UN Resolution Gives Great Hope for Southern Cameroons Sovereignty: SCNC REACTS TO RECENT UN RESOLUTIONS ON DE-COLONIZATION
In the Series of United Nation resolutions of the 9th of December 2015 that have sovereignty implication for the Southern Cameroon Struggle, we believe that the news of its coming was the basis of the rumour by the UNO State that their British Cameroons was going to be freed on that 9th of December 2015.
Since the resolutions came out, there have been a lot of wrong comments from abroad and at home. But here in below, we publish an incisive analysis by the SCNC of what these resolutions really mean for the struggle of Southern Cameroon.
We have studiously read the December 9th 2015 UN Resolutions on decolonization, as well as the reactions from many quarters particularly our members in the diaspora.
The views expressed fall into two categories namely:
Those that sincerely confess that they do not understand the relevance of those resolutions to our specific problem, and
Those who try to interpret wrongly by referring to Resolution 1608 as dead, hence the Southern Cameroons could never be liberated.
In this situation, the SCNC is duty-bound to herein below, scientifically explain the implications of these Resolutions for the benefit of all Southern Cameroons citizens.
Generally speaking, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to re-affirm its commitment to the principle of self-determination as the Divine Right of all peoples.
This re-assertion indicates that the World Body is fully aware and concerned about the different levels of human rights abuses, and certainly will eventually resolve our annexation problem.
Specifically speaking, the list of the remaining colonial territories comprising American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, still in the possession of the United States, Britain, and France, does not include the Southern Cameroons.
The meaning is that the Southern Cameroons was already de-colonized.
Elsewhere the UN has published another list of 15 Territories, including the Southern Cameroons as former Trust Territories which were decolonized by 1994. (See UN website sources URL:
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/selfdet.shtml;
The first essential message implied – by having not included our territory among those to be decolonized – is that we were already Independent as of 1st October 1961 even though most of our intellectual elite continue to be unaware.
The second message is that our problem is annexation, which means the swallow-up of our state by another state. And its de-annexation requires an entirely different procedure.
This analysis is especially important to some of our Nationalist Movements such as the UNO-State Group and the Southern Cameroons Lawyers Association. They have wrongly continued to insist that we need to be independent, whereas our quest at the present stage is for Sovereign Recognition since we are already independent as of 1st October 1961.
It is also important to some of our compatriots who unfortunately are calling for an armed struggle, being ignorant that an Independent State does not articulate our annexation type of problem through armed struggle. It would, like in war-torn Syria, destroy our country before we return to the very peace table where we should have started.
How we achieved Full Independence.
By scientific analysis the SCNC has 72 proofs of our Separate Independence from that of the Francophone Republic of Cameroun. But suffice us to here-in below present you just a half dozen of the most elementary of them.
1. The Plebiscite "Yes" vote was a decision to achieve Independence, and not to "join" whom ever for two reasons.
The Independence issue was prioritized by being given the first position in the Plebiscite Question of "Do You Wish to Achieve Independence by Joining Nigeria?" Or "Do You Wish To Achieve Independence By Joining the Republic of Cameroon?"
The issue of Independence was the antecedent of the condition of "joining", meaning that it was indispensable, whereas the "joining", was merely secondary.
A simple analogy is that in a similar question of "Do You Wish to Go to New York by Air or by Sea", the most important point is the decision to go to New York. It is not the means of transport.
Furthermore, the UN endorsement vote of 19th April 1961 on the outcome of the Plebiscite was on our decision to achieve independence, and NOT on any "Joining".
If the endorsement vote was for the "joining", the United Nations would not have called for the Post-Plebiscite International Conference whereat the conditions of "joining" were still to be discussed and its "modalities" worked out.
The second reason is that throughout the 72-year history of the United Nations, the Organisation grants Independences. That is why it designated 1st October 1961 as the Independence Day of Southern Cameroons. Indeed, the World Body has never granted any "joining"
2. The UN-required post-Plebiscite international conference did not hold, so there was no occasion to have established any "joining" between us and the Francophone Republic of Cameroun through a Treaty which could only have resulted from an International Conference.
It should be understood that the substituted Foumban conference did not meet the standard of an International Conference, to have worked out the required Treaty.
It follows that "The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Cameroon", ironically called by the county's entire virgin name at the suffix, as well as the multitude of other subsequent constitutions therefrom, do not have the weight of a Treaty.
And being strictly the exclusive Fundamental Law of the Francophone Republic, it has no binding force on the statehood of Southern Cameroons.
Worse still neither Britain nor the UN – which was to witness the occasion – informed the Southern Cameroons government that they would not attend the conference. Obviously the Southern Came-roons government would not have proceeded to the venue to be dominated by an overwhelming number of the francophone delegation.
With this vacuum the Francophone Republic was able, through a mere revision of their virgin constitution to impose their name, flag, anthem, code of arms and national capital on the Southern Came-roons till date, as the insignia of a Federation which was never constituted.
And the Southern Cameroons became a mere appendix.
3. It is further noteworthy that in the aftermath of the failure to convene the International Conference, the United Nations did not call-off, suspend, or cancel their grant of independence to Southern Cameroons.
Similarly Britain, the Administering Authority, did not deny delivering the independence, which would have happened by continuing to maintain their Trusteeship presence in the Territory.
Furthermore, the Republic of Cameroun, on their part, did not complain about the irregularity of federating with another independent state without a prior Treaty.
As a result, the Southern Cameroons majestically moved forward and consummated her full Independence on the designated 1st October, 1961.
The term consummated means the populations celebrated the event, which affixed their Permanent Seal on the Independence.
It follows that, there was no longer any Independence "by joining" as such, meaning that we unconditionally achieved Full Independence inadvertently.
This Sovereign Class of Independence is the very type that most African countries achieved, which our people were clamouring for as a "third option", but the British brushed aside.
4. There have been external confirmations to our independence. Aside from the UN excluding us from being either a colony or a Trust Territory, the Republic of Cameroun has itself repeatedly recognised our separate Independence.
For instance, they placed the representative star of Southern Cameroons on their flag from 1961 to 1972 which symbolises that we were separately independent to have qualified for a star.
5. Another piece of evidence is that the Republic of Cameroun inserted the word "United" and the name of the country at some point became United Republic of Cameroon. Whenever the term "United" appears in the name of a country it shows that the states that formed the supposed federation were independent states.
An example is the use of the terminology "United" to describe the 52 states of the USA which shows that the states were independent countries that came together as equals.
The same applies to "United" in the name United Kingdom, which is also emphasising that Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England were independent kingdoms that united as equal partners.
6. Finally, on the 20th of February 2014 during a fake re-unification celebration in Buea (fake because re-unification does not exist where there was no prior unification in terms of a joint independence), Mr. Biya himself declared that the Southern Cameroons is an independent state. The population was clapping without understanding the message.
In the speech a copy of which we have, for whoever may wish to verify, he said "history cannot forget that Buea was once the Headquarters of West Cameroon", and "history cannot also forget that Buea was once the Capital of Southern Cameroons"
The meaning is that when our country was an un-independent territory Buea, the seat of government was a mere headquarters. But when we achieved independence, the very Buea transformed into a Capital.
Conclusion
Having proved that the Southern Cameroons is a fully independent State from whatever angle of analysis, the implied United Nations message to us through its recent Resolutions is not that we pursue our de-annexation by armed struggle.
Rather, it is for us to proceed through pure democratic means, using established UN Institutions. The ideal procedure is for us to begin from litigation, the outcome of which would enable us rouse the international community to act. This is the way (path) the smaller Republic of Cameroun went (took) before redeeming the Bakassi Peninsular from the almighty Nigeria. Not even the Security Council can veto the decision of a court.
This is the vision that, after 11 years of research and analysis, guided the SCNC to first sue the Republic of Cameroon in the local high Court in Bamenda, Southern Cameroons in September 2011.
The dismissal verdict six months later coupled with two related arrests of Thomas NWACHAN, the primary researcher and filer of the case, helped open the door for the case to enter the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Committee.
Our 72-page petition by reason of 400 synoptic arguments, jointly and severally indicting the Francophone Republic, Britain and the UN, was received by the court on April 9, 2014.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are in regular contact with the court to which we have submitted further evidence on demand. But you know the court takes its time between three to five years to render its verdict.
However, we are confident of a victorious outcome, considering the positive results of the previous personal cases of two of our citizens, Gorgi Dinka and Albert Mukong, against the Republic of Came-roun by this very court.
It follows that we must watch out against repeating the errors of the past. As an Independent State we can no longer concede to the deceptive proposals of another referendum, constitutional reform, re-federation, and Vice-Presidency when there is no prior Treaty to anchor any of these reforms.
This does not suggest that there is now room for a Treaty either. Not only is it impossible to reconvene the UN-prescribed post-Plebiscite International Conference, the parties to the Treaty no longer exist for the following reasons, as well.
The Trusteeship Authority expired on 30th September 1961, with the downing of the British flag. So neither the UN nor Britain can return to the Southern Cameroons to work out the Treaty, on the basis of the Trusteeship Agreement. In addition, as an independent State only the Southern Cameroons can work out a Treaty between herself and whomever.
Furthermore, the Republic of Cameroun tore away the democratically elected government of Southern Cameroons in 1972, so there is no legitimate government representing the Southern Cameroons with whom to work out any such Treaty today.
Thus the Francophone Republic will finally be left alone to be licking its wounds. Since, in light of the foregoing arguments, the Southern Cameroons is bound to be restored its deserved sovereign-ty.
Long Live the SCNC
Long live the UN Right to Self Determination
Long Live the Would-Be State of Southern Cameroons
My Dear Enow Takor,
What is at issue is :1 . The Southern Cameroons was militarily occupied immediately after the Plebiscite in pursuit of socalled fleeing "maquisards" from LRC2 . Annexation in September 1961 by Ahidjo ' s asymmetrical federalism3. Colonization and systematic development of economic underdevelopment as from October 1,1961.4. Annihilation,exclusion, secession by President Paul Biya ' s LRC and marginalization of the colony by the 1984 Biya decree reenacting LRC at independence from January 1,1960.Historically, that is the trajectory. The butt lickers of whatver persuasion may twist history.But, the brutal facts face us without blinking.Tatah mentan
Hello bro,
I am assuming that what they mean by "Southern Cameroons is already decolonized by joining East Cameroun" is through the United Nations organized plebiscite of February 1961. If my assumption is right, the question then becomes whether the results of that plebiscite were ever consumated. In other words, were the plebiscitary results ever ratified by the United Nations itself so as to make them official? And, once Southern Cameroons was "decolonized by joining East Cameroun" through the plebiscite, what type of political arrangements did both sides make to coexist. If, for example, a political arrangement was agreed upon by both sides, did any external body like the United Nations bear witness to it, and what were the terms? Since Southern Cameroons supposedly joined East Cameroun by plebiscite, we have gone through federal and unitary systems, and finally, the incorporation of Southern Cameroons into East Cameroon to become part of La Republique du Cameroun, which is what East Cameroun used to be called. The transition to the United Republc of Cameroon is for all intent and purpose, illegal because it was foisted on Southern Cameroonians through Ahidjou's extraconstitutionality. It was a single ballot issue of oui/yes without a non/no ballot.Above all else,the last straw that tore apart the unofficial results of the plebisite by which Souhern Cameoons is assumed to have been decolonized by joining East Cameroun is Paul Biya's administrative fiat(Presiential Decree) which juridically abolished the United Republic of Cameroon, although, again, this system was itself illegal, and single handedly replaced it with the former East Cameroun appellation of La Republique du Cameroun. By this decree, Southern Cameroons ceased being decolonized by supposedly joining East Cameroun juridically and de jure. onequently, what we now have is the illegal occupation and annexation of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun, in my view.
ENOW TAKOR
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 5/30/16, Divine Rhyme hittback@yahoo.com [cameroon_politics] <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Subject: Re: [cameroon_politics] UN Resolution Gives Great Hope for Southern Cameroons Sovereignty: SCNC REACTS TO RECENT UN RESOLUTIONS ON DE-COLONIZATION
To: "cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com" <cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>, "camnetwork@yahoogroups.com" <camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>, "bafutmanjong_uk@yahoogroups.com" <bafutmanjong_uk@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: "Edwin Ngang" <ednngang@yahoo.com>, "Edwin Ngang" <ednngang@hotmail.com>, "yahoogroups" <colo_angl@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, May 30, 2016, 4:40 PM
Below
is a cut and paste from a UN document where Southern
Cameroon is listed as already decolonized by joining East
Cameroon.Here
is where the matter becomes very unclear and it seems
different people interpret it differently.It is
clearly written here that decolonize by joining. We usually
say the devil is in the details. It
is clearly written here without any ambiguity thatNo
1 Togoland (under British
administration)United with
the Gold Coast
(Colony and Protectorate), a Non-Self-Governing Territory
administered
by the United Kingdom, in 1957 to form
Ghana
No.
II
Somaliland
(under Italian
administration)United
with British Somaliland Protectorate in 1960 to form
SomaliaNo.
III Tanganyika
(under British administration)Became
independent in 1961 (in
1964, Tanganyika and the former protectorate of Zanzibar,
which had
become independent in 1963, united as a single State under the name of
the United Republic of
Tanzania)
No.
IV Cameroons
(under British administration) Northern
territory joined
Nigeria and Southern territory joined Cameroon
(1961)
No
V Ruanda-Urundi
(under Belgian administration)Voted
to
divide into the two
sovereign -States of Rwanda and Burundi in
1962
Now
this is my problem
I
have just selected a few of the decolonized territories
listed in this UN publication, complete with their official
names as of the date of decolonization - either through
direct independence as single territories or as territories
which decided to form a new nation with others in
carefully defined status. The words UNITED and SELF GOVERNING in Free
Association with The USA...,(this in reference to The
Federated States of Micronesia) cannot be clearer.
In all these the descriptions are very
precise and unambiguous. But its only in the case of British
Cameroons where the word
JOINED is without any qualification - not even
an implied one.
. What could join
mean in this case?. United
definitely means two territories,
distinctly separate before, choose to come together by an
arrangement which has a definite process and requirements
known to the UN system and in international politics. United
usually entails having a single government, and
one international boundary. But territories can join with one another in hundreds of
ways which the UN does not necessarily know about. And each
can still maintain their international boundaries. Most
territories have joined
and then united to form single states.
Therefore joining does not have a single meaning in
international politics. Logic tells me that joining does not necessarily
mean coming together as one but United
means exactly that except otherwise stated.
Has Southern Cameroons ever united
with French Cameroon? But then the
intriguing thing here is that in 1972 Ahidjo organized a
referendum to reunite
- meaning there had been a unification
before
- but when was that? Did he take
joining to mean uniting
giving him the reason to re-unite once
more?It seems this is one of the rare releases
from the struggle that has made sense to me without leaving
a bitter taste of doubt in my mind. This release does not
exaggerate its achievements so far but it sure gives real
hopes - but above all there is clarity in the approach.
Another interesting aspect is that unlike before, the writer
has stated his position on the matter without attempting to
vilify the approach from another front - in this case that
of Professor Chia. Professor Chia's approach too makes a
lot of sense but for the fact that he bases his argument
solely on the premise that Britain violated its trusteeship
mandate by splitting the territory in two and organizing
plebiscites separately to ask each part to choose either
to join
French Cameroon or The Federal Republic of
Nigeria. But if various arguments from lawyers
specialized in international law are correct, then
Professor Chia does not have much of a case because it seems
he has not bothered to make any arguments concerning the
various machinations by the regimes of Mr. Ahidjo and
presently Mr. Biya to violate the sovereignty of Southern
Cameroons. His problem is with Britain. But what I cannot
understand is what really stops all these Southern Cameroons
factions to come together and carry on the struggle from a
united platform. If that happens we might also come to
understand how is that Professor Chia is so convinced
about his approach. Why would he not believe these experts
on International law? There must be something wrong we seem
not to be seeing here. What might make some of us a little
bit skeptical about Professor Chia's approach is the
secrecy shrouding his entire enterprise. I personally
don't see the need for such secrecy. But common sense
does not allow me believe that he would not want to believe
in the expertise of international lawyers. There must be
something driving him forward.
FEN
Skip
to main navigation Skip
to content
Welcome to the United
Nations. It's your world.
UN
Search
The
United Nations and Decolonization
UN
Home Main
Page Committee
of 24
Regional
Seminars
Fourth
Committee
Documents
Press
Releases
History
International
Trusteeship System
Trust
and Non-Self-Governing Territories (1945-2002)
Trusteeship
Council
Trust
Territories that have achieved
self-determination
Historical
Documents
Resources
Contact
Us
New
on the site
Video:
PACC Tokelau: Vital Health
Trust
Territories that have achieved self-determination
Togoland
(under British administration)
United
with the Gold Coast
(Colony and Protectorate), a Non-Self-Governing Territory
administered
by the United Kingdom, in 1957 to form Ghana
Somaliland
(under Italian administration)
United
with British Somaliland Protectorate in 1960 to form
Somalia
Togoland
(under French administration)
Became
independent as Togo in 1960 etc.
Cameroons
(under French administration)
Became
independent as Cameroon in 1960
Cameroons
(under British administration)
Northern
territory joined Nigeria and Southern territory joined
Cameroon (1961)
Tanganyika
(under British administration)
Became
independent in 1961 (in
1964, Tanganyika and the former protectorate of Zanzibar,
which had
become independent in 1963, united as a single State under
the name of
the United Republic of Tanzania)
Ruanda-Urundi
(under Belgian administration)
Voted
to divide into the two sovereign States of Rwanda and
Burundi in 1962
Western
Samoa (under New Zealand administration)
Became
independent as Samoa in 1962
Nauru
(administered by Australia on behalf of Australia, New
Zealand and the United Kingdom)
Became
independent in 1968
New
Guinea (administered by Australia)
United
with the
Non-Self-Governing Territory of Papua, also administered by
Australia,
to become the independent State of Papua New Guinea in
1975
Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands:
Federated States of
Micronesia
Became fully self-governing in free
Association with the United States in 1990Republic of the
Marshall Islands
Became fully self-governing in free
Association with the United States in 1990Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands
Became fully self-governing as
Commonwealth of the United States in 1990Palau
Became fully self-governing in free
Association with the United States in 1994
Copyright
| Terms
of Use | Privacy
Notice | Site
Index | Fraud
Alert | Contact Us
From: "Aaron Rezeh
rezehatm@yahoo.com [cameroon_politics]"
<cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
To:
"cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com"
<cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>;
"camnetwork@yahoogroups.com"
<camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>;
"bafutmanjong_uk@yahoogroups.com"
<bafutmanjong_uk@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: Edwin Ngang
<ednngang@yahoo.com>; Edwin Ngang
<ednngang@hotmail.com>; yahoogroups
<colo_angl@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 30,
2016 9:35 AM
Subject: Re:
[cameroon_politics] UN Resolution Gives Great Hope for
Southern Cameroons Sovereignty: SCNC REACTS TO RECENT UN
RESOLUTIONS ON DE-COLONIZATION
UN Resolution Gives Great Hope for
Southern Cameroons Sovereignty: SCNC REACTS TO RECENT UN
RESOLUTIONS ON DE-COLONIZATIONposted
by Akene
Asobo May 24, 2016 Home
Just
reformatted version:*In
the Series of United Nation resolutions of the 9th of
December 2015 that have sovereignty implication for the
Southern Cameroon Struggle, we believe that the news of its
coming was the basis of the rumour by the UNO State that
their British Cameroon was going to be freed on that 9th of
December 2015 .Since
the resolutions came out, there have been a lot of wrong
comments from abroad and at home. But here in below, we
publish an incisive analysis by the SCNC of what these
resolutions really mean for the struggle of Southern
Cameroon.
We
have studiously read the December 9th 2015 UN Resolutions on
decolonization, as well as the reactions from many quarters
particularly our members in the diaspora.
The
views expressed fall into two categories namely:Those
that sincerely confess that they do not understand the
relevance of those resolutions to our specific problem,
and
Those
who try to interpret wrongly by referring to Resolution 1608
as dead, hence the Southern Cameroons could never be
liberated.
In
this situation, the SCNC is duty-bound to herein below,
scientifically explain the implications of these Resolutions
for the benefit of all Southern Cameroons citizens.
Generally
speaking, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to
re-affirm its commitment to the principle of
self-determination as the Divine Right of all peoples.
This re-assertion indicates
that the World Body is fully aware and concerned about the
different levels of human rights abuses, and certainly will
eventually resolve our annexation problem.
Specifically
speaking, the list of the remaining colonial territories
comprising American Samoa, Anguilla, Bermuda,
British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Guam, Montserrat,
Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the
United States Virgin Islands, still in the possession of the
United States, Britain, and France, does not include the
Southern Cameroons.
The meaning is that the
Southern Cameroons was already de-colonized. Elsewhere the UN has published
another list of 15 Territories, including the Southern
Cameroons as former Trust Territories which were decolonized
by 1994. (See UN website sources URL: http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/selfdet.shtml;The
first essential message implied – by having not included
our territory among those to be decolonized – is that we
were already Independent as of 1st October 1961 even though
most of our intellectual elite continue to be
unaware.
The second message is that our
problem is annexation, which means the swallow-up of our
state by another state. And its de-annexation requires an
entirely different procedure.
This analysis is especially
important to some of our Nationalist Movements such as the
UNO-State Group and the Southern Cameroons Lawyers
Association. They have wrongly continued to insist that we
need to be independent, whereas our quest at the present
stage is for Sovereign Recognition since we are already
independent as of 1st October 1961.
It is also important to some of
our compatriots who unfortunately are calling for an armed
struggle, being ignorant that an Independent State does not
articulate our annexation type of problem through armed
struggle. It would, like in war-torn Syria, destroy our
country before we return to the very peace table where we
should have started.
How we achieved Full
Independence.
By scientific analysis
the SCNC has 72 proofs of our Separate Independence
from that of the Francophone Republic of Cameroun. But
suffice us to here-in below present you just a half dozen of
the most elementary of them.
1.
The Plebiscite
"Yes" vote was a decision to achieve Independence, and
not to "join" whom ever for two reasons.
The Independence issue was
prioritized by being given the first position in the
Plebiscite Question of "Do You Wish to Achieve
Independence by Joining Nigeria?" Or "Do You Wish To
Achieve Independence By Joining the Republic of
Cameroon?"
The issue of Independence was
the antecedent of the condition of "joining", meaning
that it was indispensable, whereas the "joining", was merely
secondary.
A simple analogy is that in a
similar question of "Do You Wish to Go to New York by Air
or by Sea", the most important point is the decision to go
to New York. It is not the means of transport.
Furthermore, the UN endorsement
vote of 19th April 1961 on the outcome of the Plebiscite was
on our decision to achieve independence, and NOT on any
"Joining".
If the endorsement vote was for
the "joining", the United Nations would not have called
for the Post-Plebiscite International Conference whereat the
conditions of "joining" were still to be discussed and
its "modalities" worked out.The second reason is that
throughout the 72-year history of the United Nations, the
Organisation grants Independences. That is why it designated
1st
October 1961 as the Independence Day of
Southern Cameroons. Indeed, the World Body has
never granted any "joining"2. The UN-required
post-Plebiscite international conference did not hold, so
there was no occasion to have established any "joining"
between us and the Francophone Republic of Cameroun through
a Treaty which could only have resulted from an
International Conference.It
should be understood that the substituted Foumban conference
did not meet the standard of an International Conference, to
have worked out the required Treaty.It
follows that "The Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Cameroon", ironically called by the county's entire
virgin name at the suffix, as well as the multitude of other
subsequent constitutions therefrom, do not have the weight
of a Treaty.And
being strictly the exclusive Fundamental Law of the
Francophone Republic, it has no binding force on the
statehood of Southern Cameroons.Worse
still neither Britain nor the UN – which was to witness
the occasion – informed the Southern Cameroons government
that they would not attend the conference. Obviously the
Southern Cameroons government would not have proceeded to
the venue to be dominated by an overwhelming number of the
francophone delegation.With
this vacuum the Francophone Republic was able, through a
mere revision of their virgin constitution to impose their
name, flag, anthem, code of arms and national capital on the
Southern Cameroons till date, as the insignia of a
Federation which was never constituted.And
the Southern Cameroons became a mere appendix.3. It is further noteworthy that
in the aftermath of the failure to convene the International
Conference, the United Nations did not call-off, suspend, or
cancel their grant of independence to Southern
Cameroons.Similarly
Britain, the Administering Authority, did not deny
delivering the independence, which would have happened by
continuing to maintain their Trusteeship presence in the
Territory.Furthermore,
the Republic of Cameroun, on their part, did not complain
about the irregularity of federating with another
independent state without a prior Treaty.As
a result, the Southern Cameroons majestically moved forward
and consummated her full Independence on the designated 1st
October, 1961.The
term consummated means the populations celebrated the event,
which affixed their Permanent Seal on the
Independence.It follows that, there was no
longer any Independence "by joining" as such, meaning that we
unconditionally achieved Full Independence
inadvertently.This
Sovereign Class of Independence is the very type that most
African countries achieved, which our people were clamouring
for as a "third option", but the British brushed
aside.4.
There have been
external confirmations to our independence. Aside from the
UN excluding us from being either a colony or a Trust
Territory, the Republic of Cameroun has itself repeatedly
recognised our separate Independence.For instance, they placed
the
representative star of Southern Cameroons on their flag from
1961 to 1972 which symbolises that we were
separately independent to have qualified for a
star.5. Another piece of evidence is
that the Republic of Cameroun inserted the word "United"
and the name of the country at some point became United
Republic of Cameroon. Whenever the term "United" appears in the name of a
country it shows that the states that formed the supposed
federation were independent states.An example is the use of the
terminology "United" to describe the 52 states of the
USA which shows that the states were independent countries
that came together as equals.The same applies to
"United" in the name United Kingdom, which is also
emphasising that Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and
England were independent kingdoms that united as equal
partners.6.
Finally, on the 20th of
February 2014 during a fake re-unification celebration in
Buea (fake because re-unification does not exist where there
was no prior unification in terms of a joint independence),
Mr. Biya himself declared that the Southern Cameroons is an
independent state. The population was clapping without
understanding the message.In the speech a copy of which
we have, for whoever may wish to verify, he said "history
cannot forget that Buea
was
once the Headquarters of West Cameroon", and
"history cannot also forget that
Buea was
once the Capital of Southern
Cameroons"The
meaning is that when our country was an un-independent
territory Buea, the seat of government was a mere
headquarters. But when we achieved independence, the very
Buea transformed into a Capital.
Conclussion
Having proved that the Southern
Cameroons is a fully independent State from whatever angle
of analysis, the implied United Nations message to us
through its recent Resolutions is not that we pursue our
de-annexation by armed struggle.
Rather, it is for us to proceed
through pure democratic means, using established UN
Institutions. The ideal procedure is for us to begin from
litigation, the outcome of which would enable us rouse the
international community to act. This is the way (path) the
smaller Republic of Cameroun went (took) before redeeming
the Bakassi Peninsular from the almighty Nigeria. Not even
the Security Council can veto the decision of a
court.
This is the vision that, after
11 years of research and analysis, guided the SCNC to first
sue the Republic of Cameroon in the local high Court in
Bamenda, Southern Cameroons in September 2011.
The dismissal verdict six
months later coupled with two related arrests of Thomas
NWACHAN, the primary researcher and filer of the case,
helped open the door for the case to enter the Geneva-based
UN Human Rights Committee.
Our 72-page petition by reason
of 400 synoptic arguments, jointly and severally indicting
the Francophone Republic, Britain and the UN, was received
by the court on April 9, 2014.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are in
regular contact with the court to which we have submitted
further evidence on demand. But you know the court takes its
time between three to five years to render its
verdict.
However, we are confident of a
victorious outcome, considering the positive results of the
previous personal cases of two of our citizens, Gorgi Dinka
and Albert Mukong, against the Republic of Cameroun by this
very court.
It follows that we must watch
out against repeating the errors of the past. As an
Independent State we can no longer concede to the deceptive
proposals of another referendum, constitutional reform,
re-federation, and Vice-Presidency when there is no prior
Treaty to anchor any of these reforms.
This does not suggest that
there is now room for a Treaty either. Not only is it
impossible to reconvene the UN-prescribed post-Plebiscite
International Conference, the parties to the Treaty no
longer exist for the following reasons, as well.
The Trusteeship Authority
expired on 30th September 1961, with the downing of the
British flag. So neither the UN nor Britain can return to
the Southern Cameroons to work out the Treaty, on the basis
of the Trusteeship Agreement. In addition, as an independent
State only the Southern Cameroons can work out a Treaty
between herself and whomever.
Furthermore, the Republic of
Cameroun tore away the democratically
elected government of Southern Cameroons in 1972, so there is no legitimate
government representing the Southern Cameroons with whom to
work out any such Treaty today.
Thus the Francophone Republic
will finally be left alone to be licking its wounds. Since,
in light of the foregoing arguments, the Southern Cameroons
is bound to be restored its deserved
sovereignty.
Long Live the SCNC
Long live the UN Right to Self
Determination
Long Live the Would-Be State of
Southern CameroonsSigned:THOMAS
N. NWACHAN,
B.A.
Hist., M.A Pol. Sc., M.A Mgt.
1969
combined winner of Fulbright of US Congress, and
The
Lawrence Wien International Scholarships
Through
Brandeis University, Mass,
USA. Dr. Aaron T. M.
From: "Martin
Tumasang tumasangm@hotmail.com [cameroon_politics]"
<cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>
To:
"camnetwork@yahoogroups.com"
<camnetwork@yahoogroups.com>;
"cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com"
<cameroon_politics@yahoogroups.com>;
"bafutmanjong_uk@yahoogroups.com"
<bafutmanjong_uk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday,
May 24, 2016 11:09 AM
Subject:
[cameroon_politics] UN Resolution Gives Great Hope for
Southern Cameroons Sovereignty: SCNC REACTS TO RECENT UN
RESOLUTIONS ON DE-COLONIZATION
UN Resolution Gives Great Hope for Southern
Cameroons Sovereignty: SCNC REACTS TO RECENT UN RESOLUTIONS
ON DE-COLONIZATIONposted
by Akene
Asobo May 24, 2016 Home
*In the Series of United Nation resolutions of
the 9th of December 2015 that have sovereignty implication
for the Southern Cameroon Struggle, we believe that the news
of its coming was the basis of the rumour by the UNO State
that their British Cameroon was going to be freed on that
9th of December 2015 .
Since the resolutions
came out, there have been a lot of wrong comments from
abroad and at home. But here in below, we publish an
incisive analysis by the SCNC of what these resolutions
really mean for the struggle of Southern Cameroon.
We have studiously read the December 9th 2015
UN Resolutions on decolonization, as well as the reactions
from many quarters particularly our members in the
diaspora.
The views expressed fall into two
categories namely:
Those that sincerely
confess that they do not understand the relevance of those
resolutions to our specific problem, and
Those who try to interpret wrongly by referring
to Resolution 1608 as dead, hence the Southern Cameroons
could never be liberated.
In this situation,
the SCNC is duty-bound to herein below, scientifically
explain the implications of these Resolutions for the
benefit of all Southern Cameroons citizens.
Generally speaking, the UN General Assembly
voted overwhelmingly to re-affirm its commitment to the
principle of self-determination as the Divine Right of all
peoples.
This re-assertion indicates that
the World Body is fully aware and concerned about the
different levels of human rights abuses, and certainly will
eventually resolve our annexation problem.
Specifically speaking, the list of the
remaining colonial territories comprising American Samoa,
Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands,
Guam, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Saint Helena, Turks and Caicos
Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands, still in the
possession of the United States, Britain, and France, does
not include the Southern Cameroons.
The
meaning is that the Southern Cameroons was already
de-colonized.
Elsewhere the UN has published
another list of 15 Territories, including the Southern
Cameroons as former Trust Territories which were decolonized
by 1994. (See UN website sources URL:
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/selfdet.shtml;
The first essential message implied – by
having not included our territory among those to be
decolonized – is that we were already Independent as of
1st October 1961 even though most of our intellectual elite
continue to be unaware.
The second message
is that our problem is annexation, which means the
swallow-up of our state by another state. And its
de-annexation requires an entirely different procedure.
This analysis is especially important to some
of our Nationalist Movements such as the UNO-State Group and
the Southern Cameroons Lawyers Association. They have
wrongly continued to insist that we need to be independent,
whereas our quest at the present stage is for Sovereign
Recognition since we are already independent as of 1st
October 1961.
It is also important to some
of our compatriots who unfortunately are calling for an
armed struggle, being ignorant that an Independent State
does not articulate our annexation type of problem through
armed struggle. It would, like in war-torn Syria, destroy
our country before we return to the very peace table where
we should have started.
How we achieved Full
Independence.
By scientific analysis the
SCNC has 72 proofs of our Separate Independence from that of
the Francophone Republic of Cameroun. But suffice us to
here-in below present you just a half dozen of the most
elementary of them.
1. The Plebiscite "Yes"
vote was a decision to achieve Independence, and not to
"join" whom ever for two reasons.
The
Independence issue was prioritized by being given the first
position in the Plebiscite Question of "Do You Wish to
Achieve Independence by Joining Nigeria?" Or "Do You
Wish To Achieve Independence By Joining the Republic of
Cameroon?"
The issue of Independence was
the antecedent of the condition of "joining", meaning
that it was indispensable, whereas the "joining", was
merely secondary.
A simple analogy is that
in a similar question of "Do You Wish to Go to New York by
Air or by Sea", the most important point is the decision
to go to New York. It is not the means of transport.
Furthermore, the UN endorsement vote of 19th
April 1961 on the outcome of the Plebiscite was on our
decision to achieve independence, and NOT on any
"Joining".
If the endorsement vote was
for the "joining", the United Nations would not have
called for the Post-Plebiscite International Conference
whereat the conditions of "joining" were still to be
discussed and its "modalities" worked out.The
second reason is that throughout the 72-year history of the
United Nations, the Organisation grants Independences. That
is why it designated 1st October 1961 as the Independence
Day of Southern Cameroons. Indeed, the World Body has never
granted any "joining"2.
The UN-required post-Plebiscite international conference did
not hold, so there was no occasion to have established any
"joining" between us and the Francophone Republic of
Cameroun through a Treaty which could only have resulted
from an International Conference.It
should be understood that the substituted Foumban conference
did not meet the standard of an International Conference, to
have worked out the required Treaty.It
follows that "The Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Cameroon", ironically called by the county's entire
virgin name at the suffix, as well as the multitude of other
subsequent constitutions therefrom, do not have the weight
of a Treaty.And
being strictly the exclusive Fundamental Law of the
Francophone Republic, it has no binding force on the
statehood of Southern Cameroons.Worse
still neither Britain nor the UN – which was to witness
the occasion – informed the Southern Cameroons government
that they would not attend the conference. Obviously the
Southern Cameroons government would not have proceeded to
the venue to be dominated by an overwhelming number of the
francophone delegation.With
this vacuum the Francophone Republic was able, through a
mere revision of their virgin constitution to impose their
name, flag, anthem, code of arms and national capital on the
Southern Cameroons till date, as the insignia of a
Federation which was never constituted.And
the Southern Cameroons became a mere appendix.3.
It is further noteworthy that in the aftermath of the
failure to convene the International Conference, the United
Nations did not call-off, suspend, or cancel their grant of
independence to Southern Cameroons.Similarly
Britain, the Administering Authority, did not deny
delivering the independence, which would have happened by
continuing to maintain their Trusteeship presence in the
Territory.Furthermore,
the Republic of Cameroun, on their part, did not complain
about the irregularity of federating with another
independent state without a prior Treaty.As
a result, the Southern Cameroons majestically moved forward
and consummated her full Independence on the designated 1st
October, 1961.The
term consummated means the populations celebrated the event,
which affixed their Permanent Seal on the
Independence.It
follows that, there was no longer any Independence "by
joining" as such, meaning that we unconditionally achieved
Full Independence inadvertently.This
Sovereign Class of Independence is the very type that most
African countries achieved, which our people were clamouring
for as a "third option", but the British brushed
aside.4.
There have been external confirmations to our independence.
Aside from the UN excluding us from being either a colony or
a Trust Territory, the Republic of Cameroun has itself
repeatedly recognised our separate Independence.For
instance, they placed the representative star of Southern
Cameroons on their flag from 1961 to 1972 which symbolises
that we were separately independent to have qualified for a
star.5.
Another piece of evidence is that the Republic of Cameroun
inserted the word "United" and the name of the country
at some point became United Republic of Cameroon. Whenever
the term "United" appears in the name of a country it
shows that the states that formed the supposed federation
were independent states.An
example is the use of the terminology "United" to
describe the 52 states of the USA which shows that the
states were independent countries that came together as
equals.The
same applies to "United" in the name United Kingdom,
which is also emphasising that Wales, Scotland, Northern
Ireland and England were independent kingdoms that united as
equal partners.6.
Finally, on the 20th of February 2014 during a fake
re-unification celebration in Buea (fake because
re-unification does not exist where there was no prior
unification in terms of a joint independence), Mr. Biya
himself declared that the Southern Cameroons is an
independent state. The population was clapping without
understanding the message.In
the speech a copy of which we have, for whoever may wish to
verify, he said "history cannot forget that Buea was once
the Headquarters of West Cameroon", and "history cannot
also forget that Buea was once the Capital of Southern
Cameroons"The
meaning is that when our country was an un-independent
territory Buea, the seat of government was a mere
headquarters. But when we achieved independence, the very
Buea transformed into a Capital.
Conclussion
Having proved that the Southern Cameroons is a
fully independent State from whatever angle of analysis, the
implied United Nations message to us through its recent
Resolutions is not that we pursue our de-annexation by armed
struggle.
Rather, it is for us to proceed
through pure democratic means, using established UN
Institutions. The ideal procedure is for us to begin from
litigation, the outcome of which would enable us rouse the
international community to act. This is the way (path) the
smaller Republic of Cameroun went (took) before redeeming
the Bakassi Peninsular from the almighty Nigeria. Not even
the Security Council can veto the decision of a court.
This is the vision that, after 11 years of
research and analysis, guided the SCNC to first sue the
Republic of Cameroon in the local high Court in Bamenda,
Southern Cameroons in September 2011.
The
dismissal verdict six months later coupled with two related
arrests of Thomas NWACHAN, the primary researcher and filer
of the case, helped open the door for the case to enter the
Geneva-based UN Human Rights Committee.
Our
72-page petition by reason of 400 synoptic arguments,
jointly and severally indicting the Francophone Republic,
Britain and the UN, was received by the court on April 9,
2014.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are in
regular contact with the court to which we have submitted
further evidence on demand. But you know the court takes its
time between three to five years to render its verdict.
However, we are confident of a victorious
outcome, considering the positive results of the previous
personal cases of two of our citizens, Gorgi Dinka and
Albert Mukong, against the Republic of Cameroun by this very
court.
It follows that we must watch out
against repeating the errors of the past. As an Independent
State we can no longer concede to the deceptive proposals of
another referendum, constitutional reform, re-federation,
and Vice-Presidency when there is no prior Treaty to anchor
any of these reforms.
This does not suggest
that there is now room for a Treaty either. Not only is it
impossible to reconvene the UN-prescribed post-Plebiscite
International Conference, the parties to the Treaty no
longer exist for the following reasons, as well.
The Trusteeship Authority expired on 30th
September 1961, with the downing of the British flag. So
neither the UN nor Britain can return to the Southern
Cameroons to work out the Treaty, on the basis of the
Trusteeship Agreement. In addition, as an independent State
only the Southern Cameroons can work out a Treaty between
herself and whomever.
Furthermore, the
Republic of Cameroun tore away the democratically elected
government of Southern Cameroons in 1972, so there is no
legitimate government representing the Southern Cameroons
with whom to work out any such Treaty today.
Thus the Francophone Republic will finally be
left alone to be licking its wounds. Since, in light of the
foregoing arguments, the Southern Cameroons is bound to be
restored its deserved sovereignty.
Long Live
the SCNC
Long live the UN Right to Self
Determination
Long Live the Would-Be State
of Southern CameroonsSigned:THOMAS
N. NWACHAN
B.A. Hist., M.A Pol. Sc., M.A
Mgt.
1969 combined winner of Fulbright of US
Congress, and
The Lawrence Wien
International Scholarships
Through Brandeis
University, Mass, USA.
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847 --
#yiv9691609847ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mkp #yiv9691609847hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mkp #yiv9691609847ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mkp .yiv9691609847ad {
padding:0 0;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mkp .yiv9691609847ad p {
margin:0;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mkp .yiv9691609847ad a {
color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-sponsor
#yiv9691609847ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-sponsor
#yiv9691609847ygrp-lc #yiv9691609847hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-sponsor
#yiv9691609847ygrp-lc .yiv9691609847ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847activity span {
font-weight:700;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847activity span
.yiv9691609847underline {
text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847bold a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 dd.yiv9691609847last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
#yiv9691609847 dd.yiv9691609847last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
#yiv9691609847 dd.yiv9691609847last p
span.yiv9691609847yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}
#yiv9691609847 div.yiv9691609847attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 div.yiv9691609847attach-table {
width:400px;}
#yiv9691609847 div.yiv9691609847file-title a, #yiv9691609847
div.yiv9691609847file-title a:active, #yiv9691609847
div.yiv9691609847file-title a:hover, #yiv9691609847
div.yiv9691609847file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 div.yiv9691609847photo-title a,
#yiv9691609847 div.yiv9691609847photo-title a:active,
#yiv9691609847 div.yiv9691609847photo-title a:hover,
#yiv9691609847 div.yiv9691609847photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 div#yiv9691609847ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv9691609847ygrp-msg p a span.yiv9691609847yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847green {
color:#628c2a;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#yiv9691609847 o {
font-size:0;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847photos div div {
border:1px solid
#666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847photos div label {
color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847reco-category {
font-size:77%;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847reco-desc {
font-size:77%;}
#yiv9691609847 .yiv9691609847replbq {
margin:4px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mlmsg select,
#yiv9691609847 input, #yiv9691609847 textarea {
font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv9691609847
code {
font:115% monospace;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height:1.22em;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-mlmsg #yiv9691609847logo {
padding-bottom:10px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-msg p a {
font-family:Verdana;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-msg
p#yiv9691609847attach-count span {
color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-reco
#yiv9691609847reco-head {
color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-sponsor #yiv9691609847ov
li a {
font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-sponsor #yiv9691609847ov
li {
font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-sponsor #yiv9691609847ov
ul {
margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-text {
font-family:Georgia;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-text p {
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-text tt {
font-size:120%;}
#yiv9691609847 #yiv9691609847ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right:none !important;
}
#yiv9691609847
__._,_.___
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7)
Have you tried the highest rated email app?With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.
.
__,_._,___
--
The thing always happens that you really believe in; and the belief in a thing makes it happen.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ambasbay" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ambasbay+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
0 comments:
Post a Comment