Archived version from NCDOCKS Institutional Repository http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/
Decolonization and the Cold War
By: Dr. Cary Fraser
Abstract: This chapter examines decolonization during the Cold War. It suggests that decolonization can be considered both as a response to the globalization of European influence and as a process of globalization which paved the way for the dismantling of the North Atlantic centered international system. The chapter contends that decolonization during the Cold War was about the rethinking of the nature of the global order and the role of race and citizenship therein. It also argues that decolonization is the proof and constant reminder that the bipolar order pursued by the superpowers and their allies after the war was never a stable framework for the management of international relations.
Fraser, Cary. 2013. Decolonization and the Cold War. Oxford Handbook of the Cold War. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199236961.013.0027
AbstractandKeywords
ThischapterexaminesdecolonizationduringtheColdWar.Itsuggeststhatdecolonization canbeconsideredbothasaresponsetotheglobalizationofEuropeaninfluenceandasa processofglobalizationwhichpavedthewayforthedismantlingoftheNorthAtlanticcenteredinternationalsystem.ThechaptercontendsthatdecolonizationduringtheCold Warwasabouttherethinkingofthenatureoftheglobalorderandtheroleofraceand citizenshiptherein.Italsoarguesthatdecolonizationistheproofandconstantreminder thatthebipolarorderpursuedbythesuperpowersandtheiralliesafterthewarwas neverastableframeworkforthemanagementofinternationalrelations.
Keywords:decolonization,ColdWar,globalization,internationalsystem,bipolarorder,superpowers,international relations
Thedecolonizationofthepre-warempires—American,Belgian,British,Dutch,French, Japanese,andPortuguese—hasstimulatedanextraordinaryrangeofscholarshiponthe processesofimperialdisengagementfromthecoloniesinAsia,Africa,andtheCaribbean. Thescholarshiphasfocusedon:(a)thedynamicsofnationaliststruggleinthecolonies; (b)theshiftingdynamicsofpolicyattheleveloftheimperialcapitals;(c)theroleof internationalorganizationssuchastheUnitedNations(UN)andtheNon-Aligned Movement(NAM)invariouscasesofdecolonization;and(d)thewaysinwhichthe competitionbetweenthemembersoftheNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization(NATO)and theWarsawPactandtheiralliesinfluencedtheprocessesandoutcomesofthe decolonizationprocess.Someofthestudiesprovidedetailedexplorationsoftheprocess ofdecolonizationinindividualinstances,whileothersseektosynthesizethedynamicsof decolonizationinregional,comparative,andglobalcontexts.
Themyriadcontextsthatshapedthedecolonizationprocess,thecomplexityofissuesthat emergedastheprocessunfolded,andtheproliferationofnationalistsentimentand strugglesallcontributedtothefascinationwithdecolonizationanditsroleinreshaping
the international order after 1945. Decolonization marked a phase in the globalization of politics that ended the intellectual and political legitimacy of colonial rule and eroded the hierarchies of race that underpinned the centuries-old colonial order. In effect, the globalization of European imperial projects after 1492 was reversed by the decolonization process in the second half of the 20th century.
DecolonizationwasthusbotharesponsetotheglobalizationofEuropeaninfluenceanda processofglobalizationthatpavedthewayforthedismantlingoftheNorthAtlanticcenteredinternationalsystem.Itwasdrivensimultaneouslybyimperativesofimperial deconstructionandtheconstitution/reconstructionofsovereigntyintheformercolonies. However,scholarsalsoneedtogivegreaterthoughttothewaysinwhichdecolonization wasbothreflectiveoftheriseofnationalistsentimentandaprocessthatwaslargerthan therelationshipbetweentheimperialpowersandtheirrespectivecolonies.Future scholarship will need to be attentive to the international and transnational dimensions of decolonization as a global process. There is much to be said about the ways in which the diplomatic initiatives of new nations such as India, Indonesia, and Egypt that emerged after 1945 helped to mobilize resources and develop strategies to accelerate and expand the opportunities for the decolonization process by way of the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Commonwealth Group of Nations linking the former British colonies, and other multilateral fora. Similarly, the role of the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and Cuba in providing military supplies, military advisors, and, on occasion, combat units to nationalist movements challenging the colonial powers helped to accelerate the decolonization process after 1945. Decolonization was part of the shifting terrain of international relations and a factor in the calculus of the global balance of power.
Inaddition,thedecolonizationprocesshelpedtocreateavenuesofpoliticalmobilization withintheimperialcenterswhichopenedopportunitiesforcoalitionssupportiveof decolonizationtoengageandinfluencepolicyathomeandinthewiderinternational system.InBritain,theLabourPartybecameamajorfactorinpushingtheprocessof decolonization,whiletheCommunistandSocialistpartiesplayedsimilarrolesinFrance. TheriseoftheAmericancivilrightsmovement,whichchallengedthedomesticracial regime,hadacatalyticeffectuponthenationalliberationstrugglesinvariousAfrican countries.Inturn,theriseofindependentstatesinAfricaforcedAmericanpolicymakers torecognizetheparadoxofitsclaimto“leadershipoftheFreeWorld.”Asaconsequence, theAmericanracialregimebecameacasualtyofthecoldwaranddecolonizationafter 1945.Thisinteractiveeffectbetweenthestrugglefornationalliberationincolonies acrosstheinternationalsystemandtheimpetusforsocialandpoliticalchangeinother societiesis,perhaps,bestrepresentedinthewaysinwhichGandhi'sadvocacyof nonviolencetochallengebothSouthAfricanracepoliciesandBritishcolonialrulein IndiahelpedtoframethecivilrightsstruggleintheUnitedStates.
Thetransnationalactivismthatshapedthedecolonizationprocesshada“dominoeffect” thatrequirednewavenuesofcollaborationamongthecolonialpowersforpoliciesaimed atpreventing,slowing,and/ordefiningtheprocessofdecolonizationduringthecoldwar. 2 3
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was not simply about a mutual security pact that provided an American commitment to the defense of Western Europe—it was also a mechanism used to develop coordinated strategies for dealing with the decolonization process in the non-European world. In the 1950s, America helped France contain the communist insurgency in Vietnam as a way to maintain a French commitment to the containment of the Soviet Union in Europe. Similarly, America premised its support for the Portuguese colonies in Southern Africa on the need to maintain access to military bases in the Azores for American military oper- ations within the NATO alliance. NATO represented an alliance of the European colonial powers with the United States that influenced the process of decolonization after 1945. As a consequence NATO, as one of the major alliance systems in the cold war, became a vehicle for the expansion of America's “informal empire” on the global stage and symbolized the Western Alliance's commitment to maintaining the politics of racial supremacy that had underpinned the pre-1945globalorder.
The successful Japanese military and ideological assault on the European and American imperial holdings in Asia during World War II seriously discredited the legitimacy of colonialism. The Japanese military successes in the Asia-Pacific region during the war exposed the vulnerabilities of Western colonial rule and created the politicalspacefortheriseofnationalisminAsia.AstheAsianpowerthatdemonstrated itsimmunitytothespreadofEuropeanimperialruleinthenineteenthcentury,Japan becameanindependentindustrialandmilitarypowercapableofdefeatingRussiainthe 1905Russo-JapaneseWar.JapanalsoestablisheditsowncoloniesinKorea,Taiwan,and inmainlandChina.Japanintheearly20thcenturybecameasymbolofAsian modernizationandindustrializationthatcouldwithstandEuropeanimperialambitions.
IfJapan'ssuccessprovidedanalternativevisiontoWesternimperialrule,itwasthe genocidaltragediesunleashedbyNaziGermanyinEuropethatshatteredtheideaof Westernimperialruleassustainable.TheNaziregimedemonstratedthroughgenocide theultimatelogicofWesterncivilization'spoliticsandideologyofracialsupremacy.All thecolonialpowers,includingtheJapaneseandtheUnitedStates,hadlessthanstellar recordsintheirtreatmentoftheircolonialsubjects,andNaziGermany'streatmentofthe JewishpopulationsofEuropefollowedtheearlierpursuitofgenocidalpoliciesagainstthe HereropopulationinitscolonyinSouthWestAfrica.Thisconvergenceofthedomestic andcolonialpoliticsofraceintheGermanexperienceprovidedpowerfulinsightintothe dangersoftheideologyofracialsupremacy.InthewakeofWorldWarII,racial supremacywasprogressivelyrelegatedtothemarginsofseriouspoliticaldebate.The complicitiesofEuropeancolonialruleinthenon-Europeanworldwiththetrajectoryof NaziGermanycouldnotbeavoidedafter1945.
Ineffect,theanti-colonialstruggleanddecolonizationwerecatalystsinthecreationofan alternativemoraluniverseinwhichcolonialrulewasrepudiatedbyitschallengersas antitheticaltotheideasofaglobalsocietybasedupontheprincipleofhumanequality. Thecourseofdecolonizationwasmorethanaprocessofpoliticaltransformationof countriesandpeoples.Itwasalsoasymbolofmoralregenerationleadingtothebirthand
reinvigoration of “nations.” Simultaneously, it represented a search for international redemption from the historical embrace of the “civilizing mission,” and its corollary, racial supremacy,onthepartofthecolonialpowers.Itwasthisdualthreadofthe decolonizationprocessthathelpedtofuelandconstrainthecoldwarinthepost-1945 era.
ThecoldwarwasdrivenbythesearchforasecurityarchitectureinEuropethatwould preventareturntothedestabilizingnationalismsthathadwrackedEuropeinthefirst halfofthe20thcentury.Theriseofnon-Europeannationalism,however,limitedthe appealofthemajoralliancestotheemergentnationalistelites.Unlessthealliances showedthemselvesdisposedtosupportthechallengetocolonialrulebynationalistsand demonstratedawillingnesstodistancethemselvesfromthecommitmenttoimperialrule bythecolonialpowers,theirclaimstoleadershipwithintheinternationalsystemwere contested.Decolonizationrepresentedthesearchforanewinternationalorderinwhich nationalismandideologicalpluralism—asopposedtobipolarity—wereconstituent elements.Decolonizationwasthusproject,process,andoutcomeofthesearchfora replacementforthequestforNorthAtlantichegemonythathadshapedthe imperialismthatpreceded1945andthebipolarvisionoftheleadersoftheNorthAtlantic TreatyOrganizationandtheWarsawPactthatemergedafter1945.
Theintersectionofthecoldwaranddecolonizationproducedasustainedengagement globalinitsreach.IntheaftermathofWorldWarII,thedecolonizationofthePhilippines, followedbythetransferofpowerfromBritaininIndia,Pakistan,Ceylon(SriLanka),and Burma,andtheDutchdecisiontoleaveIndonesia,wereearlyindicationsofthe momentumbuildingfordecolonization.However,theUSdecisiontoextenditscolonial possessionsbyacquiringthePacificterritoriesthathadbeenheldbyJapanunderthe LeagueofNations’Mandate,andFrance'sdecisiontoreoccupyIndochinaandreassert itscolonialrule,sentanalternativemessage.WhentheChineseCommunistpartywon thecivilwarin1949,establishingthePeople'sRepublicofChina(PRC),itbecame evidentthatthegeopoliticsofAsiahadshiftedagainstthecolonialpowers.Itwasalso evidentthatthestruggleoverAsianindependencewouldbecomeacatalystforthe expansionofthecoldwarintoAsia.FortheUnitedStates,the“lossofChina”illustrated thelimitsofitsstrategyofcontainmentdirectedagainsttheSovietUnion.Thecreationof thePRCextendedcommunistinfluenceintotheheartofAsia,confrontingAmericawitha newchallenge.Twooftheworld'slargeststateswhichstraddledmuchoftheEurasian landmasswerenowbothcommunistpowers.
ThecompetitionforinfluenceinthechangingAsiancontexttriggeredamilitary confrontationthatsuperimposedthecoldwarstruggleonacivilwarontheKorean peninsulain1950.TheKoreanWarprovidedthevenuefortheUnitedStatesandthePRC todeployresourcestoengageinmutualcontainmentontheAsianmainlandasthey clashedoverthefutureoftheformerJapanesecolony.Thewarwasaboutboththe struggleforcontrolovertheentirecountrybetweenthepro-AmericanandprocommunistnationalistfactionsandtheconfrontationbetweentheUnitedStatesandthe communistpowersinthestrategiccompetitionforinfluenceinAsia.Thefirstlarge-scale
militaryconflictofthepost-1945erasymbolizedtheintegrationofthedecolonization processesintothecoldwarconflict.TheinsurgenciesinMalaya,thePhilippines,and Vietnamthatemergedduringthelate1940sprovidedfurtherevidencethatthepoliticsof decolonizationandcommunismwereintimatelylinkedattheleveloftheinternalpolitics oftheAsiannationalistmovements.Koreasignaledtheemergingstruggleforinfluence amongtheWesternalliance,theSovietUnion,andaresurgentChinainthepost-1945 politicsofAsia.
EvenastheKoreanWarsettledintoaprotractedmilitarystalemate,theVietnamese insurgencyescalated.Frenchmilitaryweaknessprovokedamajorcrisis.American supportfortheFrenchmilitaryefforttodefeattheinsurgencybytheVietnamese communistforcesprovedtobeinadequate.TheEisenhoweradministrationdiscussedthe possibilityofdirectAmericanintervention,buttherewaslittleenthusiasmforanother misadventureontheAsianmainlandfollowingKorea.Thepossibilityoftheuseof AmericannuclearweaponsagainsttheVietnamesecommunistforceswasconsidered brieflybutfailedtogaintraction.Nevertheless,theissueindicatedthatthenuclear genieunleashedbythecoldwarinEuropewasbeginningtoinfluencethecalculusofthe shiftingAsianbalanceofpower.ThegrowingrealizationthattheWesternpowerslacked themilitarycapacitytowinadecisivevictoryagainstChinesemilitaryforcesand Chinese-backedinsurgentsincountriesdirectlyborderingthePRCcreatedtheconditions forthenegotiatedsettlementsandgeographicaldivisioninboththeKoreanWarandthe FrenchwarinVietnam.Thecoldwarhadbecomeadeterminantofthecontoursofthe Asiandecolonizationprocessandtheboundariesofthepost-colonialstatesinKoreaand Vietnam.Justasimportant,thedivisionsamongtheUnitedStates,France,andGreat BritainthatemergedaroundtheissueoftheFrenchmilitaryfailuresinVietnamreflected thetensionsthatdecolonizationhadprovokedwithintheheartoftheNATOallianceover strategyinbothEuropeandAsia.
ThisprocessinvolvedboththeformerJapanesecoloniesandtheEuropeancolonies occupiedduringthewarbyJapaneseforces.TheJapaneseconquestsofthePhilippines, Vietnam,Malaya,andIndonesiaduringWorldWarIIhadshatteredthelegitimacyof American,French,British,andDutchcolonialruleineachcolony.TheAmericans acknowledgedindependenceforthePhilippinesin1946.TheunsuccessfulDutch campaign—withsupportfromtheBritish—toreassertcolonialruleinIndonesialedtothe Hague'sacceptanceoftheindependenceofitscolonyin1949.TheBritishfacedan insurgencyledbytheCommunistpartyinMalayafrom1948to1960,whichalbeit unsuccessful,pavedthewayforMalayanindependenceunderapro-Western government.FortheFrench,however,imperialdisengagementfromVietnamcameonly afteradecisivemilitarydefeatatDienBienPhuin1954.ThesurrenderofJapanin 1945hadalsoledtothelossofitspre-warcolonialpossessionsinTaiwanandKorea, whichresultedinaconfrontationbetweenChinaandtheUnitedStatesoverthefutureof theseformercoloniesafterthe1949communistvictoryintheChinesecivilwar.China wasdeterminedtoreassertitssovereigntyoverFormosa/TaiwanwhiletheUnitedStates soughttoprotectthenationalistregimeontheislandfromtheconsequencesofthe politicalandmilitaryineptitudeofitsleaders.Similarly,theKoreanWarlaidthebasis
fortheescalationofSino-Americantensionsovertheunresolvedstatusoftheformer Japanesecolonies.Thus,thedecolonizationprocessinAsiahadprovokedtheimposition ofcoldwartensionsintheformercoloniesofboththeEuropeanandJapaneseempires.
InresponsetotheexpansionofthecoldwarintoAsia,thenewlyindependentcountriesof theregionsponsoredtheBandungConferenceof1955thatsoughttocreatesupportfor Asiannationalismandthespaceforanegotiatedendtocolonialrule.Signalingthata “ColoredCurtain”hadbeendrawnagainsttheEuropeanalliancesintheaffairsofthe non-Europeanworld,invitationswereextendedtothePRCandJapan,buttheUnited States,theSovietUnion,andtheWesterncolonialpowerswereexcluded.Theconference articulatedavisionofneutralitythatsoughttodecouplethestrugglefordecolonizationin Asiaandthenon-Europeanworldfromthecoldwar.ItmarkedtheemergenceoftheNonAlignedMovementasafactorinpost-1945internationalpoliticsthatwouldcomplicate theeffortsofthemajoralliancesystemstoconsolidatetheirinfluenceoutsideofEurope. Justasimportant,thepursuitofneutralismundertheumbrellaoftheNAMbythenew statesstimulatedthegrowthofideologicalpluralismthatcontestedthebipolarorderthat definedtheNorthAtlanticregionoverthecourseofthecoldwar.Yet,Bandung alsorepresentedanearlyindicationthatthebipolarsysteminEuropewaslessstable thanitappeared.Yugloslavia'sJosipBroz“Tito”provedtobeanearlyharbingerof Europeandisaffectionwiththebipolarorderashebecameafoundingmemberofthe Non-AlignedMovement.
(p.474) 16 17
TheemergenceoftheNAMcreatedthe“ThirdWorld”—atermusedtodefinecountries thatsoughttoavoidbeingtrappedbythemajoralliancesystemsinEurope.Thisstrategy ofdistancingthemselvesfromthebipolarconflictprovidedthesestateswiththeroomto manipulatethatconflictfortheirownindividualandcollectiveaims.Italsoallowedthem tobringtotheinternationalagendatheirconcernsaboutthelegaciesofcolonialruleand “underdevelopment”thatperpetuatedtheirrelativepovertywithintheinternational politicaleconomy.Thus,theNAMservedmemberstatesasbothadeviceforescapingthe pressuresofthecoldwarandaframeworkforcoordinationontradeandeconomicissues thatcouldbecomearticulatedthroughtheUnitedNationsandotherinternational organizations.Fornewlyindependentstateswhichhadlimitedeconomicandmilitary resources,theNAMwasamechanismforenhancingtheirautonomyvis-à-visthemajor militaryalliances,adiplomatictooltoadvancethegoalsofnationalself-determination andeconomicdevelopment,andaforumforlegitimizingtheideaofideologicalpluralism asacountertothecompetingtheologiesofcommunismandcapitalism.Thefactthatthe largestAsianstateswererepresentedattheBandungConferencewasapowerful statementoftheideological(andreligious)pluralismthatshapedtheThirdWorld challengetotheagendasofthemajorEuropeanalliances.Asaconsequence,bythe mid-1950stheprocessofdecolonizationinAsiahadbeguntoreshapethecontoursofthe internationalsystemandtoestablishlimitsuponthecapacityofthemajorpowersto enforceideologicalconformity.
ThischallengetoideologicalconformityrepresentedbytheNAMalsohadanenormous impactupontherelationshipsamongthemajorpowers.InthewakeoftheSovietUnion's successfullaunchofitsSputniksatellites,signalingthesophisticationofitsspace explorationtechnologyanditsdevelopmentofanintercontinental-rangeballisticmissile (ICBM)launchsystem,theUnitedStatesandtheSovietUnionbegantoexplorethe possibilitiesofdétenteinanefforttonegotiatemechanismsforstabilizingtheir relationshipandlimitingthepossibilityofnuclearwar.Thedevelopmentof intercontinentalnuclearmissileselevatedthestatusandpowerofboththeUnitedStates andtheSovietUnion.In1956bothhadbeenmotivatedtousetheirconsiderableleverage to“limit”theautonomyoftheiralliancepartners.TheHungarianchallengetoSoviet orthodoxyin1956hadresultedinaSoviet-ledinvasionandtheinstallationofaloyal regimeinBudapest.Simultaneously,Britain,France,andIsraelhadinvadedEgyptinan efforttoseizecontrolovertheSuezCanal,whichhadbeennationalizedbytheEgyptian governmentledbyGamalAbdelNasser.SovietsupportforNasser'snationalization policy,aswellasitswillingnesstosupplyEgyptwitharmsandfinancingfortheAswan Damproject,hadhelpedtotriggertheactionsbyBritain,France,andIsrael.The EisenhoweradministrationuseditseconomicleverageanditsinfluenceattheUnited NationstoforcethewithdrawalofitspartnersfromEgyptianterritoryandaccept Nasser'snationalizationpolicy.
(p.475)
Eachsuperpowerdemonstratedthelimitsofitswillingnesstoaccordautonomy toitsalliancepartners.FortheSoviets,ideologicalorthodoxywasaprimaryconcernin maintainingtheircontrolovertheWarsawPact,andtheirdeterminationtopreventthe emergenceofanotherYugoslaviainEasternEuropewasmanifestintheirinterventionin Hungary.FortheUnitedStates,EisenhowerwassignalingAmerica'swillingnessto supportnon-Europeannationalismforreasonsofgrandstrategyinlimitingtheexpansion ofSovietinfluenceinthenon-EuropeanworldevenifitrequiredhumiliatingitsNATO partners,AstheDutchhaddiscoveredinIndonesia,theUnitedStateswaspreparedto concedepoliticalindependencetonationalistsinthenon-Europeanworldifrequiredto “contain”communism.IntheSuezcrisisandtheHungarianuprising,actionsbyalliesof thesuperpowershadescalatedinternationaltensions,andthesuperpowerspursued initiativesthatsignaledtheircontroloftheirrespectivepartners.Withtheemergenceof ICBMsystemsonbothsidesoftheironcurtain,thesuperpowersconfrontedthedilemma ofpreventingtheiralliesfromtriggeringcrisesthatcouldprecipitateescalationof conflictsbecauseoftreatycommitments.Thecoldwarhadcrossedacriticalthreshold.
SeveralofAmerica'spartnersinNATOwerecolonialpowers,andthiswasamatterof concernasthegrowthofnationalismanddecolonizationinthenon-Europeanworld gainedmomentum.In1962,theincreasingCuban-Americanantipathythatfollowedupon theCubanrevolutionin1959andtheAmerican-backedBayofPigsinvasionaimedat topplingtherevolutionaryregimewasatriggerforthemajorpost-1945superpower confrontationovernon-Europeannationalism.WhileCubawasnolongeranAmerican colonyinconstitutionalterms,theAmericanmilitarybaseatGuantanamoandAmerican investmentinCubahadcompromisedCubansovereigntysincetheendoftheAmerican occupationin1903.TheSovietdecisiontodeploynuclearmissiles,andthethreatofa
majorconfrontationbetweenthetwonuclearpowersovertheissue,providedastark glimpseintothepossibilitieswhichcouldresultfromunrestrainedcompetitionbetween thetwomajoralliancesovertheirinfluenceinthenon-Europeanworld.Theincreasing globalizationofthedecolonizationprocess—spreadingfromAsiatoAfricaandthenceto theCaribbean—hadunderminedtheabilityofthesuperpowerstoassertcontroloverthe internationalorder.
AstheSuezcrisislikewisedemonstrated,theUnitedStatesanditsEuropeanpartners divergedontheissueofdecolonizationasasymptomoftherelativedeclineofthe influenceoftheEuropeancolonialpowersintheinternationalsystem.Theprocessof declinealsohadasignificantimpactuponthedomesticpoliticsofthecolonialpowers. GreatBritain'sprimeministerin1956,AnthonyEden,resignedanddepartedfrom politics,openingthewayforanewgenerationofpoliticalleaders.In1960hissuccessor, HaroldMacmillan,deliveredhisspeechon“TheWindofChange”inSouthAfrica, acknowledgingthattheageofEuropeanempirewasonthewane.Laterthatyearthe UNGeneralAssemblypasseditsDeclarationontheGrantingofIndependencetoColonial CountriesandPeopleswhichstipulated:
Immediatestepsshallbetaken,inTrustandNon-Self-GoverningTerritoriesorall otherterritorieswhichhavenotyetattainedindependence,totransferallpowers tothepeoplesofthoseterritories,withoutanyconditionsorreservations, inaccordancewiththeirfreelyexpressedwillanddesire,withoutanydistinction astorace,creedorcolour,inordertoenablethemtoenjoycomplete independenceandfreedom.
AsimilarprocessofcolonialdisengagementoccurredafterFrance'sfailuresinVietnam, atSuez,andinAlgeria.ThecollapseofFrenchimperialinfluenceledtoalossof legitimacyfortheFourthRepublicandthereturntopowerofCharlesDeGaulle.De GaulleconcededindependencetoAlgeriaanddecidedtonegotiateindependencefor France'sotherAfricancolonies.Morethanadecadelater,withthecollapseofthe fascist-eraEstadoNovoregimeunderMarceloCaetanoinPortugal,thesuccessorregime inLisbondivestedthecountryofitscoloniesinAfrica.AstheindividualEuropean empiresinthenon-Europeanworlddisintegrated,theprojectaimedatdeepeningand wideningtheintegrationoftheEuropeanstatesgainedmomentum.Europeanintegration providedafocusfortheenergiesofEuropeanleaderswhosoughttohavethecontinent remainamajorplayerininternationalpolitics.Decolonizationwasacatalystfor increasingpluralismintheinternationalorder.Asaconsequence,theformerimperial powerssoughttoforgebondsthatwouldallowthecontinenttocompetemoreeffectively withthesuperpowers.Theyevenbecamepartofthesearchforwaystolimitthecapacity ofthesuperpowerstodefinethelimitsofsovereignty.Amajorstepinthisdirection beganundertheWillyBrandtgovernmentinWestGermanywiththeadoptionof Ostpolitik,apolicyintendedtocreatealternativeformsofconstructiveengagement acrosstheironcurtain.Thesearchforsovereigntythatunderpinnedthedecolonization processinthenon-EuropeanworldopenedthewayforthesearchforanewEuropean
orderthatwouldreviveEuropeafterthetragediesoftwoworldwarsandthedivisionof Europeintocompetingideologicalandmilitaryblocs.
AsAnthonyHopkinsargues,thedecolonizationprocessalsotriggeredarecalibrationof therelationshipbetweenBritainanditscoloniesinCanada,Australia,NewZealand,and SouthAfrica,whichhadbecomeself-governingdominionswithconsiderableprerogatives indomesticandforeignpolicies.Duringthecoldwar,theseformercoloniesmovedto reshapetheconstitutionalrelationshipwithBritaintoexpandthescopeoftheir sovereigntyandtodevelopgreaterlatitudeinforeignpolicy.Thissearchforenhanced sovereigntyamongtheseformercoloniesrevealedthecentralityofnationalismin reshapingthepost-1945internationalorderevenasthesuperpowershadsoughtto securegreatercontrolovertheinternationalorder.Ofconsiderableimportanceinthis processwasthewayinwhichtheseformerBritishcoloniesbecameincreasinglytiedto theglobalstrategyoftheUnitedStatesandtheAnglo-Americanalliance.WhileCanada wasamemberofNATO,theotherswerenot—yettheyemergedasstrategicpartnersfor bothGreatBritainandtheUnitedStatesintheAsia-Pacific,theSouthAtlantic,and IndianOceanregions.Thisredefinitionoftheimperialconnectionamongtheformer Britishcoloniesandthecreationofanewalliancesystemamongthe“Anglo-Saxon” countrieswereindicativeofsubtleshiftsintheinternationalpoliticalordertriggeredby thecoldwar'sdecolonizationprocess.
(p.477)
TheexpansionofAmericaninfluencebywayofAmericanpenetrationofthe Europeanempiresand,onoccasion,forthedisplacementofthecolonialpowers’ influenceinspecificcoloniesduringandafterthetransferofpowerpavedthewayforthe UnitedStatestoredefinetheprioritiesofthevariouscountries.Oneearlyexampleofthis processwasthecreationofIsraelinpartofthePalestineMandate.TheTruman administration'srecognitionofIsraeliindependencein1948openedthewayfor Americaninfluencetoexpandinthecountryoversucceedingdecades;Britishinfluence becameincreasinglymarginal.America'sroleinSouthVietnamfollowedasimilarpath untiltheunificationofthecountrybytheVietnamesecommunistforcesin1975.An analogousprocessoccurredintheBelgianCongo,whichbecameanAmericanclientstate inCentralAfricaafteritsindependencefromBelgiumamidaprotractedviolentstruggle amongthecountry'spoliticalfactions.ThisprocessofAmericandisplacementofBritish influenceduringthedecolonizationprocesswasalsoevidentinBritishGuianaduringthe country'sstruggleforindependence.TheexpansionofAmericaninfluenceinpartsof thenon-EuropeanworldresultedinthetransformationofformalEuropeancolonialrule intoinformalAmericanempire.
ThecaseofDiegoGarciaintheIndianOceansuggestshowthepursuitofAmerican strategicgoalsalsosubvertedanddelayedtheprocessofdecolonization.In1971the AmericangovernmentleasedDiegoGarciafromtheBritishgovernment.Aspartofthe arrangement,theBritishsystematicallyremovedandrelocatedtheindigenouspeopleof theislandsinordertofacilitatetheAmericanoccupation.Inreturn,theUnitedKingdom receivedAmerican-subsidizedPolarissubmarine-launchednuclearmissilesfromthe UnitedStatestosupportitsgoalofbecomingamilitarynuclearpower.DiegoGarcia
illustratesthatthecontinuationofEuropeancolonialrulefacilitatedtheexpansionof Americancontainmentstrategyinaglobalcontext.Somecoloniesweretrappedbythe imperativesofthecoldwarconflict,whichprovidedthecommuniststateswiththe opportunitytopillorytheWesternallianceforperpetuatingcolonialrule.
InresponsetotheAmericanintegrationoftheEuropeancoloniesandex-coloniesinthe containmentofSovietandPRCinfluenceinthenon-Europeanworld,thetwocommunist statesembracedanti-colonialismasastrategyforlimitingWesterninfluence.Insurgents inVietnam,Algeria,andAngolaamongothersreceivedmilitaryanddiplomaticsupport fromthecommunistpowers.ThissupportforthedecolonizationoftheEuropeanempires, andtheidentificationoftheUnitedStateswiththeEuropeancolonialpowers,illustrated thewaysinwhichdecolonizationbecameanintegralfactorintheevolutionofthecold warandthestrategiccalculusofthesuperpowersandtheirrespectivealliancepartners. America'sperceptionofitselfasasuperpowercapableofguaranteeingthesurvivalofan alliedregimeinSouthVietnamwaskeytoitspursuitofafutilewar.In1975South VietnamcollapseddespitemorethantwodecadesofAmericanmilitaryandfinancial support.
Thelongestwarofdecolonizationduringthecoldwarwastheterrainoftheshifting fortunesofthemajorpowersandtherecalibrationoftherelationshipamongthem.The People'sRepublicofChina'ssupportforVietnamesereunificationdidlittletoenhanceits relationshipwiththeVietnameseCommunistparty.Thetwocountriesfoughtabrief warin1979andcompetedforinfluenceinLaosandCambodia,The reunificationofVietnamlikewiseexacerbatedtheSino-SovietsplitasbothVietnamand theSovietUnionwereclearlyinterestedincontainingChinaanditsgrowingengagement withtheUnitedStates.TheUnitedStatesfounditselfincreasinglyisolatedfromits EuropeanalliesasitescalateditsinvolvementinVietnam,andbothChinaandtheSoviet UnioncompetedforinfluenceovertheVietnameseCommunistparty,whilethelatter manipulatedbothinpursuitofitsgoalofnationalreunification.Theoutcomewasthe reorientationofprioritiesthatresultedfromthenegotiationsoverendingthewar.The SovietUnionandtheUnitedStatesmovedtowarddétente,whiletheUnitedStatesand Chinaopenedaneraofstrategicengagementthatwouldresultinincreasing collaborationbetweenthemtocontainthegrowthofSoviet-blocinfluence.
IftheVietnamWarprovedtobeacatalystfortherelaxationofcoldwartensionsbyway ofdétenteandtheUS-PRCrapprochement,itwasthedecolonizationofthePortuguese empireinAfricathatsignaledthatdétentebetweenthesuperpowerswasephemeral.As theEstadoNovoregimeunderMarcelCaetanocollapsedinPortugal,thenationalist movementsinAngola,Guinea-Bissau,andMozambiquemovedtotakecontrolofthese territories.ThedisintegrationofPortugueseruletriggeredaneffortbytheGeraldFord administrationtoencouragetheSouthAfricangovernmenttointerveneinAngolaand Mozambique.FollowingSouthAfricanmilitaryinterventioninAngola,theCuban governmentrespondedtotherequestbytheMPLAfactionofthenationalistmovement forsupport.CubantroopsroutedtheSouthAfricanmilitaryforces,andtheSovietUnion
subsequentlyprovidedevengreatersupportfortheCubanmilitaryforcesinAngolaas theMPLAsoughttoconsolidateitsauthorityagainstaninsurgencysupportedbySouth AfricaandtheUnitedStates.
TheCubanmilitarysuccess,andtheSovietdecisiontosupporttheCubaneffort,reflected theshiftingstrategicbalanceintheinternationalsystem.TheSovietsdisplayedan unprecedented,anddecisive,longdistanceforce-projectioncapabilitythatwascriticalin acceleratingtheendofcolonialruleinSouthernAfrica.ThedemiseofPortuguese colonialismposedadirectthreattothesurvivaloftheapartheidregimeinSouthAfrica, itscontroloverNamibia,andthewhitesupremacistregimeinRhodesia.TheUnited StatesandtheUnitedKingdomhadsupportedSouthAfricaandRhodesiaintheirpursuit ofpoliciesthatsystematicallydeprivedtheblackmajoritypopulationsofpoliticalrights andeconomicopportunities.In1976SouthAfrica'smilitarydefeatwasfollowedbythe Sowetouprising,ledprimarilybystudents.Theseprotestslaidthebasisformorethana decadeofescalatingconfrontationthateventuallyproducedademocraticallyelected multiracialgovernmentin1994.In1980thenewcountryofZimbabweemergedafterthe Rhodesianwhiteminorityregimewasremovedthroughaninsurgencyandgrowing internationalpressure.By1988thecountryofNamibiahadachieveditspolitical independenceasthedomesticcrisiswithinSouthAfricaunderminedtheapartheid regime'slegitimacyandregionalinfluence.InRhodesia-Zimbabwe,Namibia,andSouth Africa,thecommuniststatesprovidedsupportforthevictoriousnationalistfactions againstthewhitesupremacistregimes.Decolonizationcontinuedtobeacatalystfor increasingconflictbetweenthesuperpowerseveninaneraofdétente,andthe decolonizationprocessinSouthernAfricafurthererodedtheinfluenceofNATOandits alliesasthecoldwarwascomingtoanend.TheendofapartheidinSouthAfricaand Namibiawastheultimateacknowledgmentthatthepoliticsofwhitesupremacythathad underpinnedtheEuro-Americancolonialorderhadbeendiscredited.Soviet-Cuban interventioninSouthernAfricacontributedtotherevivalofthecoldwarinthe1980s, andtheendofthecoldwarinEuroperesultedintheunravelingoftheapartheidregime inSouthAfrica.ThecollapseoftheSovietUnionandtherepealofapartheidboth occurredin1991.ThesehistoricalconvergencesinthepoliticsofEuropeandAfricain thepost-1945eraofferusefulinsightsintothewaysinwhichthepoliticsofwhite supremacyandEuropeancolonialrulewereattheheartofthecoldwar.Forboththe EasternandWesternblocs,decolonizationbecameasurrogatebattlefieldintheir struggletoexpandorretaintheirinfluence.FortheWesternalliance,continuedcolonial rulewasacriticalcomponentofagrandstrategytomaintainthepre-eminenceofthe capitalistorderathomeandabroad.Forthecommunistpowers,theendofcolonialism wasaneffectivestrategyforunderminingtheWesternallianceanditshistoriccontrol overtheinternationalpoliticaleconomy.Decolonizationwasintegraltothecoldwar confrontationandthestruggleforideologicalsupremacyinthewiderworld.
However,decolonizationalsoraisedsalientquestionsabouthumanequalityand citizenshipwithintheimperialstates.Asthelegitimacyofwhitesupremacywas increasinglyquestionedinthepost-1945era,thestatusofcolonialsubjectswithinthe imperialframeworkforcedopennewavenuesofdebateandstruggle.Ascolonialsubjects
andmembersof“inferiorraces”withinthecolonialdispensation,theinequalityof citizenshipwastakenforgranted.However,wartimeserviceintheimperialarmiesby colonialsubjects,andthepostwarchallengetonotionsofracialsupremacythatdefined thecolonialorder,raisedtheissueofwhethercolonialsubjectswouldbecontentto remainsecond-classcitizenswithintheimperialproject.Theriseofthenationalist movementsinthecoloniesofferedoneroutetofirst-classcitizenshipinacountryfreeof colonialruleformanycolonialsubjects.However,forthoseinterestedinseeking citizenshipwithintheimperialstate,theproblemofthecolorlineandthepoliticsof citizenshipbecameincreasinglycontestedterrainastheimperialcentersstruggledwith theideathat“alien”populationswouldconstituteanindeliblepartoftheirpost-colonial ideasofnationalcommunity.
Integratingthehuman“fruitsofempire”withinthepost-colonialNorthAtlanticcontext hasbeenafundamentalpredicamentofthepost-1945internationalorderanda dimensionofthedecolonizationprocessthatrequiresexplorationbyscholarsingreater depthandbreadthacrossthepost-imperialorderinEurope,NorthAmerica,andtheir surrogatesinthewiderworld.GiventhepopulationlossesinEuropeduetowarandits consequencesinthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury,postwarreconstructionthroughthe recruitmentoflaborfromthecoloniestoworkintheimperialcenterincreasinglybecame astrategyforaddressingthedemographicdeficitwithinEurope.Inaddition,thereliance uponmilitaryrecruitsfromthecoloniesduringWorldWarIIandtosupporttheeffortsto reassert/maintaincolonialruleafter1945posedtheproblemofhowtodealwith populationsofcolonialsubjectswhosoughtimperialcitizenshipasanalternativeto returningtotheirplacesoforigin.
Forthesesocieties,mostofwhichweredemocraciesinthecoldwar,integrating formercolonialandother“alien”subjectsascitizenswascriticaltotheircreationofan alternativetothepoliticsofwhitesupremacy.Inthisprojectofintegrating“alien” populations,theUnitedStateshadtoaddressitsownproblemofsecond-classcitizenship forAfricanAmericansandotherminoritiesinthepost-1945period.AstheUnitedStates soughttoexerciseleadershipinthecoldwar,itfounditscredibilitychallengedbyits politicsofracialinequalityandsegregation.In1944GunnarMyrdal,withsupportfrom theCarnegieCorporation,publishedTheAmericanDilemma,advocatinganendtoits racialregime.Itwasthefirstmajordomesticefforttoarticulateanalternativetothe politicsofwhitesupremacyinthepost-1945internationalorder.Asthecoldwar intensified,andastheNATOallianceanditschampionshipofdemocracyasasystemof governmentsuperiortocommunismwasrefurbished,thegapbetweentherhetoricof democracyandtherealityofanexclusionarypoliticsthattargeted“alien”populations becameaproblemthatcouldnotbewishedaway.Further,theNaziregimeprovideda powerfulincentivetofindawayoutofthemorassofideologiesandpoliciesbasedupon theabsurdityof“racialsupremacy”anditscorollary,color-codedcitizenship.
InthecaseoftheUnitedStates,thissearchforavisionofcitizenshipthattranscended raceeventuallyconvergedaroundbothitsdomestichistoryofcolor-codedcitizenshipand itsownpoliciesasacolonialpower.TheBrownv.BoardofEducationdecisionbythe (p.480) 40
SupremeCourtin1954invalidatedtheconstitutionalsanctionofsegregatededucation andcitizenship.Thedecisionwasamajorcatalystfortheescalatingcivilrightsstruggle intheUnitedStates.Further,MartinLutherKing,Jr.andothercivilrightsleaderspushed theprocessofracialreformthatculminatedinthepassageoftheCivilRightsActin1964 andtheVotingRightsActof1965.Theseactsremovedthelegalimpedimentstothe exerciseofcitizenshipbythehistoricallydisadvantagedracial/ethnicgroupsinthe UnitedStates.AsMaryDudziakargues,thepoliticsofracialreformintheUnitedStates wasdrivenbythesensitivityofAmericanpolicymakerstothecontradictionsoftheir espousalofdemocracyassuperiortocommunismwhilecontinuingsegregation.Inthe post-1945era,similarproblemswerefacedbyotherWesterndemocracies,including Britain,France,andtheNetherlands,whichhadbecomeadestinationforimmigrants fromtheformercolonies,manyofthempeopleofcolor.Thesenewarrivalswere respondingtopoliticalchangesinthecoloniesandthegrowingdemandforlaborin Europeasaresultofthepostwarreconstructionprocess.
However,alittlenoticedaspectofAmericandomesticpoliticalreformduringthecoldwar wasthetransformationofAlaskaandHawaiifromcolonialpossessionsintononcontiguousstatesintheAmericanunion.Americancolonialrulehadbecome,like domesticracialsegregation,aliabilityinthecoldwarconflict.Byundertakingitsown processofcolonialreform,theUnitedStateswasburnishingitscredentialsasleaderof the“FreeWorld.”WiththeaccessionofHawaiiandAlaskatostatehood,theUSprovided anexampleofitscommitmenttoendingcolonialrulebyincludingitsformercolonial subjectsintheAmericanbodypoliticascitizens.Theimportanceofthisstepwas underlinedbythefactthatHawaiihadbecomeastatedespitethenon-white,multi-ethnic identityofthemajorityofitsinhabitantsevenbeforethemid-1960s.
AsimilarstrategywasadoptedbytheNetherlandswithregardtoitscoloniesin theCaribbean,byFranceinrelationtoitsownCaribbeanandPacificcolonies,and BritainforsomeofitscoloniesintheCaribbean,whichwererecognizedaslackingthe economicviabilitytoobtainindependence.IntheUnitedStatessimilarapproacheswere adaptedtoPuertoRico,theVirginIslands,andthePacificterritories,wherethe inhabitantsoftheseterritorieshadrepresentativegovernmentbasedonuniversal suffrageandcitizenshipbutwerehostagetolimitedeconomicopportunities.These formercoloniesweretransformedintounitswheretheirinhabitantswerecitizensbut withlimitedeconomicoptionsanddependentuponthelargesseoftheimperialcountry. Asaconsequence,colonialreformdidnotleadtodecolonizationinlegaltermsbutrather mitigatedtheperpetuationofacolonialpoliticsofracialdisadvantageandcolor-coded citizenship.Justasimportant,thesearrangementsmadeitpossiblefortheinhabitantsof thedependentterritoriestomigratetotheimperialcountriesandexercisecitizenship rightsthere—effectivelycreatingashiftinthedemographiccompositionofthese societiesandleadingthemtograpple,liketheUnitedStates,withtheimplicationsof multiculturaldemocracyduring,andafter,thecoldwar.TheAmericandilemmaduring thecoldwarbecamepartofalargerproblemofequalcitizenshipwithintheNorth
Atlanticworldandinotherareasoftheformercolonialworld.Anyareasettledby Europeanswhohaddisplacedindigenouspopulationsduringthecolonialperiod, includingtheUnitedStates,Australia,NewZealand,Canada,andSouthAfrica,hadto confronttheissueofequalcitizenshiprightsforthedisadvantagedpopulations.
AstheAmericancivilrightsstruggleunfoldedin1954afterthelandmarkBrownv.Board ofEducationdecision,thepoliticsofraceandequalcitizenshipwithinthedemocracies becameintimatelylinkedtotheissueofdecolonization.Inaveryevocativeinsightinto thewaysinwhichtheseprocesseswerelinked,MartinLutherKing,Jr.observedinApril 1957—afterhisreturnfromGhana'sindependencecelebrations—that:
. . . Ghanatellsusthattheforcesoftheuniverseareonthesideofjustice . . . That nightwhenIsawthatoldflagcomingdownandthenewflagcomingup,Isaw somethingelse.Thatwasn’tjustanephemeral,evanescenteventappearingonthe stageofhistory,butitwasaneventwitheternalmeaning,foritsymbolizes something.Thatthingsymbolizedtomethatanoldorderispassingawayanda neworderiscomingintobeing.Anoldorderofcolonialism,ofsegregation,of discriminationispassingawaynow,andaneworderofjusticeandfreedomand goodwillisbeingborn.
King'sobservationwasremarkablyprescient.Heunderstoodthelinkagesthatwere drivingtheprocessesofchangeinboththeUnitedStatesandinthewiderinternational systemandrecognizedthathisgenerationofleadershipwouldplayacriticalroleinthat transition.DecolonizationinAfricabecameacatalystforempoweringKingasacivil rightsleaderwhosawAfricandecolonizationasasteppingstonefortheadvancementof theAfricanAmericanstruggleforfullcitizenshipintheUnitedStates.African independence,likeGandhi'sadvocacyofnonviolenceintheIndiannationaliststruggle, offeredKingvaluableinsightsaboutthedevelopmentofastrategyforpromotingchange withintheUnitedStates.
(p.482)
Inthefinalanalysis,decolonizationduringthecoldwarwasaboutmorethan eitherthe“endofempire”orthe“transferofpower.”Itwasalsoabouttherethinkingof thenatureoftheglobalorderandtheroleofraceandcitizenshiptherein.Invery fundamentalterms,itwasaprocessthatwastransformativeforboththecoloniesandthe imperialpowers.Italsorepresentedtheemergenceofaglobalprocessthatwasboth international—asintherelationshipsamongstates,andtransnational—asinthe relationshipsamongindividualsandgroupsatthelevelofsub-nationalstrategiesof engagement.Inaddition,decolonizationmarkedashiftinglobalconsciousnessfrom notionsofracialhierarchyasafundamentofhumansocietytothesearchforhuman communitybytranscendingrace.Thestudyofdecolonizationasaglobalprocess featuringarangeofactorswithinmultiplearenasprovidesamultifacetedprismthrough whichthepost-1945historyofinternationalrelationscanbereconceptualized.
Decolonizationconstitutedaconstantreminderthatthebipolarorderpursuedafter1945
bythesuperpowersandtheiralliancepartnerswasneverastableframeworkforthe managementofinternationalrelations.
SelectBibliography
Baudet,Henri.ParadiseonEarth:SomeThoughtsonEuropeanImagesofNon-European Man.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,1965.
Hopkins,A.G.GlobalHistory:InteractionsbetweentheUniversalandtheLocal Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,2005.
Memmi,Albert.TheColonizerandtheColonized.NewYork:OrionPress,1965. Robinson,RonaldEdward,andJohnGallagher.AfricaandtheVictorians:TheOfficial MindofImperialism.London:Macmillan,1967.
Trouillot,MichelRolph.SilencingthePast:PowerandtheProductionofHistory.Boston, MA:BeaconPress,1997.
vonAlbertini,Rudolf.Decolonization:TheAdministrationandFutureoftheColonies, 1919-1960.NewYork:AfricanaPublishingCompany,1982.
Notes:
(1.)See,amongothers,FranzAnsprenger,TheDissolutionoftheColonialEmpires(New YorkandLondon:Routledge,1989);FrederickCooper,ColonialisminQuestion:Theory, Knowledge,History(Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2005);D.LeSueur,ed., TheDecolonizationReader(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2003);Wm.RogerLouis andRogerOwen,eds.,Suez1956:TheCrisisanditsConsequences(Oxford:Clarendon Press;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1989);RudolfvonAlbertini,Decolonization (NewYork:Doubleday&Co.1971);andYvesCollart,“Limitesàladécolonisation,” RelationsInternationalesno.18(1979):115–30.
(2.)ThomasBorstelmann,TheColdWarandtheColorLine:AmericanRaceRelationsin theGlobalArena(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2001);MaryDudziak,Cold WarCivilRights(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,2000);AzzaSalamaLayton, InternationalPoliticsandCivilRightsintheUnitedStates,1941–1960(NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress,2000);BrendaGaylePlummer,ed.,WindowonFreedom: Race,CivilRights,andForeignAffairs,1945–1988(ChapelHill,NC:UniversityofNorth CarolinaPress,2003).
(3.)SudarshanKapur,RaisingUpaProphet:TheAfrican-AmericanEncounterwith Gandhi(Boston,MA;BeaconPress,1992).
(4.)CaryFraser,“UnderstandingAmericanPolicytowardstheDecolonizationof EuropeanEmpires,1945–1964,”Diplomacy&Statecraft(March1992):105–25;andWm. RogerLouisandRonaldRobinson,“TheImperialismofDecolonization,”Journalof ImperialandCommonwealthHistory22(1994):462–511
(5.)EriHotta,Pan-AsianismandJapan'sWar,1931–1945(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan, 2007);AkiraIriye,PowerandCulture:TheJapanese-AmericanWar,1941–1945 (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1981);andChristopherThorne,TheIssueof War:States,Societies,andtheFarEasternConflictof1941–1945(NewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,1985).
(6.)PaulGordonLauren,PowerandPrejudice:ThePoliticsandDiplomacyofRacial Discrimination(Boulder,CO:WestviewPress,1996).
(7.)TheNazigenocidalpolicieshadalreadystimulatedstrongsentimentamongthe colonialpowerstoabandonthepoliticsofracialsupremacy.By1950,UNESCOpublished areportwhichasserted:“RacialDoctrineistheoutcomeofafundamentallyanti-rational systemofthoughtandisinglaringconflictwiththewholehumanisttraditionofour civilization.ItsetsatnoughteverythingthatUNESCOstandsforandendeavorsto defend.”(UNESCO,TheRaceConcept:ResultsofanInquiry,Paris:UNESCO,1950,5).
(8.)WilliamStueck,ed.,TheKoreanWarinWorldHistory(Lexington,KY:UniversityPress ofKentucky,2004).
(9.)MarcFrey,RonaldW.Pruessen,andTanTaiYong,eds.,TheTransformationof SoutheastAsia:InternationalPerspectivesonDecolonization(Armonk,NY:M.E.Sharpe, 2003).
(10.)GeorgeC.HerringandRichardH.Immerman,“Eisenhower,Dulles,and Dienbienphu,”JournalofAmericanHistory71(September1984):343–63.
(11.)HerringandImmerman,“Eisenhower,Dulles,andDienbienphu”;andGeorgeMcT. Kahin,Intervention:HowAmericaBecameInvolvedinVietnam(NewYork:AlfredA. Knopf,1986),34–65.
(12.)RobertJ.McMahon,ColonialismandColdWar:TheUnitedStatesandtheStruggle forIndonesianIndependence,1945–1949(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1981); AndrewJ.Rotter,ThePathtoVietnam:OriginsoftheAmericanCommitmenttoSoutheast Asia(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1987).
(13.)SimonC.Smith,BritishRelationswiththeMalayRulersfromDecentralizationto MalayanIndependence,1930–1957(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1995).
(14.)MarkAtwoodLawrenceandFredrikLogevall,eds.TheFirstVietnamWar:Colonial ConflictandColdWarCrisis(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2007).
(15.)GordonH.Chang,FriendsandEnemies:theUnitedStates,China,andtheSoviet Union,1948–1972(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1990).
(16.)WilliamZimmerman,OpenBorders,Nonalignment,andthePoliticalEvolutionof Yugoslavia(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1987).
(17.)J.W.Burton,ed.,Nonalignment(NewYork:JamesH.Heinemann,Inc.,1966).
(18.)Ontherelationshipbetweenthetwocrises,seeBrianMcCauley,“Hungaryand Suez,1956:TheLimitsofSovietandAmericanPower,”JournalofContemporaryHistory 16(October1981):777–800.
(19.)PeterL.Hahn,TheUnitedStates,GreatBritain,andEgypt,1945–1956(ChapelHill, NC:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1991);DianeB.Kunz,theEconomic DiplomacyoftheSuezCrisis(ChapelHill,NC:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress, 1991).
(20.)RaymondL.Garthoff,ReflectionsontheCubanMissileCrisis,rev.ed.(Washington, DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress,1989).
(21.)RitchieOvendale,“MacmillanandtheWindofChangeinAfrica,1957–1960,”The HistoricalJournal38(1995):455–77.
(22.)UNDeclarationonGrantingIndependencetoColonialCountriesandPeoples,1960 —UnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyResolution1514(XV),December14,1960.
(23.)TonyChafer,TheEndofEmpireinFrenchWestAfrica:France'sSuccessful Decolonization(NewYork:Berg,2002).
(24.)StewartLloyd-JonesandAntonioCostaPinto,eds.,TheLastEmpire:ThirtyYearsof PortugueseDecolonization(Bristol,UKandPortland,OR,USA:Intellect,2003);Norrie MacQueen,TheDecolonizationofPortugueseAfrica(NewYorkandLondon:Longman, 1997).
(25.)SeeRobertBidelux,“Introduction,”inRobertBideluxandRichardTaylor,eds., EuropeanIntegrationandDisintegration:EastandWest(LondonandNewYork: Routledge,1996),1–21
(26.)ArneHoffman,TheEmergenceofDétenteinEurope:Brandt,Kennedyandthe FormationofOstpolitik(NewYork:Routledge,2007).
(27.)AnthonyG.Hopkins,“RethinkingDecolonization,”PastandPresent200(August 2008):211–47.
(28.)SeeDouglasLittle,AmericanOrientalism:TheUnitedStatesandtheMiddleEast since1945(ChapelHill,NC:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,2002).
(29.)MarilynYoung,TheVietnamWars,1945–90(NewYork:HarperCollins,1991);Daniel Ellsberg,Secrets:AMemoirofVietnamandthePentagonPapers(NewYork:Viking Penguin,2002).
(30.)PeterJ.Schraeder,UnitedStatesForeignPolicytowardAfrica:Incrementalism, CrisisandChange(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1994).
(31.)CaryFraser,“The‘NewFrontier’ofEmpireintheCaribbean:TheTransferofPower inBritishGuiana,1961–1964,”TheInternationalHistoryReview22(Septemer2000): 583–610.
(32.)Fraser,“UnderstandingAmericanPolicy;”LouisandRobinson,“TheImperialismof Decolonization.”
(33.)ChristianNauvel,“AReturnfromExileinSight?TheChagossiansandTheir Struggle,”NorthwesternJournalofInternationalHumanRights5(2006),22.
(34.)TheCubangovernmentafter1960usedthecontinuedpresenceofanAmerican navalbaseatGuantanamotoexcoriate“YankeeImperialism.”Itsdecisiontoallywith communistpowersprovedtobeamajorembarrassmentforAmericanpolicyinthenonEuropeanworldsinceCubaembarkeduponapolicyoflendingmaterialsupportto nationalistmovementsinAfricaandelsewhere.SeePieroGleijeses,ConflictingMissions: Havana,Washington,andAfrica,1959–1976(ChapelHill,NC:TheUniversityofNorth CarolinaPress,2002).
(35.)BruceElleman,ModernChineseWarfare,1795–1989(NewYork:Routledge,2001), 284–97.
(36.)RaymondGarthoff,TheGreatTransition:American-SovietRelationsandtheEndof theColdWar(Washington,DC:TheBrookingsInstitution,1994),670–75.
(37.)RaymondGarthoff,DétenteandConfrontation:American-SovietRelationsfrom NixontoReagan(Washington,DC:TheBrookingsInstitution,1985);andGleijeses, ConflictingMissions.
(38.)M.Tamarkin,TheMakingofZimbabwe:DecolonizationinRegionaland InternationalPolitics(London:FrankCass,1990).
(39.)AccordingtoGeorgeShultz,NamibianIndependencemeant“thecolonialerain Africahadended.”GeorgeP.Shultz,TurmoilandTriumph(NewYork:CharlesScribner's Sons,1993),1129.
(40.)GunnarMyrdal,AnAmericanDilemma(NewYork:Harper&Row,1962).Myrdal observes:“IfAmericainactualpracticecouldshowtheworldaprogressivetrendby whichtheNegrobecamefinallyintegratedintomoderndemocracy,allmankindwouldbe givenfaithagain—itwouldhavereasontobelievethatpeace,progressandorderare
feasible.AndAmericawouldhaveaspiritualpowermanytimesstrongerthanallher financialandmilitaryresources—thepowerofthetrustandsupportofallgoodpeopleon earth.”(Myrdal,AnAmericanDilemma,1021–2.)
(41.)Dudziak,ColdWarCivilRights.
(42.)Carl-UlrikSchierup,PeoHansen,andStephenCastles,eds.,Migration,Citizenship, andtheEuropeanWelfareState:AEuropeanDilemma(NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,2006),24–8;andKathleenPaul,WhitewashingBritain:RaceandCitizenshipinthe PostwarEra(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,1997).
(43.)RostowarguesthatLyndonJohnson'sadvocacyofcivilrightswasinfluencedbythe Hawaiianstatehoodcampaigninthe1950s.SeeW.W.Rostow,“TheCasefortheVietnam War,”Parameters26(Winter1996–7):39–50.
(44.)MartinLutherKing,Jr.,“TheBirthofaNewNation,”asermondeliveredatthe DexterAvenueBaptistChurchonApril7,1957,inClayborneCarson,ed.,ThePapersof MartinLutherKing,Jr.,Vol.4.SymboloftheMovement,January1957–December1958 (Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,2000).
CaryFraser
CaryFraser,ahistorianofinternationalrelations,isthePresidentoftheUniversity ofBelizeinCentralAmerica.