AMBACIDE: The Genocide and Extermination Reminiscent of Extermination of Jews Holocaust... by Adolf Hitler 9956552488, 9789956552481
Genocide and extermination are no longer mere words, promises, hopes, etc. These acts are already a law which can be enf...
https://ebin.pub/ebinpub/assets/img/apple-icon-57x57.png
ebin.pub
Citation preview

Finally, Professor Tatah Mentan concludes that the pandemic genocide and extermination of Ambazonians by La République du Cameroun génocidaires can only be peacefully resolved by an internationally negotiated separation of both warring Former UN Category B Trust Territories. Tatah Mentan is an Independent Researcher, Member of the Political Commission for Nations and States under colonial rule, paciﬁst and engaged peace activist. He is a Theodore Lentz Peace and Security Studies Fellow, and Professor of Political Science.

Langaa Research & Publishing Common Initiative Group P.O. Box 902 Mankon Bamenda North West Region Cameroon

Tatah Mentan

Professor Tatah Mentan argues that the bloodbath was designed with a clear kinetic theological foundation as its centrepiece. The theologians of the genocide were ironically not clerics. They were rather journalists and sycophantic proregime intellectuals who apparently served as the echo chamber of the Biya genocidal regime for his Hitler-like “Final Solution” to crush and assimilate “Anglophones” – the “rats”, “cockroaches”, “secessionists”, “separatists”, or “microbes” as they were stigmatised. The suﬀering inﬂicted by Hitler on Jews fell outside the realm of expression. Often depicted as the savage lunatic who plunged the world into World War II, Adolf Hitler’s name has been on the tongues of historians, psychologists, economists, and laymen for ages. Similarly, President Paul Biya like Hitler the Monster is being depicted as the epitome of Lucifer himself.

AMBACIDE

Taking a look at the internet blackouts, the militarisation of towns and cities all across Southern Cameroons (Ambazonia), the indiscriminate torching of hundreds of villages, schools and health centres, the rampant gang rape of females by HIV-infected troops, mass killings of civilians, burning of innocent civilians in their sleep, disembowelling pregnant women and slaughtering them and their unborn babies, arbitrary arrests and detentions, dehumanising raids of residential areas in search of “Anglophones”, mindless torture, extortions, and looting by La République du Cameroun troops, the genocide and extermination were well planned in advance.

The Genocide and Extermination Reminiscent of Extermination of Jews (Holocaust) by Adolf Hitler

Genocide and extermination are no longer mere words, promises, hopes, etc. These acts are already a law which can be enforced. In practical terms, this law means no more extermination, no more mass killings, no more concentration camps, no more sterilisations, no more wanton rapes, no more killings and burning of people to conceal evidence, no more torching of habitats, no more breaking up of families. The call to stop genocide is often presented as the paramount moral obligation in contemporary global politics. The ‘Never Again’ refrain and the consistent references to the ethical value of Responsibility to Protect genocide stand as calls for urgent political mobilisation.

AMBACIDE

The Genocide and Extermination Reminiscent of Extermination of Jews (Holocaust) by Adolf Hitler

- Tatah Mentan -

AMBACIDE:

The Genocide and Extermination Reminiscent of Extermination of Jews (Holocaust) by Adolf Hitler

Tatah Mentan

Langaa Research & Publishing CIG Mankon, Bamenda

Publisher:

Langaa RPCIG Langaa Research & Publishing Common Initiative Group P.O. Box 902 Mankon Bamenda North West Region Cameroon [email protected] www.langaa-rpcig.net

Distributed in and outside N. America by African Books Collective [email protected] www.africanbookscollective.com

ISBN-10: 9956-552-48-8 ISBN-13: 978-9956-552-48-1

© Tatah Mentan 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical or electronic, including photocopying and recording, or be stored in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher

Dedication

Charity, Ruth, Kkeleghai, Ntsondeh, Kefeyin, and Berinyuy, and other victims of Genocide and Extermination that has been raging in Ambazonia for decades.

Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................... xi Introduction ...................................................................... xxi Prof. Fonkem Achankeng I Chapter One Chronology of Southern British Cameroons and Methodology of An analysis .............................................1 Chapter Two Deconstructing the Theory of Genocide according to Raphael Lemkin........................................... 29 Chapter Three The Root Causes of the Raging Genocide in Ambazonia .................................................... 55 Chapter Four UN Convention on the Punishment and Prevention of Genocide ..................................................... 109 Chapter Five Structural Violence as a Cause of and Conditions for Genocide and Extermination in Ambazonia ............................................ 147 Chapter Six Historico-Legal Path to Genocide and Extermination of Ambazonians ................................. 183 Chapter Seven The Slippery Identity Road to Genocide and Extermination ............................................................ 209 v

Chapter Eight President Biya Blows the Whistle for His ‘Final Solution’ ...................................................... 255 Chapter Nine From the Anger of Despair to Resistance and Self-Defence ............................................................... 331 Chapter Ten Epilogue ............................................................................ 371

vi

List of Illustrations Maps Map 1: Southern British Cameroons ............................................ 1 Map 2: Southern Cameroons and La Republique States ....................................................................... 216 Tables Table 1: Template used by Republic of Cameroun in Ambazonia ............................................................... 168 Table 2: Number of Coups in Africa by country........................ 297 Pictures Picture 1: Anti-marginalization protests....................................... 216 Picture 2: Biya depicted as Liberating Choice (Hero) of Cameroun ....................................................................... 235 Picture 3: Deceitful Propaganda Banners by CPDM Militants in French ....................................................... 237 Picture 4: Projection of President Biya as Charismatic Nationalist .............................................................. 241 Picture 5: Ambazonian, Civilians Raided, Tortured and Humiliated by the Military ..................................... 249 Picture 6: Displaced Ambazonian Families ................................. 257 Picture 7: Police Alleged to have Raped Nursing Teenage Mother in Bamenda......................................................... 268 Picture 8: The Military Massacre of Civilians in Ngarbuh ........ 273 Picture 9: Civilians Massacred and incinerated by the Cameroon Military .............................................................. 275 Picture 10: The Handicapped Mr. Chiabah before his Beheading....................................................................... 277 Picture 11: Pictures of Villages Burned to ashes ........................ 278 Picture 12: University of Buea Students Abducted for Torture ..................................................................... 279 Picture 13: Arrested Civilian Students under Torture ................ 280 Picture 14: Queen Elizabeth and Southern British Cameroons Traditional Leaders ....................................... 288 vii

Picture 15: Two Maps of Southern Cameroons and La Republique du Cameroun presented to President Biya on May 20, 2010 .................................................... 351 Picture 16: Ten Stages of Genocide ............................................. 373

viii

List of Acronyms ADF AGC APLM ARC ARCC ASC AU BIR CDC CENC CNDDR

EU GICAM ICC IG MORISC MRC NPMB PWD

Ambazonia Defence Forces Ambazonia Governing Council Ambazonia People’s Liberation Movement Ambazonia Restoration Council Ambazonia Recognition Collaboration Council Ambazonia Security Council African Union Bataillon d’intervention rapide/Rapid Intervention Battalion Cameroon Development Corporation Conférence Episcopale Nationale du Cameroun/National Episcopal Conference Comité National de Désarmement, de Démobilisation et de Réintégration/National Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration Committee European Union Groupement Inter-Patronal du Cameroun/Cameroon Employers’ Association International Criminal Court Interim Government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia Movement for Independence and Restoration of Southern Cameroons Mouvement pour la Renaissance du Cameroun/Cameroon Renaissance Movement National Produce Marketing Board Public Works Department

ix

RDPC/CPDM SCACUF SCAPO SCARM SCCOP SCNC SCYL SDF SNWOT SOCADEF UPC UN

Rassemblement Démocratique du Peuple Camerounais/Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement Southern Cameroons Consortium Southern Cameroons People’s Organization Southern Cameroons Restoration Movement Southern Cameroons Congress of People Southern Cameroons National Council Southern Cameroons Youth League Social Democratic Front South West and North West Women’s Task Force Southern Cameroons Defence Forces Union des Populations du Cameroun United Nations

x

Preface This book introduces the concept of Ambacide: an intentionally arranged genocide and extermination of people of Southern British Cameroons descent by La République du Cameroun. The volume analyses the decisions that go into any systematic mobilization of resources and the design patterns for the interactions that make use of these resources to perpetrate genocide and extermination despite “Never Again” posturing by the international community (see my book The United Nations Organization: (In)Securing Global Peace and Security). Yet the monsters Ahidjo and Biya, murderers of hundreds of thousands of Southern British Cameroonians, masters of destruction and organized insanity, did not come into the world as monsters. They were not sent to earth by the devil, as some people think, nor were they sent by heaven to “bring law and order” to Cameroons, to give the country the autobahn and rescue it from its economic crisis, as many others could wrongly believe. Human destructiveness is never inborn, and inherited traits are neither good nor evil. How these traits develop depends on one’s character, which is formed In the course of one’s life, and the nature of which it depends on. The experiences one has in childhood and adolescence, and on the decisions one makes as an adult. In order not to die, all the mistreated Southern British Cameroonians tended to totally repress the mistreatment for decades, deprivation, and bewilderment they have undergone because otherwise their organisms couldn't cope with the magnitude of the pain suffered. Only after decades did they have possibilities for dealing with their feelings. If they didn’t make use of these possibilities, then what was once the life-saving function of repression could be transformed into a dangerous destructive and self-destructive force? In the careers of despots such as Ahidjo and Biya, their suppressed fantasies of revenge can lead to indescribable atrocities. This phenomenon doesn’t exist anywhere in the entire animal kingdom. For no animal is trained by its parents to deny its nature xi

completely in order to become a “well-behaved” animal - only human beings act in such a destructive way. According to the reports of Camerounese criminals (and also of soldiers who volunteered to fight for the Ahidjo-Biya despots), their unconscious programming to be violent began in every case with a brutal upbringing that demanded absolute obedience and expressed total contempt for the Southern British Cameroonian. I know of no example of this which is so well-documented and which demonstrates so clearly the consequences of the psychological murder of humanity - bringing along with it a form of collective blindness - than the fateful success of the German Monster Adolf Hitler that has become a playbook in Southern British Cameroons. The UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Domestic Affairs of States (UNGA resolution 2131 (XX) 1965). The International Court was in no doubt about the existence of the principle in the Nicaragua case. However, whether the principle was reflected in the practice of States remains irrelevant when imperialist interests are concerned. The United Nations flushed Iraqi troops from occupation of Kuwait in the early 1990s. Allied forces stormed Iraq, assassinated Sadam Hussein and are still there today. Is this quietism a doctrine of Christian spirituality that, in general, holds that perfection consists in passivity (quiet) of the soul, in the suppression of human effort so that divine action may have full play? No! Is it racism? Or, why should the international community only act when it comes to Kosovo? Is the quietism intended to protect imperialist resource interests? Else, why did intervention in Libya come so handy? In the case of Iraq, was international intervention merely to garrison oil fields? Former French President Francois Mitterrand had made it clear that genocide in Africa should not be a problem! Really? The “heavy and damning responsibilities” by the French in the Rwandan genocide is eloquent testimony. With this callous indifference to Ambacide by the international community, Satan on his throne in Hell, seems a saint.

xii

The issue of intervention in the domestic affairs of independent countries by other independent nation(s) is therefore one of the biggest challenges bedevilling international law at the moment. This is because the need for the respect of human rights has been emphasized in recent years while, on the other hand, international law has firmly held the idea of sovereignty and its prime feature, the policy of non-interference in high regard. Indeed, sovereignty has been regarded as the foundation of modern international relations. However, the doctrine of unilateral humanitarian interventions gives state(s) powers to get involved in a countries’ affairs if there are cases of massive violation of human rights. These violations can be in the form of genocide or mass killings as it is the case in Southern British Cameroons (Ambazonia). In this manner, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention can be seen and evoked by the insensitive international community to be an affront to the principle of “non-interference” and as a result its validity has been questioned in recent times, even by the United Nations secretariat and uncaring Veto Powers. The knowledge on the concept of unilateral humanitarian intervention is significant in our modern era in that it is immoral to allow people to suffer under the guise of legal assumptions and theories. It is important to think of knowledge in a given field like genocide as consisting of three layers. First, there are the primary studies that researchers conduct and publish. Second, there are the reviews of those studies that summarize and offer new interpretations built from and often extending beyond the primary studies. Third, there are the perceptions, conclusions, opinion, and interpretations that are shared informally that become part of the lore of field. In this book, I have used a number of approaches. 1. Argumentative An argument takes a stand on an issue. In this volume On Ambacide, I examine literature in order to support or refute an argument, deeply imbedded assumption, or philosophical problem already established in the literature on issues like national sovereignty, territorial integrity, etc. The purpose is to develop a body of literature that establishes a contrarian viewpoint. Given the value-laden nature of rationalizations on issues of non-interference xiii

in internal affairs, I discuss the hypocrisy involved in unilateral intervention in Kosovo and Libya. 2. Integrative Considered a form of research that reviews, critiques, and synthesizes representative literature on alike genocide in an integrated way such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated. The body of literature includes all studies that address related or identical hypotheses or research problems like the Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The aim was to offer a well-done integrative review to meet the same standards as primary research in regard to clarity, rigor, and replication. 3. Historical Historical evidence can take a variety of forms among the most important types of historical evidence are primary sources such as original documents, artifacts, or other pieces of information that are created as Ambacide rages. So, if we are studying World War II, primary sources would include everything government documents to photographs to physical uniforms and equipment. Primary sources here are wide-ranging. Battlefield pictures of villages burnt is a primary source because it was taken right then and there, at that moment in history. Secondary sources contain useful information, but typically involve an analysis of primary source material. I wish to note here that history is more complex than many people realize. It is so much more than memorizing names, dates, and places. History is very much ‘scientific.’ It involves critical thinking. It involves formulating hypotheses based on evidence and testing them. That is what this book is about by tracing the systematic genocide and extermination of Southern British Cameroonians by personalist predatory President Ahmadou Ahidjo to the totalitarian sociopath President Paul Biya. 4. Methodological A review does not always focus on what someone said [findings], but how they came about saying what they say (method of analysis). Reviewing methods of analysis provides a framework of understanding at different levels (i.e. those of theory, substantive fields, research approaches, and data collection and analysis techniques), how researchers draw upon a wide variety of knowledge ranging from the conceptual level to practical xiv

documents for use in the areas of ontological and epistemological consideration, quantitative and qualitative integration, data collection, and data analysis. This approach helps highlight ethical issues like stigmatisation of target groups (Ambazonians) for extermination. 5. Systematic This form consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question, which uses pre-specified and standardized methods to identify and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect, report, and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. The goal is to deliberately document, critically evaluate, and summarize scientifically all of the research about a clearly defined research problem like genocide. Typically, it focuses on a very specific empirical question, often posed in a cause-and-effect form, such as “To what extent does A (Hate speech) contribute to B (genocide)?” 6. Theoretical The purpose of this form is to examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to an issue, concept, theory, phenomena like genocide. The theoretical literature review by Raphael Lemkin helps to establish what theories already exist, the relationships between them, to what degree the existing theories have been investigated, and to develop new hypotheses to be tested. This form is used to help establish a lack of appropriate theories or reveal that current theories are inadequate for explaining new or emerging research problems in genocide studies. The unit of analysis in genocide studies must focus on a theoretical concept or a whole theory or framework based on imperialism. The Westphalian narrative has been the compass of International Relations (IR). It sustains a Eurocentric hegemony in IR theory – ascribing to itself the nucleus of the international system. Indeed, international relations theory acts as a tool that legitimizes AngloAmerican imperialism in international studies. For instance, colonization in Africa entails the force-feeding of African materials into the Western-centric structures. This phenomenon produced a distinct (hybrid) system with exotic challenges in Africa. The manifestation of these challenges in the decolonization process is often ignored in the neo-liberal, neo-realist and structural theories. xv

This suggests a gap in the existing literature, especially in the area of conceptualizing Statehood, sovereignty, power, border, and security. This book canvasses interdisciplinary approach to the subject matter. It argues that the Westphalia narrative lacks the understanding of the dynamics of contemporary African societies, and concludes by examining alternative pathways that can promote global understanding of genocide and extermination called Ambacide. Everyone is born curious. But only some retain the habits of exploring, learning, and discovering as they grow older. Those who do so tend to be smarter, more creative, and more successful. But at the very moment when the rewards of curiosity have never been higher, it is misunderstood and undervalued, and increasingly monopolized by the cognitive elite. A “curiosity divide” has been opening up and this volume is intended to resurrect that spirit of curiosity to show how propaganda about humanitarianism is becoming meaningless in the face of vested interests in the international system. The atrocity crimes in Southern British Cameroons are spiralling out of control. This is exactly the kind of catastrophe that the African Union was designed to address. The organization’s constitution was specifically written to allow it to step in where its widely discredited predecessor – the Organization of African Unity – had failed to act. As its constitution puts it, the African Union can directly intervene in a member state in: “… grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.” This was introduced to ensure that Africa’s senior organization would never again allow itself to stand idly by, as it had done during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Or so we thought. Given the severity of the crisis in the Central African Republic one might expect a clarion call for action from the head of the African Union Commission. Visiting the African Union’s own website there are no appeals for troops to be rushed to Buea by the AU leadership as indicated by “Speeches of the Chairperson of the Commission.” The African Standby Force has gone the way of so many other initiatives. While African leaders have plenty of funds to lavish on their cars, palaces and planes, they deprive their military of the resources they need to do the job. As an American citizen, I have xvi

witnessed troops being trained by United States Marines overjoyed to be given even small quantities of ammunition to practice live firing. Their own government refused to supply more than a handful of rounds; for fear that they would be used to stage a coup. This is all very depressing, but hardly surprising. Ambazonians have been slaughtered massively over the decades by successive Camerounese regimes from Ahmadou Ahidjo to Paul Biya. Tyranny, one may say in this case, is colour-blind and is no less reprehensible when it is committed by an African dictator. One would ask: does the African Union (AU) embody the aspirations, togetherness, and determination of the African people, especially in relation to advancing peace, prosperity, human rights and freedoms for the inhabitants of the African continent? In this regard, an objective of the AU, articulated in its Constitutive Act is to “promote peace, security, and stability on the Continent.” In realizing this objective, the AU established the Peace and Security Council (PSC) to, inter alia, promote peace, security and stability in Africa and undertake Peace Support Operations (PSOs) in accordance with Article 4(h) and (j) of the AU Constitutive Act. Recognizing the need to adopt African solutions to African problems is therefore mere shop talk. It is the past, rather than some evolutionary dynamics, which has shaped the unenviable present in Ambazonia. History leaves its mark on society. Of course, this does not mean that the legacies of history do not leave their trace on people and societies, sometimes long after a series of events or institutional arrangements of the past. The Tombel massacres of 1966 and the Lake Nyos “natural gas” slaughter of tens of thousands of villagers in their sleep cannot escape historical sight. We understand Francophone tribalistic privilege to be the systemic extension to Francophones of comparatively greater access to power and resources than people from Southern Cameroons ethnic groups in the same situation. The marginalization of Anglophone linguistic groups in the distribution of ministerial portfolios is not new. It is both unconsciously enjoyed and consciously perpetuated; it is a combination of seen and unseen, conscious and unconscious acts inseparable from Francophone-Anglophone inequities in Cameroun. xvii

Linguistic French structural, institutional and systemic discrimination broadly refer to the system of structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantage Anglophones in Cameroun. Discrimination is a socially structured action that is unfair or unjustified and harms individuals and groups. It can be attributed to social interactions that occur to protect more powerful and privileged Francophone groups at the detriment of “Anglophone” groups. The deprivation due to institutional, structural and systemic linguistic (French-English) must be seen as neither accidental phenomena nor a moment of madness but a deliberate, enduring and well-planned political construction of the early 1960s that sort to establish Cameroun republic whose aim was to manage Southern Cameroonians. Francophone linguistic tribalism and bias have played an important role in the perpetuation of privilege; thus, it is critical that we understand what the two terms mean. Tribalism refers to individual (or group) level processes and structures that enable the reproduction of inequality. Systemic tribalism occurs when these structures or processes are carried out by groups with power, such as governments or businesses. The confiscation of wealth of the West Cameroon state and individual businessmen like Menyoli, Nanga, Neba, Che, Forjindam, etc.by Cameroun remain treasured in our minds. The impact of discrimination occurs at both structural and individual levels. Structural discrimination refers to macro-level conditions that limit “opportunities, resources, and well-being of less privileged groups. Individual discrimination refers to negative interactions between individuals in their institutional roles or as public or private individuals based on individual characteristics (e.g., language, etc.). Individual and structural discrimination can cause either intentional or unintentional harm, whether or not it is perceived by the individual. Discrimination can be understood as a social stressor that has a physiological effect on individuals (e.g., irregular heartbeat, anxiety, heartburn) that can be compounded over time and can lead to long-term negative health outcomes. We can therefore best define linguistic Francophone privilege as an institutional (rather than personal) set of benefits granted to xviii

individuals or groups who, on nothing else but tribe alone, are linked to the ethnic Francophone people who dominate powerful positions in Cameroun’s social, political and economic institutions. In other words, purely on the basis of French linguistic connectivity, opportunity doors are open to Francophones that are not open to people from Anglophone ethnic groups. In conclusion, Ambazonia has been a massive killing field, as both the Yaounde genocidal government and colonized Ambazonians look helplessly. A thick and suffocating cloud of desperation, despondency, desolation, gloom and misery hangs in hot air over Ambaland. In international law, the principle of nonintervention includes, but is not limited to, the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2.4 of the Charter). There is no doubt that the principle of non-intervention remains a wellestablished part of international law. The prohibition of intervention “is a corollary of every state’s right to sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.” The Friendly Relations Declaration, UNGA res. 2625(XXV 1970, includes a whole section on ‘The principle concerning the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, in accordance with the Charter.’ The UN General Assembly adopted a Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Domestic Affairs of States (UNGA resolution 2131 (XX) 1965). The International Court was in no doubt about the existence of the principle in the Nicaragua case. But whether the principle was reflected in the practice of States remains doubtful when imperialist interests are concerned. Was it illegal in Kuwait or Kosovo? The relevant factors for any analysis of genocide and extermination must therefore include the general context, systematically perpetrating culpable acts against a target group, the scale of atrocities, and the repetition of destructive and discriminatory acts. It also means the existence of a plan or policy, a perpetrator’s display of his intent through public speeches or meetings with others that may also support an inference of the required genocidal intent. xix

I wish to emphasize to our readers that the names Southern British Cameroons, Southern Cameroons are rebaptized as Ambazonia. All are therefore used interchangeably. In paying my huge debt of gratitude, I wish to round up this Preface by thanking scholars in the field of genocide and human annihilation whose works I have used extensively. Despite benefitting elaborately from these scholars, the faults in this book are all mine. I take full responsibility for any of these shortcomings. I also owe a huge debt of gratitude to my wife and children who did all humanly possible to ensure that I survived my health challenges that could have stopped this work in mid-passage. Tatah Mentan Minnesota, 2021

xx

Introduction We suffocate among people who think they are absolutely right, whether in their machines or in their ideas. And for all who can live only in an atmosphere of human dialogue and sociability, this silence is the end of the world. (Albert Camus, Neither Victims Nor Executioners)

Interest in the subject of genocide is increasing in postcolonial states where ruling regimes engage in abducting, disappearing, shooting, torturing, burning, crushing, raping, or killing in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed helpless citizens (Rummel, 1994). Scholars of ‘postcolonialism’ want to document and understand genocides and how to prevent them especially after the 1994 case in Rwanda where the world community led out a cry of ‘Never Again.’ How did the genocide on Southern British Cameroons aka Ambazonia come about and how is it sustained amidst an African and global culture of inhumanity and silence? Tatah Mentan’s Ambacide (the genocide on Ambazonia), is a pointer to a world of an unsuspecting people who became the victims of genocide they neither sought nor created. The following words were written about the territory in 1958 by J. O. Field, British Commissioner of Southern Cameroons in the concluding summary of his book, Introducing the Southern Cameroons. “A modern state is in the making, and today, one hundred years after the founding of Victoria, Southern Cameroons can look back with pride on its achievements and look forward to its approaching independence with quiet confidence.” This is who and where the people of the Southern British Cameroons people were before 1960, the year of African independence. As a UN Trust Territory, independence was the logical step in the life of the territory. Considering the territory’s achievements in political structures and economic potentials before 1960, independence was also the only logical next step for the people. Gardinier’s 1963 Survey Report on the territory provides ample illustration of the viable economy of the xxi

territory in 1960, which we generally consider as the year of Africa’s independence. Yet, the independence of Southern British Cameroons so loftily anticipated did not come. It continued to elude the people of the Southern British Cameroons who now wish to be known and called Ambazonia. The reason is that the people and their territory of Southern British Cameroons were rather transferred by the United Kingdom (trustee) and the United Nations (trustor) to a new colonial master, who proceeded to annex and colonially occupy the territory. In place of the independence of the territory as was the case with other British and French colonies inherited from Germany after World War I – French Cameroon, French Togoland, Tangayika, Rwanda, Burundi, etc. Southern British Cameroons became annexed and recolonized by former French Cameroon. In a nutshell, rather than the independence foreseen in 1958 by J.O. Field and awaited by the people, the territory and her people reaped genocide, the subject of this book. As the subject of this book and the plight of the people of Southern British Cameroons do not come up in the evening news, the reader may want to locate this territory and the people identified and targeted for extermination in a situation imposed on them colonially. The Southern British Cameroons is found in the Gulf of Guinea and precisely on the Bay of Ambas. The territory lies between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and Republique du Cameroun at the point where the West Africa Coastline turns southward to the Congo and Angola. From 1858 when Alfred Saker and the London Baptist Missionaries landed in Bimbia and named the town, Victoria, the territory was later transferred to the Germans at the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 before being returned to the British following World War I. Then it was placed as a Mandated Territory of the League of Nations from 1919 and as a UN Trust Territory after World War II. With a surface area of 16, 364 sq miles, the territory had a population of approximately 8 million people in 2017 according to estimates by the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC) when the current genocide began. Anyangwe (2005), a Constitutional Law expert and scholar pointed out that Southern British Cameroons aka Ambazonia is “…demographically bigger that at least 60 UN and xxii

18 AU Member States, and spatially bigger than at least 30 UN and 12 AU member States,” including, for instance, British Honduras and Fiji, the Gambia, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Djbouti, Burundi, and Guinea Bissau. Anyone would ask why independence was not granted the territory? Prior to 1961 when the people and the territory expected full independence in accordance with UN Charter (Art. 76b), the Trusteeship Agreement, and UNGA Resolution 1514 on the independence of all colonial countries and peoples, the people were already self-governing with recognized and marked international boundaries. They were evolving a multiparty democracy with a full functioning executive, legislature, and judiciary and had organized free and democratic elections and effected a peaceful transfer of power in 1959. The territory’s economy was not only flourishing, its communication infrastructure, included a seaport in Victoria, a Wharf in Tiko on the Atlantic coast, and a river port on the Cross River in Mamfe on the border with Nigeria in the West. The territory and people also had a hydroelectric power station in Yoke, an international airport in Tiko, and other airports in Bali and Besongabang near Mamfe. This economic infrastructure, including industries in Santa, Ombe, and Moliwe, banking, air transport company, marketing board and thriving enterprises were all destroyed by the new colonizers. That destruction was part of a grand design by the new colonizers to render the territory and her people increasingly dependent on the new colonizers in order that the people would see themselves as helpless without the colonizers. Such a colonial situation calls to mind, the O’ Henry tale, “Supply and Demand.” As the tale goes, a big white man goes down to a certain place and uses force and his wits to turn the native communities into slaves. The white man, it is said, sets himself up as king, takes the biggest house in the communities for himself, and has the natives wash the streams for gold dust that they bring only to him. To keep the colonized political economy going, the white man king gives the natives a weekly sermon in the council-house (he is the council) on the law of supply and demand. He teaches the natives not to desire anything beyond their simplest needs. They bring him all the gold and remain contented on a bit of mutton, cocoa, and fruit xxiii

…All goes well or seemingly so until the natives rise against their ruler and genocide begins. The reader may substitute the natives in the tale with the people of the Southern British Cameroons who “looked forward to independence with quiet confidence” but received news of a notion called “independence by joining.” Taken unaware and without any prior suspicion, the people found themselves in the confusion posed by the Hobson choice before them. Abumbi, their real king cried out for the people, but the choice remained imposed on them. They would soon realize that they were not just “expendable” for Britain, they would become “dogs” for Republique du Cameroun fit for extermination for daring to stand up to reclaim their rightful independence as a people so recognized in history and international law. It is the pain of this situation that Tatah Mentan sees in the people of the territory going ‘from the anger of despair to resistance and self-defence.’ What is conceived beautifully in the genocide case by this author is the colonial strategy of the master using the same people of the territory as a front in killing the people. These same people only front as the ones authorising the genocide on their people because truly even those fronting are not the same people making and evaluating the genocidal policies. The custom comes with appointments! It began with Olokobi, the General of Manyu origin, who was the first general commander sent to start and oversee the genocide nowhere else than in his native Manyu. Then followed the great Prime Ministers in name only and the first ever ‘Anglophone’ Minister of Territorial Administration, who considered the ‘Anglophone Problem’ first as non-existent and then as 90% resolved by his appointment, etc. In this colonial scheme captured in Ambacide, we have officials with very high-sounding titles, placed in positions of some authority as the massacres of their people are carried out. A relative of one of the highly placed officials described the situation of his brother in a private conversation as “a trap.” The truth in every colonial setting is that the system wills simultaneously the death and the multiplication of victims… Whether the colonized are assimilated or massacred, … the onerous engine suspends between life and

xxiv

death, and always closer to death, those who are compelled to drive it (Sartre, 1957). It was Alessandro Portelli (1991, p. viii) who affirmed in Form and meaning in history that “there is more to history than presidents and generals,” and that history may occasionally be less welcome in some circles because “it has disarranged many accepted truths.” Otherwise, how did the people of British Southern Cameroons aka Ambazonia ever imagine they would find themselves in a situation of genocide? The narratives of the people of the territory provide a basis to question the historical circumstances that brought together the territory and Republique du Cameroun, two separate UN Class B Trust Territories previously under different colonial powers. And those are the kinds of questions that led Rodcod Gobata (1996), another scholar on the political history of the territory to sum up the difficult questions as “Ironies of the history of the people of British Southern Cameroons” just like the reflections in What god put asunder by Victor Epie Ngome (1992), another Southern Cameroons’ writer. Amidst the daily killings of the people of Ambazonia, the only language anyone hears or reads from those who bothered to write or talk about the genocide was that the people targeted were “terrorists,” “secessionists” or “bandits” labelled “dogs.” Stated differently, all we hear or read on the genocide on the people of this territory is that the colonizers alone qualify to speak of the situation in the colony. The rest of the people of the colony do not have the colonizers’ experience, so they are to view the many killings of their people and the burning down of their territory only through the eyes of the colonizers, which eyes only show the smoke as Sartre once put it. Four years into the genocidal war, I was writing this Introduction in my room at the 20th Africa International Conference, when leading African scholar and conference convener, Toyin Falola, asked aloud what it would take to end the losing of many lives in Cameroon. To his question, I thought it would take telling the true story of the genocidal war and its causes which the French colonizers were working assiduously to obfuscate. From that standpoint, Tatah Mentan’s Ambacide is one of those attempts by native Ambazonian scholars to tell the genocide story of Ambazonia from the perspective

xxv

of the victims, who neither sought, created, nor desired the situation in which they found themselves at independence. Ambacide is a kind of anti-climax in the lived experiences of the people of Southern British Cameroons renamed Ambazonia. The author takes a people, who from a dream near heaven on earth at the dusk of European colonialism to pitch hellish darkness half a century later, where the people go from the dream of independence anticipated by J. O. Field to a genocidal war waged to exterminate them after obliterating the territory and its history from the map of West Africa. Ambacide, a concept Professor Tatah Mentan coins to title his book, analyses of the pandemic genocide and extermination of Ambazonians by République du Cameroungénocidaires. Like Abumbi earlier, Tatah Mentan cries out in agreement with Jean Paul Sartre (1957) that “Terror and exploitation dehumanize, and the exploiter authorizes himself with that dehumanization to carry his exploitation further.” In this nine-chapter book, this author chronicles the Southern British Cameroons and the methodology of analysis in Chapter One and deconstructs the theory of genocide in Chapter Two. He traces the roots of the raging genocide in Chapter Three and sheds light on the UN Convention on the Punishment and Prevention in Chapter Four. In Chapter Five, he discusses structural violence as a cause of and condition for genocide and extermination in Ambazonia. The author reviews the historico-legal path to genocide and the extermination of Ambazonians in Chapter Six. In Chapter Seven he explores the slippery road to genocide and extermination which he terms Ambacide. He focuses on President Biya blowing the whistle for his ‘final solution’ in Chapter Eight and closes in Chapter Nine titled, From the anger of despair to resistance and self-defence. In the book, the author uses specific approaches to achieve different goals. For example, the author uses argument, integration, history, methodology, systematic evidence and theory to raise and discuss the hypocrisy of the international community in addressing cases of similar conflicts; generate new frameworks and perspectives on the topic; analyse the sources that touch on the complexity of the genocide issues in the case study; highlight ethical issues and provide a framework of understanding at different levels; identify and xxvi

critically appraise relevant research, and finally, examine the corpus of theory that has accumulated in regard to the issue, concept, theory, and the genocide phenomenon. Because I have had a good deal of exposure to other writings by Tatah Mentan, I am confident that what the reader has in this book is fresh and enlightening. Knowing him as one of those who would rather struggle for the truth, for justice, for an end to oppression without worrying so much about what might happen to him. Knowing the author as one worried more about what continues to happen to his people collectively if nothing gets done, I hope Tatah Mentan’s reader will calmly examine the genocide on Ambazonia with the concern the situation deserves. The issue remains whether such coexistence as intended for the Southern British Cameroons in 1961 ought to be based on genocidal force rather than on the much-trumpeted Western concepts of the democratic freedom of peoples and nations? In this connection, one continues to wonder why the architects of state formation failed to implement the warnings proffered by Woodrow Wilson (1919) and other incompatibility theorists, including Claude (1969), Mill (1972), Schermerhorn (1978),Walzer (1982), Furnivall (1986), Smith (1986)and others. These theorists always noted the need for “care to be taken to respect the natural dispositions and peculiar characteristics of peoples and races to guard against the folly of trying to unite in any one state (…) people whose differences of temperament or diversity of language, law, and tradition are so great as to be incompatible.” In the specific case of the Southern British Cameroons’ joining Republique du Cameroun in 1961, Dag Hammarskjold, UN Secretary General (1953-1961), warned that “Uniting the Southern Cameroons to the Cameroon Republique[was] like forcing a balloon under the sea. One day, it will come out.” It finally came out as predicted, and the response was genocide on the people. Like the errors of the makers of postcolonial states who lumped together in one state disparate peoples resulting in genocides, managers of many postcolonial states also continued to make several similar errors that end up leading to the failure of plural states as experienced in the former Yugoslavia and Sudan, to name just two examples. Two final questions that arise from an understanding of the genocide on Ambazonia aka Ambacide are the xxvii

following: Why do powerful states continue to use recognition to honour or violate territorial entities, according recognition to the people and nations they want and refusing it to those they do not favour? In a Brexit era, how do some continue to consider it their exclusive right and power to grant self-determination to others? Professor Fonkem Achankeng I Hubert H. Humphrey International Fellow University of Wisconsin Oshkosh References Anyangwe, C. (2005). Introduction to human rights and international humanitarian law Camus, A. (2008). Neither Victims nor Executioners: An Ethic Superior to Murder. Wipf and Stock; 2nd ed. edition (July 15) Claude, I. L.(1969). National minorities: an international problem. Greenwood, Westport: Reprint of the 1955 edition Epie-Ngome, V. (1992). What god put asunder. Yaounde: Pitcher Books Field, J. O. (1958). Introducing the Southern Cameroons. Lagos: Federal Information Service Furnivall, J. S. (1986).Colonial policy and practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gardinier, D. E. (1963). Cameroon: United Nations challenge to French policy. London, England: Oxford University Press Gobata, R. (1996). The ironies of our history. In I spit on their graves. Bellingham, WA: Kola Tree Press O’ Henry, (2017). Supply and demand. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Ntb edition (August 2,) Mill, J. S. (1972). Politics in plural societies: A theory of democratic instability. New York: Pearson Portelli, A. (1991). The death of Luigi Trastulli and other stories: form and meaning in oral history, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

xxviii

Rummel, R. J. (1994). Death by government: The state as terrorist. New Brunswick, NJ.: Transaction Books Sartre, J. P. (1957). Introduction. The colonizer and the colonized by Albert Memmi. Boston: Beacon Press. Schermerhorn, R. A. (1978), Comparative ethnic relations: A framework for theory and research. University of Chicago Press. Smith, A. D. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Walzer, M. (1982). The moral standing of states: A response to four critics, Philosophy & Public Affairs 9, no. 3 (1982), pp. 209–29, reprinted in Michael Walzer, Thinking Politically: Essays in Political Theory, ed. David Miller (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 219–36. Woodrow Wilson (1919). The Presidency: Woodrow Wilson's Second Term (See Professor Margaret MacMillan’s Talk on CSpan.

xxix

xxx

Chapter One Southern British Cameroons and Methodology of Analysis A Chronology The concept of historical chronology of Southern British Cameroons plays a fundamental role in human thought. It invokes notions of human agency, change, the role of material circumstances in human affairs, and the putative meaning of historical events. It raises the possibility of “learning from history.” And it suggests the possibility of better understanding ourselves in the present, by understanding the forces, choices, and circumstances that brought us to our current situation. Map 1:Southern British Cameroons

Source: Archives of British Southern Cameroons

1

Humans have always been interested in their origins, but historians have been reluctant to write about the long stretches of time before the invention of writing. In fact, the deep past was left out of most historical writing almost as soon as it was discovered. This breakthrough book, as important for readers interested in the present as in the past, brings science into historical chronology of the plight of Southern British Cameroons (hereunder, Ambazonia to offer a dazzling new vision of humanity under occupation, annihilation, and colonization across time. Chronology is the arrangement of events by time. In literature, most authors write their story as a sequence of events—when you use this method, arranging events in the order in which they occurred in time, it’s called putting them in “chronological order.” Sticking with a chronological timeline is the easiest way for audiences to follow what happens and is generally the best way to show cause and effect. My aim of presenting Southern British Cameroons chronologically is not to abbreviate the reading of this book. It is rather to call on my readers to understand that the chronological arrangement of events is just the skeleton. Readers should now look for the meat to dress the skeleton in the chapters that follow. 1. Southern British Cameroons was part of the United Nations Trust Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom’s Administration. The Trusteeship Agreement between the United Nations and the United Kingdom was signed on 13 December 1946. 2. The name, Southern British Cameroons, comes from the fact that the British Administering Authority had divided the Trust Territory into a Southern and Northern part, even while the territory was still a League of Nations mandated territory. Southern British Cameroons was created by the British Order in Council of June 26, 1923. By this act of the colonial authority, the Southern British Cameroons became a distinct territory from Northern British Cameroons within the international system, and a unit of self-determination. 3. Southern British Cameroons therefore does not refer to the Southern part of the Republic of Cameroun, but the Southern part of the British Cameroons. 4. French Cameroun was a United Nations Trust Territory under France. 2

5. French Cameroun and British Cameroons were separate UN Trust Territories with separate agreements, and each governed separately by Article 76(b) of the United Nations Charter. Apart from the fact that they were former parts of an ephemeral German Kamerun that lasted just 30 years and which was formally dismembered by the Versailles Treaty of 1919, there was no other link between them, either in language, administration, culture, politically or otherwise. Each was being prepared for its own selfdetermination as per Article 76(b) of the UN Charter. 6. British Cameroons was ruled from Nigeria until 1954, when members of the Southern British Cameroons in the Nigerian Eastern House of Assembly walked out and returned to Buea, capital of Southern British Cameroons, where they formed a thriving parliamentary democracy which lasted until 1961. From 1954 then, the Southern British Cameroons was self-governing, with its government, Prime Minister, parliament, judiciary and House of Chiefs. It conducted its first free and fair election in which power changed hands peacefully in 1959. 7. On 1 January 1960, in application of Article 76(b) of the UN Charter, French Cameroun gained independence from France and became known as La Republique du Cameroun. 8. On 1 October 1960, Nigeria, from which Southern British Cameroons was still being ruled to some degree, also achieved independence. Since Southern British Cameroons was not a part of Nigeria, it became necessary to sort out the Southern British Cameroons situation with urgency. 9. The Administering Authority, with the pretext that Southern British Cameroons was small and not economically viable, illegally proposed what was known as “independence by joining” for the Southern British Cameroons. Under this idea of “independence by joining”, the Southern British Cameroons was going to achieve independence either by joining the Federation of Nigeria, or by joining the independent Republic of Cameroun. Independence by joining was itself a violation of UNGA Resolution 1514 of 1960 affirming that independence was the inherent and inalienable right of all colonies and trust territories as a guarantee for their enjoyment of complete freedom. 10. In pursuance of this illegal idea of “independence by joining”, a UN-organized Plebiscite was held in the Southern British Cameroons on 11 February 1961 in which the following questions were put to the people of Southern British Cameroons: “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent 3

Federation of Nigeria?” or “Do you wish to achieve independence by joining the independent Republic of Cameroon?” 11. The People of Southern British Cameroons voted to “achieve independence by joining the French Republic of Cameroun”. 12. Of course, the Plebiscite was merely a mechanism used by the United Nations to discover the intention of the People of Southern British Cameroons. The proposed partners for joining, Nigeria and Republic of Cameroun, were not part of this consultation and quite clearly also, the determination of this choice by the UN could not be the implementation of the choice. The plebiscite was therefore not an agreement at all with the Republic of Cameroun; it was not also the joining contemplated in the Plebiscite questions. It was simply a question and answer session between the United Nations and the People of Southern British Cameroons, with no one else being party to it. It created no obligations for the People of Southern British Cameroons towards any third party. Only after the implementation of the intention expressed in the Plebiscite could any obligations be created. 13. As is always the case with the joining of two international territories or subjects of international law, certain due procedures had to be observed, to ensure valid legal union and safeguard the rights of all parties. 14. The terms of this “independence by joining” were governed by two important United Nations Resolutions, and the bilateral agreements between the proposed partners for the joining. Both Nigeria and the Republic of Cameroun had made promises as to what the nature of the joining between them would be. 15. The pertinent Resolutions concerned are: (1) Resolution 1541 of 15 December 1960 laying down the conditions under which a non-self-governing territory could be said to have achieved full self-government, and (2) Resolution 1608(XV) of 21 April 1961 which was adopted following the UN-organized Plebiscite in the Southern British Cameroons. 16. After the Plebiscite in which the People of the Southern British Cameroons made their choice and intention known, the UN adopted Resolution 1608(XV) on 21 April 1961 in which it endorsed the results of the Plebiscite, conducted a vote on the joining and in paragraph 5, called for the implementation of the policies reached between the parties. 17. During the vote in Resolution 1608(XV), the Republic of Cameroun voted “NO”, i.e., against union with the 4

Southern British Cameroons. This “NO” vote was instigated by France which led all the then-independent former French colonies in Africa, except Mali, to also vote “NO”. 18. The present case of the People of the Southern British Cameroons is that despite the Plebiscite and despite Resolutions 1541 and 1608(XV), the Republic of Cameroon simply ignored all the Resolutions and agreements reached and illegally occupied the Southern British Cameroons. Not one of the terms of the pertinent United Nations Resolutions was respected, nor the promises made by the Republic of Cameroon herself. 19. The People of the Southern British Cameroons are backing up their claim by challenging the Republic of Cameroun to produce the treaty of Union between them or any valid instrument of international law giving it jurisdiction over the Southern British Cameroons or a treaty in conformity with Article 102(1) of the United Nations Charter requiring all Member States to register any treaty entered into with the Secretariat of the United Nations. 20. Consequently, the current entity styling itself variously as “the Republic of Cameroun”, “Cameroon”, “the State of Cameroon” or “La Republique du Cameroun” is actually two territories separated by an international boundary. These territories are French Cameroun which achieved independence on 1 January 1960 as Republic of Cameroun, and the Southern British Cameroons presently under the illegal occupation and annexation of that French Cameroun which achieved independence from France on 1 January 1960. 21. It is within this context of the illegal occupation of their territory that the People of the Southern British Cameroons have submitted, to the AU Border Programme and all stakeholders, their border maps and the international treaties that established them, and are urging the AU and Member States to ensure that the boundaries claimed by the Republic of Cameroun in particular, comply with Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act, Article 102(1) of the UN Charter and all AU and UN principles in general. 22. In sum, the People of the Southern British Cameroons are calling for the urgent withdrawal of the forces and the administration of the Republic of Cameroon from the territory of the Southern British Cameroons and the peaceful separation of the two countries. 5

The Bakassi ICJ Ruling: 23. The People of the Southern British Cameroons are also pointing out that The Bakassi Ruling cannot serve as an international legal instrument which gives the Republic of Cameroun jurisdiction over the Southern British Cameroons, because that ruling: (i)demarcated only the boundary between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the two Cameroons (Former French Camerouns plus occupied Southern British Cameroons subsumed under one title, “Cameroon”); (ii)it did not examine the pretended claim of Former French Cameroun over the Southern British Cameroons, because the matter was never put before it; (iii)it did not address the issue of the boundary between Former French Cameroun and the Southern British Cameroons, because the matter was never put before it; (iv)it did not examine the boundaries inherited by Former French Cameroun on its day of independence, 1 January 1960, because the matter was never put before it; (v)it cannot therefore be used as an instrument through which the Republic of Cameroun can be said to have “inherited” the territory of the Southern British Cameroons close to 57 years after its independence on 1 January 1960; (vi)it cannot be used, contrary to Article 4(b) of the African Union Constitutive Act, to invent two separate dates of independence for Former French Cameroun; (vii)it cannot enable Former French Cameroun to illegally acquire territory outside of the territories it inherited at independence, namely, French Cameroun; (viii)it cannot be used as a union treaty between the Southern British Cameroons and Former French Cameroun, because it is not a treaty; and finally (ix)by virtue of Article 59 of the ICJ statutes which state that ICJ rulings are binding only between the parties, the Bakassi Ruling cannot be taken to be a ruling on the boundary dispute between the Southern British Cameroons and Former French Cameroun. The question remains unresolved. 24. It is worthy of note that the ICJ made the observation, a geographical fact, that the Bakassi Peninsula (located some 350 kilometres from the western maritime frontier of Former French Cameroun) is firmly within the Southern British Cameroons. 6

Why study Raging Genocide in Southern British Cameroons or Ambazonia? What are the lessons for us to study genocide today? Can we somehow hope that the conditions that led to the Holocaust are now well and truly behind us, that such a catastrophe could never happen again and, that whatever problems it confronts, humanity will somehow muddle through? Hardly! The intent to commit genocide in Ambazonia by the Republic of Cameroun is obviously the most difficult element to determine. To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Cultural destruction or assimilation does not suffice, nor does an intention to simply disperse a group. It is this special intent, or dolus specialis, that makes the crime of genocide so unique. In addition, case law has associated intent with the existence of a State or organizational plan or policy, even if the definition of genocide in international law does not include that element. Importantly, the victims of genocide are deliberately targeted—not randomly—because of their real or perceived membership of one of the four groups protected under the Convention (which excludes political groups, for example). This means that the target of destruction must be the group, as such, and not its members as individuals. Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.” Indeed, genocide is a multifaceted issue often occurring as a result of social, psychological, criminological, and economic factors. Most theorists of genocide agree that no single theory could explain the complex nature that leads to the world’s most heinous crime. Theorizing on genocide is a relatively recent academic endeavour. Research on the Holocaust was sparked in the 1960s, but examining genocide as a phenomenon beyond the Holocaust did not begin until the early 1990s. In the past decades much has been written about genocide and its effects on victims, perpetrators, society, and beyond. Multiple theories have been developed to help explain how and why certain situations end in the attempted annihilation of a group of people. No theory has been able to encompass the entirety of the topic and offer an explanation that fits each possible example of genocide. Into this field comes Bradley Campbell (2015) and his theory on the geometry of genocide. As a contribution to our 7

understanding of genocide, the geometry of genocide is a new way of thinking about genocide, and processing it. Any study of genocide must begin with defining the concept to be examined. There are myriad definitions of genocide, especially when one enters the social science field. The legal definition of genocide offered by the United Nations and used by most countries is “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” The main elements of this definition include the fact that genocide is limited to groups based on nationality, ethnicity, race, or religion. This means groups targeted due to politics or gender are not considered acts of genocide. Also, genocide includes acts of killing, acts that cause serious bodily harm, acts intended to prevent birth, and moving children from one group to another. These acts are all designed to weaken or destroy a group of people by removing them completely (killing), by removing the capacity to grow (prevent birth), or by removing future generations (moving children). This definition has not pleased everyone since its inception in 1949. Many social scientists have expanded the definition to include political groups, gender, and other minority categories. There are a number of things to note about these acts. (1) The perpetrator is not necessarily a state’s government or its military, but may be an international organization, such as a UN peacekeeping one, NATO, or a terrorist or guerrilla organization, among others. (2) Regardless of under what authority genocide is done, it is formulated, planned, and conducted by individuals, and it is individuals that the ICC will prosecute for the crime of genocide. Unlike the International Court of Justice that only adjudicates disputes between states, the ICC is a criminal tribunal that will indict individuals, issue international warrants for their arrest, try, and punish them. This is made explicit in Article 27: “This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as head of state or government, a member of a government or parliament, an elected 8

representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.” (3) The perpetrator’s intent (purpose, goal, aim) is critical. According to the Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court (PCICC), the ICC may infer such from “conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group or was conduct that could itself effect such destruction,” (Article 6a) including “the initial acts in an emerging pattern” (Article 6 Introduction). (4) The limitation of genocide to only national, ethnical, racial or religious groups is to groups that one is born into. These may be called indelible groups. In the case of a religious group, while one may choose to leave a religious group as an adult, it is rarely done and one may nonetheless remain identified with the religious group by virtue of physical characteristics, as for Jews. The crime of genocide does not apply to the intent to destroy political, ideological, economic, military, professional, or other groups. Thus, the mass murder of perhaps a million or more “capitalist roaders,” “rightists,” and counterrevolutionaries during the Chinese Cultural Revolution (1966-69) would not be genocide. Neither would the systematic murder of tens of thousands of communists and leftists by death squads in Latin America during the 1960s to 80s. The rational often given for excluding such groups is that one joins or becomes a member of them as a matter of choice, and the nature and membership in such groups is not as clear as it is for indelible groups. (5) In the definition of genocide, the term “as such” is important. It means that the defined groups are by intention explicitly targeted for destruction, and such destruction is not the unintended outcome, by-product, or spill over of the intent to achieve some other goal, such as in defensive operations of attacks on military targets during a war or rebellion. (6) Also critical is the word “destroy.” The acts that are carried out with this intent are carefully defined in (a) to (e), above. They exclude attempts, for example, to eliminate an indelible group from a territory by ethnic cleansing (that which involves their forced or coerced removal), or the destruction of the culture of a group, as by forced education of their children in a different language and customs. While “culture” is unmentioned in the articles of the ICC’s Statute and the Report of the PCICC, and may well be included as the case law of genocide develops, “ethnic cleansing” 9

would seem to be a crime against humanity in the Statute. Under Article 7.1.d, it is unlawful to deport of forcibly transfer a population. (7) The “in whole or in part” means that there is no lower limit to the number of people on which these acts may be committed. It is genocide even any of the Acts (a)-(e) are on one person with the intent described. (8) Genocide is generally believed to involve the murder of indelible group members. But the crime does not. Acts (b)-(e) make clear genocide may also involve the intent to destroy a group by means other than killing one or more of its members. (9) In Act (b) “serious bodily or mental harm” may include acts of torture, rape, sexual slavery, apartheid, or other inhuman or degrading treatment. (PCICC, ft. 3) That these inhumane acts, among others, were explicitly included in the ICC Statute is a major advance in genocide criminal law. (10) In Act (c) “conditions of life” may include “deliberate deprivation of resources indispensable for survival, such as food or medical services, or systematic expulsion from homes.” (PCICC ft. 4) (11) The term “forcibly” in Act (e), “is not restricted to physical force, but may include threat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power; or taking advantage of a coercive environment.” (PCICC ft. 5). (12) Finally, it must be noted that there are many other crimes that do not fall under the definition of the crime of genocide that are also subject to prosecution by the ICC. Under Article 7 such are systematic murder, extermination of civilians, enslavement, torture, rape, forced pregnancy, political persecution, and forced disappearances. The crux of the geometry of genocide is to be found in pure sociology. As explained by the author, pure sociology focuses only on the social, and excludes other variables like psychology. “Pure sociology explains human behaviour with its social geometry: its location and direction in social space and social time” (Ibid: 8). Social space refers to the way in which people relate to one another; people can be intimates or strangers based on their social space. A change in social time is a social change like an increase or decrease in intimacy. Taken together, changes in social space and social time explain the occurrence of genocide. 10

The root causes of genocide according to Campbell lie in either overdiversity or under-stratification and social distance. In social time, overdiversity occurs when ethnic groups that were previously separated come into contact with each other leading to ethnic conflict and possibly genocide. Under-stratification occurs when a high status group is threatened or a low status group experiences a rise in status. In social space, the greater the social distance the greater the likelihood of genocide, because the victims and perpetrators lack similarities and interdependence. When overdiversity or under-stratification and social distance increase, the possibility of genocide increases too. Campbell then proceeds to apply his theory to several case studies of genocide in an attempt to highlight how his theory works in practice. The case studies include massacres against Native Americans in California, specifically the Yuki and Yana tribes; Muslims and Hindus in India, specifically in Gujarat; Muslims in Bosnia; Tutsis in Rwanda, specifically in Nyakizu prefecture; and finally, Jews during the Holocaust, specifically in Lithuania. While Campbell is able to overlay his theory onto each of these case studies, it seems that he misses the forest for the trees. His analysis is so focused on specific sub-parts of an overall genocide that the macro understanding of the genocide as a whole is missed. Some examples will be important. When discussing the Rwandan genocide, Campbell focuses on the Nyakizu prefecture. But by doing so it is not clear that his theory would apply to the entire Rwandan genocide, or merely this one sub-set of the genocide. Is he explaining the Rwandan genocide or how the genocide occurred in Nyakizu? Similarly, when discussing the Holocaust persecution of Jewish people, Campbell focuses on the situation in Lithuania. Is he trying to explain the Holocaust or how the massacres occurred in Lithuania? With all of the literature on the Holocaust it is difficult to believe that Campbell is trying to explain the entire genocide, but is indeed only focusing on one area where his theory appears to fit. Though one still has questions about the fit, when he tells the story of one Lithuanian Jew who was not murdered because he was close to the potential perpetrator. The evidence of closeness was though only that the Jewish man spoke fluent Lithuanian. This seems like a tenuous thread on which to hang such a momentous decision as whether or not to kill this man. It also raises questions about other Jews who spoke fluent Polish or German or French, and why that was not enough to save them. 11

This area of study is more preoccupied than most with definitional issues. Lemkin 1944 originally proposed that genocide was the multimethod destruction of the social as well as physical existence of national groups, but this understanding has been modified in various ways. The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (see United Nations 2000) maintained the core of this broad approach, slightly enlarging the range of groups while listing killing as only one of five types of genocidal acts. This became the legal and political standard of genocide, and it has sometimes been used as a benchmark in academic studies. However, it has been criticized both for omitting political groups and social classes from the list of groups and for omitting specific mention of the forcible removal of populations, historically the main method through which population groups have been destroyed. After the early academic synthesis of Kuper in 1981, writers in the emerging field of genocide studies widened the range of protected groups, either by adding to the UN list or by adopting more generic definitions (e.g., Fein 1990, Chalk and Jonassohn, 1990), and the edited volume Andreopoulos (1994). Schabas (2000), however, resists this approach. These writers simultaneously narrowed genocide to physical and biological destruction, or “mass murder,” an approach maintained in Sémelin (2007). More recently, however, there has been a return to Lemkin’s broad definition of “destruction,” and Shaw (2007) proposes a sociological restatement of this idea of “destruction.” Methodology of Analysis-Historical Political Economy “The value of history is, indeed, not (only) scientific but moral: by liberalizing the mind, by deepening the sympathies, by fortifying the will, it enables us to control, not society, but ourselves -- a much more important thing; it prepares us to live more humanely in the present and to meet rather than to foretell the future” (Carl Becker, 1873-1945, U.S. historian). History is more complex than many people realize. No, for real! It is so much more than memorizing names, dates, and places. History is very much ‘scientific.’ It involves critical thinking. It involves formulating hypotheses based on evidence and testing them. That is what this lesson is about. Historical methodology is the process by which historians gather evidence and formulate ideas about the past. It is the framework through which an account of the past is constructed. In this 12

analysis, we shall combine the historical method with that of political economy to thread out state-society relations that have condemned Southern Cameroons to betrayed servitude. History is the source of all the problems that confront it. History is, at the same time, the source of their resolution. The struggle for socialism, for instance, cannot be resolved via utopian schemes, which presumably somehow fire the imagination of the oppressed. Rather, the Marxist movement seeks to analyse the historical experiences through which it has passed, drawing out, above all, the problems of working class leadership (Callinicos, 2001). I wish to note that political economy approaches highlighted the centrality of power relations to the composition and well-being of the rural population. While the class-based analysis of access to rural resources contributed to an understanding of rural residents' personal power (especially financial but also in terms of status), the wider discussion of the structures and operation of power prompted researchers to explore the relationship between the state and the rural community (Little, 2001). Importantly, this work drew on urban-based debates on the nature of the local state and on the changing mechanisms and practices of central government. At a time when the developed economies, particular the USA and Britain, were seeing attempts by the centre to curtail the responsibilities of the local state, rural research began to investigate the implications for rural areas and to document the localized power struggles and resistance that accompanied the changing balance of power. This approach has five important broad features: (1) Social phenomena exist, and can be understood, only in their historical context. For Marx (1845), societies are organized by different modes of production and structured by different class relations. It should be noted here that underdeveloped societies are not clinically divided on class basis. But the structures of domination and exploitation are built on the inherited colonial state. Thus, class analysis offers a clear insight into the internal structure, the mechanisms of power and contradictions of a capitalist society; (2) Theory loses its validity if pushed beyond its historical and social limits which means that concepts and theories are always constructed to address a particular society and historical moment; (3) Marx’s analysis is structured by the relations between theory and history. 13

For him, the historical analysis belongs within the method of the study, which contributes to understanding the past and present, but cannot be used to predict the future; (4) Dialectical materialism informs and defines the key concepts, structures, relationships and levels of analysis required to explain the concrete or complex outcomes. Marx uses dialectical materialism in Capital to understand and determine the essential features of capitalism and their contradictions, to explain the structure and dynamics of this mode of production, and to locate the potential sources of historical change; (5) Marx’s method is focused on historical change. For Marx, there is an interdependent and mutual relationship between the structures of production, the social relations and historical change. These influences are always determined by the mode of social organisation. Why Historical Political Economy? I want to begin by discussing the significance of studying the history of political economy, particularly the question of what such a study can clarify. The reason is that without understanding this point a person might end up missing the forest for the trees. A history of political economy requires above all a correct understanding of past economic and political theories. However, even if questions regarding who, when, and what are elaborated, and we gain a correct overall understanding of what has been written about various problems, this will at best amount to a collection of facts, not living knowledge or science in the true sense of the word. Political economy approaches to central–local relations provide a framework for the investigation of power in a variety of ways. Studies focused on inter agency relations, the changing role of the private sector, and the role of key actors, elites, and institutions within the policymaking process. An area of particular attention, (especially within British rural geography), was that of town and country planning, and a number of studies on the negotiation and distributional consequence of planning decisions contributed to the wider understanding of power relations and political control within the regulatory process in the countryside. One particular strand of such research sought to highlight the role and status of environmental pressure groups in an examination of the priorities of the dominant interests in the countryside. Much of this work revolved around a discussion of the changing status and power of 14

agriculture and raised questions concerning the position of farmers and landowners in relation to other interests within both urban and rural communities. Modern ‘political economy’ explores relationships among economic and political organizations, institutions, policies, and outcomes. There has never been a consensus on the theories and methods that should structure the exploration of these relationships and the debate over how best to understand these matters has evolved over time. The interpretation offered here simplifies both of these dimensions of difference. It distinguishes two periods of post-war history—the Fordist and Neo-liberal eras—based on the dominant paradigm of economic organization prevailing in the rich capitalist democracies of the global North. For each period, the most important theoretical approaches to political economy, the regions of the world to which they were applied, and the social science departments in which they were based are identified. It is argued that, in the second or neo-liberal era, political economy analyses can be broadly grouped into those that took a critical stance on existing economic paradigms, institutions and policies, and those which accepted the core assumptions of neo-classical economics and the neo-liberal policies and institutions that this approach to economics has legitimated. The relationship between area and international studies and political economy varies, both by period and, to some degree, by the type of political economy in question. Political economy analyses can also provide a platform for dialogue among stakeholders. Marxist Political Economy (MPE) denotes a range of political economy perspectives that are broadly connected to and in the tradition of the writings (notably The Communist Manifesto, Grundrisse and Capital) and insights of Karl Marx. Although this research tradition is very diverse and heterogeneous, it is nevertheless possible to identify some common key tenets. Generally, MPE comprises an integrative analysis of the economy, society and politics. These three fields are not considered as isolated but as interdependent structures that evolved historically. The analysis of class struggle, involving the exploitation of labour by capital within the capitalist mode of production, is fundamental to the understanding of dynamics within this analysis. From this perspective, capital and labour represent two antagonistic classes. The former is primarily characterized by ownership of the means of production, while the latter comprises free wage labourers in a double sense. They are free 15

from control over the means of production and free – compared with the feudal system – to sell their labour power. Capital is central to this and is primarily organized to ensure the profitability of invested money. This is why the famous notion of capital as money which begets money is formalized as M–C–M’. An integrative economic analysis, in this context, involves moving beyond a sole focus on the functioning of the economy. Thus, under capitalist conditions, labour is not only exploited but also faces alienation. This means that wage labourers are not the directors of their own work. Instead, s/he is employed in the capitalist mode of production, performing specialized tasks in commodity production, without owning the products. Moreover, the capitalist mode of production is not limited to an isolated sphere in society but structures the latter in various ways. For example, through the process of commodification, social relations that were formerly untainted by market logic, are transformed into commercial relationships, relationships of exchange, and relationships of buying and selling. MPE has the explicit aim to change the current state of economic and societal organization, with an emancipatory perspective to establish a more just society by overcoming capitalism. Although this school of thought is generally marginalized in economics faculties at large, it has gained renewed attention over the past decade. Much of the interest is due to Marx’s analysis being relevant to the analysis and explanation of the global financial crisis of 2007/2008; it has also been relevant to various other crisis movements that are linked to the economic system and seem to converge with it, e.g. the climate crisis. Moreover, new forms of protests and social movements, and intensifying social conflicts in the presence of crisis, have also created both a need and a challenge for radical academic analysis. Conception of Economy “Fundamental to any Marxist analysis is its understanding of the economy, how capital is reproduced, how profitability is maintained, and how crises develop.”(Gamble 2000:140).

MPE perceives the economy as a continual process of transformation of nature and society by production. The mode of production is the historical form in which the two core dimensions of any economic organization of society are united. These two 16

central elements are the productive forces – phenomena that enable production, like technology and infrastructure—and the relations of production, referring to the class-based organization of production, distribution and consumption in society. Accordingly, MPE argues that the socio-economic character of different societies in history is characterized by the specific mode of production, like slavery, feudalism or capitalism. The historical configuration of productive forces and relations of production is a crucial point of departure for MPE. Particular emphasis is given to the analysis of class struggles and the different forms of exploitation of labour power, as well as to contradictions and crisis. Thus, the economy is not conceived as a neutral platform of exchange and cooperation, but as historical and political constitution primarily characterized by asymmetric power relations, ideology and social conflicts. To understand the contemporary world economy, proponents of MPE claim that Marx’s core analysis of the capitalist mode of production in the eighteenth and nineteenth century remains a useful starting point. ‘Commodities’ are at the core of Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production; they are defined as products or services sold on markets and produced by human labour power. The peculiar characteristic of commodities is their dual character—they exhibit both use value and exchange value. The capitalist mode of production is primarily defined by the neglect of the use value, while the exchange value—potentially translating into higher return on investments – is paramount. Thus, capitalist societies do not primarily produce for the needs of the population but for the sake of realizing a high exchange value—simply put, profit. MPE argues that this profit is rooted in the exploitation of labour power, more specifically the wage labourer. Capitalists only pay the workers the wage they need to reproduce their labour power even if workers generate a higher value. This surplus value is then appropriated by capitalists and then reinvested. The amassing of money as capital in the hands of the capitalist class is also defined as capital accumulation. It presents the core dynamic of the capitalist mode of production and thus implies a structural imperative of the capitalist economy to grow. Yet, as was mentioned above, the capitalist mode of production is not free from contradictions and from an MPE perspective crisis play a prominent role as recurrent patterns in capitalist development. Generally speaking, crises emerge from various contradictions that exist in the basic constitution of the 17

capitalist mode of production, but more specifically consist of a specific conjuncture of tendencies and triggers. Thus, each economic or financial crisis has links to the general contradictions of capital and to specific political, ideological and cultural circumstances. Different lineages of MPE also stress the importance of different aspects of contradictions and many argue for multiple causation, including, for example, credit insufficiency, scarcities of or political difficulties with labour supply, resistance or inefficiencies in the labour process, excess capital and wages squeezing profits. Currently, many MPE scholars argue that the tendency of the over-accumulation of capital since the 1970s is key to understanding the various financial and economic crises of the past decades throughout the globe. In this situation too much money capital is searching for profitable investment opportunities. Since investments in financial assets have become increasingly profitable in the past decades, money capital is disproportionately subtracted from industrial production and employed as fictitious capital. This form of money capital is fictitious because it is without any material basis in commodities or productive activities. Although not generating any surplus value in the labour process, fictitious capital can reproduce itself (M–M') through the representation of a claim on the realization of future surplus value. While these investments may be profitable for some money holders, the general economy suffers from rising economic inequality, lack of effective demand (which is temporarily supported by credit-funded consumption), and recurring inflation of asset prices that translate into ‘bursting bubbles’. A prime example for this process is the global financial crisis of 2007–2008 which was triggered by excessive derivatives trading (fictitious capital) in subprime mortgages. Ontology The central problem addressed by MPE is the exploitation of workers by capital, i.e. the dominance between classes and the power of capital. Thus, the unit of analysis is classes, not individuals and collective interests are determined within classes rather than between individuals. This does not mean that individuals are unable to make their own choices. However, within a certain mode of production there are powerful material and social structures (e.g. competition) that induce people to behave accordingly. Hence, MPE does not propose a universalist view of 18

humans as being necessarily competitive or collaborative but emphasizes the effects of the historically specific mode of production on the way humans behave. Within a certain mode of production, MPE historically has sought to isolate some tendencies and laws of motion in the economic, the social and the political spheres. In the capitalist mode of production, examples would be the increasing accumulation of capital and its concentration, as well as the recurring crises of capitalist production. These laws of motion are thought to be ontologically real and some MPE scholars have argued that the laws determine the behaviour of societies. Some strands of MPE have however put emphasis on over-determination, highlighting that even though laws of motion can be discerned, their interconnectedness and multiplicity makes it more difficult to make accurate statements about the behaviour of human societies. Theorizing in the field of Critical Political Economy has emphasized the concept of hegemony, stressing the historical nature of processes of societal change and the constant struggle of ideas and movements (the war of position in the words of Antonio Gramsci) for temporal and spatial dominance. According to these theorists the laws of societies and economies are more dependent on historical and cultural junctures, thus making a case against determining theorizing. A possible bridge between these two traditions is offered by critical realist theorists: they assume a real world, both in the natural and the social world, but this is subject to changes and actualizations that can originate in the actions of historical and spatially confined actors. With Marx one could restate that: Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. (Marx 1852)

Notwithstanding these theoretical differences, MPE theories do generally agree that the world is not made out of particulars that can be isolated for the purpose of analysis. Instead entities like classes, firms, states, and institutions exist within a context, which is essential to their existence. By disaggregating these bigger components to their constituent part, one cannot do justice to their real nature, since at each stratum or level of organization (from subatomic particles to complex systems such as human societies) 19

there are emergent powers that are ontologically real in their own right (Sayer 1992, 119). Also, MPE gives importance to dynamic processes like e.g. class conflict or accumulation that are historically embedded and change over time. An important aspect of MPE is furthermore that Capital is not defined ontologically as a material asset (like money, machinery, etc.) but as a social relation and hence only acquires ontological existence and significance in the capitalist mode of production and the corresponding class relationships. Epistemology MPE theories do explicitly identify themselves as normative and performative and regard the positivist position of descriptive and value-free science as false and ideologically motivated. Hence, the goal of scientific analysis is to create knowledge that fosters the emancipation of those who are dominated and oppressed. According to Andrew Sayer, many proponents of critical social science (of which MPE forms part) conceive emancipation as proceeding in the following manner (Sayer 1997: 474): 1. Identify problems, unmet needs, suffering and false beliefs 2. Identify the sources or causes of these, i.e. a particular form of domination 3. Pass a negative judgement of these sources of illusion and oppression 4. Favour (ceteris paribus) actions that remove these sources As Sayer notes, there are, however, some problems with this linear progression from the scientific identification of problems towards the conclusions, particularly with respect to what constitutes emancipatory practice and which values and norms can be considered better than others, since they are backed by scientific evidence. Sayer’s critique specifically points to the need for concrete and feasible alternatives (in general terms or as thought experiments, not as detailed blueprints), which are necessary for evaluating whether a removal of a problem and replacement by something else would indeed mean an improvement or an emancipation for a certain group. Secondly, he problematizes the new emergent interrelationships that might arise once a practice is 20

replaced by another and hence emancipatory practice in one part of society might lead to repression in another. For example, Western women integrating into the paid workforce by contracting reproductive labour to women from the global south; and workers taking over a coal mine that otherwise would have to be closed might emancipate themselves but this can have negative repercussions on the environment or other communities inhabiting the area, as these may be negatively affected by pollution. MPE theorizing that operates in the philosophical tradition of critical realism holds that the link between the real world and scientific inquiry is not straightforward. They reject positivism and ‘naïve’ empiricism, which argues that the real world speaks to the scientist, who then without intermediation can represent it. Strong constructivism, the view that the scientist makes the real world by coming up with conceptions or by self-referentially talking in ways that previous scientists have come up with, is also rejected. Instead, the fallible nature of science as well as its theory-laden and standpoint-dependent character is acknowledged but still, judging whether the theory is good or bad is considered to be possible by reference to the real world. This means that social science research can be diverse, depending on the theory applied as well as the personal biography and biases (e.g. class, gender, habitus) of the researcher. Still, a judgement as to whether a particular piece of research draws valid conclusions is possible and as such objective statements about the causal mechanisms that were responsible for concrete social phenomena are feasible. The test for what is a true statement in critical realism is however somewhat more complicated than in other traditions. Given the emphasis on causal mechanisms rather than on regularities and correlations, simple statistical testing will not suffice to establish the validity of a hypothesis. Instead, from the observational evidence, abstractions have to be made in order to check the validity of a supposed causal mechanism. As such, for example, counterfactual case studies or thought experiments might have to be performed in order to check the explanatory power of a hypothesis. On the other hand, with regards to theory validation, there is great scepticism towards prediction. This is because, in over-determined and evolving open-systems conditions, for mechanisms to work as theorized they might change during the process and hence new mechanisms might emerge. 21

Methodology MPE neither works deductively nor inductively but assumes that there are multiple causalities and thus multiple ways of undertaking research. These depend on the situation, for example, the particular point of capitalist development. A central element of Marxist analysis is dialectics. Dialectics claims to transcend the classical logic of direct causation and linear relationships and replaces it with a dynamic understanding of processes as well as with different categories that would sometimes be considered to be contradictory in classical terms. An example of dialectical reasoning is given in Figure 1 (Sayer 1992:141), where simple and abstract concepts are combined with the complex, specific and contingent characteristics of a concrete situation. Regarding a typical research method, MPE