Lake Malawi/Nyasa row: Time to show strong leadership | JamiiForums | The Home of Great Thinkers

Dismiss Notice
You are browsing this site as a guest. It takes 2 minutes to CREATE AN ACCOUNT and less than 1 minute to LOGIN

Lake Malawi/Nyasa row: Time to show strong leadership

Discussion in 'Habari na Hoja mchanganyiko' started by kijesh, Aug 6, 2012.

  1. k

    kijesh New Member

    Aug 6, 2012
    Joined: Aug 3, 2012
    Messages: 2
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Hili suwala la malawi kutufanyia sisi watanzania mambo ya uhuni wamejipanga kijeshi je sisi tupo ok tusisubili mbaka tukaumbuka wenzetu wapo kamili gado ndio maana wameazisha ubape nani afe nani apone
  2. Aleyn

    Aleyn JF-Expert Member

    Aug 6, 2012
    Joined: Nov 12, 2011
    Messages: 9,729
    Likes Received: 13,070
    Trophy Points: 280
    Waingereza+Malawi< JWTZ. Wote wataumbuka Waingereza na Malawi
  3. Nyenyere

    Nyenyere JF-Expert Member

    Aug 6, 2012
    Joined: Sep 9, 2010
    Messages: 8,057
    Likes Received: 1,600
    Trophy Points: 280
    hebu kamilisha thread yako. Wao wako kamili gado ki vipi? Fafanua wamejipanga vipi kijeshi ili kutwangana na TZ.
  4. b

    blackwizard Senior Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Feb 8, 2012
    Messages: 163
    Likes Received: 1
    Trophy Points: 0
    hivi unaogopa vitisho vya mkeo?
  5. Michael Paul

    Michael Paul Verified User

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Nov 2, 2010
    Messages: 363
    Likes Received: 203
    Trophy Points: 60
  6. Echolima

    Echolima JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Oct 28, 2007
    Messages: 2,860
    Likes Received: 273
    Trophy Points: 180
  7. kivyako

    kivyako JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Feb 2, 2012
    Messages: 6,728
    Likes Received: 2,193
    Trophy Points: 280
    Jina lenyewe linasadifu hilo ziwa ni la wapi! rejea ziwa Tanganyika!
  8. andishile

    andishile JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Apr 1, 2012
    Messages: 1,431
    Likes Received: 40
    Trophy Points: 145
    ni lazima wakomeshwe!ililiwe fundisho kwa wengine wanaonyemelea mipaka yetu !pamoja na wafadhili wao wanaowachochea wamalawi
  9. dwight

    dwight JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Nov 2, 2010
    Messages: 433
    Likes Received: 6
    Trophy Points: 35
    kwa kutumia maneno hayo una maana gani mdau,kwanini usitulie au ulidhani kuna mtu atakuwahi?
    Au mhamiaji?
  10. Shine

    Shine JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Feb 5, 2011
    Messages: 11,514
    Likes Received: 12
    Trophy Points: 0
    Ni rais wao kalithibitisha hilo? ama source ya hii habari ni wapi?
  11. Wikiliki

    Wikiliki JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Dec 20, 2010
    Messages: 529
    Likes Received: 2
    Trophy Points: 35
    Wana jf ukitaka kujua sababu na chimbuko la mgogoro huu wa tanzania na malawi soma hii attachment hapa.

    Attached Files:

  12. congobe

    congobe JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: May 31, 2012
    Messages: 482
    Likes Received: 18
    Trophy Points: 35
    sasa wewe unafaidika na nini hata kama wa malawi waki ipa tanzania ziwa lote achana na kipande mnachogombea ,hata kama kuna almas utapata hata mia acha ushabiki usio na hoja ya msingi
  13. F

    Fortune Samuel Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Jul 31, 2012
    Messages: 15
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Kama kunaukweli ndani ya kitabu hiki, basi kazi ipo. Ni dhahiri tumelilea tatizo na Wamalawi wanahaki kuliko sisi kwani imekuwa hivyo tangu mwanzo na sasa wanahisi wananyang'anywa sehemu na nchi yao na Watanzania. Kikitumkia kitabu hiki katika mahakama za kimataifa basi tutaweza kupoteza kama Wamalawi watashikiria msimamo wao kuwa ziwa lote ni lao kwani kwa mujibu wa kitabu hiki, ni kweli. Ni bora tukazungumza nao mapema kabla hatujafika kwenye mahakama
  14. Papa Diana

    Papa Diana JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Dec 21, 2010
    Messages: 304
    Likes Received: 1
    Trophy Points: 35
    [TD="align: left"]Source: Lake Malawi/Nyasa row: Time to show strong leadership | Malawi news, Malawi - NyasaTimes breaking online news source from Malawi

    comments from Malawi

    BigMan Says:
    [TD="width: 30%"] August 6th, 2012 at 8:40 pm [/TD]

    [TD] [​IMG][/TD]
    [TD] We can take these Taifa's with the right strategy, their military is too old fashioned in its structure.
    5 × infantry brigade
    1 × tank brigade
    3 × artillery battalion
    2 × air defence artillery battalion
    1 × mortar battalion
    2 × anti-tank battalion
    121st Engineer Regiment
    1 × central logistic/support group
    Yes they have an air force but its in very bad shape. Mostly made up of second hand crafts bought from Iraq, Iran or stolen from Idi Amin's Uganda.
    They have 27,000 active troops altogether, we have around 26,000. Our troops are professionally trained and we are known worldwide for the skills and discipline of our soldiers, let these Swahili's not dare to make the mistake of underestimating the might of the Malawian army or the pride of its people, lest they pay a bloody price.
    Like [​IMG] 3
  15. I

    IFRS 9 Senior Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Oct 5, 2011
    Messages: 168
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    Who wrote the book? The answer is chiume who is a malawian! So using this book as a reference is nonsense!
  16. Biohazard

    Biohazard JF-Expert Member

    Aug 7, 2012
    Joined: Aug 21, 2011
    Messages: 1,987
    Likes Received: 260
    Trophy Points: 180
    The Malawi-Tanzania Boundary Dispute
    Author(s): James MayallReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Dec., 1973), pp. 611-628Published by: Cambridge University PressStable URL: JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie .Accessed: 02/08/2012 10:42Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact .Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheJournal of Modern African Studies.JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
    The Journal of Modern African Studies, I I, 4 (1973), pp. 6i I-628
    The Mala wi-Tanzania
    Boundary Dispute
    SINCE Malawi became independent on 6July i964 diplomatic relations
    with her eastern neighbour, Tanzania, have been almost permanently
    strained. Differences between the two states have focused on three
    sets of issues: contrasting attitudes and policies towards the white
    minority regimes to the South, President Banda's suspicion that
    Tanzania was aiding and abetting the attempts by certain prominent
    Malawi exiles to subvert his regime,' and a dispute over the de-limitation
    of the boundary between the two states along Lake Malawi (Nyasa).
    These issues are not easily separable: for if it had not been for
    Banda's outspoken policy towards the white South (which led him
    alone amongst African statesmen to establish diplomatic relations
    with South Africa), there would have been no compelling grounds for
    Tanzania, which opposed this policy, to offer asylum and support to
    his political opponents; and if it had not been for Tanzania's confrontation,
    not only with South Africa but also with the Portuguese
    authorities in Mozambique (with whom Malawi also maintained close
    relations), it is doubtful whether President Nyerere would have been
    provoked during May i967 into bringing the Lake dispute into the
    open. There is no doubt also that Malawi exiles in Dar es Salaam were
    actively campaigning against Banda's regime, at this time, over the
    whole range of his policies, including the question of the Lake.2
    But while some attention to the wider political context is necessary
    for any analysis of this dispute, the physical location of the boundary
    between the two states will remain at issue whatever the political
    climate. This article, therefore, is concerned with the boundary itself.
    My aim is first to establish the immediate circumstances of the
    Tanzanian claim, and the way it was handled by the two Governments,
    and then to focus on some of the major issues raised by the dispute.
    * Lecturer in International Relations, The London School of Economics and Political
    Science, University of London.
    1 In September i964 Dr Banda dismissed three of his cabinet colleagues, and three
    others resigned in sympathy. Following this crisis the dismissed ministers, and a number
    of their supporters, crossed as political refugees into Tanzania and Zambia.
    2 See James Mayall, 'Malawi's Foreign Policy'. in The World Today (London), October
    1970, pp. 435-45.
    The Lake boundary was publicly disputed between Tanzania and
    Malawi from May I967 to September I968; since then, while remaining
    unresolved, it has not been the subject of major policy statements by
    either side. It is important to note at the outset that the claimant
    was, and is, the Tanzanian Government. From I922, when Britain
    was awarded the mandate for German East Africa, until i96i, when
    Tanganyika became independent, the boundary with Nyasaland has
    been a matter of administrative convenience rather than political
    importance. But it is evident, from the inconsistency of the maps used
    in both territories during the mandate, that there was, from the start,
    some confusion as to exactly where it lay. The point is that the
    Government in Dar es Salaam accepted, both before and immediately
    after independence, that no part of the Lake fell within its jurisdiction.
    In May I959, in the Tanganyika Legislative Council, the Minister for
    Lands and Mineral Resources replied to a question about the boundary
    in the following terms:
    In the Treaty of Peace made with Germany after the i9i4-i9i8 War, the
    boundaries of Tanganyika followed those described in Article II of the
    Anglo-German agreement of I 890. The description of the southern boundaries
    of Tanganyika, which include the boundaries of Nyasaland, are as follows:
    'from the point of confluence of the Rovuma River with the Msinje River,
    the boundary runs westward along the parallel of that point until it reaches
    Lake Nyasa, thence striking northward it follows the Eastern, Northern and
    Western shores of Lake Nyasa to the northern bank of the mouth of the
    River Songwe; it ascends that river to the point of its intersection by the
    33rd degree of east longitude'.'
    This did not satisfy members of the Council who evidently felt that
    Tanganyika had as much of an interest in the Lake as Nyasaland, and
    the Attorney-General undertook to examine the problem. After consultation
    with the British Colonial Office, the Council was again told
    in December I959:
    that it was the opinion of the legal advisers to the Secretary of State for
    the Colonies that the southern boundary of Tanganyika lies along the
    Eastern, Northern and Western shores of Lake Tanganyika [sic] and that
    therefore not a part of the Lake lies within the boundaries of Tanganyika.2
    The doubts which persisted were not so much about the delimitation
    of the boundary as its equity. Thus in October i960 Chief Mhaiki, a
    Tanganyika Legislative Council. Official Report (Dar es Salaam,) 26 May 1959.
    2 Ibid. 15 December I959.
    33-EI 35-EI
    0 miles 100
    Nankungulu Hi/I
    0 km 100
    ZAMBIA i Mbamba Bay
    ITS * C~~~~~~hi~c~un~a ~ 1~
    t~~oS v :" 1%~~~~~~~~~~~~~;~ ~~~~~~~~4MDZ AMBIQUE
    ~* Fort
    -*- Agreed international boundary
    O*.. ** Limit of German sphere of influence under ' /
    the Anglo-German agreement of 1 July 1890
    Boundary claimed by Tanzania
    Figure I
    Lake Malawi
    member of the Legislative Council from the Songea district of Tanganyika
    which adjoins the Lake, requested the Government 'to approach
    the Nyasaland Government through her Majesty's Government in the
    United Kingdom with a view to securing a more equitable boundary
    between Tanganyika and Nyasaland'. The ensuing debate is of interest
    both because it reveals the widespread impression in Tanganyika that
    the British had illegally altered the boundary during the time of the
    Central African Federation (a view subsequently adopted in i967 to
    justify a change of policy), and because it was the occasion of a categorical
    repudiation of any claim by the Chief Minister, Julius Nyerere.
    Chief Mhaiki argued for the revision of the boundary on functional
    grounds: he claimed that with approximately 6oo,ooo people living
    along the Tanganyikan shore, and dependent on the Lake for cooking
    and drinking water and for food, it was anomalous that the Government
    should have no rights over the Lake. He also alleged that as a result
    of flooding in I956, following the construction of the Kariba Dam,
    Tanganyikan houses and plantations were inundated and the owners
    had been unable to claim compensation; and that any future modernisation
    of lake fishing - for example, through the use of motor boats
    or by the formation of co-operative societies - was dependent on the
    permission of the Nyasaland authorities. Although several other
    members of the Council spoke in support of the motion, the majority
    opposed it on the general grounds of pan-African solidarity. They
    recognised that any claim would be likely to provoke a counter claim
    and that, in any case, it would seem inconsistent to provoke a boundary
    dispute with Nyasaland while pursuing a policy of Federation in East
    Africa. One member, for example, suggested that:
    the spirit now prevailing among our leaders is not dispute of boundaries
    but it is actually trying to do away with these boundaries in order that we
    can correct the mistakes of those people whom we now call sometimes,
    For the colonial administration, the Minister of Information Services
    and the Attorney-General, both ex-officio members of the Council,
    repeated the official interpretation of the boundary and urged caution.
    The Minister for Lands, Surveys and Water, however, conceded that
    his Department was responsible for the publication of maps showing
    a 'median' line, the result, he said, of a mistaken impression that this
    was the correct and natural boundary in all inland waters. Finally
    Nyerere spoke against the motion. While conceding that there was
    justice in what had been claimed as the usual practice of dividing
    shared waters between neighbours, he continued:
    I must emphasise again ... there is now no doubt at all about this boundary.
    We know that not a drop of the water of Lake Nyasa belongs to Tanganyika
    under the terms of the agreement, so that in actual fact we would be asking
    a neighbouring Government. . . to change the boundary in favour of
    Tanganyika. Some people think this is easier in the case of water and it
    might be much more difficult in the case of land. I don't know the logic
    about this.
    The motion was then put to the vote and failed to carry.1
    There the matter rested until 30 November I96I when Nyerere, then
    Prime Minister, set out the policies which Tanganyika would adopt,
    once independent, towards international treaties concluded by Britain
    in her capacity first as mandatory power, and then as trustee, during
    the colonial period. The central point of this statement was the
    announcement of a two-year time-limit during which Tanganyika
    would continue to honour bilateral treaties, 'unless abrogated or
    modified by mutual consent'. The new policy was communicated to
    the Secretary-General of the United Nations in a letter, the relevant
    paragraph of which reads as follows:
    As regards bilateral treaties validly concluded by the United Kingdom on
    behalf of the territory of Tanganyika, or validly applied or extended by the
    former to the territory of the latter, the Government of Tanganyika is
    willing to continue to apply within its territory, on a basis of reciprocity,
    the terms of all such treaties for a period of 2 years from the date of
    independence [i.e. until 8 December I963] unless abrogated or modified
    by mutual consent. At the expiry of that period, the Government of
    Tanganyika will regard such of these treaties which could not by the
    application of the rules of customary international law be regarded as
    otherwise surviving, as having terminated.2
    Not surprisingly, Chief Mhaiki was prompted to take up the issue
    of the Lake boundary again in the National Assembly. In June i962
    he acknowledged that under the existing treaty the entire Lake area
    fell within Nyasaland, but asked what steps the Government was
    intending 'to remove the disadvantages the people of Tanganyika
    living along the shores of Lake Nyasa incur'. In his reply the Prime
    Minister, currently Rashidi Kawawa, made three points: (i) that no
    part of Lake Nyasa fell within German East Africa; (ii) that since the
    boundary had not been altered by Britain after the assumption of the
    mandate, the Prime Minister's statement of 30 November i96i did
    not apply; and (iii) that whatever the disadvantages to Tanganyika,
    1 For the full debate, see ibid. I2 October i960.
    2 Cf. also E. E. Seaton and S. T. M. Maliti, 'Treaties and Succession of States and
    Governments in Tanzania', African Conference on International Law and African Problems,
    Lagos, March i967, pp. 76-98.
    the Government could not contemplate negotiations with either the
    Central African Federal Authorities in Salisbury or with Britain. 'If
    there are to be negotiations on this question', he concluded, 'they
    must be with the Government of Nyasaland itself and must wait the
    attainment by Nyasaland of full independence'.' Thus while holding
    to the pre-independence interpretation of the boundary, the Government
    held out the prospect of future negotiations.
    There is no record that Tanzania approached the Government of
    Malawi in the immediate aftermath of that country's independence.
    In any case, in view of his cabinet crisis in September i964 it seems
    unlikely that Banda would have responded. Once the ex-ministers had
    gone into exile in Tanzania and Zambia, moreover, Banda's fears
    that his neighbours were actively supporting attempts by the exiles
    to mount an 'invasion' against him, led to a rapid deterioration of
    Malawi's relations with both states. His fears also undermined any
    hope there might have been of quiet diplomacy aimed at a fraternal
    adjustment of the boundary, such as the Tanzanians had evidently
    contemplated.2 So long as the Lake might conceivably be used as an
    infiltration route into Malawi, Banda was unlikely to modify his
    attitude that the Lake constituted an integral part of Malawi's national
    territory. Indeed, it was at this time that the steamer service which
    had previously plied from Monkey Bay in Malawi to ports in Tanganyika
    was suspended.3
    It is not clear from the public evidence whether the immediate
    cause of the Tanzanian claim in i967 was renewed pressure for compensation
    from the representatives of the population along the Lake
    shore, whose lands had been flooded or, as seems more likely, the
    Government's fears that Malawi, as a result of her growing entente
    with South Africa and Mozambique, would allow the Portuguese to
    use the northern part of the Lake to pursue Frelimo 'freedom fighters'
    to their sanctuaries across the Ruvuma River which forms the international
    boundary between Tanzania and Mozambique.
    Two pieces of evidence support this view. First, a series of bilateral
    talks at ministerial level, aimed at reducing the area of misunderstanding
    1 Tanganyika National Assembly. Official Report (Dar es Salaam), I I June 5962. Kawawa
    had earlier succeeded Nyerere as Prime Minister on the latter's resignation to devote himself
    to the reorganization of the ruling party, T.A.N.U.
    2 Cf. Mayall, 1oc. cit. pp. 438-9.
    3 It is uncertain, however, whether this decision was solely dictated by the requirements
    of Malawi's security policy. Earlier the Geographer in the U.S. State Department had
    noted that 'the recent rise in the water level of Lake Nyasa has tended to disrupt services
    between the two states'. InternationaBl oundaryS tudy, No. 37. Malawi-Tanganyikaa nd Zanzibar
    Boundary (Washington, i964), p. 4.
    between the two Governments, were called off in August I 966 after
    Banda had publicly claimed that Tanzania was 'fed up with Malawi
    refugees and wanted to get rid of them. That is why there is discussion
    between Malawi and Tanzania'. In riposte the Tanzanians insisted
    that the talks were intended to cover the whole spectrum of their
    relations, including the problem of Malawi's dealings with Portugal,
    to which Tanzania took exception.1
    Secondly, on 3 July i967, in a debate on foreign affairs in the
    National Assembly in which he was later to explain the Tanzanian
    position, the Minister for Information and Tourism spoke about the
    Government's attitude towards those countries which inherited geographical
    or economic links with South Africa and Portugal: 'What
    we cannot understand or forgive', Hasnu Makame explained, 'are
    actions which have the effect of strengthening and furthering such
    links when gradual weakening of them would be both possible and
    in keeping with purposes expressed during the independence movement.'
    He added that while it might not be possible for every country in Africa
    to take an active part in the struggle for total African liberation, it was
    certainly possible for them to refrain from giving assistance to the enemy.2
    Earlier, the first public announcement of the reversal in the Tanzanian
    position had been made by President Nyerere in an address to high
    school pupils at Iringa on 3I May i967. Having stated that Tanzania
    did not accept the shore boundary and had informed Malawi that it
    recognised instead the median line, he added: 'I am told that the
    boundary was changed by the British during the declaration of the
    Rhodesian Federation, but they had no right whatsoever to do this
    because Tanzania was a Trust Territory.'3
    Subsequently it emerged that the Tanzanian Government had
    pointed out to Malawi, in a note dated 3 January i967, 'that maps
    produced in recent years give the impression that the international
    boundary between the two countries follows the Eastern and Northern
    shores of Lake Nyasa'. Certain actions of Malawi, it suggested, appeared
    to give support to this impression. While Tanzania did not want an
    international issue to arise between countries sharing the waters of
    Lake Nyasa, she wished 'to inform the Government of Malawi that
    Tanzania has no claim over the waters of Lake Nyasa beyond the line
    running through the median of the Lake', and that this line alone was
    recognised by Tanzania as the legal and just delineation between the
    ' The Standard (Dar es Salaam), 3 August I966.
    2 B.B.C. Summary of World Broadcasts (London), ME/25o8, 5 July i967, B/i.
    3 The Nationalist (Dar es Salaam), i June I967.
    two countries. On 24 January i967 Tanzania was informed that the
    matter would receive the consideration of the Malawi Government,
    and that a further reply would follow.'
    The Tanzanian case was now complete, and the dispute might have
    remained quiescent if it had been ignored by President Banda. But
    on his return from the United States he made a full statement when
    the Malawi Parliament reassembled on 27 June I967. After noting
    that if the reported claim were true (as he must have known it to be
    from the exchange of notes), the Government and country were
    bound to take it seriously, Banda continued:
    I consider such a claim and such a statement as rubbing salt in the wounds
    inflicted on the body of Malawi by imperialism and colonialism. I say
    this ... because the present boundaries between Malawi and her neighbours,
    whether to the North or to the South, to the East or to the West, are not
    natural boundaries. These wounds were inflicted on Malawi by imperialism
    and colonialism first at the Congress of Berlin in I 885; then by an Agreement
    between the British and the Germans in i890, again by an Agreement
    between the British and South Africa Company, controlled by Cecil Rhodes,
    and the African Lakes Corporation; and finally by an Agreement between
    the British and Portuguese in i89i. As a result of these wounds ... we have
    now such districts as Mbeya, Njombe, and Songea to the north of us, such
    provinces as Tete, north of the Zambesi, and Zambesia or Quelimane to
    the south, such provinces as Vila Cabral or Nyasa to the east of us, and
    such districts as Isoka in part, Lundazi, Fort Jameson and Mpetanke to
    the west of us. . . which geographically, linguistically, and culturally belonged
    to Malawi and which in our forefathers' time, in our ancestors' time, were
    definitely Malawi but which are now outside ... our present borders. . .
    As to the claim that the Lake should be divided between Malawi and
    another neighbouring country, I should like to say here and now that we
    will never recognize or accept this claim; we will never agree to the
    suggestion or proposal. The Lake has always belonged to Malawi.
    ... it is of course true that in the area of Vila Cabral, part of the Lake
    now belongs to the Portuguese, to Mozambique. But the Portuguese did
    not claim that part of the Lake as of right. They gave up a piece of their
    land in Mozambique in exchange for a piece of our Lake in I949 or I950.
    In saying this I am not laying any claim to any part of land in any of the
    neighbouring countries. I am simply stating the facts of geography, history,
    ethnology, language or linguistics in that part of Africa. If between Malawi
    and her neighbours to the north or to the south, to the east or to the west,
    any country has any just cause for territorial claim on any other country,
    that country is Malawi.2
    1 B.B.C. Summaryo f WorldB roadcasts,M E/23og, 6 July I 967, B/I .
    2 Malawi News (Blantyre), 30 June i967.
    In the light of subsequent events (and in the absence of published
    evidence to the contrary), it may be inferred that Malawi held to this
    line and refused further negotiations. By July the Tanzanian Government,
    in support of its claim, had announced its intention of putting
    a ship on the Lake, 'to help trade'.' Banda's 'opening to the South'
    had aroused deep hostility and suspicion in Dar es Salaam, and his
    speech was interpreted in both Tanzania and Zambia as evidence of
    Malawi's own irredentist claims. If Tanzania drew a sharp distinction
    between those countries which were unable, for historical and economic
    reasons, to break their dependence on the white South, and those
    which showed no desire to reduce this dependence at all, Malawi
    clearly belonged in the second category. Since, in the Tanzanian view,
    Banda had deliberately betrayed the liberation movements by negotiating
    trade and labour agreements with South Africa and Portugal,
    there was no obvious ground on which a rapprochemencto uld be based.
    Still, more than a year elapsed before the war of words between the
    two Governments flared up again. This time it was Banda who took
    the initiative in September I968. At a Malawi Congress Party rally
    at Chitipa near the northern boundary with Tanzania, the President
    drew the attention of his audience to Malawi's 'natural frontiers' in
    an impromptu and dramatic aside. Pointing towards Tanzania, from
    which many people had apparently crossed to be present at the
    meeting, he was reported as saying, 'that is my land over there,
    Tukya, Njombe and Songea, all of them must be given back'.2
    This speech produced a predictably vigorous response. The T.A.N.U.
    newspaper, The Nationalist, published an interview with Nyerere in
    which he dismissed Banda's claim, adding the ominous warning that
    he 'must not be ignored simply because he is insane. The powers
    behind him are not insane.' About the Lake, Nyerere said that the
    insanity of the claim was proved by the fact that the eastern shore
    was constantly mobile.3 Here, then, were two new elements to the
    dispute: the insinuation that the South African and Portuguese
    authorities were behind Banda's alleged irredentism, and the view
    that a shoreline boundary is not feasible in a situation where the
    water level itself fluctuates.
    The quarrel now deteriorated into an exchange of more-or-less
    personal accusations and counter-accusations which were only indirectly
    linked to the subject at issue. If he was 'insane', Banda told
    1 The Times (London), I July I967.
    2 The Standard, Io September I968.
    3 The Nationalist, I3 September i968.
    the annual convention of the Malawi Congress Party, everyone knew
    Nyerere 'as a coward and a communist inspired jellyfish':
    We know that while pretending to be a staunch supporter of the Organization
    of African Unity, Nyerere is the worst agitator and betrayer of the cause
    for which the Organization was formulated...
    History, geography or even ethnical knowledge will convince Nyerere
    that four districts to the South of Tanganyika belong to us by nature.
    It is only because we respect the feasible unification of our Mother Africa
    that we do not claim these districts. All we are doing is setting [sic] historical
    and geographical truth.'
    Banda went on to announce that he was putting a gunboat on
    Lake Malawi to answer Nyerere's claim, and that two more were on
    order from Britain. For a time it appeared that the two countries
    were preparing for a military show-down. In Tanzania, Vice-President
    Kawawa, who had returned early from the O.A.U. summit in Algiers
    after the report of Banda's claims,2 told a rally in the capital organised
    by the National Union of Tanzanian Workers that since they had no
    claim to any part of Malawi it was a clear colonialist tactic, designed
    to bring hatred between the two states, that had led to the alteration
    of the boundary from the centre to the shore line.3 The Tanzanian
    Government then embarked upon a programme of military and
    political education amongst the villagers along the Lake shore, allegedly
    diverting some of the African Liberation Committee's small arms (the
    distribution of which they controlled) for this purpose; they also began
    to spend an estimated /I.5 million on improving road and other
    communications in the area.
    There the matter rested, and by December i968 relations between
    the two states had somewhat improved, although it was clear that
    Tanzania saw little hope of reaching an understanding with Banda.
    In a speech delivered at Manda on the Lake shore, F. V. Mponji,
    Parliamentary Secretary in Kawawa's Office, reasserted that while
    Tanzanians had no wish to fight Malawians they were prepared to
    defend their country against any threat. Meanwhile, he said, they
    would wait for the emergence in Malawi of a sensible leader.4
    The status of the Tanzanian claim calls for further analysis. As
    a preliminary, it is relevant to refer briefly to the attitude of African
    states towards the doctrine of uti possidetis. At the meeting of the
    I Malawi News, 24 September i968. 2 The Nationalist, 2o September I968.
    3 The Standard, 27 September I968. 4 Ibid. 2o December i968.
    Organisation of African Unity in Cairo, July i964, it was a Tanzanian
    proposal which led to the adoption of a resolution under which the
    Assembly of Heads of State and Government:
    i. Solemnlyr eaffirmtsh e strict respect of all Member States of the Organization
    for the principles laid down in Article iII, paragraph 3 of the Charter
    of the Organization of African Unity [Respect for the sovereignty and
    territorial integrity of each state and for its inalienable right to independent
    2. Solemnly declares that all Member States pledge themselves to respect
    the frontiers existing on their achievement of national independence.'
    For the Tanzanian claim to be consistent with this resolution it is
    clearly necessary to show that, notwithstanding the Government's
    pronouncements in both the Legislative Council before independence
    and in the National Assembly afterwards, the boundary was in fact
    uncertain. Given the manner in which colonial settlements were
    reached between the European powers in Africa, and particularly
    Britain's administration of the two territories concerned, this possibility
    cannot be ruled out. Uncertainty, moreover, might have arisen either
    as a result of confusion in the original delimitation of the boundary,
    or because of a British decision to move it. Such a unilateral action
    would presumably have been illegal, unless endorsed by the League
    of Nations - or, later, by the United Nations - at any time from I922
    onwards. The Tanzanian view that the change was instigated by the
    Federal Authorities in Salisbury with the connivance of the British
    in the mid-1950s is therefore of no legal significance.
    Ian Brownlie has concluded that the boundary could have been
    changed prior to I9I4 by British acquiescence in a de facto German
    interest in, and presence on, the Lake, since - until the outbreak of
    World War I - the British raised no objection to, and even co-operated
    with, 'a continuing pattern of public and official German authority
    on the waters of the Lake '.2 Moreover, some contemporary British
    and German maps show a shore boundary, others a median line, and
    some no boundary at all.
    While there is ample scope for disagreement about the history of
    the Lake boundary during the colonial period, the original agreement
    between Britain and Germany does not appear to be in doubt. The
    basic document is the Heligoland Agreement of I July i890 which
    See Ian Brownhie (ed.), Basic Documentso n African Affairs (Oxford, 197 ), p. 36I.
    2 Ian Brownlie, 'A Provisional View of the Dispute Concerning Sovereignty on Lake
    Malawi/Nyasa', in The Eastern Africa Law Review (Dar es Salaam), I, 3, December x968,
    pp. 258-73. For the legal background to the dispute, see also A. C. McEwan, International
    Boundariesi n East Africa (Oxford, I971), pp. 178-206.
    defined spheres of interest in East Africa: Article I (2) described the
    German sphere to the south as bounded by the northern limit of
    Mozambique to the point where that limit touched Lake Nyasa,
    'thence striking northward it follows the Eastern, Northern and
    Western shores of the Lake to the Northern bank of the mouth of the
    River Songwe'.1 Although the frontier between Lakes Tanganyika and
    Nyasa was subject to later delimitation by a further agreement of
    23 February I 89I,2 no further action was taken on the shore-line
    section of the boundary.
    The significance of this lack of clarification seems to be in dispute
    amongst lawyers. Brownlie, for example, considers that the failure to
    delimit 'may have very little significance since a shore line may not
    have been considered susceptible to further delimitation'A On the
    other hand, E. E. Seaton, writing in i967 as an official of the Ministry
    of Foreign Affairs in Dar es Salaam, adopts a more equivocable attitude.
    Having observed that Tanzania had continued to respect the i890
    Agreement on the Tanganyika-Kenya border, on the grounds that
    'since German and British spheres marched together in the North
    and each power occupied up to the limit, the delimiting of their
    respective spheres produced a territorial boundary on the line of
    delimitation', he continued:
    With regard to the southern boundaries of mainland Tanzania the position
    is less clear. Some consider that under the i890 Agreement, the territory's
    southern boundary ran along the eastern, northern and western shores
    of Lake Nyasa, in any event the boundaries between Tanganyika and
    Malawi were settled by two Orders-in-Council made by the British Government,
    namely the 1902 British Central African Order-in-Council and the
    1920 Tanganyika Order-in-Council. Others contend that no sphere of
    influence corresponding to the spheres in the north was reserved to Britain
    in the south of Tanganyika by the i890 Agreement hence it is to the extent
    of occupation, not of the limits in that Agreement, that one must look for
    the southern border.
    In such circumstances, there has been no recognition by the Tanzanian
    Government of the i890 Agreement as constituting authority for the line
    of the Tanzania/Malawi border. (If the provisions of that Treaty were
    incorporated in pre-existing legislation, i.e. the two Orders-in-Council,
    the validity of the boundary might depend upon the extent to which such
    legislation continued to be applied in Tanganyika after independence.)
    In the absence of legislative or treaty provisions the principles of customary
    international law would provide for the boundary between Tanzania and
    Malawi to run along the shore line of Lake Nyasa.4
    1 E. Hertzlet, Map of Africa by Treaty (London, i909 edn.), p. 899.
    2 Ibid. p. 295- Brownie, 1C. Cit. p. 259.
    4 Seaton and Maliti, op. cit. pp. 81-2.
    This account ignores the fact that in I 962 the Tanganyika Government
    accepted the Orders-in-Council of I 902 and I920 as an accurate
    description of the boundary limits. It can be argued that the Orders
    are themselves unclear on the Lake Nyasa sector,1 and that closer
    inspection of the text after i962 may have revealed this obscurity and
    justified the Tanzanian reversal. But this was not how the Government
    chose to present its case.
    What, then, was the basis of the assertion that there had been a
    unilateral and unlawful alteration of the boundary by the British?
    The evidence for this view, which has never been fully set out, appears
    to come from two sources. First, as early as I959 it was claimed, for
    example by Chief Mhaiki, that maps of the Lake, produced by the
    Tanganyikan Department of Surveys, had changed from showing a
    median to a shore boundary without explanation. In his review of the
    legal evidence, Brownlie notices earlier discrepancies in the cartography
    of the Lake, both before the I 9 I 4- I 8 war, and perhaps more significantly
    in the description and depiction of the boundary under the Mandate.
    Thus between I924 and I932 the British Annual Report on Tanganyika
    refers, although not always explicitly, to a centre line as the Lake
    boundary. In I933 and I934 a discrepancy appears between the text,
    which refers to a centre line, and the map which shows the eastern
    shore boundary. Then from I935 until I938, as in the post-World War
    II reports to the Trusteeship Council, both text and map refer to the
    eastern shore line. Official reports and maps produced in the Nyasaland
    Protectorate during the I920s and I930s also show a middle line.2
    Was this change the result of a deliberate political decision or, as
    suggested in i960 by the Minister for Lands, Surveys and Water,
    merely the result of a mistaken impression about the law relating to
    inland waterways? Although this question cannot be answered with
    certainty at present, the evidence is sufficiently contradictory to make
    the Tanzanian charge of 'creeping cartographical aggression' plausible,
    at least within the context of a much wider political conflict.
    The attempt to relate the change to the Central African Federation,
    as Nyerere did in i967, is more dubious, although there were political
    advantages in making the connection. The Federation was viewed by
    African nationalists throughout East and Central Africa as a ruthless
    attempt to consolidate settler control. Prior to Nyasaland's seccession
    from the Federation, moreover, non-recognition of Federal legitimacy
    had been cited as one of the reasons for not raising the boundary
    issue; in the new context, Banda would thus be discredited if he was
    1 Cf. Brownlie, loc. cit. pp. 260 and 263. 2 Ibid. pp. 263-6.
    shown to be resting his case on a legacy of the Federation which he
    had helped to destroy.
    This view of events was propagated in Dar es Salaam by those
    former Malawi ministers who sought refuge there after the cabinet
    crisis in i964. It seems very probable, therefore, that they exercised
    some influence in the Tanzanian Government's re-formulation of its
    views on the Lake boundary. In a newspaper article based on an
    interview with one of Malawi's exiles, it was alleged that changes had
    been made in I956 after the report of a Federal Boundary Commission
    on which Africans were not represented, and which they subsequently
    denounced. The Commission was said to have recommended two
    apparently contradictory changes: first, to move the Tanganyika-
    Malawi boundary from the centre to the eastern shore line; secondly,
    to 'cut the Lake in half to give Mozambique a share', thus incurring
    the anomalous situation under which the Malawi islands of Chisamulo
    and Lokoma are technically within Portuguese territory.1
    The relevance of this view of events to the Tanzanian claim clearly
    rests on the assumption that prior to I956 the acknowledged boundary
    lay through the centre of the Lake. But although such a Commission
    did sit between I950 and I956, and despite the conflicting evidence
    of the maps during the earlier period, the Annual Colonial Reports on
    Nyasaland for the period I948-53 -i.e. before the establishment in
    I953 of the Central African Federation - all show a shore-line boundary.
    There is, then, no evidence to suggest that a political decision was
    taken during the period of the Federation to reduce the extent of
    Tanganyika's territory.
    It is possible, however, that there is some connection between
    Tanganyikan dissatisfaction with their lack of status on the Lake, and
    local knowledge around the shores of the work of the Federal Boundary
    Commission during the I950S. The Commission was established by
    the Nyasaland Government in connection with a plan to control the
    water level of the Lake and the outflow of the Shire River.2 While
    1 This article, probably written by Henry Chipenbere or Kenyame Chiume, entitled
    'Background to the Lake Squabble', appeared in The Standard, 9 November i968. The
    same interpretation of the dispute was given to the author by Chiume in an interview in
    Dar es Salaam in August i969.
    2 In I950 the Nyasaland Department of Surveys commissioned Messrs. Sir William
    Halcrow & Partners to undertake the preliminary survey work at an estimated cost of
    such developments might affect the shore population in Tanganyika,
    there is no record of any official approach to the authorities in Dar es
    Salaam. But a British initiative in July I9501 led to an Agreement
    being signed with Portugal in November I954:
    the frontier on Lake Nyasa shall run due West from the point where the
    frontier of Mozambique and Tanganyika meets the shore of the lake to the
    median line of the waters of the same lake and shall then follow the median
    line to its point of intersection with the geographical parallel of Beacon
    I 7 as described in the exchange of notes of 6 May I 920 which shall
    constitute the southern frontier.2
    The quid pro quo for this adjustment was Portuguese acceptance of
    liability for one third of the cost of the Shire valley scheme.
    One further provision of this Agreement may help to throw light
    on the origins of the claim by Tanzania. When he raised the issue of
    the boundary in the Legislative Council in October 1960, Chief
    Mhaiki claimed that the local people had been told that they could
    use the Lake for fishing 'only as far as primitive methods are concerned
    ... when we think of beginning to use new kinds of nets, boats with
    engines or we start fishing in co-operative societies, we cannot do so
    until permission has been sought from the Nyasaland Government'.3
    Article 11 (3) of the British-Portuguese Agreement which established
    the arrangement under which the United Kingdom retained sovereignty
    over the islands of Chisamulo and Likoma, despite their falling within
    Mozambique waters, used a similar wording to describe the fishing
    rights of the inhabitants of Nyasaland and Mozambique.4 A reasonable
    hypothesis, therefore, might be that this provision was taken over as
    an administrative rule-of-thumb by the local authorities in Tanganyika
    as applying there also.
    The Shire valley scheme, which had formed the background to the
    Anglo-Portuguese boundary Agreement, failed to win the support of
    the Federal Authorities in Salisbury who gave priority instead to the
    1 Exchangeo f Notes betweenH er Majesty's Governmenitn the United Kingdomo f Great Britain
    and NorthernI reland and the PortugueseG overnmenptr ovidingf or participationi n the Shire Valley
    Projec(tL ondon, I953), Cmd. 8855.
    2 Agreemenbt etweent he Governmenotf the United Kingdoma nd NorthernI reland (acting on their
    own behalf and on behalf of the Governmenotf the Federationo f Rhodesiaa nd Nyasaland) and the
    Governmenotf Portugalr egardingt heN yasalandM ozambiqueF rontier( London, I 962), Cmd. I 866.
    For the exchange of notes of 6 May I920, see Treaty Series, No. i6 (London, I920), Cmd. i000.
    3 Tanganyika Legislative Council. Official Report, i2 October i960.
    4 'The inhabitants of Nyasaland and the inhabitants of Mozambique shall have the
    right to use all the waters of Lake Nyasa for fishing and other legitimate purposes, provided
    that the methods of fishing which may be employed shall be only those which are agreed
    upon by the Government of Nyasaland and the Government of Mozambique'. Cmd.
    i 866.
    Kariba Dam project in Southern Rhodesia.' Despite Chief Mhaiki's
    reference to this as the cause of the inundation of the Lake shore in
    I956, it is difficult to see the connection. It is more probable that the
    flooding was due to natural causes: the wide meteorological variations
    of Lake Nyasa (which has fluctuated through 24 feet since i896), have
    long been notorious with adverse consequences for agriculture and
    navigation alike.2 Moreover, it seems possible that the floods in I956
    was at least partly due to cyclone 'Edith' which appeared off the
    East African coast at the beginning of April, causing extensive flooding
    in Mozambique and Nyasaland.3 While these observations suggest
    the economic absurdity of attempting a planned development of the
    resources of the Lake for agriculture, fishing, or transport without
    the co-operation of all the littoral states, they none the less hardly
    strengthen Tanzania's formal case in her conflict with Malawi over
    sovereignty on the Lake.
    Finally, therefore, it is necessary to consider the question of motive.
    Unlike some other African boundary conflicts, popular passions were
    hardly involved in this dispute.4 True the inconsistency in the maps
    prompted members of the Legislative Council to raise the matter in
    the first place before independence. But, as their speeches indicate,
    they were probably motivated more by a desire to express frustration
    at what they considered cavalier treatment of the southern region
    by the centre, than by hostility to the inhabitants on the opposite side
    of the Lake. Some of the peoples of Northern Malawi and Southern
    Tanganyika - the Nyakusa, for example - are related, but their
    presence in both states has probably acted as a pressure for the
    improvement of relations, rather than for any escalation of the conflict.
    Why then did Tanzania reverse her position? Although the evidence
    is mostly circumstantial, it supports the view that the decision was
    essentially a function of the wider conflict between the two states,
    arising out of their differing policies towards the 'white South'. In this
    context, Tanzania's decision to publicise the Lake dispute may be
    understandable, but it was hardly prudent. For it provoked Banda
    into an equally categorical repudiation of this claim, and provided
    evidence for his suspicions that the T.A.N.U. Government was supporting
    efforts to subvert his regime. The Tanzanian case, which rests
    on the assertion of an illegal change of the boundary during the period
    1 Cf. Patrick Keatley, The Politics of Partnership (Harmondsworth, i963), pp. 136-8.
    2 Cf. John G. Pike, Malawi: a political and economich istory( London, i969), pp. i I-I4.
    3 NyasalandP rotectorateR. eportfor the rear, 1956 (London, I957), p. I3.
    4 Cf. Saadia Touval, The BoundaryP olitics of IndependenAt frica (Cambridge, Mass., 1972),
    especially ch. 5, 'The Use of Force'.
    of the mandate and trusteeship, may not be without legal foundation,
    but is, none the less, weak; in any case, the manner of its presentation
    made it virtually certain that Malawi would not accept international
    Again, the suggestion that there was a military threat from the
    Portuguese and South Africans through Malawi was imprudent. Like
    most African states, Tanzania has a small army, most of which is
    deployed in the general vicinity of the Ruvuma River to cover the
    escape routes for Frelimo freedom fighters from Mozambique. Under
    the pressure of confrontation with the Southern African regimes, the
    armed forces of Tanzania have been expanded in recent years, but it
    is still very doubtful whether she has the capacity to open a second
    front, even a defensive one, along the shores of the Lake, or that
    President Nyerere would wish to do so.
    These considerations may lie behind the fact that there has been
    no public reference by either side to the dispute since i968. Not that
    the Lake itself has always been quiet. In I97I there were reports
    that Malawi had handed over the control of some control boats to
    Portuguese officers, who were apparently to keep watch on possible
    insurgence against the regime of President Banda, as well as on Frelimo
    infiltration into the Nyassa Province of Mozambique.' More recently
    there has been a clash between Tanzanian forces and a Portuguese
    gunboat operating off-shore, although perhaps significantly there was
    no mention of Malawi in this latest incident.2 The fact that the I955
    Nyasaland-Mozambique Frontier Agreement gave the Portuguese the
    right to operate over 'all the waters' of Lake Nyasa was, from the
    Tanzanian point of view, its most objectionable feature.3 But since
    it is clear that President Banda will not recognise their case - the
    strength of which in law is at best uncertain - there is little to be
    gained by pressing the formal boundary dispute any further. It is
    arguable, indeed, that if the Tanzanian claim was recognised this
    might precipitate a further direct and costly confrontation with the
    Portuguese on the Lake.
    Meanwhile, although Malawi's relations with Tanzania have remained
    strained, those with her western neighbour, Zambia, have
    improved, notably by Banda's willingness to help re-route export
    traffic, following the closure of the Zambian border with Rhodesia.
    1 Colin Legum (ed.), Africa ContemporarRy ecord: annual survey and documents, 1971-72
    (London, 1972), B452.
    2 The East African Standard (Nairobi), 24 January I973.
    3 Cf. McEwan, op. cit. p. 194.
    On the other hand, relations with the Portuguese in Mozambique
    have deteriorated following their incursions into Malawi in pursuit of
    insurgents, and a diplomatic incident which culminated in the withdrawal
    of the Portuguese ambassador from Zomba in November I972.1
    When the Lake dispute was at its height five years earlier, Zambia
    strongly supported Tanzania's claim, which was wrongly interpreted
    in Lusaka as a response to Banda's irridentist claims, not only to the
    Lake but to parts of Tanzania and eastern Zambia. In the present
    circumstances Zambia would seem more likely to restrain her ally
    from any tendency to force the issue.
    For her part, Malawi has no alternative, in practice, but to acquiesce
    in a Tanzanian presence on the Lake, rather as Britain reacted to
    the presence of the Germans there before 1914. In the absence of
    a major effort by Malawi to control the water level, and to exploit
    the resources of the Lake in a more thoroughgoing manner than at
    present, it seems likely that the status quo will persist. A substantive
    settlement - possibly through the creation of a common Lake Development
    Authority2- will have to wait on a more general political detente
    between the two states.
    1 Africa (London), 14, October I972, and i6, December 5972.
    2 Alternatively, Tanzania might purchase a share of the Lake, as Portugal was to have
    purchased her share in 1954, by paying Malawi a proportion of the cost of the Shire valley
    project. See McEwan, op. cit. p. 205.
  17. k

    kyelatz Member

    Aug 12, 2012
    Joined: Aug 11, 2012
    Messages: 73
    Likes Received: 0
    Trophy Points: 0
    this is good informatio..