Book Launch -- the Curse of Berlin: Africa After the Cold War
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
World Geography: Unit 6
World Geography: Unit 6 How did the colonization of Africa shape its political and cultural geography? This instructional task engages students in content related to the following grade-level expectations: • WG.1.4 Use geographic representations to locate the world’s continents, major landforms, major bodies of water and major countries and to solve geographic problems • WG.3.1 Analyze how cooperation, conflict, and self-interest impact the cultural, political, and economic regions of the world and relations between nations Content • WG.4.3 Identify and analyze distinguishing human characteristics of a given place to determine their influence on historical events • WG.4.4 Evaluate the impact of historical events on culture and relationships among groups • WG.6.3 Analyze the distribution of resources and describe their impact on human systems (past, present, and future) In this instructional task, students develop and express claims through discussions and writing which Claims examine the effect of colonization on African development. This instructional task helps students explore and develop claims around the content from unit 6: Unit Connection • How does the history of colonization continue to affect the economic and social aspects of African countries today? (WG.1.4, WG.3.1, WG.4.3, WG.4.4, WG.6.3) Formative Formative Formative Formative Performance Task 1 Performance Task 2 Performance Task 3 Performance Task 4 How and why did the How did European What perspectives exist How did colonization Supporting Questions colonization of Africa countries politically on the colonization of impact Africa? begin? divide Africa? Africa? Students will analyze Students will explore Students will analyze Students will examine the origins of the European countries political cartoons on the lingering effects of Tasks colonization in Africa. -
Report Submitted to the African Union by the World Peace Foundation Preface by Thabo Mbeki and Lakhdar Brahimi
African Politics, African Peace Report submitted to the African Union by the World Peace Foundation Preface by Thabo Mbeki and Lakhdar Brahimi Report on the Future of Peace Missions in Africa 1 © 2016 by The World Peace Foundation at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. ISBN: 978-0-9801452-4-3 Report on the Future of Peace Missions in Africa i Table of Contents Preface iii Glossary and acronyms x List of charts and figures xii Acknowledgments xiii Executive Summary 1 The Primacy of the Political 1 Emphasizing the African Union’s Norms and Principles 2 African Ownership of the Political Agenda: 3 Enhanced AU Mechanisms and Relationships Africa’s Peace Support Operations: ASF-1 and ASF-2 7 Funding Africa’s Peace Missions: Prioritizing the Political 9 Background and Process of the Report 10 Rationale of the Study: Africa at a Turning Point 10 An Independent Review 12 Scope of the Study 12 Major Findings of the Research 13 Causes of Armed Conflict 13 Underlying Causes 14 Contested Government Transitions 14 Inter-State Contestation 16 Resources and Boundaries 18 Violent Extremism 19 Responses: The African Peace and Security Architecture 20 Capabilities and Norms 20 APSA and APSA Plus 23 Prevention 26 Mediation 28 Political Missions 29 Report on the Future of Peace Missions in Africa i Peace Support Operations 31 Peacekeeping and Enforcement 31 Troop Contributors 32 Mandating Authorities and ‘Rehatting’ 34 Mandates and CONOPS 36 Protection of Civilians 39 Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by Peacekeepers 44 The African Standby -
The Responsibility to Protect
Thethe responsibilityResponsibility Toto Protectprotect RESEARCH, BIBLIOGRAPHY, BACKGROUND SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME TO THE REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY The Responsibility To Protect RESEARCH, BIBLIOGRAPHY, BACKGROUND december 2001 SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME TO THE REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY II Published by the International Development Research Centre PO Box 8500, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1G 3H9 http://www.idrc.ca © International Development Research Centre 2001 National Library of Canada cataloguing in publication data International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty The Responsibility to Protect: Research, Bibliography, Background Supplementary Volume to the Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty Issued by the International Development Research Centre. ISBN 0-88936-963-1 1. Intervention (International law). 2. Sovereignty. 3. Security, international 4. United Nations. Security Council. 5. Humanitarian assistance. I. International Development Research Centre (Canada) II. Title. JZ6368.I57 2001 327.1’7 C2001-980329-X All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the International Development Research Centre. Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute endorsement of the product and is given only for information. IDRC Books -
Berlin Conference of 1884-1885
Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 The Berlin Conference was a meeting of 14 nations to discuss territorial disputes in Africa. The meeting was held in Berlin, Germany, from November 1884 to February 1885 and included representatives from the United States and such European nations as Britain, France, and Germany. No Africans were invited to the conference. The Berlin Conference took place at a time when European powers were rushing to establish direct political control in Africa. This race to expand European colonial influence is often referred to as the "Scramble for Africa." Europeans called the Berlin meeting because they felt rules were needed to prevent war over claims to African lands. Berlin Conference • Going into the meeting, roughly 10% of Africa was under European colonial rule. • By the end of the meeting, European powers “owned” most of Africa and drew boundary lines that remained until 1914. • Great Britain won the most land in Africa and was “given” Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, and South Africa after defeating the Dutch Settlers and Zulu Nation. • The agreements made in Berlin still affect the boundaries of African countries today. • By the 1880s, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal all wanted part of Africa. • To prevent a European war over Africa, leaders from fourteen European governments and from the United States met in Berlin, Germany, in 1884. • No Africans attended the meeting. • At the meeting, the European leaders discussed Africa’s land and how it should be divided. Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 The Berlin Conference adopted a number of provisions: 1. European nations could not just claim African territory, but had to actually occupy and administer the land. -
The Berlin Conference 18845
The Berlin Conference 18845 Germany, Austria–Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden Norway (union until 1905), the Ottoman Empire, and the United States WISHING, in a spirit of good and mutual accord, to regulate the conditions most favourable to the development of trade and civilization in certain regions of Africa, and to assure to all nations the advantages of free navigation on the two chief rivers of Africa flowing into the Atlantic Ocean; 1 BEING DESIROUS, on the other hand, to obviate the misunderstanding and disputes which might in future arise from new acts of occupation (prises de possession) on the coast of Africa; and concerned, at the same time, as to the means of furthering the moral and material wellbeing of the native populations; HAVE RESOLVED, on the invitation addressed to them by the Imperial Government of Germany, in agreement with the Government of the French Republic, to meet for those purposes in Conference at Berlin, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, to wit: 2 CHAPTER I Article 1 The trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedomIn all the regions forming the basin of the Congo and its outlets. CHAPTER II DECLARATION RELATIVE TO THE SLAVE TRADE Article 9 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. -
HE Dr. Abdullahi Addou, Somali Ambassador
DATE: June 11, 1973 SUBJECT: Somali-Ethiopian Relations; U.S.-Somali Relations PARTICIPANTS: H.E. Dr. Abdullahi Addou, Somali Ambassador David D. Newsom, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Wendell B. Coote, Director for East African Affairs Bruce C. Rogers, Country Officer for Somalia COPIES TO: AF Amembassy Mogadiscio AF/E Addis Ababa INR/RAA Khartoum AID/AFR/ESA Nairobi DOD/ISA Rome INR (9) SY - Mr. Shea Somali-Ethiopian Relations Ambassador Addou said that the Somali-Ethiopian border problem had overshadowed all other issues during his recent consultations in Mogadiscio. There were periods, he said, when government leaders believed that an invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian troops was imminent. The Ambassador was elated at the outcome of the OAU Summit Conference and termed the decision of the OAU to create a good offices committee a "great Somali diplomatic victory." Somalia, he said, had made progress on two important points: 1) for the first time, the OAU had agreed to look into the border question; 2) Somalia had succeeded in convincing other African states to look at the Ogaden question because, contrary to other territorial problems in Africa including the Somali-Kenyan problem, this problem resulted not from European colonialism but from Black African (Ethiopian) imperialism. Ethiopia, he said, was a party to the partition of Somalia, having agreed with the European colonial powers to divide Africa at the Berlin Conference in 1884-85. While agreeing that Somalia appeared to have been quite success- ful at the OAU meeting, Mr. Newsom noted that the Ethiopians nonetheless were obviously very fearful of a Somali military attack. -
Italy We Italians Have Been Exploring Land in Africa Since the 1870S. in 1880 We Took Over a Red Sea Port and Began Moving North
Italy We Italians have been exploring land in Africa since the 1870s. In 1880 we took over a Red Sea port and began moving north. In 1882 we officially claimed the area and send our Italian missionaries and explorers to Africa. We have plans to expand all along the Red Sea coast, and have already taken some land and the port of Massawa from the Egyptians. We will work with King Menelek of Ethiopia to sign treaties that will place both Ethiopia and Eritrea in Italian control. This treaty will offer “mutual protection” between us and Menelek. We need the French to stay out of this business, and refrain from selling weapons to King Menelek, or any African chief for that matter. We also plan on taking over Eritrea, capturing Kassala and taking over Sudan, colonizing the Somalia coast. We are happy to work with Britain to arrange the specific borders between our colony and hers. Berlin Conference Italy Speech: Instructions to students On _____________________ you will be participating in a mock-Berlin Conference. The real conference was held in 1884, and it decided which European countries got to rule over which parts of Africa. No Africans were invited to the Berlin Conference. You will read about Italian claims to Africa and then give a speech about those claims. Reading and Speech preparation Answer the following questions in your notebook, using complete sentences. Be sure you thoroughly understand the questions/answers, because your speech must include information from each question. 1. How long has Italy been exploring and colonizing Africa? What have they accomplished in Africa? 2. -
The Scramble for Africa
1 The Scramble for Africa MAIN IDEA WHY IT MATTERS NOW TERMS & NAMES EMPIRE BUILDING Ignoring the African nations continue to feel •imperialism • Shaka claims of African ethnic groups, the effects of the colonial • racism • Boer kingdoms, and city-states, presence more than 100 years • Social Darwinism • Boer War Europeans established colonies. later. • Berlin Conference SETTING THE STAGE Industrialization stirred ambitions in many European nations. They wanted more resources to fuel their industrial production. They com- peted for new markets for their goods. Many nations looked to Africa as a source of raw materials and as a market for industrial products. As a result, colonial pow- ers seized vast areas of Africa during the 19th and early 20th centuries. This seizure of a country or territory by a stronger country is called imperialism. As occurred throughout most of Africa, stronger countries dominated the political, economic, and social life of the weaker countries. Africa Before European Domination TAKING NOTES In the mid-1800s, on the eve of the European domination of Africa, African peo- Outlining Use an outline to list the forces and ples were divided into hundreds of ethnic and linguistic groups. Most continued events surrounding to follow traditional beliefs, while others converted to Islam or Christianity. These imperialism in Africa. groups spoke more than 1,000 different languages. Politically, they ranged from The Scramble large empires that united many ethnic groups to independent villages. for Africa Europeans had established contacts with sub-Saharan Africans as early as the I. Africa Before 1450s. However, powerful African armies were able to keep the Europeans out European of most of Africa for 400 years. -
By Emmaculate Asige Liaga and Cori Wielenga
SOCIAL COHESION FROM THE TOP-DOWN OR BOTTOM-UP?THE CASES OF SOUTH SUDAN AND BURUNDI by Emmaculate Asige Liaga and Cori Wielenga Both Burundi and South Sudan experience intractable conflicts which national and international actors struggle to resolve. Efforts to consolidate the nation-state and foster social cohesion seem to be unsuccessful. As has been well documented in the literature, top-down efforts to facilitate social cohesion by international and national actors are not enough to fos- ter sustainable peace. Yet the dynamics and actors involved in bottom-up interventions for social cohesion are less well understood than elite inter- ventions. This article contributes to a deeper understanding of the bottom- up interventions and explores the vertical integration between top-down and bottom-up efforts at social cohesion that exist along the local, national, and international trajectory in the two cases. Particularly in con- texts such as South Sudan and Burundi, which are characterized by soci- eties that are held together through complex social and relational networks, and in which informal governance and conflict resolution mech- anisms hold high levels of legitimacy, this under-researched aspect of social cohesion may hold critical insights in terms of consolidating nation- states. The article provides an argument for the consideration of bottom- up approaches for more integration of social cohesion mechanisms. INTRODUCTION In the context of increasing intrastate conflict in Africa, there have been questions around how people in a given political society cohere or “stick together.” Our discussion is situated in the growing concern with the limitations of statebuilding as a means of securing sustained peace and social cohesion.1 There is a growing interest in nationbuild- ing as an alternative way to approach rebuilding divided societies, but PEACE & CHANGE, Vol. -
Status Competition in Africa: Explaining the Rwandan
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT—NOT THE VERSION OF RECORD. PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR CIRCULATE WITHOUT THE AUTHOR’S PERMISSION. STATUS COMPETITION IN AFRICA: EXPLAINING THE RWANDAN- UGANDAN CLASHES IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO 1 HENNING TAMM ABSTRACT Yoweri Museveni’s rebels seized power in Uganda in 1986, with Rwandan refugees making up roughly a quarter of his troops. These refugees then took power in Rwanda in 1994 with support from Museveni’s regime. Subsequently, between 1999 and 2000, the Rwandan and Ugandan comrades-in-arms turned on each other in a series of deadly clashes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a country they had invaded together only one year earlier. What explains these fratri- cidal clashes? This article contends that a social-psychological perspective focused on status competition between the Rwandan and Ugandan ruling elites provides the most compelling an- swer. Long treated as ‘boys’, the new Rwandan rulers strove to enhance their social status vis-à- vis the Ugandans, seeking first equality and then regional superiority. Economic disputes over Congo’s natural resources at times complemented this struggle for status but cannot explain all of its phases. The article draws on interviews with senior Rwandan, Ugandan, and former Con- golese rebel officials, and triangulates them with statements given to national and regional newspapers at the time of the clashes. More broadly, it builds on the recently revitalized study of status competition in world politics and makes a case for integrating research on inter-African relations. IN AUGUST 1999, AND AGAIN IN MAY AND JUNE 2000, Rwandan and Ugandan troops fought each other in Kisangani, a large city in north-eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). -
Destiny Worse Than Artificial Borders in Africa: Somali Elite Politics1
Destiny Worse than Artificial Borders in Africa: Somali Elite Politics1 Abdi Ismail Samatar I. Introduction Much political and scholarly energy has been spent in understanding the nature and impacts of political boundaries on African development and public life. The standard argument by many anticolonial groups is that the Berlin Conference that instigated the European scramble for Africa in the 19th century paid no attention to the geography of Afri- can livelihood experiences.2 Drawing boundaries engulfing territories claimed by various Europeans was arbitrary, and the legacy of their existence has caused much grief in the continent.3 It is a fact that colo- nial boundaries in Africa were artificial, but it is also the case that all political boundaries nearly everywhere are not natural. Most of these studies underscore how artificial colonial borders seg- mented communities that shared economic, ecological and cultural resources. In some cases, these boundaries have been the “cause” of inter-state conflicts between post-colonial countries, i.e., Ethiopia and Eritrea, Ethiopia and Somalia; Kenya and Somalia; Algeria and Morocco; Libya and Chad. But other equally artificial borders in the continent have not incited similar conflagrations despite fragmenting cultural, religious and ethnic groups, such as the Massai of Kenya and Tanzania, and the many communities that straddle along the borders of South Africa, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, etc. An unexplored question that demands urgent attention is why conflicts develop over some borders and not over others in different parts of the continent.4 As important as this question is, this paper examines a related but 19 Bildhaan Vol. -
JAN - JUN Livelihood, Land and Rights Project
MAKERERE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES The London School of Economics and Political Science has been awarded funding to establish a Gender, Justice and Security Hub, with Makerere University as one of the Lead Research Partner Institutions. The Acting Principal of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr Josephine Ahikire is Co-Director on the programme and will serve as a member of the Executive Group that will oversee the Hub’s research agenda, strategy impact and engagement plans. The Hub is a five-year project funded by the UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund and will commence work on 13th February 2019. It is a unique coalition of major UK and DAC-list country research institutions, working extensively with local and global civil society, practitioners, governments and internation- al organizations to advance gender, justice and inclusive peace. It is led by Prof. Christine Chinkin from the Centre for Women, Peace and Security at London School of Economics and Political Science, working with partners around the world and focusing on eight core sites: Afghanistan, Colombia, Iraq, Lebanon, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Uganda. The Hub will deliver innovative interdisciplinary research on and impact towards achiev- ing gender, justice and inclusive security in conflict-affected societies. In doing so, the Hub will address the overlap of the three major policy fields: Sustainable Development Goals (SDG5) on gender equality, SDG16 on peace, justice and strong institutions and the implementation of United Nations (UN) Security Council Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. Each of these tackles a major barrier to human development and securi- MONTHS ty.