The conference of Berlin, as illustrated in German newspaperDie GartenlaubeThe conference of Berlin, as illustrated inIllustrirte Zeitung
TheBerlin Conference of 1884–1885 was a meeting ofcolonial powers that concluded with the signing of theGeneral Act of Berlin,[1] an agreement regulatingEuropean colonisation and trade in Africa during theNew Imperialism period. The conference of fourteen countries was organised byOtto von Bismarck, the firstchancellor of Germany, at the request ofLeopold II of Belgium at a building (No. 77, now No. 92) on Berlin’s centralWilhelmstrasse.[2] It met on 15 November 1884 and, after anadjournment, concluded on 26 February 1885 with the signing of the General Act. During the conference, attendees also discussed other related issues and agreed on a common framework for the recognition of European ''effective occupation'' of African coastal territory elsewhere on the continent. After the conference, the pace of European claims being made on African territory increased, part of the Scramble for Africa that had already begun.[3]
The General Act of Berlin can be seen as the formalisation of theScramble for Africa that was already in full swing.[4] The conference contributed to ushering in a period of heightened colonial activity by European powers, and is sometimes cited as being responsible for the "carve-up ofAfrica".[5] However, some scholars warn against overstating its role in the colonial partitioning of Africa, drawing attention to the many bilateral agreements concluded before and after the conference.[6][7][8] A 2024 study found that the only borders set at the conference were those of theCongo region (and these were subsequently revised), and that most of Africa’s borders did not take their final form until over two decades later.[9]Wm. Roger Louis conceded, however, that "the Berlin Act did have a relevance to the course of the partition" of Africa.[citation needed]
European powers were also driven by economic motivations, as competition for the vast natural resources on the continent were crucial for industrialization and expansion. As European industries grew, the raw materials such asrubber,minerals,ivory, andcotton made Africa highly valuable. Control over Africa’s vast markets enabled European powers to sell manufactured goods, reinforcing their economic dominance in both resources and trade. The Berlin Conference (1884–1885) formalized these ambitions by recognizing territorial claims in resource-rich areas and establishing regulations to reduce conflict among competing colonial powers. Economic rivalries, particularly between Britain and France, heightened the urgency to secure colonies before monopolies could be established in strategic regions such as the Congo Basin. The industrial surplus in Europe further encouraged expansion, as African colonies provided both raw materials for European industries and ready markets for European manufactured products.[10][11]
Cartoon depictingLeopold II and other imperial powers at the Berlin Conference
Prior to the conference, European diplomats approached African rulers and the French leaders had already invaded some parts of Lagos in the same manner as they had in the Western Hemisphere, by establishing a connection to local trade networks. In the early 19th century, the European demand forivory, which was then often used in the production ofluxury goods, led many European merchants into the interior markets of Africa.[citation needed] European spheres of power and influence were limited to coastal Africa at this time as Europeans had only established trading posts (protected by gunboats).[12]
In 1876, KingLeopold II of Belgium, who had founded and controlled theInternational African Association the same year, invitedHenry Morton Stanley to join him in researching and "civilising" the continent. In 1878, theInternational Congo Society was also formed, with more economic goals but still closely related to the former society. Leopold secretly bought off the foreign investors in the Congo Society, which was turned toimperialistic goals, with the "African Society" serving primarily as a philanthropic front.[13]
Explorers and missionaries played a significant role in laying the groundwork for the Berlin Conference (1884–1885). They mapped large parts of the continent, negotiated treaties with local leaders, and promoted narratives that justified European expansion. Notably, Henry Morton Stanley conducted expeditions into the Congo Basin on behalf of King Leopold II, securing treaties that later enabled Belgium to claim sovereignty over the region. Missionaries similarly advanced European influence by seeking to spread Christianity and Western cultural values, often aligning their religious activities with the objectives of colonial expansion. Mission stations frequently served as early outposts of European presence, combining religious instruction with political functions. Reports from both explorers and missionaries depicted Africa as a land of economic potential and as a target for what was termed the “civilizing mission.”
From 1878 to 1885, Stanley returned to the Congo not as a reporter but as Leopold's agent, with the secret mission to organize what would become known as theCongo Free State soon after the closure of the Berlin Conference in August 1885.[8][14][6] French agents discovered Leopold's plans, and in responseFrance sent its own explorers to Africa. In 1881, French naval officerPierre de Brazza was dispatched to central Africa, travelled into the western Congo basin, and raised the French flag over the newly foundedBrazzaville in what is now theRepublic of Congo. Finally,Portugal, which had essentially abandoned acolonial empire in the area, long held through the mostly defunct proxyKingdom of Kongo, also claimed the area, based on old treaties withRestoration-era Spain and theCatholic Church. It quickly made a treaty on 26 February 1884 with its old ally,Great Britain, to block off the Congo Society's access to the Atlantic.
By the early 1880s, many factors including diplomatic successes, greater European local knowledge, and the demand for resources such as gold, timber, and rubber, triggered dramatically increased European involvement in the continent of Africa. Stanley's charting of theCongo River Basin (1874–1877) removed the lastterra incognita from European maps of the continent, delineating the areas of British, Portuguese, French and Belgian control. These European nations raced to annex territory that might be claimed by rivals.[15]
France moved to take overTunisia, one of the last of theBarbary states, using a claim of anotherpiracy incident. French claims by Pierre de Brazza were quickly acted on by the French military, which took control of what is now theRepublic of the Congo in 1881 andGuinea in 1884.Italy became part of theTriple Alliance, an event that upset Bismarck's carefully laid plans and ledGermany to join the European invasion of Africa.[16]
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 theSuez Canal, Britain saw its vital trade route through Egypt to India threatened. Because of the collapsed Egyptian financing and asubsequent mutiny in which hundreds of British subjects were murdered or injured, Britain intervened in the nominallyOttomanKhedivate of Egypt, which it controlled for decades.[17]
The European race for colonies made Germany start launching expeditions of its own, which frightened both British and French statesmen. Hoping to quickly soothe the brewing conflict, Belgian 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, theChancellor 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 a joint policy on the African continent.
The conference opened on 15 November 1884 and closed on 26 February 1885.[18] The number ofplenipotentiaries varied per nation,[19] but these 14 countries sent representatives to attend the Berlin Conference and sign the subsequent Berlin Act:[20]
The properties occupied by Belgian King Leopold's International Congo Society, the name used in the General Act, were confirmed as the Society's. On 1 August 1885, a few months after the closure of the Berlin Conference, Leopold's Vice-Administrator General in the Congo,Francis de Winton, announced that the territory was henceforth called "theCongo Free State", a name that in fact was not in use at the time of the conference and does not appear in the General Act.[14][6][8] The Belgian officialLaw Gazette later stated that from that same 1 August 1885 onwards, Leopold II was to be considered Sovereign of the new state, again an issue never discussed, let alone decided, at the Berlin Conference.[25][26]
The 14 signatory powers would havefree trade throughout theCongo Basin as well asLake Malawi and east of it in an area south of 5° N.
TheNiger andCongo rivers were made free for ship traffic.
The Principle of Effective Occupation (based on effective occupation, see below) was introduced to prevent powers from 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 aprotectorate, 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 tospheres of influence is contained in the Berlin Act.
Theprinciple of effective occupation stated that a power could acquire rights over colonial lands only if it possessed them or had effective occupation: if it had treaties with local leaders, flew its flag there, and 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. That principle became important not only as a basis for the European powers to acquire territorialsovereignty in Africa but also for delimiting their respective overseas possessions, as effective occupation served in some instances as a criterion for settling colonial boundary disputes. However, as the scope of the Berlin Act was limited to the lands that fronted on the African coast, European powers in numerous instances later claimed rights over interior lands without demonstrating the requirement of effective occupation, as articulated in Article 35 of the Final Act.
Comparison of Africa in the years 1880 and 1913
At the Berlin Conference (1884–1885), the interpretation of the Principle of Effective Occupation was a major point of contention, particularly between Germany and France. Germany, as a relatively new colonial power in Africa, argued that no state should hold legal rights to a territory unless it exercised strong and continuous political authority there. This interpretation implied that colonial control should be based on demonstrable administrative presence and, if necessary, limited to temporary occupation. Britain, by contrast, viewed Germany as a latecomer to African colonization and assumed it was unlikely to acquire extensive territories beyond its initial claims—claims that were nonetheless proving to be more valuable than many British possessions.[27] That logic caused it to be 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,Britain had large territorial holdings there and wanted to keep them while it minimised its responsibilities and administrative costs. In the end, the British view prevailed.
The reluctance of European powers to exercise direct control over their African territories is evident in the protocols of the Berlin Conference, particularly regarding the Principle of Effective Occupation. To reconcile differing positions—especially between Germany and Britain—the powers ultimately agreed that effective occupation could be established by a European state setting up a coastal base, from which it could expand into the interior. The conference participants did not view the rules of occupation as requiring full European hegemony on the ground. Belgium had initially proposed that effective occupation should include obligations to "cause peace to be administered," but this provision was removed from the final document due to opposition from Britain and France.
That principle, along with others that were written at the conference, allowed the Europeans to conquer Africa but to do as little as possible to administer or control it. The principle did not apply so much to the hinterlands of Africa at the time of the conference. This gave rise tohinterland 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, that theory caused problems and was later rejected.[28]
Portugal–Britain: The Portuguese government presented a project, known as the "Pink Map", or the "Rose-Coloured Map", in which the colonies ofAngola andMozambique were united by co-option of the intervening territory (the land later becameZambia,Zimbabwe, andMalawi). All of the countries attending the conference, except for Britain, endorsed Portugal's ambitions, and just over five years later, in 1890, the British governmentissued an ultimatum that demanded the Portuguese withdraw from the disputed area.[citation needed]
France–Britain: A line running fromSay in Niger toMaroua, on the northeastern coast ofLake Chad, determined which part belonged to whom. France would own territory to the north of the line, and Britain would own territory to the south of it. The basin of theNile would be British, with the French taking the basin of Lake Chad. Furthermore, between the11th and15th degrees north inlatitude, the border would pass betweenOuaddaï, which would be French, andDarfur in Sudan, which would be British. In reality, ano man's land 200 km wide was put in place between the21st and23rd meridians east.
France–Germany: The area to the north of a line, formed by the intersection of the14th meridian east and Miltou, was designated to be French, and the area to the south would be German, later calledGerman Cameroon.
Britain–Germany: The separation came in the form of a line passing throughYola, on theBenue,Dekoa, going up to the extremity ofLake Chad.
The Berlin Conference offered European powers a framework to redirect their rivalries outward, allowing them to expand into new territories while addressing growing interests from the United States, Russia, and Japan. It also provided a platform for constructive dialogue aimed at limiting future conflicts among European states. As a result, colonial rule was established across nearly the entire African continent. Following World War II, when African nations gained independence, they did so as fragmented states, reflecting the arbitrary boundaries and divisions imposed during the colonial period.[29]
Despite the far-reaching consequences of the Berlin Conference, no African rulers were invited to participate. European powers divided the continent based solely on their economic and political interests, disregarding existing borders and the will of the local populations. Pre-existing power structures were largely ignored, and arbitrary boundaries were imposed, which later contributed to long-term political instability and economic challenges in the newly formed African states.[30][31]
TheScramble for Africa sped up after the Conference since even within areas designated as their sphere of influence, the European powers had to take effective possession by the principle of effectivity. In central Africa in particular, expeditions were dispatched to coerce traditional rulers into signing treaties, using force if necessary, such as was the case forMsiri,King of Katanga, in 1891. Bedouin- and Berber-ruled states in theSahara and theSahel were overrun by the French in several wars by the beginning ofWorld War I. The British moved up fromSouth Africa and down from Egypt and conquered states such as theMahdist State and theSultanate of Zanzibar and, having already defeated theZulu Kingdom in South Africa in 1879, moved on to annex the independentBoer republics ofTransvaal and theOrange Free State.
Within a few years, Africa was at least nominally divided up south of theSahara. By 1895, the only independent states were:
Morocco, involved in colonial conflicts with Spain and France, which conquered the nation in the early 20th century.
Liberia, founded with the support of the United States for freed slaves to return to Africa.
TheOgaden/Haud, a historically contested territory inhabited mainly bySomali clans, which experienced conflicts with the Ethiopian Empire but was not colonised by any colonial power or Ethiopia due to its harsh terrain.
By 1902, 90% of all the land that makes up Africa was under European control. Most of the Sahara was French, but after the quelling of theMahdi rebellion, the end of theFashoda crisis and theVoulet–Chanoine Mission, the Sudan remained firmly under joint British–Egyptian rulership, withEgypt being under British occupation before becoming aBritish protectorate in 1914.[32]
The Boer republics were conquered by the British in theSecond Boer War from 1899 to 1902.Libya was conquered by Italy in 1911, and Morocco was divided between theFrench andSpanish in 1912.
Slave traders and their captives bound in chains and collared with 'taming sticks'. From Livingstone'sNarrative
One of the chief stated justifications "was a desire to stamp outslavery once and for all".[33] Before he died in 1873, Christian missionary,David Livingstone, called for aworldwide crusade to defeat theArab-controlled slave trade in East Africa. The way to do it was to "liberate Africa" by the introduction of "commerce, Christianity" and civilisation.[33]
Some historians, including Crowe, Craven, and Katzenellenbogen, have sought to present a more nuanced view of the Berlin Conference. They caution against overemphasizing its role in the colonial partitioning of Africa, instead highlighting pre- and post-conference bilateral agreements between European powers. Critics argue that this approach can downplay the motivations behind the conference and its actual outcomes, focusing primarily on formal agreements regardless of whether they were fully implemented or enforced.[6][7][8] For example, Craven has questioned the legal and economic impact of the conference.[7]
However, the countries that ultimately participated in the Final Act ignored requirements set forth within it to establish their satellite governments, rights to the land, and trade for the benefit of their national, and domestic economies.[34]
The divvying up of the African continent according to European colonization instead of existing ethnic barriers resulted in displaced ethnic identities and which had ramifications in more recent decades such as theRwandan Genocide of 1994.[35]
This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(September 2020)
Historians have long marked the Berlin Conference as the formalisation of theScramble for Africa[36] but recently, scholars have questioned the legal and economic impact of the conference.[7]
Some have argued the conference central to imperialism.African-American historianW. E. B. Du Bois wrote in 1948 that alongside theAtlantic slave trade in Africans a great world movement of modern times is "the partitioning of Africa after theFranco-Prussian War which, with the Berlin Conference of 1884, brought colonial imperialism to flower" and that "[t]he primary reality of imperialism in Africa today is economic," going on to expound on the extraction of wealth from the continent.[37]
Other historians focus on the legal implications in international law and argue[38] that the conference was only one of many (mostly bilateral) agreements between prospective colonists,[39] which took place after the conference.
^abcdKatzenellenbogen, S. (1996). "It didn't happen at Berlin: Politics, economics and ignorance in the setting of Africa's colonial boundaries.". In Nugent, P.; Asiwaju, A. I. (eds.).African Boundaries: Barriers, Conduits and Opportunities. London: Pinter. pp. 21–34.
^Pakenham, Thomas (15 December 1991).The Scramble for Africa. HarperCollins.
^Boahem, Adu A (1 September 1989).African Perspectives on Colonialism. JohnsHopkinsPress.
^Chamberlain, Muriel E.,The Scramble for Africa (1999).
^Acherson, Neal,The King Incorporated: Leopold the Second and the Congo (1999).
^abCornelis, S. (1991). "Stanley au service de Léopold II: La fondation de l'État Indépendant du Congo (1878–1885)". In Cornelis, S. (ed.).H.M. Stanley: Explorateur au Service du Roi. Tervuren: Royal Museum for Central Africa. pp. 41–60 (53–54).
^Förster, Stig, Wolfgang Justin Mommsen, and Ronald Edward Robinson, eds.Bismarck, Europe and Africa: The Berlin Africa Conference 1884–1885 and the Onset of Partition (1988).
^Langer, William L.,European Alliances and Alignments: 1871–1890 (1950), pp. 217–220.
^Langer,European Alliances and Alignments: 1871–1890 (1950), pp. 251–280.
^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. Brussels: Labor. Vol. 1, pp. 15–34.
^Thomson, Robert (1933).Fondation de l'État Indépendant du Congo: Un chapitre de l'histoire du partage de l'Afrique. Brussels: Lebègue. pp. 177–189.
^Moniteur Belge / Belgisch Staatsblad. Brussels: Direction du Moniteur Belge. 1885–1886. p. 22.
^Gurminder K. Bhambra; Yolande Bouka; Randolph B. Persaud; Olivia U. Rutazibwa; Vineet Thakur; Duncan Bell; Karen Smith; Toni Haastrup; Seifudein Adem (3 July 2020)."Why Is Mainstream International Relations Blind to Racism?".Foreign Policy. Retrieved13 November 2022.
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.
Crowe, Sybil E. (1942).The Berlin West African Conference, 1884–1885. New York: Longmans, Green.ISBN0-8371-3287-8 (1981, New ed. edition).
Förster, Stig, Wolfgang Justin Mommsen, and Ronald Edward Robinson, eds.Bismarck, Europe and Africa: The Berlin Africa conference 1884–1885 and the onset of partition (Oxford University Press, 1988)online; 30 topical chapters by experts.
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.
Lorin, Amaury, and de Gemeaux, Christine, eds.,L'Europe coloniale et le grand tournant de la Conférence de Berlin (1884–1885), Paris, Le Manuscrit, coll. "Carrefours d'empires", 2013, 380 p.
Förster, Susanne, et al. "Negotiating German colonial heritage in Berlin's Afrikanisches Viertel."International Journal of Heritage Studies 22.7 (2016): 515–529.
Frankema, Ewout, Jeffrey G. Williamson, and P. J. Woltjer. "An economic rationale for the West African scramble? The commercial transition and the commodity price boom of 1835–1885."Journal of Economic History (2018): 231–267.online
Harlow, Barbara, and Mia Carter, eds.Archives of Empire: Volume 2. The Scramble for Africa (Duke University Press, 2020).
Mulligan, William. "The Anti-slave Trade Campaign in Europe, 1888–90." inA Global History of Anti-slavery Politics in the Nineteenth Century (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2013). 149–170online.
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg)
