Why the AMBAZONIAN preventive diplomacy model should first be exhausted before anything else! We do not have POWER and POWER is what we will easily have from the standpoint of the Sovereign State of the Republic of AMBAZONIA.

We are peaceful law abiding people who know that there exist laws which when applied to our case, will immediately unravel the PERMANENT solution. The solution being what the law had originally intended for the people of Ambazonia [British Southern Cameroons] -self-government and ultimately independence. We know we are neither today. We also know that we have been obeying but the wrong laws which are designed not to serve out best elf-interest. If we as the people, the nation and the State of AMBAZONIA, were to support this very logical and very valid case for our independence, we would be doing three things at the same time:

• we would be invoking our rights of self-determination as Ambazonia
• we would be fighting back and winning the battle of the minds of our people when the main instrument of pre-emption of our rights --pan-cameroonism-- will be exposed as the enemy.
• we would be reinforcing internal consistency, coherence, and resolve since our common goal of independence is assured to arrive with minimum trauma to our people!

In international relations, states are expected to behave according to the norms of international law and unless the laws which applied to us are implemented, we must assume our best self-interest and operate as if we are a state-the Republic of Ambazonia. That is why the United Nations promulgated the treaty between the State of Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia) and the Republic of Cameroun in 1961, called UN Resolution 1608 (xv) GAOR. We know that it was not implemented when Ahidjo simply imposed the French Cameroun constitution upon the Southern Cameroons after militarily occupy this territory. It must be implemented as-is, if peace must be given a chance in this Gulf of Guinea region!

To do this the United Nations will have to put into practice the Koffi Anan principle of 'humanitarian interventionism". Recall that after just taking office the Secretary General of the UNO, Anan Koffi declared that never again must this body sit back and not PREVENT CONFLICT before the arise for fear of meddling in the "internal affairs" of some already failed states. The failed states situation of Rwanda and Somalia were the reason for this shift from peacekeeping reactive stance to a pro-active posture of peace-engendering! Now we know this really lead to stability as democratic rule takes over in the exercise of functioning states. The case of the recent [08/26/03] re-election of the Rwandan President Paul Kagame should be inspiring to proponents of pre-emptive interventionism. This time around, the expectation is that he creates a more inclusive government that grants the Hutus active participation.

The case for the independence of Ambazonia [former British Southern Cameroons] offers the best opportunity ever for preventive diplomacy by simply executing the rule of the applicable laws and the judgments that has come as a result of Ambazonia pursuit of its freedoms.

It must be noted that:

1. there exist no stature of limitation for the restitution of JUSTICE and that
2. the plebiscite in favor of "joining" the Republic of Cameroun was to have created a confederation from the two sovereign states.

Let us not take things for granted, as in those who think a NAME IS NOT SIGNIFICANT! Make no mistake about the power of momentum in generating political SYMBOLISMS that favor your interest. Cameroon was so intent on re-writing our history that they used their dominant position to manipulate information when they immediately began calling what was supposed to be a confederation a simple "federation'. They knew that the difference is as clear as promoting assimilation through adaptation or promoting differentiation through adaptation. The need to serve their best self-Interest meant Cameroon chose assimilation over differentiation which a confederation would automatically bring.

We also need to remind you that international law recognized this as an international negotiation conducted between two sovereign states. Only sovereign states negotiate BINDING TREATIES as objects of international law, which the Southern Cameroons was after gaining independence in October 1, 1960. That once a treaty has been violated by one of the states, the other state is not expected to be bound by the terms of that treaty!

The facts are there and are clear to show that the UN and the UK, who were also parties to the Plebiscite Treaty violated their obligations vis a vis the Ambazonia [Southern Cameroons] when they simply handed over the Southern Cameroons to be annexed and re-colonized by Cameroon.

Through the AMBAZONIAN constitutional deconstruction model, we stand a very good chance to recover our independence in the same way Cameroon got to annexed us: We will use the laws that applies. This time it will not be manipulated to the advantage of Cameroon since we are AMBAZONIANS, people who clearly know who they are and what they want by just the use of one word -AMBAZONIA!

Some Background to AMBAZONIA quest!

1. In 1954, the territory, which for the sake of convenience was administered as though it were part of Nigeria, attained constitutional autonomy with a government and legislature of its own.
2. In 1958, when Nigeria independence was in the offing, the United Kingdom (by memorandum dated June 27) informed the UN that the territory had not fallen behind Nigeria "in the advance of that country towards full self-government and ultimately independence."
3. The memorandum confirmed "there could be no question of obliging the Cameroons to remain part of an independent Nigeria contrary to the wishes of the people." Nor was there any question at that time of the territory being united with any country other than Nigeria: if the people did not favor such a union the only alternative was complete independence.
4. However, instead of fixing a date for independence, as she was bound to do under Article 76(b) of the United nations Charter, Britain insisted that the Southern Cameroons be compelled either to integrate with an independent Nigeria of form a union with the now independent Republic of Cameroun.
5. The Two Alternatives were set out in resolution 2013(XIV) of the United Nations date October 16, 1959. Subsequently, in January 1961, the Southern Cameroons Government published a pamphlet captioned --'The Two Alternatives" -- explaining the constitutional implications of the two plebiscite choices".
6. For union with Cameroun, "the arrangements will be worked out after the plebiscite by a conference consisting of representative delegations of equal status from the Republic and the Southern Cameroons" (underline emphasis my own).
7. The object of the Conference would have been to translate the previously agreed terms of the proposed union, as specified in the said plebiscite pamphlet, into a constitutional text, which would then be submitted by way of referendum to their respective population. If they voted against it, then the proposed union would either have been abandoned or renegotiated.
8. That Ambazonia was to have "equal status" with Cameroun - which was already a member of the UN –implies that the former British Trust territory was also to be admitted to membership of the UN. There could be no question of AMBAZONIA being excluded on account of her size, since her population exceeds the combined population of Congo, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, which are all represented at the UN.
9. It is clear that, if the union with Cameroun was eventually formed, then Ambazonia's UN membership would be similar to that of the Ukraine of Byelorussia, which were separately seated in the UN side by side with the USSR, of which they were members. In fact, in the case of the proposed union between AMBAZONIA and Cameroun, it was agreed that each country would preserve its separate and independent currency - which suggest a looser union that that of the former USSR, which had a single currency. [see attached document spelling out the concurrent relationship between the States government and the federal government).
10. It is regrettable to note that the results of the 1961 plebiscite were never implemented. Instead of being sponsored by Britain, the Administrating Authority, to UN membership, the English speaking AMBAZONIA found itself joined to the French speaking La Republique du Cameroun, which promptly occupied its territory with troops, abolished the Ambazonian government and parliament, and divided AMBAZONIA into provinces and annexed the territory.
11. The 1992 presidential election that provoked unanimous international condemnation for outright fraud by the Biya Regime in power. It was highlighted by the fact that John Fru Ndi, a native Ambazonian, won the Cameroun presidential election of October 1992, but an unwritten law forbids a native of AMBAZONIA from becoming the President of Cameroun. Accordingly, the Camerounian authorities by prevented Fru Ndi from becoming the President of Cameroun simply by refusing to implement the results adds to Ambazonians frustrations as lawlessness substitutes constitutional order in La Republique du Cameroun. Recently, a memoir written by a retired Cameroonian General Pierre Semengue, and prefaced by the Presidency of Cameroon claimed that the military would have taken over to ensure that this Ambazonian, Fru Ndi never takes up the presidency!
12. Justice demands that the tested principle of -- pacta sunt servanda -, which has ensured predictability in the rule of the law, and in the application of international responsibility, be combined with the principle of "International Obligation" through humanitarian intervention to solve the problem by implementing the result of the UN plebiscite. This means recognizing the independence of the Republic of AMBAZONIA, and for the United States to sponsor its admission to UN membership.
13. We believe that the proper moment for action is now since precedent have been set such as: (a) in the recognition of the independence of the Eastern European communities, (b) by NATO proactive intervention in favor of Kosovo, (c) by the UN recognizing East Timor rights to self-determination, and following it with a successfully concluded referendum, (d) by the Secretary General of the UN Annan Koffi recognizing the principle of Humanitarian International obligation, (e) in the growing demands that the United Nations prevent conflicts before the erupt by recognizing that legitimate claims of self-determination found in UN Articles 1(1) and 1(2) can no longer be subsumed under non-intervention and territorial integrity clauses in UN Articles 2(4) and 2 (7). This tantamount to the United Nations promoting the preservation of failed states which are the breeding grounds of conflicts and terrorism in our world
14. A law suit (HCB/28/92) filed by the Ambazonian Government in exile, in the High Court of Bamenda, in Cameroun had held by the power of the attached estoppel that Cameroun is guilty of illegally and forcibly occupying AMBAZONIA. The Court made an order, inter alia, that La Republique du Cameroun should withdraw from AMBAZONIA or be expelled.
15. In the light of our unique circumstance as a United Nations Trust Territory under United Nations protection, and as the only trust territory never to be granted the option of independence, as specified in UN Article 76 (b); and as providing a unique opportunity that is legally justified in both municipal and international law for preventive diplomacy and proactive intervention, that a United Kingdom resumes its role as administrator of the former United Nations Trust territory and recognize the Republic of Ambazonia.
16. We believe that the United Nations mission and purpose will be greatly enhanced since only through the rule of constitutional order and the rule of the law in sub-Saharan Africa can there ever be sustainable economic growth in these poorest parts of the world. A "humanitarian intervention" on behalf of AMBAZONIA, will be precedence setting on the concept of preempting conflicts before they start by demonstrating the sanctity of the rule of law.

The power to elicit compliance is much easier coming from the State. The Republic of Ambazonia has methodically shown cause and we will never be accused for not first giving a chance for the rule of the law to take its course and give peace a chance.

Adopting the very clear, logically, legitimate as well as legal position of AMBAZONIA is one way we can all declare that we have a clear conscience as we can prove that we did everything in our powers to give peace a chance.

All bets are that Countries seeing this will give AMBAZONIA the ability to ELICIT COMPLIANCE FROM A NOW CLEARLY RECALCITRANT LAWLESS COUNTRY CALLED CAMEROON

Edwin Ngang