The Zimbabwe-Mozambique Border: from Demarcation to C.1980
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE ZIMBABWE-MOZAMBIQUE BORDER: FROM DEMARCATION TO C.1980 Nedson Pophiwa University of the Witwatersrand1 Paper prepared for the African Borderlands Research Network Conference on “How is Africa Transforming Border Studies?” Johannesburg, 10-12 September 2009 Abstract The paper contributes to our knowledge of African borderlands in general and the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border in particular. It pays particular attention to the demarcation of the boundary and early forms of economic and social interaction across the border among the communities astride the border by illuminating on the lived experiences of people in Penhalonga. Following Momoh (1989)’s characterization of African borderlands, the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border is categorized as a maximal borderland. It should be noted that, prior to the partition of the continent Africans had their own boundaries which differed from those that were drawn at the Berlin Conference. The drawing up of these boundaries meant that Africans were now supposedly confined to certain territorial limits either in colonial Zimbabwe or Mozambique. Africans continued to traverse the border in colonial times mainly as a way of evading tax in the first few decades and also in search of employment. However, when the liberation struggle intensified in Zimbabwe, the colonial government under Ian Smith deployed uniformed forces to seal the border. It was probably the first time that the state seriously regulated the movement and cross-border interaction among the borderland communities. Introduction The paper contributes to our knowledge of African borderlands in general and the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border in particular. It pays particular attention to the demarcation of the boundary and early forms of economic interaction across the border among the communities astride the border by illuminating on the lived experiences of people in Penhalonga. It should be noted that, prior to the partition of the continent Africans had their own boundaries which differed from those that were drawn at the Berlin Conference. The drawing up of these boundaries meant that Africans were now supposedly confined to certain territorial limits either in colonial Zimbabwe or Mozambique. Africans continued to traverse the border in colonial times mainly as a way of evading tax in the first few decades and also in search of employment. However, when the liberation struggle intensified in Zimbabwe, the colonial government under Ian Smith deployed uniformed forces to seal the border. It was probably the first time that the state seriously regulated the movement and cross-border interaction among the borderland communities. There has been a tendency for scholars to regard African borders as ‘artificial.’ Borderland scholarship initially concentrated on American and European 1 Work in progress do not cite borders, particularly in the much studied Mexican-USA border. (Stoddard 1989; Martinez 1989) The theories and other explanations established there were applied by scholars who turned to the study of borderlands in Africa. African scholars initially focused on the events that culminated to the demarcation of borders (Herbst 1989; MacEwen 1991). With time, they also became concerned with the people who lived astride borders and wrote about their lived experiences and interaction across borders (Asiwaju 1991; Bakewell 1999; Kloppers 2005; Merkx 2000). Asiwaju (1985; 5) labeled African borderlands, “special areas of socio-political ambivalence,” because of their location outside the development cores of national territory. He is among the first African scholars to apply borderland theories to African countries. His edited book has chapters that draw examples from diverse case studies across the continent contributed by several authors. Though Asiwaju popularized the study of borders in the 1980s, Warhurst (1973) had already dedicated his work on the history of the northeastern Zimbabwe-Mozambique border where he was interested in the events that culminated in the formation of a border and the immediate consequences of demarcation. The irregular migration and border crossings by borderland communities have been sometimes interpreted as contestations by Africans of international boundaries that were set up by the colonialists. Be that as it may, they might not recognize the borders but, from their activities, borderland communities seem to be ‘co-existing’ in a way with the border. In fact, some communities have begun to respect the borders and hold a sense of national identity and treat their neighbours as foreigners. Miles (2005) has written on the effect of the setting up of a customs post on the Niger-Nigerian border in the late 1990s and its impact on the local communities. He asserts that from both sides of the boundary, national control has gradually intensified, reinforcing Hausa villagers’ consciousness of, and deference to, their respective national identities. Miles argues that locals perceive the border as infrastructural development and a sign of national identity and not division. Kloppers adds an interesting dimension where state perceptions differ from local perceptions of borders; Borders are only artificial from the viewpoint of the powerless and poor who have no vested interest in their existence. Political elites who benefit from the existence of state borders do not see state borders as artificial. (2005; 7) This argument is sustained by Herbst (1989; 657) who argues that the adoption of colonial borders by the Organization for African Unity, assured the new nationalists that “they would control resources brought in from outside, whether those resources be economic or technical assistance, or political support.” The same can be said of the differences in perceptions between the Mozambican and Zimbabwean governments and the borderland communities astride the border. From speaking with the villagers, one gets the impression that these people are conscious of the border’s existence but it does not necessarily hinder them from crossing because they have ways of beating the system. The governments particularly that of Zimbabwe, are very eager to control the movement of goods across the border. The border patrols enforce the restriction of goods across the bush tracks of the border. Thus McEwen (1991; 63) argues that the European powers adopted a fairly liberal attitude towards the regulation of colonial boundaries in contrast to the independent African states who pay closer attention to their inherited territorial limits and controlling the movement of people and goods across them, especially in situations involving the large-scale passage of refugees or contraband items. Despite the regulations imposed by governments, borders remain areas of exchange for communities that live astride them. In his study of the Sudan and Uganda borderland, Merkx (2000; 7) perceives borders as areas of economic opportunity, whereby a two-way flow of goods and workers can bring progress, but can also be “abused” for economic gain through illegal import or export or by capitalizing on different prices and markets on both sides. Despite the tougher economic environment that has developed since the 1960s, interaction between people in northern Uganda and southern Sudan continued. How would one characterize the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border? With regard to the themes and tensions that surround cross-border dynamics, Berry (1997) identified three groups of scholars: those who view boundaries as powerful and progressive—serving to define and advance ideas, activities and outcomes in many domains of social and intellectual life; those who see boundaries as powerful but oppressive, serving to limit and exclude; and a third, recently expanding group who tend to portray boundaries as permeable, contested and not so powerful in shaping the course of events. The characteristics of the Mozambique-Zimbabwean border as will be shown suit the third criterion. There are several scholarly approaches to the history of the Mozambique- Zimbabwe border. The earlier historical works concentrated on analyzing the forces that shaped a borderland society on the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border. Beach (1992) argues that the division on the frontier between Mozambique and its Anglophone neighbours was not a result of any long-term historical event but the effects of the 1891 Anglo-Portuguese treaty. The treaty brought a border that cut through larger numbers of African territories on the border areas and across long- term links between the peoples and economies of the Zimbabwean plateau links. Other pre-colonial works on the interaction of the societies before and after the demarcation of the Mozambique-Zimbabwe border include the writings of (Bhila 1976 and 1978; Blake 1977; Moore 1995; Mutukumira 1999) In his discussion of the “exclusive territoriality” of the Choa highlands in Manica province, astride the Zimbabwe-Mozambique border, Vitarnen (1999) argues that the local population of that area remains part of a larger socio-economic network, which extends to neighbouring Zimbabwe. Virtanen’s study brings interesting aspects about the interactions between the two sides of the border and how these have continued to occur, with some changes having been experienced as the situation deteriorated on the Zimbabwean side. Hughes (1996; 2003) is one of the scholars who have disputed the categorisation of the Mozambique-Zimbabwe border as soft, because, emigration, he argues, stripped off their rights and privileges which they enjoyed in their own country when Zimbabwean headmen