Decolonization can be defined as the act of a nation gaining independence from another country that had established authority over it. Decolonization was not in any way a new phenomenon following the Second World War; countries were progressively gaining independence from their colonial masters. However, it was the Second World War that created the greatest drive towards decolonization, which significantly altered global history. The mass drive for decolonization was aided by several primary factors among them changes in the international distribution of power and growing calls for national self-determination. There was certainly no common decolonization process; it took various angles. In some countries, independence was achieved simply through revolutions while others had to engage in protracted wars of independence, which had devastating effects for both the colonialists and the colonized. The major European imperial powers before the Second World War; Germany, Britain, Netherlands, Spain and Italy, were the major forces behind colonization. While there are numerous localized issues that brought about the clamor for independence, it is evident that it was international forces rather than local ones that had the biggest impact on decolonization.
After the Second World War, national self- determination became an object for the majority of countries being colonized. However, it is evident that a majority of such movements would not have been successful were it not for the shift in international power in favor of America. On the surface, the U.S took an anti-imperial stance. It is perhaps attributed to its history as a country colonized by the British up until the nineteenth century. Following the Second World War, the country became the de facto super power owing to its still relatively high economic strength when compared to the other nations that took place in the war. Furthermore, its initial non-interventionist policy had meant that America had gained economically by trading war supplies to both sides of the war hence an increase in its war industries which propped up its economy.
With its new found power, the U.S instituted the Marshall plan after the war, which was meant to aid Europe in reconstruction efforts. Consequently, it was able to pile pressure on the major European imperial powers at the time, Britain and France; which were also the largest recipients of American aid, to pull out of their colonies. The actions of the U.S were in no way utilitarian. The move was meant to open up the markets of the hitherto colonized nations to U.S goods and business interests. Markets in the colonized nations had exclusively been the enclave of their colonizers through the imposition of trade restrictions and favorable tariffs that served to lock out other players in the market such as the U.S.
It is important to understand that at the time, there was still no formal agreement among the European imperial nations on the issue of decolonization. However, there was some level of consensus that they needed to tone down the level of competition for imperial supremacy, which had been illustrated across the globe more especially during the scramble for Africa in the late nineteenth century. It was because all the European imperial powers had been adversely affected by the war economically, politically, and socially to the extent that the only priority was reconstruction back in their home countries. It was therefore proving expensive to maintain their colonies while at the same time engaging in reconstruction efforts.
Colonialism as understood involves the use of political and military force to facilitate the transfer of resources from an inferior country to another country perceived to be dominant. However, following the war, there was no need for continued use of colonial powers since economic forces such as international pricing and marketing were effective in continuing the entrenchment of the relationship characterized by exploitation and domination between former colonial master and host country.
The cold war played an important in speeding up the process of decolonization. It was a state of the relations between the western hemisphere led by the U.S and the eastern hemisphere led by the Soviet Union. It emerged after the end of the Second World War with both countries aiming to spread their spheres of influence across the globe, but more importantly angling for the resources in non-aligned nations; a majority of whom were yet to gain their independence especially in Africa and Asia. In line with its communist principles, the Soviet Union was a fierce critic of colonialism. It therefore sought to support national self-determination movements to break out of the yoke of the European imperial powers through the provision of arms, training, and finances.
It effectively meant that the Soviet Union could have an influence over such countries once they gained independence from the European imperial nations and as a result expanding the scope of communism. It posed a threat to America’s dominance, which was espoused in its capitalist principles. Consequently, it joined the Soviet Union in the calls for decolonization in a bid to gain favor from the national independence movements.
The U.S however, had a strategic advantage over the Soviet Union; it could influence the European imperial powers to cease colonization of such countries. An example would be Britain letting go of its colonies in Asia and Africa while the Dutch left Indonesia. Furthermore, the U.S was stronger economically and thus could deploy more financial resources as opposed to the Soviet Union. It is because the arms race that took place during the cold war had a positive effect on the U.S unlike in the Soviet Union where it had the effect of draining state resources. However, the Soviet Union also made some strides as it effectively assisted China to become an independent nation. It supported the Chinese Communist Party, which espoused communist principles while the U.S supported the Chinese Nationalist Party. Eventually, the Chinese Communist Party emerged victorious, which effectively ended the dominance of the U.S and Japan in the country.
The success of the Indian independence movement had an undue influence on other national independence movements. It is especially the case given that India was the first country in the British Empire to gain independence following the aftermath of the Second World War. Its movement prior to independence was led by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. The movement despite having been in existence for a long period (1757 to 1947), had its climax in 1947 following India’s decolonization and its subsequent gaining of republican status from the British. Its leaders built a mass movement whose core tools were civil disobedience, strikes, as well as other non-violent movements. Following the success of the movement, it became a template for other leaders of national independence movements such Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya.
In order to have a deeper understanding of the impact of the success of India’s independence movement had, it is important to have a look at the place of the Indian colony to the British. The colony was the largest in the British Empire and comprised of modern day India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. It was administered under the British East India Company and was considered the most profitable to the British imperialists. It is from its Indian colony that Britain was able to spread its influence across Asia and Africa. It is therefore the case that the loss of the Indian colony not only lowered the psyche of the British, but also exposed its inherent weakness in the management of its colonies. It is an understanding of such weaknesses that the leaders of the other national independence movements were able to exploit in order to attain their independence. The loss of control in India and the ever rising costs of maintaining armies in foreign territories made decolonization inevitable for the British. The other European imperial nations followed suit.
With the onset of the wave of decolonization following the Second World War, there emerged a third way which often christened the Non-aligned Movement led by India. The movement sought to create a new paradigm with respect to spheres of influence. Prior to the creation of the Non-aligned Movement, there were only two options in which newly independent states could ascribe to; communism led by the Soviet Union and capitalism led by the U.S. The Non-aligned Movement sought to infuse the benefits of the two; rapid economic growth as evidenced in the Soviet Union and civil as well as economic rights as evidenced in the Western nations. The movement sought to gain the advantage of both without having to ascribe to the principles of the two superpowers.
As a result, new nations found some sought of a refuge, which served to influence other national independence movements that had yet to gain independence. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana was among the first to ascribe to the movement and through its fervent support, Ghana was able to achieve its independence from Britain in 1957. The growing influence of the movement was illustrated by the Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 and the 1961 Cuban Missile crisis. Both were intended to upset the status quo with the former antagonizing the states of Israel, France and Britain which had been Egypt’s colonial master. It followed the nationalizing of the Suez Canal by Egypt’s President Abdel Nasser. Britain and France were forced to intervene military but later had to evacuate the country following growing pressure from the United Nations and the U.S. The pressure from the U.S and the UN served to embolden other colonized countries in their efforts to break away. While both of the crises served to show the impact of the Non-aligned movement, it did not last owing to the resource constraints of the nations that ascribed to it. There therefore had to rely on the funding of the Soviet Union and western institutions such as the IMF and World Bank which effectively grounded the movement.
The rallying call for the formation of international bodies to ensure the maintenance of world peace also had an impact on the decolonization process. In signing the UN charter and the Atlantic charter countries ascribed to the rule that all individuals had the right to be equally treated and properly represented. It therefore meant that the European imperial nations had to effectively let go of their colonies if they were to be in line with the guiding principles espoused in such charters.
It was the multiplicity of local and international forces that accelerated the process of decolonization. However, it is clear that the international forces such as those of the U.S and the Soviet Union rather than being inspired by utilitarian actions were implicitly meant to allow them access to resources in the decolonized nations as well as spreading their spheres of influence. It is therefore the case that despite the coming to an end of colonization, there still continues to be entrenched imperialism through the domination of economic forces. Ultimately, it is the coalescing of the various movements that led to the success of the decolonization process.
Bibliography
Adams, Chris. 1999. Inside the Cold War : a cold warrior's reflections . Maxwell, Air University Press
Balili, Delo. 1961. REPORT ON THE MEETING BETWEEN DELO BALILI, THE ALBANIAN AMBASSADOR TO CAIRO, AND RAúL ROA. Wilson Center [2016] Retrieved May 07, 2016 from http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110165
Decolonization of Asia and Africa, 1945–1960. Office of the historian, 2016. Retrieved May 07, 2016 from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/asia-and-africa
The Atlantic Conference and Charter, 1941. Office of the historian, 2016. Retrieved May 07, 2016 from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1937-1945/atlantic-conf
Kennedy, J, F. 1963. Berlin Speech, 1963 Retrieved May 07, 2016 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-berlin/
