The foundation for present day crises in Africa was actually laid by the 1884/85 Berlin Conference.

Many African Countries are still suffering from the conference’s irreparable damage to this day.

Many historians described the conference as the crucible for Africa’s inner suffering and crises.

The Berlin Conference led to a period of heightened colonial activity by the European powers.

With the exception of Ethiopia and Liberia, all the states that make up present day Africa were parceled out among the colonial powers within a few years after the infamous Berlin Conference.

Lines of longitude and latitude, rivers and mountains were pressed into service as borders separating the colonies.

The Partition of Africa began in earnest with the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, and was the cause of most of Africa’s borders today.

This conference was called by German Chancellor Bismarck to settle how European countries would claim colonial land in Africa and to avoid a war among European nations over African territory.

All the major European States were invited to the conference. Germany, France, Great Britain, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, and Spain were all considered to have a future role in the imperial partition of Africa.

The United States was invited due to its interest in Liberia but did not attend because it had no desire to build a colonial empire in Africa.

Also invited were Austria–Hungary, Sweden–Norway, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, and Russia who all were considered minor players in the quest for colonizing Africa.

Most notably, there were no Africans present, nor there was any European present to ensure that native Africans had any say in the proceedings.

Europe’s capricious post-colonial borders left Africans bunched into pseudo countries that don’t represent their heritage, a contradicting myth that still troubles Africa.

Europeans surreptitiously and perniciously organized themselves in the disguise of bringing civilization to Africa, in the form of Christianity, and of trading.

Africa’s partitioning without any consideration for its history and society, and its traditional boundaries as well, is what has been affecting many African Nations, especially rural settlers.

It was reported in 2002 that both Nigeria and Cameroon had to settle a border dispute in which both countries claimed an oil-rich peninsula about the size of EL Paso; funnily, none of them could site the ancient cultural claims to the land, nor the preferences of its inhabitants, nor even their own national interest, but they rather cited a pile of century’s old European paperwork.

I could also remember some years back when Sierra Leone and Guinea were to determine the fate of Yinga; it was the same colonial paper work that was cited as against to that of the culture and preferences of its inhabitants. In Yinga, arguably it’s reported that; it’s the Guinea’s currency that is mostly used by the inhabitants there.

It’s also said for the same in Banireh of Falisaba chiefdom ( Kabala,Koinadugu District).

Ethnic allegiances were far more open and flexible in the 19th century than they are today, Pesek said. In pre-colonial Rwanda, the Hutu and Tutsi were social groups and it was possible to switch from one to the other.

It was colonial rule that cemented the division of the population, of which one of the consequences was the 1994 genocide.

History has it that members from the Fulani ethnic group suffered a lot in 19,00’s from other ethnic groups in Sierra Leone, especially during the days of the then Siaka Steven’s led Government.

That era was an excruciating moment for the Fulani tribe’s men. At that era, inhabitants in Sierra Leone hold the view that the Fulanis are foreigners from Sierra Leone’s neighboring country; Guinea, but as fate could have it the Fulani is the third largest ethnic group in Sierra Leone, and now relax ably enjoying the Vice Presidency . That shows how falsified our borders are.
Come to think of it of how Sierra Leone and Guinea share lots of commonalities. The Fulani, the Madinka, the Soussou and the Kissi are all among the many other ethnic groups of both Sierra Leone and Guinea. See what’s happening in Cameroon; the Franco-Anglo syndrome.

What about the Bokoharam’s effect? There are so many epitomes out there.
In most of its sense, many national borders have shifted overtime to reflect ethnic and sometimes religious difference, but in Africa it’s different as its nations widely defined not by its peoples’ heritage, but by the follies of European colonialism.

As the continent becomes more democratic and Africans assert desires for national self-determination, the African insistence on maintaining colonial-era borders is facing more popular challenges, further exposing the contradiction engineered into African society some donkey years ago.

I could remember in 2010, on the 125th Anniversary of the Berlin Conference, representatives from many African States in Berlin called for repatriations for the colonial era.

The arbitrary division of the continent among European powers, which ignored African laws, culture, sovereignty and institutions, was a crime against humanity, they said in a statement.

They called for the funding of monuments at historic sites, the return of land and other resources which had been stolen, the restitution of cultural treasures and recognition that colonialism and the crimes committed under it were crimes against humanity. But nothing came out of it. It was a mere parley of empty talks, and photo opportunities.

One question that comes to mind; is why after the dawn of colonial era the then African Leaders couldn’t revisit such borders that do not exist in real sense?

Their argument was to avoid conflict between states; which they referred to as a Pandora’s Box. To me that couldn’t be achieved due to selfishness, greed, lack of respect for people’s preferences and cultural claims to the land and the struggle of power.

I do subscribe to Nigerian and German’s historians that there has always been much talk of repatriations for the slave trade and the holocaust, but little mention is being made of the crimes committed by the European colonial powers during the hundred or more years the white man, specifically Europeans, spent in Africa.

The honest truth is; the actual application of secession and division would be difficult now, if it’s even practically possible; Africa’s ethnic groups are many, and they don’t tend to fall along the cleanest possible lines.

The discourse over whether or not severance is good for Africa is a complicated and sometimes a continuous one. But the simple fact of this debate is a reminder of Africa's unique post-colonial borders, a devil's bargain sacrificing the democratic fundamental of national self-determination for the practical pursuits of peace and independence.

And it's another indication of the many ways that colonialism's complicated legacy is still with us, still shaping today's world of Africa.

***

The writer, Cher A.S Bah is currently pursuing an LLB at Fourahbay College. He is a freelancer, and both a feminist and a Youth Activist who believes in the Pan African Vision.