It is common knowledge that economic development in Africa is pitifully slow and geographically disjointed. The continent attracts less inward investment per head than anywhere else in the world, while most African states continue to trade more actively with their former colonial rulers than with their neighbours. There are many reasons for this, but cross-border political instability and boundary disputes are undoubtedly a major factors.

This was recognised by the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) as the continent’s most pressing problem, when it was founded in 1963. As its first act, the OAU chose to guarantee the territorial sovereignty of its member states, in an attempt to avert the disorder that a realignment of Africa’s boundaries would surely have prompted. Four decades on, and for better or for worse, the continent’s boundaries remain virtually unchanged.

While the boundaries are the same, they remain obstacles to trade but not to conflict. One of the greatest challenges facing the new African Union (AU) will be to maintain the internal and external sovereignty of its member states. While the plans for a continental central bank and parliament may be welcomed, the real challenge for the new organisation will be to bring stability to the most troubled of continents.

A continent divided

The main problem with African international boundaries is that the very notion of dividing territory with lines was imposed on the continent just over a century ago. The concept of linear boundaries did exist in Africa before partition, but it was merely one of a number of ways of dividing political space.

In general, African pre-colonial polities were far more fluid than European states. In order to cope with the harsh natural environment, flexibility proved to be a far more effective method of political organisation than fixed Western-style states. Where drought or disease struck one ethnic group, a state of any size was able to contract or even move itself wholesale. Political authority tended to follow trade routes, as with the Swahili in East Africa, and sovereignty was invested in people rather than land.

The colonial division of Africa removed this flexibility and eventually led to the creation of almost 50 new African states, which were defined by fixed international boundaries. All such constructs are intrinsically artificial, but as the political map of Africa is relatively recent, those stresses and strains are bound to exert themselves in international relations. Europe realigned its borders again and again over the centuries, working out these stresses and strains, but at a terrible cost in human lives.

Investment difficulties

Partly in order to avoid such bloodshed and partly to protect their own positions, African leaders agreed at the dawn of independence to maintain the existing colonial boundaries. This they have done - with one or two notable examples - but this has not prevented disputes between neighbouring states. The often haphazard way in which the boundaries have been delineated and demarcated helps create an environment in which border disputes are bound to arise.

As a result of poorly delineated boundaries, mining investors, for example, may sign an agreement with one government - sometimes with the government in question acting in good faith - only to discover that the exploration rights lie in another territory. Contradictory agreements have been signed over many of Africa’s international boundaries, so it is difficult to determine the rights and wrongs of every case without an exhaustive legal study of the borderland.

One of the industries most prone to boundary disputes is the oil and gas sector. Much of the Gulf of Guinea oil industry is located offshore and is therefore be considered comparatively sheltered from the vagaries of African international politics. Yet such a location makes the sector particularly prone to international boundary disputes because so many maritime boundaries have yet to be delineated. Whereas the lion’s share of African land borders have been delimited, the vast majority of the maritime boundaries remain undetermined.

Despite the recent efforts of Nigeria to resolve many of the region’s disputes, there remains a great deal of tidying up to do. Of the 420 probable maritime boundaries in the world, less than 30% have been settled. Off the oil-rich west coast of Africa, only seven out of 33 borders have been agreed. Delineation would be a very healthy process - it is much easier to settle all boundaries before disputes arise, rather than to wait until problems develop and each side has adopted an entrenched position.

Boundary resolution

The resolution of border disputes is always a tricky question because settlements require one side to relinquish sovereignty claimed territory. The recent history of Nigeria offers an excellent contrast between those who have seriously attempted to resolve disputes and those who have sought to exploit them.

The Obasanjo government in Nigeria has done much over the past year to settle the many undelimited Gulf of Guinea boundaries. Agreements have been signed with several neighbouring states, including one regarding the troublesome maritime boundary with Sao Tome and Principe.

It is also hoped that Nigeria’s more conciliatory stance will trigger enthusiasm for a settlement of the long-running Nigeria-Cameroon dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula.

Oil exploration in the area has been suspended until the issue of sovereignty has been resolved, so a resolution would encourage investment and ease regional relations.

The short-termism of Nigeria’s former military regimes never lent itself to border resolution. Conflicts were merely used to fan the flames of nationalism and to channel internal dissent towards neighbouring states. The Bakassi dispute led to armed conflict during the early 1990s and the matter was referred to the International Court of Justice at The Hague, without success.

As the Bakassi conflict and a dozen other African disputes illustrate, international courts are powerless without a strong desire on the part of the disputing parties to reach a resolution. Bilateral negotiation is the only way to resolve border disputes: the best that international court actions can do is to keep the two (or more) parties talking.

The Future

Recent history suggests that direct intervention by the AU to resolve border and territorial disputes will fail. The OAU showed as much with its failed attempt to settle the Eritrea-Ethiopian issues. It is only when the parties involved wish to reach a settlement that stability can be restored. The AU can merely cajole disputing states into peace talks. In addition, over the past decade there has been a trend towards delineating maritime boundaries in most parts of the world, notably in south-east Asia. Nigeria’s current efforts in the Gulf of Guinea could signal that this trend will be taken up in Africa over the next decade.

Nevertheless, the African Union can make a major contribution to stability. The nation state is not the end-game of the development of political space and Africa has enough problems with the creation of cohesive and effective state apparatus, without becoming obsessed by the creation of mutually exclusive states.

In the longer term, a successful AU could promote economic integration and increased cross-border trade, thereby fostering political stability. This could also make the continent a more attractive proposition for investment.

As in Europe, neighbouring states are unlikely to go to war if sufficient revenues are dependent on trade with their neighbours. The continent is waiting to see just how much the AU can deliver.

Copyright © IC Publications Limited 2000. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means or used for any business purpose without the written consent of the publisher. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is as accurate as possible, the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any consequences arising from its use.

Back to the top
Contents