Berlin Conference

The Berlin Conference of 1884–85, also known as the Congo Conference (German: Kongokonferenz) or West Africa Conference (Westafrika-Konferenz),[1] regulated European colonization and trade in Africa during the New Imperialism period and coincided with Germany's sudden emergence as an imperial power. The conference was organized by Otto von Bismarck, first Chancellor of Germany; its outcome, the General Act of the Berlin Conference, can be seen as the formalisation of the Scramble for Africa, although some scholars of history warn against an overemphasis of its role in the colonial partitioning of Africa, drawing attention to bilateral agreements concluded before and after the conference.[2][3] The conference ushered in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, which eliminated or overrode most existing forms of African autonomy and self-governance.[4]

Prelude to the conference

Before the conference, European diplomacy treated African indigenous people in the same manner as the New World natives, forming trading relationships with the indigenous chiefs. In the early 1800s the search for ivory, which was then often used in the production of luxury goods, led many white traders further into the interior of Africa.[5] With the exception of trading posts along the coasts, the continent was essentially ignored during this period.[6]

In 1876, King Leopold II of Belgium, who had previously founded and controlled the International African Association that same year, invited Henry Morton Stanley to join him in researching and 'civilizing' the continent. In 1878, the International Congo Society was also formed, with more economic goals, but still closely related to the former society. Léopold secretly bought off the foreign investors in the Congo Society, which was turned to imperialistic goals, with the African Society serving primarily as a philanthropic front.[7]

From 1878 to 1885, Stanley returned to the Congo, not as a reporter but as an envoy from Léopold with the secret mission to organize what soon after the closure of the Berlin Conference, i.e. in August 1885, would become known as the Congo Free State.[8][9] French intelligence had discovered Leopold's plans, and France quickly engaged in its own colonial exploration. In 1881, French naval officer Pierre de Brazza was dispatched to central Africa, traveled into the western Congo basin, and raised the French flag over the newly founded Brazzaville, in what is now the Republic of Congo. Finally, Portugal, which already had a long, but essentially abandoned colonial Empire in the area through the mostly defunct proxy state Kongo Empire, also claimed the area. Its claims were based on old treaties with Spain and the Roman Catholic Church. It quickly made a treaty on 26 February 1884 with its former ally, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to block off the Congo Society's access to the Atlantic.

By the early 1880s, due to many factors including diplomatic manoeuvres, subsequent colonial exploration, and recognition of Africa's abundance of valuable resources such as gold, timber, rubber, land, and markets, European interest in the continent had increased dramatically. Stanley's charting of the Congo River Basin (187477) removed the last terra incognita from European maps of the continent, delineating the areas of British, Portuguese, French, and Belgian control. The powers raced to push these rough boundaries to their furthest limits and eliminate any potential local minor powers which might prove troublesome to European competitive diplomacy.[10]

France moved to take over Tunisia, one of the last of the Barbary Pirate states, under the pretext of another piracy incident. French claims by Pierre de Brazza were quickly solidified with French taking control of today's Republic of the Congo in 1881 and Guinea in 1884. Italy became part of the Triple Alliance, upsetting Bismarck's carefully laid plans with the state and forcing Germany to become involved in Africa.[11]

In 1882, realizing the geopolitical extent of Portuguese control on the coasts, but seeing penetration by France eastward across Central Africa toward Ethiopia, the Nile, and the Suez Canal, Britain saw its vital trade route through Egypt and its Indian Empire threatened. Under the pretext of the collapsed Egyptian financing and a subsequent riot, in which hundreds of Europeans and British subjects were murdered or injured, Britain intervened in nominally Ottoman Egypt and kept control for decades.[12]


Owing to the European race for colonies, Germany started launching expeditions of its own, which frightened both British and French statesmen. Hoping to quickly soothe this brewing conflict, King Leopold II convinced France and Germany that common trade in Africa was in the best interests of all three countries. Under support from the British and the initiative of Portugal, Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of Germany, called on representatives of 13 nations in Europe as well as the United States to take part in the Berlin Conference in 1884 to work out joint policy on the African continent.

The conference was opened on November 15, 1884 and continued till its closure on 26 February 1885.[13] Whilst the number of plenipotentiaries varied per nation,[14] the following 14 countries sent representatives to attend the Berlin Conference and sign the subsequent Berlin Act:[15]

StateColonial empirePlenipoteniaries
 GermanyGerman colonial empireOtto von Bismarck
Paul von Hatzfeldt
Clemens Busch
Heinrich von Kusserow
 Austria-HungaryAustrian colonial empireEmerich Széchényi von Sárvári Felsö-Vidék
 BelgiumBelgian colonial empireGabriel August van der Straten-Ponthoz
Auguste Lambermont
 DenmarkDanish colonial empireEmil Vind
 SpainSpanish colonial empireFrancisco Merry y Colom
 United StatesTerritories of the United StatesJohn A. Kasson
Henry S. Sanford
 FranceFrench colonial empireAlphonse de Courcel
 United KingdomBritish empireEdward Baldwin Malet
 ItalyItalian colonial empireEduardo de Launay
 NetherlandsDutch empirePhilipp van der Hoeven
 PortugalPortuguese colonial empireAntônio José da Serra Gomes
António de Serpa Pimentel
 RussiaRussian ColonialismPyotr Kapnist
 Sweden–NorwaySwedish colonial empireGillis Bildt
 Ottoman EmpireVassal and tributary states of the Ottoman EmpireMehmed Said Pasha

Uniquely, the United States reserved the right to decline or to accept the conclusions of the Conference.[16]

General Act

The General Act fixed the following points:

  • To gain public acceptance,[17][18] the conference resolved to end slavery by African and Islamic powers. Thus, an international prohibition of the slave trade throughout their respected spheres was signed by the European members. Because of this point the writer Joseph Conrad sarcastically referred to one of the participants at the conference, the International Association of the Congo (also called "International Congo Society"), as "the International Society for the Suppression of Savage Customs" in his novella Heart of Darkness.[19][20] The first name of this Society had been the "International Association for the Exploration and Civilization of Central Africa".
  • The properties occupied by the Belgian King Leopold's International Congo Society, the name used in the General Act, were confirmed as the Society's and hence King Leopold's private property. On August 1, 1885, i.e. a few months after the closure of the Berlin Conference, King Leopold's Vice-Administrator General in the Congo, Francis de Winton, announced that the territory was henceforth called "the Congo Free State", a name that in fact was not yet in use at the time of the conference and does not appear in the General Act.[21][22]
  • The 14 signatory powers would have free trade throughout the Congo Basin as well as Lake Malawi, and east of this in an area south of 5° N.
  • The Niger and Congo rivers were made free for ship traffic.
  • A Principle of Effectivity (based on "effective occupation", see below) was introduced to stop powers setting up colonies in name only.
  • Any fresh act of taking possession of any portion of the African coast would have to be notified by the power taking possession, or assuming a protectorate, to the other signatory powers.
  • Definition of regions in which each European power had an exclusive right to pursue the legal ownership of land

The first reference in an international act to the obligations attaching to "spheres of influence" is contained in the Berlin Act.

Principle of effective occupation

The principle of effective occupation stated that powers could acquire rights over colonial lands only if they possessed them or had "effective occupation": in other words, if they had treaties with local leaders, if they flew their flag there, and if they established an administration in the territory to govern it with a police force to keep order. The colonial power could also make use of the colony economically. This principle became important not only as a basis for the European powers to acquire territorial sovereignty in Africa, but also for determining the limits of their respective overseas possessions, as effective occupation served in some instances as a criterion for settling disputes over the boundaries between colonies. But, as the Berlin Act was limited in its scope to the lands that fronted on the African coast, European powers in numerous instances later claimed rights over lands in the interior without demonstrating the requirement of effective occupation, as articulated in Article 35 of the Final Act.

At the Berlin Conference of 1885, the scope of the Principle of Effective Occupation was heavily contested between Germany and France. The Germans, who were new to the continent of Africa, essentially believed that as far as the extension of power in Africa was concerned, no colonial power should have any legal right to a territory, unless the state exercised strong and effective political control, and if so, only for a limited period of time, essentially an occupational force only. However, Britain's view was that Germany was a latecomer to the continent, and was assumptively unlikely to gain any new possessions, apart from already occupied territories, which were swiftly proving to be more valuable than British-occupied territories. Given that logic, it was generally assumed by Britain and France that Germany had an interest in embarrassing the other European powers on the continent and forcing them to give up their possessions if they could not muster a strong political presence. On the other side, the United Kingdom (UK) had large territorial control on the continent and wanted to keep them while minimising its responsibilities and administrative costs. In the end, the British view prevailed.

The disinclination to rule what the Europeans had conquered is apparent throughout the protocols of the Berlin Conference, but especially in "The Principle of Effective Occupation." In line with Germany and Britain's opposing views, the powers finally agreed that this could be established by a European power establishing some kind of base on the coast, from which it was free to expand into the interior. The Europeans did not believe that the rules of occupation demanded European hegemony on the ground. The Belgians originally wanted to include that "effective occupation" required provisions that "cause peace to be administered", but other powers, specifically Britain and France, had that amendment struck out of the final document.

This principle, along with others that were written at the Conference allowed the Europeans to conquer Africa while doing as little as possible to administer or control it. The Principle of Effective Occupation did not apply so much to the hinterlands of Africa at the time of the conference. This gave rise to "hinterland theory", which basically gave any colonial power with coastal territory the right to claim political influence over an indefinite amount of inland territory. Since Africa was irregularly shaped, this theory caused problems and was later rejected.[23]


  • Portugal–Britain: The Portuguese government presented a project, known as the "Pink Map" (also called the "Rose-Colored Map"), in which the colonies of Angola and Mozambique were united by co-option of the intervening territory (land that later became Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Malawi.) All of the countries attending the conference, except for the United Kingdom, endorsed Portugal's ambitions. A little more than five years later, in 1890, the British government, in breach of the Treaty of Windsor (and of the Treaty of Berlin itself), issued an ultimatum demanding that the Portuguese withdraw from the disputed area.
  • France–Britain: A line running from Say in Niger to Maroua, on the north-east coast of Lake Chad determined what part belonged to whom. France would own territory to the north of this line, and the United Kingdom would own territory to the south of it. The Nile Basin would be British, with the French taking the basin of Lake Chad. Furthermore, between the 11th and 15th degrees latitude, the border would pass between Ouaddaï, which would be French, and Darfur in Sudan, to be British. In reality, a no man's land 200 kilometres wide was put in place between the 21st and 23rd meridians.
  • France–Germany: The area to the north of a line formed by the intersection of the 14th meridian and Miltou was designated French, that to the south being German, later called German Cameroon.
  • Britain–Germany: The separation came in the form of a line passing through Yola, on the Benoué, Dikoa, going up to the extremity of Lake Chad.
  • France–Italy: Italy was to own what lies north of a line from the intersection of the Tropic of Cancer and the 17th meridian to the intersection of the 15th parallel and 21st meridian.


The conference provided an opportunity to channel latent European hostilities towards one another outward, provide new areas for helping the European powers expand in the face of rising American, Russian, and Japanese interests, and form constructive dialogue for limiting future hostilities. For Africans, colonialism was introduced across nearly all the continent. When African independence was regained after World War II, it was in the form of fragmented states.[24]

The Scramble for Africa sped up after the Conference, since even within areas designated as their sphere of influence, the European powers still had to take possession under the Principle of Effectivity. In central Africa in particular, expeditions were dispatched to coerce traditional rulers into signing treaties, using force if necessary, as for example in the case of Msiri, King of Katanga, in 1891. Bedouin- and Berber-ruled states in the Sahara and Sub-Sahara were overrun by the French in several wars by the beginning of World War I. The British moved up from South Africa and down from Egypt conquering states such as the Mahdist State and the Sultanate of Zanzibar and, having already defeated the Zulu Kingdom in South Africa, in 1879, moving on to subdue and dismantle the independent Boer republics of Transvaal and Orange Free State.

Within a few years, Africa was at least nominally divided up south of the Sahara. By 1895, the only independent states were:

The following states lost their independence to the British Empire roughly a decade after (see below for more information):

By 1902, 90% of all the land that makes up Africa was under European control. The large part of the Sahara was French, while after the quelling of the Mahdi rebellion and the ending of the Fashoda crisis, the Sudan remained firmly under joint British–Egyptian rulership with Egypt being under British occupation before becoming a British protectorate in 1914.

The Boer republics were conquered by the United Kingdom in the Boer war from 1899 to 1902. Morocco was divided between the French and Spanish in 1911, and Libya was conquered by Italy in 1912. The official British annexation of Egypt in 1914 ended the colonial division of Africa.

See also


  1. "Berlin West Africa Conference", Encyclopædia Britannica.
  2. Katzenellenbogen, S. (1996). "It didn't happen at Berlin: Politics, economics and ignorance in the setting of Africa's colonial boundaries". In Nugent, P. And Asiwaju, A. I. (Eds.), African Boundaries: Barriers, Conduits and Opportunities. Pp. 21-34. London: Pinter.
  3. Craven, M. (2015). "Between law and history: the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the logic of free trade". London Review of International Law. 3: 31–59. doi:10.1093/lril/lrv002.
  4. Ajala, Adekunle (1983). "The Nature of African Boundaries". Africa Spectrum. Institute of African Affairs at GIGA, Hamburg. 18 (2): 177–189. JSTOR 40174114. Kwame Nkrumah once made the point that the Berlin Conference of 1884–85 was responsible for, "the old carve-up of Africa". Other writers have also laid the blame for "the partition of Africa" on the doors of the Berlin Conference. But William Roger Louis holds a contrary view, although he conceded that "the Berlin Act did have a relevance to the course of the partition" of Africa.
  5. "Student Resources in Context - Document". Retrieved 2018-02-08.
  6. Muriel E. Chamberlain, The Scramble for Africa (1999).
  7. Neal Ascherson, The King Incorporated: Leopold the Second and the Congo (1999).
  8. Cornelis, S. (1991). "Stanley au service de Léopold II: La fondation de l'Etat Indépendant du Congo (1878-1885)". In Cornelis, S. (Ed.), H.M. Stanley: Explorateur Au Service du Roi. Pp. 41–60. Tervuren: Royal Museum for Central Africa.: 53–54.
  9. Katzenellenbogen, S. "It didn't happen at Berlin: Politics, economics and ignorance in the setting of Africa's colonial boundaries". In Nugent, P. And Asiwaju, A. I. (Eds.), African Boundaries: Barriers, Conduits and Opportunities. . Pp. 21–34. London: Pinter.
  10. Stig Förster, Wolfgang Justin Mommsen, and Ronald Edward Robinson, eds. Bismarck, Europe and Africa: The Berlin Africa Conference 1884–1885 and the Onset of Partition (1988).
  11. William L. Langer, European Alliances and Alignments: 1871–1890 (1950) pp 217–220.
  12. Langer, European Alliances and Alignments: 1871–1890 (1950) pp 251–280.
  13. Rosenberg, Matt. "The Berlin Conference: Where a Continent Was Colonized". ThoughtCo. ThoughtCo. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
  15. General-Akte der Berliner Konferenz, de:s:General-Akte der Berliner Konferenz (Kongokonferenz)
  16. "Between law and history: the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the logic of free trade | London Review of International Law | Oxford Academic". 2015-03-10. Retrieved 2018-09-24.
  17. David, Saul. "BBC - History - British History in depth: Slavery and the 'Scramble for Africa'". BBC. Retrieved 19 September 2017.
  18. Craven, M. (1 March 2015). "Between law and history: the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the logic of free trade". London Review of International Law. Oxford University Press. 3: 31–59. doi:10.1093/lril/lrv002.
  19. "Historical Context: Heart of Darkness." EXPLORING Novels, Online Edition. Gale, 2003. Discovering Collection. (subscription required)
  20. Stengers, Jean. "Sur l'aventure congolaise de Joseph Conrad". In Quaghebeur, M. And van Balberghe, E. (Eds.), Papier Blanc, Encre Noire: Cent Ans de Culture Francophone en Afrique Centrale (Zaïre, Rwanda et Burundi). 2 Vols. Pp. 15-34. Brussels: Labor. 1.
  21. Cornelis, S. "Stanley au service de Léopold II: La fondation de l'Etat Indépendant du Congo (1878-1885)". In Cornelis, S. (Ed.), H.M. Stanley: Explorateur Au Service du Roi. Pp. 41-60. Tervuren: Royal Museum for Central Africa.: 53–54.
  22. Katzenellenbogen, S. (1996). "It didn't happen at Berlin: Politics, economics and ignorance in the setting of Africa's colonial boundaries". In Nugent, P. And Asiwaju, A. I. (Eds.), African Boundaries: Barriers, Conduits and Opportunities. . Pp. 21-34. London: Pinter.
  23. Herbst, Jeffrey. States and Power in Africa. Ch. 3 p. 71–72
  24. de Blij, H.J.; Muller, Peter O. (1997). Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 340.


  • Tapiwa Michael Njitimana, Erald Yomisi (2013). The Demise Of Germany
  • Chamberlain, Muriel E. (1999). The Scramble for Africa. London: Longman, 1974, 2nd ed. ISBN 0-582-36881-2.
  • Crowe, Sybil E. (1942). The Berlin West African Conference, 1884–1885. New York: Longmans, Green. ISBN 0-8371-3287-8 (1981, New ed. edition).
  • Förster, Stig, Wolfgang J. Mommsen, and Ronald Edward Robinson (1989). Bismarck, Europe, and Africa: The Berlin Africa Conference 1884–1885 and the Onset of Partition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-920500-0.
  • Hochschild, Adam (1999). King Leopold's Ghost. ISBN 0-395-75924-2.
  • Nuzzo, Luigi. "Colonial Law," in: European History Online (EGO), published by the Leibniz Institute of European History (IEG), Mainz 2012-04-16. URL: URN: urn:nbn:de:0159-2012041215 [2012-04-16].
  • Petringa, Maria (2006). Brazza, A Life for Africa. ISBN 978-1-4259-1198-0.
  • Katzenellenbogen, S. 1996. It didn't happen at Berlin: Politics, economics and ignorance in the setting of Africa's colonial boundaries. In Nugent, P. and Asiwaju, A. I. (Eds.), African boundaries: Barriers, conduits and opportunities. . pp. 21-34. London: Pinter.
  • Craven, M. 2015. Between law and history: the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the logic of free trade. London Review of International Law 3, 31-59.

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.