Matu syllabus reference - Le Tiers Monde : montrer l’émergence de pays nouveaux à l’heure de la décolonisation et identifier leurs aspirations à la lumière de la Conférence de Bandoung ; cerner les modèles de développement et le choix du non alignement. Matu syllabus
Lesson 1 - What factors, both internal and external, encouraged decolonisation in Asia and Africa after 1945?
11-05-2020
11-05-2020
What is decolonisation?
Decolonisation is the process by which dependent countries (colonies) become independent of a colonial or imperial power. Decolonisation might be said to have begun with the American Wars of Independence and continued in the 19th century with the decline of the Spanish empire in the Americas and the Ottoman Empire in Europe. The independence movements you have previously studied which led to Greek independence (1821) or Serbia (1878) might be considered earlier examples of decolonisation.
Decolonisation is the process by which dependent countries (colonies) become independent of a colonial or imperial power. Decolonisation might be said to have begun with the American Wars of Independence and continued in the 19th century with the decline of the Spanish empire in the Americas and the Ottoman Empire in Europe. The independence movements you have previously studied which led to Greek independence (1821) or Serbia (1878) might be considered earlier examples of decolonisation.
After 1919
The history of the decolonisation of Asia and Africa begins with the end of the First World War, a war that had mobilised colonial armies to make common sacrifice alongside the ‘mother country’. The hope that this sacrifice might be rewarded - along with Woodrow Wilson’s principle of ‘self-determination’ and the break-up of the German overseas empire - led many anti-colonialists to anticipate that Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations might, through the ‘mandate’ system, advance the cause of decolonisation. Indeed, the Versailles Peace Conference did inspire W. E. B. Du Boise to organise the first Pan-African Congress – demanding an end to racism and colonial rule - which also took place in Paris in February 1919.
The history of the decolonisation of Asia and Africa begins with the end of the First World War, a war that had mobilised colonial armies to make common sacrifice alongside the ‘mother country’. The hope that this sacrifice might be rewarded - along with Woodrow Wilson’s principle of ‘self-determination’ and the break-up of the German overseas empire - led many anti-colonialists to anticipate that Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations might, through the ‘mandate’ system, advance the cause of decolonisation. Indeed, the Versailles Peace Conference did inspire W. E. B. Du Boise to organise the first Pan-African Congress – demanding an end to racism and colonial rule - which also took place in Paris in February 1919.
|
It also led a young Vietnamese student and member of the French Socialist Party delegate at Versailles, Ho Chi Minh, (right - who was then working as a kitchen assistant at the Hotel Ritz in Paris) to send a petition to the American delegation asking America for help to end French rule. Ho Chi Minh would not be the only one to be disappointed by the outcome of 1919, perhaps most importantly the Chinese May Fourth Movement that grew out of the anti-imperialist student movement in Beijing on May 4, 1919, protested against the Treaty of Versailles, especially the decision to allow Japan to receive former German territories.
|
|
The interwar period
The period up to the Second World War laid the foundations of the post-war decolonisation movement. Movements were beginning to emerge across the periphery, dedicated to achieving political independence. For example, in February 1927 the first meeting of the International Congress of the League against Imperialism and Colonial Oppression in Brussels declared:
The period up to the Second World War laid the foundations of the post-war decolonisation movement. Movements were beginning to emerge across the periphery, dedicated to achieving political independence. For example, in February 1927 the first meeting of the International Congress of the League against Imperialism and Colonial Oppression in Brussels declared:
The development of the African people was abruptly cut short and their civilisation was most completely destroyed. These nations were later declared pagan and savage, an inferior race, destined by the Christian God to be slaves to superior Europeans.
One of the first political independence movements was the Indian National Congress founded in 1885, which by 1906 had adopted the aim of swaraj or 'home rule'. In neighbouring Burma and Ceylon there were also nationalist movements, in the former under the guidance of U Ottoma, leader of the General Council of Buddhist Associations. In the 1900s a nationalist movement, Sarekat Islam, was founded in the Dutch East Indies. In 1919 a delegation seeking independence for the Philippines was sent to the United States.
But it was only in Egypt and India that independence movements gained any headway. In order to contain nationalism and retain effective control, the British recognized Egypt as formally independent in 1922, but subject to conditions giving the British all the essential powers over military and foreign policy that they thought they needed. In India, the British were forced to gradually allow for increasing Indian independence through a series of reforms and declarations in 1908, 1917, 1919, 1929 and 1935. But opposition to Indian independence remained strong among the English ruling elite, their reasons for opposing decolonisation often sound bluntly racist to modern ears. For example, Leo Amery, the Secretary of State for India during the war, wrote:
But it was only in Egypt and India that independence movements gained any headway. In order to contain nationalism and retain effective control, the British recognized Egypt as formally independent in 1922, but subject to conditions giving the British all the essential powers over military and foreign policy that they thought they needed. In India, the British were forced to gradually allow for increasing Indian independence through a series of reforms and declarations in 1908, 1917, 1919, 1929 and 1935. But opposition to Indian independence remained strong among the English ruling elite, their reasons for opposing decolonisation often sound bluntly racist to modern ears. For example, Leo Amery, the Secretary of State for India during the war, wrote:
If India is to be really capable of holding its own in future without direct British control from outside I am not sure that it will not need an increasing infusion of stronger Nordic blood, whether by settlement or intermarriage or otherwise. Possibly it has been a real mistake of ours in the past not to encourage Indian princes to marry English wives ... and so breed a more virile type of native ruler.
What factors, both internal and external, encouraged decolonisation and defined the experience of decolonisation after 1945?
The experience of decolonisation was not the same in every country, but to some extent this variation might be explained by the similarity and difference (and relative importance) of certain ‘factors’ of decolonisation. Although somewhat simplified we can identify three typical experiences of decolonisation.
This variation raises a number of questions that must be considered as you work through the case studies of national independence. For example, how did the different experiences of WWII influence the process of decolonisation? Or how did the level of economic and social development of the colony influence the nature of decolonisation? We might even ponder direct questions of correlation such as: is there a relationship between the nature of colonial rule and the tendency for some decolonisation experiences to end in violence?
The experience of decolonisation was not the same in every country, but to some extent this variation might be explained by the similarity and difference (and relative importance) of certain ‘factors’ of decolonisation. Although somewhat simplified we can identify three typical experiences of decolonisation.
- Violent: The transfer of power from colonial authority came about as a result of war and often long violent struggle. This was the case of the Indonesia (1949), French Indochina (1954), Algeria (1962) and Kenya (1963).
- Negotiated: Independence was achieved without brutal struggles. This includes the example of India (1947), Tunisia (1956), Ghana (1957) and Tanzania (1964).
- Accelerated: In this type of decolonisation there has been little or no preparation. This was the case of much of black Africa in the 1960s and notably the Belgian Congo (1960).
This variation raises a number of questions that must be considered as you work through the case studies of national independence. For example, how did the different experiences of WWII influence the process of decolonisation? Or how did the level of economic and social development of the colony influence the nature of decolonisation? We might even ponder direct questions of correlation such as: is there a relationship between the nature of colonial rule and the tendency for some decolonisation experiences to end in violence?
External factors
An external factor of decolonisation refers to something that encouraged or made possible the process of decolonisation that was relatively ‘independent’ of the influence of either the coloniser or colonised. Often an external factor provided a context that might enable or hinder the process of decolonisation. Without doubt the most important external factor of decolonisation was the Second World War. The defeat and occupation of European colonial powers such as France and the Netherlands provided anti-colonial liberation movements with an opportunity in which both to assert their independence and fine-tune their political and military tactics, often against a new occupying power, Japan. The ultimate defeat of Japan created a power vacuum that well-established independence movements could fill and prove difficult to dislodge. Even though the most important imperial power Britain was not itself occupied during the war many of its colonies were. A second key external factor was economic. In an age of post-war austerity and international debt, Britain and other European powers often lacked the political resolve to maintain the economic burden of maintaining an empire in a Cold War age of changed priorities.
An external factor of decolonisation refers to something that encouraged or made possible the process of decolonisation that was relatively ‘independent’ of the influence of either the coloniser or colonised. Often an external factor provided a context that might enable or hinder the process of decolonisation. Without doubt the most important external factor of decolonisation was the Second World War. The defeat and occupation of European colonial powers such as France and the Netherlands provided anti-colonial liberation movements with an opportunity in which both to assert their independence and fine-tune their political and military tactics, often against a new occupying power, Japan. The ultimate defeat of Japan created a power vacuum that well-established independence movements could fill and prove difficult to dislodge. Even though the most important imperial power Britain was not itself occupied during the war many of its colonies were. A second key external factor was economic. In an age of post-war austerity and international debt, Britain and other European powers often lacked the political resolve to maintain the economic burden of maintaining an empire in a Cold War age of changed priorities.
|
Fourthly, the Cold War also provided an important anti-colonial momentum with both superpowers ideologically hostile to the traditional empire form of direct control, whilst they hypocritically promoted their own spheres of influence and proxy governance via compliant dictators. Unless there was a Cold War agenda for European powers to justify their colonial ambitions, they lacked the international support that was increasingly dominated by the policy priorities of the USA and USSR. The failed attempt by Britain and France to recapture the Suez Canal from Egyptian control in 1956 marked a significant external turning point in this regard. The Suez crisis provided a significant impetus to African decolonisation; forced to submit to the anti-colonial pressure of the Superpowers the European’s will to maintain their empires were subsequently deflated. As Colonel Nasser emerged as the champion of the Arab cause and decolonisation, the new British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan spoke of the rise of African national consciousness as a ‘wind of change’ blowing through the continent.
|
|
Finally, the newly formed United Nations Organisation based on the anti-imperial principles of the 1941 Atlantic Charter, would prove to be both a powerful conduit and platform for national liberation movements. In response to point three of the Atlantic Charter’s stated principles that ‘all people had a right to self-determination’; the leader of the Indian independence movement Mohandas Gandhi wrote to President Roosevelt: ‘I venture to think that the Allied declaration that the Allies are fighting to make the world safe for the freedom of the individual and for democracy sounds hollow so long as India and for that matter Africa are exploited by Great Britain...’
Internal Factors
An internal factor of decolonisation refers to something that encouraged or made possible the process of decolonisation that can be explained by events inside the colony or within the relationship between the colony and coloniser. The first important internal factor derives from the way in which the colony has historically been governed. When studying New Imperialism last year we identified three broad political types of imperialism:
1. Colonies (a) direct rule – where officials & soldiers are sent to administer colonies (typically French) (b) indirect rule – via sultans, chiefs, other local rulers - urged leaders to get education in home country to become westernized (typically British)
2. Protectorates - local rulers left in place but expected to follow advice of European advisers - cheaper than running a colony (e.g. Britain in Egypt)
3. Spheres of Influence - areas in which outside powers claimed exclusive investment or trading privileges (e.g. Europeans created them in China, U.S. in Latin America)
If the pre-liberation, colonial administration is direct and comprehensive, the more dependent the imperial periphery is on the imperial core. This will make a smooth transfer of power more difficult to achieve. If, however, an effective modern state infrastructure has been developed with the support and integration of a local elite, then the process of independence is likely to be easier because the local population have the wherewithal and experience to run a modern state. A second related internal factor is the attitude of the colonial power to the question of independence. There are many external reasons like war and economic difficulty which can put pressure on colonisers to relinquish control, but there can also be internal factors which can just as easily lead to a change in policy. An election outcome or a change in government personnel can result in an imperial government more willing to negotiate independence. Had Churchill been re-elected in Britain in 1945, the future independence of India may not have been achieved so early. In contrast, Charles de Gaulle’s belief that the rebuilding of France’s international prestige required her to hold on to her global empire at all costs resulted in a very different attitude to national independence movements in Paris.
An internal factor of decolonisation refers to something that encouraged or made possible the process of decolonisation that can be explained by events inside the colony or within the relationship between the colony and coloniser. The first important internal factor derives from the way in which the colony has historically been governed. When studying New Imperialism last year we identified three broad political types of imperialism:
1. Colonies (a) direct rule – where officials & soldiers are sent to administer colonies (typically French) (b) indirect rule – via sultans, chiefs, other local rulers - urged leaders to get education in home country to become westernized (typically British)
2. Protectorates - local rulers left in place but expected to follow advice of European advisers - cheaper than running a colony (e.g. Britain in Egypt)
3. Spheres of Influence - areas in which outside powers claimed exclusive investment or trading privileges (e.g. Europeans created them in China, U.S. in Latin America)
If the pre-liberation, colonial administration is direct and comprehensive, the more dependent the imperial periphery is on the imperial core. This will make a smooth transfer of power more difficult to achieve. If, however, an effective modern state infrastructure has been developed with the support and integration of a local elite, then the process of independence is likely to be easier because the local population have the wherewithal and experience to run a modern state. A second related internal factor is the attitude of the colonial power to the question of independence. There are many external reasons like war and economic difficulty which can put pressure on colonisers to relinquish control, but there can also be internal factors which can just as easily lead to a change in policy. An election outcome or a change in government personnel can result in an imperial government more willing to negotiate independence. Had Churchill been re-elected in Britain in 1945, the future independence of India may not have been achieved so early. In contrast, Charles de Gaulle’s belief that the rebuilding of France’s international prestige required her to hold on to her global empire at all costs resulted in a very different attitude to national independence movements in Paris.
|
A third key internal factor is the level of socio-economic development of the colonies themselves. As with any revolution, an effective organisation of revolutionary change depends, to some extent, or an ability to mobilise people against the status quo. Higher levels of literacy and civic (national) culture, the existence of mass-media and popular pressure groups are all indicators that a genuinely popular movement might be created. For example, the existence of western style education promoted decolonisation as it helps the young in subject countries assimilate revolutionary enlightenment concepts such as freedom and equality.
|
|
A final key internal factor was the very existence of an organised popular movement or political party, dedicated to the goal of independence itself. Organisations such as the Congress Party in India, Convention People's Party in Ghana or the FLN (National Liberation Front) in Algeria, campaigned - often illegally - for the creation of a state independent of colonial influence.
Activity
|
Make a copy (by hand or with a computer) of the diagram 'What factors, both internal and external, encouraged decolonisation in Asia and Africa after 1945?' and complete it with the information contained in this chapter.
Above is the presentation from the lesson which is a summary of the information contained in this section. |
|
Lesson 2 - Three case studies in decolonisation: India (negotiated), Indo-China (violent) and the Congo (accelerated).
18-05-2020
18-05-2020
Before looking at the three case studies, it is worth watching this excellent overview from the People's Century series which broadens the examples and provides an overview in one 50 minute sweep. The article that goes with it is also very good.
|
|
|
India (negotiated decolonisation)
Internal Factors influencing the movement towards Indian Independence:
External factors influencing the movement towards Indian Independence
- Educated leadership: Britain encouraged Western-style education, which developed an educated middle class who became the leaders of India. Indian leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru were educated as lawyers in England.
- Indian nationalism: Indian nationalism (the desire to have an independent India) had been growing since the 19th century.
- The development of technology - the railways, the postal system - and the spread of the English language created greater unity in India than ever before.
- The Indian Congress Party was the main party which wanted an independent India.
- Gandhi became the leader of the Indian independence movement between the First and Second World Wars. His tactics of peaceful resistance increased discontent against the British. The British government reacted to this by giving more power to India. Under the Government of India Act 1935, India had a national assembly and assemblies in the provinces under the control of the Governor-General. 1945 election: After the war, the Labour Party, led by Clement Attlee, took over government in Britain.
- The Labour Party supported a rapid move to Indian independence. The British economy was in ruins after the war. The country was bankrupt, many of its cities were in ruins, its exports fell and the pound sterling was weak. It could not afford to maintain its empire.
External factors influencing the movement towards Indian Independence
- World War II - Indian leaders took advantage of Britain's involvement in the war by increasing their campaign for independence. The advance of the Japanese through Burma forced the British to send Sir Stafford Cripps to India to discuss the process of independence with Indian leaders. Indian leaders were also more involved in ruling their country. The experience of World War II encouraged Indian nationalist leaders to continue the campaign for full independence.
- After the war, Britain was financially exhausted, owed £3.5 billion and was dependent on the US for loans, and the US was opposed to British control of India.
On 3 June 1947, in New Delhi, Lord Mountbatten and the main leaders of India negotiate the partition of that country in accordance with the British plan. From left to right: Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, Vice-President of the Interim Government; Lord Hastings Ismay, adviser to Lord Mountbatten; Lord Louis Mountbatten, Viceroy of India; and Muhammad Ali Jinnah, ‘Great Leader’ of the All-India Muslim League
Lord Mountbatten was given responsibility for negotiating the transfer of power. India was to be partitioned. It proposed that power would be handed over to two governments, one in India and one in Pakistan. They would have dominion status within the Commonwealth and would operate like that until they drew up their own constitutions. This plan meant that India would have to be partitioned between a majority Hindu country and a majority Muslim country. However, the distribution of the Muslim population presented problems. They were concentrated in the north-west and north-east of India and others were scattered throughout the country.
|
|
The new governments took over on 15 August 1947 and British forces began to withdraw. Nehru became Prime Minister of India, while Ali Khan became Prime Minister of Pakistan. The British withdrawal had avoided a civil war, but as Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs moved home, hundreds of thousands were massacred. India was the largest country to be decolonised and it became the largest democracy in the world. Relations between India and Pakistan were strained - they fought three wars over Kashmir. India was Britain's largest overseas possession. Once India got its independence, the reasons for holding onto the rest were weakened. Soon after, Ceylon, Burma and Malaya got their independence. India and Pakistan remained part of the British Commonwealth.
Indo-China (violent decolonisation)
The decolonisation of Indo-China was the longest and most violent example of all. Although French decolonisation of Indo-China was complete by 1956, the logic of the Cold War saw the Americans remain in conflict with the North Vietnamese until 1973. And not until 1975 was a united Vietnam, finally realised.
Internal Factors
External Factors
The 'Bao Dai Solution'
In 1948, Vietnam under Bao Dai was accepted as a state within the French Union. The next year, the independence of Vietnam under his leadership was recognised by the French Government, but no vote of the people of the newly independent state was taken. This proved no solution to the war against the Vietminh. However, it did provide the French with a pretence for remaining in Indo-China. Bao Dai's regime was presented as an independent state under attack from communism. Once China installed a communist regime (1949), the domino theory was advanced as a justification for staying. If Indo-China fell to communism too, then who would be next? A war that had begun in 1946 over French imperialism had, in three years, mushroomed into part of a regional struggle against communism in South East Asia. The United States backed the French to the hilt because they assumed that the Vietminh and even the Chinese communists were puppets of the USSR.
The defeat of France: General Giap and Dien Bien Phu, 1950-54
It is probable that no single, individual influenced the outcome of the wars in Indo-China more than General Vo Nguyen Giap. [Died in 2013 aged 102] In the fighting against the French between 1946 and 1949, Giap masterminded the guerrilla tactics that frustrated the French. Well-armed by the Chinese from 1950, however, he switched to a modern war of movement. The French were forced to 'Vietnamise' their armed forces by raising an army from Bao Dai's supporters. The war also became 'Americanised' in that the USA supplied $2,900 million of aid in 1950-54, and in the last year were bearing 80 per cent of the cost.
Internal Factors
- A key concept of French imperialism, known as 'assimilation', perceived colonies as one and indivisible from France. In the official mind, France had no colonies, only departments. This created a 'them and us' culture which excluded the colonised from power and left little room for compromise and negotiation.
- The Indo-Chinese were worked and taxed hard; there had been a tax strike against the French as early as 1907.
- The First World War ended with French promises of reform to the Indo-Chinese who had fought with them. But, as in North Africa, the white settler class resisted. Therefore, co-operation, turned into opposition.
- 1927 the National Party of Vietnam was founded, determined to end French rule altogether. Its leader was Ho Chi Minh, a communist who thought his homeland was not yet ready for communism.
- The Indo-Chinese economy had been turned into one of cash crops for export. As rice and rubber flowed out of the country, peasants found it increasingly impossible to support a growing population.
- The Vietminh (national independence coalition formed Hồ Chí Minh in May 1941) did not pursuing a strict communist policy of land expropriation during WWII and it had even retained the support of landlords. In the towns, it was well supported by the middle class, to whose nationalist sentiments it appealed.
- After World War II de Gaulle and France wanted to rebuild her empire. (Contrast to UK in India) Cambodian and Laotian monarchies were restored.
- The French imposed Bao Dai as their puppet to be their leader of Vietnam. Bao Dai's had a history of collaboration with both the French and Japanese.
External Factors
- The Japanese took advantage of French defeat in 1940. The colonial Vichy regime, under Admiral Decoux, signed a compromise agreement by which the Japanese were allowed into the northern areas which was very unpopular and helped provoke nationalist sentiment.
- In March 1945, Japan launched a full-scale invasion to support their failing war campaign in the Far East. They installed the Emperor Bao Dai as a puppet ruler, but he was overthrown by the nationalist coalition of the Vietminh.
- The United States, despite supporting the Vietminh’s wartime struggle against the Japanese, decided not to oppose French recolonisation because of the new Cold War fear of the spread of communism.
- The 'August revolution' in 1945 declared the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The French refused to recognise it, and from October 1945 the longest war of decolonisation of the twentieth century began. The colonial war against the French was a prelude to that against the world's strongest power, the United States. There is no better example of the continuity between decolonisation and Cold War conflicts.
The 'Bao Dai Solution'
In 1948, Vietnam under Bao Dai was accepted as a state within the French Union. The next year, the independence of Vietnam under his leadership was recognised by the French Government, but no vote of the people of the newly independent state was taken. This proved no solution to the war against the Vietminh. However, it did provide the French with a pretence for remaining in Indo-China. Bao Dai's regime was presented as an independent state under attack from communism. Once China installed a communist regime (1949), the domino theory was advanced as a justification for staying. If Indo-China fell to communism too, then who would be next? A war that had begun in 1946 over French imperialism had, in three years, mushroomed into part of a regional struggle against communism in South East Asia. The United States backed the French to the hilt because they assumed that the Vietminh and even the Chinese communists were puppets of the USSR.
The defeat of France: General Giap and Dien Bien Phu, 1950-54
It is probable that no single, individual influenced the outcome of the wars in Indo-China more than General Vo Nguyen Giap. [Died in 2013 aged 102] In the fighting against the French between 1946 and 1949, Giap masterminded the guerrilla tactics that frustrated the French. Well-armed by the Chinese from 1950, however, he switched to a modern war of movement. The French were forced to 'Vietnamise' their armed forces by raising an army from Bao Dai's supporters. The war also became 'Americanised' in that the USA supplied $2,900 million of aid in 1950-54, and in the last year were bearing 80 per cent of the cost.
|
In early 1954 a large army of 12,000 troops under General Henri Navarre got themselves surrounded in the long valley of Dien Bien Phu, in the north of Tonkin province. For almost two months the Vietminh bombarded with heavy artillery a French army unable to be relieved because its airstrips had been cut off. President Eisenhower was prepared to respond to French appeals to send in B-29 bombers from the Philippines bases, but Congress refused support. Consequently, 2,000 French died, and 10,000 were captured.
The Geneva Conference (1954) As in India, the Geneva agreement partitioned Vietnam into two separate states either side of the 17th parallel. Laos and Cambodia also became independent states. Therefore, it was not a permanent settlement, for the new government of North Vietnam regarded the South as still under imperialist domination. French masters had merely been exchanged for American ones. The United States never signed the settlement but agreed to abide by it. The promise of free elections for the whole of Vietnam by 1956 was not honoured because Secretary of State John Foster Dulles feared the Vietminh would win them. Instead, Bao Dai headed a compliant government in the South with Ngo Dinh Diem as Prime Minister. (The story continues in Cold War - Vietnam.) |
|
The Congo (accelerated decolonisation)
The decolonisation of the Congo is largely to be explained by internal factors. There was no major war or economic crisis that created a context to encourage decolonisation. One of the features of accelerated decolonisation was that there appeared to be little pressure of decolonisation until it happened. But when it did happen, it happened very quickly. In the case of the Congo, although external factors did not play a significant role in leading up to decolonisation, external factors (UNO, Cold War, foreign intelligence agencies) were critical to understanding how the process of decolonisation unfolded (badly!).
Unlike the Dutch in Indonesia, Belgian decolonisation did not appear imminent as the Second World War ended. The Congo had not suffered occupation, and in 1945 seemed to be one of the most stable examples of colonialism.
Internal Factors
External Factors
Unlike the Dutch in Indonesia, Belgian decolonisation did not appear imminent as the Second World War ended. The Congo had not suffered occupation, and in 1945 seemed to be one of the most stable examples of colonialism.
Internal Factors
- The Belgians did not give the Congolese any rights, and they did not want to develop an educated middle class who would want to change the country. While the educational system produced more skilled craftsmen than most other colonies, it produced no doctors, lawyers or engineers. No African sat on the Governor-General's Council until 1947.
- The colonial administration, main employers, banks and industries remained entirely Belgian in composition. The Belgian and international financiers who had invested in the copper and diamond mines opposed any move towards decolonisation.
- Through the 1950s living standards rose appreciably, particularly in the urban areas. The Congolese were riding 700,000 bicycles by the end of the decade compared with only 50,000 at its beginning. The rural aspect of 'development policy' set out to create a class of small, independent farmers.
- African advancement met with obstruction from white settlers who clung to the land, as they did in Kenya and Angola. Frustrated peasants migrated to the towns, adding to a growing surplus of unskilled labour.
- The first local government elections were held in 1957 and resulted in a majority for the Abako party (Alliance des Bakongo). Under Joseph Kasavubu's leadership it modernised its programme to advocate equal access to education and the administration.
External Factors
- World War Two stimulated the Belgian Congo economically, through increasing demand for its raw materials. Unlike Belgium itself the Congo remained un-invaded throughout the war.
- The social consequences of this industrialisation and economic growth - one-quarter of the population living in urban areas - resulted in Congolese workers beginning to behave like Belgian ones.
- French moves towards providing great independence to its colonies in West Africa provided an example of what could happen in the Congo.
Economic problems and riots: accelerated decolonisation, 1959-60
The catalyst of Belgian decolonisation was the Leopoldville riots of January 1959. The first wave of industrialisation was over by 1955 and Congolese mineral exports fell from 1957 causing rising urban unemployment. The scale of the spontaneous violence in Leopoldville shocked the administration. The Belgians did not want suffer what the French were experiencing in Algeria. Negotiations began between the Belgian government and nationalist leaders at the Round Table Conference in Brussels in 1960. The Belgians wanted a gradual transfer of power over four years, but the Congolese leaders wanted immediate independence. Belgium gave in and agreed that elections would be held in May. On 30 June 1960, King Baudouin I of Belgium handed over power to the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in a ceremony in Leopoldville. The Congolese President was Joseph Kasavubu and the Prime Minister was Patrice Lumumba. In his speech, King Baudouin insulted the Congolese by praising the genius and courage of his uncle, Leopold II. In response, Lumumba criticised the Belgian government's 'regime of injustice, oppression and exploitation'. He said, 'We are no longer your monkeys.'
The catalyst of Belgian decolonisation was the Leopoldville riots of January 1959. The first wave of industrialisation was over by 1955 and Congolese mineral exports fell from 1957 causing rising urban unemployment. The scale of the spontaneous violence in Leopoldville shocked the administration. The Belgians did not want suffer what the French were experiencing in Algeria. Negotiations began between the Belgian government and nationalist leaders at the Round Table Conference in Brussels in 1960. The Belgians wanted a gradual transfer of power over four years, but the Congolese leaders wanted immediate independence. Belgium gave in and agreed that elections would be held in May. On 30 June 1960, King Baudouin I of Belgium handed over power to the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in a ceremony in Leopoldville. The Congolese President was Joseph Kasavubu and the Prime Minister was Patrice Lumumba. In his speech, King Baudouin insulted the Congolese by praising the genius and courage of his uncle, Leopold II. In response, Lumumba criticised the Belgian government's 'regime of injustice, oppression and exploitation'. He said, 'We are no longer your monkeys.'
Civil War in the context of the Cold War
Independence began badly. Within days, there was a rebellion in the Congolese army as native soldiers rebelled against their white Belgian officers. The Belgian government flew in thousands of troops to protect white civilians and to take over many key positions. Lumumba declared that Belgium was at war with the Congo. The new state of the Congo faced further trouble when one of its riches provinces, Katanga, secretly encouraged by Belgium rebelled and declared its independence. Lumumba appealed to the United Nations. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 143, which called on Belgium to remove its troops. Lumumba demanded that UN troops end the secession of Katanga. Instead, the UN Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, said the UN wanted to negotiate a settlement with Katanga. Hammarskjold died in mysterious circumstances. (This is currently under investigation at the UN) Lumumba asked the Soviet Union (USSR) for help. The US feared that the Congo would become a base for Soviet Communist operations in central Africa. At this point, US President Eisenhower authorised the CIA to assassinate Lumumba.
Independence began badly. Within days, there was a rebellion in the Congolese army as native soldiers rebelled against their white Belgian officers. The Belgian government flew in thousands of troops to protect white civilians and to take over many key positions. Lumumba declared that Belgium was at war with the Congo. The new state of the Congo faced further trouble when one of its riches provinces, Katanga, secretly encouraged by Belgium rebelled and declared its independence. Lumumba appealed to the United Nations. The UN Security Council passed Resolution 143, which called on Belgium to remove its troops. Lumumba demanded that UN troops end the secession of Katanga. Instead, the UN Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, said the UN wanted to negotiate a settlement with Katanga. Hammarskjold died in mysterious circumstances. (This is currently under investigation at the UN) Lumumba asked the Soviet Union (USSR) for help. The US feared that the Congo would become a base for Soviet Communist operations in central Africa. At this point, US President Eisenhower authorised the CIA to assassinate Lumumba.
|
|
The Belgian government also planned to get rid of Lumumba because he was as an obstacle to their plans in the country. The President of the Congo, Kasavubu, dismissed Lumumba as Prime Minister of the Congo. In turn, Lumumba accused Kasavubu of treason and dismissed him as President of the Congo. By now (September I960), the Congo was badly split between rival groups. On 14 September, with the support of the US and Belgium, Mobutu took over power in the Congo and expelled Russian advisers. Lumumba and two others were shot after being tortured.
It was the beginning of one of the most extra-ordinary authoritarian dictatorships of the 20th century. Despite the catastrophic abuses of power, Mobutu's anti-communism in Congo (Zaire) kept him in power until the end of the Cold War. (See next lesson) |
Activities
|
Download and complete this summary document on the three case studies of decolonisation.
|
|
Lesson 3 - Three case studies in the consequences of decolonisation: India (negotiated), Indo-China (violent) and the Congo (accelerated).
25-05-2020
25-05-2020
In this third and last lesson on decolonisation, we'll look at what happened in our case study states after decolonisation. The devastating impact of the Cold War on Indo-China has already been examined last week in out study of the Vietnam War.
One of the questions to bear in mind as we consider the consequences of decolonisation is whether the nature of decolonisation – violent, negotiated and accelerated – influenced the nature of the post-colonial development of newly independent states? Or were other factors such as the nature of previous colonial rule, the Cold War, geographical factors or socio-economic development more important? With our study of the Vietnam War we have already examined both the international context and domestic consequences of decolonisation in Indo-China. Which factor or factors do you consider to have been most influential in explaining how Vietnam developed after independence from France in 1954?
Today we're going to focus on India and the Congo.
One of the questions to bear in mind as we consider the consequences of decolonisation is whether the nature of decolonisation – violent, negotiated and accelerated – influenced the nature of the post-colonial development of newly independent states? Or were other factors such as the nature of previous colonial rule, the Cold War, geographical factors or socio-economic development more important? With our study of the Vietnam War we have already examined both the international context and domestic consequences of decolonisation in Indo-China. Which factor or factors do you consider to have been most influential in explaining how Vietnam developed after independence from France in 1954?
Today we're going to focus on India and the Congo.
|
India
When India became independent in August 1947, it retained its dominion status in the Commonwealth until its constitution was agreed and a republic was declared in 1950. The new constitution of 1950 made India a secular and a democratic state. It has a Hindu majority, a large Muslim minority, and numerous other religious minorities including Sikhs and Christians. From the 1950s to the 1980s, India followed socialist-inspired policies. The Parliament passed extensive reforms that increased the legal rights of women in Hindu society. Nehru advocated a strong initiative to enrol India's children to complete primary education, and thousands of schools were founded across the nation. |
|
Nehru advocated a socialist model for the economy of India — no taxation for Indian farmers, minimum wage and benefits for workers, and the nationalisation of heavy industries such as steel, aviation, shipping, electricity and mining. An extensive public works and industrialisation campaign resulted in the construction of major dams, irrigation canals, roads, thermal and hydroelectric power stations. Although Nehru denied he had any nuclear ambitions for India, Canada and France aided India in the development of nuclear power stations for electricity. Relations with the United States grew strained and India signed a 20-year treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union - breaking explicitly for the first time from non-alignment (see below). In 1974, India tested its first nuclear weapon in the desert of Rajasthan. The economy was extensively regulated, with protectionism and public ownership; this led to pervasive corruption and slow economic growth. Beginning in 1991, significant economic reforms have transformed India into the third largest and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. India has also fought a total of four wars/military conflicts with its rival nation Pakistan. In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 fought over disputed territory of Kashmir. In the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 India attacked Pakistan on all fronts after attempts by Pakistani troops to infiltrate into Indian controlled Kashmir. In 1961, after continual petitions for a peaceful handover, India invaded and annexed the Portuguese colony of Goa on the west coast of India
Non-aligned Movement
While India was part of the Commonwealth, Nehru always said that India would ‘follow an independent policy, keeping away from the power politics of groups aligned one against another'. This became the basis of the policy of non-alignment and the foundation of the Non-aligned Movement. Nehru wanted India and other South-East Asian countries to stay outside the power blocs of the Cold War between the US and the USSR. For example, India backed Communist China to get a seat in the Security Council (instead of Taiwan) in opposition to the British position. India opposed the partition of Palestine and the 1956 invasion of the Sinai by Israel, Britain and France, but did not oppose the Chinese direct control over Tibet and the suppression of a pro-democracy movement in Hungary by the Soviet Union. In developing the non-aligned policy, Nehru was the main organiser of the Bandung Afro-Asian Conference in 1955.
While India was part of the Commonwealth, Nehru always said that India would ‘follow an independent policy, keeping away from the power politics of groups aligned one against another'. This became the basis of the policy of non-alignment and the foundation of the Non-aligned Movement. Nehru wanted India and other South-East Asian countries to stay outside the power blocs of the Cold War between the US and the USSR. For example, India backed Communist China to get a seat in the Security Council (instead of Taiwan) in opposition to the British position. India opposed the partition of Palestine and the 1956 invasion of the Sinai by Israel, Britain and France, but did not oppose the Chinese direct control over Tibet and the suppression of a pro-democracy movement in Hungary by the Soviet Union. In developing the non-aligned policy, Nehru was the main organiser of the Bandung Afro-Asian Conference in 1955.
|
The Bandung conference (image right shows Nehru with Nkrumah of Ghana, Nasser of Egypt and Sukarno of Indonesia) denounced colonialism, criticised the Cold War and demanded that commodity prices be fixed to protect the producers in developing countries. This resulted in a loose grouping of non-aligned states. Nehru's efforts here were backed by Nasser of Egypt and Tito of Yugoslavia. It led to a clash with Britain over its invasion of the Suez Canal in 1956, as Nehru looked on this as the continuation of British imperialism. Nehru and the Non-aligned Movement pressed for economic development of Third World countries. However, his independent position in relation to the US and Britain was shattered by the lndian border war with China in October 1962, when India had to accept significant military aid from Britain.
|
|
Pakistan
When Pakistan gained its independence in August 1947, the country remained a dominion of the Commonwealth. The constitution of 1956 led to Pakistan declaring itself an Islamic republic with the adoption of parliamentary democratic system of government. The constitution transformed the Governor-General of Pakistan into President of Pakistan but the democratic system was stalled by a series of military dictatorships. In 1970, Pakistan held its first democratic elections since independence, that were meant to mark a transition from military rule to democracy, but the military establishment refused to hand over power.
When Pakistan gained its independence in August 1947, the country remained a dominion of the Commonwealth. The constitution of 1956 led to Pakistan declaring itself an Islamic republic with the adoption of parliamentary democratic system of government. The constitution transformed the Governor-General of Pakistan into President of Pakistan but the democratic system was stalled by a series of military dictatorships. In 1970, Pakistan held its first democratic elections since independence, that were meant to mark a transition from military rule to democracy, but the military establishment refused to hand over power.
|
Pakistan developed a closer relationship than India with Britain and the West. Pakistan was under pressure from the much stronger India over Kashmir, so it looked to the West for support. Pakistan retained British officials in the civil service and in military positions. Britain also supplied its military equipment and officer training Because of its location south of the Soviet Union and its conflict with India, Pakistan was drawn into the Cold War. It formed the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) along with Britain, the USA and other countries to combat the spread of Communism. It also formed the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in 1955 along with Britain and Middle Eastern countries, again to contain Communism.
|
|
The quality of relations with Britain gradually declined in the 1960s. Pakistan felt that Britain was more favourable to India in the continuing conflict between itself and India. This came to a head in 1972, when Pakistan left the Commonwealth (it did not re-join until 1989). Pakistan had been divided between West Pakistan and East Pakistan at independence. The people of East Pakistan felt neglected and dominated by the ruling classes of West Pakistan. This led to East Pakistan declaring independence and a major war with West Pakistan. East Pakistan (Bangladesh) won its independence when it was supported by India.
Democracy again returned from 1972 to 1977 under leftist Ali Bhutto, until he was vanquished by General Zia, who became the country's third military president. Pakistan's secular policies were replaced by the new Islamic Sharia legal code, which increased religious influences on the civil service and the military. With the death of President Zia in 1988, the new general elections announced the victory of PPP led by Benazir Bhutto as the country's first female Prime Minister. In 1999 coup d'état saw the restoration of military dictatorship in which General Pervez Musharraf assumed executive powers. Pakistan embarked on ambitiously developing the nuclear deterrence in 1972. Accelerated in response to first nuclear test by India in 1974, this program was completed in 1979. From 1977–88, President Zia's initiatives led to Pakistan becoming one of the fastest-growing economies in South Asia. While consolidating the nuclear development, increasing Islamisation and the rise home-grown conservative philosophy, Pakistan also helped subsidise and distribute U.S. resources to factions of the mujahideen against the USSR's intervention in communist Afghanistan.
The situation today
Democracy again returned from 1972 to 1977 under leftist Ali Bhutto, until he was vanquished by General Zia, who became the country's third military president. Pakistan's secular policies were replaced by the new Islamic Sharia legal code, which increased religious influences on the civil service and the military. With the death of President Zia in 1988, the new general elections announced the victory of PPP led by Benazir Bhutto as the country's first female Prime Minister. In 1999 coup d'état saw the restoration of military dictatorship in which General Pervez Musharraf assumed executive powers. Pakistan embarked on ambitiously developing the nuclear deterrence in 1972. Accelerated in response to first nuclear test by India in 1974, this program was completed in 1979. From 1977–88, President Zia's initiatives led to Pakistan becoming one of the fastest-growing economies in South Asia. While consolidating the nuclear development, increasing Islamisation and the rise home-grown conservative philosophy, Pakistan also helped subsidise and distribute U.S. resources to factions of the mujahideen against the USSR's intervention in communist Afghanistan.
The situation today
|
The Congo
When Mobutu became a dictator in 1965, all opposition was brutally crushed. Not so much a single party state or just a military dictatorship, Mobuto’s regime is perhaps best categorized as a ‘Personalist dictatorship’. In this form of authoritarian regime, the dictator may come from a military background or be the leader of a party, but neither political party nor military are independent of the will of the dictator, who often chooses the political elite from trusted family members or friends. Over three decades his dictatorship ransacked the state to the point of collapse, hardly distinguishing between the states’ and his own family's expenditure. A new word had to be invented in political taxonomy to describe the regime: ‘kleptocracy’, a form of political and government corruption where the government exists to increase the personal wealth and political power of its officials and the ruling class at the expense of the wider population.
|
Mobutu was helped when the price of copper increased in world markets. He decided to increase the export tax and later nationalised the assets of Union Miniere. The failure of the government to run the mining company effectively forced it to work with another Belgian company to run the mines on behalf of the government. Other than his own extravagant personal expenditure, Mobutu also spent the money on huge development projects - a steel mill, a hydroelectric dam, power lines and manufacturing plants. He also attracted foreign investment to the Congo. Mobutu wanted to make the Congo more African, so he changed its name to Zaire and changed the name of its cities. For example, Leopoldville became Kinshasa. He also changed his own name to Sese Seko.
|
|
|
The nature of his regime has been likened to a surreal ‘Alice-in-Wonderland universe’. (Michaela Wrong, In the Footsteps of Mr Kurtz) Mobuto believed he was in the tradition of African chiefs. This gave him great power and he developed a personality cult as the Father of the Nation. Mobutu became notorious for corruption, nepotism, and the embezzlement of between from US$4–15 billion in his time as ruler. Extravagances included having his own runway built to accommodate his privately chartered Concorde to fly him on shopping trips to Paris. He maintained his rule through a brutal policy of ‘divide and conquer’ over all potential rivals, where torture and execution were conducted before a live audience. Most distinctive was the creation of ‘Mobutism’ and a personality cult which forbade reference to any other government members by name and projected his face descending from the heavens, before the evening’s television news.
|
(Above) Mobutu's villa in Savigny (Switzerland)
|
|
|
Mobutu developed good relations with the US. He was on the payroll of the CIA before he took over and he continued to keep his CIA links. He maintained the Congo as a pro-Western country in the centre of Africa. Belgian historian Jean Philippe Peemans has argued that decolonisation, far from freeing Belgium from her former colony, left her with an 'imperial hang over.' Beyond 1960 Belgian companies remained heavily invested in Zaire in neo-colonial relationships. These, and the continuance of governmental aid to the Mobutu dictatorship, were heavily criticised by the radical sectors of the Belgian public. On balance, Peemans considers the Belgian economy lost more than it gained from post-colonial investment in Zaire. This was because it could have invested more profitably elsewhere in the global economy, notably in Europe.
|
The United States and the West have been criticized for standing by while a nation suffered three decades of assault and robbery. During the Cold War years they turned a blind eye to President Mobutu's excesses because he was seen as a buffer against the spread of communism in Africa, and in particular, in neighbouring Angola. Only when the Cold War ended did human rights matter.
|
But by then President Mobutu had amassed a fortune and Zaire was spent. However, the collapse of world copper prices in 1990 reduced a personal income that the World Bank estimated had been worth $400 million per year through the 1980s. Inflation increased, there were fuel shortages and debts grew quickly. The civil service collapsed and hospitals and schools closed because there was no pay. By the end of the 1980s, the Congo was 'a rotting carcass', its economy virtually in ruins. But Mobutu remained in power because he bought the loyalty of key military and police units with increased pay and perks. Mobutu was finally forced from power by the Democratic Alliance forces of Laurent Kabila, a former associate of Lumumba's in 1997. In these last years of his life he was regularly in Lausanne, Mobutu got treatment at the CHUV, and typically stayed at the Beau-Rivage Hotel. (see short archive film opposite).
|
|
|
Activity
In pairs complete the overview revision table on the consequences of decolonisation. You can download the table here. This will not be a detailed document, but should allow you to make some overall comparative judgments about the post colonial experiences of our three case-studies of decolonisation. |
|