
Ever wonder why Africa's borders appear so strange?
Africa has the most countries of any continent with a total of 54.
Rather than following natural terrains or historical boundaries, many of its borders are strikingly straight in some areas and jagged in others, cutting through mountains, rivers and even communities.
Most of these artificial borders trace back to the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference, a meeting that concluded 140 years ago this week in which European powers carved up the continent among themselves with no African nations invited or represented.
In this visual explainer, Al Jazeera delves into the stories behind some of the continent's most unusual borders.
Egypt or Sudan – why does no one want Bir Tawil?
Starting in northeastern Africa is a 2,000sq-km (795sq-mile) uninhabited, arid piece of land that neither Egypt nor Sudan wants to claim as their own.
In 1899, Britain drew a straight-line border along the 22nd parallel, a line of latitude 22 degrees north of the equator, separating Egypt and Sudan, two territories under British control.
However, in 1902, Britain reassigned the coastal and resource-rich Hala'ib Triangle to Sudan and Bir Tawil to Egypt for geopolitical and administrative reasons.
Decades later, after both countries gained independence, Egypt insisted that the true border should follow the 1899 agreement while Sudan argued that it should follow the 1902 demarcation. Bir Tawil remains unclaimed by either country because claiming it would require forfeiting claims to the Hala'ib Triangle.
Egypt has controlled the Hala'ib Triangle since 2000, but the dispute remains unresolved.
Why is The Gambia so narrow?
As you travel along Africa's western coast, you'll see a narrow strip of land wrapped around the Gambia River and almost entirely surrounded by Senegal. This is The Gambia, the smallest country in mainland Africa and home to about three million people.
First explored by the Portuguese in the 15th century, The Gambia later became a major hub in the transatlantic slave trade. It remained a British colony from 1821 until gaining independence in 1965. Due to its proximity to then-French Senegal, its territorial boundaries were a point of contention between British and French authorities.
In 1889, Britain and France formally established The Gambia's borders, agreeing that British control would extend about 16km (10 miles) on either side of the river, reaching its furthest navigable point at Yarbutenda.
A popular legend suggests that British forces fired cannonballs from their ships to determine the country's width, ensuring control over vital trade routes. While no evidence supports this claim, historical records indicate that an Anglo-French commission in 1891 tried to refine the borders but faced resistance from local rulers whose lands were being arbitrarily divided.
Ultimately, The Gambia's borders were shaped by colonial interests and British military power, leaving it as a long, narrow enclave within Senegal.
Why is Cabinda part of Angola?
Heading south along the continent's western coast, you'll come across a small section of Angola separated from the rest of the country. This is Cabinda, Angola's northern province, cut off from the rest of the country by a narrow strip of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Cabinda became part of Angola due to historical decisions made during Portuguese colonial rule.
During the 1884-1885 Berlin Conference, Cabinda was formally recognised as a Portuguese possession, separate from Angola, although both were under Portuguese rule. Over time, Portugal administratively merged Cabinda with Angola, but the region remained geographically and culturally distinct.
When Portugal withdrew from its African colonies in 1975, the Alvor Agreement, signed with Angola's main liberation groups, excluded Cabindan representation. and Cabinda was merged with Angola, primarily for its valuable offshore oil reserves.
This sparked resistance from the Cabindan independence movement, particularly the Front for the Liberation of the Enclave of Cabinda, which has continued to call for Cabinda's independence from Angola.
Why does Namibia have a little panhandle?
As you move into Southern Africa, you may notice a narrow panhandle jutting out from Namibia. This is the Caprivi Strip.
Until the early 20th century, Germany controlled German South West Africa (now Namibia) and German East Africa (now Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi) while Britain controlled the surrounding territories, including modern-day Botswana and Zambia.
Germany was looking for a direct trade route to link its territories and wanted access to the Zambezi River. The plan was to navigate the river to the Indian Ocean, providing a shortcut to Tanzania.
In 1890, Germany and Britain signed a treaty in which Germany gave up claims to Zanzibar in exchange for Heligoland, an island in the North Sea, and control of the Caprivi Strip, which met the Zambezi River.
However, Germany's transport plan failed. It is believed that no one told the Germans about Victoria Falls – one of the world's largest waterfalls with a 108-metre (354ft) drop, about 65km (40 miles) east of the strip, making it useless for transport.
Why is Lesotho surrounded by South Africa?
Nestled in the mountains of Southern Africa lies a small landlocked country entirely surrounded by South Africa called Lesotho.
In the 19th century, the Basotho people, led by King Moshoeshoe I, established their stronghold in the highlands, using the mountains as a natural defence against invaders like the Zulu and Boer settlers (Dutch farmers).
To resist Boer expansion, Moshoeshoe sought British protection in 1868, making Basutoland a British protectorate.
Attempts to place it under Colonial Cape rule failed due to Basotho resistance, and in 1884, Britain declared it a crown colony.
When the Union of South Africa formed in 1910, Basutoland remained under British rule, avoiding South Africa's apartheid policies, and later gained independence in 1966 as Lesotho.
Why are three African countries named Guinea?
Four countries around the world have 'Guinea' in their names, three of which are along the West African coast.
They are:
Guinea, formerly known as French Guinea, gained independence in 1958 and kept the name Guinea.
Guinea-Bissau, formerly known as Portuguese Guinea, gained independence in 1974 and added 'Bissau' to its name to differentiate itself from neighbouring Guinea.
Equatorial Guinea, formerly known as Spanish Guinea, gained independence in 1968 and added Equatorial to its name because it is near the equator.
On the other side of the world lies Papua New Guinea, named by a Spanish explorer who named it after Guinea in West Africa, believing the locals resembled its inhabitants.
The name Guinea is believed to have been derived from the Portuguese word Guine, which referred to the region along the West African coast. When European colonisers divided this region, each called their territory Guinea.
Fun fact: The British guinea coin, first minted in 1663, was named after the region of Guinea in West Africa because the gold used to produce it came from there.
Why are there two Congos?
On opposite sides of the Congo River lie two countries named after it: the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of the Congo.
Colonial powers Belgium and France established separate colonies along the river, naming each after it. The name Congo comes from the Kingdom of Kongo, a powerful kingdom that once flourished along the river.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Al Jazeera
21 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Clearly an excuse': Does Netanyahu really want Hamas gone?
Israel's war on Gaza rumbles on, even as international condemnation grows. Hamas has expressed that it is ready for a deal to end the war, even offering to turn over the administration of Gaza to a technocratic government. United Nations Security Council members have overwhelmingly voted in favour of a ceasefire, a resolution blocked from passing only by a United States veto. But Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is adamant in its refusal of any agreement that does not include what it calls the 'defeat of Hamas', even if that means endangering the Israeli captives still held in Gaza. 'Hamas is already the weakest it's ever been, and there's nothing they can do that is remotely comparable to what Israel possesses,' writer and researcher on Israel-Palestine and founder of The Fire These Times podcast Elia Ayoub told Al Jazeera. 'There's ample evidence by now that the only reason this genocide is ongoing is because Netanyahu wants it to continue. It's clearly just an excuse to keep the war going.' But why would Netanyahu want the war – which is Israel's longest since 1948, and is causing economic crisis – to continue? One answer is that the war provides a distraction from Netanyahu's own problems. Israel's longest-serving prime minister has well-documented legal troubles; he is being tried for corruption. And, aside from that, should a permanent ceasefire be realised, some analysts believe Israeli society will hold Netanyahu accountable for security shortcomings that led to October 7. 'He's afraid once it's done, eyes will rightfully turn to him over corruption and the failures of October 7,' Diana Buttu, a legal scholar and former adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization, said. And so, Netanyahu has two main tasks. The first is to prolong the war, allowing him to continue using it as an excuse to avoid accountability. The second is to prevent the breakup of his government, while somehow setting himself up for another successful election, which must happen before October 2026. Netanyahu has been 'reliant upon Hamas throughout the war', Mairav Zonszein, an expert on Israel and Palestine for the International Crisis Group, told Al Jazeera. 'The far right and Netanyahu have consistently used Hamas as an excuse not to negotiate or plan for a day after,' she said. The Israeli refusal to negotiate a final end to the war stands in stark contrast to Hamas's willingness to hand over all captives held in Gaza. Over the last 20 months, much of Hamas's leadership has been killed. Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's political leader, was assassinated in Tehran on July 31, and Yahya Sinwar, his successor, was killed in Gaza on October 16. Israel is now claiming it killed Sinwar's successor and younger brother, Mohammed, though Hamas has yet to confirm his death. Militarily, analysts say, Hamas is estimated to have lost significant strength. It is still conducting some attacks, but fewer and further between than the ambushes it was able to carry out earlier in the war. In a sign that Hamas perhaps understands that it is no longer in a position to rule Gaza, it has also offered to step down from the administration of the Palestinian territory, which it has controlled since 2006, and hand over to a technocratic government. 'The technocrat offer is not new,' Hamzé Attar, a Luxembourg-based defence analyst from Gaza, said. 'It was on the table since before the invasion of Rafah [which occurred on May 6, 2024]. They want Hamas to give up their arms and give up everything, and Hamas has responded by saying: 'We're stepping aside.'' That has been firmly rejected by Israel, which has not endorsed any vision for post-war Gaza. Instead, over the last nearly 20 months, Israel has killed more than 54,300 Palestinians and wounded more than 124,000 in Gaza, according to the territory's Health Ministry. In addition, Gaza is now 'the hungriest place on Earth', according to the UN, all its inhabitants at risk of famine after Israel strangled aid delivery throughout its war, then completely blocked it from March 2 until May 27. Israel has also turned 70 percent of the enclave into no-go zones. All the while, Israel's bombing of Gaza continues. Discounting the pretext of destroying Hamas and returning the captives, some analysts believe there is a deeper goal: pushing Palestinians out of Gaza. 'Neither Hamas nor the hostages are the targets,' Meron Rappaport, an editor at Local Call, a Hebrew-language news site, said. 'The goal is to push the people of Gaza into very few, small and closed areas where food will be delivered scarcely, hoping that the pressure on them will get them to ask to leave the Strip.' 'Israel is no longer fighting Hamas,' he added. Netanyahu said in late May that Israel would control the entirety of Gaza by the end of its latest offensive, while many foreign officials and experts have warned either directly or implicitly that Israel's actions amount to ethnically cleansing Gaza. A recent report in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, cited 82 percent of Jewish Israelis supporting the expulsion of the people in Gaza. To do so would have a historic impact, Buttu said, one that Netanyahu might feel he can portray as protecting Israel from a Palestinian state – something he has repeatedly promised to prevent. 'He recognises he will be the fall guy or the hero,' Buttu said. 'If he is the one who ethnically cleanses Gaza, he becomes the hero.' Until that happens, analysts believe, Palestinians will continue to die at the hands of the Israeli military. Hamas is the pretext and their willingness to negotiate or succumb is of secondary importance. 'Benjamin Netanyahu has no intention of ending this war,' Zonszein said. 'It doesn't matter what Hamas offers. They can offer to return all the hostages or give up governance. 'This war is going to continue until Netanyahu is forced to stop it, and that can only come from Trump.' Additional reporting by Simon Speakman Cordall


Qatar Tribune
a day ago
- Qatar Tribune
UK aims to ‘deepen' India ties
London: British Foreign Secretary David Lammy will seek to deepen UK-India economic ties as he visits New Delhi this weekend, saying Britain's recently agreed trade deal with the country is 'just the start of our ambitions.' Trade and migration will be at the top of the agenda for the Foreign Secretary's trip, during which he will meet Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and external affairs minister S Jaishankar. The Foreign Office said Lammy, who was expected in New Delhi on Saturday, would also raise 'the recent escalation in tensions following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, and how the welcomed sustained period of peace can be best supported in the interests of stability in the region.' Pakistan and India agreed to a US-brokered ceasefire last month after rising hostilities between the two nuclear-armed rivals followed a deadly attack on tourists in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Ahead of the visit, Lammy said: 'Signing a free trade agreement is just the start of our ambitions - we're building a modern partnership with India for a new global era.' (PA Media/dpa)


Qatar Tribune
a day ago
- Qatar Tribune
Iran condemns ‘racist mentality' behind US president's travel ban
Iran has sharply criticised United States President Donald Trump's travel ban on its nationals and those of several countries, calling it 'racist' and a sign of deep-rooted hostility towards Iranians and Muslims. Trump earlier this week signed an executive order that bars and restricts travellers from 19 countries, including several African and Middle Eastern nations. The policy, set to take effect on Monday, echoes measures introduced during Trump's previous term in office from 2017-2021. In the executive order, Trump said he 'must act to protect the national security' of the US. Alireza Hashemi-Raja, who heads the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs' department for Iranians abroad, said on Saturday that the decision reveals 'the dominance of a supremacist and racist mentality among American policymakers'. 'This measure indicates the deep hostility of American decision-makers towards the Iranian and Muslim people,' he said in a statement. The latest restrictions cover nationals from Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. A limited ban has also been applied to travellers from seven other countries. (Agencies)