This House would redefine African borders to reflect ethnic groups

Imperialism and Colonisation is one of the great wrongs of history where much of the globe was carved up without any reference to the facts on the ground. When the west drew borders peoples were split, and kingdoms and cultures carved up. Independence may have ended some of the worst aspects of imperialism but it exacerbated the problem of borders.[1] Africa has since seen the problems that this has created and should realise the need to break from the colonial legacy.

[1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.4

Changing borders won’t erase the wrong – it happened and that should be recognised. Borders are simply one by-product and if there are individual borders that are particularly problematic then they might need to be redrawn but there should not be a comprehensive change. To do so might simply create a new wrong with thousands of conflicts over where borders should run.

In Africa borders are artificial often running through ethnic groupings without consideration for culture or even local geography with the exception of water courses.[1] Altering these borders to reflect ethnicities and culture would help states to create their own national identity as their identities would not be split. Having the whole of an ethnicity within one state will help prevent misappropriation of culture and history by another state. 

[1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.19

A great many of the world’s leading states are multicultural/ethnic rather than ethnic states. The United States, Brazil, India, and Indonesia to take just a few. These states have been able to construct national identities that are not just based upon ethnicity. For cosmopolitan democratic states the border being an accident of history does not matter[1]; this is what African states need to do as well not carve themselves up.

[1] Ratner, 1996, p.591

Redrawing borders could help resolve conflict in Africa. Michalopoulos and Papaioannou find "civil conflict intensity, as reflected in war casualties and duration, is approximately 35% higher in areas where partitioned ethnicities reside." Conflict duration is 18.5% higher.[1]

They identify seven different ways in which artificial borders lead to, or intensify conflict;

1, partitioning ethnicities creates irredentist demands

2, partitioning makes an independence movement more likely

3, when borders are not marked the ethnic group has a reason to attempt to change the border

4, patronage politics leads to discrimination against minorities

5, splitting ethnicities encourages smuggling and criminalisation

6, splitting resources that were previously part of an ethnic group’s homeland will leave the ethnic group trying to engineer the resources return

7, partitioning reduces development so increases inequality with and resentment towards the center of the state.[2]

Getting rid of all of these reasons for conflict would help make Africa more peaceful in the long run.

[1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.22

[2] Michalopoulos, 2011, pp.4-6

That such a move will reduce conflict relies on a lot of assumptions; most notably that the changes won’t spark a lot of new conflicts. Territory is the biggest source of violent conflicts among states and this will create a large number of new such conflicts. When there is a response 76.6% of the time it will be military when territory is in dispute compared to 49% when something else is the cause, and such disputes are three times as likely to escalate to war (7.3% to 2.5%).[1] The redrawing process would also mean suffering as states attempt to pre-empt new borders by moving those of the ‘wrong’ ethnicity and as insurgencies are stepped up. The Abyei area of Sudan shows what is likely to happen; it was to have a referendum to decide whether to join the North or South but the north occupied the region before it could be carried out.[2]

[1] Hensel, 1998, pp.20-1

[2] Copnall, 2011

Using data from satellites measuring luminosity Michalopoulos and Papaioannou find that border areas with partitioned ethnic groups are up to 60% less developed than those towards the centre of countries so are not artificially split. Ethnicity is significant for trade. For example between Niger and Nigeria prices of millet increase at the border by 23.2% when it is also the border between ethnicities but only 9.3% when the same ethnicity is on both sides of the border for cowpea the figures are 20.2% and 14.4%.[1] Moreover internally where there is an ethnic border between markets there is a similar increase of 21% for millet and 22% for cowpea.[2] Ethnicity may also affect the ability to gain credit from other traders.[3] It therefore makes sense economically to have borders at ethnic boundaries due to the natural trading relations within an ethnic group. Splitting an ethnic group creates unnecessary hardship by making it more difficult to trade.

[1] Aker, 2010, p.16

[2] Ibid, p.21-2

[3] Ibid, p.25

First changing borders encouraging development relies on the assumption that there won’t be conflict. Second if independence movements gain independence then there will be a lot more international borders and the barriers to trade these impose. Finally we need to think about this the other way around; when there are ethnic groups on both sides of the trade they are encouraging and facilitating trade between the two states – this is something to be encouraged not changed. Having the same ethnicity on both sides of the border works in the same way as having emigration in encouraging trade. Because of networks overlapping between the two countries trade will increase. In Spain for example doubling the number of immigrants leads to an increase in exports to the immigrant’s country of origin by 10%.[1] Economic development is not always stifled at borders; two of the four Nigerian states with GDP per capita of over 2000NGN are on the border with Benin.[2]

[1] Peri, 2010

[2] AlifArabia, 2013

A redrawing of borders would allow for democratic participation in the building of new African states. There would have to be plebiscites in local areas to determine where borders should run and extensive consultation so that the borders are drawn based on the wishes of the people this time. The opposite of what happens at the moment. For example much of the Bakassi homeland was ceded by Nigeria to Cameroon as a result of an International Court of Justice ruling on the colonial border and many people are asking Nigeria to resettle them as they don’t share Cameroon’s culture.[1] Clearly the people would surely much prefer to have their destiny in their own hands than letting the borders be settled by an international court pouring over 19^th century maps.[2]

[1] Chinwo, 2012

[2] Fisher, 2012

Plebiscites and consultation across the whole of Africa. The project would take years or decades to come up with agreed upon borders. Small areas state might wish to be ceded to a neighbouring state when those closer don’t creating enclaves and exclaves[1] as well as a recipe for conflict.

[1] Exclave.eu

Imperialism and Colonisation is one of the great wrongs of history where much of the globe was carved up without any reference to the facts on the ground. When the west drew borders peoples were split, and kingdoms and cultures carved up. Independence may have ended some of the worst aspects of imperialism but it exacerbated the problem of borders.[1] Africa has since seen the problems that this has created and should realise the need to break from the colonial legacy.

[1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.4

Changing borders won’t erase the wrong – it happened and that should be recognised. Borders are simply one by-product and if there are individual borders that are particularly problematic then they might need to be redrawn but there should not be a comprehensive change. To do so might simply create a new wrong with thousands of conflicts over where borders should run.

In Africa borders are artificial often running through ethnic groupings without consideration for culture or even local geography with the exception of water courses.[1] Altering these borders to reflect ethnicities and culture would help states to create their own national identity as their identities would not be split. Having the whole of an ethnicity within one state will help prevent misappropriation of culture and history by another state. 

[1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.19

A great many of the world’s leading states are multicultural/ethnic rather than ethnic states. The United States, Brazil, India, and Indonesia to take just a few. These states have been able to construct national identities that are not just based upon ethnicity. For cosmopolitan democratic states the border being an accident of history does not matter[1]; this is what African states need to do as well not carve themselves up.

[1] Ratner, 1996, p.591

Redrawing borders could help resolve conflict in Africa. Michalopoulos and Papaioannou find "civil conflict intensity, as reflected in war casualties and duration, is approximately 35% higher in areas where partitioned ethnicities reside." Conflict duration is 18.5% higher.[1]

They identify seven different ways in which artificial borders lead to, or intensify conflict;

1, partitioning ethnicities creates irredentist demands

2, partitioning makes an independence movement more likely

3, when borders are not marked the ethnic group has a reason to attempt to change the border

4, patronage politics leads to discrimination against minorities

5, splitting ethnicities encourages smuggling and criminalisation

6, splitting resources that were previously part of an ethnic group’s homeland will leave the ethnic group trying to engineer the resources return

7, partitioning reduces development so increases inequality with and resentment towards the center of the state.[2]

Getting rid of all of these reasons for conflict would help make Africa more peaceful in the long run.

[1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.22

[2] Michalopoulos, 2011, pp.4-6

That such a move will reduce conflict relies on a lot of assumptions; most notably that the changes won’t spark a lot of new conflicts. Territory is the biggest source of violent conflicts among states and this will create a large number of new such conflicts. When there is a response 76.6% of the time it will be military when territory is in dispute compared to 49% when something else is the cause, and such disputes are three times as likely to escalate to war (7.3% to 2.5%).[1] The redrawing process would also mean suffering as states attempt to pre-empt new borders by moving those of the ‘wrong’ ethnicity and as insurgencies are stepped up. The Abyei area of Sudan shows what is likely to happen; it was to have a referendum to decide whether to join the North or South but the north occupied the region before it could be carried out.[2]

[1] Hensel, 1998, pp.20-1

[2] Copnall, 2011

Using data from satellites measuring luminosity Michalopoulos and Papaioannou find that border areas with partitioned ethnic groups are up to 60% less developed than those towards the centre of countries so are not artificially split. Ethnicity is significant for trade. For example between Niger and Nigeria prices of millet increase at the border by 23.2% when it is also the border between ethnicities but only 9.3% when the same ethnicity is on both sides of the border for cowpea the figures are 20.2% and 14.4%.[1] Moreover internally where there is an ethnic border between markets there is a similar increase of 21% for millet and 22% for cowpea.[2] Ethnicity may also affect the ability to gain credit from other traders.[3] It therefore makes sense economically to have borders at ethnic boundaries due to the natural trading relations within an ethnic group. Splitting an ethnic group creates unnecessary hardship by making it more difficult to trade.

[1] Aker, 2010, p.16

[2] Ibid, p.21-2

[3] Ibid, p.25

First changing borders encouraging development relies on the assumption that there won’t be conflict. Second if independence movements gain independence then there will be a lot more international borders and the barriers to trade these impose. Finally we need to think about this the other way around; when there are ethnic groups on both sides of the trade they are encouraging and facilitating trade between the two states – this is something to be encouraged not changed. Having the same ethnicity on both sides of the border works in the same way as having emigration in encouraging trade. Because of networks overlapping between the two countries trade will increase. In Spain for example doubling the number of immigrants leads to an increase in exports to the immigrant’s country of origin by 10%.[1] Economic development is not always stifled at borders; two of the four Nigerian states with GDP per capita of over 2000NGN are on the border with Benin.[2]

[1] Peri, 2010

[2] AlifArabia, 2013

A redrawing of borders would allow for democratic participation in the building of new African states. There would have to be plebiscites in local areas to determine where borders should run and extensive consultation so that the borders are drawn based on the wishes of the people this time. The opposite of what happens at the moment. For example much of the Bakassi homeland was ceded by Nigeria to Cameroon as a result of an International Court of Justice ruling on the colonial border and many people are asking Nigeria to resettle them as they don’t share Cameroon’s culture.[1] Clearly the people would surely much prefer to have their destiny in their own hands than letting the borders be settled by an international court pouring over 19^th century maps.[2]

[1] Chinwo, 2012

[2] Fisher, 2012

Plebiscites and consultation across the whole of Africa. The project would take years or decades to come up with agreed upon borders. Small areas state might wish to be ceded to a neighbouring state when those closer don’t creating enclaves and exclaves[1] as well as a recipe for conflict.

[1] Exclave.eu

One of the core principles of sovereignty is that of territorial integrity. In the process of decolonisation this was expressed through the principle of uti possidetis, that the administrative divisions of the previous state should form the borders the new states so as to prevent gaps in sovereignty and the conflict that would create.[1] The OAU in 1964 went so far as to solemnly declare “that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence.”[2] Any alteration to borders would be attacking this principle. No African state is going to accept a change that is likely to redraw many of their borders, open disputes with neighbours and possibly create new states.

[1] Shaw, 1997, p.356

[2] OAU, 1964

It has since been accepted in the 1989 Guinea-Bissau/Senegal case that a colony gaining independence need not be bound by agreements concluded by the imperial power.[1] Borders have never in the past been fixed, they have changed usually as a result of conflict but also more peaceful changes such as demarcation or unification. African states should not be binding themselves to an out of date territorial system forced upon them by their imperial oppressors.

[1] Ratner, 1996, p.620

There are at least 834 different ethnicities in Africa[1] and could be as many as 3315.[2] If the ethnicities along the borders are being allowed to choose where they belong then every other ethnicity should, anything else is inconsistent. This is necessary to solve long running campaigns for independence such as by Western Sahara where the people would not want to have to choose between Morocco and Mauritania.[3] On the other hand if only groups which are already in revolt are asked whether they wish independence then such a proposal is simply hypocritical failing to take into account that groups that have been non-violent may also wish independence.

[1] Michalopoulos, 2011, p.1

[2] Wentzel, 2013

[3] BBC News, 2013

In addition to meeting the demands of some independence movements, there could be a decrease in the number of such organisations due to reduced prospects. If it is unlikely to get a whole province then they may be less inclined to attempt to secede.[1]

There have been conflicts in Kivu, DR Congo, but the Banyamulenge the main group involved only makes up around 4% of the population[2] – would they desire to split from Congo if they were not likely to take the whole province?

[1] Ratner, 1996, p.591

[2] Wikipedia

Unfortunately ethnic groups don’t all live in a block with clear dividing lines between them and the neighbouring group. Borders reflecting ethnicities will be squiggly. Often there will be enclaves. Even enclaves may not be enough to get everybody from each ethnicity in the ‘right’ nation. This is shown in the former Yugoslavia where when a nation for Kosovars was created Serbs were suddenly on the wrong side of the border.

This is the problem with not going based upon administrative borders. The question is immediately raised; how finely grained should the border be calibrated? A border cannot be moved to suit every individual.

There are many ‘odd borders’ around the world without problems. Not least between Belgium and the Netherlands. There are about twenty tiny enclaves at Baarle as 5732 parcels of land in a 50km border region were parcelled out separately.[1] Yet there has been no conflict between the two since Belgian independence. Odd borders don’t matter – it’s the willingness to cooperate that counts.

[1] Smith

The African Union Constitutive Act has as an objective to “achieve greater unity and solidarity”. This is something that is damaged by making borders open to question. Borders at the moment are a settle but redrawing borders will open up disputes between African countries as every state will fear losing valuable pieces of territory. It will make that the primary international issue for decades setting back cooperation on peacekeeping or a common market.

If African unity is the ultimate objective then borders should not matter.

Solving the conflicts and preventing violence is the first step to real African unity and cooperation. Redrawing the borders is a radical solution that has yet to be tried as it will makes stronger and reduce the threat of secession movements it should make African leaders more willing the work with neighbours.