{"word_count": 2116, "character_count": 16793}
Appel &#224; contributions international pour un dossier de la revue Echog&#233;o &#224; para&#238;tre en juin 2010En 1960, un grand nombre de pays africains issus principalement des empires coloniaux britanniques et fran&#231;ais acc&#233;daient &#224; l&#8217;ind&#233;pendance. A ce moment, des choix territoriaux de grande importance furent r&#233;alis&#233;s, puisqu&#8217;ils dessinaient les fronti&#232;res des Etats nations appel&#233;s &#224; se construire &#8211; lesquelles allaient &#234;tre globalement fig&#233;es en 1963 par le dogme fondateur de l&#8217;Organisation de l&#8217;Union Africaine affirmant l&#8217;intangibilit&#233; des fronti&#232;res h&#233;rit&#233;es de la colonisation. Apr&#232;s d&#8217;&#226;pres d&#233;bats, les f&#233;d&#233;rations de l&#8217;Afrique occidentale fran&#231;aise (AOF) et de l&#8217;Afrique &#233;quatoriale fran&#231;aise (AEF) &#233;clat&#232;rent, laissant place &#224; des territoires &#233;tatiques de faible poids d&#233;mographique correspondant aux diff&#233;rentes colonies (8 en AOF, 4 en AEF). Ailleurs, on choisit de maintenir de grands ensembles g&#233;ographiques (Nigeria, Congo belge). Les populations des anciennes colonies allemandes plac&#233;es sous mandat fran&#231;ais et britanniques furent appel&#233;es &#224; se prononcer par r&#233;f&#233;rendum sur leur pays de rattachement&#160;: le Togoland fut partag&#233; entre Togo et Ghana, le sud-ouest de l&#8217;ancien Kamerun entre la R&#233;publique du Cameroun et le Nigeria. Les enveloppes territoriales &#233;taient scell&#233;es&#160;: les Etats nations devraient s&#8217;y construire tout en r&#233;pondant aux exigences du d&#233;veloppement socio-&#233;conomique. On sait que leur destin fut tumultueux. &#160;Au-del&#224; des vains d&#233;bats sur &#171;&#160;l&#8217;artificialit&#233;&#160;des fronti&#232;res h&#233;rit&#233;es de la colonisation&#160;&#187;, il s&#8217;agit ici de s&#8217;interroger sur le devenir, au cours du demi-si&#232;cle d&#8217;ind&#233;pendance africaine &#233;coul&#233;, de cette relation complexe entre fronti&#232;res, Etats, nation et d&#233;veloppement, contenant et contenu. Autrement dit, nous invitons &#224; en proposer des &#233;l&#233;ments de bilan g&#233;ographique. Parmi les nombreuses pistes que celui-ci pourrait emprunter, nous sugg&#233;rons de centrer la r&#233;flexion sur deux dimensions principales&#160;: la relation identit&#233;s / fronti&#232;res / construction nationale&#160;d&#8217;une part ; la question des choix du d&#233;veloppement en relation avec les enjeux d&#8217;am&#233;nagement des territoires et d&#8217;int&#233;gration r&#233;gionale d&#8217;autre part.&#160;La premi&#232;re appelle des r&#233;flexions d&#8217;ordre politique ou g&#233;opolitique&#160;: comment se sont articul&#233;s territoires, identit&#233;s et Etats&#160;dans l&#8217;Afrique ind&#233;pendante ? Les fronti&#232;res de 1960 enserrent des populations d&#8217;une grande diversit&#233;, que l&#8217;histoire &#8211; pr&#233;coloniale et coloniale &#8211; a plus souvent oppos&#233;es qu&#8217;unis. Les histoires nationales ult&#233;rieures ont proc&#233;d&#233; d&#8217;&#233;quilibres plus ou moins instables entre sentiment national &#233;mergent, identit&#233;s ethniques, religieuses ou r&#233;gionales. Certaines fronti&#232;res furent contest&#233;es, parfois dans le cadre de mouvements s&#233;cessionnistes exprimant la r&#233;volte de r&#233;gions marginalis&#233;es, moins souvent du fait de revendications territoriales des pays voisins. Au centre des processus de construction nationale, l&#8217;Etat en a exprim&#233; toutes les ambigu&#239;t&#233;s, dans des contextes &#233;conomiques (crise des ann&#233;es 1980) et politiques (guerre froide jusqu&#8217;en 1990) difficiles. Il est apparu tant&#244;t comme facteur de centralisation et d&#8217;unit&#233;, tant&#244;t comme acteur d&#8217;une instrumentalisation des identit&#233;s infranationales au service des &#233;lites au pouvoir et lieu d&#8217;accaparement patrimonial. Parall&#232;lement, l&#8217;amplification de la d&#233;centralisation depuis les ann&#233;es 1990 a d&#233;multipli&#233; les territoires&#160;infranationaux : elle visait &#224; requalifier l&#8217;Etat en favorisant un d&#233;veloppement &#224; l&#8217;&#233;chelle locale, et, en Afrique du sud, &#224; gommer les stigmates g&#233;ographiques de l&#8217;apartheid. Mais elle est aussi lourde d&#8217;ambigu&#239;t&#233;s, en risquant d&#8217;accro&#238;tre les in&#233;galit&#233;s territoriales et les replis communautaires. En ville comme en milieu rural, la tension entre autochtonie et allochtonie qui pr&#233;side au contr&#244;le du foncier met l&#8217;identit&#233; au c&#339;ur des enjeux de pouvoir. &#160;La seconde orientation m&#234;le &#233;conomie et g&#233;ographie&#160;: comment pense-t-on le d&#233;veloppement dans ses relations au territoire apr&#232;s un demi-si&#232;cle d&#8217;ind&#233;pendance&#160;? En 1960, l&#8217;option retenue des petits Etats dans l&#8217;ancienne Afrique fran&#231;aise a constitu&#233; une contrainte : l&#8217;exigu&#239;t&#233; des march&#233;s entravait l&#8217;effort d&#8217;industrialisation. Ce choix n&#8217;est pas sans expliquer l&#8217;absence de rupture initiale avec les structures &#233;conomiques coloniales, bas&#233;es sur l&#8217;exportation vers le march&#233; mondial de mati&#232;res premi&#232;res peu ou pas transform&#233;es, agricoles (cacao, caf&#233;, coton, arachide, bois, etc.) ou mini&#232;res. Les f&#233;d&#233;rations d&#233;funtes, les r&#233;seaux urbains et ceux des infrastructures ont d&#8217;abord du &#234;tre pens&#233;s dans un cadre national. Mais depuis 1960, dans ces pays comme dans partout sur le continent, la situation a beaucoup chang&#233;. Dans chacun des Etats, la population a &#233;t&#233; multipli&#233;e par trois au moins, et l&#8217;urbanisation a globalement beaucoup progress&#233; &#8211; 50% des subsahariens vivent aujourd&#8217;hui en ville. La croissance rapide des m&#233;tropoles africaines et les strat&#233;gies g&#233;ographiques et &#233;conomiques de leurs &#233;lites t&#233;moignent de leur insertion dans les flux mondialis&#233;s. Les &#233;conomies nationales se sont pourtant diversifi&#233;es. La d&#233;pendance li&#233;e &#224; l&#8217;exportation des mati&#232;res premi&#232;res peu transform&#233;es demeure, mais elle est att&#233;nu&#233;e par les flux africains du vivrier marchand. Ceux-ci approvisionnent les m&#233;tropoles (nationales, ou des pays voisins) et dynamisent leurs hinterlands ruraux, apportant une contribution majeure &#224; des int&#233;grations sous-r&#233;gionales dont les progr&#232;s institutionnels demeurent lents. Depuis les plans d&#8217;ajustement structurels des ann&#233;es 1980-90, les Etats ont perdu de leur pouvoir&#160;: le monde de la coop&#233;ration internationale (bailleurs, ONG) assume une partie (variable selon les pays) de leurs pr&#233;rogatives dans les domaines sociaux (&#233;ducation, sant&#233;), &#233;conomiques (appui &#224; l&#8217;agriculture, infrastructures, etc.) et de d&#233;finition des politiques publiques&#160;; la d&#233;centralisation multiplie les acteurs publics territoriaux&#160;; les transferts financiers des &#233;migr&#233;s et l&#8217;action des firmes transnationales contribuent &#224; relativiser le pouvoir de l&#8217;Etat. Pour autant, en Afrique comme ailleurs, les crises (alimentaire, &#233;nerg&#233;tique, &#233;conomique) de la fin des ann&#233;es 2000&#160;soulignent les besoins de r&#233;gulation d&#8217;un monde interconnect&#233; de plus en plus complexe, et posent la question de la pertinence de l&#8217;&#233;chelle nationale et du r&#244;le de l&#8217;Etat dans ces r&#233;gulations. &#160;&#160;On l&#8217;aura compris, la focale est large. Il s&#8217;agit de saisir, dans une perspective g&#233;ographique diachronique qui puisse ouvrir sur une r&#233;flexion prospective, la relation entre territoires, identit&#233;s et d&#233;veloppement durant le premier demi-si&#232;cle d&#8217;ind&#233;pendance africaine. Les articles propos&#233;s pourront se situer &#224; l&#8217;&#233;chelle des r&#233;gions ou des m&#233;tropoles, concerner des pays, des ensembles sous-r&#233;gionaux ou des th&#232;mes transversaux. La date de 1960 sert de charni&#232;re, car elle marque l&#8217;ind&#233;pendance d&#8217;un grand nombre d&#8217;Etats, mais elle n&#8217;exclut pas les pays dont l&#8217;&#233;mancipation est ant&#233;rieure ou post&#233;rieure. Enfin, des perspectives &#233;pist&#233;mologiques abordant l&#8217;&#233;volution du regard de la g&#233;ographie ou d&#8217;autres sciences sociales sur cette relation entre territoires, fronti&#232;res, identit&#233;s et d&#233;veloppement en Afrique, seraient &#233;galement bienvenues.&#160; &#160;Les propositions d&#8217;article &#8211; sous formes de r&#233;sum&#233;s de 3.000 &#224; 6.000 signes - devront &#234;tre envoy&#233;es &#224; Jean-Marie Th&#233;odat (jean-marie.theodat@univ-paris1.fr) ou G&#233;raud Magrin (magrin@cirad.fr) avant le 30 novembre 2009. Les articles pr&#233;s&#233;lectionn&#233;s,&#160;d&#8217;une longueur de 30.000 signes, seront remis pour &#233;valuation le 28 f&#233;vrier 2010. La publication du dossier aura lieu dans le num&#233;ro d&#8217;Echog&#233;o de juin 2010. Propositions d&#8217;article et articles pourront &#234;tre r&#233;dig&#233;s en fran&#231;ais ou en anglais. Echog&#233;o review call for articles &#8211; for publication in June 2010&#160;In 1960 most African countries, mainly colonies from British and French colonial empires, accessed to Independence. At this time, crucial territorial choices were made, by defining the boundaries of the Nation States under construction. Those boundaries were globally settled in 1963 by the founding dogma of the African Union Organization stating the intangibility of the borders inherited from colonization. After harsh debates, the Federations of French Western Africa (Afrique Occidentale Fran&#231;aise, AOF) and of French Equatorial Africa (Afrique Equatoriale Fran&#231;aise, AEF) split and gave birth to national entities with low population density, corresponding to the ex-colonies (8 in AOF, 4 in AEF). Elsewhere, the goal seemed to maintain great geographic unities, as Nigeria or Congo (former Belgian Congo) did. The populations of the former German colonies under French or British mandates were asked, in a referendum vote, to choose their homeland. Togoland was split between Togo and Ghana and the south-west of the former Cameroon between Nigeria and the Republic of Cameroon. While the territorial frames were fixed, the Nation States had to establish and develop themselves within those new patterns, which was all but easy.The aim of this call for articles is not to examine once more the &#8220;artificial&#8221; nature of the borders inherited from colonization, debate we consider somewhat vain, but to question the becoming &#8211;in the post-independence era- of the complex connection between borders, States, Nations and development, between containers and contents. In other words, what kind of appraisal can geographers propose on this subject ? Among the many possible paths for our reflection on the subject we suggest to focus on two main questions: 1)&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; The relationship between identity, borders and national construction.2)&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; Development choices in relation with the stakes of development planning and regional integration. The first question stresses political and geopolitical considerations to understand how territories, identities and States can be linked in a free Africa. The 1960 borders bring together very different populations which pre-colonial as much as colonial histories had most of the time opposed. The ulterior national histories have constantly proceeded more or less from instable balance between emerging national sentiment and ethnical, religious or regional identities. Some borders were challenged, sometimes by secessionist movements expressing the revolt of marginalized regions, less often through the territorial claims of neighbouring States. At the core of national construction processes, the role of the State was ambiguous, as well in difficult economic (the 80&#8217;s crisis) as in political (the cold war until 1990) contexts. Sometimes States have managed to work as factors of centralization and unity. But other times, they have also been used by some influent politicians in office to boost infra-national identities and create patrimonial monopoles. The effect of decentralization policies have increased those dynamics since the 1990&#8217;s and multiplied infra-national territories. Decentralization policies in fact aimed at re-qualifying the State by promoting local scale development, and in the specific case of South-Africa, for example, by erasing the apartheid spatial stigmas. Though some of those policies were successful, others actually increased territorial inequalities and communitarian dynamics. In towns as well as in the countryside, tensions between natives and non-natives, which preside over the supervision of land ownership, put identity at the core of power stakes.The second question addresses the understanding of development through territorial issues after 50 years of independence. That question would be best addressed by linking economical problems together with geographical ones. The small States option chosen by the former French Africa in 1960 turned out to be a constraint: the slenderness of markets impeded the industrialization effort. But we have to bear in mind that that choice was made because it allowed continuity with the colonial economic structures, which relied on the export of raw materials to the world market. Those raw materials were generally not transformed whether from agriculture (cocoa, coffee, cotton, peanuts, woods) or from mines. After the two Federations disbanded, the urban networks and basic equipment networks had to be thought first and foremost in a national framework. But since 1960, in these countries as everywhere on the continent, the situation has greatly evolved. In every National State, population has been multiplied at least by three, and urbanization has clearly progressed &#8211; 50% of Sub-Saharan people currently live in a town. The quick growth of African metropoles and the geographic and economic strategies of their elites testify to their insertion in globalized flows. National economies have moreover diversified. The dependence linked to the exportation of basic commodities not much transformed remains, but it is diminished by the flows of the food crops trade to Africans cities. By supplying metropoles (in national or neighboring States), these flows contribute to revive their rural hinterland, and help sub-regional integrations whose institutional progress remains slow.Since the structural adjustment plans of the 80-90&#8217;s, States have lost part of their power. The international cooperation world (NGO, financial backers) took responsibility for part of their prerogatives as far as social (education, health) and economic (support to agriculture, networks, etc.) issues and tries to influence public policies. As decentralization multiplies territorial public actors, migrants transfers and remittances as transnational companies&#8217; actions contribute to counterbalance State power. To conclude, in Africa as elsewhere, food and fuel problems and economic crises at the end of the 2000&#8217;s underline the need for regulation in a more and more complex and interconnected world, questioning the relevance of the national scale and the role of the State in that regulation.The range of the questions we have suggested to focus on is quite wide. It consists in seizing, in a diachronic geographic outlook, the relationship between territories, identities and development during the first half century of African freedom. The proposed articles can deal with different scales such as regions or metropoles, with countries, sub-regional unities or transversal themes. 1960 is a turning point, since it marks the independence of a great number of States, but it doesn&#8217;t exclude countries which emancipation came earlier or later. Epistemological perspectives about geography or other social sciences will be equally welcomed.Abstracts from 3,000 to 6,000 signs should be sent to Jean-Marie Th&#233;odat (jean-marie.teodat@univ-paris1.fr) and G&#233;raud Magrin (magrin@cirad.fr) before November 30th, 2009. Shortlisted articles, 30,000 signs long, will have to be sent for appraisal by February 28th, 2010. The articles will be published in June 2010.Article proposals and articles can be submitted in French or in English.