Text taken from a shortened speech in the House of Commons on the issues affecting Africa on 30th June 2005.

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Con) Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Although time is running short, I should like to relate the experiences that I gained when I served in the military forces in a number of war zones to the subjects covered today. Debt write-off, investment and improved trade will certainly help a number of countries, but many of the countries that I visited have been at war for 50 years, and we need to go back to the heart of the problem, which was caused when those countries were created in the first place or, indeed, when Europe entered Africa and decided to carve up the continent.

We forget that between the 12th and the 16th centuries, which are often considered to be Africa's most historic centuries, kingdoms were created and democracies existed, even if in basic form, and there was certainly a hierarchy of power and a basic form of government. I appreciate that we are more familiar with the slave trade and so on, how the economy changed and how African empires were eroded.

My view is that the Berlin conference changed the lines on the map, as European states laid claim to the continent with little regard to historical borders or boundaries or the religious groupings and varying customs and languages that already existed. The world wars blurred those lines as well. In some instances, there is a fundamental case for reviewing the borders so that they better represent the geographical areas that unite separate religions, traditions and manageable democracies. As foreign pressures were lifted in the 1960s, when those countries became independent, all the community and regional identities were allowed to grow once again but they were contained or split by the borders that were left behind by Europe.

If we look at other examples around the world, we see something similar. In Afghanistan—it is difficult to see where this will take us—there are Pashtuns, Tajiks and the Uzbeks, all with different identities but confined by one country, yet there is perhaps reason to give them a certain degree of autonomy. Yugoslavia and Bosnia are other examples—as, indeed, is Iraq, with the Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'ites. Czechoslovakia is perhaps the best example of how a country can divide itself into more manageable democracies.

It is worth considering what is the definition of a country and the fact that the extent to which countries are manageable depends on their size, terrain, religions, ethnic groupings, population and the balance of local, regional and national powers. Africa is no different, and I am concerned about those areas that have been engaged in civil war for 50 years. Ethnic tension and religious conflict has not altered simply because of the confines of the boundaries that have been left behind by European powers. Chad, Congo and Sudan are examples of such countries.

I certainly believe that we need to reconsider the borders in Africa itself. Are they appropriate; or do they need review? I am not saying that any western power should walk in there, but I was very much part of the Dayton peace accord, which gave the countries involved the opportunity to sit down and address their concerns, look at the ethnic groupings and then come up with something that would work for them, and what I am suggesting is that that should be an option in addition to the extra aid that we are proposing and the cut in debts and increased trade that is being offered.

I have heard nothing about that suggestion, and it would be interesting to find out whether the G8 would consider it—after all, it was Europe that went into Africa in the first place and drew the original borders with little regard to what was already there—otherwise I am concerned that we will have a similar debate next time Britain has the presidency of the G8 in five years' time.