European colonial powers have been criticized for creating country borders by drawing straight lines on a map, ignoring complicated ethnic divisions. But what would happen if you drew the borders differently? The answer is Kyrgyzstan, whose long and ridiculously convoluted borders were drawn based on ethnic divisions. Unfortunately, the results have not been encouraging, with endless border disputes between Kyrgyzstan and its neighbors.
Unfortunately, what you're saying is still food for that, because a lot of these people do seem to reduce the decolonization of Africa to "they didn't pay attention to ethnicity when making the borders!", even though it's much more complicated, and even though there have been peaceful multicultural nations are war-torn monocultural ones.
Even so, half of the problem people seem to criticize is that individual ethnic groups are split in half. Your comparison would only be true if multiculturalists were additionally arguing to split Sweden into 2 countries with the border at a line of latitude.
Most of the illegal transactions were being done in these value notes. Removing these notes also led to an increase tax collection rate.
That said, it was a major inconvenience, as well as a problem.