The New Dark Age

Introduction

Like a lion lying in the grass with its eyes fixated on an unwary zebra, the West has preyed on Africa for over five centuries with scraps of papers masquerading as treaties, eventually annihilating it. Around 5,000 years ago, the first recorded treaty was a border agreement between Lagash and Umma in Mesopotamia. Since then, various types of treaties have been issued, including peace treaties, territorial agreements, defence agreements, trade agreements, investment treaties and international treaties. In the 15th century, Pope Nicolas V issued a Papal Bull that granted Portugal the right to enslave Africans. In the aftermath of the papal bull, Portuguese traders armed with treaties commenced the era of enslaving Africans. This was the genesis of the West’s lust for Africa. From then to contemporary times, treaties were and are still the go-to tool used by the West to deceive, exploit and subjugate Africa and Africans. Historically, the West used treaties, international agreements between sovereign states and organisations, to acquire territories and subjugate the rest of the world under its control. However, in contemporary times, the West has manipulated it to its advantage more subtly by defining the terms of international treaties and using its influence on the international scene to maintain its hegemony.

Historical Treaty Usage

The Berlin Conference, which occurred between 15 November 1884 and 26 February 1885, triggered the hostile takeover of Africa by the West. In attendance were representatives of Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and Norway, the Ottoman Empire, and the United States of America. These countries carved up Africa, with Britain and France taking the largest spoil. The Conference deliberated on “obviating misunderstanding and disputes which might arise from new acts of occupation on the coast of Africa, “civilising the native populations, regulating the colonisation and trade in Africa and ensuring the free navigation of the Congo River and River Niger. Signing the General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa activated European states, European trading companies, European chartered companies, European agents and European imperialists to engage in the race for the scramble and partition of Africa. However, these colonists often relied on using treaties to achieve their aim of taking a slice of the African pie.

The Royal Niger Company, which George Goldie, a British trader, founded, played a crucial role in the colonisation of Nigeria. After Goldie got the British government to issue a Royal charter to the Royal Niger Company in 1886, he set about taking control of large swathes of territories in Nigeria. The Royal Niger Company seized the middle belt and parts of Northern Nigeria. In his book, What Britain Did To Nigeria, Max Siollun noted that the Goldie-led Royal Niger Company signed between 250 to 500 treaties with local chiefs, which enabled him to take control of trade within various regions in the country. The treaty also gave the company exclusive control to extract and produce commodities. After gaining territorial control, the company created a military and police force to protect its commercial interests. It also maintained administrative control over parts of Nigeria and enacted and enforced draconian laws in the territories it controlled. The company’s success in taking control of Nigeria paved the way for British colonial rule in Nigeria. When the British government took over the reins from the Royal Niger Company, it entered into protectorate treaties with chiefs of various regions.

In Zimbabwe, Cecil Rhodes, the British imperialist, used treaties to take control of Matabeleland, Mashonaland and other areas of Zimbabwe. In October 1888, three of Cecil Rhodes’s agents, Charles Rudd, James Rochfort Maguire, and Francis Thompson, entered into an agreement with King Lobengula of Matabeleland. The agreement known as the Rudd Concession gave Cecil Rhodes exclusive mining rights in Matabeleland and Mashonaland. This concession paved the way for the establishment of the British South Africa Company, of which Rhodes was the managing director. Under pressure from the British South Africa Company, the British government declared Mashonaland and Matabeleland as British protectorates in 1891. The British control over this land ushered in the influx of white settlers who renamed the area Rhodesia in honour of Cecil Rhodes.

Between 1839 and 1845, France entered into a series of treaties of cessation with Gabon. These treaties ensured the transfer of Gabon’s sovereignty to France. France also signed treaties of cessation with Cape Estiéras (1852), Elobey (1855), and Cape Lopez (1862). In 1861, Britain took control over Lagos when it entered into a Lagos treaty of Cessation with Oba Dosumu, the King of Lagos. The British colonists gave Oba Dosumu a choice between having Lagos blown up to pieces or ceding Lago, for which he chose the latter. Under the terms of the treaty, Dosumu agreed that he would “give, transfer, and by these presents grant and confirm unto the Queen of Great Britain, her heirs, and successors forever, the port and Island of Lagos with all the rights, profits, territories, and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging, and as well the profits and revenue as the direct, full, and absolute dominion and sovereignty of the said port, island, and premises, with all royalties thereof, freely, fully and entirely and absolutely.”

Similar to the role played by the Royal Niger Company and the British South Africa Company in the British colonisation of Nigeria and Zimbabwe, Jantzen & Thormahlen, a German trading company, was instrumental in Germany’s colonisation of Cameroon. In 1884, Eduard Schmidt for Woermann Co and Johannes Voss for Thormalen Co entered into a German-Duala Protection Treaty agreement with King Bell and King Akwa, rulers of the Duala people in modern-day Cameroon. The two kings agreed to “give this day our rights of sovereignty, the Legislation and Management of this Country.” The day after the treaty was signed, the German Empire took control over Cameroon. 

As the scramble for Africa intensified, there were often disputes between the colonialists over spheres of influence. For instance, France and Britain contended over the lower and upper Niger regions in Nigeria. They also competed with each other to get African chiefs to sign treaty agreements. After the Berlin Conference, Britain and Germany engaged in a serious dispute over controlling spheres of influence in East,  Southwest and West Africa. To resolve the conflict, Britain and Germany entered an Anglo-Germany Treaty Agreement, signed on 1 July 1890. Under the treaty’s terms, Germany took control of Tanganyika and agreed to refrain from trying to take control of Kenya, which was left to the British. The treaty also defined the border between the German protectorate of Togo and Great Britain’s Gold Coast Colony. Germany also recognised Britain’s control over Zanzibar, and Britain gave up Heligoland in exchange. Interestingly, no Africans were present as these two countries bartered over African territories.

There were various reasons for Western countries entering into treaty agreements with African countries. These treaties enabled European countries to undermine Africa’s sovereignty and take control over Africa’s resources and land. By 1914, 90% of Africa’s land was under the control of European colonialists. In taking control of Africa, European traders were at the forefront of African trade, removing the need for African traders and all the profits accrued to the coloniser. The treaties which were supposed to be written under international law were written from a Eurocentric perspective, and due to the unequal power dynamic at play at the time of signing these treaties, Africa was at the receiving end as Europe took all the spoils. 

Methods Used To Secure Treaties

The West deployed various treaties to take political, economic, and administrative control. Cessation Treaties, prevalent between 1839 and 1863, transferred sovereignty from the Africans to the Europeans. From 1867, Protectorate Treaties became more common. Under these protectorate treaties between the European nation and the African nation, the former agreed to protect the latter in terms of defence, while the former agreed to cede external control to the latter while maintaining internal control. The local chiefs and kings who entered into these agreements maintained their positions. Treaties of Peace and Commerce included terms which stipulated a commitment of friendship and peaceful co-existence between the coloniser and the colonised. It addressed trade and commerce and often gave the colonisers a trade monopoly, preventing other colonising nations from trading with the colonised.

Because the West’s intention was sinister, it had to resort to nefarious tactics to get the African chiefs to sign the treaties. Britain effectively deployed gunboat diplomacy to get  African kings to sign the treaty. For instance, in 1851, the British military used its naval power to attack Lagos and oust the Oba Kosoko. After the bombardment of Lagos, the next King, Oba Akintoye, entered into a treaty with the British. Deceit was another effective tool used by the West to get African kings to give up their territories. The treaties were drafted by the West, and the African kings who were illiterate and could not read and understand the terms and conditions of the treaty ignorantly signed the treaty. 

The European colonialist also bribed Africans with various gifts such as alcohol, mirrors, guns, clothes and hats to get them to append their signature to the treaties. The African chiefs were also given financial incentives through annual stipends for their cooperation. Very often, the West used blank treaties to take control of Africa. European colonialists would come to Africa with treaties that had key terms and clauses written with the names of the local chiefs and the territory to be taken left blank. They then gave the chiefs alcohol and got the chief to sign the treaty. Once signed, the agents will fill in the chief’s name and the territory to be taken. The Royal Niger Company deployed this blank treaty strategy with clinical precision. The West also used divide-and-rule tactics by exploiting existing rivalries. European agents would approach a particular region and promise protection against a rival town; sensing the support of a strong European nation, the local chief was more than willing to sign a protectorate treaty. 

The treaties often contained deceptive clauses that the African king thought would protect his territory; however, in reality, he ceded sovereignty to the coloniser. The clauses granted exclusive trading rights that prevented Africa from trading with others at more favourable terms. Some Africans were displaced from their lands due to clauses which allowed for the influx of European settlers. The clauses also granted rights in perpetuity to European countries, binding future generations of Africans.

Treaty Making In Contemporary Times

Only four African countries were independent when decolonisation began at the end of the Second World War in 1945. In 1960, seventeen African countries were independent. By 1970, there were 41 independent countries and 53 by 1999. When colonialism ended, neo-colonialism took over. In these contemporary neo-colonial times, though the method of treaty-making has changed, the underlying principle remains the same. There is an unequal power balance dynamic, and African countries are still entering these treaties without reading the small print. This manifests in several ways. One example is the interaction between African countries and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Even though the IMF and World Bank have representation from countries worldwide, their origin, governance and shareholding structure are Western-leaning.  According to Adriana Chihombori-Quao, the former African Union representative to the United States, the World Trade Organisation, The World Bank, and the IMF were not created to benefit the developing world but rather to aid in the recovery of Europe after the Second World War.

Whenever African nations face dire financial straits, they often approach the IMF for assistance. Before receiving assistance, Africa and other developing countries must sign a loan agreement, which contains detrimental conditions for the borrowers. These conditions include fiscal austerity, privatisation, currency devaluation, trade and capital market liberalisation and subsidy removal. Consequently, because African states don’t have adequate social safety nets, their citizens bear the consequences of their governments implementing these draconian IMF conditions.

When Nigeria implemented the IMF’s Structural Adjustment Programme in 1986, it experienced unemployment, social unrest, deindustrialisation, and increased external debt. After apartheid ended in South Africa, the country entered into an agreement with the IMF and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now World Trade Organisation) for assistance and advice. These agreements contained clauses such as the prohibition of currency controls, wage restraint, removal of subsidies for auto plants and textile factories and a commitment to intellectual property rights. In her book Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein noted that South Africa “wound up with a twisted case of reparations in reverse, with the white businesses that reaped enormous profits from black labour during the apartheid years paying not a cent in reparations, but the victims of apartheid continuing to send large paycheques to their former victimisers.”

Like other countries around the world, African countries need foreign investment to help fund projects, especially when local funding is unavailable. To obtain these investments, they enter into investment agreements.  Two clauses in these investment agreements, namely the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and the Bilateral Investment Treaties, can potentially undermine the sovereignty of the African countries seeking foreign investment. The ISDS grants foreign investors the right to sue if a country implements a regulation that jeopardises its ability to make profits. The Bilateral Investment Treaties provide a dispute resolution mechanism where the foreign investor can take the country to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) tribunal (funded by the World Bank). As a result of these clauses, countries are often reluctant to implement social and environmental policies that could protect their citizens from the harmful impact of the activities of these foreign investors for fear of being sued or taken to tribunal. Just like how the Royal Niger Company and Jantzen & Thormahlen used treaties to take advantage of Africa, some modern-day Western foreign investors have used investment agreements to take advantage of Africa and other developing economies. 

The Forest vs South Africa case is worth examining. In 2006, a group of Italian investors led by  Piero Foresti took the South African government to the ICSID for breaching the terms of a bilateral investment treaty between the South African government and Italy and Luxembourg. According to the Italian investors, South Africa, in implementing a mining charter which called for a 26% black ownership of mining assets to address the gross inequalities of the apartheid era, constituted unlawful expropriation, and they claimed $350 million in compensation. Although the tribunal ruled in favour of South Africa, the case demonstrates the risk African countries face in entering bilateral treaties with the West as they are exposed to suits from any foreign investor unhappy with policies detrimental to their interest.

African countries sometimes bind themselves to international treaties that sometimes jeopardise their interests. The  Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court is an international treaty signed by 125 countries. It forms the basis for the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, since its inception in 2002, no European or American has been arrested or convicted for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. In contrast, the ICC jail cells are populated with black and brown people from the Global South.  When the ICC opened up an investigation into possible war crimes by US soldiers in Afghanistan in 2020, President Trump imposed sanctions on the ICC staff investigating the war crimes. The notion that Africans should be punished for crimes against humanity while Westerners are exempted is a 21st-century variant of the Western civilizing mission to the ‘darker’ regions of the world.

Besides the ICC Treaty, many African countries are signatories to key international climate change and biodiversity treaties, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),  the Paris Climate Accords and the Convention on Biological Diversity. A primary goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Each country party to the agreement must implement policies to help meet the Paris Agreement target. Western countries, which attained their advanced state of development during the Industrial Revolution by polluting and exploiting the earth, are now championing the transition to green energy and calling for countries around the world to reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels. The call for Africa to eradicate fossil fuel is likely to knee-cap countries, which generate a significant portion of their GDP and foreign exchange from the oil and gas sector. Furthermore, several African countries will be saddled with unsustainable debt in transitioning to Net Zero. According to The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, Africa must spend $2.5 trillion by 2030 to meet its climate commitment. Since Africa cannot generate this amount, it may have to go cup in hand to the West, borrowing under strict terms.

At the 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15), which took place in Canada, the 30 by 30 initiative was agreed upon. The 30 by 30 protocol is an initiative to designate 30% of the globe’s land and ocean as protected areas by 2030. The idea birthed by predominantly Western-based academicians in 2019 has become an international treaty. A number of human rights organisations have expressed concern that such policies, which cynics describe as green colonialism, will negatively impact people in the Global South who could face displacement from their ancestral land. Survival International, a human rights organisation that advocates for the rights of indigenous people, says the 30 by 30 initiative could constitute “the biggest land grab in history.” If the 30 by 30 initiative is not handled correctly, Africa could witness a repeat of the ceding of its land to the West.

A Call For African Unity And Agency

Where do we go from here? The task confronting Africa in breaking out of the enduring chains placed on it is daunting, but it is achievable. African states should exercise extreme caution when entering treaties with the West. Before signing, Africa’s default position should be that the treaty could be a trojan horse, which would disadvantage the continent. With a sceptic mind, African states should consider historical patterns that resulted in their loss of sovereignty, economic exploitation, and military conquest before signing bilateral and multilateral agreements with the West. In addition, African nations should use skilled legal experts to scrutinise draft treaties, checking the terms, conditions, and small prints to ensure they are not disadvantaged. The legal advisers should not come from the West, and if they are African, they must not be Westernised in their thinking. African states should also ensure they are not disadvantaged when entering treaties with non-western superpowers like China and Russia.

African governments must realise that an international treaty does not necessarily mean it is in Africa’s best interest. Most international treaties are based on international law and what the  West describes as the rules-based international order. The so-called rule-based international order has multilateralism, economic liberalism, human rights and liberal democracy at its core. It is important to note that many of these treaties are ‘international’ in name only. Instead, it is a US-led Western-centric rules-based order. The United States established the rule-based international order, which gave birth to organisations like the United Nations, WTO, IMF, and World Bank after the Second World War.  Because the rule-based order is Western in its foundation and operation, it is unsurprising that its treaties, agreements and protocols favour the West.

African nations should thoroughly review the bilateral and multilateral treaties it has entered into and identify those that are not favourable to their interests. Once these treaties have been identified, Africa should consider reneging on the agreement. Reneging on a signed treaty may cause uproar in Washington, London, Paris and Brussels, which would likely accuse Africa of breaching the rule-based international order. If this happens, African states should argue that they abide by international law. In law, a concept is known as ‘void ab initio’, which means void from the beginning. A party to a contract or agreement is within its legal rights to void a contract if one of the parties has engaged in illegality, coercion, misrepresentation, deceit or fraud. Furthermore, if Africa reneged on a treaty, it would not be the first to do so. It would only be following the precedent set by the US, which has reneged from the Treaty of Versailles, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the International Court of Justice Jurisdiction,  the Paris Climate Agreement and the Open Skies Treaty.

If Africa straightens its back and tells the West, “Enough is Enough,” it will likely face severe consequences. The West could sanction Africa and use what Ha-Joon Chang describes in his book Bad Samaritans as the unholy trinity of the IMF, WTO and World Bank to devastate its economy. African governments have no choice but to embrace Pan-Africanism to mitigate this risk. As Kwame Nkrumah put it, “Africa must unite. Africa must speak with one voice.” According to Malcolm X, “The greatest weapon the colonial powers have used in the past against our people has always been divide-and-conquer.” When the colonists came to Africa, they exploited Africa’s ethnic diversity. In balkanising Africa, the West was able to weaken Africa. When entering treaties with countries like the US, UK, France, and Germany, African states negotiate as individual countries. This disadvantages them as they deal with countries with strong military and economic bases and substantial international influence. In the future, Africa should negotiate treaties as one block. That way, it can leverage its collective power to negotiate from a position of strength and on equal terms. If the West threatens to cut any African state from the global financial architecture through sanctions, a united Africa should look the West straight in the eye and tell them that it would have to play ball and treat Africa respectfully; otherwise, it will no longer be able to access Africa’s mineral resources.

Since Europeans first set foot on African soil over 500 years ago, the West has had its boots on the neck of Africa. For the continent to realise its full potential, it would have to leverage its unity, break the chains that have hindered its development, shred the scraps of paper that have enriched the West at its expense and assert its rightful place on the global stage.

Selah.

Ahmed Olayinka Sule is a Nigerian writer, financial analyst, and documentary filmmaker based in London.