Breaking the Code of silence...The ILEMI TRIANGLE...

DELIMITATION OF THE ELASTIC ILEMI TRIANGLE: PASTORAL CONFLICTS AND OFFICIAL INDIFFERENCE IN THE HORN OF AFRICA

ABSTRACT: This article observes that although scholars have addressed the problem of the inherited colonial boundaries in Africa, there are lacunae in our knowledge of the complexity of demarcating the Kenya-Sudan-Ethiopia tri-junctional point known as the Ilemi Triangle. Apart from being a gateway to an area of Sudan rich in unexplored oil reserves, Ilemi is only significant for its dry season pastures that support communities of different countries. By analyzing why, until recently, the Ilemi has been ‘unwanted’ and hence not economically developed by any regional government, the article aims to historically elucidate differences of perception and significance of the area between the authorities and the local herders. On the one hand, the forage-rich pastures of Ilemi have been the casus belli (cause for war) among transhumant communities of Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Kenya, and an enigma to colonial surveyors who could not determine their ‘ownership’ and extent. On the other hand, failure to administer the region in the last century reflects the lack of attractiveness to the authorities that have not agreed on security and grazing arrangements for the benefit of their respective nomadic populations. This article places the disputed ‘triangle’ of conflict into historical, anthropological, sociological and political context. The closing reflections assess the future of the dispute in view of the current initiative by the USA to end the 19-year-old civil war in Sudan and promote the country’s relationship with her neighbors particularly Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia. However, the author is cynical of attempts to enhance international security and political stability that do not embrace ‘peoples of the periphery’, such as the herders of Ilemi, into the economic, social, and political rhythm of the mainstream society.

INTRODUCTION
This article is about Ilemi, a triangular piece of land joining Sudan, Kenya, and Ethiopia described in some records as measuring 14,000 square kilometers and 10,320 square kilometers in others. [1] It lies north of the equator between latitude (deg min) 5 00N and longitude 35 30N and is variously defined as Ethiopia (claimed), Kenya (de facto), and, Sudan (claimed). [2] By analyzing why until now the Ilemi Triangle has been ‘unwanted’ hence not economically developed by any regional government the article aims to historically elucidate differences of perception and significance of the area between the authorities and the local herders. [3] Ilemi is on the fringe of southern Sudan, which is rich in unexplored oil. Nevertheless, no explorations have been made in the contested territory partly due to insecurity from the 19-year civil war in southern Sudan and partly due to a hands-off attitude by each regional government. It lacks any infrastructure or modern facilities and is so insulated that its only reminder of the ‘outside world’ is a Kenyan frontier post. Even so, Ilemi is so precious that its dry-season pastures have been the focus of incessant conflicts among transhumant communities and an enigma to boundary surveyors who previously failed to determine its precise extent and breadth.
The article begins with a brief anthropological description of the transhumant communities of Ilemi before tracing the evolution of the problem. There follows a critical analysis of colonial meridians that slice through pastoral country and an attempt to understand the ‘hands-off’ policy by successive governments of the region. The conclusion reflects on the future of the dispute given the current national and international attempts to stabilize the region. My overall objective is to contribute to our understanding of African boundaries that are still in dispute for not respecting local opinion such as customary pastures for transhumant populations particularly where colonial surveyors failed to follow permanent terrain features.
Our search for understanding the dispute begins with colonial treaties and arbitrary boundaries. In particular, those delineating the 1907 boundary between Ethiopia and British East Africa not only undervalued the centrality of water and pasture to herders but the vagueness of the treaty also opened an opportunity for resource conflicts in one clause which states:
“The tribes occupying either side of the line shall have a right to use grazing grounds on the other side as in the past, but during their migrations it is understood that they shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the territorial authority. Free access to the wells is equally accorded to the tribes occupying either side of the line”. [4]
On the one hand, the ‘open frontier’ implied by the above clause invited resource conflicts among pastoral peoples of the newly created national identities during their transhumance and epicyclical movements to dry-season pastures and water. On the other hand, if the corresponding authorities enforced a ‘closed frontier’, communities that had previously grazed freely before the boundary was drawn would not honor the exclusion.
So far, no scholar has historically explored how the differences of perception and significance of Ilemi by various leaderships in Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya have contributed to the low priority given to the delimitation and administration of the disputed territory during the colonial and post-colonial periods. This opinion is based on a review of relevant studies that have enriched our awareness on the subject. One is McEwen’s 1971 lucid historical examination of the processes undertaken to delineate and the technical difficulties experienced when demarcating boundaries in Africa. [5] McEwen does not explain the ‘hands-off’ attitude by the regional authorities on the administration of Ilemi, particularly after the collapse of the Anglo-Egyptian condominium in Sudan and the end of British colonial rule in Kenya and Uganda. Likewise, Taha’s analysis sheds light on the problem of demarcation where ethnic boundaries do not correspond with terrain features in the context of Sudan’s proposal to barter the Ilemi triangle with Ethiopia’s Baro (Beyrou) salient, which holds Kenya’s territorial claim to Ilemi in abeyance. [6] Ngatia also gives a balanced analysis of the legal difficulties of delimiting the Kenya-Sudan boundary, particularly the problem of determining the extent of the pastures claimed in north Ilemi by the Turkana community of Kenya. [7] Finally, in the discussion on the commendable work of Leslie Whitehouse, Elizabeth Watkins addresses the difficulties faced by Kenyan Boundary Commissions and administrators serving in the inaccessible periphery of the state. [8] The study decries the plight of the herders of the Ilemi Triangle, but it is a Kenyan perspective inasmuch as there is no explanation of the reluctance by Sudan and Ethiopia to resolve the territorial dispute. This paper focuses on the omission of previous scholars and places the evolution of the disputed territory into its historical, political, and anthropological context from 1907 to the present day. It interweaves ethnographical information with the political history of the four regional countries concerned because, here, colonial boundaries bear no relation to ethnic distinction.
ILEMI: PEOPLE AND PASTURES
The meaning of Ilemi, (also called, Ilembi, Ilembe/ Elemi) is difficult to ascertain except that it takes its name from a famous Anuak chief, a community living along Sudan’s eastern border with Ethiopia. It is home for five ethno linguistic communities; the Turkana, Didinga, Toposa, Inyangatom, and Dassanech, who are members of the larger ethno cultural groups of Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Sudan, but traditionally migrate to graze in the triangle. [9] Whereas it is difficult to isolate ethnic groups of Africa using the criterion of linguistic typology alone, intermarriage and clan affinity in Ilemi create an additional problem for clear-cut delineation and analysis. This may explain why scholars, travellers, and administrators still refer to each community by several names.
The Turkana live in southern Sudan and northwestern Kenya where their subsistence is described as multi-resource nomadism which combines pastoralism, gathering, commerce, raiding, and fishing. Tthe translation of their name as cave dweller suggests they originated from the caves on the Kenya-Uganda border. [10] They are classified among the Eastern Nilotes. [11] Grass for their cattle is only available in northern Ilemi where they annually graze for eight to nine months. Their northwestern neighbors are the Didinga, who mainly live in the Equatorial Province of Southern Sudan and north eastern Uganda, but western Ilemi forms their dry-season pastures. Their traditional enemies are their Toposa neighbors in the northeast who migrated to Sudan’s Equatorial province in 1780. [12] Recent anthropological research emphasises the close ethno historical connection between the Inyangatom and the Toposa, which suggests they were originally one people. [13] The traditional pastures for the Didinga and Toposa are the better-drained higher grounds of northwestern Ilemi, but their hunting pushes further to the east of the triangle. [14]
The Inyangatom live in central and southeastern Sudan and southwestern Ethiopia. [15] During the dry spell, they migrate southwards with their milch animals to the pastures of northern Ilemi. Being astride River Kibish and River Omo their womenfolk practice retreat cultivation when there is rich clayey soil left by flooding and have turned the riverside area into a breadbasket that supports the element of the community whose crop is not always reliable. [16] Their neighbors are the Dassanech who mainly live in southwestern Ethiopia but about one third live in Kenya. Dassanech men raise cattle, around which many social systems are built, and women grow grain on the banks of River Kibish and River Omo. Their agricultural productivity is so eye-catching that early travellers describe them as uniquely hospitable people with plenty of food. [17] During the dry season Inyangatom and Dassanech men graze their herds for long periods in eastern Ilemi. [18]
Ilemi qualifies as pastoral country par excellence characterized by hilly terrain, which provides good pasture for cattle grazing and open areas suitable for grazing camels and goats. Organized raiding is common but contrary to popular belief, limited browse and scarce water are not the only motives. It is important to elaborate this factor. During their transhumance, pastoral people cannot recognize invisible meridians, which formalize territorial jurisdiction of the modern state because for them borders constrict or expand for a reason. [19] These reasons include a need to accommodate an increase in pastoral productivity, correspond with new demographic demands, and respond to ecological exigencies, or because of predation from more powerful neighbors. Long before the Anglo-Ethiopian Agreement of 6th December 1907 was drawn, the Inyangatom, Didinga, Turkana, Toposa and Dassanech had traded and grazed in the Ilemi through intercommunity arrangements. Raiding was then a cultural institution that served several functions such as: a strategy for coping with natural disasters, political domination of neighbors through the monopoly of animal wealth, rite of passage for young warriors, and a means of regulating the quality of livestock. It was controlled by poly-tribal councils of elders, which were destroyed by colonial intrusion in the nineteenth century. [20] During precolonial rustlings, raiders of Ilemi used traditional weapons and guns they obtained from Ethiopian gunrunners and outlying trade centres such as Maji, where ammunition was so common it was used as local currency. Due to the lack of respectable control mechanisms contemporary raiding has lost its traditional altruism as modern firearms, politicization, and commercialization usually drive it today. [21]

To Be continued....

Source:
http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v7/v7i1a2.htm

Arabic Forum