Ivory Coast and Bakassi: Symptoms of colonially perpetuated territorial problems in Africa

Priye Torulagha

The rebellion in the Ivory Coast (Cote d Ivoire) and the Bakassi imbroglio reinforces the argument that  Africa continues to suffer from colonialism. In the Ivory Coast, a section of the military, led by elements from the North are rebelling against political and economic discrimination and marginalization of the North by the South which has dominated the country since supposed political independence. The rebellious elements oppose military demobilization and want President Laurent Gbagbo to vacate the presidency . Likewise, they are asking for a true democratic system in which the two major portions of the country would be equally  represented politically and economically. The government wants the rebels to lay down their arms.   In the Bakassi, the International Court of Justice awarded the territory to the Republic of Cameroon.   This means that Nigeria must cede the territory to Cameroon.

The political and legal problems emanating from the  two territories clearly show that African states  continue to be seriously haunted by their colonial  heritage. This means that African countries are not  sovereign states yet, in practical terms. They are  more suitable to be described as Mandated or  Semi-Autonomous entities. Generally, the English  speaking entities are slightly less dependent than the  French-speaking ones. The French-speaking countries  are very depended militarily on outside assistance and  France continues to serve as their political father.   Secondly, the African continent will never experience  political stability and peace due to the artificiality  and irreconcilability of the colonial territorial   borders. Thirdly, due to the artificiality of the  territorial borders, African leaders and officials  live in a state of denial. In one hand, they attack  the Europeans for colonizing Africa and on the other  hand, they justify their political existence by  maintaining and sustaining the colonial system  instituted by the Europeans. Fourth, the African   economic situation will always remain perilous due to  the perpetual political instability emanating from the  territorial problems. African states are like  castles built in the sand. They are easily disturbed  by the slightest political windstorm. Ivory Coast is  the most current example.

Someone could say that comparing or putting the Ivory  Coast and the Bakassi together does not make any sense  since the Ivory Coast is a sovereign state and the  Bakassi is not a sovereign state. The answer to such  a challenge is that, while in theory, the Ivory Coast  is a state and the Bakassi is not a state, in  actuality, both are symptoms of the same territorial  problem imposed on Africa through colonialism.   Consequently, they are a manifestation of the  territorial madness that is driving Africans crazy and  turning the continent into a pool of blood. In  support of the claim that they are both related, the  four arguments above will be expatiated.

  1. African countries are semi-autonomous states

Independence means a state of being independent. It  implies not being subject to the authority or control  of another. It connotes self governing and not being  obligated to another. Quite often, the independence  of the state is expressed through sovereignty. Thus,  an independent state is considered to be sovereign in  the sense that it has supreme authority over its  territory. Under these definitions, the United  States, Britain, France, Portugal, Norway, Sweden etc.  can be said to be independent and sovereign in the  sense that they determine their own territories and  have control over the decision-making process. On  the other hand, going by the same definitions, no  African country, except probably Ethiopia, can be said  to be independent or sovereign. All the supposed  independent African countries were created by foreign  powers. This means that they did not determine the  extent of their territories. Since the territories  were imposed on them by the Belgians, British, French,  Germans, Portuguese, and Spaniards, they are not  territorially independent. Thus, the aforementioned  European countries own them, hence, whenever there is  a conflict, the first political port of call by any  African leader is always the capital of the former  colonial master. The Nigerians, Angolans, Congolese,  Central Africans, Nigeriens, Algerians, Togolese,  Benin, Senegalese, Gambians, etc. paid visits to their  former colonial bosses during periods of political  crises.

To further demonstrate that the African countries are  not territorially independent, if African leaders  today decide to change the current boundaries without  consultation with the former colonial powers, those  powers would react by overthrowing them and replacing  them with Africans who would continue to maintain the  colonial arrangement. It is therefore, not a  coincident that independent-minded African leaders  rarely remain long in power while those who are  willing to play along with the colonial arrangement  remain long in power.

A typical example of the African colonial situation  is Ivory Coast. When the rebellion erupted, West  African leaders, under the auspices of the Economic  Community of West African States (ECOWAS) volunteered  to negotiate and possibly send in peacekeeping forces.  The Ivory Coast rejected the offer and yet did not  frown at French troops doing the same. This clearly  shows that the French are extensively involved in  making decisions for the Ivory Coast. The Ivory Coast  initial rejection of the African effort while  accepting French assistance can also be interpreted to  mean that the French do not want extensive meddling by  Anglophone African states (Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia.  Sierra Leone, Gambia) in the affairs of Francophone  Ivory Coast which is considered to be the darling of  the French pride in West Africa.

Ivory Coast officials only began to gradually accept  the idea of a West African peace making effort after  realizing that the rebellion would not dissipate  without some outside effort. Of course, this view  does not exclude the possibility that Ivory Coast  rejected the initial West African offer fearing the  possibility of looting by ECOWAS troops. Mr. Tarty  Teh wrote an excellent article about how West African  forces looted extensively in Liberia and Sierra Leone  during the civil wars there (Teh, 2002, January 25).   Likewise, in the ongoing military rebellion in the  Central African Republic, rumors are being spread that  Congolese rebels who are fighting on the side of the  CAR government have been looting in Bangui, the  capital of CAR (BBC News, Africa, 2002, October 31).   It should also be noted that the Democratic Republic  of the Congo (DRC) has been alleged to have been  plundered extensively by forces from Rwanda,Uganda,  Namibia, Zimbabwe, and the various rebel groups (BBC  News, 2002, October 22).

A critic can easily dismiss the above stated view as  nonsense. However, it should be recalled that before  the massacre of the Tutsis by Hutu elements, the  French were fearful that Rwanda was being Anglicized  by English-speaking Tutsi elements who had spent most  of their lives in English-speaking Uganda. Among the  leaders of the Tutsi elements was Gen. Paul Kagame who  led the Tutsi forces from Uganda to liberate Rwanda  from the murderous Hutu elements. Fearful of  Anglicization, the French courted and wooed the Hutu  military elements until the very last minute before  the massacre. The alliance was formed to prevent the  English-speaking elements from taking over Rwanda.   Thus, the French encouraged the Hutu elements to work  with the late President Mobutu to preserve Francophone  interests. The same fear could be taking place in the  Ivory Coast.

The French connection should not be taken lightly.   Protecting French interests in Francophone Africa is  Frances primary objective in the continent. This is  why the French attempted to break Nigeria up while  Britain made sure that Nigeria did not break up during  the civil war (1967-70). While desiring to break  Nigeria up, it worked furiously to make sure that  Cameroon remained intact. Hence, it discouraged  Southern Cameroon, which also includes the Bakassi  Peninsula from rejoining Nigeria on a number of  occasions (Omoigui, 2002, October 27). Consequently,  it can be speculated that France supported and  encouraged Cameroons decision to take the Bakassi  issue to the International Court of Justice in 1994,  knowing full well that the historical legal evidence  for the territory was strong on the side of Cameroon,  even though the French embassy in Nigeria has called  for a negotiated settlement between Nigeria and  Cameroon It should also be noted that in the  on-and-off-and-on military crises in the Central  African Republic, France is rumored to have given  political asylum to Gen. Francois Bozize ( the  principal rebel leader) in an effort to mediate  between the general and President Ange-Felix Patasse.   Moreover, France seems to be in a tight geopolitical  race with Libya over the CAR (Somerville, 2002.  October 31). Again, this means that France is greatly  involved in an effort to control the situation   (Benamsse, 2002, October 25).

  2. The artificiality and irreconcilability of the  territorial boundaries

a. Due to the unreasonableness of the African  territories, almost every African country is divided  between the North and South by religion. Generally,  the Northern half of many African Countries are  Islamized while the Southern half are Christianized.   This creates a double-headed political monster that  drags the African states downward. The Northern and  the Southern portions do not see things through the  same wavelength. Each region is fearful of being  dominated and marginalized by the other. This leads  to constant power struggle which eventually results in  military coups and rebellions. Togo, Uganda, Sudan,  Nigeria, Ghana, Niger, Chad, Burkina Faso, Senegal,  Ivory Coast, Cameroon, and a host of other African  countries go through these cycles of religious and  regional instability. In other African countries, the  majority of the population is either heavily Christian  or Islam, meaning that minority religious groups  suffer from absolute domination, like in Senegal,  Egypt, Gabon, Ethiopia, and Algeria.

The division of power between the North and South is  further accentuated by the fact that during the  colonial era, the colonial authorities used to pick  and choose among various ethnic, regional, and  religious groups. This means that in every colony,  the colonial authorities favored certain ethnic,  regional, and religious groups. Those groups that  were favored eventually assumed the political and  economic dominance of the African states. In the  Ivory Coast, the Christian South was favored over the  Islamic North. As a result, the South has always  dominated the Ivory Coast. In Senegal, the Islamic  North was favored more than the Christian South. As a  result, Senegal is dominated by the North. In Togo,  the Ewe dominated until the Northern ethnic groups  mounted a military coup which resulted in the Northern  domination of the country. In Nigeria, the North was  dominated administratively and economically by the  South. The North reversed the trend after the July  29,1966 military coup. Since then, the North has  dominated Nigeria politically, militarily, and  administratively. In Sudan, the North has absolute  domination over the South to the extent that Sudan  even mounted a religious campaign to Islamize the  South.

b. Territorially, almost every African state, with  the exception of Somalia, perhaps, is multi-ethnic.   This means that every state has more than one ethnic  group in it. Many states have an ethnic mixture which  renders them incapable of moving forward due to the  incompatibility of the ethnic groups. Rwanda,  Burundi, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,  Senegal, Nigeria, Mauritania, Algeria, Cameroon,  Chad, Ethiopia, Liberia etc. are indigestible ethnic  brews that will always result in political and  military stomach aches. For instance, the people of  the upper Northern Nigeria seem to have more in common  with people of Southern Niger and Chad. The people  of the Adamawa region in Nigeria have more in common  with the Adamawa people in the Cameroon. In Senegal,  the Casamance, particularly, the Casacais are more  similar to the people in Guinea-Bissau than to the  other Senegalese groups. Although the Casamance  region is the most fertile agriculturally, the Islamic  North dominates the entire country. Consequently, the  people of the Casamance region are waging a low-level  guerrilla war, led by the Movement of Democratic  Casamance Forces to secede from Senegal (Winter,   2002, October 11). In Ivory Coast, the people of the  Islamic Northern Region, especially the Dioula people   are more compatible with the people of Burkina Faso  while the people of the Southern region (the Baoules  and other groups) seem to be more compatible with the  ethnic groups in Ghana and Liberia Chonghaile, 2002,  October 24). It is obviously understandable why the  Ivorian government leaders blamed a foreign power  (most probably Burkina Faso) as the instigator and  backer of the rebellion (BBC News Africa, 2002,  September 23). In Sudan, the difference between the  North and the South is like the difference between  night and day. The North has never treated the  Southern ethnic groups as coequals. The Southern  Sudanese either need to be separated from Sudan or  joined with Uganda. They are treated like slaves.   The same goes for Mauritania where SubSaharan Africans  are looked upon as indentured servants rather than as  free citizens. Slavery continues to be perpetuated  against blacks, even though it was officially banned  in 1981. Many black Mauritanians live in exile in  Senegal.

During the colonial days, despite the multiplicity of  the ethnic groups, the colonies were ruled as if they  were single ethnic entities. Even when indirect rule  was applied to some areas to make up for the  differences, the overall goal was to put them  together. After independence, African leaders  continue to rule these multiethnic states as  single-ethnic, single-regional, and single-religious   entities. In other words, African leaders have failed  to recognize that their states are multi-ethnic,  multi-regional, and multi-religious compositions that  require sensitivity, decentralization, and  democratization of power. Instead, they tend to  personalize, tribalize, regionalize, and religionize  the states by filling governmental positions with  family members, friends, members of the same ethnic,  regional, and religious groups. This causes anger  among those who feel marginalized and discriminated to  rebel and wage wars of resistance or secession.

As you can see, in the Ivory Coast, President Laurent  Gbagbo and his officials do not seem to recognize that  the Islamic North is not happy over marginalization by  the Christian South. This writer wrote an article  titled Are African States Sovereign Nations? in 1993  and stated that the construction of the basilica may  signal the beginning of religious conflict in Cote  dIvoire. By using state funds to build the largest  Christian basilica in Yamoussoukro, the late President  Felix Houphouet-Boigny set in motion a religious  counteraction. The Islamic North became conscious of  its marginalization and deprivations. Hence, it is  understandable when Cherif Ousmane, one of the rebel  leaders said if your name is Ouattara, I can  guarantee you wont get a job (Chonghaile, 2002,  October 24). The late long-time president appeared to  have been insensitive to the political and religious  feelings of the Moslems in the country. Finally, the  country is now reaping the fruits of the political,  economic, and religious seeds it sowed for over thirty  years.

c. Due to the colonial heritage, African states are  also characterized by the splitting of many ethnic  groups into different states. The Tutsis are split  into Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo  (DRC), Rwanda, and Uganda. The Somali people are  spread into Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Somalia, and  possibly Eritrea. The Yorubas are in Nigeria, Benin,  and possibly Ghana. The Ewe are in Ghana and Togo.   The Akan people are in Ghana and Ivory Coast. The  Mande people are located in Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast,  and Mali. The Soninke are split into Mali and   Senegal. The Madinka are in Gambia, Guinea-Bissau,  and Senegal. The Hausas and Hausa related groups are  spread into Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Chad, and Benin.  The Congo people are spread into the Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Congo Brazzaville, and possibly  Angola. The Kanuri people are both in Nigeria and  Niger. The Berbers are spread into Algeria, Libya and  possibly Tunisia. The Tuaregs are in Mali, Niger,  Mauritania, and possibly Chad. Chad has Arabic  ethnic groups in the North and SubSaharan African  groups including the Fulani and the Hausa in the  South. The Bakassi enclave contains an ethnic group  that extends from Nigeria to Cameroon and vice versa.   The Fulanis (Fula or Fulfuda) are spread almost  throughout the entire West African region, stretching  from Senegal to Nigeria, Niger, Chad, and Cameroon.   Therefore, it is inferable that the Fulani is the most  wide-spread ethnic group in Africa. The Berbers and  the Somalis too are very wide-spread.

The spreading of ethnic groups into many territorial  states means a lot of trouble. When a conflict erupts  in one state, it can quickly spread to the other  states through the ethnic connections. It was easy  for the conflict in Liberia to spread to Sierra Leone  and Guinea because some of the ethnic groups in  Liberia are also located in Sierra Leone and Guinea,  as well as in the Ivory Coast. It is understandable  why ECOWAS leaders reacted as soon as the rebellion in  the Ivory Coast began. They do not want the Ivorian  conflict to spread to Burkina Faso, Liberia, and  Ghana. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a  colonial marriage made in hell. When anything happens  in Angola, Burundi, Rwanda, Congo Brazzaville, and  Uganda, it immediately spreads to the DRC because of  the many ethnic stakeholders in the region. The  extensive spreading of the ethnic groups in the region  makes it impossible to contain any military explosion  of anger. The Somali civil war continues to affect  the entire Horn of Africa. The Sudanese civil war  extends to Uganda and Ethiopia materially and  psychologoically. As a result, the Sudanese tend to  blame Uganda and Ethiopia for assisting the Southern  rebellion. In the ongoing military rebellion in the  Central African Republic, military elements from the  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, and Libya are  involved.

d. The territorial spread of the ethnic groups makes  the idea of border control impossible. In other  words, African states cannot practically enforce the  territorial integrity of their borders. The reason  being that the ethnic groups are spread across  artificial colonial boundaries. Evidently, the  enforcement of territorial boundaries would seriously  violate the rights of the ethnic groups. For example.  Neither Nigeria nor Benin can seriously enforce their  common border. To do so would seriously violate the  rights of the Yorubas. Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and  Niger cannot practically enforce their borders due to  the ethnic spread of various groups. Likewise,  neither Ghana nor Togo can seriously block the border  since the Ewe ethnic group extends into the two  countries. The people of Casmance Region in the  Senegal and the Guinea-Bissuans are ethnically  similar, therefore, Senegal cannot close the border.   The Tuaregs are spread throughout the Sahara which  encompasses many countries. This means that Mali,  Niger, Burkina Faso, Mauritania etc. cannot  effectively controlled their borders. To do so would  violate the rights of the Tuaregs to move from one  territory to another as they have done for centuries.   The Hutus, Tutsis, and the Twa people cannot be  prevented from criss-crossing the borders of Burundi  and Rwanda as well as the DRC.

Any African country which tries to effectively enforce  its territorial borders can easily plunge itself into  a civil war. The reason being that the ethnic groups  have existed for centuries on their territorial lands  before the creation of the colonial states. The  colonially induced states have no territorial,  traditional, religious, and social institutions that  connect them in a primordial manner to the people,  apart from being a theoretical colonial construct.   The ethnic groups have territories, traditions,  religions, languages, and ancestral bloodlines to  create distinctive ethnographic identities and  territorial boundaries. Therefore, they tend to resist  vehemently any attempt to divide them or cut them away  from their kith and kin. Can anyone imagine an  African state trying to impose itself on an ethnic  group through forceful demarcation of the ethnic  territory?

e. Due to the territorial confusion, African politics  is increasingly being territorialized and nationalized  in the sense that political candidates are tactically  disqualified on account of nationality. The former  president of Zambia, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, was  disqualified from contesting a presidential election  in Zambia in the early 1990s, on the ground that he  was not a Zambian citizen. In Nigeria too, a very  popular politician in the North, around the Adamawa  region, was disqualified on the ground that he was not  a Nigerian citizen during the Second Republic. In the  Ivory Coast, the most popular Northern politician,  Alassane Outtara was prevented from running for the  presidency on the ground that he was not an Ivorian  citizen. Thus, territoriality is being used against  potential political opponents by political incumbents.  This is leading to political disaffection among those  who feel that their candidates are tactically being  thwarted from gaining access to power. In the ensuing  rebellion in the Ivory Coast, Mr. Outtara had to  escape to the French embassy to avoid either being  detained or killed by government agents. Such is the  nature of African politics.

It is regrettable and very sad that African political  and military leaders would use boundaries set by  non-Africans to determine the nationality of African  peoples. Is it proper for Mali or the Ivory Coast or  Burkina Faso to use nationality to deprive a Mande   citizen from visiting his/her relatives on the other  side of the artificial border? Is it proper for  Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, and Gambia to stop any Madinka  from visiting and possibly participating in political  activity in other parts of the ethnic territory? Who  has more right over territorial ownership of land:   the colonially-induced state or the ethnic group?

f. Due to the artificiality of the boundaries,  African states are administered like colonies. In  fact, a form of intra-African colonialism has  developed. In every country, the politically  powerless ethnic groups and regions are treated as  colonial possessions by African leaders and high  government officials who always come from the  politically dominant ethnic and regional groups.   Likewise, natural resources are exploited not for  strategic national development, but for the enrichment  of the leaders, high government officials, and their  ethnic groups, states, and regions. So, development   projects are often located in the ethnic areas and  homelands of the leaders. On the other hand, the  ethnic groups, states, and regions which do not have  power are left underdeveloped, even when the resources  are taken from those areas of the country. Thus, the  Niger Delta and the Bakassi in Nigeria, the Cabinda  region in Angola, the heavily Berber region in  Algeria, Southern Sudan, and various regional zones of  the Democratic Republic of the Congo etc. are treated  as colonial possessions by the power wielders.   They are severely underdeveloped, even though they  contribute extensively to the economies of the  respective countries.

Intra-African colonialism is heading toward a very  dangerous level as African states and leaders compete  among themselves to grab resources from their  neighbors, regardless of the plight of the inhabitants  of the territories. When sent to keep the peace,  African soldiers have been accused repeatedly of  massively looting the resources of the areas in which  they supposed to maintain peace. The Liberians,  Sierra Leoneans, Central Africans, Congolese etc. are  said to have experienced massive plundering of their  resources by African forces and governments. Of  great concern is the alleged brazen plundering of the  resources of DRC by governments and forces from  Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. It would be  very shocking, if provable that leaders like Robert  Mugabe, Sam Nujoma, and Yoweri Museveni actually  allowed their forces to exploit and loot, knowing full  well that they became leaders through revolutionary  wars. In particular, Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nujoma  received extensive African support during their wars  of liberation from colonialism. Although, these  leaders and governments continue to deny being  involved in the plundering of Congolese mineral  resources (gold, diamonds, cobalt, copper, and  coltan), the United Nations and many others believe  that plundering had taken place massively. The BBC  reported in its Africa section on February 24, 2002  that the Namibian army chief and high-ranking  officials in the Defence and Trade and Industry are  reportedly among the directors of the Namibian company  which owns a mine in the south of DR CongoZimbabwes  Government - which has provided the majority of the  foreign military support enjoyed by Kinshasa  also  has diamond interests in DR Congo (BBC News, Africa).   It is not a coincident that President Joseph Kabila  of DRC is reported to have recently dismissed the  management committee of the states diamond mining  company ( Miba), even though the DRC denied that the  government was involved in the plundering scheme (  Dummett, 2002, November 2). The Central African  Republic, like the DRC, faces constant instability due  to a scramble for its resources  diamonds, uranium,  and oil. France, Libya, Chad, and Congolese rebels  (Movement for the Liberation of Congo) and others want  the resources.

  3. A state of denial: the implication of accepting  and upholding international law  on territorial rights

a. African leaders continue to maintain the colonial  territorial arrangements that are extremely in  violation of the rights of the African people. The  unconditional acceptance of the colonial boundaries  started with the early nationalist leaders who took  over power from the colonial powers. The founding  fathers solidified the colonial borders by signing the  Charter of the Organization of the African Unity in  1963, promising in Article 111, paragraph 3,   Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity  of each state and for its inalienable right to  independent existent (Omoigui, 2002, October 27).   Not satisfied, the African leaders reinforced the  Article 111 of the Charter by issuing the Cairo  Declaration in 1964 in which all Member States  pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on  their achievement of national independence (Ibid.).   Through these legal acts, the African leaders fully  embraced the territorial integrity of the colonial  borders.

b. Apart from accepting the indefensible colonial  borders, the founding fathers also agreed to uphold  international law. They ignored the fact that the  sections dealing with territorial integrity and  sovereignty are incompatible and therefore  unacceptable to the African situation since those  sections of international law were codified by the  former colonial powers after they had used wars of  aggression to conquer and carve out many colonial  territories in Africa, Asia, the Americas, and the  Middle East. Evidently, by accepting those sections  of international law, the Africans helped to legalize  illegal territtorial acts perpetrated through  aggression. They also became willing participants in  the legalization and universalization of colonial  arrangements. Contemporary African leaders simply  continue to follow their predecessors footsteps by  totally complying with the prearranged colonial  tradition, statues, and laws.

In any case, African states unquestionably follow the  rules set by international law on territorial rights  and sovereignty. This means that they interpret their  own territorial disputes and problems through statutes  and precedents set by international law. For  instance, Nigeria and Cameroon have had a territorial  dispute over Bakassi Peninsular for sometime. As  African states, one would have expected them to  resolve the matter through traditional African method  of compromise and consensus. Instead, they relied on  international law by going to the International Court  of Justice to resolve the issue. Cameroon initiated  the process in 1994 and Nigeria went along with it.   Both sides attempted to justify ownership of Bakassi  through evidence established by the former colonial  powers. Although, originally an Efikland, the British  ceded the territory to the Germans who colonized  Cameroon. The Germans then ceded the territory to  France. Through such colonial transactions, Cameroon  believes that it has a legal right to the territory,  regardless of who lives in it.

Throughout the legal process, Nigeria never made any  strong statement about the fact that over 150.000  Nigerians of Efik/Ibibio and Ekoi ancestry have been  living on the territory. In fact, even the  citizens of the area were shocked that Nigeria did not  make any serious effort to encourage their  participation in the legal process. A prominent member  of the court of the Obong of Calabar lamented The  Federal Government had depended on us at the court of  the Obong of Calabar with which it went to the World  Court to argue its case about the ownership of Bakassi  and we gave information copiously to it. But we were  curiously unrepresented on the legal team that  represented Ngeria. In fact, it was in the dying days  of the matter that this majesty, the Obong of Calabar  was paraded in the court at the Hague for questionable  legal benefits ( Bassey, 2002, October 13).  Therefore, it is inferable that Nigeria treated the  indigenes as disposable colonial subjects. Nigeria  relied exclusive on legal evidence and logic. The  International Court of Justice awarded the territory,  based on the evidence provided, to Cameroon.

  Should the way Nigeria dealt with the Bakassi issue be  surprising to anyone? The answer is definitely no,  taking into consideration the tendency of African  leaders to treat their own citizens as colonial  subjects rather than as constitutionally empowered  citizens. Examples can be cited from Nigeria and the  Ivory Coast to show how leaders do not seem to care  much about their citizens, especially those from  powerless ethnic groups and regions. Nigerian  leaders, like a majority of African leaders, often  command and impose decisions rather than communicate  with their own citizens. For instance, various  Nigerian leaders passed and maintained the Land Use  Decrees without even contacting the indigenes of the  oil-producing region. They did not even conduct  impact studies to find out how such decrees would  affect the environment and the economy of the region.   Nigeria promised reconciliation, reconstruction, and  rehabilitation, yet, Biafran veterans are left in the  cold to take care of themselves. Many retired  noncommissioned Nigerian soldiers too are treated with  less regard. Nigeria is planning to dredge the Niger  River without making effort to conduct a comprehensive  environmental and ecological impact studies. Deals  are made and contracts signed behind closed doors.

In the Ivory Coast, President Gbagbo reacted to the  military rebellion without reflecting on why the  soldiers revolted. He simply ordered them to  surrender or face military counter-attack. He could  not believe that some soldiers would challenge and  threaten his political power. He seems very interested  in punishing those who have humiliated him rather than  discuss the reality of the Ivory Coasts political  situation. He seems not to perceive the imbalance  between the North and the South in the way the  government has been operating. The government refers  to the rebels as armed terrorists (Guardian, 2002.  October 9). When ECOWAS rushed to find a solution,  the Ivorians rejected the effort. An ECOWAS  representative stated  Gbagbo gave us a lecture on  legality and told us that since we have agreed to a  ceasefire with the rebels, we could go and sign it  with them and then come and tell him (Ibid.).   President Gbagbos behavior is typical of the lack of  serious concern often expressed by African leaders  toward their citizens who feel oppressed , exploited,  and marginalized. They rarely see beyond the clouds  to perceive the gathering political thunderstorm.   Instead of being proactive, they tend to be reactive  and strongly believe in using military means to solve  political problems. This is why Africa is riddled  with conflicts.

The regional response to the Ivory Coast crisis too is  very hypocritical and uncaring about the plight of  West African citizens who do not have power. In the  initial response to the Ivory Coast rebellion, West  African leaders and high-level officials from Nigeria,  Ghana, and Togo made a joint statement, The  governments and peoples of Ghana, Nigeria, and Togo  reaffirm their total and strong support and solidarity  to the brotherly people of Cote dIvoire and reiterate  their firm rejection of all actions aimed at  anti-constitutional change of government in the  region (Gaurdian, 2002, September 24). This  diplomatic statement was supported by the ECOWAS  Executive Secretary, Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas who  said: We are saddened by the avoidable loss of lives  during the putsch as grievances, no matter how  legitimate, cannot provide the justification for a  resort to violence which should be ventilated through  the process (Ibid.). These leaders and officials  seem to be talking from a different continent, not  Africa. They are ignoring the fact that legal and  political processes in Africa are highly ineffective  in solving political problems. African leaders do  not listen to the opposition, they try to wipe them  out by every means possible. For example, a medical  doctor, who happens to be a brother of a politician  who recently supported the rebels, was abducted and  killed by alleged government agents of Ivory Coast.   Leaders behave as if the states are their personal  properties and the citizens are servants who must obey  their masters all the time. This kind of political  behavior can be readily observed in Nigeria, Kenya,  Uganda, Togo, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, the CAR, Niger,  Chad, Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Liberia, Libya, Egypt,  Algeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda,  Burundi, etc.

In an effort to resolve the Ivory Coast conflict, Togo  is chosen as the venue for negotiations. However,  both the ECOWAS and the Togolese are ignoring the  political situation in Togo itself. Are the Togolese  not aware that their country is as polarized as the  Ivory Coast? Are they not aware that there is  political disaffection that could boil over, just as  in the Ivory Coast, Niger, and the Central African  Republic? If the ECOWAS goes by the sanctity of the  provisions of the ECOWAS protocol on democracy and  good governance, under which member states make a  commitment to zero tolerance for power obtained or  maintained by unconstitutional means, then it is  making the same kind of mistake that the OAU made when  it promulgated its noninterference clause. Why is the  ECOWAS so preoccupied with the unconstitutional  changing of the government without also focusing on  how citizens should be treated by their political  leaders and governments? It appears that the ECOWAS  does not seem to see anything wrong with the political  situation in Togo? As if the ECOWAS is unaware of the  political situation in Togo, President Eyadema is the  chief regional point man attempting to resolve the  Ivory Coast conflict. What happens if citizens have  no constitutional and peaceful means to express their  frustrations as is the case in many African countries?  Do they then have a right to rebel militarily?

All of a sudden, after the Bakassi decision, Nigeria  now seems to realize that neither the Germans nor the  British had a right to cede the territory without the  approval of the indigenes. Consequently, it is  finding it unpalatable to accept the verdict rendered  by the International Court of Justice. Nigerias  Minister of Transportation, Mr. Ojo Madueke justified  Nigerias rejection of the decision by saying that the  decision was based on colonial treaties that Nigeria  does not consider legitimate (Yahoo News, 2002,  October 24). He continued, The Hague,  Netherlands-based court failed to recognize rights of  traditional kings and chiefs as true owners of the  land (Ibid.). Minister Maduekes view about the  matter is supported by Nigerias Minister of Foreign  Affairs, Alhaji Sule Lamido who believes that there  is no distinction between the people of Bakassi and  the land itself as the people must be on the land so  the land is part of the people (Ebiri, 2002, October  25). He continued, It is the failure of the court to  take on board all the facts of the matter in respect  of African history that has elicited the anger and  disgust of Nigerians which we cannot ignore (Ibid.).

Nigerian officials are ignoring the fact that Nigeria  too had previously regarded the Bakassi Peninsular as  part of Southern Cameroon. In particular, Nigerian  politicians, especially from the North and the West  were not too eager to have Southern Cameroon as part  of Eastern Nigeria for fear of the East dominating  Nigerian politics. Likewise, Eastern Nigerian  political leaders too did not treat the Southern  Cameroonians equitably, hence, their decision to join  Cameroon. Nigerian officials are also ignoring the  fact that Nigeria accepted the Anglo-German  territorial arrangement of 1913 by consistently  showing on the map that Bakassi is part of Cameroon.

The verdict came at the right moment and its  implications are far-reaching. (1) If Nigerian  leaders cared so much about the indigenes of the  territory, why did it go along with the case at the  International Court of Justice? (2) If Nigeria was so  much concerned about the colonial problem, why did it  not object vehemently when Cameroon took the case to  the ICJ? Nigeria would have refused to participate in  the case, citing the illegitimacy of territorial  ownership based on colonial demarcations. Nigeria  would have gone to the Organization of African Unity  (OAU) and now the African Union (AU) to find an  African solution to the Bakassi problem. (3) Knowing  full well that the ruling panel of the ICJ included  French, British, and German judges, why did Nigeria  remain quiet until the end of the case before citing  the presence of the three judges from the former  colonial powers as being prejudicial to the verdict in  the case? (4) Nigerian officials and legal minds have  always accepted the colonial arrangement in defining  Nigerian territory and other international legal  matters, even after recognizing that the colonial  system does not suit the African situation.

It appears that President Olusegun Obasanjo and his  officials have not seriously considered the political  implications of the Nigerian rejection of the ICJ  ruling. If Nigeria argues that it could not agree  with the verdict because it failed to recognize the  rights of traditional kings and chiefs as true owners  of the land, it is implying that even its own  existence is illegitimate since it was created  colonially by the British. In other words, Nigeria  cannot justify its own sovereignty if it rejects the  colonial arrangement of Bakassi since its own  territory was established through colonial  arrangement. Nigeria was created by denying  traditional kings and chiefs of their political  authority. It should be recalled that the Ijaws have  repeatedly argued that their incorporation into  Nigeria was done by force without their consent,  therefore, they have a right to determine their own  political fate. The Ijaw argument has always been  rejected by Nigeria on the ground that Nigeria is an  indivisible sovereign entity. All of a sudden,  Nigeria is now supporting the Ijaw view that the  colonial package is an infringement of the right of  the African people to decide their own destiny.   Likewise, Nigeria has repeatedly refused to allow a  Sovereign National Conference to take place, fearing  that such a conference would result in the splitting  of the country. Those who have suggested a National  Conference believe that it is the only way to  legitimize Nigeria but Nigerian leaders have argued in  favor of the colonial arrangement. In a turn around,  Nigerian leaders and officials now find it difficult  to accept the colonial arrangement in Bakassi while  steadfastly holding to the colonial arrangement in  Nigeria.

In addition, if Nigeria continues to reject the  decision of the International Court of Justice on the  ground that the colonial demarcation of Bakassi was  unacceptable, then, Nigeria is providing fireworks for  the people of the Niger Delta to argue that Nigeria  does not have any basis to gain from the oil revenue  since Nigeria was incorporated illegally. Likewise,  they can argue that it is not binding on them to  accept Nigerian authority. The Ijaws, Yorubas and   other Nigerian groups who want a national  rearrangement of the country can justifiably make the  same argument being advanced by Nigeria in the Bakassi  case. Nigerian officials should be very careful  before making political statements about the ICJ  verdict.

Likewise, by refusing to accept the ruling, Nigeria is  setting a dangerous political and legal precedent.   Any other African state can unilaterally decide not to  abide by any legal ruling that does not favor its  interest. Moreover, Nigeria will forfeit its role as  a positive force for stabilizing the continent if it  unilaterally rejects the verdict of the ICJ, after  promising to abide by its ruling.

Thus, Nigeria is in a quagmire. It is a colonial  product that accepts colonial arrangements and  structures in one hand and rejects them on the other  hand. In other words, Nigeria wants to eat its Akara  and have it back at the same time. Nigerias  Ambassador to Israel, Professor George Obiozor,  suggests that Nigeria can escape compliance by  invoking the principle of sovereignty.   Unfortunately, sovereignty is not sufficient to solve  the matter. Moreover, it is a contradiction to cite  sovereignty over a colonially created state (Nigeria)  and refuse to accept a ruling based on a colonially  established principle of ownership. If Nigeria  regards itself as a sovereign state, even though not a  single ethnic group in the country voluntarily gave up  its ethnic rights to self determination, then it  cannot reject a colonial arrangement over Bakassi.

There is no doubt Nigeria was not very committed to  the Bakassi issue until oil was discovered (Bassey,  2002, October 13). Nigerian officials did not do  their home work before embarking on the case. On the  other hand, Cameroon did a marvelous job by  out-jabbing Nigeria legally and diplomatically, hence,  winning the case. In any case, the Bakassi issue and  verdict represent both a defeat and a great hope for  Africa. The decision simply reinforces the view that  African peoples, traditions and values do not matter  in the international arena. Western traditions and  values continue to dominate Africa. As a result, the  indigenes of Bakassi are going to face more perils  like other powerless Africans caught in territorial  political intrigues. On the other hand, the issue is  going to generate debate about African territorial  problems. This will put pressure on African leaders  to begin to discuss the need to gradually decolonize  the continent.

  Nigeria has no choice but to accept the verdict in the  case. After all, it went along with the colonial  arrangement by repeatedly showing on its maps that the  Bakassi is part of Cameroon. Since it promised to  abide by the decisions of the ICJ, it should accept  the verdict, then work with Cameroon to ensure that  Nigerians who live in the territory are not disturbed.  Possibly, any oil revenue emanating from the Bakassi  should be shared equally between Nigeria and Cameroon.

  Those who live in the Peninsular should petition the  United Nations directly and try to influence the  International Court of Justice. They should not put  all their eggs on Nigeria which has betrayed them.

Whether the political crisis involves the Ivory Coast  or the Bakassi, the fact remains that territorial  problems would continue to beset the continent as far  as African leaders continue to pretend that their  colonial enclaves are independent states. Africa will  continue to experience sever cases of bloodbath as far  as African leaders continue to maintain territorial  boundaries that daily violate the rights of the  African people.

  4. Territorial insecurity and the lack of economic  progress

Based on the discussion above, it is inferable that  Africa will not progress economically to a level where  the average African does not have to live like a  pauper. This cynicism is prompted by the fact that  African states tend to take one step forward and two  steps backward in their economic development efforts.   The reason being that since the states are  territorially so artificial, the political structures  are very fragile. The fragility leads to constant  instability as political and military leaders, ethnic  groups and regions compete for hegemony.

Consequently, it is not surprising that the so-called   pillar of political stability in West Africa ( the  Ivory Coast), has fallen to the common African  political virus. Despite its much praised economic  development, it could not overcome political  disagreement over the distribution of political power  and economic resources. One other interesting thing  about the Ivory Coast is that it does not even have a  capable military force to maintain itself, despite the  taunted economic advancement. Thus, like a colonial  entity, it is relying on France and to maintain its  national sovereignty. The Ivory Coast, like so many  other African states, including the Democratic  Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic,  Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc. does not have the military  capability to maintain its national security.

No country can maintain a sustainable economic growth  without political stability. In the case of African  countries, political stability is not possible because  the artificiality of the territories create perpetual  political bubbles. This bubbles lead to perpetual  uncertainty resulting in an haphazard economic  development effort. Of course, when the territorial  factor is added to the massive corruption that exists  in every African state, the reasons for economic  stagnation and underdevelopment in a continent that is  endowed with abundant natural resources, becomes quite  clear.

  5. Possible solutions

To reduce the territorial problem, the following  actions might be very instrumental in guiding the  continent toward freedom from the territorial bondage  imposed through colonialism.

a. Every African state should organize a National  Conference to decide the true nature of the state.   The NC would serve as a vehicle for the ethnic groups  to determine whether they want to be where they are or  want some other political arrangement. This is the  only way in which the colonial arrangement can be  tailored to meet the needs of the African people.   After repeated rejection of a National Conference,  Nigerian leaders are warming up to the idea. Former  Nigerian Head of State, Dr. Gen. Yakubu Gowon now  supports the idea saying This can only be done on a  national platform such as the one provided by a  seminar like this one or any other, such as a national  conference or forum that could be arranged (Akhaine,  S. (2002, October 30). The vice president of the  current administration, Atiku Abubakar, is also  inclining toward a national conference. It appears  that the Sudanese might be heading toward that  direction as the government and the Sudan Peoples  Liberation Army (SNLA) try to negotiate a settlement  which could end up with some kind of self-rule for  the Southern region (BBC, Africa, 2002, October 9).

b. Many states would have to undergo territorial  adjustment so that the boundaries can reflect the  natural political divisions within the continent.   Burundi and Rwanda can be rearranged. The Congo  Brazzaville and the Congo part of the Democratic  Republic of the Congo can become one. The DRC should  be broken into two more states. The Casamance region  in Senegal should be joined with Guinea-Bissau, if  possible. Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, and Chad need  some fine-tuning on their border areas. Northern  Kenya, especially the Somali people, should be  integrated with Somalia. Southern Sudan should become  a separate entity since there is so much difference  between the North and the South.

c. Every African country should seriously consider  adopting a rotating political leadership system so  that every region or state of the country can be  equally represented. Nigerians have been seriously  discussing the merits of such a system. A rotational  system is most certainly the cure for the tendency of  either one ethnic group or region to dominate an  entire country. For instance, since President  Gnassingbe Eyadema took over the military and  political leadership of Togo, the North has dominated  the country for about 34 years. On the other hand,  the North is rebelling in the Ivory Coast over  marginalization. Chad and Niger experienced bloody  civil wars over regional dominance just as Nigeria and  the Sudan. The Tuaregs fought a war of rebellion  against Mali over marginalization. Liberia plunged  into a civil war due to ethnic dominance and  repression.

The countries that have worked hard to reduce regional  and ethnic dominance have been Tanzania and Kenya. In  Kenya, after the passing away of the honorable Jomo  Kenyatta, a conscious decision was made to choose Arab  Moi, a non-Kikuyu. Now that President Moi is leaving  office, the Kenyans should make a conscious decision  to pick someone from another ethnic group or region.   The Tanzanians have been technically rotating their  leadership between the island of Zanzibar and  Tangayinka. Burundi and Rwanda need to rotate their  political and military leaders if the two countries  really want to exist as peaceful entities. Since  President Robert Mugabe is a Shona, the next president  of Zimbabwe should come from Matabele land. The Ivory  Coast would have to rotate the presidency between the  North and the South. The same goes for Togo, Niger,  Chad, Cameroon etc. In the case of the Cameroon, the  rotation will be between the North and the South and  the Francophone and the Anglophone elements. The  Algerians must seriously consider including the  Islamic political party as part of the national  political system so that their members can also  participate actively in presidential elections. South  Africa has to rotate the leadership among the African  National Congress, the Inkatha, the the Asians  (Muslims and Indus), and the Whites.

d. The African people need to reshape themselves by  replacing the colonial system and structures.   Consequently, the transformation of the OAU into the  African Union is an excellent strategy. It is  foreseeable that the current colonial arrangements  would break up into various kinds of Africanized  political arrangements. (A) Some of the current  states would remain undisturbed. (B) Many states  would dissolve into regional confederacies. (C) Some  states would dissolve and split into ethnic states.   (D) There is also the possibility that all the  current states could break up resulting in the ethnic  groups becoming states. There is a great possibility  that the African Union would metamorphosed into a  continental United States of Africa as the late Kwame  Nkrumah had wanted.

  Conclusion

It is self-evident that the colonial territorial  arrangement is not working. As a result, the African  continent is constantly visited by political crises,  military rebellions, religious uprisings, ethnic  animosities, economic stagnation, starvation, civil  wars, and blood baths. African leaders cannot plan  for their people because they put so much emphasis on  military security rather than provide for the common  good. It is not surprising that a brother of one of  the politicians supporting the Ivory Coast rebels was  killed by alleged state security personnel.

Due to the artificiality of the borders, African  states and their leaders are very suspicious of one  another. Whenever something goes wrong, they blame  their neighbors, instead of looking at themselves.  Ivory Coast blames its neighbors instead of looking at  the political system which seems to favor one region  of the country against the other region. African  leaders always blame the European colonial powers for  creating African political problems, yet, they justify  their own positions by relying on the colonial system.  Nigeria is blaming the colonial system for creating  the Bakassi problem and yet, it relies greatly on the  colonial system to maintain itself.

It can be concluded that African countries are not  sovereign states because they did not create  themselves. Likewise, they have not made strenuous  effort to recreate themselves in their own image.   Since these states continue to rely on the colonial  system, they will continue to experience sever  territorial conflicts. The Ivory Coast and the  Bakassi are bringing the colonial issues to the  forefront for Africans to stop pretending and take  practical actions to decolonize themselves.   Political decolonization without territorial  decolonization results in a twisted form of  independence, hence, African states are  semi-autonomous entities. They have to redraw their  territorial boundaries in order to be territorially  independent. Territorial independence will lead to  legitimacy which will result in an acceptable form of  state. With the current territorial arrangement, any  African state can experience what Ivory Coast is going  through. Likewise, any African ethnic group can be  caught in the colonial territorial cobweb like those  in the Bakassi Peninsular.

References

Astier, H. (2002, September 23). Frances watchful  eye on Ivory Coast. BBC News,Africa. Online.  Newsbbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2275828.stm. September 23,  2002.

Bassey, E. (2002, October 13). I would ask Nigeria  not to go to war. The Guardian. Online.   HYPERLINK  "http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/article" \t  "_blank"   www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/article  . October 13, 2002.

BBC News, Africa (2001, February 24). Namibia reveals  Congo diamond role. Online.  News.bbc.co.uk/hi/English/world/afraid/newsid_1187000/1187528.stm.  February 24, 2001.

______________ (2002, September 23). French troops in  Ivorian capital. Online.   News.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/Africa/2274966stm. September 23,  2002.

______________ (2002, October 9). Sudan negotiators  off to peace talks. Online.   news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Africa/2314929.stm. October  9, 2002.

______________. (2002, October 13). Togo poll  without opposition. Online.   News.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Africa/2357345.stm. October  25, 2002.

______________. (2002, October 22). DR Congo plunder  denied. Online.   news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Africa/23459031.stm.   October 31, 2002.

______________ . (2002, October 31). Looting in CAR  capital. Online.   news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Africa/2371421.stm. October  31, 2002.

Benamsse, J. (2002, October 25). Gunfire erupts in  CAR. BBC News. Online.   news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2361983.stm. October  24, 2002.

Chonghaile, C. (2002, October 24). Ivory Coast  rebels say seek justice. AP Africa. Online.   Yahoo.com/news/unpi-story. October 24, 2002.

Doyle, M. (2002, October 8). Burkina warns of  disaster in Ivory Coast. BBC News. Online.   News.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Africa/2310469.stm. October  9, 2002.

Dumett, M. (2002, November 2). DR Congo sacks  diamond mine heads. BBB news, Africa. Online.   news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Africa/2392367.stm.

Ebiri, K., Sunday, E., & Olagoka, A. (2002, October  25). Nigerian briefs diplomats on stance over  Bakassi. The Guardian. Online.   ngrguardiannews.com/news/article 2/

The Guardian. (2002, August 9). Niger asks Nigeria  to extradite mutineers. Online.   HYPERLINK  "http://www.ngrguradiannews.com/news/article" \t  "_blank"   www.ngrguradiannews.com/news/article  3. August 9, 2002.

Ibid. (2002, September 24). Nigeria, others condemn  mutiny in Cote Ivoire. Guardian Online.   HYPERLINK  "http://www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/article" \t  "_blank"   www.ngrguardiannews.com/news/article  . September 24, 2002.

Ikeanor, N. (2002, October 25). Bakassi: sovereignty  supercedes law of nations Obiozor. Daily Times.  Online.   HYPERLINK "http://www.dailutimesof/" \t "_blank"   www.dailutimesof  nigeria.com/Daily Times/2002. October 25, 2002.

Omoigui, N. (2002, October 27). Understanding the  1913 Treaty as a basis for negotiations. Online:   HYPERLINK  "http://us.f130.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=Ijawnation@yahoogroups.com"  \t "_blank"   Ijawnation@yahoogroups.com  . October 29, 2002.

______, (2002, October 27), Countdown to the UN  plesbiscite 1949 and 1954.  Online: Ijawnation@yahoogrouups.com. October 27,  2002.

Somerville, K (2002, September 19). Mutiny caps  years of Ivorian instability. BBC News, Africa.   Online: news.bbc.co.uk/2/h1/Africa/2268110.stm.   September 23, 2002.

_________, (2002, October 10). Border dispute an  African colonial legacy. BBC News, Africa. Online:   news.bbc.co.uk/1/111/world/Africa/23. October 13,  2002.

_________ (2002, October 31). Diamonds fuel CAR  conflicts. BBC News, Africa.  Online. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Africa/2372133.stm.  November 3, 2002.  Teh, T, (2001, January 25). The intervention force:   why African presidents steal? Online:   allfrica.com/stories/200101250062.html. January 26.  2001.

Torulagha, P.S. (1993, April 16). Are African states  sovereign nations? African news Weekly, Pp. 6, 28 &  29.

  Ugwo, M. (September 26, 2002). Why Africa is  crises-prone  Obiozor. Daily Times Online:   HYPERLINK  "http://www.dailytimesofnigeria.com/dailytimes/2002/September/26"  \t "_blank"   www.dailytimesofnigeria.com/dailytimes/2002/September/26  . September 27, 2002.

Winter, J. (2001, October 11). More woe for Senegal  rebel province. BBC News, Africa Online:   news.bbc.co.uk/111/world/Africa/2317445.stm. October  11, 2002.

Priye S. Torulagha (PH.D., MHR)

Page Top