Small Post, Big Idea

Time is short this week, but something interesting occurred to your blogger.

History divides time up into eras and periods, creating time frames where changes of significance happened - think of the Renaissance Era, or the Interwar Years, which cover the Renaissance and the gap between World Wars respectively.

Now consider that every few years there is a ‘momentous event’. This is an event of a certain magnitude and scope that it must be classed as ‘momentous’; either because it’s large in scale and brings about instant change, or because several years later, academics will say ‘that was a key turning point in the development of weaponry/society/economics’. 

This may be the creation of democracy in the US in 1783, or the Franco-Prussian War unifying Germany. It may cause instant repercussions, or it could create subtler, more implicit changes over time. 

But a Momentous Event will often either begin the end of an era, or usher in a new one. Sometimes both.

Our most recent ME was the Banking Crisis in 2007-08. Before that, it was the collapse of the USSR in 1991. The 9/11 attacks make a claim to be in that category too. 

So, let us assume that if the USSR’s dissolution was the end of an era (which it was; the Cold War), then what era came next? And has it stopped, or is it still going? 

Because this blog is arguing that it’s stopped. That the 27 years since that colossal rotation of the sun have now ended, and are enclosed in their own time frame, their own ‘era’ for historians to argue over. 

The Globalised Era

With the breaking down of Communist walls and the rapid expansion of the EU (joined by the WTO), world trade entered a boom as countries knitted together economically. The terrorist attacks in 2001 may have slowed the boom, but they didn’t really halt it; people continued to enter employment and take out loans, and countries got closer, lowering tariffs and encouraging free trade [this is globalisation in a nutshell].  

What did stop the boom then? That would be the imminent destruction of the banking system plunging the world into a panicked recession. And this ME does indeed end an era - but not right that moment. It actually totters along for eight more years. 

Because it’s in 2016 when citizens all around the world notice that wages are still flat, living standards stagnant, and the poor in the same position as they were eight years ago, when they were promised rejuvination and overhaul, as Lehman Bros. and Bear Sterns dissolved around them. 

They’d tried Obama’s ‘Hope’ and Cameron’s ‘Compassionate Conservatism’. They’d seen repeated Italian governments fall into the dust, and Greece on the tipping point of anarchy. Their steel plants had been bought out, their welfare slashed, their education mauled, and the rich got richer, as the poor got poorer.

So they spoke out. And they voted for real change. ‘Leave’ and Trump in 2016; the destruction of France’s two main parties in 2017; the Northern League in Italy, and Catalonian independence in 2018. They found their voice, and yelled it with fury. But it seems that they may have yelled in the the wrong direction.

Because Trump, for four years or eight, will wreck the world economy. Leaving the EU will damage the UK’s own, and take a chunk of the Union’s too. The populist coalition in Italy has no meaningful plan to revive their country, but points at immigrants as scapegoats. Instead, all three will look inwards, reject the world, and strive for self-sufficiency. In their wake, the world will follow. 

Free trade may collapse, and the EU become a shadow of itself. All the jobs and income dependent on inter-linked goods and services will be reduced. Countries will revert to pre-WWII trade barriers, protecting their own.

And the interconnected, globalised, sociable world that was created after the USSR’s death will quietly fade from existence.

And so, historians will argue over the exact year and time period. But they will agree on one thing. That it was in the late 2010s when the Globalised Era came to a sad, shuddering stop.

Like China In A Bull-Shop

It has been fashionable for many years to say that China will soon be the world's number one power. Its rise has been unstoppable. But the long threatened trade war is coming, and China seems more vulnerable now than for many years.

Shanghai, We Have A Problem

President Trump has been threatening to reduce foreign imports since his campaign for office, and after a year of relative quiet on the issue, he’s begun taxing goods from China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico. 

In March he applied charges on aluminium and steel, then in July openly considered a 25% tax on Chinese imports worth $200bn. Right now, the White House is studying the potential for further tariffs. (A handy update on what trade wars and tariffs are, here) 

Twenty years ago, this would be a non-issue. But China has moved away from self-sufficiency, first doing mass-production, and now moving into internet technology. 

This means it has to rely on a strong Yuan-Dollar rate to sell to their new foreign markets. And if you a) use the dollar, or b) export anything to the US - you’re now an easy target.

China has responded with its own tariffs on $110bn of its US imports, putting the two economies at loggerheads. But Chinese tariffs have been slapped on most of its American imports. 

The United States, however, imports $385bn more from China than China does from them, i.e. it can tax Chinese firms selling in the US way more than China can tax US firms selling in China. 

Investors know this, and they trust the dollar more than the yuan, so they’ve been selling the yuan as fast as possible, causing it to depreciate against the dollar. This makes Chinese goods more expensive in the United States and across the world, even before adding on the extra tariffs. 

The dollar's influence also gives the US power to wield over foreign businesses. ZTE, a large Chinese telecoms firms, was faced with American sanctions for dealing with Iran and North Korea. 

The influence of the US was great enough to be driving a multinational company, based in a different country, out of operating. (It was eventually pardoned after some major overhauls.) That is a sure warning sign for China.

Therefore China could lose the trade war. Its newfound emphasis on exports has given it an Achilles heel against a marauding United States. Well-known firms such as Huawei are finding big bills facing them for operating on the other side of the Pacific.

Just two years previous, China was the most threatening economic power in the world, driving many western firms out of business. But the trade war is making China weaker.

Decentralised Centralisation

One of the historic challenges of ruling China is that the huge population size and diversity means that a centralised government, based in one place, can only control some of the country. 

Yet since 1949, the Communist Party has done a remarkable job of unifying the nation, helped by propaganda, the occasional tank, and (more recently) modern technology. Peacefully regular changes of national leadership helps, keeping policy fresh and up-to-date. 

But this is changing. The consolidation of power by Xi Jinping, who’s abolished term limits and refused to name a successor, probably means he’ll govern for life. 

This isn’t good news for China anyway, as it will lead to an increasingly powerful government in Beijing, but also because he seems to encourage a stagnation of ideas and reforms. 

One of the less understood reasons for Chinese success in the 1990s and 2000s is the quiet encouraging of experimentation. While being an outwardly fixed and dogmatic ruling class, the party inwardly sponsored thousands of innovative trials such as land reform.

Many (such as the coastal free-market zones) became national policy and ended up being key factors in China’s economic growth. Under Chairman Xi however, there has been a severe decrease in these experiments. 

That will mean less productivity in the economy, and far less of the groundbreaking reform that has made private Chinese firms some of the most valuable in the world. As Jinping centralises and stifles, he will limit Chinese potential.

State-Owned Morality

China will soon be the world’s economic giant. But that does not mean it will be our biggest global power. The two great nations of modern history, the USA, and the USSR, occupied positions of inspiration and leadership. The USA as the figurehead of democracy, capitalism, and freedom; the USSR as one of revolution, equality, and might. 

China is a hybrid of the two, and cares for neither. 

It has never tried to assume a military standing outside of its own backyard, and it rarely enforces its own style of regime upon other countries. It does not submit many troops to the UN, it has only one overseas base (in Djibouti, left), and its foreign aid is negligible. 

In no way does it inspire other nations to follow its lead (unlike the United States). And it is this absence of moral and ideological power which will ultimately limit it from becoming a superpower.

Its main foreign adventure is the clunky ‘Belt and Road Initiative’, developing trading routes across Eurasia, and loading countries with enough loans that they’re literally indebted to China for years. But this is running into problems. 

The complex B & R plan

One key component is Afghanistan, which is in no condition to maintain a new infrastructure program. Likewise, many of the old Soviet states around the Caspian Sea. And when countries begin to default on these loans (as some look likely to do) this will surely dissuade other nations from cuddling too close to China.

Keep Your Chin-a Up

Of course we’re not discussing anything remotely near a Chinese collapse. But the evidence from these three areas alone seems enough to show that China is not going to rule the world within five years. That is not to say that trade war is a good thing. However, through his destructive trade policies, President Trump has inadvertently made China seem far weaker.

InVincible...?

Several months ago, I wrote a post on the Liberal Democrats’ failings (here). But the resulting question was left unanswered: what do they need to do to improve? I’m not the authority on that though, so I had a chat with Sir Vince Cable, their 75 year-old leader. 

He’s an interesting man, but it was hard to grasp who he was over the course of one evening. At times he was funny, in other moments he was ponderously philosophical and intelligent, but he always came across as courteous and honest, even if his age certainly meant he was a little slower to “get going”. 

And so...what did he say? I asked him direct two questions, and have pinched his answer to many others. 

Brexit and the economy featured most frequently, but tuition fees, housing and media coverage all surfaced.

Local Housing: “How do you think Liberal Democrat planning policies could make a difference to the local community?”

Vince Cable firstly addressed the need for more housing stock, pointing out the inability of young people to afford housing, before mentioning the party’s success in Eastleigh and Eastbourne; local Liberal Democrats there have ensured that “infrastructure is properly in place” before developing residential homes.

One standout line was his desire to develop “a proper mix of private housing...affordable housing, social housing”. This was backed up by the local party candidate, who pointed to the manifesto as evidence of a coherent Lib Dem policy.

PR and being visual: “How do you see the Liberal Democrats expanding in size and pushing the government in opposition?”

Opening statement: “It’s difficult to be more vocal and visual unless you get an area on the national media”. 

Old people taking selfies

This is a concern he’s addressed before, and he later reminded those present that he only gets a Prime Minister’s Questions slot once every four weeks. “Two very difficult general elections” have worsened the problem.

Yet he was pleased to have disproved critics in the recent local elections, hoping that their success would yield more airtime (spoilers: it hasn’t). 

He also raised Brexit ^{(Count 1)} as an area on which the media could focus, because of the party's distinction on the issue.

National Strategy: “If you are going to avoid being a modest party with much to be modest about, what’s the plan, what does the party need to do about it?”

We’d done it. Local media had irritated Vince Cable. And it only took three questions. 

He tersely pointed out Nick Clegg’s tenure as Deputy Prime Minister as an example of national success, and, while he accepted that they had struggled in 2015 and 2017, those failures were “far from being the end of the story”. 

He (more calmly now) told us that the party mood was a lot more upbeat, and happily reminded us of their recent success in local government.

Three's a crowd?

He also raised the “largest membership in our history” card - an obvious source of pride. Brexit ⁽²⁾ was an area he could claim success on - being the only truly united party on the issue. 

Tory polarisation and Labour leftism also came up as reasons to turn to the third party.

Young People: “How would the Liberal Democrat party seek to reclaim the younger vote, where it’s often absorbed by Labour or is just apathetic to politics in general?”

Mr Cable took the issue head on, first by discussing that “Labour were very successful at pulling in younger people” at the last general election [disproved: young adult voting levels didn’t change disproportionately in 2017], arguing that their seemingly anti-Brexit⁽³⁾ stance attracted many. He then, rather predictably, attacked Mr Corbyn for his now-vague Brexit stance, showing how united the Liberal Democrats are in contrast.    

Obviously, he had to discuss tuition fees; they have been adapting their policy to reflect the reality of “university finance issues”, and there was optimism about “recovering that ground”. Mr Cable claimed that the Lib Dems are now well received on campuses across the country, often in the ascendancy to Labour.

But the answer finished on a bit of boilerplate about the tech firms and housing, vaguely linked to young people, but mostly showcasing the liberal agendum.

Despite Mr cable's claims, 
the Lib Dems still have a rather high rejection rate among young people.

Economy: “You’ve traded a few barbs with Corbyn over his economic strategy...what is the Liberal Democrat strategy for the economy?”

Good question - what is their economic strategy? 

Mr Cable emphasised the principles of “responsible business”: apparently a mix of free-market enterprise and government-encouraged ethical business. He expressed contempt for both leftist state control and right-wing weak welfare, preferring an imprecise combination of both. 

The redistribution of wealth and the 1p NHS tax featured, suggesting a little left-thinking, although he assures that it has “to be done in a mixed economy”. He referred back to his stint in the Coalition cabinet as a source of authority.

And...?

And that’s it! To bring you everything that he said would make this blog never-ending, but hopefully this is enough to satisfy you.

My overall opinion? Even if the party is in a rut, Mr Cable put on a good showing. Do consider them somewhat in 2022.

But not that much.

Several photo credits to the Wokingham Paper - more can be found at https://www.wokinghampaper.com/

Mo-dems the rules

Special Report

Despite being scores of years old, the laws that surround conventional warfare are still fairly practical and functional. The main problem is that conventional warfare is not the future of conflict. 

Software attacks and internet manipulation over the previous two years have shown the increasing emergence of cyber "conflict" . But where are the regulations and laws surrounding this new form of battle? 

Without them, the world will be increasingly vulnerable.

Stayin’ adrive Stayin’ adrive

The Hague Conventions in 1899 and 1907 set the laws of warfare. They first outlawed the use of poison gas and expanding bullets, then developed rules surrounding hospital ships, balloons, and the declaring of war. 

They were supported by various Geneva Conventions throughout the late 1800's and early 1900's, which protected the rights of civilians and prisoners.

Signatories to Geneva 1949 - 
green is all aspects of the treaty,
blue/purple most, yellow/orange some,
red only the basics.

Even if countries frequently violated these agreements (Nazi Germany in WWII being a prime example) they at least allowed the victims a sense of identity and justice, and the opportunity to prosecute post-war (as in the Nuremberg Trials).

The screen for a ransomware virus

But suddenly in the past two years there have been a handful of high-level, computer and internet-based, attacks. The Russian, state-sponsored, “Internet Research Agency” has meddled in Western elections and referendums; unknown hackers targeted the NHS with ransomware (where a hacked computer will only be unlocked in exchange for payment) and in April last year, hidden among wider incidents, Ukraine faced the ‘Petya’ attacks, which crippled the country.

Most of these incursions originate from various shadows within Russia and North Korea; the bulk are probably Kremlin-orchestrated, directed to fight back against 'western aggression'.

(That said, it's probable that GCHQ and the CIA are probing Russian software and computer security in return. While most of the attacks are from Putin-land, to portray it all as one-sided is a bit unfair.)

Hague Convention 1899

We cannot stop this war; just as 19th century European statesmen foresaw the inevitability of conflict and could only try to limit it, the momentum carrying cyber warfare is unstoppable. 

What can be done, however, is a limiting of the consequences and the collateral damage it may cause. But there are no such limitations in place yet. 

So we must create some. 

It won’t be a flash in the hard drive

The Geneva and Hague Conventions are very clear on several points: no killing of civilians (which is why air combat was initially banned), correct treatment of prisoners, and no poison gas. 

The first seeks to limit collateral damage, the second to protect human rights, especially if the soldiers were conscripts, and the third to prevent war being even more barbarous.

Did I say that the Conventions were irrelevant? Well maybe not entirely; those points could form the basis of a cyber warfare treaty too:

The Japanese actually
developed balloon bombs
in late WWII

1) No attacking civilian infrastructure. 

This will keep innocent casualties to a minimum, and ensure that war is kept among the military, and the military only. So: no damaging traffic light systems; no wrecking of voting databases; no hurting health services. But Department of Defences are fine, military bases are game, and intelligence services - absolutely!

2) Clear distinction of cyber and physical warfare. 

Are you declaring war by computer or soldier, or both? This should be clear at the start of war, allowing better protection of civilian rights, as both sides know what they actually are in this context.

3) No subtle or quasi-illegal interference. 

Case in point: Russian use of social media. Doing so infringes on a nation’s sovereignty and freedom of speech, and should be banned. Even more than regular cyber war, it’s messy, hurtful, and absolutely unreasonable. 

The situation must be monitored

'Oh...it seems to run on some form of electricity.'

Such a rule book should also cover how to declare a cyber war, what mediums could be used in one, and what would signal defeat. 

It would have to be well-rounded, and signed by the USA, the UK, Russia, China, France, Israel, and India (the major and technological powers) at least. This would also encourage smaller nations to sign, making it truly international and effective.

Because the alternative is chaos; a breakdown in trust, with ad-hoc agreements and deals patching up international computer conflict (which could then break out anyway). 

Better to give cyber war some legitimacy and limit the fallout than than allow conflict unchecked. After all, the last Geneva Convention was in 1949, and it's done alright since.

A Government of National Unit- Wait what?

Brexit looks set to have a tumultuous impact on the UK and our government. The current leadership, with a majority of -10 and no fresh ideas on our future, needs help. Why not form a coalition of National Unity?

The Plaid Green Labouril ConservaUKIP Scottish Unionist Party

Tory Churchill (middle-right) and Labour Attlee (middle-left)
in the WWII coalition.

The last time such a union happened was during World War Two, when the Liberals, Labour, and the Conservatives (the only three parties in parliament) formed a unified coalition under Winston Churchill. 

They, and he, saw the need for a robust government, free from opposition squabbling and petty disputes. 

They were committed to organising the country into a state of war, and then maintaining that state, until either they or Hitler were defeated; totally and absolutely.

Brexit isn’t nearly as concerning as the fate of the Northern Hemisphere, but a unified government would be useful. The Commons is fractured by intense debate, and Theresa May is under pressure from all quarters regarding her policies. A united government would be largely free of this and could solve several big political problems:

• Lack of committment to Brexit. With under a year left until exit, and less than eight months until the legislation has to be signed, cabinet ministers are falling like skittles (the bowling pins, not the sweets) and Jeremy Corbyn is grappling with an unkillable anti-semitism probe. Brexit is an awkward afterthought.

Theresa May in human mode.

• An absence of fresh ideas. The Maybot is known for a lack of human personality and dynamic thinking. Bringing in young Labour MPs and SNP ministers would shake up thinking (and amuse the country as they try to work with Jacob Rees-Mogg).

• Dodging of serious questions, and scores of petty disputes. Who cares about chlorinated chicken, when we could end up with no chicken? There’s too much obsession over the detail even without a grand plan yet in place. A national government would force solutions to big issues (i.e. the customs union) with the little problems shelved for a rainy day.

• Lack of Centrist politics. Abandoned by a Conservative party pulled to the right, and ignored by Corbynism, British Centrism is empty (Lib dems and Greens hardly count). Forcing more moderate MPs together might encourage them to redevelop the middle of British politics.

By one reckoning, the Conservatives have swung to an almost extremist viewpoint.
Labour is also much further out than before under Miliband, Brown, and Blair.

An all-party coalition that solves at least one of these problems would be well worth the time - something Theresa May isn’t using well right now. 

Economically, too, it could help reassure investor confidence, which currently looks wobbly at best. Showing that the government has its act together, and is committed to a functional Brexit, would result in a much more stable business atmosphere. 

Business confidence isn't as poor as many make it out,
 but it still looks more vulnerable than it should be.

And of course, it would encourage us. Both those who voted for and against Brexit now need guarantees that the exit will be carried out in a professional manner. I can’t think of many ways to reassure better than a national alliance.

Westminister - I think we got a problem

Unfortunately, there’s a reason why this idea has only been raised on the political fringes - the practicality of such a measure isn’t great. Hard-Right Brexiters mixing with Socialists? Tom Watson allying with Sir Bill Cash?

How would the Liberal Democrats, so committed to the idea of, at least, a Common’s vote on the final plan, work with a Prime Minister who frequently disregards parliamentary opinion? 

Corbyn-May relations are all an all-time low too; Prime Minister’s Questions’ has been knocking lumps out of them both recently, with fierce exchanges over Windrush, austerity and anti-semitism. It’s hard to imagine this gap being bridged, and it  probably never will be.

This would be nice...

...but this is the reality,

The idea of Winston Churchill being Prime Minister raised scorn and worry in most circles. Yet he disproved critics and went on to secure remarkable victories, both politically and militarily.

A National Government is, yes, unlikely, and causes concern in some circles. But we aren’t in the position right now to throw away the possibility. Britain needs it. 

To win the peace, you need to get a move on

One of the most common trends in politics the world over is that laws are passed thick and fast in times of crisis, but during the more mundane periods... there’s just not a lot of action. Which isn’t a good thing.

Politics and trampolines

(Not our trampoline)

Passing laws is a lot like putting the rain cover on our trampoline. When it’s nice and sunny, there’s other things we want to do, and there’s no need to put the cover on (at least, none of us bother).

Then later, it rains. If we want the trampoline to stay dry, we have to put the cover on. But why would we go out in the freezing rain and spend a good fifteen minutes tying up knots? We know the rain will soon pass and putting the cover on is more trouble than it’s worth. Except, when we next go on for a bounce, water will trickle down, soaking our feet and clothes, ruining the fun, and reminding us why the cover really should be used.

When domestic politics are in good shape and the international scene is quiet (good weather) Prime Ministers and Presidents don’t want to expend effort on controversial, seemingly worthless, reform (cover). There’s no perceived need to do such a thing, and why risk the peace anyway?  

After Brown announced the banking bailout during the Recession

But when crisis comes (the rainstorm) there’s massive legislation to arrange: bail-outs; troop manoeuvres; sanctions. 
All the reformist laws that would've stopped the calamity (the rain cover) had been ignored, and are now rushed through half-baked, only able to limit damage. 
Any other great ideas, so needed for the future, are dropped in this time of emergency. 
And then the crisis ends and the sun returns. We relax and ignore looming problems




There are many problems in our politics and economy that could have been resolved years ago, or need to be resolved now, before the rain comes. As this is a politics blog, let’s look at...

Parliamentary Reform BREXIT

Parliament is currently engaged in fierce debate over the manner and means of Brexit, and are so absorbed by it that another huge crisis is slipping by: Parliamentary reform. While MPs argue over the Northern Irish border and fishing quotas, Westminster Palace (where Parliament sits), and British democracy itself, is wobbling around them. The old way has worked for hundreds of years. But it’s time to move on. 

To summarise, there are three problems:

1) Structural failure. The building is (at its youngest) 150 years old, with many aspects dating back to medieval times - only slightly older than Vince Cable. 

The building is filled with asbestos-lined pipes, rats, and dodgy plumbing; the whole place is gradually sinking into the Thames, crammed with awkward offices and too-small chambers. 

The Commons never fitted all 650 MPs (some of whom have to stand), and why on Earth is there an underground shooting range, but a chronic shortage of female toilets?

2) Odd customs. No clapping in the chamber. Sword hooks in the changing rooms. Having to reserve seats for ‘Prayers’. 
The place is chockablock with odd traditions and procedures that a) defy common sense, and b) make it seem out of touch; too many MPs see these bizarrities as part of the UK’s great heritage and not as the elitist images they give off. 
Call me fussy, but I like my Parliament to have a dash of normality.

How to reserve seats in the Commons -
surely a seating plan would do?

3) Dodgy democracy. We use a ‘First Past the Post’ method: the party which gets 326 seats is automatically in power, and can pass laws at their will (as long as the MPs behave). It ignores minority parties (the Greens and LDs get lots of votes but are too spread out to get many seats) and means people can’t directly choose their leaders, or dictate their agendum. 

Much better would be a ‘Proportional Representation’ format, where we would vote separately for a local rep and the central government - the percentage of votes a party receives equals the percentage of seats it takes in the central government. It’s representative, fair, and accountable.

The US's government if it had PR - much more balanced.

So what’s needed is a huge reform bill. Firstly, to move Parliament to a purpose-built centre further north. It would make life nicer for MPs, and improve the efficiency of law-making. This would also leave behind the weird traditions in the old building (which could be a museum and/or a centre of culture).

This would then be accompanied by electoral reform, to shake up British democracy, forcing the parties to adapt for the better. We’d have a more direct, approachable Parliament.

Wake me up when it's all over

But with the Crash, austerity, and Brexit, such reform is not likely. Only Labour could have done it this century, probably from 2004-2006. It’s not the only quiet problem we face either: there are fears than may be another mortgage crisis in 2030 (too many have taken out costly mortgages), and social mobility, hailed as Britain’s specialty, is falling apart. 

Recessions come every 10/15 years (see downturns in economic growth)...
...we're due for another one soon.

Even post-Brexit, laws to change any of these problems won’t come about until there’s a relevant crisis of some sort. I wonder what other reforms the government will decide to neglect then?

What happens in Cameroon stays in Cameroon

Special Report

Anglo-French-German wars are a thing of the centuries past; times of armoured warfare, moral conflict, and Blitkreig. But their legacy, or more specifically their languages, are grappling fiercely once more in Cameroon, and protests are threatening to turn into long-lasting violence.

But I imagine you have little idea what I’m talking about. 

The Country that sounds like my cousins' middle name

According to the BBC, Cameroon is so diverse that it’s called an ‘Africa in miniature’, describing it as having ‘one of the highest literacy rates on the continent...but hampered by the persistent problem of corruption’. 

Indeed in 1998, it was ranked as the most corrupt country in the world to do business with.

German troops in 'Kamerun'

Initially discovered by the Portuguese, by 1884 it was in German hands during their desperate scramble for Empire. 

Expanded in 1911, then annexed by neighbouring French and British colonies in 1916, it was divided after the First World War: 80% to the French, 20% to the British.


By 1961, the two parts had decolonised and joined, forming modern Cameroon. In 1983, Paul Biya became President and has fiddled the constitution to give him extra terms since. 

Meanwhile, the Anglophone (English-speaking) West grew slowly more resentful at the disproportionate dominance of the Francophone (French-speaking) majority, who hold top posts in government, receive more funding for public projects, and are better treated.

Map outlining the spread of English and French.
The Anglophone region is visible in the West

In November 2016, the Government tried to impose French upon local courts in West Cameroon. 

In doing so it offended the English-speaking population, proud of not being of the 64% who speak French. Protests followed.

If you can't beat 'em...shoot them.

The rallies grew and grew in size, joined by teachers too. The campaigns began to focus on still-rampant corruption and poor governance, alarming Biya. Separatism became a semi-serious prospect, hoping for the independent state for ‘Ambazonia’.

The security forces reacted harshly, firing live rounds and teargas into a market in Bamenda, the region's largest city, killing four. 

The internet was then shut down in the area, with local campaigners, lawyers, and human rights activists detained. In response a separatist bomb attack was launched, wounding three policemen.

So the military was deployed. Which always goes well. A peak day of demonstrations were planned in late September. Business were closed; gatherings of over four people were banned, movement around English-speaking regions was forbidden. Tensions were high.

The army watches over Anglophone prisoners

Guess what? The military killed eight people at those protests, with more wounded.

It then deployed teargas to deter from approaching the regional governor's office, clashing with separatists. 

By the end of October, 40 were dead, 100 injured, and between 7,000 and 20,000 had fled to Nigeria.



Counter-protests were held in Douala, Cameroon's commercial capital, but then counter-counter violence erupted when protestors killed four Cameroonian soldiers. Opposition Parties lodged their complaints during a budget debate, using...vuvuzela horns. 

(I thought they'd gone away after the 2010 World Cup - apparently not.)

Oh, and they did some wonderful singing (link here)

President Biya...not looking anxious at all.

Despite the persecution, the movement has grown stronger and stronger. Biya is next in a procession of African leaders 
(read: dictators) who are struggling when social protest meets social media. 

Mugabe couldn't keep a lid on it; Zuma faced expose after expose; Desalegn (Ethiopia) was thrown out by constant anger. 

The elections later this year will see the opposition fired up and making life awkward for him - that is, if the country is peaceful enough to hold a vote.

The good news is that Biya has suggested that he's open to dialogue and the decentralisation of power. Unfortunately, he hasn't addressed the blatant illegality of the security forces' behaviour. Instead he's praised them, ignoring the huge casualties and refugees involved in their crackdown.

Violence at the October protests in Bamenda

But depite this, Agbor Nkongho, a leader of the protesters, is calling for the radicals on both sides to cease their violence, reminding them that “We can still live as one; unity in diversity,”. This is a strikingly different tone to the leaders of other, often-militant, civil campaigns elsewhere.

The media is only slowly waking up to the unrest in Cameroon. Wearied of seemingly constant hotspots all over the continent, there's little appetite in the industry or at home for yet another story about a failing African country. 

But this is important. 

It may spiral into civil war or turn into a long-running insurgency - neither are remote possibilities. But there's a chance it will be settled peacefully; both leaders could be open to dialogue, with a mind for a peaceful settlement. 

And that would be a wonderful thing indeed for Africa.

Pride of the continent one day soon?

Big Thanks to the Guardian, whose section on Cameroon I plundered for this post. If you want more information, they have great articles on the whole saga.

As a side note, the Easter holidays are approaching, so I'm afraid can't guarantee a post in two weeks time, as other commitments take priority.

Happy Easter!

Theo