World History Interactive Text Chapter Eighteen: Decolonization

David D. Peck. Ph.D.Brigham Young University-Idaho

Decolonization

The term decolonization refers to the adjustment of political and economic relations between colonies scattered across the globe, and the countries that controlled them. Most often, decolonization refers to the attainment of full independence by many countries in Africa and Asia following World War Two (1939-1945). The study of decolonization is valuable, perhaps even essential, because the consequences of how former colonies gained independence are, for better or for worse, with us today and form an unavoidable context for framing contemporary problems and potential solutions.

The process of decolonization, unfolding differently from one country to another, can be described generally in one of three ways. First, in some cases full independence was firmly opposed by ruling nations, resulting in marked and protracted violence between freedom fighters and colonial rulers (e.g., Algeria). Second, others achieved independence through negotiation and accommodation. Many countries in this category eventually joined in voluntary organizations with their former rulers. (e.g., Singapore). Third, a few countries elected to remain colonies (e.g., Gibraltar).

Decolonization, a complex subject, cannot be fully addressed in a textbook chapter. There are, nevertheless, several important things we can accomplish as an introduction to the subject. In this chapter we will:

review the economic and political events that made large-scale decolonization possible (such as World War One, the global depression of the 1930s, and World War II)

learn about post-World War II institutions that provided colonies and former colonies with a forum to collectively approach decolonization (such as the United Nations).

consider the impact of Cold War political pressures upon decolonization. investigate two important models of how colonies, once independent, attempted to

integrate themselves into larger regional or global communities (the Non-aligned Movement and the British Commonwealth of Nations). Finally, any attempt at comprehending the problems now faced by a particular

nation that once was a colony should include the following: how they became a colony, how long they were a colony, and the conditions under which they gained whatever measure of independence they now enjoy. Therefore, this chapter will demonstrate how this may be done through three detailed cases: India, Egypt, and the Congo.

Prelude to DecolonizationEuropean colonial power, already dominant around the globe, reached its zenith

in the interwar Period (1918-1939). The post-World War One Versailles Conference

(1918-1919), and subsequent conferences such as the San Remo Conference (1920), served to expand and formalize colonization, conducted primarily by Britain, France, Italy, and Japan by means of the League of Nations. For example, the meeting at San Remo resulted in the Treaty of Sèvres (1920), which intended to divide lands of the defunct Ottoman Empire among Britain, France, and Greece, with a zone of Italian influence. In the early 1920s, the League of Nations awarded mandates, or thinly-veiled colonial arrangements, to Britain and France over Arab lands formerly under Ottoman control. For example, France was awarded the mandate for Syria (which then included Lebanon) in 1923. Britain was given mandates for both Mesopotamia (Iraq) in 1920, and Palestine (which later became Israel, the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and the current Kingdom of Jordan), in 1922. Not only in the Middle East, but elsewhere around the globe colonial power was strengthened through international (i.e., primarily European) agreements, and often through formal territorial grants by the League of Nations.

Paradoxically, colonial power at its height was simultaneously eroded in two ways: the impact of changing global economic conditions, and the rise of indigenous nationalist/independence movements. Colonial power and the factors leading to its erosion converged during and following World War Two (1939-1945), facilitating increased decolonization over the next three decades.

Economic Pressures Affecting Colonial Powers. World War One resulted in nearly nine million casualties, an economic disaster in and of itself for European colonial powers. In light of this staggering and completely unexpected human cost, the monetary costs of the war are equally staggering. Britain spent nearly $35 billion (1918 dollars) on the war, or twenty-eight percent of the total Allied expenditures, followed by France at $24 billion, or nineteen percent. Britain and France, the major colonial players globally, together funded over fifty percent of the Allied war effort, often taking out loans from the United States. Thus following the war, they were saddled with millions of dollars in debt repayment in addition to their own direct expenses. Nevertheless, they persisted in colonial expansion. By way of contrast, Germany, a modest colonial power in comparison, spent $38 billion on the war, or sixty-two percent of the total expense for the Central Powers. For Germany, the costs of the war both in monetary and human terms, the expense of post-war reparations together with massive inflation and domestic unemployment in the 1920s, effectively ended its colonial career.

With insufficient time to re-stabilize the economies of Britain and France, the global depression of the 1930s extended their economic problems. In 1932, Britain’s GDP fell to about eighty-six percent of 1929 levels, whereas France hit bottom at eighty-two percent. In terms of economic production, neither nation recovered until 1939. For an entire decade, economic output and attendant unemployment plagued both nations. Consequently, they were forced to consider reducing or liquidating colonial possessions. World War Two, however, interrupted these early considerations of decolonization, and both nations held tight to possessions abroad, now viewed as vital in light of the strategic threat posed by global war with the Axis powers.

Because World War Two was spread further across the globe than any prior conflict, existing colonial territory became a necessary strategic asset. French colonies in Ghana and Nigeria, for example, were used as staging grounds for major combat

2

operations. In addition to territorial considerations, colonial troops were vital to the cause of victory. For example, India contributed nearly 2.5 million persons in uniform to the British armed forces. Indian troops fought in the Sudan, North Africa, Cypress, Fiji, Monte Cassino, and dozens of other far-flung locations, receiving numerous citations for valor. Because the government of France was divided during the war (principally between the Vichy regime and the Free French) its colonial contribution in personnel is more complex and less clear. In terms of expense, World War II cost Britain £20 billion, or about $80 billion in 1940 dollars. In 2009 dollars, this would arguably amount to over a trillion dollars. Add to that the 40 million or more lives lost by all sides to the war, and its cost is virtually incomprehensible. By 1945, it was clear that Britain could no longer afford most of its empire, nor could France.

The Rise of Nationalism and Opposition to Colonialism. The material, human, and ideological resources necessary for independence coalesced within many of the colonies beginning in the late 19th century. Increasing numbers of colonials were educated in western institutions abroad (in France, Britain, the United States, and elsewhere), or at foreign schools located in the colonies (such as the French Collège-des-Frères established in Cairo, Egypt, in 1888). These educational experiences, coupled with interaction with colonial administrations, exposed some colonials to western political ideals. Among these ideals were human, civil, and individual rights and liberties. They were also exposed to political and economic theories, such as republicanism, socialism, communism, capitalism, and so forth. It should not come as a surprise that a native intellectual and political elite emerged, a nationalist intelligentsia, that sought to realize such liberties and rights as well as political and economic opportunities for colonials, while at the same time limiting colonial power. Many colonial independence movements, some established as early as the nineteenth century, began with a membership drawn from the intelligentsia, and typically were led by them.

Existing nationalist and independence movements were strengthened in two ways during and following World War I. The first was the participation of colonial soldiers in World War One, and the second is found in the ideals expressed by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in this famous Fourteen Points speech. Existing movements were not only strengthened, but new movements were founded.As to the first factor, Colonial soldiers not only fought during World War One in their own colonies, but also fought abroad on the soil of their European overlords. For example, Senegalese sharpshooters, part of the French colonial force Noire, or Black Forces, fought in eastern France at the bloody and prolonged Battle of Verdun (1915-16). Moroccans saved the national cathedral of France at Rheims. Unsurprisingly such service, paid as it was in blood, gave some colonial nationalists hope that the mother country would recognize their sacrifice with a grant of post-war independence.

Not only did military service raise hopes of independence but colonial powers often promised “self-determination” as an incentive to continued support for the war effort. For example, British Undersecretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu argued, in the words of historian Paul Johnson, for the “gradual development of free institutions in India with a view to self-government. Johnson, in his book Modern Times, noted that some British administrators interpreted that to mean independence after 500 more years of British rule, but “to the excitable Indians it meant a single generation.” Also, The story

3

of T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) demonstrates that British assurances of self-determination were not limited to India, but included many parts of the Arab world as well.

After Germany and the Allied Powers signed an Armistice of November 11, 1918, numerous independence leaders from a variety of colonies headed to Versailles, including an Arab delegation headed by Prince Faysal of Arabia in which Lawrence participated. Inspired not only by their own battlefield sacrifices and the assurances of their colonial overlords, nationalists and other independence elites took additional hope from the statements of Woodrow Wilson.

The second factor to strengthen nationalist and independents movements after the war came about through the Fourteen-points speech delivered by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson on January 8, 1918. In it he outlined a core of essential principles he felt would lead to lasting world peace. Wilson urged that the peoples of the defunct Ottoman Empire should be: “assured...an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.” Although the phrase “autonomous development” might not mean full independence to colonial powers, it was interpreted that way by leaders among Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, and others. Furthermore, Wilson called for the creation of an international organization, named The League of Nations, that afforded “mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” It seemed like the United States strongly supported decolonization.

Hopes for independence consequently ran high at the Versailles peace conference. But ultimately independence delegations were largely frustrated. The post-Versailles colonial world not only looked similar to the pre-World War One situation generally, but, over the next decade, more colonies would be created, several by the League of Nations itself. The United States declined to join the League of Nations, which was dominated by Britain and France, and arguably served as a collective body that ratified colonial possessions and oversaw the process of increased colonization. The League of Nations issued mandates, which were (on their face, at least) the assignment of a country or region in need of political management to one of the League’s larger member nations. Mandatory proposals were drafted as early as the San Remo conference in 1920.

In all, the League awarded fourteen mandates to six mandatory powers. The mandatory powers included the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. The areas mandated included portions of the Middle East (e.g. Mesopotamia, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon), portions of Africa (including South Africa) and several South Pacific islands. Although intended perhaps to encourage national development leading to independence, historians generally agree that several mandates functioned as a front for colonialism. Most of the mandates awarded lasted beyond World War Two, although at least one (British Mesopotamia) ended in 1932. Colonial nationalists were often disappointed, frustrated, and angry that what they considered the promised hope of independence had not only been abandoned, but that colonial power appeared to only grow stronger.

Thus, during the interwar period the foundations for post-World War Two decolonization were laid. Economically, World War One and the Great Depression undermined the ability to maintain the colonies. Nationalist independence movements, already in place in India and Egypt before World War One, gained legitimacy at home

4

through the sacrifices made by colonial troops, the assurances of independence made by colonial administrators, and the ideals voiced by politicians such as Woodrow Wilson.

Failed expectations of post-war independence lead some nationalists to urge violence as the means of gaining independence, while others pressed for a diplomatic solution. Both of these approaches, variations along the spectrum between diplomacy and violence, will be investigated later in some detail in the cases of India, Egypt, and the Congo. Whether or not a colony engaged in diplomacy or in violence, or some combination of the two, is often connected to the type of independent state that emerged. The post-colonial experience must therefore be understood as an extension of the nation’s colonial and independence experiences.

World War Two and the Process of Decolonization

World War Two not only weakened several empires, it completely ended some. Prior to the war, Japan (as an example of an empires terminated by the war) had amassed significant colonial possessions, joining several European powers as a global colonizer. On the eve of the war, Japan had possessions in China, Korea, Indochina (Vietnam), Burma, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and elsewhere. All of these became independent by the end of the war. Italy, too, lost its much smaller empire, including possessions in Libya and elsewhere.

The industrialization and economic development of some colonies during the war accelerated the process of decolonization. Although colonies supplied their rulers with much needed military personnel (recall, for example, that India put nearly 2.5 million in uniform for Great Britain), they also supplied much needed raw material and manufactured goods. For example, India manufactured much of the munitions used by the Allies in the war’s south-Asian theatre of operation. By the end of the war, India was one of the most important industrial economies in the world, estimated by some as the forth largest. The war also reversed India’s financial relationship with Britain: before the war, India was Britain’s debtor, but after became a creditor. The economic strength thus gained allowed for increased independence of action in the political arena. In 1945, India was already functionally independent–a fact which was formally recognized through independence in 1947. The loss of India, called the British Raj, marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire. Although the British Empire still continues as of this writing, with possessions such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, the British Empire never recovered from the loss of India in 1947, followed closely by the loss of Egypt in 1954.

Creation of the United NationsIt is common to view the United Nations as an outgrowth of the League of

Nations. That view is accurate and also inaccurate. It is accurate in that both organizations claimed to represent the world community of nations and to provide that community with a diplomatic forum. It is inaccurate, however, with respect to decolonization. The League, as mentioned earlier, assigned certain colonies to colonial powers through the mandate system, whereby the colonial power was to act as a big brother of sorts that would, ostensibly, gradually lead the colony to self-determination

5

and independence. The UN, in contrast, took collective responsibility for the colonies promoting eventual independence, by means of its Trusteeship Council. There is one other important difference: the role of the United States. Whereas the US played an indispensable role in the creation and perpetuation of the UN, it refused to even join the League.

We are going to examine the process that led to the establishment of the UN through two important World War Two-related documents: The Atlantic Charter and the Declaration of United Nations. Both of these pre-cursors to the UN contained direct references to decolonization as well statements respecting the rights of former colonies an their status as full members of the world community of nations.

The Atlantic Charter. President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill met aboard an American warship, the USS Augusta from August 12-14, 1941, where they prepared a joint statement called the Atlantic Charter. The statement presumed the defeat of Germany, and the end of imperialism following the victorious end of the war. Although not a signed formal treaty, the Charter publically declared the policies of two of the three great allied powers, the United States and Great Britain. The Charter provided that the United States and Great Britain, in consequence of victory:

Would not seek territorial aggrandizement (no increase in the size of their countries or of their empires).

Would not seek territorial changes that are contrary to the “freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.”

Would “respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.”

In addition to these provisions, which addressed the end of colonialism and the right to national self-determination, the Charter committed the US and Britain to encourage global economic stability and opportunity for all peoples, as well as relief from the burdens of maintaining armaments, and a dedication to lasting peace.

Declaration of United Nations. In 1942, the Allied Powers produced a statement that included the provisions of the Atlantic Charter, thus applying them more broadly. This statement, called Declaration of United Nations, was signed by all the major Allied Powers: The United States, Great Britain, China, and the Soviet Union (collectively called the Big Four). Although the Declaration uses the term “United Nations,” it really means “those nations that are united as allies against the Axis Powers (Germany, Italy, and Japan).” It does not refer to the international organization we know today, called The United Nations, which was established after the war ended. By 1945, an additional 43 nations signed including colonies such as India (Britain), The Philippine Commonwealth (USA), Ethiopia (Italy/Britain), Egypt (Britain), and Syria (France). Signing the Declaration by the colonies was an act of independent sovereignty normally exercised only by free nations, indicating that decolonization was becoming more and more a fact by the end of the war.

The United Nations. With the war ending in 1945, the stage was set for the formalization of the Atlantic Charter and the Declaration by United Nations through the establishment, by treaty, of The United Nations. Fifty nations, beginning in April, 1945, drafted the UN Charter. The UN was created when the five permanent members of the Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom (Britain), France, the Union of

6

Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and the Republic of China) ratified the Charter on October 24, 1945.

The UN originally had six organizations (or organs), which were given the responsibility of carrying out many of the commitments in the UN Charter, some of which were first set out in the Atlantic Charter:

General Assembly (GA)–Includes all member nations of the UN, numbering more than 190 in 2009. All member nations have equal representation in the GA. The GA sets the UN budget, appoints non-permanent members of the Security Council, receives reports from UN organs and subsidiary organizations, and makes non-binding recommendations in the form of GA resolutions.

Security Council (SC)– The Security Council consists of 15 members, including five permanent members and ten non-permanent (rotating) members, charged with the maintenance of international peace and security, setting international sanctions, and enforcement through SC Resolutions and through military action when deemed necessary. Any single permanent member of the SC has the power to veto a Resolution.

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)–Currently (2009) fifty-four members of the GA are elected to three-year terms on ECOSOC, charged with overseeing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The World Bank makes leveraged loans to poorer countries, whereas the IMF monitors the global financial system based upon the macroeconomic principles of UN member-nations.

Secretariat–Headed by a Secretary-General, the Secretariat acts as an executive body for the UN, implementing assignments from the SC and GA, as well as providing information, reports, and facilities required by the UN.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)–Located in the city of The Hague in the Netherlands, this is the only organ of the UN headquartered outside of New York City. The ICJ has fifteen judges appointed by the GA and SC to nine-year terms, and no two judges may be from the same country, The ICJ issues advisory opinions except in cases where two nations have submitted to binding proceedings. The United

7

States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and now participates on a case-by-case basis.

Trusteeship Council (TC)–Although colonial nations made use of the other organs of the UN to seek independence, the TC was one of the original organs charged specifically with overseeing decolonization. The TC supervised eleven territories, ten of which were League of Nations mandates, until the last, Palau, joined the UN in 1994, and the TC’s operations ceased. The TC was composed of the permanent members of the SC, representatives from nations that administered the territories (i.e., the colonial powers), and an equal number of disinterested GA members elected to renewable three-year terms. The TC was charged with overseeing the attainment of independence by balancing the interests of colonial inhabitants with international issues of security and peace. Several territories supervised by the TC had also been colonies of Germany, Italy, and Japan, the three principal Axis powers of World War Two.

Although the roles of the UN and the TC in decolonization were significant (as we shall see in the case of the Congo), dozens of other colonies attained independence or significantly restructured existing colonial relationships by other (i.e., non-TC or UN) means.

Cold War Context of Decolonization (1945-1989)Decolonization post-WWII is understood best within the context of the Cold War.

The Cold War was a period of ongoing conflict and competition between one post-war superpower, the United States and its allies on the one hand, and the second superpower, the Soviet Union and its satellites/allies on the other hand. The core difference between the superpowers arose of out of two conflicting ideologies: capitalist democracy versus socialist communism. During the Cold War, each superpower sought to weaken the other, to the extent that much of the globe became a field of superpower competition intended to prove the inherent rightness of their ideology. The superpowers competed politically, economically, and either directly or through surrogates, militarily. The United States and its allies were referred to as the West, the Free World, or, the “First” World. The Soviet Union and its allies were variously known as the East, the Communist World, or the “Second” World. Although many countries were traditionally or formally allied with one of the superpowers during the Cold War, a number were not. A question arose as to the Cold War allegiance of those nations that gained independence soon after WWII, including the nations of India and Indonesia (soon to include Egypt): would they join the First World, or would they join the Second World? The inclusion of these nations, representing perhaps one-fifth of humanity, on one side or the other, could assure eventual global domination of the West or the East.

8

In 1952, French Journalist Alfred Sauvy named these emerging independent nations le tiers monde, or, “The Third World.” Although membership in the Third World is often viewed today largely in geographic terms (Africa, Latin America, Asia), it may be viewed through the lens of decolonization as well. Many Third World nations did not wish to join with either the USA or the USSR on Cold-War terms. Instead they sought a third way, by which they might interact with the First and Second worlds without compromising their independence, and thus advance their own interests, not necessarily those of one superpower over the other.

The Bandung Conference (April, 1955)In order to advance their independence so recently gained, leaders from various

Third World nations, including India, Indonesia, and Egypt, met at the Bandung Conference of 1955, in Bandung, Indonesia. The attending nations included: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Vietnam (North), Vietnam (South), and Yemen. Among the leaders present were Jawaharlal Nehru (India), Kusno Sukarno (Indonesia), and Gamal Abdul Nasser (Egypt). Several of these nations would meet again in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, in 1961, and formalize their relationship as the Non-aligned Movement, meaning that they aligned themselves neither with the West nor the East, and included Yugoslavia’s leader, Josip Tito.

The Conference addressed several Cold War and decolonization issues. Participating nations predictably expressed concern regarding traditional (i.e., primarily European) colonial activities, such as French North Africa, and the growing conflict in Algeria in particular. However, attendees also criticized Soviet policies as well, particularly concerning East Europe. In addition to discussions about western and eastern imperialism, the conference produced a ten-point Declaration on world peace and cooperation that referenced elements of the UN Charter:

1. Respect for fundamental human rights and for the purposes and principles of the charter of the United Nations

2. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations3. Recognition of the equality of all races and of the equality of all nations large and

small4. Abstention from intervention or interference in the internal affairs of another

country5. Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or collectively, in

conformity with the charter of the United Nations6. (a) Abstention from the use of arrangements of collective defense to serve any

particular interests of the big powers(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries

7. Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country

8. Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations

9

9. Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation10. Respect for justice and international obligations.

Although the declaration, and the subsequent Non-aligned Movement showed a growing solidarity between the former colonies of the Third World, internal disagreements, political differences, personality conflicts, and other disrupting factors prevented the movement from achieving its potential as a genuine counterbalance to the West and the East. Thus, the term “Third World” as used today reflects a geographic and economic reality, but not a political one.

Volunteer Post-colonial OrganizationsAlthough the Non-aligned movement ultimately failed to produce a global political, economic and cultural alternative for many recently independent colonies, other volunteer associations were established that offered post-colonial alternatives, albeit on a smaller scale than that envisioned at Bandung. These organizations, often named commonwealths or communities, provided economic, cultural, and in some cases political, support for members, largely along pre-existing colonial lines.

This made sense given the fact that decades of colonial rule established common institutions and ties that endured formal separation or realignment immediately before and following World War Two. Examples include Britain’s Commonwealth of Nations (established in 1931), The French Union (1941), La Francophonie (1970), Organization of Ibero-American States (1991), Commonwealth of Independent States (former USSR, 1991), United States Commonwealths (1934) and Freely Associated States (1982), De Nederlandse Taalunie (1980), and several members of the European Union (1975). Of these organizations, the British Commonwealth of Nations is perhaps the most enduring and significant of post-colonial cooperative organizations.

Commonwealth of NationsThe Commonwealth of Nations, or the Commonwealth as it is customarily called,

has over fifty member nations, many of them former British colonies. The Commonwealth is not a state, nation, or political entity in its own right. Over fifteen member nations are subjects of Queen Elizabeth II of England, five are independent kingdoms in their own right (including the kingdoms of Malaysia, Swaziland, Tonga, Brunei, and Lesotho), and the remainder are mostly republics.

Although numerous former colonies joined the Commonwealth, there are notable exceptions, which include Egypt, Iraq, Somalia, Jordan (Transjordan), Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, The United Arab Emirates, and others. The nations of the Commonwealth enjoy equal status within the organization, but several exercise independent political and economic clout, notably India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa. Given the diversity of membership, the Commonwealth functions well, arguably because it is not a political entity, one of the many obstacles that prevented the Non-aligned movement from achieving full realization.

The current Head of the Commonwealth (a ceremonial post) is Elizabeth II. Most of the business of the organization is handled through the Secretariat, in the form of meetings including a biennial meeting of the heads of the Commonwealth Family. The Commonwealth Foundation advances the core mission of the organization. The

10

Foundation defines itself as “an independent, non-profit research and educational institute that develops and advances public policies based on…principles of limited constitutional government, economic freedom, and personal responsibility for one’s actions.” The core values of the Foundation include:

Respecting and protecting the lives and property of others. Recognizing the inseparability of personal and economic freedom. Upholding personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions. Challenging the general perception that government intervention is the most

appropriate and most efficient means of solving societal problems. Demonstrating the power of private institutions—both for-profit and non-profit—

to create a good and civil society. Promoting the use of economic reasoning to understand a world of scarcity, trade-

offs, and the unseen consequences of governmental solutions to societal problems.

The Commonwealth has a Learning council, a Business Council, and War Graves Commission. Perhaps its most visible activity is the Commonwealth Games, held every four years. The Games, styled much like the Olympic summer games, have a distinctly British flavor, and include rugby and cricket matches. Many Commonwealth nations have other distinctly British customs, such as driving on the left-hand side of roads and more serious subjects such as parliamentary democracy and the common law heritage.

The influence and heritage of the Commonwealth extends beyond the anglophile world, and inspired other subsequent volunteer post-colonial organizations such as La Francophonie and the Organization of Ibero-American States. In 1945, the Arab League was founded, and shares many similarities with the Commonwealth, but with Arabic as its official language. The Commonwealth, and similar organizations demonstrate that even when independence was won with difficulty and sometimes with violence, economic and cultural ties established during the colonial period often prove enduring and meaningful.

Case Study: IndiaThe independence of India from Great Britain produced global repercussions that

are still felt today. This should not be surprising given the fact that about one-sixth of the entire human population lives in India. The following points highlight the decolonization period and its heritage:

The non-violence movement championed by Mohandas K. Ghandi was not only successful in India, but served as a model for independence movements elsewhere, but also as a model of civil rights movements in the United States (Martin Luther King Jr.) and South Africa (Nelson Mandela).

The post-independence division of the British Raj into Pakistan and India produced protracted religious animosities and bloodshed that became more worrisome with the testing of nuclear weapons by India in 1974 and later in May 1998, and soon after by Pakistan in the same month.

India has, since independence, steadily assumed a position of Asian ascendency, rivaling China for economic domination of the continent.

11

Colonization of India. The first long-term European contact with India occurred in the late 15th century, with the voyages of Vasco da Gama, and the establishment of a Portuguese trade colony in Goa in the year 1510. In 1612, the British East India Company established their first territorial foothold in India. After 1757, the East India Company exercised governance over the province of Bengal in the northeast, and over large portions of the east coast, and along the Ganges River plain. The East India Company expanded governance to include nearly the eastern third of India. By 1857 Britain had the most important European presence in India.

Sepoy Mutiny and the First War for Independance. The East India Company organized its own military units, relying heavily on indigenous infantry soldiers called sepoys. Since 1757 the sepoys had been instrumental in the military expansion of East India Company territories, particularly inland along the Ganges River plain. By 1857 there were over 200,000 sepoys and less than 50,000 British officers in the armies of the East India Company, most of whom had proven themselves in battle. A seemingly insignificant change in military technology, however, sparked widespread mutiny, which turned the colonial soldiers against their British leaders, and which Indians call the First War of Indian Independence.

The catalyst for the mutiny was the introduction of the Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle, which required soldiers to bite open pre-packaged paper cartridges before loading them into the rifle. Rumor among the sepoys was that the cartridges used for the new rifle were greased with either lard (fat rendered from swine) or tallow (beef fat). Islamic law prohibits eating pork, while Hindu traditions regarding the sacredness of cows made the consumption of beef fat offensive. Both Muslim and Hindu sepoys were offended at the thought of biting open the paper cartridges. This prompted mutiny.

But, it would be an oversimplification to view the sepoy mutiny as the mere manifestation of religious offense. There already existed enough discontent with East India Company rule to fuel a more widespread conflict. For example, the recruiting practices of the Company ignored traditional caste differences in certain provinces, and alienated special interests or notable families who used relations with the Company to maintain their local position.

When civilians joined the conflict, the mutiny became a war. Several civilian leaders of the rebellion, such as the Rani (Queen) of Jhansi province, were alienated by Company policies (such as the Doctrine of Lapse) that interfered with traditional rights of inheritance, and threatened traditional systems of local rule. The Rani’s role in the First War of Independence was significant in coalescing anti-British sentiment and in uniting Muslims and Hindus in a common cause against the Company, to the point where she became known as the “Joan of Arc of India.”

Although the rebellion was eventually put down, the war resulted in the demise of the East India Company and the establishment of the British Raj (direct rule of India by the British government, culminating in the coronation of Victoria as Empress of India in 1876). Equally important, the wars produced deep nationalist sentiment that eventually led to the establishment of the Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885.

Indian National Congress Before Gandhi. The INC’s first meeting was held in Mumbai (Bombay) on December 28, 1885. Its initial membership was drawn from a

12

cross-section of Indian nationalists with the single, but notable, exception of Thomas Hume, a Scotsman who was instrumental in convincing the British viceroy to allow the meeting. Surendranath Banerjee (1848-1925, founder of the Indian National Association) is an example of one of the earliest and most influential leaders of the INC. Educated in Kolkata (Calcutta), he traveled to England where he successfully completed the Indian Civil Service examinations. Returning to Bengal in India in 1875, he served briefly in the civil service, and eventually became a professor of English at the Free Church Institution, the Metropolitan Institution, and Ripon College. He used these teaching positions to address the subject of independence. He founded a newspaper called The Bengalee in 1883, and was arrested for publishing nationalist essays critical of British rule. After merging the Indian National Association with the INC, Banerjee advocated a moderate position with regard to independence, advocating accommodation with the British while strengthening Indian economic independence through the production of Indian goods to be purchased instead of British goods.

Eventually, his moderate and accommodationist views led to conflicts with other important INC leaders, such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920) who advocated a more hardline approach to independence. By the time Ghandi appeared on the Indian political scene, the INC was divided into the Jahal Matavadi (“Hot faction,” exemplified by Tilak and similar INC members) and the Maval Matavadi (“Soft Faction,” exemplified by Banerjee and similar INC members). The split within the INC before Gandhi restricted its effectiveness in securing independence.

Indian National Congress and Ghandi. The influence of Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948, known as the “Mahatma,” or “Great Soul”) upon Indian independence cannot be underestimated, nor can his global influence. Gandhi was, for example, the ”runner-up” in Time’ Magazine’s Person of the [20th] Century, second only to Albert Einstein. His image is iconic, and his name invariably associated with non-violent protest throughout the world. In the minds of some, the terms “decolonization” and “Gandhi” are synonymous, often merging “Gandhi the Man”” with “Gandhi the Myth.”

Ghandi was born in the western province of Porbandar, India, and was raised in the Jain religious tradition by his father, a Prime Minister of the province. Jains teach compassion toward all sentient beings, vegetarianism, fasting for self-purification, and interfaith tolerance. At age 13 he was married to Kasturbai Makhanji, who was then 14 years old, in a traditional arranged marriage. They had five children, the first of which died shortly after birth. Near his 19th birthday, he moved to London and studied law at University College London. There he was introduced to the Theosophical Society, and, although raised in a religious environment where he was exposed to Hindu classic texts, now took an even deeper interest in religion (both Hindu and Christian). After passing the bar, he returned briefly to India, eventually relocating in Natal, in South Africa. There he experienced intense racial segregation directed at Indians, and subsequently formed the Natal Indian Congress in 1894. Gandhi’s early conceptualizations of passive resistance were put into practice in South Africa, including the burning of registration cards, for which he, along with many others, was flogged. Nevertheless, his tactics produced some results, mitigating the harshness of racial segregation for Indians. Thus, before his return to India in 1915, Gandhi had already established a successful track

13

record of using non-violent methods and passive resistance to facilitate political change in British colonial rule.

After Gandhi arrived in India in 1915, he played a significant role in redefining the INC. He democratized the organization, expanding its membership by attacking caste-based distinctions in the INC, reducing membership fees, establishing regional offices, and basing leadership upon participation in INC work and service (instead of wealth or social status). The INC’s activities were also expanded beyond the pursuit of independence, toward social improvement through eliminating caste distinctions, criticizing purdah (the public seclusion of women practiced by some Muslims and Hindus), eliminating alcoholism, encouraging self-sufficiency through cottage industries, teaching hygiene, and reversing illiteracy.

Early successes at tax resistance in Kheda (1918-1919) gave the increasing number of Ghandists within the INC encouragement that non-violent change was possible in India. Increased violence by some British officers, such as General Dyer, commander of the British forces at the Amritsar Massacre of 1919, also indicated that perils of passive resistance. Ninety British soldiers opened fire upon an unarmed crowd of protestors, killing over 350, producing more than 1500 casualties. Gandhi traveled to the site of the massacre (now a national garden and memorial) and urged Indians to remain calm.

During the intervening years leading to independence in 1947, Gandhi developed and implemented non-violent methods in a series of fasts, marches, and other protests that embarrassed and weakened British resolve to hold onto India. Although the centerpiece of Gandhi’s political philosophy. satygraha, took initial shape during his time in South Africa, it reached maturity following the Kheda success. Consider his definition of the term satyagraha: “Satyagraha has three essentials: Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatsoever; and it ever insists upon truth.” In practice, satyagraha meant that unjust means could never lead to just ends, and that a person had to be trained in non-violence (ahimsa) in order to ensure that passive resistance did not descend into violence when faced with threat, intimidation, or with violence from others. A highly idealistic philosophy, Gandhi proposed rules to train satyagrahis, which included:

Harbor no anger Suffer the anger of the opponent Never retaliate to assaults or punishment Voluntarily submit to arrest Do not curse or swear If anyone attempts to insult or assault your opponent, defend your opponent Behave courteously and obey prison regulations (except any that are contrary to

self-respect) Do not wound the religious sensibilities of any community

This case’s focus on Gandhi may give the impression that independence from Britain was his to control, or that the INC was functionally his organization. Although Gandhi’s influence was highly significant, others, including Jawaharlal Nehru (who later

14

became India’s first Prime Minister following independence) and Mohamed Ali Jinnah exercised a deep influence on the progress of independence and upon its outcomes.

Jinnah was a member of both the INC and the Muslim League (a political organization created in 1906, and dedicated to the protection of the interests of India’s Muslim population). In 1916, Jinnah participated in the creation of the Lucknow Pact, and agreement between the Muslim League and the INC to create a joint Muslim-Hindu independence effort. As early as 1933, mounting Hindu-Muslim tensions convinced some members of the Muslim League to formulate the Lahore resolution, which proposed that territories of the Raj be divided into two nations upon achieving independence. Jinnah initially resisted the two-nation approach until sectarian violence in Calcutta in 1946 and a failure within the INC to reach a power-sharing arrangement convinced him that a two-nation separation was the best option.

The British Raj was partitioned initially into two independent states, India and Pakistan, largely along sectarian lines. However, the division cut into existing provinces, dividing the Punjab in the west into Pakistani and Indian territories, and similarly dividing the province of Bengal in the east. Partition was followed by the relocation (sometimes forced) of millions of Hindus from Pakistan to India, and millions of Muslims from India to Pakistan, with attendant death and misery. Additionally, the failure to resolve whether or not the province of Kashmir should join Pakistan or India led to war between the two nations in 1947, the first of three major conflicts in the 20th century. Finally, a civil war in 1971 led to the separation of West Pakistan (Pakistan) from East Pakistan (Bangladesh).

Case Study: EgyptThe independence of Egypt in 1954 was, like the independence of India in 1947,

another significant setback for the British Empire following World War Two. Although Egypt’s path to independence shared common feature’s with India’s, the reasons behind its colonization, and hence its significance to the British Empire, were quite different. The following points highlight the decolonization period and its heritage:

The failure of democracy in Egypt between 1923 and 1952, due in significant part to British manipulation of democratic processes and institutions for its own colonial purposes.

The creation of Islamic religious/charitable service groups that were also poitical and anti-colonialist, namely, the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan Muslimin). The Muslim Brotherhood is politically active today, and made the first attempt by a terrorist group to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993. Sayyid Qutb, ideological mentor of Usama bin Ladin, was a member of the Ikhwan.

Economic nationalism became an important aspect of the independence movement, led by Talaat Harb, founder of Bank Misr, and Ismail Sidqi, Prime Minister from 1930 to 1933.

Political frustrations led to the abolition of the crown and Revolution of 1952. A military committee called the Revolutionary Command Council was established in 1952, but by 1954 Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser formed a military dictatorship through one-party rule. His nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 let to the Suez War, from which ne emerged a victorious hero, the charismatic leader of the Arab World.

15

Three key developments combined to make Egypt a British colony by 1882: The Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in 1798, the conversion of agriculture to cash crops and to cotton in particular, and the digging of the Suez Canal (1859-1871). Given the deep control Britain eventually exercised over the economy of Egypt, Independence was not only a political issue, but an economic one as well. So long as Egypt was economically dependent upon Britain, could it ever become truly politically independent?

Muhammad Ali and the pre-colonial period. Egypt became a formal part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517, and included the territories of the modern Arab Republic of Egypt, as well as the Sudan to the south. In 1798, Napoleon invaded Egypt during the wars of the French Revolution, severely weakening Ottoman control over Egypt, but introducing the world to the glories of Egypt’s often-romanticized past, marking the beginning of Egyptology and European fascination with all things Egyptian. Although Napoleon’s intervention lasted only a few years, and Egypt was nominally restored to the Ottoman Empire in 1805, the impact was long-term: Hydrological surveys indicated the potential for damming the Nile River for irrigation, which eventually led to the taming of the Nile, viewed by some as an economic boon, and others as an ecological disaster.

The Ottoman governors of Egypt, beginning with Muhammad Ali (r. 1805-1849) exercised increasing autonomy and defacto independence from Istanbul. Muhammad Ali began the reforms that established modern Egypt, including agricultural reforms which established cash-crop agriculture through the cultivation of indigo, sugar, and cotton for export. Egypt became a needed economic partner with Britain when the American Civil War disrupted the supply of cotton to British textile mills, and Egyptian agriculture became increasingly cotton-based, although the “partnership” was never equal. The heirs of Muhammad Ali used income from agricultural export to purchase increased autonomy from Istanbul, and establish their own lavish lifestyle.

Agricultural income tapered off, however, following the end of the American Civil War in 1865, and the governors of Egypt, particularly Khedive Ismail (r. 1863-79) were compensated by going into increasing debt to private European lenders. A sizeable portion of this debt was associated with the extravagant festivities surrounding the opening of the Suez Canal (1871-1875). By 1875 Egypt was on the verge of bankruptcy. Europeans powers, led principally by Britain and France, took control of the Egyptian budget in order to protect the interests of their nationals who were the major creditors of the Khedive, forming the Anglo-French Dual Financial Control designed to liquidate Egypt’s debt. By 1880, both France and Britain, who had no firm pre-existing intention to colonize Egypt, were now engaged in running the national budget, and eventually tied their national economic interests ever more closely with Egypt.

Colonization. In 1882, Britain took formal control of Egypt following a failed revolt by Colonel Ahmed Urabi. Like the Sepoy Mutiny in India, Egyptian nationalists view the Urabi Revolt as a first attempt at independence, not only from European Powers, but also from the Ottoman Empire itself. From 1882 to 1914 Egypt was technically part of the Ottoman Empire, but became a British colony in fact. When the Ottoman Empire sided with the Central Powers in World War One (1914), Britain severed what remained of Egypt’s ties to Istanbul, and declared the country a “Protectorate,” proclaiming the Ottoman Governor, Husayn Kamil (r. 1914-1917) “Sultan of Egypt.” At the end of the war Britain formalized the Protectorate under Fuad I (r. 1917-1936).

16

Pseudo-independence and the Wafd. When World War One ended, the way was theoretically opened to seek full independence at the Versailles Conference, based upon President Woodrow Wilson’s support of self-determination for the peoples of the former Ottoman Empire. A group of educated Egyptian nationalists, led by Sa’ad Zaghlul (d. 1927) formed a delegation (Arabic, wafd) to attend the Versailles Conference and seek for complete Egyptian independence from Britain. Britain opposed the wafd, and exiled Zaghlul and others to Malta. Widespread popular support for the wafd, including a general strike in Egypt, forced the British to release the wafd leadership and allow them to proceed to Versailles. By the time Zaghlul and the delegation arrived in Versailles, it was too late to participate meaningfully. Although a failure in the larger sense of gaining immediate independence at Versailles, the experience coalesced the leadership of the nationalist independence movement and demonstrated the extent of its popular support.

In 1922, under wafd pressure, Britain unilaterally granted Egypt pseudo-independence by means of a treaty, but reserved the right to conduct Egyptian military defense and exercise legal control over foreigners residing or doing business in Egypt. The 1922 treaty, with its “Four reserved Points,” also made Fuad I the King of an “independent” Egypt. In 1923, Britain followed-up on the 1922 treaty by (again, unilaterally) granting Egypt a constitution. The new constitution, although imposed by Great Britain and falling far short of independence, gave the wafd room for political maneuvering. The wafd therefore decided to participate in the new government hoping to eventually negotiate a complete independence in the near future., even though neither the treaty nor the Constitution were the product of negotiation or constitutional conventions, Easily the most popular political party in Egypt in the 1920s and 1930s, the wafd, won a series of elections but was kept from exercising full governmental power due to political manipulation by the British colonial government and the Egyptian King.

Constitution of 1930 and Economic Nationalism. During the Interwar period, a power triangle formed, with the British on one side, the wafd on another, and the Egyptian King on the third. Britain proved adept at playing the King and the wafd against each other following the death of the iconic Zaghlul in 1927. In 1930, the Palace, with British support, combined with the political opposition in the Egyptian Parliament and circumvented the wafd by establishing the short-lived Constitution of 1930. Under the new constitution, the King ruled essentially by decree, with the assistance of Prime Minister Ismail Sidqi, a former member of the wafd and a leading economic nationalist. Sidqi, and Talaat Harb, founder of the Bank Misr (Egyptian Bank) in 1920, sought to release Egypt from the financial control of Britain as a prelude to political independence, that is, they were economic nationalists. Harb’s deposit bank led to the establishment of the first large-scale Egyptian-owned companies such as the Misr Insurance Company (1934) and the Misr Shipping Company (1934), whereas Sidqi used his post as Prime Minister to leverage European financial desperation during the Great Depression into the national purchase of leading foreign banks, such as Crédit Foncier Égyptien and the Land Bank of Egypt, freeing landowners from unfavorable loan terms. Although the wafd was incapacitated politically, important economic freedoms were initially secured during the Interwar period.

The inability of the wafd to secure independence and the political maneuverings of British administration prompted the establishment of other political forces, in addition to the political and economic nationalists. In 1928, Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949)

17

established the Ikhwan Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood), one of the oldest and most enduring major Islamic political organizations in the world. Beginning with a dozen small branches, the Ikhwan spread its message of Islamic piety combined with charitable works, gaining popularity among impoverished Egyptians increasingly disappointed in parliamentary politics, and caught in the effects of global depression. Banna was particularly successful at networking with existing Islamic institutions such as charitable foundations, mosques, schools, and clinics, establishing a grass-roots political and religious organization that increasingly participated in attempts to force the British out of Egypt.

In 1935 the Constitution of 1923 was restored. The power of the wafd thereafter reached its apogee in 1936 with the adoption of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, negotiated in Montreaux, Switzerland. Although the 1936 treaty was, unlike the 1922 treaty, the result of negotiation between the wafd and Britain, it too fell short of full independence in that Britain still stationed a military force in Egypt and exercised control over the Suez Canal, Egypt’s most important national economic and strategic asset.

The Free Officers. Egypt became not only an allied camp during World War II, but was a battlefield as well: Hitler’s Afrika Korps was defeated at El Alamein in 1942, located about 150 miles northwest of Cairo. Determined to keep Egypt under control during the war, Britain forced the appointment of a wafd government in 1942 by surrounding the Abdeen Palace and compelling King Farouk to create a government under wafd control. This maneuver largely discredited the wafd as an independent democratic party, led to their political demise, and opened a political leadership vacuum in Egypt. King Farouk, who lived a playboy’s lifestyle that offended Egyptian Muslims and who was largely viewed as a British pawn, offered no popularly based post-war leadership for his country. From 1945 to 1948, Egypt drifted along without leadership or a sense of national purpose, under continued British control.

Events of the late 1940s and early 1950s prompted members of the Egyptian army to fill the leadership vacuum. For example, in May of 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel predictably provoked a regional war, the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, known by Israelis as the War of Independence. Israel fought against Egypt, joined by Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The Egyptian army, under the command of British and Egyptian officers, was defeated, and its most noteworthy effort was a successful retreat led by General Muhammad Naguib. Naguib and several other officers blamed the British and the King for sending them into battle without proper training, support, or munitions. A group of Egyptian officers, mostly of middle rank, organized a clandestine movement, called the Free Officers, in the aftermath of the 1948 loss. Dedicated to Egyptian independence, the group included future leaders of Egypt such as Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser and Lieutenant Colonel Anwar al-Sadat. The group recruited General Naguib as a figurehead leader, although he never exercised actual control over the group.

Revolution of 1952. Anti-British sentiment grew in the late 1940s and early 1950s. In November of 1948 the Egyptian police seized a car which contained documents allegedly linking the Brotherhood to plans for a political coup. A series of arrests and responsive bombings and assassination attempts culminated in the assassination of Prime Minister Mahmud Noukrashi on 28 December 1948, by a member of the Ikhwan. On 12

18

February 1949, Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Ikhwan, was himself assassinated by two gunmen reputed to have been government agents.

Between 1951 and 1951, a series of guerilla attacks by Egyptian police and soldiers were carried out against British troops, including those stationed in the Suez Canal Zone. On 25 January 1952, the British retaliated by attacking the Egyptian police stationed in barracks at Alexandria. Fifty were killed and over 100 were wounded. The next day (called Black Saturday), riots broke out in Cairo and parts of the city were set afire. Motivated by intense national feelings, the rioters targeted foreign properties such as the Shepheard’s Hotel and the British Tea Club, leaving the impression that the riot was less the product of mob retaliation than it was orchestrated by nationalist leaders. It is not clear whether there was any leadership behind the Black Saturday riots, but the inability of the King to control his own forces was quite apparent, and the Free Officers felt the time had come to make their move.

On 23 July 1952, they took control of the national radio broadcast system in Cairo, and issued an announcement through General Naguib:

I take this opportunity to request that the people never permit any traitors to take refuge in deeds of destruction or violence because these are not in the interest of Egypt. Should anyone behave in such ways, he will be dealt with forcefully in a manner such as has not been seen before and his deeds will meet immediately the reward for treason. The army will take charge with the assistance of the police. I assure our foreign brothers that their interests, their personal safety and their property are safe, and that the army considers itself responsible for them. May God grant us success.

Within days, the Free Officers ordered Farouk to abdicate the throne, and sent him into exile. The Free Officers governed Egypt through the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), and a civilian government headed initially by Ali Maher Pasha (whom the RCC appointed).

In 1953, the RCC banned all political parties, enforcing the ban through arrests. In 1954, General Naguib was removed by the RCC and placed under house arrest (where he remained until his death 18 years later). Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser assumed control of the RCC, and was elected the second president of the Republic of Egypt. In that same year, Nasser negotiated a withdrawal of British forces from Egypt (although a small civilian security and management force remained in the Suez Canal Zone to protect British and foreign interests in the Suez Canal Company). Egypt was politically independent, but not economically.

The Aswan High Dam and the Suez War of 1956. Between 1954 and 1956, Nasser (who had joined in the 1955 Bandung Conference and eventually would participated in the non-Aligned Movement) reformed land ownership in Egypt and sought international funding for a new dam across the Nile at Aswan. The High Dam, which would supply water needed for massive irrigation projects intended to feed the growing millions of Egypt, was Nasser’s key to economic independence and Egypt’s future. He received

19

necessary support from the United States for the project, which was to be funded through the World Bank based upon U.S. guarantees. However, Nasser’s rejection of the Baghdad Pact, a Cold War agreement aligning several Arab states with the West, participation at Bandung, and the decision to purchase USSR arms over US arms and military support irritated the United States. U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles formally announced the withdrawal of support for the High Dam project on 19 July 1956.

Following the U.S. announcement, Nasser made one of his characteristically bold political moves: he nationalized the Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956. Nasser froze the assets of the company, and promised to pay shareholders the full value of their stock as of the closure of the stock market that same day. The nationalization had a dual effect: Nasser not only received necessary revenues from the canal to finance the development of Egypt and gain a significant measure of economic independence, but he became the unchallenged leader of the Arab world.

The British and French governments, primary shareholders in the Suez Canal Company, sought swift retaliation. Together with Israel, they planned a military strike that would remove Nasser. The plan was that Israel move first across the Sinai Peninsula. Britain and France would then intervene with air support and paratroopers. From a military perspective, the campaign was a success. Politically, it proved to be a disaster. Egyptian forces fell back, and Cairo itself came under attack. However, given other ongoing crises in Hungary and elsewhere, the United States concluded that the forcible removal of Nasser might destabilize the Middle East further. President Dwight D. Eisenhower put economic and political pressure on Great Britain to end the conflict. Without prior warning to its allies, Britain announced a ceasefire on 6 November 1956. By 1957, all forces, including Israeli Defense Forces withdrew. Nasser’s popularity soared. His bold nationalization initiative worked, and he survived the threat of combined military action by Egypt’s former colonial overlord. It mattered little that he was saved by U.S. intervention in the minds of his supporters: survival was survival. Egypt could now claim political and economic independence.

Case Study: Belgian CongoThe Scramble for Africa. The case of Belgian Congo illustrates a darker side of

both colonization and decolonization. The following points highlight the decolonization period and its heritage:

The establishment of a private empire for King Leopold II of Belguim, called the Congo Free State, known for its atrocities and brutality to natives.

The sudden grant of independence in 1960 to an unprepared Congo that was deeply divided among its nationalists, leading to the Congo Crisis of 1960-1966.

The use of UN troops to repress rebellion, and the emergence of Joseph Mobutu, who ruled a “totalitarian kleptocracy” in the Congo (called Zaire for much of this time) for another 31 years, with significant US support within the global political climate of the Cold War.

Continued violence in the Congo Basin in the 1990s and beyond, including the Rwandan genocides, and the Second Congo War.

The Congo was partitioned by a concert of European powers call the Congress of Berlin (1884-85), as part of the “scramble for Africa.” Prior to the Congress, European colonial

20

powers had operated mainly on the coastline of Africa. Details regarding the interior of Africa remained a mystery to Europeans until the explorations of Englishman David Livingstone (1813-1873), Portuguese explorer Serpa Pinto, and others in the mid-nineteenth century which proved the potential for expansion of colonial control into “dark” Africa as it was called.

The technological advancements of the industrial age, medical treatments for some tropical diseases (such as quinine as a treatment for malaria) made it possible to capitalize on these explorations, and begin the extraction of central Africa’s natural treasures (rubber, copper, diamonds, etc.). The ensuing contest for control of Africa threatened to bring European powers into direct military conflict. At the Congress of Berlin, the partition of the Congo River basin was in large measure finalized. According to the arrangements made at Berlin, France would take possession of the northern region, some 250,000-plus square miles of territory now called the Central Africa Republic. To the south, Portugal received over 350,000 square miles now called Angola. The core territories of the Congo basin went, however, to Belgium, and in particular, to the Belgian King, Leopold II.

Colonization until 1945. Leopold had his eye on the Congo basin for some time. In 1876 he organized the International Africa Association (IAA), a body of philanthropist and scientists, conceived as a humanitarian effort, with the goal of “discovering” the region and of “educating” indigenous peoples. The IAA instead became a front organization for various exploratory missions with the intent to establish a national claim to the territories explored. In 1877, Leopold sent Henry Morton Stanley to explore the region of the Congo. This expedition resulted in several agreements with native leaders and the establishment of military posts that combined to strengthen Leopold’s claims in Berlin. In the course of the Berlin Conference, Leopold became the sole shareholder and chairman of the corporate Congo Free State, which the United States recognized on 22 April 1884, followed by a number of other sovereign nations including Spain, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Portugal, illustrating agreement among world powers and relative success at avoiding war through the partition of Africa. The IAA was disbanded thereafter, it no longer being necessary to Leopold’s designed for the region.

Leopold immediately faced the problem of extracting profits. An early solution was to offer concessions to Europeans for the extraction of rubber, ivory, and other materials, within a “free trade” zone. However, nearly 100,000 square miles of the colony was outside the free trade zone, and was domaine de a couronne (Domain of the Crown), the profits from which went directly to Leopold. Leopold created an armed force to assist in the efficient extraction of maximum profits from the Domain of the Crown, called the Force Publique (FP, Public Force) which consisted of white (i.e., European) officers, and soldiers drawn from a variety of African ethnic groups. By the turn of the century, reports by missionaries and others in the region included tales of systematic atrocity committed by the FP. Reports, some of them substantiated by photographs, told of the taking of native wives hostage in order to assure labor from their husbands, rape, floggings, and the burning of villages. Reports also circulated that human hands were taken as trophies, purportedly as proof that FP soldiers were not wasting ammunition: one hand per bullet shot was the required proof. The humanitarian disaster in the Congo Free State, already on the minds of informed Europeans by 1900, was given literary detail in Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness, published in 1902.

21

The worldwide rubber boom of the 1890s peaked in the early 1900s, and Leopold went into debt to compensate for falling prices. The combination of debt and the scrutiny of the activities of the FP. In 1903, Britain’s House of Commons commissioned an inquiry into violations of the Berlin agreement, supported shortly thereafter by the United States and other European powers. In 1905, the Belgian government conducted its own investigation, agreeing with a report of FP atrocities compiled by Englishman Roger Casement the year before. Although Leopold made promises of reform, the government of Belgium annexed the Congo Free State on 15 November 1908, ending Leopold’s rule.

Humanitarian conditions in the Belgian Congo (as the colony was now called) may be said to have improved since Leopold’s rule. In November 1908 a law was promulgated that prohibited forced labor for private enterprises (but forced labor continued in practice even after World War Two). Some claim that this law was effective, in that cotton and palm oil production increased in the following decade and a half. Christian denominations, most Roman Catholic but some protestant, established schools for Congolese children, focusing on vocational training and religious education. The children were taught to read, write, and perform basic mathematical calculations, as well. The Belgian’s enforced a system of segregation, sometimes called a “moderate apartheid,” that included curfews. However, there were no formal segregation laws as such, as then existed in the United States, South Africa, and elsewhere.

From World War Two to Independence. Following the war, the Belgian government appears to have lost interest in the colony. For example, Leon Pétillon, Governor-General of the colony, suggested in 1952 an accommodation with the Congolese people, offering limited civil rights. Members of the Belgian Parliament urged full annexation of the Congo into the kingdom, making the Congolese full Belgian citizens.

Within the framework of Belgian ambivalence, a divided nationalism emerged. One group of nationalists, championed by the organization ABAKO and its leader Joseph Kasavabu (who later became President), argue for the creation of several new independent states, largely organized along ethnic lines, reflecting the varied tribal composition of Congolese society. In 1956, another group of nationalists formed the Mouvement National Congolais (MNC, Congolese National Movement), led by Patrice Lumumba, who later served as Prime Minister (with Kasavubu as President).

An independent Congo was created in 1960 (renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1966), with about five month’s advance notice from Belgium. Although the new republic was a unified state envisioned largely along MNC lines, it was not prepared for independence. The manner of its independence and the violence it sparked within the country indicate that deep tribal-ethnic tensions still existed, that leaders were willing to resort to strong-arm tactics characteristic of rule under the Belgians, and the future of a unified Congo was in doubt. Among other problems, there was a mutiny of Congolese soldiers against their white commanders, and the secession of the province of Katanga. These developments had international implications as the country produced nearly three-quarters of the world’s uranium, and four-fifths of the world’s industrial diamonds.

The Congo Crisis (1960-1965). As the crisis deepened, Lumumba requested UN assistance. In 1960, the UN sent 10,000 troops under the direction of the Secretary-General with a four-fold mission: restore political stability, establish and maintain public order, stop foreign powers from taking advantage of the crisis, and build the economy.

22

However, things did not go as planned. Lumumba demanded that the UN troops be sent to crush the rebellion in Katanga, which Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold refused to do. Lumumba accused the UN of siding with the rebels, and of falling under the influence of foreign companies mining the region. Lumumba requested assistance from the USSR to counter the UN presence, and received military aid, which he used against the rebels.

Conflict between the Prime Minster (the former leader of the MNC) and the President (the former leader of ABAKO), resulted in Lumumba’s dismissal from office by Kasavubu on 5 September 1960. In the nest few months, four different groups claimed to rule the republic, what one scholar termed the “government of opportunists.” In 1961, Hammarskjold traveled to the capital of Kinshasa (formerly Leopoldville) in an effort to restore order through international influence, but his plane crashed just outside the capital and Hammarskjold died. The new Secretary-General, U Thant, took his place in negotiations, which lasted for over a year and produce little change.

Joseph Mobutu and the Congo in the Cold War. As if internal troubles were not destabilizing enough, the new republic found itself enmeshed in Cold War designs on the part of the United States and the Soviet Union, due in no small measure to the deployment of UN forces to the region and the strategic importance of uranium in the atomic age. In 1961, the United States took an increased interest in the Congo and began what would develop into support for the Chief of Staff of the army, Joseph Mobutu. Support for Mobutu was conditioned upon his assurances that he would maintain order, and that he was anti-communist. With CIA support, he declared himself President of the republic, ending the Congo Crisis on terms viewed as favorable by the United States.

Mobutu ruled the Congo, which he re-named Zaire, for the next 31-plus years. Two things may be said about Mobutu’s regime: he kept control over the country and he was anti-communist. His rule has been described as “totalitarian kleptocracy,” maintained arguably with support from the West. By the time rebels overthrew Mobutu 1997 in the First Congo War, he had accumulated a private fortune estimated in excess of 5 billion, with a legacy of human rights violations, and amidst claims that he was behind global “advance-fee” fraud scams in the 1990s.

In 1998, just a few years after the Rwandan genocide of 1994 in which more than half a million Rwandans died in ethnic warfare between Tutsi and Hutu tribe members, the Congo and the region of central Africa descended into war, called the Second Congo War, or Africa’s World War. By the time the war ended, eight different nations were involved, and over twenty military organizations. It created millions of refugees, and left famine and epidemic disease in its wake. In 2004, the CBC estimated that 1,000 persons died each day in easily preventable cases of malnutrition and disease. It would appear that the problems of the Congo and central Africa are far from over.

Post-colonial StudiesThe subject of decolonization is broad and complex, as has been shown. It involved, and some would say still involves, several dozen former-colonial countries, billions of people, and several continents, all spread over a period of decades. Consequently, scholarship on the subject is diverse, and the conclusions of scholars are sometimes very hotly debated. One group of scholars focuses upon sources, events, and trends from the perspective of the colonizers (called Metropolitans). Other academics focus on the sources, movements, trends, and peoples in the colony. Many, but not all, of the scholars in this latter group

23

come from colonial societies themselves. One such group conducts Subaltern Studies (referring to subalterns, or “persons of lower rank,” those peoples neglected or under-represented in Metropolitan studies). Additionally, another group emerged called Postcolonialists, which included the late Edward Said, a former literature professor at Columbia University. Said wrote a book in 1978 called Orientalism, which condemned the historical methods of Metropolitans, or “Orientalists” as he called them. The influential work of Said and others led to the establishment of the field of post-colonial studies in the 1970s and 1980s. Postcolonials argue that the academic emphasis of the Metropolitans upon the home country and its civilization not only ignored colonial peoples and distorted our understanding of the conduct of colonialism and its lasting effects, but also that it was a form of colonial self-justification, allowing colonial powers to rationalize the subjugation of other peoples. The academic debate over the long-term effects of decolonization is sure to continue.

The Colonial HeritageThe effects of decolonization are diverse. The process resulted in the

establishment of hundreds of new nation-states, such as India. Some of them adopted western forms of constitutional rule, others became communist and rejected western modes of governance, such as Cuba. Some political leaders followed the example of Ganhi and sought independence through satyagraha and passive resistance, while others looked to revolutionaries like Che Guevara for role models. Economic results are mixed, with some former colonies such as Singapore achieving high living standards ($51,600 per capita GDP in 2008 according to the CIA World Factbook), while others such as Liberia endure intense poverty ($500 per capita GDP in 2008 according to the CIA World Factbook). Finally, informal economic colonization arguably continues to exist, for example, US involvement in Guatemala and other “Banana Republics.” On the one hand, given the number of nations gaining independence post-World War II, decolonization may be considered at an end. On the other hand, in a climate of globalization and economic hegemony, it may be argued that colonization continues, and a future period of decolonization, perhaps even more violent than the first, awaits.

Key TermsDecolonizationMandatesIntelligentsiaSelf-determinationLeague of NationsBritish RajThe United NationsThe Atlantic CharterDeclaration of United NationsSecurity CouncilWorld BankInternational Monetary FundUN Secretary General

24

Non-Aligned MovementCommonwealth of NationsMohandas K. GhandisatygrahaPartition of India and PakistanWafdMuslim BrotherhoodEconomic NationalistsRevolutionary Command CouncilCongo Free StateKleptocracyPost-colonial Studies

Questions for Reflection1. In what ways do economic and financial factors influence power relations between nations? What economic role did World War One, the global depression of the 1930s, and World Two play in the weakening of colonial power prior to decolonization? What economic roles did Talaat Harb, Ismail Sidqi, and Gamal Abdul Nasser play in the independence of Egypt?2. What significance did the example and teachings of Gandhi in Indian independence? What is satyagraha? Although satyagraha worked in helping gain independence from Britain, was it able to prevent violence between former Indians following independence? Why or why not?3. Why have commonwealths proved enduring, while the Non-aligned Movement failed? What are the differences between them?4. How significant was the UN in the decolonization process? In what ways did it promote decolonization, and to what extent?5. General Emile Janssens, commander of the Force Publique at the time the Congo became independent, summed up his estimation of conditions in the country by writing “before independence = after independence” on a blackboard in front of his disgruntled troops. To what extent was Janssens correct, that conditions and practices before independence would continue after independence? To what extent was he incorrect?6. What role did Cold War superpower politics and ideology play in decolonization general, and in the case of the Congo particularly?

Selected Internet SitesColonial participation in the two world Wars:http://www.yale.edu/collections_collaborative/WW1/race.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/colonies_colonials_01.shtml

The Global Depression of the 1930s and colonieshttp://history-world.org/great_depression.htm

Colonial Economic Dependencyhttp://science.jrank.org/pages/8696/Colonialism-Africa-Dependent-Colonial-Capitalism.html

25

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-dependency-theory.htm

Non-Aligned Movement and its heritagehttp://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/3425.cfm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2798187.stm

Commonwealthshttp://www.thecommonwealth.org/ http://www.francophonie.org/

Timeline: independence of Indiahttp://www.google.com/search?q=Independence+of+India&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=s-wTS9LhIcLalAfcj6yOBA&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=16&ved=0CDUQ5wIwDw

Timeline: independence of Egypthttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&tbo=p&tbs=tl%3A1&q=Independence+of+Egypt&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-m1

Timeline: independence of the Congohttp://www.google.com/search?q=Independence+of+Congo&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&tbo=p&ei=Ve0TS-vJLsrglAe4qNSXBA&sa=X&oi=timeline_other_dates&ct=timeline-other-dates&ved=0CBYQpQI&tbs=tl:1,tlul:1885,tluh:1975 The Muslim Brotherhoodhttp://www.ikhwanweb.com/

Post-colonial Studieshttp://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Intro.html

TasksUsing the websites suggested here or other scholarly historical sources complete the following assignments.

1. Analyze the role of education in producing a nationalist elite as a precursor to establishing a successful independence movement.

2. Did decolonization proceed differently in colonies that had large number of foreign residents (i.e., the “settler” states), as compared to those colonies with few settlers?

26

3. Describe the significance of World War One and World War Two in creating armies comprised of colonial soldiers and commanders and their role in the decolonization of any given country.

4. Analyze the significance of religion in decolonization.5. Discuss the significance of commonwealth organizations in promoting stability

and peace in post-colonial countries: does participation in a commonwealth make a difference?

6. Several colonies are mentioned here without details of their history. Investigate and narrate the history of one of these in a manner similar to the case studies given in this chapter.

Bonus ActivityFind a map of the world, and mark those former colonies that are plagued by

ongoing violence (such as Angola). What patterns, if any, emerge? Were the most troubled countries colonies of a particular nation? Are they concentrated into geographical areas, and if so, why?

Evaluation Review the importance of economic factors in decolonization.

List all the nationalist/independence organizations mentioned in the chapter.

List significant persons mentioned in the chapter, and their role in maintaining colonies or in decolonization.

Create a timeline of the chapter.

Write a brief essay on preconditions to decolonization

Select the most significant factor leading to decolonization and defend your selection

Write a brief essay on post-colonial heritage.

Compare or contrast the decolonization of India with the Congo.

Compare or contrast the decolonization of Egypt with the Congo.

Suggested ReadingsAburish, Said K. Nasser: The Last Arab. Thomas Dunne Books, 2004.

Adams, Frderick Upham. Conquest of the Tropics: The Story of the Creative Enterprises Conducted by the United Fruit Company. Bibliolife, 2009 (reprint of 1914 edition).

27

Chamberlain, M.E. Decolonization: The Fall of the European Empires. Wiley-Blackwell, 1999.

Chang, Iris. The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II. Penguin (USA), 1998 (reprint).

Christie, Clive J. A Modern History of Southeast Asia: Decolonization, Nationalism and Separatism. I. B. Tauris, 1998.

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Penguin Classis, 2007.

Duara, Prasenjit (ed). Decolonization: Perspectives from Now and Then. Routledge, 2003.

Haskin, Jeanne M. The Tragic State of the Congo: From Decolonization to Dictatorship. Algora Publishing, 2004.

Hochschild, Adam. King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa. Mariner Books, 1999.

Gandhi, Mohandas K. Non-violent Resistance (Satyagraha). Dover Publications, 2001.

Kinzer, Stephen. All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror. Wiley, 2008.

Mandela, Nelson. Long Walk to Freedom: The Autobiogaphy of Nelson Mandela. Steck-Vaughn, 2000.

Rothermund, Dietmar (ed.). The Routledge Companion to Decolonization. Routledge, 2006.

Said, Edward. Orientalism. Vintage, 1979.

Stewart, Andrew. Empire Lost: Britain, the Dominions, and the Second World War. Continuum, 2008.

Wilson, Henry S. African Decolonization. A Hodder Arnold Publication, 1994.

Wright, Richard. The Color Curtain: A Report on the Bandung Conference. University Press of Mississippi, 1995.

Yoshida, Takashi. The Making of the "Rape of Nanking": History and Memory in Japan, China, and the United States. Oxford University Press, 2009.

28