The Berlin Conference was a disservice to Africa, a fact that remains undeniable regardless of the echo chamber one encounters. What transpired there? Fearing that the late 19th-century competition among European powers for influence and trade with Africa could spiral into a chaotic free-for-all with detrimental consequences for all involved, Otto von Bismarck, the first chancellor of the newly unified Germany from 1871 to 1890, convened a meeting of the 13 leading European nations of the era, along with the United States of America. From November 15, 1884, to February 26, 1885, the assembly established rules that significantly hastened the eventual European colonization of the continent.
Much was problematic about the conference. Of course, it made no sense to invite representatives of the continent to the meeting when Africa itself was the primary subject on the agenda. This ensured that the conference's outcomes would inevitably be detrimental to the continent. Even so, two other results of the conference have had long-term consequences that still resonate today. The extraction of resources and their export from the continent, along with colonial rule, left deep economic, social, and political scars on Africa's face that remain visible to this day.
Then there is the issue of how the demarcation of colonial borders continues to adversely affect the continent. By disregarding existing kingdoms, ethnic groups, trade networks, and political realities, this process apparently dismantled established institutional arrangements. The resulting underdevelopment of these institutions has hindered the continent's post-colonial progress. This understanding of Africa's development trajectory is so universal that no expert commentary on the continent's current state is complete without including the "fact" that "Africa's current predicaments are due to the fact that its countries are 'artificial colonial constructs,' with tribes sitting awkwardly and occasionally dangerously cheek by jowl."
If this interpretation fosters the notion that every nation should have its own state, and every state should contain only one nation, that is intentional. It underpins the Marxist-Leninist concept of the right of nations to self-determination, and its underlying sentiments are famously captured in the Ethiopian student movement's discussions of the late 1960s and early 1970s, where activists debated the principle of "self-determination up to and including secession." Is it sufficient to respond that the idea of a pure nation state does not exist anywhere in the world, not even in the offending European countries?
Was Europe Greedy in Its Exchange with Africa?
Yes, Europe was greedy in its dealings with Africa. This greed led to the balkanization of Africa and, before that, to the "discovery" of rivers, sea routes, and territories in the Americas and Asia. The greed, and some argue fear, in Europe, which left Africa divided into a patchwork of countries with constituent parts sharing very little in common, also fueled centuries of wars, dynastic marriages, conquests, treaties, and political bargains that, in turn, shaped Europe's current borders. In this narrow sense, European countries such as Spain, the United Kingdom, France, and Belgium are similarly "artificial military constructs too," with tribes sitting uncomfortably alongside each other.
The "Troubles" in the United Kingdom, the "Anschluss" in 1938, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Germany in the same year to "liberate" Sudetenland—all of these were tribal wars in the best sense of the description. Indeed, both the First and Second World Wars were the sad outcomes of Europe's fluid borders. Therefore, if we do not have a counter-factual of a country anywhere in the world that is prospering because it is a nation of homogeneous people, we can at least conclude that multinational states are not the burden that experts on Africa, and their national irredentist mirror reflections in every country on the continent, continue to insist they are.
Does It Help to Recognize Another Fact?
Modern European nationalism often emerged in the 19th century only after borders had already been established, driven by governments' efforts to create a stronger sense of national unity through standardizing languages, national systems, military service, and national histories within territories that were already politically defined. If Africa is failing, it is not because of its diverse people patrimony. It is because its constituent countries have not been able to develop shared institutions and national identities within their borders. Without cultivating a common identity among its people, we will continue to struggle to create functional nations.
