In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

186 Appendix III The Buea Declaration of the All Anglophone Conference In the name of the Almighty God from whom all life, protection, wisdom, power and glory emanate, we the people of Anglophone Cameroon represented by over four thousand delegates from all the thirteen Divisions of our territory, namely, Boyo, Bui, Donga-Mantung. Fako, Ngoketunjia, Kupe-Manenguba, Liebialem, Manyu, Meme, Menchum, Mezam, Momo, Ndian, and from all over the rest of Cameroon, and among whom, Elder Statesmen and Senior Citizens, Traditional Rulers, Religious and Spiritual Leaders, Leaders of political parties, Members of Parliament and of the Economic and Social Council, farmers, workers and elite of all professions meeting at the Mount Mary Maternity Centre in the historic town of Buea from 2nd to the 3rd of April, 1993 in an All Anglophone Conference for the purpose of adopting a common Anglophone stand for the announced national debate on constitutional reform and of examining several other matters related to the welfare of our territory and the entire Cameroon nation, DO MAKE THE DECALRATION, hereinafter contained for which we offer the following justification: TODAY, no group of people who freely chose to join a political union want to accept to be treated as captive people. In 1961, the people of Anglophone Cameroon through a United Nations supervised plebiscite decided to enter into a political union with the people of La Republique du Cameroun and they did so, by the grace of God, freely and without the involvement of the population of La Republic du Cameroon. Their aspiration was to establish a unique bilingual federation on the continent of Africa, and evolve a bicultural society in which the cultural heritage of each of the two states would flourish. We believed that such a lofty goal was possible. Within this relatively short time however, our common experience in the union leaves us in no doubt that we are far from attaining these ends. We are a people with a problem. Our problem, which the intolerant and hypocritical attitude of our Francophone partners would rather suppress, springs from a breach of trust from the part of the Francophone leadership and from a lack of openness in matters of public interest. Within these 32 years, our Union Accord has been 187 violated, and we have been disenfranchised, marginalised, treated with suspicion, and our interests disregarded. Our participation in national life has been limited to non-essential functions and our natural resources have been ruthlessly exploited without any benefit accruing to our territory or its people. The development of our territory has been negligible and confined to areas that benefit the Francophones directly or indirectly. Through manoeuvres and manipulations we have been reduced from partners of equal status in the union to the status of a subjugated people. As a people, our values, visions, and goals and those of our Francophone brothers in the union are different and clearly cannot be harmonised within the framework of a unitary state, such as was imposed on us in 1972. We are by nature pacifist, patient and tolerant. We have demonstrated these qualities since we came together to form this union. We fully subscribe to the statement of Voltaire, when he says, “I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to death your right to say it.” Our Francophone brothers believe in brutalisation and in torturing, and in raping our women and daughters, and in the use of the gun. We find such barbaric acts alien to us, indeed to the civilised standards of all democratic societies. Our idea of freedom of expression and of the press leads us to believe in the open discussion and understanding of public issues that affect our lives. Our Francophone brothers suppress freedom of expression and practise press censorship. The democratic principle of majority rule and minority rights leads us to believe in the rights and freedom of the minority. Francophone regimes pursue a policy of assimilation aimed at wiping our own identity. Thus, our vision of a bicultural society becomes an illusive, unattainable goal, and will remain so, until and unless we can find a better framework within which this aspiration can find expression. In Buea today, we make an important decision, and for the benefit of those who hereafter may doubt the rectitude of our intentions, we place our records on the following facts: 1. The Pre-Plebiscite Accord The United Nations document, entitled THE TWO ALTERNATIVES, which was widely circulated on the eve of the plebiscite to explain to...

Share