Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T00:48:08.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Treaties, Borders, and the Partition of Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2009

Saadia Touval
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The article questions the contention that, in the process of partition and the delimitation of borders in Africa, no account was taken of local conditions. The possibility of indirect African influence on the process is examined. At least some of the treaties concluded between Europeans and African rulers were genuine, and regarded as a contractual obligation by both sides. There were cases of African rulers seeking to promote their political interests by entering into an alliance with Europeans. Such treaties were sometimes utilized by European powers in their negotiations with rivals, to support their territorial claims. There were some attempts to define colonial borders so that they coincided with the frontiers of traditional African politics. Thus, treaties between African rulers and Europeans played a role in the process of the partition. In this connexion, it is important to remember that traditional African polities were often polyethnic, or encompassed only a segment of an ethnic group, and did not correspond to the modern European concept of ‘nation states’. There were also occasions in which questions regarding the local economy and communications were considered when borders were delimited. The considerations employed may have been wrong. But it seems necessary to modify the generalization that local circumstances were disregarded in the border-making process.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of African History , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , July 1966 , pp. 279 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Towards a history of the partition of Africa’, J. Afr. Hist. I, I (1960).Google Scholar

2 Especially: Hargreaves, J. D., Prelude to the Partition of West Africa (London, 1963);Google ScholarDike, K. O., Trade and Politics in the Niger Delta, 1830–1883 (Oxford, 1956);Google ScholarNewbury, C., The Western Slave Coast and its Rulers (Oxford, 1961).Google Scholar

3 The examination of treaty rights was accorded much attention by the Niger Commissioners charged with negotiating Anglo-French boundaries in West Africa in 1898. See Gooch, G. P. and Temperley, H. (eds.), British Documents on the Origin of the War, I (London, 1927), 138–40.Google Scholar On the other hand the British claim to ‘Mount Mfumbiro’, based on Stanley's alleged treaties, was apparently not subjected to examination by the Germans, anl the ‘mountain’ was mentioned as falling within the British sphere by the 1890 Anglo-German agreement. It remained a geographical and political puzzle for a number of years, until it was established that there was no mountain by that name, though a plain, not far from the supposed location of the imaginary mountain, carried that name. See Louis, W. R., ‘The Anglo-German Hinterland Settlement of 1890 and Uganda’, Uganda Journal, xxvii, I (03 1963);Google ScholarJentgen, P.; Les frontières du Ruanda-Urundi et le régime international de tutelle (Brussels, 1957), 22–3Google Scholar. For the 1890 Anglo-German agreement see SirHertslet, Edward (ed.), The Map of Africa by Treaty, III (London, 1909), 899–906.Google Scholar

4 For example, the missionary Helm, who witnessed the signing of the Rudd concession by Lobengula, the Matabele ruler, signed a certificate ‘that the accompanying document has been fully interpreted and explained by me to the Chief Lobengula and his full council of Indunas and that all the constitutional usages of the Matabele nation have been complied with prior to his executing the same’. Quoted by Mason, P., The Birth of a Dilemma (London, 1958), 124.Google Scholar

5 Lugard, F. D., The Rise of Our East African Empire, II (London, 1893), 579–81.Google Scholar For examples of the blood-brotherhood ceremonies, see The Diaries of Lord Lugard, ed. Perham, M. and Bull, M. (London, 1959), I, 315–19; II, 334–5.Google Scholar

6 Diaries of Lord Lugard, IV (London, 1963), chap. 4 and passim;Google ScholarPerham, M., Lugard, I (London, 1956), 532–41, 670–1, 702;Google ScholarFlint, J. E., Sir George Goldie and the Making of Nigeria (London, 1960), 224–6.Google Scholar For a different example, of British claims in the Cameroons to which objection was raised because of improperly obtained treaties, see Rudin, H. R., Germans in the Cameroons (New Haven, 1938), 46–48, 50, 58–60.Google Scholar

7 Flint, 139.Google Scholar

8 Mason, 118.Google Scholar

9 Quoted by Pcrham, Lugard, I, 540.Google Scholar

10 Diaries of Lord Lugard, I, 318.Google Scholar Cf. ibid. 158. Lugard's doubts as to whether African rulers understood the treaties were also expressed in his The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa (London, 1922), 15.Google Scholar

11 Skinner, E. P., The Mossi of the Upper Volta (Stanford, 1964); 149–51.Google Scholar

12 SirHerstlet, Edward (ed.), A Complete Collection of the Treaties and Conventions at the Present Subsisting between Britain and Foreign Powers, XIII (London, 1877), 6–8.Google Scholar

13 Mason, 124.Google Scholar

14 Flint, 137–9.Google Scholar

15 Perham, Lugard, 1, 594–6.Google Scholar

16 Flint, 175–7;Google ScholarKirk-Greene, A. H. M., Adamawa Past and Present (London, 1958), 38, 45–6, 158.Google Scholar

17 For example, one wonders what the people of Edadama thought of the treaty they concluded in a state of drunkenness with Sir Harry Johnston. From Johnston's description of the affair, it seems he made a gross understatement when he summed up, saying that ‘… the proceedings were altogether too boisterous for serious treaty making’. See SirJohnston, Harry H., The Story of My Life (Indianapolis, 1923),Google Scholar For Johnston's views on treaty making in general, see ibid. 258.

18 Among those who refused were, for example, the rulers of Bornu and Mossi, as well as certain chiefs in Northern Cameroons. See Flint, 171; Skinner, 344–8; and Rudin, 84, respectively. Among those who made a treaty only after pressure or persuasion were Kabaka Mwanga of Buganda, the emir of Yola, and chief Sekgoma in Ngamiland. See Diaries of Lord Lugard, II, 27–45; Flint, 177–9; and Perham, Lugard, 1, 594–6 respectively.Google Scholar

19 Perham, Lugard, I, 518.Google Scholar

20 Wills, A. J., An Introduction to the History of Central Africa (London, 1964), 161–5.Google Scholar

21 Diaries of Lord Lugard, IV, 534–7. The treaty may have been a factor helping Kishi to remain under Yoruba rule, and thus influencing its ultimately being allocated to the Western Region of Nigeria.Google Scholar

22 But finally mutual suspicions led to hostility. See Oliver, R., Sir Harry Johnston and the Scramble for Africa (London,1957), 59–70.Google Scholar

23 For a recent discussion, see Roberts, A., ‘The Sub-Imperialism of the Baganda’, J. Afr. Hist., III, 3 (1962).Google Scholar

24 Diaries of Lord Lugard, II, 37ff.Google Scholar

25 Kimble, D., A Political History of Ghana (Oxford, 1963), 281 and n. 6.Google Scholar

26 This was probably a factor with some of the treaties concluded in Nyasaland. See Oliver, 160–1, 205–6.Google Scholar

27 Flint, 277–178.Google Scholar

28 Diaries of Lord Lugard, II, 48, 57.Google Scholar

29 Oliver, 161–2. Cf. Johnston, 243.Google Scholar

30 Flint, 175–177; Kirk-Greene, 38, 45–6, 158.Google Scholar

31 The initiative of the Somalis was recently emphasized in a Somali government publication. See Republic, Somali, Ministry of Information, The Somali Peninsula: A New Light on I, nperial Motives (London, 1962), 23, 37. On the Mossi, see Skinner, 147–152.Google Scholar

32 Mason, 121–2, 105.Google Scholar

33 For example, the British claim at the Berlin conference to exclude the Niger from international control was based on treaty rights British agents acquired in the region. See Crowe, S. E., The Berlin West African Conference, 1884–1885 (London, 1942), 125–6, 223–4.Google Scholar

34 Cf. Salisbury's views on the rules for such bargaining, Gooch and Temperley, I, 132, 140.Google Scholar

35 Ibid. 133, 141, 150.

36 Oliver, 87–8. For the 1886 Anglo-German treaty see British and Foreign State Papers, LXXVII, 1130.Google Scholar

37 Quoted by SirBurns, Alan, History of Nigeria, 5th ed. (London, 1955), 156.Google Scholar

38 Gooch and Temperley, I, 141.Google Scholar

39 Gooch and Temperley, II, 348–50.Google Scholar For the text of the agreement, see ibid. 374–84.

40 Wills, 164, 167–8. Another dispute in which the limits of the territory of an African ruler were in question was between France and the International Association of the Congo, and concerned the territorial extent of the authority of King Makoko. See Crowe, 158–60.Google Scholar

41 Touval, S., Somali Nationalism (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), 63, 156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Gooch and Temperley, II, 380.Google Scholar

43 Jones, S. B., Boundary Making (Washington, 1945), 42.Google Scholar

44 Kimble, 280, n. 3.Google Scholar

45 Perham, Lugard, 1, 708–9.Google Scholar

46 Hailey, Lord, An African Survey (London, 1957), 500–1;Google ScholarGarvin, J. L., The Life of Joseph Chamberlain, III (London, 1934), 40–1.Google Scholar

47 Boggs, S. W., International Boundaries (New York, 1940), 157.Google Scholar

48 Another interesting case, though occurring later than the period with which this essay is concerned, is the rectification of the Ruanda—Tanganyika border, so as to incorporate the whole of the Ruanda kingdom within the Belgian mandated territory. See Jentgen, 39–40.Google Scholar

49 Oliver, 104–7. But it seems that his recommendations were disregarded.Google Scholar

50 Oliver, 336.Google Scholar

51 Ibid.

52 Gooch and Temperley, II, 297ff., 381–4.Google Scholar

53 For example: article vi of the Anglo-German agreement of 1890 (Hertslet, , Map of Africa by Treaty, III, 899–906); the Franco-German protocol of 1885 concerning the Dahomey'Togo border (Jones, 40); the Anglo-Belgian agreement of 1927 concerning the Congo–Northern Rhodesia border (Jones, 190–5, 195–6).Google Scholar