HEALTH PERSPECTIVE OF ILEMI TRIANGLE DISPUTE

1. Introduction
Ilemi triangle is a disputed piece of land at the farthest north western border between
Kenya and South-Sudan. Measuring about 14,000Killometers Squares, the dispute has
remained unsolved for over 100years. The dispute is dated back in early 1900s a time
when the British Empire was scrambling for its share of the African land as well as the
Ethiopian Empire flexing its muscles in concurring other resource areas neighbouring it.
The British colonialist left the continents without clearly demarcating the Kenyan-Sudan
Border leading to an unsolved border dispute that we experience today. (Wikipedia,
2016).

Figure 1Source: Google Maps

HISTORICAL DISPUTE
Background

At the turn of the 19th century, when the European colonial powers were
scrambling for Africa, King Menilik II of Ethiopia was also expanding
his area of influence into the region south and west of his country. The
British, having established a foothold in British East Africa (Kenya) and
the Uganda Protectorate, were apprehensive about the Ethiopian
motives. The principal factors which influenced British expansion into
the region were firstly, the Ethiopians were laying claims to the region of
Turkana and Karamoja.
Traders and the Ethiopians obtained ivory from the Turkana by bartering
with firearms, which the latter used with intense ferocity to raid other
tribes (Barber 1968). Secondly, there was concern that the Turkana
threat was forcing other groups southward, thereby posing a serious
challenge to settlers in the White highlands
(Muller 1989). Establishment of British administration in Turkana was
thus aimed at counteracting the Ethiopian expansion. This imperial
rivalry had an important consequence on land use and the socioeconomic well-being of the Turkana and the peoples of the Lake
Turkana Basin at large.
Between 1911 and 1918 a series of military expeditions were mounted
by the British, to break Turkana resistance and to seize firearms. Rather
than being subdued, the Turkana responded by escalating raids on other
tribes and confronting the punitive forces (Lamphear 1976, Barber
1968). But by 1918, after many thousands of cattle and smallstock had
been confiscated, the British succeeded in pacifying Turkana resistance
(Lamphear 1976, Muller 1989).

Escalation of
Land Use
Conflicts

The consequence was overwhelming; a complete disruption of the

Turkana pastoral economy which left a large portion of its population in
poverty. For example, between 1916 -1918, more than 250,000 livestock
were impounded from the Ngikamatak section, ending all resistance to
the colonial rule (Muller 1989, Awuondo 1990). Loss of livestock
disrupted the social security system of reciprocal assistance (Barber
1968, Muller 1989).
The Turkana, like their pastoral neighbours, have a cattle raiding culture.
Memories of past successful raids are passed on through war songs and
dances. The songs describe the heroics of the older generation and their
exploits, shaping the emotions and attitudes of the younger generation.
Raiding of traditional enemies was previously a means of expanding
grazing lands, gaining access to new water sources and most

importantly, an economic stratagem of self-restocking and improving

social status by acquiring livestock from defeated enemies. In Turkana
society, men have the responsibility of protecting communal grazing
lands and livestock from attack by their enemies. This means that each
raid is spontaneously followed by counter raids.
Nevertheless, perpetual enmity between opposing groups seldom occurs.
Alliances between conflicting groups are forged and broken, depending
on prevailing relationships among themselves and with other groups,
while individual friendships are formed and marriages arranged between
groups. Members of one tribal group may move and settle among former
enemies who become new friends, particularly during periodic droughts
and famine when less fortunate groups seek refuge among the more
fortunate ones. When relations between groups are good, there is
reciprocity in access to grazing and water resources during periods of
stress. As one group crosses into another groups territory, access to key
resources is governed by the host groups rules and regulations. The
hosts, by agreeing to assist, expect reciprocal rights in the future. During
such intermittent contacts raids and killings are rare
However, when the balance of power is upset, between rival groups
competing over access to land and water, raiding rather than reciprocity
can become the dominant mode of inter-tribal relations. Following the
disarmament of Turkana, the balance of power dramatically changed in
favour of the Dassenech. Despite the fact that the colonial administration
was concerned with the maintenance of law and order, raids and counter
raids continued to dominate events. Table 1 is the summary of raiding
incidents on Turkana by other groups and the casualties reported
between 1928 and 1983. The figures of livestock stolen by Turkana and
casualties caused by them are not available, though expected to be
similar to those given here. The late 1920s was marked by an escalation
of conflicts between the Turkana and other groups, especially the
Dassenech. The British responded by evacuating the whole country
along the western shores of Lake Rudolf (now Turkana) to the north, to
create "no-mans" land (TDAR 1929). But, regardless of the strong
measures taken, the Turkana continued to be raided. Their response was
natural; they opted to defend themselves. Throughout this period, it was
difficult for the Turkana to appreciate British justice. The Turkana were
disarmed and weakened in contrast to their traditional enemies, who
despite British security measures, continued to kill their people and steal
their livestock with impunity. One solution to the problem was to seek
compensation from the tribes who perpetrated the raids, but as most of
the warring tribes lived outside Kenyan boundaries, the question of
compensation became a contentious political issue between Ethiopia and

the British. Despite the stringent measures taken by the British against
raids, problems of cattle rustling, raids and counter raids were unabated.
The British reacted by confiscating firearms from the Turkana (TDAR
1958). But by the mid-1950s, the Turkana had begun acquiring illegal
firearms to fight off and raid their enemies. Raids were becoming more
frequent and the incursions of the Turkana across international borders
to raid or to pursue those who raided them was intensified. The Turkana
were concerned about the inability of the British to protect their
livestock and grazing lands. Not yet known to the British was the
existence of the underground resistance group of Turkana called
ngoroko, composed of retired army personnel and young warriors,
organized to defend the Turkana against their traditional enemies. The
ngoroko were organized into fighting forces, who were responsible for
most of the raids outside Turkana District, raids which were followed by
counter raids from the other side (TDAR 1972). The ngoroko activities
had an adverse effect on the Turkana economy. Their raiding provoked
counter raids, and not being a disciplined group, they created terror and
havoc among their own people by forcibly depriving them of livestock
to provide rations
Impact of
colonial
administration
on land use

Disarming the Turkana left them at a greater disadvantage against their

traditional enemies. In an attempt to deter raids against Turkana by the
neighbouring tribes, the British created a no-mans land along the
international frontiers. Following the ratification of borders with
Ethiopia, the British administration then embarked on policies which
had profound ramifications for Turkana pastoralism. One policy was the
prohibition of Turkana from crossing international borders. Violators of
these restrictions were punished by an instant fine of 20% of the total
number of livestock found trespassing (Lamphear 1976). In spite of
heavy fines imposed, and patrolling of borders by the army and the
police, the Turkana and other groups continued to transgress when
grazing conditions became inadequate in their territory. The prohibition
on crossing borders seriously threatened the Turkana mode of land use,
which as discussed above, is based on movements between the wet
season grazing within Turkana territory and the dry season grazing
movements which took them across international borders.
Traditionally, the Turkana and other groups each maintained concessions
over grazing and water rights, expecting reciprocal access when
conditions were reversed. This important fact, though well known, was
ignored by the administration (TDAR 1938). Instead, the administration
assumed the responsibility of arranging with those neighbouring
countries also under British administration (Sudan and Uganda), but not
including Ethiopia, for the Turkana to be allowed to use grazing and

TurkanaDassenech
Relations: The
Ilemi Triangle

water resources across international borders. Notwithstanding their

ultimate submission, the Turkana were alarmed by the attitude of the
British, which in their view was only aimed at punishing them, while
ignoring their rights to grazing grounds outside British territory. It was
their conviction that the border administration and security structures
were merely used to reinforce control over them. Fixed borders are alien
to the pastoral mode of land use, as manifested by continuous violations
during periods of drought, for example. The effect of British policy was
to make important pasture and water resources, which Turkana depended
upon during drought years, legally inaccessible.
British attempts to contain tribes within the delimited borders was a
major policy undertaking affecting other groups as well as the Turkana.
The Dassenech, for example, were forced out of grazing areas which
they were hitherto allowed to use, and confined to areas only a fraction
of their former territory, following arbitration of international borders
between Britain and Ethiopia. This became a contentious issue, in which
the Dassenech were caught up in border conflicts between two foreign
powers. When the Ethiopians objected to border arbitration, the British
responded by denying the Dassenech access to their traditional grazing
grounds in Kenya, while the Ethiopians countered by refusing Turkana
fishermen access to the fishing grounds within Ethiopian territory.
Whenever the Ethiopians agreed to open up the fishing grounds to
Turkana fishermen, the British would reciprocate by giving a limited
grazing concession to the Dassenech.
With increased British influence in northern Turkana, once
administrative and security structures were in place, the area in the
extreme southwest of Sudan, which was inadequately administered by
the latter, was placed under the Kenyan administration in 1914 (Carr
1977). This piece of country, popularly called the "Ilemi Triangle," was
the traditional dry season grazing area of the Dassenech and was
acknowledged as the northern-most limit of Turkana grazing grounds. It
served as a buffer zone between the Dassenech and Inyangatom tribes on
one hand, and the Turkana on the other. The British discounted the
Dassenech claim to grazing and water resources in the "Triangle," on the
grounds that they posed a great threat to Turkana (TDAR 1943), and any
Dassenech found trespassing were threatened with an instant fine and
arrests (Carr 1977). Following the disarmament of the Turkana by the
British during the first decade of 1900, the Dassenech had acquired guns
from the Ethiopians and later the Italians. This left them in a superior
military position vis-a-vis other neighbouring groups. This decision had
serious ecological implications, which had a catastrophic effect both on
the Dassanech and the Turkana. The Ilemi Triangle receives more
reliable rainfall than the rest of the district and therefore supports a

richer vegetation. Loss of the "Ilemi Triangle" resulted in reduction of

the Dassenech territory by about 79%, restricting their seasonal
movements. Regardless, grazing restrictions were violated each year,
preoccupying the administration with law enforcement and imposition of
fines.

EVOLUTION OF ILEMI DISPUTE

1902

1907

1914

1918
1928

1929
1931

1936
1938

Mr. Archibald Butter and Captain Philip Maud (Royal Engineers)

surveyed Ethiopias border with British East Africa in 1902-3 and
marked the Maud line which was recognized in 1907 as the de
facto Kenya-Ethiopian border. Addis Ababa renounced Britains attempt
to rectify this border through a survey by Major Charles Gwynn (Royal
Engineers) in August 1908 for excluding Ethiopian surveyors.
Ethiopian emperor Menelik laid claim to Lake Turkana and proposed a
boundary with the British to run from the southern end of the lake
eastward to the Indian Ocean, which was shifted northward when the
British and Ethiopian governments signed a treaty. In December 1907,
Anglo-Ethiopian agreement treaty was signed between Ethiopia and
British East Africa. Though vague on the precise details of where the
border was located, it clearly placed the entire Ilemi on the Sudan side of
the Ethiopia-Sudan line.
Uganda-Sudan Boundary Commission agreement provided Sudan access
to Lake Turkana via the now-dry Sanderson Gulf at the southeast corner
of the Ilemi.
The Ethiopians armed the Nyangatom and Dassanech peoples, whereby
the traditional raids turned into battles where hundreds died.
Sudan agreed to allow Kenyan military units across the 1914 line to
protect the Turkana against the Dassanech and Nyangatom.
Kenya began subsidising Sudan to occupy the territory, which it did not
wish to continue because of the perceived useless nature of it
Sudan agreed to subsidise Kenya to occupy the territory. The Red Line
(the Glenday Line) was drawn to represent the northern boundary of
Turkana grazing. "In a series of agreements from 1929 to 1934, the
Governor-General of the Sudan and the Governor of Kenya agreed that
this Red Line should be accepted as the boundary." This line was based
on the grazing limits of the Turkana peoples as required in the 1914
agreement to replace the provisional straight line
Italy invaded Ethiopia and briefly claimed the area of the Ilemi triangle.
A joint Kenya-Sudan survey team, demarcated the "Red Line" or
"Wakefield Line", very close to the delimitation a few years earlier of

this Red Line, marking the northern limit of grazing of Turkana. This
line, to replace the provisional straight line of 1914 as required by that
treaty was carefully mapped and demarked with stone monuments.
While Egypt and Britain agreed on this, Italy did not.
1939

The Dassanetch and Inyangatom had suffered because of the Italian

occupation, and wished to recoup their losses by making a raid against
the Turkana. Several hundred Turkana people were killed in the raid.
Italy gave up their claim on the Ilemi subsequently, and allowed the
British to respond with a raid on the Inyangatom and Dassanech
supported by the Royal Air Force.

1941

British troops of the King's African Rifles (KAR) occupied Ilemi during
World War II. The KAR passed through Ilemi on their way to
southwestern Ethiopia.

1944

Britain's Foreign Office surveyed a "blue line" which was further

northwest than the "red line".

1950

Sudan established their own patrol line even further northwest into
Sudan where they prohibited Kenyan and Ethiopian pastoralists from
moving west of it, giving up policing and development to the area east
of it. However, that Kenya-Sudan agreement specified that this patrol
line in no way affected sovereignty; that it was not an international
boundary, and money continued to be paid to Kenya to patrol this
Sudanese territory.
1949 and 1953 - There was fighting as Sudan attempted to keep the
Nyangatom behind this line.

1949-1950

There was fighting as Sudan attempted to keep the Nyangatom behind

this line.

1967

President Kenyatta's administration had made overtures to the British in

order to secure support for the cession of the Triangle to Kenya. The
British were unresponsive and the results amounted to little. The matter
was sidelined and successive Kenyan administrations have been
seemingly willing to accept the territorial status quo and their de facto
territorial control, even if the Kenyan influence did diminish after the
relocation of the Sudanese People Liberation Movement- SPLM to
Sudan in the 1980s-90s
Kenya and Ethiopia reaffirmed their boundary, confirming Kenyan
sovereignty to Namuruputh, which is just south of the south-eastern
point of the triangle.

1964

1972

Sudan-Ethiopia boundary alteration did not solve the Ilemi issue because
it did not involve Kenya, but did confirm that Ethiopia had no claim to
the Ilemi Triangle.

1990

Ethiopia armed the Dassanech with Kalashnikov automatic rifles,

perhaps in response to Kenyan government arming in 1978 of the
Turkana.

1960s

Many Kenyan maps have marked the Red Line as the official boundary
of Kenya, rather than a dotted boundary which it had been previously.
More recently, most Kenyan maps depict the 1950 patrol line, the
furthest northwest, as the boundary.

2011

South Sudan gains independence and the claim to the Ilemi Triangle
transferred to the new national government in Juba.
It has been said that the government of South Sudan has opened a case
against Kenya over the country, popularly known as Ilemi triangle.

2012

PUBLIC HEALH CONCERNS AT ILEME TRIANGLE

Injuries

Food Shortage

Water
Contaminatio
n
Rape

Maternal
Health
Vaccination

Death

Concern
This included
Intervention
The Kenyan Government has been responding through
Concern
This included
Intervention
The Kenyan Government has been responding through
Concern
This included
Intervention
The Kenyan Government has been responding through
Concern
This included
Intervention
The Kenyan Government has been responding through
Concern
This included
Intervention
The Kenyan Government has been responding through
Concern
This included
Intervention
The Kenyan Government has been responding through
Concern
This included

Intervention
The Kenyan Government has been responding through