany, (all whom as witnesses became the “Follow-up Committee”) endorse this illegal and fraudulent alteration of the ICJ judgment, as accomplices; or were they duped to believing (as stated in Article 7 of the Greentree Agreement) that it sets modalities for implementing the judgment? The use of the Office of the United Nations Secretary General to alter the judgment of the ICJ sets a very damaging precedence; and the United Nations Secretary General is under an obligation to urgently set the records right by initiating the process of correcting the agreement to conform to the judgment it sets out to implement.
The good news is that the wrongful insertion of Cameroon in place of Ambazonia in the agreement has raised a fundamental dispute as to whether the document sets out modalities for implementing the ICJ judgment or it sets out to alter the said judgment? But then an alteration of the Court judgment which is not done by the Court itself is of null and void effect. For, by operation of law, the terms of judgment apply to the total preclusion of the alteration intended; that is to say, the ICJ Judgment that Bakassi Peninsular belongs to Ambazonia makes the Greentree Agreement read ‘Ambazonia’ in the place of ‘Cameroon’ wherever mentioned.
The Follow-up Committee members would acquit themselves of active complicity in the fraudulent alteration of ICJ judgment if and only if they, even by a simple majority, adopt the correction which is deemed to have been made to the agreement by operation of law. And so the making of Republic of Cameroon party to the Greentree Agreement has created a dispute within the meaning of Article 6.2 of the said Agreement which read as follows… “The Follow-up Committee shall settle any dispute regarding the interpretation and implementation of this Agreement.” http://www.un.org/unowa/cnmc/preleas/sgstmts.htm#greentreehttp://www.un.org/unowa/cnmc/preleas/sgstmts.htm#greentree The true parties to the Greentree Agreement are Nigeria and Ambazonia as sketch map below shows
(map# 3)
-----------------------------------
(Sketch Map# 2)
Edwin N. Ngang
Ambazonia Information Bureau ;
Than you Mr Edwun Ngang for the information.
If you wouldn't mind can you re-post the article directly to my address(okey.chukbyke@gmail.com) so that I publish it as a main topic thereby allowing the sketch maps show. You can see they were automatically removed because yours came in as comment.
Thank you once more for the contribution.
okey.chukbyke@gmail.com
Dear Folks:
A complete failure to understand the nature of the world politics and international diplomacy, coupled with a misunderstanding on what gives concerning the Bakassi issue supports the misleading notion concerning Nigeria’s options on Bakassi. These misconceptions show a lack of diplomatic enlightenment or political will or both on behalf of our leadership, prior to the signing of the Green Tree Agreement and thereafter.
First and foremost in international politics, there are no permanent friends only permanent interests. Therefore, given time in the international scene with particular reference to third-world nations (or should I say potentially failed states) such as Nigeria there can always be re-alignments in strategic interests with any of the five super powers constituting the Security Council – (U.S. Britain and France on the one hand and China and Russia on the other). As a result, concerning all the mis-steps that Nigeria has taken on the Bakassi issue, the worst was the rush to sign the Green tree Accord and the continued preparation to proceed with the implementation of the withdrawal, without recourse to other legal and diplomatic avenues presented.
Delay of the handing over is essential to ensure:
The ratification of the Green Tree Accord by NASS. There are strong legal arguments to the effect that to be bound by and to make the Green Tree Accord conclusive, the Nigerian national assembly must ratify it.
The possibility of a review by the ICJ under Article 61. Article 61 allows a review within a 10-year time frame of the judgment if new information or evidence is available to render for a revision of the Court’s judgment. In other words we should be thinking of handing over in 2012 as the judgment was given in 2002, if we cannot at that time come up with strategic alliances supporting the need to align our position with those in the international community who see the strength in a claim to protect a people's inalienable rights to their ancestral territory.
Now it is also important to state that only the Security Council can enforce the ICJ decision. Will it surprise anyone that in no case has the decision of the ICJ been enforced by the Security Council? This is so because the Security Council by its very nature recognizes that the balance of power by its veto members essentially becomes the motivating factor for each vote as a result of each members’ political interest in the matter and each members’ strategic alliance and political relationship with the nation parties to the suit. Take the recent indictment of Al –Bashir, for war crimes by the international community and the defeat of the international community’s attempt to impose sanctions on Sudan as a result of China’s veto. So prior to and in the interim of a delay to hand over Bakassi, where is Nigeria’s political will to diplomatically form alliances and strategically align with the interest of Security Council veto power members like China or Russia that balance the veto tilt of the Western powers – two of which were signatories to the Accord. Presently, China needs all the oil they can get for their booming population and economy to give them a competitive edge over the Western Powers, in its forage to become the new World’s Super power.
Therefore, why don’t we let the Cameroonians invoke Article 94(2) of the ICJ which states: “If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment” and see how far they get in enforcing the judgment. (Emphasis mine)
So why the rush to hand over and cede territory and concede the advantage of historical occupancy of a territory that is predominantly and overwhelmingly inhabited by indigenous folk claiming and clinging onto their Nigerian citizenship. Everyone including the ICJ in the course of the pronouncement of its judgment has accepted the fact that “indigenous” people claiming Nigerian citizenship dominantly inhabit Bakassi.
Unfortunately, were it not for the fact that we are a nation of self-serving leadership lacking an enlightenment of the intrigue of international relations or the political will to act with skill, strategy and deft diplomacy, we should have dared to explore other options.
Regrettably, we are so compromised as a people and nation – that we fail to understand the essence of our humanity as a people and the nature of our nationality as a nation. Rather all we see is ethnicity as fostered by our tribal lineage and oil as fostered by corruption (two of Nigeria’s major problems) when we look at Bakassi. We can only come to a better understanding of the international intrigue at play and what our option should be, when we put the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the context of the situation we currently face in Bakassi as follows: “We must be ready to dare all for our country. For history does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.”
Thanks.
John F. Udochi
Post a Comment