In Africa one of the unwritten rules is colonial borders will not be changed.
On July 9, 2011, South Sudan becomes the first nation to separate from a colonial designated border.
Eritrea also separated from Ethiopia, but during colonial times it was never part of Ethiopia but a colony in its own right. So it’s separation from Ethiopia was seen as a decolonization process.
But this is an actual boundary change from colonial times.
Biafra and Katanga also tried to separate from Nigeria and the Congo (Kinshasa) and failed.
Do you think this will set a precedent for other areas itching to change borders? If so which ones?
I could easy see Congo breaking up. It’s torn between East Africa, South Africa and Central Africa.
African nations received their independence much later than 1914. There was never an independent “French West Africa” - here for example is a map of the constituent colonies of FWA in 1936. Note that those borders are not identical to today’s either ( Upper Volta did not then even exist as a colonial structure - it was created in 1919, dissolved in 1932, created again in 1947, reorganized in 1958 and finally given independence in 1960 ). The great majority of current borders were drawn by European nations.
Sudan is an odd partial exception as it was largely a creation of Egyptian imperialism prior to the assumption of British control, but it was still a colonial enterprise. Another exception is Ethiopia, itself the result of native expansion - more an imperial creation, rather than a primarily colonial one.
I’m not sure it’s that so much as a modern respect for the status quo of borders coupled with the international communities hands off approach to civil war.
As a warlord you’re allowed to kill as many as you want in one country, but you won’t be allowed to expand your political state and have it recognized.
Actually, you are both wrong. It’s a very written rule. As countries gained independence, they formally agreed to maintain their borders, problematic as they may be. The leaders and future leaders knew that starting a newly independent continent off with endless squabbles over every river, mine, port, city and mountain was not going to lead to anything good. There would never be any fair way to draw new borders, but a lot of blood would be shed trying. The only hope was to try to make nations out of what they got and craft a new Africa. It was a hopeful and exhirlerating time, and it seemed possible
Bad as they may be, most African leaders are not warlords. It’s more likely for leaders to run weak governments that cannot control thei land (often propped up by former colonial powers who installed them as anti-Communist forces and maintained as “the devil we know” who at last offers stability), and thus rely on cutting favors with warlords who can control land outside of the government’s reach.
Second, here’s some history of the region:
[ul]
[li]January 26, 1991: Siad Barre is ousted from power as the president of Somaliaby various combined north and southern clan-based forces. However, not all factions acknowledged the authority of the interim leader Ali Mahdi Muhammad (including General Mohamed Farrah Aidid who would be infamously known for fighting the US and starting the whole “Black hawk down” situation). Fighting erupts.[/li]
[li]18 May 1991: Tired of the on going conflict in the southern part of Somalia, Somaliland **unilaterally **declares it’s independence. No country recognizes it due to the ongoing conflict and lack of centralized government.[/li]
[li]24 May 1991: Eritrean rebels enter Asmara (the capital of Eritrea) effectively defeating the last Ethiopian troops in the province and ending their 31 year war for independence. An interim “Eritrean government” is set up with Isaias Afwerki (the rebel leader) as president. Eritrea does not yet declare independence.[/li]
[li]28 May 1991: Mengistu Haile Mariam is ousted from power as the president of Ethiopia by various combined Ethiopian rebel forces. He flees to Zimbabwe and a new interim Ethiopian Government is set up with Meles Zenawi as President (the head rebel leader).[/li]
[li]April 1993: After a two year period of autonomy, Eritrea holds a referendum and vote overwhelmingly for independence. [/li]
[li]24 May 1993: Eritrea declares independence and is recognized by all countries (including Ethiopia).[/li]
[li]9 January 2005: North and South Sudan reach a peace agreement where the South will be granted autonomy for 6 years after which a referendum will be held. John Garang (the rebel leader) is named as (the first ever) vice-president of Sudan. South Sudan does not yet declare independence.[/li]
[li]July 30 2005: John Garang dies in a helicopter crash; Salva Kiir is named as his successor. [/li]
[li]1 July 2010: Opposition candidate Ahmed M. Mahamoud Silanyo defeats incumbent President Dahir Riyale Kahin is the unrecognized state of Somaliland. After 19 years Meles Zenawi and Isaias Afwerki are still leaders of their respective countries (Ethiopia and Eritrea).[/li]
[li]9-15 January 2011: South Sudan vote overwhelmingly for independence.[/li]
[li]18 May 2011: Somaliland celebrate 20 years of unrecognized independence.[/li]
[li]9 July 2011: South Sudan finally declares its independence and is recognized by all countries (including Sudan).[/li][/ul] Third, my opinion…
Yeah, it sets a precedent. However there is only one requirement for being a fully recognized country: the current government must cede control of the separating region. Otherwise the world/UN will split on who recognizes it or not (see Somaliland, Kosovo or Taiwan as examples). One can also simply look at the divergent cases of Eritrea and Somaliland; one just celebrated its 18th birthday in May while the other is still not recognized as a country.
That goes along with the way I learned it…mostly. When working for USAID back in the early 1990s (as a contractor) the hard and fast rule was just this simple:
“To become an independent nation all that is necessary is to declare your independence and make it stick.”
That becomes a combination of military resistance to occupation and diplomatic efforts to achieve recognition from one of the big boys.
I see nothing wrong with split recognition but rather see it as the evolution of independence for a nation. Yes, it’s more convenient for all involved if one nation cedes control of territory but it is in no way required for the creation of a nation. Would you honestly, to use your example above, rather see Taiwan as a province of China because the PRC hasn’t chosen to recognize them?
What I think about Taiwan matters little in the international stage (I’m a nobody). However if there’s split recognition among countries then you have a big problem.
If you don’t get that cession from the federal government this means your sovereignty is always in negotiation/challenged. Internationally, your voice carries little weight; countries can even choose to “opt out” of recognizing you (China has slowly turned many African countries against Taiwan). Trade will always be limited (it might even by totally cut). International organizations (like the IMF or World Bank) will ignore you. And much more…
Being able to defend your sovereignty is great, but without full recognition you won’t be able to properly grow or develop your nation.
Secession, secession, secession . . . What you don’t see in Africa is any analogue to 19th-Century European unificationist nationalism – the idea that two or more independent states are really part of one “nation” and should unite. Will that ever happen, I wonder?
The closest thing right now is probably the East African Community (which has plans, although they keep getting pushed back, to become the East African Federation).
There was plenty of unification going on too; it’s just that you have no way of knowing what countries are made up of unified territories and former states unless you learn the relevant history.
Weeeellllll, (as I slip on my insufferable pedant hat) the hard and fast rule is there isn’t really a hard or fast rule. As is the case with most things in customary international law. But this is a pretty accurate statement, albeit incomplete.
An incomplete list of the steps needed to become an independent nation:
Declare yourself one. And make sure you got yourself a decent population. No Sealand scenarios.
Get recognition of your independence by a group of countries. The bigger and more powerful the countries the better. If some mixture of the US/Britain/Russia/China recognizes you as an independent power, you’re pretty golden. Albania, not so much.
Finally, protect your borders - from the inside out. If you can’t establish some military control against external forces, you can’t rightly be considered a country. Furthermore, if you can’t maintain internal order, no country do you have.
Most sovereignty definitions you’ll see include these steps in some variation. Quick and dirty citation for anyone who cares. More available on demand.
Say, you know what would make a good new united/federated African state? The whole of the Maghreb, also known in the old days as Barbary (because all or nearly all the people are Arabized Berbers) – that is, all the Arabic-speaking Mediterranean countries west of Egypt (which has its own pre-Arabic/Islamic national identity, not really suited for inclusion in a larger entity) – Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya – all merged to form the Republic of Barbary! That would be cool! And, if politically possible, then politically viable – very similar cultures, there, from Libya to the Atlantic.
why does it matter how much a nation matters “in the international stage” and how much your (well, more like your corruptocratic president’s) voice carries weight? And how much do overpopulated, dirt-poor places like Uganda “matter” anyway, despite full recognition?
Many people criticize consequences of IMF’s and World Bank’s getting involved with countries. Perhaps this issue should be considered on case-by-case basis, but the point is that this is not an unmitigated blessing. Perhaps being ignored by such folks is all for the best in many situations.
Why should trade be limited or cut without recognition? Trade can be cut in some cases if you piss off a major power (see Saddam’s case) but how do you imagine African type governments “cutting off trade”? They often cannot even control the rebels in the borderlands, to say nothing of the traders.
Whether or not being recognized really matters for the goal of “grow or develop your nation” is indeed an interesting question to be answered empirically, if good examples come up. But your claims here are on the face of it dubious.
Because if no one recognizes you mate, you don’t get access to international goodies, quite simple.
Go for outdated stereotypes much?
Uganda is not “over populated” and actually not going badly economically. Good basics for agribusiness. Idi Amin has been gone a long, long time. Uganda matters to Ugandans and Uganda’s neighbours (as in the Congo civil war, Ugandan intervention, as in Uganda support to Rwanda overthrow of the genocidal prior regime, etc), what that matters to plump Americans who barely can locate African on a map generally doesn’t enter into it.
Leftist gits criticize IMF because they haven’t a clue as to what it does and when it does it.
As with most such Wiki lists it throws in real movements indiscriminately with ridiculous “five guys around a café table” unserious crap. Utterly useless as a list.
And, if politically possible, then politically viable – very similar cultures, there, from Libya to the Atlantic.
