DECOLONISATION AND THE CHANGING POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTHEAST ASIA Bence Kocsev CONCEPTUALISING SOUTHEAST ASIA In his comprehensive book, Daniel George Edward Hall, a distinguished expert of Southeast Asia, described the region as a “chaos of races and languages,” and it is true that this part of the world is exceptionally diverse in many regards (ethnically, culturally, linguistically, politically, religiously, geographically, and even ecologically) and has a complex and multilayered history.1 Despite this diversity, in the (so far) only monograph written in Hungarian on the history of Southeast Asia, András Balogh managed to identify certain historical, political, and economic factors that could be considered as the common heritage of the region. Among others, their traditional economies featured similar structures, and, later they all became part of the global colonial trading networks. From very early on, they possessed a certain degree of statehood; they developed characteristic cultural traditions that synthesised Buddhist, Hindu, Chinese, and Muslim elements; with the Mongol–Chinese and, later, European conquests, they share the common historical experience of colonial subjugation; and the humiliating defeat of the traditional colonial powers by Japan in World War II galvanised irreversible processes throughout the area, which led to the independence of these territories.2 One of the things that become evident from these similarities is how entangled the history of the region is with other world regions. Interestingly enough, despite the common features and its various global entanglements, the region was not regarded as an independent entity for a very long time. In fact, up until World War II, it was almost unable to develop an identity on its own, and only a few scholars and geopoliticians conceptualised it as a separate region with its own characteristics. Although a 20
INTRODUCTION
few attempts had been made to conceptualise Southeast Asia as a separate region since the 19th century, based on its distinct social and cultural character,3 it was not until the establishment of the so-called South East Asia Command under the leadership of Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten in 1943 that the term “Southeast Asia” gained widespread recognition.4 The new international geopolitical architecture that emerged in the direct aftermath of the war (and the admission of Southeast Asia into it) facilitated the foundation of a mushrooming number of new institutes and scientific boards embarking on research projects intended to transform the image of the region into a separate spatial–political–economic entity. Obviously, this newly found interest in the region was substantially stimulated by the new constellations that emerged at the moment of widespread decolonisation in the 1940s and 1950s, and— most importantly in this regard—by the fact that Southeast Asia was perceived to be an area where the communist threat emerging either from the Soviet Union or China should be contained. THE PROCESSES OF DECOLONISATION IN THE REGION To be sure, the region has played an important geopolitical role long before the Cold War. The water passages between the Indian and Pacific Oceans (most notably the Strait of Malacca and the Sunda Strait) and the continental crossroads were vital for shaping global commerce. Thus, Europeans have shown great interest in Southeast Asia where their enterprises engaged in commerce, such as the Dutch East Indies Company or its French and English counterparts, could quickly transform into global players. Therefore, possessions in Southeast Asia served
