Understanding the effects of the resolutions of the 1884–85 Berlin Conference to Africa’s Development and Euro-Africa relations

Understanding the effects of the resolutions of the 1884–85 Berlin Conference to Africa’s Development and Euro-Africa relations Ndubuisi Idejiora-kalu1 ABSTRACT The incursion into Africa by Europe in the 19th Century was formally ratified by the 1884–85 Berlin Conference. The reason for Europe to decide in venturing into the South was basically centered on the need for natural resources and to be later realized deep yearnings for trade and cooperation with Africa. But the reverse was the case with the supposedly cooperation with Africa initiative in aconference that was strangely not to have Africa diplomatically represented and with resolutions which instead of enabling this proper partnership with Africa became amaster— slave empire-type of relations. This master-slave relation is also seen in many aspects even in trade and is known also to have changed the economic behavior of African countries. An unequal relationship between the north and its colonies is revealed.2 KEYWORDS Berlin Conference, Euro-Africa Relations, Master-Slave Psychology Syndrome, post-colonialism, economic behavior, Sino-African relations. The research will show that this conference and its resolutions, although bad as it seemed, indeed forms asolid foundation for strong relations between Europe and Africa. The Berlin conference consolidated the union and development of Europe. These potentials between Europe and Africa are still open in possible strengthened relations especially in these globalized times with intensified calls for multilateral trade between nations by the World Trade Organization (WTO).3 The impact of the 1884–85 Berlin Conference resolutions on the process of the scramble of Africa has been dealt with by other scholars,4 but acomprehensive as1 Ndubuisi Idejiora-Kalu, Diplomacy & Economy Research Institute (DERI), Nigeria Rebirth Foundation, 4 Sefadu Close (3rd Floor), off Ademola Adetokumbo Crescent, Wuse 2, Abuja, Nigeria, [email protected] 2 J.BECKER, From/To Europe Project. Metro Zone Center, Shedhalle, Zurich. 2009. 3 R.AZEVEDO, Regional initiatives cannot substitute for the multilateral trading system. Lecture delivered by the DG of World Trade Organization (WTO) at the Stockholm School of Economics in Riga, Latvia. March 24, 2015. 4 N.ACHESO, The King Incorporated: Leopold the Second in the age of Trusts, London, 1963. 100 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2019 sessment on the impact of these resolutions on Africa’s development, in terms of its social, economic and political development, right from the late 19th century when policies conceived from this conference began to be implemented in Africa, down to the 21st century, has still not been looked into in detail. The impact of the resolutions of this conference in shaping Euro-Africa relations has also never been attempted. The Berlin conference was Africa-centered but interestingly, did not have any Africa-diplomatic representation or consultation throughout the lifeline of the conference as well as in the implementation of its resolutions. Thus, Africa was not invited to the negotiation table. Aschool of thought postulates that during the time of the conference, the sovereignty of Africa nation States were not clearly defined and this might have led to their not being invited to the conference. This assertion, however, lacks any credible evidence. For the pre-colonial and post-colonial sovereignty of African States to be understood, one must first study the intricate nature of the culture of the African in society and his understanding of privacy and property. In pre-colonial African cultures, people lived without Western-style fences but that did not mean they did not have ways of defining their privacy or property. In olden day Africa (also still practiced today in most African societies), certain plants where used to define boundaries and people understood and adhered to the stipulations of these boundaries. Europe in their 19th Century conquest of Africa never adhered to these stipulations but callously re-defined the boundaries of African States to suit their economic gains. At the time of the Berlin conference, the boundaries of African States and their sovereignty were clearly defined. These African States understood their sovereignty and were also knowledgeable of international laws pertaining to this. It is confirmed that as early as 1847, Liberia for instance, ablack republic on the coast of West Africa was already sovereign and maintained regular diplomatic relations and actually signed various agreements of friendship and trade with some countries of the then presumed “civilized world” such as France, Britain, Imperial Germany and the U.S.5 The re-definition of Africa’s sovereignty, its borders, and cultures by the resolutions of the Berlin Conference has had violent ripple effects in the African society. These ripple effects have continued to be felt today especially as amilitating factor in the ability of cultures to blend together in Africa and in the tampering with its indigenous economic systems. The implementation of the resolutions of the Berlin conference did change Africa’s former easy-to-grasp cultures to an intricate one, the worst of which being “incomplete information about the roots of the African”. This alone has continued to create confusion and fuel conflict in today’s Africa. There is ahuge disconnect in the understanding of the African and his roots, with little or no available information and evidence for explaining his history since priceless olden day artifacts and treasured documentation that that should have done this (the old writings and drawings) were smuggled out of Africa by the Europeans invaders dur5 Y.GERSHONI, The Drawing of Liberian Boundaries in the Nineteenth Century: Treaties with African Chiefs versus Effective Occupation. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol.20, No.2. 1987, pp.293–307. NDUBUISI IDEjIORA-kALU 101 ing the European incursion in Africa and currently deposited in faraway European museums in Berlin, Paris, London and Brussels. It is worth mentioning, however, that these artifacts were the databases of the African past, prepared for the reasons of averting future historic problems in the latter generation. The smuggling out of these important historic data sources was indeed a“systematic knowledge prohibition outplay” place by the European invaders, with the intent of systematically depriving the African people of core retraceable knowledge of their history. This strategy was important to keeping the African people under British (European) cultural control. The deprivation of core elements of the knowledge of apeople’s history makes their control much easier. The culture rich Igbo people of South-Eastern Nigeria for instance do not have aclear evidence of how they began. Igbo anthropology does not have any tangible evidence which explains the beginnings of the Igbo people who at some point became the republic of Biafra during the Nigeria civil war of 1967–1970. The Igbos have (visible in their social and religious norms) strong Jewish inclinations. Most of this still unexplainable cultural trace has made assimilation of African cultures and people, in some aspects, impossible. This has to alarge extent impeded Africa’s propensity to productively forge ahead. The understanding of who apeople are (knowledge of their beginnings especially), are core prerequisites for the social, economic, and political development of any people in society. This factor alone has ahuge deficit in the African society, and this has come about because of the implementation of the Berlin conference. It also explains Africa’s current social, economic, and political underdevelopment. Apeople without retraceable knowledge about their beginnings and past cannot develop. This retraceable knowledge also deals with the knowledge of what their economic systems and structures were before colonialism. The destruct to the African society is unquantifiable. This destruct has created an “unbalance” in Euro-Africa relations and further given birth to aMaster-Slave Psychological Syndrome which has continued to severe bilateral relations between Europe and Africa especially in the very sensitive and beneficial area of Trade. The two regions (Europe and Africa) are though guilty of nurturing this syndrome. African societies and cultures which were initially distant, at most times so distant that they had different languages and strictly maintained their distance (as abuffer for unwarranted violent confrontation), were forced into becoming countries and these people forcefully made to blend. Aclassic case of this was in the amalgamation of certain immiscible, independent regions along the Niger-area into one country, Nigeria. In the Niger-area context, the Islamic Hausa people of the North-Eastern region, historically linked to the Kanem-Borno Empire, had acultural inclination which was far distinct from the socially loose, liberal and democratic Jewish-inclined culture Igbos of the South-Eastern part of Nigeria. The strategy behind this forcedly blending of these different people into one country by Britain was necessitated by its (Britain’s) quest for amassing enough resource-centric space for consolidating its economic policy as well as have an edge in the then European front, between her and other contending European rivals. The fact that Britain or Nigeria did not re-set back the region back to its default pre-1914 settings in 1960 when Nigeria earned its independence from Britain, was later to become acatalyst for exacerbating aviolent civil war in 1967 which would cost the region more than 3 million lives and agenocide on the Igbo people of the southern 102 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2019 eastern region Biafra. The forceful webbing together and delimitation of boundaries strategy of African States by European colonial powers can also be inter-linked as amajor causative factor in the Boko Haram insurgency in present day Nigeria, acomplex regional security problem begging to be understudied. Boko Haram means “Western education is forbidden.” Astriking component in the ideology behind the Boko Haram campaign is its resolve to create an Islamic caliphate (asovereign Islamic government, nation or country) which will annex its “presumed” culturally inassimilable and incompatible with the South of Nigeria who do not agree or belong to its cultural facets. Boko Haram presents amedia savvy Public Relations (PR) stunt that its position is against Western education as well as the Jewish and Christian religions but in retrospect, is acareful strategy of deception. Its ideology is more economic and political than it claims. Boko Haram policy makers are smart, foresighted economic and political strategic thinkers who have studied current and future economic (global trade) and political patterns, are aware of the one world economic and political direction of the near-future, understand the benefits of the regional leverage to be gained and seek to replicate an Iran equivalent State in the resource rich sub-Saharan Africa. The core intents of its campaign is to create this Iran-style, contending nation State in sub-Saharan Africa, which will control the huge economic resources in that regional axis. From an economic geographical and cultural point of view, and most especially the religious design and advantage in the region, the location of Boko Haram’s concentration (the West African, Chad, Niger, North-Eastern Nigeria, Cameroon axis) already makes their plan feasible. The West African Chad, Niger, Northern-Eastern Nigeria, Cameroon region, possesses huge deposits of uranium, oil, gas, and fertile agriculture base for production and export, immense sunlight which can enable it replicate the multi-billion dollar European Union (EU)— Middle-East North-African (MENA) DESERTEC deal of utilizing the renewable energy resources (mostly the deserts sun) in MENA counties to service Europe’s energy and power generation needs. Such projects and the development of market-centric latent resources can give the region and any group controlling it, economic and political leverage. From the foregoing, we deduct, thus, that Boko Haram is not arag-tag bunch of disorganized Islamic fundamentalists as the media and global public is made to believe but an organized group with aclearly defined strategic economic and political front with little or nothing to do with religion. It is an experiment and most of its major financiers are aware of its true strategy while many are not. The foot soldiers made up of uneducated, unemployed youths as well as some religious fanatics are ignorant of this strategy and Boko Haram utilizes this as apotent tool for enabling it to achieve its goal. A2010 survey of education in the six geo-political zones of Nigeria indicates that in North-Eastern Nigeria, only 19 percent of the population as educated, the lowest in Nigeria.6 This PR guise of Boko Haram being against Western education or the Christian and Jewish religions is acarefully designed strategy, adecoy and amere diversion of its original economic and political direction, to alter the manner in which the outside world and followers see its intents. 6 O.OBASANJO, Effective Education, aPanacea for Societal Development and Transformation. Speech at the 11th Convocation Ceremony of the Benson Idahosa University, Benin, Nigeria. Vanguard Newspaper Vol.17, No.962; July 18, 2015. NDUBUISI IDEjIORA-kALU 103 This strategy also helps it gain the financial support it desperately needs for sustaining its campaigns and achieving its ambitions. In all, Boko Haram seeks to return the North-Eastern Nigeria region back to its default, pre-colonial structure. Again, this is aregional problem created by the implementation of the resolutions of the 1884–85 Berlin conference. In the Niger-Delta region, there is also afast developing, violent resource control crisis which has emerged into asophisticated, organized terrorist, insurgency-style campaign. Conflict in Africa is submerged with numerous cases of similar conflict spread all over Africa and has continued to be replicated since the end of the 20th century down to present day Africa. Africa still does not have aworkable strategy for tackling its resource control crisis, more of these reasons is that its indigenous property and economic systems were altered during colonialism. This has become aregional security problem and is costing Africa huge human and capital resources. This drama in the African continent has thrown Africa thousands of years back. It has hampered the social, economic, and political development of African societies and further stagnated growth. Since the end of slave trade and colonization, Euro-Africa relations have continued to have an ever-present Master-Slave Psychology (MSP) Syndrome. The MSP syndrome is seen to be singlehandedly responsible for hindering the balanced and productive flow of bilateral relations between Europe and its former colonies in Africa. The MSP syndrome is based on the ever-underlying impact of the psychology of human behavior in shaping inter-state relations and the resultant policy outcome. The MSP syndrome is active in two distinct aspects of inter-state relations. First, at the Policy Making Level in both regions and Second, at the Primary Participatory Level. The truism of this syndrome is also seen in many histories and cultures which have had similar experience like the Euro-Africa pre-colonial context. Euro-Africa pre-colonial and post-colonial history is acase study. Policy Making Level Master-Slave Psychology Syndrome Primary Participatory Level Fig. 1The Master-Slave Psychology (MSP) Syndrome Where the Policy Making Level refers to the policy making level in government (foreign policy direction creation, trade policy making, defense, at intergovernmental organizations, e.g. the United Nations (UN), World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monitoring Fund (IMF), Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) etc. and the Primary Participatory 104 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2019 Level refers to end receives who are not part of policy making at governmental level, but are actively involved at the end level, for instance as primary actors in internal (home) and foreign trade. By this it is meant the policy recipient of already made policies. This is the core operational level, the company owner of abusiness, the primary producer of goods (manufacture and transformation of raw materials to finished products), developmental aid recipients (who may not only be individuals but also be countries, local governments), receiving-end professionals seeking knowledge or exposure in technology transfer, education, the direct public. The MSP Syndrome is to alarge extent responsible for the reason and efficacy of Soft Power in countries with histories of being colonized. We see this for instance in the foreign policy of some anti-Western countries (notably North Korea and China) that encourage relations with developing countries who have some history of colonization and disenchantment against the West. North-Korean foreign policy confirms this in its bilateral relations with most developing countries especially in military bilateral deals with anti-Western regimes in Africa notably, Uganda. North Korea possesses acoherent strategy and its bilateral defense ties with African countries must be considered in the broader context of Kim Jong-Un’s attempts to create allies for North Korea through shared opposition to Western neo-colonialism.7 The propensity of countries with histories of being colonized to wholeheartedly accept Soft Power is necessitated and sustained by the presence of the MSP Syndrome. President Museni of Uganda for instance has emerged as anatural target ally for North Korea as Museveni has continually exploited public disdain for the British colonial legacy and accused Western pro-democracy and human rights organizations for fostering social imperialism in Uganda. However, in the context of the Euro-Africa relations, emanating from the historic occurrence of the 1884–1885 Berlin Conference and the resulting implementation of the resolutions of this conference, the MSP Syndrome has sabotaged efforts geared towards achieving social, economic, political and security sustainability in Europe and Africa because it has continually impeded on “trust” which is aprerequisite for striking any balance in beneficial inter-state relationship. With the MSP Syndrome active, multilateral cooperation between regions and countries become unproductive. In Euro-Africa relations, the destructive effects of the MSP Syndrome has continued to reoccur in the minds of the African, the African in government responsible for making and defining policy direction and the African at the primary participatory level. European states on the other hand have unconsciously and consciously viewed African nation States as their colonies while Africans nation States in turn, have also unconsciously and consciously viewed Europe as astill potent colonizing power. This drama has continued for at least two centuries in Euro-Africa relations. Standing on this realism, however, Europe has never seen Africa as an equal partner. It still views itself as ahegemon and this is reflected in all levels of the design of European foreign policy most especially in military, trade, education and scientific cooperation, and many other critical areas in bilateral relations. The presence of this syndrome as an “unusual relationship” existing between Europe, the United States of America (the North) and its colonies (Africa) as aresult of the implementation 7 S.RAMANI, North Koreas African Strategy. The Diplomat Magazine. July 15, 2015. NDUBUISI IDEjIORA-kALU 105 of resolutions of the 1884–85 Berlin Conference, ditto the colonization of Africa has been confirmed.8 This development has had interesting effects in shaping Africa’s foreign relations. Aprincipal aspect is in Sino-African relations and African foreign policy direction in the 21st century. African States today feel more relaxed dealing with China than its former colonial power, Europe. China on its part seems to have invented aworkable pattern in its relations with Africa (Europe’s former colony). This form of relations seems balanced (although not completely balanced) but proves better than any relations Africa has had in recent times, ditto its relations with its former colonial masters, Europe. Relations between states either balanced or unbalanced may be beneficial. Again, relations between states may seem balanced but the “diplomatic psychological intent” in such relations, different. Many intricate, dynamic factors make this possible. This diplomatic psychological intent is the determinant in any case. Recent relations between China and Africa have to some extent paid off with tremendous benefits to both China and collaborating African states. This development is directly because of the MSP Syndrome that exists in Euro-Africa relations and China is not relenting in maximizing every opportunity while the syndrome lasts as it has increasingly built strong economic alliances with Africa. There are an estimated one million Chinese Citizens residing in Africa9 and by comparison, it has been estimated that 200,000 Africans are working in China.10 Trade between China and Africa increased by 700 % during the 1990s11 and China is currently Africa’s largest trading partner. In 1980, the total Sino-African trade volume was US$1 billion.12 By 2005, the total Sino-African trade reached US$39.7 billion before it jumped to US$55 billion in 2006, making China the second largest trading partner of Africa. This passed the traditional African economic partner and former colonial power France, which had trade worth US$47 billion.13 China remained Africa’s largest trading partner during 2011 for the fourth consecutive year (starting in 2008). Its investment in Africa in 2013 soared to arecord total of US$200billion and this included a44 percent spurt in Chinese direct investment in Africa and so long as China grows its own GDP at more than 7 percent, it will need to rely on the resource commodities of Africa— the bulk of this US$2billion trade.14 China will continue to expand investments and financing cooperation with Africa, and provide US$30 billion in loan credits to Africa and take part in cross-bor8 J.BECKER, From/To Europe Project. Metro Zone Center. Shedhalle, Zurich. 2009. 9 Africa and China: More than Minerals, The Economist. 23March 2013. Retrieved 29March 2013. 10 G.MATHEWS— Y.YANGY, How Africans Pursue Low-End Globalization in Hong Kong and Mainland China, in: Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, Vol.41, No.2, 2012. 11 Chinas Trade safari in Africa. Le Monde Diplomatique, May 2005. 12 P.WONACOTT, In Africa, U.S. Watches Chinas Rise. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2012-07-19. 13 China boosts African economies, offering asecond opportunity. Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved, 2009-03-14. 14 R.ROTBERG, Chinese Trade with Africa Hits Record High. China— US Focus Newsletter March 15, 2014. 106 PRAGUE PAPERS ON THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 2/2019 der and inter-regional African infrastructure construction. China will continue to train 30,000 African professionals in various sectors, offer 18,000 government scholarships, and take steps to improve the content and quality of the training programs in three years. Beijing has also promised to grant zero-tariff treatment to 97 percent of exports from least-developed countries that have established diplomatic relations with China, pledging to put in place the relevant measures this year. These specific policies provide important advantages for Africa’s infrastructure construction, personnel training, capital accumulation, and trade with China, which also helps strengthen China-Africa relations. These are benefits Europe would have attained from Africa if the MSP Syndrome and the unbalance in relations with Africa had not been present. Europe is gradually losing its vital partner (Africa) to China and in no distant time, it may find itself regretting this development. Sino-African relations has been beneficial to Africa, but Africa would rather feel comfortable in relations with ageographically and culturally nearer Europe. One of such reasons is the saturation of European culture and languages in Africa which makes relations (also economic relations) easier. When considering trade convenience, the principles of the composition and direction of commodity flows as well as transport networks and other significant mechanisms for facilitating trade, it can be concluded that an “easy to access” Europe and Africa Partnership will most definitely be the best bet for Europe and Africa. So there still exists, deep internal yearnings on the side of Africa and Europe for balanced relationship between each other. Culturally, this is easy for both regions since Africa for instance has over the centuries adopted many aspects of the European culture, most especially its languages, which plays ahuge role in trade. It is worth mentioning that aSino-African assisted economic stable Africa could become athreat to the existence of Europe. For Europe, it is safer that the economic development of Africa is Europe-assisted or Europe-supervised rather than China-induced. If Africa’s economic development is China-assisted and Africa finally achieves firm economic hegemony (which is predicted as feasible in the near future), the possibilities of afuture violent reprisal against Europe in retaliation to atrocities committed during the colonization era could become possible. The Umayyad conquest of Hispania (the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula) by the Moors (Muslim inhabitants of the Maghreb and actually Africans) from 711 to 788 attest to such possibilities even in modern times. The stand of African States in the context of the MSP Syndrome is one that is not unfounded but one borne out of the offensive realism from history, that Africa is still not convinced that Europe does not intend colonizing her the second time. Thus, with the existence of the MSP Syndrome, Africa is still skeptic in its relations with Europe. Questions still abound, why Africa, despite its huge market centric natural resources is still impoverished in spite of the fact that Europe (its next door neighbor and former colonial master) is an economically vibrant and aworld power. If modern Europe does not change its Master-Slave view of Africa, it will certainly not reap the dividends of the huge natural resources available in abalanced cooperation with Africa. African will not erase its mindset in the MSP Syndrome if Europe does not change its views on Africa. Modern Europe needs Africa and modern Africa needs Europe. However, in the context of increased dependency from the truism of globalization, it is in the best interest of Europe to balance relations with Africa. Africa has the raw materials European NDUBUISI IDEjIORA-kALU 107 industries need15 while Africa needs the technology base of Europe to develop its own primary economic capacity. Balanced Euro-Africa relations, with balanced and true diplomatic psychological intent is thus awin-win for both regions. However, when considering the usual realities and clash of strategic interests of states and human nature, it remains arguable if this is possible. Europe, in abalanced, diplomatically-psychologically-truthfully-intended trade relationship with Africa would have amounted to being the first modern, multilateral trade arrangement, had the resolutions of the Berlin Conference been balanced and Africa invited to the table. However, lack of foresight (particularly on the side of Europe) hampered the utilization of this huge trade benefit. When analyzing the reasons why Europe decided to move into Africa in the 19th century, it can be concluded, thus, that the initial plan was for amultilateral trade agreement, one which would have united Europe long before the Benelux, as well as the Treaty of Rome of 1957. If considering the attempt in 1890 by Cecil Rhodes in his Cape-to-Cairo trans-border experiment, to link South Africa to Cairo by both railway and cable means affirms this one can see awell-defined plan for multilateral trade between Europe and Africa. Rhode’s effort (though lopsided to the interest of Europe) can be seen as astrengthened effort by Europe to establish multilateral trade connection between Europe and Africa. There was thus initial intent for multilateral trade but negligence of Africa’s inviting Africa at the 1884–85 Berlin conference may have been the reason for the inability of Europe to introduce this form of trade long before 1957. Europe should recognize the change in the post-colonial truism of the sovereignty of African nation States and view them as such. It should change its thinking and begin to see African States as come of age and sovereign equals in the international community. Europe should look again at Africa, understudy its relations with China and invite Africa back to the table for realistic and “balanced” relations. Europe’s colonization of Africa, the saturation of Europe’s languages and culture in the Africa are building blocks to much better and easy-to-build relations than the Sino-African relations. Asuccessful delivery of this type of relations can create astrong ally for Europe and astrong partner for Africa. The occurrence of the Berlin Conference can become aunifying factor in Euro-Africa relations if the resolutions are rewritten to reflect ahumane and balanced form. Trade is an important aspect where such relations can be made possible. Africa possesses the natural resources and raw materials European economies need for now and the future. With its huge natural gas and sunlight resource, Africa (singlehandedly) possesses the energy solutions for Europe, for now and the foreseeable future. The benefits are huge and cannot be over-emphasized. The USA, and Asia in its entirety do not have the privileges which fate has placed in Europe’s historical and cultural connection with Africa. By creating balanced relations with Africa, Europe can with this one stroke, pacify resentment of atrocities committed during the colonial era and strategically prevent the likelihood of any future reprisals by Africa which is foreseen. The colonial incursion in Africa by Europe is still fresh in the African society and this sustains the MSP Syndrome and continues to impede the development of both regions. Europe should pursue aggressive economic integration of Africa. This should form core parts of its foreign 15 H.ROBINSON, Geography for Business Studies, 3rd Edition, London 1979.