Africa presents several TERRITORIAL DISPUTES. The
usual current causes have to do with natural resources and bordering
minorities. This and the following posts will introduce the general background
behind TERRITORIAL DISPUTES. That is because they all share a common origin:
European colonialism. It will be only after introducing the real reasons behind
these differences that the posts will center the attention on individual
TERRITORIAL DISPUTES in Africa and their particularities in each case.
For a complete and updated detail of TERRITORIAL
DISPUTES in Africa see CIA’s Factbook (country by country)
Territorial dispute encompasses “boundary
dispute” and “border dispute”. In other words, “territorial dispute” is a more
generic expression than the others and therefore ought to be preferred. A
boundary is an imaginary line delimiting the territorial jurisdiction of one
state from that of another. A border or frontier on the other hand is the area
or region or zone having both length and breadth indicating, without
necessarily fixing, the exact limits where one state starts and another ends.
There appears to be no fundamental difference between a boundary and a border
or frontier save for the fact that whereas a boundary as a line has no breadth,
a border as an area, region or zone does. The terms must however not be used
interchangeably. Breadth or no breadth, the cardinal function of a boundary or
border is to separate one territory from another. Therefore, any dispute
concerning the appropriateness or otherwise of a boundary or border is necessarily
territorial.
Territorial dispute in Africa is a product of
imperialism and colonialism. It is the result of the arbitrary fixing of African
boundaries by the Europeans both within and outside of the Berlin Conference of
1885. Several accounts show that the Berlin Conference opened in November 1884
and lasted till February 1885. Thus, some writers chose to refer to the period
as 1885 or even 1884-1885. Territories were constructed based on European
political considerations, and usually without regard to tribal and ethnological
factors.
Africa.
Pre-colonial Africa adopted age-old systems of using border marches as buffer
between kingdoms. Such zones were of varying width fell into three distinct
categories during the 19th century.
The
first of these can be described as a frontier of contact and existed in
situations where distinct cultural and political lived and operated side by
side.
Frontier
of separation is the second type of traditional frontier existing in Africa
during the pre-colonial era. The areas were separated by a buffer zone over
which neither side claimed or exercised any authority. Unhealthy forests and
deserts usually provided such frontiers and states of Central Sudan including
Bornu, Maradi, Air and the Fulani Empire had such frontiers.
The
third type of traditional frontier existed in regions of considerable over-
lapping of diverse groups where it was easy to talk more intelligibly in terms
of enclaves rather than of frontiers.
The
boundaries of modern Africa were the creation of European diplomats partitioned
Africa among themselves with little regard for, or knowledge socio-cultural
characteristics of the continent. As a result of the capriciousness the
European partition, a typical African boundary may group together ethnic groups
in one state, it may cut across many ethnic or national of the past, or it may
create a state whose physical characteristics hinder social, or economic
stability. Since the colonial boundaries were used, with exceptions, as the
basis for the devolution of sovereignty in Africa, the leaders of the continent
have had to deal with the effects of this boundary situation.
Uncovering the Bond between Colonialism and
Conflict
The Nature of
African Boundaries
African
Boundary Conflict: An Empirical Study
Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter:
@London1701
01st October 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment