The Berlin Conference was a disservice to Africa. Irrespective of whichever echo chamber you stumble into, there is no question about this. What happened there? Apprehensive lest the late 19th century competition amongst European countries for influence in and trade with Africa descended into a free-for-all with adverse consequences for every player, Otto von Bismarck (first chancellor, of the newly unified Germany — from 1871 to 1890) convened a meeting of the 13 leading European countries of the period and the United States of America. Between November 15, 1884, and February 26, 1885, the convention agreed rules that greatly accelerated the eventual European colonisation of the continent.
Much was wrong about the conference. Of course, it did not make sense inviting representatives of the continent to the meeting when Africa itself was the main item on the menu. This meant that the outcomes of the conference were always going to be constipating for the continent. Even then, two other outcomes of the conference have had longer term consequences that still echo today. The extraction of resources and their export from the continent, and colonial rule left cicatrices (economic, social, and political) on the continent’s face so deep that they are still discernible today.
|
|
Then, there is the matter of how the demarcation of colonial borders continues to adversely affect the continent. By ignoring existing kingdoms, ethnic groups, trade networks, and political realities, this process apparently broke up existing institutional arrangements — and the resulting underdevelopment of these institutions have held back the continent’s post-colonial progress. So universal is this understanding of the continent’s development trajectory that no expert commentary on the state of the continent today is complete without including the “fact” that “Africa’s current predicaments are due to the fact that its countries are ‘artificial colonial constructs’, with tribes sitting awkwardly (and occasionally, dangerously) cheek by jowl”.
If this reading nurtures the sense that every nation should have its own state — and every state should contain only one nation, it is intentional. It underpins the Marxist-Leninist concept of the right of nations to self-determination, and its underlying sentiments are famously captured in the Ethiopian student movement’s conversations of the late 1960s and early 1970s, where activists debated the principle of “self-determination up to and including secession.” Is it enough to reply that the idea of a pure nation state does not exist anywhere in the world. Not even in the offending European countries.
|
|
|
|---|
Was Europe greedy in its exchange with Africa? Yes. This led to the balkanisation of Africa. And before that, to the “discovery” of rivers, sea routes, and territories in the Americas and Asia. The greed (and some argue, fear) in Europe, which left Africa divided into a patchwork of countries with constituent parts with very little in common had also lent faggot to centuries of wars, dynastic marriages, conquests, treaties, and political bargains which, in turn shaped Europe’s current borders. In this narrow sense, European countries (Spain, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium to take the more obvious examples) are similarly “artificial military constructs too”, with tribes sitting uncomfortably by each other.
The “Troubles” in the United Kingdom. And before that “Anschluss” in 1938. And the invasion by Germany of Czechoslovakia in the same year to “liberate” Sudetenland. All of these were tribal wars in the best acceptation of the description. Indeed, both the First and Second World Wars were the sad outcomes of Europe’s fluid borders. Accordingly, if we do not have the counter-factual of a country anywhere in the world that is prospering because it is a nation of homogenous people, we can at least conclude that multinational states are not the burden that experts on Africa (and their national irredentist mirror reflections in every country on the continent) continue to insist that they are.
Does it help our conversation around this topic to recognise another fact? Modern European nationalism often emerged in the 19th century only after borders had already been established, on the back of governments’ efforts to create stronger sense of national unity (through standardising languages, national, systems, military service, and national histories) within territories that were already politically defined. If, therefore, Africa is failing, it is not because of its diverse people patrimony. It is because its constituent countries have not been able to develop shared institutions and national identities within their borders. Without cultivating a common identity amongst its people, we will continue to struggle to create functional nations.
Uddin Ifeanyi, a journalist manqué and retired civil servant, can be reached @IfeanyiUddin.
