ABSTRACT

The evolution o f Africa’s boundaries There is a general view amongst critics of European colonization of Africa that international boundaries were drawn in a few years at the end of the 19th century by career diplomats whose greed for national wealth was matched only by their lack of knowledge about the nature of African geography, politics, and society. This view is summarized in the phrase ‘the scramble for Africa’. Touval (1972, pp. 3-17) and Gann and Duignan (1969, pp. 100-31) have

shown the falsity of this view in elegant essays. Gann and Duignan explore the motives for the annexation of colonies in Africa and reach the following conclusion: The history of European imperialism can therefore be written only in a polycentric fashion. Whether we deal with white expansion in Africa, or with any other great instance of cultural diffusion on a continental scale, no unitary theory will ever untangle for us the richness and variety of the historical skein. (Gann & Duignan 1969, p. 128)

This sound judgement is reached after looking at Africa through the eyes of the decision-makers and the political commentators of the time. They saw Africa as an El Dorado of unknown resources; a place for guaranteed profitable investment of surplus wealth; a limitless market for manufactured goods; a continent where middle-class public servants and soldiers could find employment which would advance their status; a people that desperately needed deliverance from the evils of slavery and spiritual oppression; an area with only a few, key strategic locations in terms of communications and the balance of naval power. Gann and Duignan note

that Salisbury, Rosebery, and Bismarck made rational decisions about whether a territory should be claimed or not. They were aware that onerous responsibilities accompanied the acquisition of colonies and that the careless construction of boundaries sowed a harvest of problems which would be reaped later. Through an examination of treaties between European powers and

African chiefs, Touval (1972, pp. 4-11) has shown how some African leaders were able to influence the location of boundaries, and the care that most powers exercised in trying to ensure that the boundaries did not tear the fabric of existing political and cultural institutions. It is now well known that lofty aim was defeated on more than one occasion, but this was sometimes due to conflicting territorial claims by African rulers. In other areas, as Anene (1970, p. 290) has shown, the ethnic and political fragmen­ tation of some frontiers between larger states formed a human mosaic with a complex pattern which defied rational separation by a single line. In some cases the boundaries were delimited in terms of existing

political organizations. For example, the Anglo-French declaration of 1890 specified that the boundary from Say on the River Niger to Barruwa on Lake Chad should be drawn so that the Royal Niger Company secured all that properly belongs to the Kingdom of Sokoto (Prescott 1971, pp. 66-7). The agreement between Britain and France on 8 September 1919 defined the southern part of the boundary between Chad and the Sudan as the watershed between the Nile and Congo River basins as far north as parallel 11° north. Beyond this point the boundary was drawn to separate in principle the countries of Dar Kouti, Dar Sila, Wadai, and Dar Tama from the country of the Taaisha, Dar Masalit, Dar Gimr and other tribes subject to Darfur (Brownlie 1979, p. 626). Many boundary agreements dealing with Africa contained clauses which

allowed the demarcation teams to vary the delimited line if local circumstances made such deviations appropriate. Sometimes a maximum distance from the defined line was specified; on other occasions it was necessary for the gains and losses o f territory for each side to match. For example, the following latitude was given to surveyors in the AngloGerman agreement of 1910 dealing with the boundary between Uganda and what is now Rwanda: In marking out the boundary along the three straight lines above mentioned between the point (b) and the point (f), the commissioners appointed for the purpose have authority to deviate from the straight lines, so as to make the frontier coincide with natural features where this is possible. The deviations shall not, however, exceed 5 kilom. on either side of the straight lines, and neither the total area of British territory nor the total area of German territory shall be altered thereby. (Brownlie 1979, p. 992)

When it was known that there was some risk that small social uints might be divided by a boundary, provision was made to allow the migration of people across the line. Such an article is found in the exchange of notes by Britain and France in respect of the boundary between Guinea and Sierra Leone in July 1911: Within six months from the date on which the boundary is finally agreed upon, natives living in territory which has been transferred may, if they so desire, cross over to live on the other side, and may take with them their portable property and harvested crops. (Brownlie 1979, p. 344)

Many African boundaries were drawn along the course of rivers, and it was usual to grant equal fishing rights to residents of both banks. The Anglo-Italian agreement of 15 July 1924, which fixed the boundary between Kenya and Italian Somaliland, made arrangements to alleviate the incidence of drought in Somaliland: If, however, the enquiries o f the Commission referred to in Article 12 show that in the neighbourhood of the sector of the new frontier running from El Beru to the Jubuland-Tanaland boundary there exists a shortage of pasture for the tribes situated on the Italian side of the frontier, and if these enquiries also show that during the rainy season there is on the British side of that sector and in the region bounded on the east by the new frontier and on the west by the line Goochi-RibbaEl-Tulli-Lakola-Toor Guda-Ramaguda more pasturage available than is required for the tribes in British territory, then the Commission will have the power to decide that for a certain period, not less than five years, Somalis or other natives of the transferred territory may during the rainy season cross the boundary at such a distance and in such numbers as the Commission may prescribe. (Brownlie 1979, pp. 892-3)

There is thus plenty of evidence to show that boundaries were drawn to preserve existing indigenous political and social units when they could be identified; that surveyors were instructed to make the delimited boundary fit new geographical and cultural facts which became available during the process of demarcation; and that rules were developed in many cases to ensure that people living near the border were not unduly hindered in the conduct of traditional subsistence, commercial and social activities.