It would only seem fair that the demarcation line of Lake Nyasa, or lake Malawi as it is also called, should lie in the middle of the three nations surrounding it: Tanzania, Mozambique and Malawi, and the 1884 Berlin Conference confirmed as much. The Heligoland Treaty between Germany and Britain in 1890, however, left the British in Nyasaland in control of what was Tanganyika's part of the lake. When, in 1914, the British took Tanganyika over from Germany, they still placed the whole of Tanganyika's portion of the the lake under the jurisdiction of Nyasaland (Malawi). This did not cause too much of a problem, as Tanzania's fishing rights were more less respected.
This is a disgrace. Apart from Tanzania's territorial rights, the lake, which the third largest in Africa, is one of the most bio-diverse freshwater habitats in the world. So much so, that last year Mozambique's government declared it should be a protected nature reserve. Suggestions that the dispute should be taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the Court has already resolved some difficult claims of a similar nature between Libya and Chad, for instance, or Cameroon and Nigeria, only address part of the crisis. Equally pressing is the issue that Malawi has to abort any plans to exploit the waters for oil or gas extraction.
Lake Malawi National Park, at the southern end of Lake Malawi, is on the UNESCO World Heritage List and is described thus on the UNESCO Website:
"Located at the southern end of the great expanse of Lake Malawi, with its deep, clear waters and mountain backdrop, the national park is home to many hundreds of fish species, nearly all endemic. Its importance for the study of evolution is comparable to that of the finches of the Galapagos Islands."
I think it would make more sense if you show the map that was drawn as a result of the heligoland treaty of 1890. Otherwise, it makes an unconfirmed story unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your comment. I am mostly curating and commenting, so that confirming all my information could end up making the articles pretty tedious. However I do concur that a bit more diligence would not be a bad thing. Note the map in today's blog!
DeleteBy the way, this is the first comment I received, so I am delighted that it should be a constructive one.
If the Heligoland treaty gave the whole lake to Malawi, then there is no issue here. Tanzania should respect whatever Malawi decides to do within its territory, Whether the Malawians mess up the lake is no concern for the Tanzanians as they have no claim to the lake.
ReplyDeleteThere is no such a thing ever. Before the era of the treaty you called Heligoland, people around the lake existed. They depended on the lake as their only farm they could think of. Now it comes, where do you hungry monsters want them to go? Should they beg for what has ever being their property just because of the treaty? What is a treaty by the way? Can you have a treaty with someone for your wife? Should these innocent people bow down to a hungry Malawian government for what was once claimed and deemed theirs? Mh! Give me a break.
Deleterespecting boundaries (whether touching on water bodies or land) set by the colonial masters way back before independence is the only way to avoid conflicts in Africa. After all the the current boundaries of land demarcating African countries, were set by such treaties so if we want to invalidate them; it means Tanzania has the right to claim part of Lake Malawi and equally Malawi has the right to claim part of Tanzanian Land even the whole Tanzanian country. Hope this is very clear and fair enough .That's my opinion.
ReplyDeletewant to correct one contributor here.If Malawi, by the Heligoland treaty, is the owner of Lake Malawi, it doesn't mean the people on the eastern bank of the lake are not supposed to use the waters.No! They use and should continue doing so.Only that officially their country is not supposed to claim any part as theirs.It also means Malawi can do whatever activities without seeking approval from some country.That's my opinion.
ReplyDeletefeel calm and at peace when reading historical facts otherwise you miss out other important facts and you end up coming onto this blog full of falsehood.The treaties between Germany and Britain demarcating Nyasaland and Tanganyika specified clearly that Nyasaland territory across, stretches from the current Western boundary with Zambia to the edges of the eastern waters of lake Nyasa hence the name Nyasaland. Nyasaland means the Land of Lake Nyasa or the Land whose inhabitants own lake Nyasa. After independence the name of the country changed from Nyasaland to Malawi. Even all the writings of Dr.David Livingstone referred to lake Nyasa as belonging to the Nyasa people inhabiting what is now Malawi.As simple as that!!!
ReplyDeletethe name 'Nyasa' means 'Lake'.It is a 'Yao' name for the name 'Lake'.The Yao people or tribe are in Malawi (Nyasaland) not Tanganyika (Tanzania).The first multiparty president of Malawi, Dr.Bakili Muluzi belongs to the Yao tribe.
ReplyDeleteThe colonial powers did not always have the best interest of local populations in mind when they carved up foreign lands. Privilege without responsibility is an injustice and that would apply to the government in Malawi if it chooses to exploit the lake to the detriment of its neighbours and the environment.
DeleteI share my view with a couple of the contributors above. Lake Malawi has always belonged to Malawi. At no point in the history of its making has it ever been part of any of the neighbouring countries.
ReplyDeleteThe Treaties may have been in existence but the boundaries over the lake have never been implemented over the years so where did they emerge from? The Politics of the current day have have interfered with the lives of local people thus resulting in conflict. Whilst all countries are entitled to their own resources, this particular lake is vital part of Malawi's economy. The division will create further conflict and animosity amongst the two nations and its people.
The most funny part about this issue is; why the claims now? May be oil exploration being undertaken by the Malawi govt now! History is such that at one point the first president of Tanzania attended the Organisation of African Union now AU where he spoke about the need for African countries to respect boundaries set by colonial masters.Making sense! Which includes the boundaries separating Malawi's territory with Tanzania.
ReplyDeleteIronically the same Nyerere in 1964 breached what he had said at the OAU by being the first Tanzania president to claim part of L.Malawi as theirs. The issue was resolved and in later years he paid state visit to Malawi.
The next President of Tanzania, Dr.Benjamin Mkaka, clearly said Tanzania do not own any part of L.Malawi.He paid state visit to Malawi and he received an honorary Doctorate from Mzuzu University, Malawi.Dr.Benjamin was not a fool in accepting what belonged to Malawi.He read historical facts in Tanzanian archives .It only showed how matured and wise he was.
One point i would like to state here is; even the AU and UN recognize L.Malawi as belonging to Malawi.I should also remind all concerned parties that whoever breaches and encroaches on the others' the ICC is there to issue a warrant of arrest.Thank you!
CORRECTION OF YEAR: Ironically the same Nyerere in 1967 breached what he had said at the OAU by being the first Tanzania president to claim part of L.Malawi as theirs. The issue was resolved and in later years he paid state visit to Malawi.
ReplyDelete