Sunday 5 August 2012

Re: [wanabidii] Re: The Malawi-Tanzania Boundary Dispute

Edgar,

Your thinking is not only a reflection of the inner-self but composed common logic; you're very right, and that is my interpretation too! However, what lies behind these confusing change of events are maps, which appeared in the British colonial annual reports prior to 1930; these reports always showed the lake median border line but in subsequent reports, the border changed to eastern and northern shoreline without valid explanation!

It seems that the British had sinister motives for changing these borders, taking into account that the then Federation headquarters was in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), strategic plan to change borderlines to suit the future of british colonial adventures might have been in the making. Why would they change borders that were agreed in the grand Berlin conference of 1898 when Tanganyika was under their trusteeship? Why only Germany and Britain undertook the changes without the involvement of the League of Nations?

Germany had been defeated in the first world war, and for Germany to settle claim of the two islands in north sea, may have decided to trade on lake Nyasa and border alterations in disregard of the original border demarcation of the grand Berlin conference, under duress.

I see this again repeated in the Nile Waters treaty that was entered around the same time between Britain and Egypt. Again, on Prime Minister Nyerere's statement after independence, this treaty actually became null and void after 1963. In this treaty, Egypt was given overall powers over Nile waters disregarding the existence of inhabited populations of Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Rwanda-Urundi, and the Congo.

The treaty was successfully declared null and void some few years ago when under the Nile Basin Initiatives, the upstream countries agreed to adapt a new agreement on equitable use of the Nile waters. Tanzania should thank the negotiation and militancy of the then Minister for water Martha Karua of the Republic of Kenya, Deputy Minister Diallo (Tanzania), Mary Mutagamba (Republic of Uganda) and ministers from Rwanda, Burundi and the DRC who at NBI negotiations in Addis Ababa, refused to bulge to the World bank pressures to respect the old treaty and subsequently a new Agreement was signed thereafter but Egypt refused to sign it.

I believe that the changes in maps of the British colonial annual reports was again, unilateral and meant to benefit the Central African federation, which was their brainchild of long-term plan to retain colonial rule in the reconstituted british empire after WW2.
As to the Nile waters treaty, the British interest was to make Egypt accept the Suez canal construction again, for strategic gains of the British and Europe!

Sent from my BlackBerry® Porsche-9981 smartphone Thru Tigo Network, Tanzania.

From: Edgar Mbegu <embegu@hotmail.com>
Sender: wanabidii@googlegroups.com
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 20:26:04 +0000
To: Wanabidii Mawazo<wanabidii@googlegroups.com>
ReplyTo: wanabidii@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [wanabidii] Re: The Malawi-Tanzania Boundary Dispute

Just a matter of curiosity.
Why on this issue are you all  taking, as your bone of contention, what the colonial treaties had to say about the boundaries of the then Germany East Africa, or Tanganyika for that matter? Is there nothing said about the boundaries of Malawi or Nyasaland in the similar treaties or in any reliable documents? Because for me saying that the boundary of Germany East Africa west wards is on the shore of Lake Nyasa, does not necessarily mean that Lake Nyasa belongs to Malawi.... Just thinking aloud...G9t.

 

To: wanabidii@googlegroups.com
From: matinyi@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: [wanabidii] Re: The Malawi-Tanzania Boundary Dispute
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 14:12:30 -0400

One should not confuse between his/her understanding of the issue and the reality on the ground. Where is the proof that Tanzania is relying on this treaty? Everybody knows that Tanzania is relying on the 1982 UN Convention. Is that self defeating?




T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network

----- Reply message -----
From: "Leila Abdul" <hifadhi@gmail.com>
To: <wanabidii@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [wanabidii] Re: The Malawi-Tanzania Boundary Dispute
Date: Sun, Aug 5, 2012 11:51 am


ICJ we should go indeed. They are insisting on something that does not belong to them.

The starting point is that the position of Tanzania is self defeating and unattainable. The treaty they are relying on did not create the boundary in the middle of the lake but on the shores of the east and northern side of the lake. The relevant provision of the treaty creating the boundaries of Tanzania, then Germany East Africa, Article 1 clause 2 states;

'To the south by the line that starts on the coast of the northern border of Mozambique Province and follows the course of the Ruvuma River to the point where the Messinge flows into the Ruvuma. From there the line runs westwards on the parallel of latitude to the shore of Lake Nyasa. Turning north, it continues along the eastern, northern and western shores of the lake until it reaches the northern bank of the mouth of Songwe River……."



The key word here is the shore. The treaty clearly provides that border runs to the shore and runs upwards towards the north along the shore. Now everyone knows that the meaning of the word shore in English is the line between land and water of water bodies such as lakes, sea and ocean. What the treaty is providing is not a border in the middle of the lake, but in the shores of the lake on the Tanzanian side. If the origins of the Tanzania national boundaries are from this treaty, where is the claim for part of the lake coming from? That is a mistaken belief in my view.


On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Redson Kapindu <rkapindu@yahoo.com> wrote:

 From my little reading on this issue thus far, I would say to Tanzania: you want us to go to the ICJ? ...Let's go! Many times when I meet Tanzanians, especially when they are on their own turf (in TZ) they make so much of a big deal about this claim to the lake. When you push them for the basis of the claim, in the end, it rests on the following "important premise": Mwalimu Nyerere said so! But I feel a bit sad that this dispute might have been fueled by Malawians in exile in TZ ...a lesson in patriotism - wherever we may be and whatever our differences with an incumbent Government might be, country still comes first, politics somewhere thereafter...
From: Isaac Songea <njsongea@yahoo.com>
To: "malawi_lawsociety@googlegroups.com" <malawi_lawsociety@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 2, 2012 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Malawi - Tanzania Boundary Dispute - article

RedK,
I find this last but one sentence of the article very prophetic now that the catalyst of the conflict is oil exploration:

"In the absence of a major effort by Malawi to ... exploit the resources of the Lake in a more thoroughgoing manner than at present, it seems likely that the status quo (kuti nyanja ndi yathu) will persist."

Isaac

From: Redson Kapindu <rkapindu@yahoo..com>
To: Malawi Law Society Google groups <malawi_lawsociety@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 4:59 PM
Subject: Malawi - Tanzania Boundary Dispute - article


 Dear colleagues,
 
As this issue seems to have been re-ignited, at least publicly, I thought I should share this article that might make some interesting reading for those that might not have previously read it.
 
Regards,
 
Redson


On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 5:50 PM, mutabaazi lugaziya <mjlugaziya@mail.com> wrote:

Tony, Matinyi, et al


I have heard the Permanent Secretary in Malawi's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, one Patrick Kabambe, so arrogantly saying that Lake Nyasa(Malawi?) being inside of, and as such, part of Malawi. From his tone, I entertain grave doubts whether such a  'hothead", would even "stoop" so low as to sit on a negotiating table!

It is quite interesting that the fellow does not seem to be aware of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10th December, 1982, which came into force on 16th November,1994. This Convention became necessary due to increasing disputes relating to water resources-fishing, minerals(oil and gas) and the shifting of boundaries dueto natural causes. This is the principal law governing disputes relating to water bodies. By the way, the Convention applies to lakes, rivers and other waterways-the Suez, the Panama Canals etc.

As per this convention, the international community agreed that for states sharing a water resource, the boundary between them should be to part the water body equally to those who share it.

Tanzania ratified the Convention and pledged to be bound by it on 30th September, 1985 (being the 24th country do so). But the mother of all surprises, is that this same Malawi ratified and undertook to be bound by the Convention on 28th September, 2010,(being the 161st), probably after a long soul-searching.

Under International law, the Convention is superior to any other arrangement. The Heligoland Treaty that Malawi is holding up as its ace has no force in International law. I don't know why they seem to turn a blind eye to this 'naked truth"

The contributor here does not purport to be an expert on the Law of the Sea, but this country boasts of such luminaries in the field like none other than our own  Joseph Sinde Warioba and Ambassador James Kateka who have variously served as Judges in matters relating to the law of the sea.

On the other hand, Malawi has only a Mr. Munthali who saw us being doomed in the Dowans' case.!!!

In law there is a maxim that 'things speak for themselves"-res ipsa loquitur. From what I heard from this Kabambe fellow, it did not sound like they are prepared for a tete-a-tete negotiations. As a prelude, Tanzania may send a protest note-a note verbale-and gauge the response,after which then the matter may go the International Arbitral bodies.

It is pertinent at thisjuncture to point out that these joint-Commisions have been in existence since the days of Hastings Kamuzu Banda. Malawi's arrogance met equal force in Mwalimu's no nonsense stance.

Now why do people think they can fool around with this country?

Just thinkng aloud!

MJL

--
Karibu Jukwaa la www.mwanabidii.com
Pata nafasi mpya za Kazi www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
Blogu ya Habari na Picha www.patahabari.blogspot.com
 
Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
 
Disclaimer:
Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
 
 


--
Karibu Jukwaa la www.mwanabidii.com
Pata nafasi mpya za Kazi www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
Blogu ya Habari na Picha www.patahabari.blogspot.com
 
Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
 
Disclaimer:
Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
 
 

--
Karibu Jukwaa la www.mwanabidii.com
Pata nafasi mpya za Kazi www.kazibongo.blogspot.com
Blogu ya Habari na Picha www.patahabari.blogspot.com
 
Kujiondoa Tuma Email kwenda
wanabidii+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com Utapata Email ya kudhibitisha ukishatuma
 
Disclaimer:
Everyone posting to this Forum bears the sole responsibility for any legal consequences of his or her postings, and hence statements and facts must be presented responsibly. Your continued membership signifies that you agree to this disclaimer and pledge to abide by our Rules and Guidelines.
 
 

0 comments:

Post a Comment