The Berlin Conference
took place on the 15th November 1884 to 26th February
1885. The outcome was the adoption of the General Act signed and ratified by
all participants. The main purpose was to secure the development of trade and
civilisation in certain regions of Africa. While avoiding the misunderstanding and disputes
which might in future arise from new acts of occupation on the coast of Africa
and furthering the moral and material well-being of the native populations.
Moreover the General Act the concept of civilization and its formulation in
terms of international law played a critical role in justifying European
colonization of Africa in two ways by balancing conflicting interests among the
European powers, and by legitimating their “effective authority,” that is
European colonial rule in Africa. The General Act contained four Declarations
and two Acts of Navigation. Relating to the Congo and Niger respectively
arranged in seven chapters and 38 separate articles. The following discussion
will elaborate further on this assessment of the General Act of the Berlin
conference exhibiting the demerits and merits of this Act.
The General Act, to begin had
four main features. First it established a regime of free trade in the
‘hydrographic’ basin of the Congo stretching across the middle of Africa from
the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean from North to the mouth of the Zambezi in the
South. Any power exercising sovereign rights in relation to such territory
would have to allow ‘all flags’ equal access to the coastline, territories,
rivers and lakes in question. They would be prohibited from establishing
monopolies or discriminating against foreigners, and goods were
to be free of all import and transit duties subject only to such
taxation as might be levied ‘as fair compensation for expenditure in the interest
of trade’. From this first feature of the Act it can be noted that these
imperialists were set for a trade parade and these trade rules were to a
greater extent an insult to the native Africans as this action permitted them
to trade freely while during that period kings in the African societies
collected taxes from trade that took place in their territories, thus this act
was by all means belittling the native African authority.
Moving on, to the Second feature
of the General Act, the powers bound themselves to watch over the preservation
of the native tribes and to care for the improvement of the conditions of their
moral and material well-being and to assist in the suppression of slavery,
and especially the Slave Trade. When one looks at this second feature, one
can see how these powers were lying in each other’s face as we ought to see
that they did completely the opposite to what they agreed. This is envisaged
especially here in Namibia with the genocide carried out by German colonisers
on the Ovaherero people. This clearly depicts on how hypocritical and hollow
this Act was. It was only for the selfish interests of these imperialists.
Furthermore, thirdly, the powers bound
themselves to respect the neutrality of the Congo basin and committed
themselves to lend their good offices to enable such territory, in case of war,
to be considered as belonging to a state that does not get in conflict with
other states. The powers came up with a great resolution here as they all
promised to give assistance to the Congo basin in case of war since it was a
non-belligerent state. To this end one can say the General Act was a laudable
since it upheld the need for peace on the continent
Elaborating further, finally the
General Act committed any power acquiring coastal territory on the African
continent to notify all other such powers of their claim, and establish
such authority as was necessary to ensure within those territories the
protection of vested rights and, where applicable, free trade. This last
feature of the General Act was reasonable enough to the powers own interests
though to the natives it was not as they kept on practising free trading which
was detrimental to the growth of their economy from tax collection in their
lands.
Moving on,
under Chapter I of the General Act it can be noted that, All the Powers
exercising sovereign rights or influence in the aforesaid territories bind
themselves to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for
the improvement of the conditions of their moral and material well-being, and
to help in suppressing slavery, and especially the slave trade. They shall,
without distinction of creed or nation, protect and favour all religious,
scientific or charitable institutions and undertakings created and organized
for the above ends, or which aim at instructing the natives and bringing home
to them the blessings of civilization. This notion was full of ignorance due to
the fact that these powers did not follow their words as they went on to do
completely the opposite to what they agreed upon. This made some scholars to
refute this act as noted in the words of Anand (1972), in similar vein,
complained of Berlin having contrived the ‘unnatural division of Africa’,
ignoring, in the process, all ethnic, tribal or national interests. This to
this end depicts how this General Act was a fallacy.
Furthermore,
going into Chapter II of the General Act, all powers agreed that declaration
relative to the slave trade Seeing that trading in slaves is forbidden in
conformity with the principles of international law as recognized by the
Signatory Powers, and seeing also that the operations, which, by sea or land,
furnish slaves to trade, ought likewise to be regarded as forbidden, the Powers
which do or shall exercise sovereign rights or influence in the territories
forming the Conventional basin of the Congo declare that these territories may
not serve as a market or means of transit for the trade in slaves, of whatever
race they may be. Each of the Powers binds itself to employ all the means at
its disposal for putting an end to this trade and for punishing those who
engage in it. From the above article one can deduce that the General Act was
carried out by selfish men who met up in the name of peace and trade, we note
that this General Act was actually supplemented by the Brussels General Act of
1890 which sought to suppress the slave trade in the entirety of Africa and
placed restrictions on the trade in firearms and liquor. Showing how weak were
these deliberations by the powers who met in 1884-85.
Elaborating
further, On Chapter III of the General Act, it can be noted that they agreed to
a declaration relative to the neutrality of the territories comprised in the
conventional basin of the Congo ,In order to give a new guarantee of security
to trade and industry, and to encourage, by the maintenance of peace, the
development of civilization in the countries mentioned in Article 1, and placed
under the free trade system, the High Signatory Parties to the present Act, and
those who shall hereafter adopt it, bind themselves to respect the neutrality
of the territories, or portions of territories, belonging to the said
countries, comprising therein the territorial waters, so long as the Powers
which exercise or shall exercise the rights of sovereignty or Protectorate over
those territories, using their option of proclaiming themselves neutral, shall
fulfil the duties which neutrality requires. Ironically later on we see Leopold
in 1889 organising a conference in Brussels on which he obtained, a
modification of the tariff regime, allowing the imposition of an import tariff
of 10 per cent, exhibiting the fact that these men in every sphere were
confused and behaved like laymen’s.
Moreover, in
the Chapter IV of the General Act the powers came to terms on navigation of Congo,
under this Chapter there are many articles but will look at one of them alone
which state that the navigation of the Niger shall not be subject to any
restriction or obligation based merely on the fact of navigation. It shall not
be exposed to any obligation in regard to landing-station or depot, or for
breaking bulk, or for compulsory entry into port. In all the extent of the
Niger the ships and goods in process of transit on the river shall be submitted
to no transit dues, whatever their starting place or destination. No maritime
or river toll shall be levied based on the sole fact of navigation, nor any tax
on goods on board of ships. There shall only be collected taxes or duties which
shall be an equivalent for services rendered to navigation itself. The tariff
of these taxes or duties shall not warrant any differential treatment. From
this Articles it can be noted that the great powers were indeed going according
to what they planned, that is bring civilisation to Africa. Nonetheless Anghie
(2004) points out, a conception of native sovereignty that privileged its
subordination in the name of civilisation, but I want to suggest it did more
than this and that the structures of free trade set out in the General Act
themselves created the conditions for the establishment and operation of
Leopold’s regime in the Congo. To this end one can note that all these
activities had colonial tendencies imbedded in them.
Elaborating
more, in Chapter VI of the General Act the big powers agreed that declaration
relative to the essential conditions to be observed in order that new
occupations on the coasts of the African continent may be held to be effective.
Any Power which henceforth takes possession of a tract of land on the coasts of
the African continent outside of its present possessions, or which, being
hitherto without such possessions, shall acquire them, as well as the Power
which assumes a Protectorate there, shall accompany the respective act with a
notification thereof, addressed to the other Signatory Powers of the present
Act, in order to enable them, if need be, to make good any claims of their own.
At this point it can be noted that this Act was crafted to protect their
interests in free trade. This can be envisaged in Fisch’s (1988) words, he
points out, however, these provisions spoke only of the conditions underpinning
the maintenance of claims to sovereignty on the coastline of Africa, making no
mention of the apparently more fundamental question of why the powers were
authorised to occupy African territories or assume protectorates over them in
the first place.
Moreover, on
Chapter VII of General Act the powers present at the Berlin conference agreed
upon General dispositions, most notable is Article 37 which postulate that the
Powers who have not signed the present General Act shall be free to adhere to
its provisions by a separate instrument. The adhesion of each Power shall be
notified in diplomatic form to the Government of the German Empire, and by it
in turn to all the other signatory or adhering Powers. Such adhesion shall
carry with it full acceptance of all the obligations as well as admission to
all the advantages stipulated by the present General Act. This Act was just a
mechanism by these powers to consolidate power among them, which shows how much
they were aware how delicate this General Act was. This is further supported by
Umozurike (1979) he simply
denounced Berlin Conference for the immoral inhuman and unjust law that it
purveyed. It was after all a conference purporting to determine the future
of Africa in which no African was involved. Due to these circumstances these
big powers had to close all the loopholes on this General Act as a way of
tightening their grip on Africa.
In summarising the Berlin Conference General Act, one has to note that
this Act was the benchmark of this all conference it was more of a conclusion
and it stipulated all the obligations they agreed upon. However it has been
envisaged how cruel and inhuman this meeting was as we have noted that these
so-called diplomats from Europe and America came up with the issue of scramble
and partition of this continent without an African representative. This not
only depicts selfishness but power hunger to a greater extent. The General Act
was a complete failure as it did not manage to end slavery and did not also
benefit natives here in Africa but rather it brought harm on the African
natives through forcefully confiscation of Land, cattle, property, raping of
African women, forced labour and a lot of occurrences that took place. From
this background it is clear that these imperialists lied behind the veil of 3Cs
which were Christianity, civilisation and commerce of which they were only into
commerce to create markets for their goods back home hence the need of tariff
free for goods coming to Africa.
In conclusion, the General Act can be best summarised as pure
selfishness. This is pivoted by the fact that these diplomats where only into
extending their territories and markets which in turn made their economies to
progress as all the powers were in favour free navigation tariffs. Also in one
of its Articles the General Act said it will bring an end to slavery.
Ironically it did not only to be supplemented by another conference as depicted
in the discussion. From all this analysis the General Act was a fallacy in its
truest sense as it had no factual basis, it was embedded in imperialistic
tendencies of selfishness to benefit their own stomachs.
References
1.
Fisch
(1988). For a contemporary interpretation of this history (that assumes the
‘colonial protectorate’ to have already been an established category in 1884) Oxford
university Journal. 364-69
2.
Umozurike,
U (1979), International Law and
Colonialism in Africa. A Moral and
Legal Inquiry 16 Michigan Journal
of International Law (1995) 1113
3.
Anghie, A
(2004), Imperialism, Sovereignty
and the Making of International Law (Cambridge UP, 2004) 90-97
4.
Anand, R, New States and International Law.
The European-African Confrontation: A Study in Treaty Making. (1972) P33
5. The
Berlin Conference General Act of 1885
Comments
Post a Comment