Aalborg Universitet African Conflicts Background Factors, Motives And

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by VBN Aalborg Universitet African Conflicts Background Factors, Motives and Patterns Møller, Bjørn Publication date: 2003 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Link to publication from Aalborg University Citation for published version (APA): Møller, B. (2003). African Conflicts: Background Factors, Motives and Patterns. Institut for Historie, Internationale Studier og Samfundsforhold, Aalborg Universitet. General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. ? Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. ? You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain ? You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us at [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from vbn.aau.dk on: November 29, 2020 African Conflicts: Background Factors, Motives and Patterns Bjørn Møller DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH SERIES RESEARCH CENTER ON DEVELOPMENT AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (DIR) WORKING PAPER NO. 120 INSTITUTE FOR HISTORY, INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIAL STUDIES © 2003 Bjørn Møller Research Center on Development and International Relations (DIR) Aalborg University Denmark Development Research Series Working Paper No. 120 ISSN 0904-8154 Published by DIR & Institute for History, International and Social Studies Aalborg University Distribution The University Bookshop Fibigerstræde 15, DK-9220 Aalborg East Phone + 45 96 35 80 71 E-mail: [email protected] www.centerboghandel.auc.dk Lay-out and wordprocessing Britta Mailund Print Centertrykkeriet, 2003 The Secretariat Research Center on Development and International Relations att: Secretary Marianne Hoegsbro Fibigerstraede 2 Aalborg University DK-9220 Aalborg East Denmark Tel. + 45 96 35 98 10 Fax. + 45 98 15 32 98 E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected] Homepage: www.humsamf.auc.dk/development African Conflicts: Background Factors, Motives and Patterns Bjørn Møller* This paper is devoted to some of the potential causes and general features of African conflicts, focusing on the background factors. It commences with assessing the legacy of colonialism with which the newly independent states in Africa were bequeathed, both economically and politically, followed by a brief survey of the implications of the bipolar system into which they were “born” as well as the consequences of its disappearance around 1990. This is followed by an analysis of the economic and political “pathologies” of African countries as well as “the African security predicament”. It concludes with analyses of the various conflict patterns as well as the motives underlying them. Decolonisation and the Inheritance There are various theories about the causes of decolonisation, largely overlapping with the theories about the nature of colonialism and imperialism. Causes and Dynamics of Decolonisation Some analysts focus on the cyclical pattern of empire from ascendancy via over- extension to decline, a structural mode of explanation which basically depicts decolonisation as inevitable, and which may even provide some clues as to the timing.1 Others have focused on the proximate causes of decolonisation, pointing inter alia to economic factors such as the changing price structures created by the great depression of the 1930s, which made colonial production less lucrative; to political factors such the rise of a new great power (the United States) which had (almost) no colonies and was therefore inclined to support independence; to ideological factors such as the growing acknowledgement of human rights and the delegitimisation of all forms of racism after the genocidal excesses of Nazi Germany; or to the struggle of the liberation movements in the colonies. As all these factors point in the same direction, and as all possess some intrinsic plausibility, it is entirely possible that decolonisation was over determined.2 In any case, it happed, albeit in stages. The First World War and the defeat of Germany as well as the Ottoman Empire produced a certain reordering of the imperial map, as the vanquished had to relinquish their colonies. However, by that time the norm of national self- * Guest Professor, Research Center on Development and International Relations (DIR), Aalborg University. determination had gained some ground, e.g. as formulated by U.S. president Wilson in his “fourteen points”3 and as codified (albeit in rather vague and ambiguous terms) by the League of Nations.4 Hence, imperialism was no longer entirely comme il faut. In article 22 of its covenant the League thus referred to colonies as “not yet able to stand by themselves” with the implication that “the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation”. Hence the need for “tutelage”, which should be entrusted to “advanced nations”, acting on behalf of the League. As a consequence, the colonies of the vanquished were not simply taken over by the victors as colonies, but as “trusts”, and a norm of accountability was established, the mandate powers having to provide annual reports on their administration to the League. Moreover, the way in which the former colonies were classified according to their prospects of independence also established certain precedents and certainly a compelling logic, according to which colonies could progress towards independence, in due course.5 In Africa the reordering of the colonial map meant that the former German colonies Rwanda and Burundi were to be administered by Belgium, Tanganyika by the UK and South-West Africa by the UK as well, which chose to “outsource” the administration to the de facto (but not de jure) independent South Africa. The colonies Togo and Cameroon, in their turn, were divided between the UK and France.6 After the Second World War the League’s norm of national self-determination was taken over by the United Nation,7 as evidenced by its creation of a Trusteeship Council. Moreover, in 1960 some clarification was achieved as to the implications of self-determination when the General Assembly passed resolution 1514, known as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Countries, which effectively removed whatever legitimacy colonialism might have retained. The General Assembly, (...) Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations. Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic cooperation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace. (...) Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, and end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith. Declares that: (...) 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural 2 development. (...) 4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected. (...) 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. While this declaration certainly provided legitimacy as well as urgency to decolonisation, it was not without its intrinsic contradictions. National self- determination was thus interpreted as applying only to geographically distinct territories, but neither to contiguous territories such as the Russian and Soviet conquests (sometimes referred to as the “saltwater criterion”)8 nor to parts of colonies. General Assembly resolution 1541 (15 December 1960) thus mentioned an implicit criterion for prima facie accepting a territory as a colony, namely that it should be “geographically separate and (..) distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it” (Art. IV), in which case the said territory should be allowed to freely decide whether to form an independent state or integrate, or enter into an association, with an already independent state (Art. VI). Moreover, it was made clear that national self-determination was a right to be exercised only once, and that it did not apply to parts of former colonies. This norm was put to a test with the several cases of attempted secession from newly independent African states, such as that of Katanga (from Congo) in 1961 and of Biafra (from Nigeria) in 1967-1970.9 In both cases the secessionist attempt was condemned by virtually the entire international community and recognition was denied to the secessionists. The case of Western Sahara (i.e. what Africans call

Load more