Some argued that the conference was essential to imperialism. African-American historian W. E.B. Du Bois wrote in 1948 that in addition to the Atlantic slave trade with Africans, a great global movement of modern times is “the division of Africa after the Franco-German war which, with the Berlin Conference of 1884, made colonial imperialism flourish” and that “the primary reality of imperialism in Africa today is economic” explained the extraction of wealth from the continent.  The sight of African heads of state gathering in foreign capitals to beg for favors is a re-enactment of the Sultan of Zanzibar`s plea to participate in a conference at which he would be the main passage. The conference opened on November 15, 1884 and continued until closing on February 26, 1885.  The number of plenipotentiaries varied from country to country, but these 14 countries sent representatives to participate in the Berlin Conference and sign the following Berlin Act: List some of the most important agreements of the General Act of the Conference on including a short break for Christmas and New Year, the West African Conference in Berlin would last 104 days. Expires February 26, 1885. For 135 years, the conference has represented the European quarrel and the division of the continent at the end of the nineteenth century. In the popular idea, the delegates are leaning over a map, armed with rules and pencils, sketching the national borders on the continent without suspecting what existed on the ground they were fragmenting. But that`s not true. The Berlin conference did not start the battle.
It was a noise. Nor did it share the continent. Only one state, the ephemeral horror, the Congo Free State, came out of it – when in fact it was not really the creation of the conference. This principle, along with other writings at the conference, allowed Europeans to conquer Africa, but to do as little as possible to manage or control it. The principle does not apply so much to the hinterland of Africa at the time of the conference. This is where the hinterland theory was born, which, in fact, gave any coastal colonial power the right to claim political influence over an undetermined amount of inland land. As Africa was irregularly formed, this theory created problems and was later rejected.  According to some critics, diplomats have set up a humanitarian façade for international support by condemning the slave trade, banning the sale of alcoholic beverages and firearms in certain areas, and voicining concerns about missionary activities. . . .