World War II ushered in a massive wave of decolonization struggles, and dozens of new states. The first half of the twentieth century was devastating for European colonial powers. The cumulative cost of World War I, the collapse of control and stability during the Age of Anxiety, and the devastating epic conflict of World War II, all contributed to the erosion of colonial control. Although regions seeking independence still had years of fighting to endure after 1945, countries like Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands were in a losing struggle to hold onto their colonies. Japan, Germany and Italy lost their colonial empires immediately following their defeat. The U.S. also began to relinquish direct colonial control over acquired territories, focusing its energies on building Cold War alliances and influence, In short, colonial empires collapsed all over the world, and out of this turmoil emerged dozens of new countries.
NEW COUNTRIES
Between 1945 - 1970's, over 60 new countries emerged on the world stage throughout Africa, Asia, the Pacific, and the Near East. In Asia, India began the dismemberment of the British empire, achieving formal independence in 1947. Burma ended British rule in 1948. The French held on more tightly, fighting a costly war to cling to French Indochina. The struggle between France and Vietnamese independence forces escalated into the deadly Vietnam War, which did not end until 1975. Laos and Cambodia achieved their independence after 1954. The Netherlands relinquished long-held control over the Dutch East Indies/Indonesia in
1949. The regions that came to make up Malaysia achieved independence in 1957. The Philippines, a U.S. colony, became an independent state by 1946. Many, but not all, Pacific Islands began to achieve trust or commonwealth status (under the umbrella of former colonial powers) or outright independence heading into the 1970's.
In the Near East, those regions that were still officially British and French mandates after WWI were formally recognized as independent nations in the late 1940's. In Africa, one of the last regions to be colonized, the process of decolonization began in earnest after 1957. Ghana paved the way as the first African state to end European colonial rule. Over the next 25 years, over 40 more new countries were created from the colonial empires in this region.
Every story of decolonization and independence, of course, was unique and deserves an entire chapter. However, we simply cannot do this in a World Civilizations course. We can only discuss this phenomenon of decolonization in broad strokes. Recognize, some former colonies achieved independence with only a limited amount of bloodshed and violence, for example Ghana and India. Other regions had to undergo a grueling, brutal war with a colonial power desperately trying to hold on - for example the ugly Algerian war of independence which cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides before French defeat in 1962. Vietnam, the Belgian Congo, Angola were other examples of long, difficult, extremely destructive struggles for independence.
Although the peak of decolonization was between 1945 - 1970, some regions remained under colonial rule until recently. There are in fact still Pacific islands and Caribbean territories that are only semi-independent. In some parts of Africa, European control ended by the early 1970's
however a visible and dramatic legacy of colonial rule remained in the form of white colonial elites. Thus, in the former British colonies of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South Africa, the small white minority held onto power over the disenfranchised and repressed black African populations well into the 1980's! It was only with the ending of white rule in Rhodesia in 1980, and the final crumbling of the racist policies of apartheid in S. Africa in 1990 that decolonization finally reached all parts of this continent. Thus, the story of decolonization takes us from
1945 right up to the present day.
THIRD WORLD
The collapse of colonial empires and the dramatic wave of independence movements clearly transformed world power and international relations. This is of course very much an on-going story, since the legacies and consequences of colonial rule are still being addressed around the globe; some regions only became independent 20 - 30 years ago.
One critical consequence of the long experience of colonization for newly independent countries was the tragic fact that, with few exceptions, most countries that achieved their independence from Western/industrial based colonial rule have faced extreme difficulties. Many recently decolonized regions are still struggling with economic, social, and political problems, which translate into continued suffering and impoverishment of their populations. While one needs to be cautious about generalizing the experience of dozens of distinct countries, there are some common identifiable features in states that were formerly colonies. To be blunt, long term legacies of colonial rule, added to pre-colonial, pre-existing divisions and problems, have made achievement of politically stable systems and a prosperous and stable economy difficult or impossible.
For many decolonized regions, their experience was and continues to be characterized by political turmoil, weakness of democratic structures, repressive governments (on the left and right), and even civil war. In economic terms, the norm for much of the decolonized world is poverty, economic weakness and vulnerability, and the limitations of under-development/ lack of industrialization. The poverty resulting from such economic problems meant (and still means) high rates of infant mortality, low levels of education, sub-standard medical conditions, lower
incomes, and declining life spans. The societies that suffer from this double burden of political instability and economic poverty are considered members of the "Third World."
Although many are moving away from these terms today, the political vocabulary that you still hear today divides the world into three groups based on the degree of political development and economic modernization/industrialization.
For new leaders and independent peoples, the exhilaration of independence soon wore off in the face of the staggering task of creating a stable and independent economic base. After decades or even centuries of being tied to a colonial economy, many new states found themselves cut adrift. The role of a colony, remember, was to provide raw materials to the
industrialized mother country, and to provide a reliable market for finished goods, shipped in by the industrial power. Thus, local development of industry was suppressed in colonial regions, resulting in little or no infrastructure to support a complex, commercial economy.
The economy of one colony was usually just a part of a larger imperial economic system - thus a particular region was simply a cog in the imperial machine. After breaking free, many new states faced the overwhelming need to construct a new and independent economic base. Most
new countries emerging from colonial rule remained almost completely dependent on cash crop or resource exports for their income, yet no longer had a reliable buyer. And a relied upon a flow of industrialized goods was reduced or ended from the imperial country.
A primary goal for most new states was to shift economies from cash crop/resources to a diversified, modernized industrial economy. Reliance on agriculture for a country's economy was (and is) vulnerable, since if the economy is based on just a few cash crops - shifts in prices on global markets or a natural crop disaster could drastically reduce the income of the entire country. However, many of the countries that attempted to shift their country away from reliance on cash crop/resource exports faced enormous and sometimes insurmountable hurdles; most of these regions have still not matched the industrial prosperity of the "First World".
OBSTACLES TO INDUSTRIALIZATION
For regional leaders trying to chart a stable course for their country after independence, there were several obstacles to successful industrialization. Most of these obstacles were direct or indirect consequences of colonial rule. For example, due to colonial neglect, many newly independent societies lacked an educated entrepreneurial class and had only limited access to necessary technology. A poorly educated work force also inhibited the growth of a complex, diversified economy. If a society was still based on backward agricultural techniques, the shift to
a modern, urban based economy required dramatic restructuring of labor, education, infrastructure - all of which required money.
Thus, a major problem, which we have seen before in societies trying to industrialize, was finding the necessary capital. Rarely did the departing colonial power leave behind much money; usually there was not even a complex banking/financial system. Resources and wealth had been extracted by the colonial "mother" country; in most cases little was left when the
colonial power picked up and left. The wealth that did exist was in the hands of an exploitative, an often short-sighted local elite which usually continued to rely on unequal land ownership and thus agriculture. This agricultural economy left by departing colonial powers rarely generated
the funds necessary for investment in modernization and industrial infrastructure such as factories, urban development, transportation and communication systems.
Political problems exacerbated these economic burdens. In many new countries, the long struggle to gain independence was followed by an even longer struggle to achieve a stable and successful political rule. At best, a shaky new leadership took time to establish the kind of stable rule of law that is so necessary for economic development. Even worse, ideological or cultural divisions in the societies erupted into outright civil wars and violence, which stifled economic development. Political instability and violence always stalls economic redirection and successful retooling of a society. In the worst cases, corrupt or exploitative dictators emerged, creating ongoing political dissent and turmoil, which dealt a death blow to constructive, successful economic modernization.
All problems cannot be blamed on colonial politics and exploitation. For some regions, pre-existing problems of internal divisions and violence resurfaced after independence. Natural hindrances, such as persistent over-population or depletion of natural resources like water and fertile land, also added to the cycle of poverty, despair, and violence. Famine, disease, natural disasters, overpopulation and the resulting chronic, widespread poverty were, and continue to be, imposing obstacles to economic betterment.
NEOCOLONIALISM
The leadership in many countries attempted to solve the problem of inadequate capital by seeking outside investment and loans. This practice of acquiring capital through outside aid, or course, meant giving up control. As we saw in looking at Latin American countries in the 19th
century, securing capital though loans and outside investment meant accumulation of debt, and the loss of sovereign control to outside investors and those holding the loans. Neocolonialism - an updated form of control by another country or interest, was a trap that other new countries fell into after 1945. In some cases, powerful outside companies actively involved themselves in local governmental affairs, or used economic levers to influence political and social issues. The price to pay for outside financial help was in many cases outside intrusion and influence.
What made this situation even worse in many cases was the money that was borrowed was not well spent. There were several cases where the leaders of a newly independent state fell prey to corruption and pursuing personal power, using loans and grants to build their military might, or even to sock away in Swiss bank accounts or use for payoffs to cronies and family members. Extreme corruption, mismanagement, or ill-advised use of funds resulted in many countries accumulating enormous debt, with little productive growth to show for it. Instead of factories and a healthy industrial sector, loans and outside aid that went to countries like the Philippines or Indonesia produced only greedy, acquisitive ruling families, while the people of the country bore the burden of continued poverty. Even after the ouster of such dictators as Ferdinand Marcos in
the Philippines or Sueharto in Indonesia, the legacy of debt, plundered public funds, and exhaustive debt remains. And these countries remain in an under-developed and impoverished situation.
For all states that borrowed to modernize, even those that were more successful, the price has been the accumulation of massive debt. This debt, for many countries, was and remains unpayable. The danger to the global economy of this unstable situation is a real concern. For example, the massive debt owed by Latin American countries to foreign banks and private enterprises is a fiscal time bomb ticking away. Countries like Brazil or more recently Argentina and Peru, are carrying a massive national debt to outside banks and governments. Should Brazil, or a country in a similar situation, declare insolvency or renounce that debt, the ripple effects in the world of global finance would be dramatic, and potentially catastrophic.
Recognize, long term debt also hampers the ability of a country to deal with pressing social problems. All of the money spent paying interest on the debt is money NOT being spent on education, health care, long term economic investment and renewal of infrastructure . The cycle of debt, dependency, and continued poverty continues in many Third World regions even to the present day.
STATE CONTROLLED ECONOMIES
There was another path charted by some new leaders in the face of economic instability and limited resources. Some leaders borrowed a page from the experience of Meiji Japan and even more directly from totalitarian leaders during the interwar period. To achieve rapid modernization, governments seized control and mobilized the economy under strict state direction, in some cases even nationalization of land and fledgling industry. Learning
from the models of state control, impatient leaders (who did NOT want to be beholden to outside interests) attempted to address economic ills through force, extreme state control, and in some cases through Soviet style planned economies. For government leaders who did not want to incur debt and dependence on outside powers, the option of control, state force,
even dictatorship was seen as preferable. Thus, in Africa and Latin America, socialist dictators on the left, and military dictators on the right, seized power and increased state control in the name of economic stabilization and mobilizing the populace.
Recognize, of course, that the decision to establish increased state control over the economy, especially in the name of socialism and a planned economy, was not taking place in a vacuum. In the tense environment of the Cold War, socialist leaders were treated by the U.S. as
enemy partners of Communist USSR; oppressive military dictators, who usually crushed independent labor leaders, were viewed by the Soviet Union as client states of the U.S.. The potential of antagonizing one or the other of the super powers was a very real danger for leaders attempting to address deeply rooted economic ills. And the worst scenario was to become the site of a proxy war contest in which the superpowers became actively involved.
HUMAN COSTS OF POVERTY
The measures of economic failures are best told through human misery indicators. The most dominant feature of the profile of a "Third World" country is extreme and continued poverty. Living standards are appalling, seen in both the grinding poverty of the countryside where agriculture barely sustains the population, and also in the squalor and deprivation of sprawling urban slums. Those attempting to escape poverty in the depleted countryside flock to the cities, only to find the deadlier realities of urban destitution, crime, human exploitation, squalid living conditions, disease, and chronic violence. Citizens in a "Third World" country experience lower life expectancies than those in the "First World", have much higher levels of infant mortality, and must endure chronic epidemics of diseases that have disappeared in the industrialized "First World." Many in the lower classes of a non-industrialized region, suffering from poverty, flawed leadership, and violence, have virtually no access to educational opportunities or decent medical care. In the worst case, the results are malnourishment, hunger, and starvation.
EXCEPTIONS
Recognize, not all stories of economic restructuring following independence were so grim. In some cases, (the exceptions), reliance on resources was stable since the resource proved profitable. This is of course the case with the oil producing nations. Despite the fact that most
of the countries that produce oil still do not have stable, complex economies, the overall wealth of these nations remains impressive, as long as the supplies hold out and the world sustains its insatiable appetite for petroleum.
In other parts of the world, new states remained somewhat tied to the economic relations with their departing colonial power. Some former British colonies remained tied together as part of the British Commonwealth of nations, a confederation that reinforced beneficial and privileged trading relations with a family of former British colonies. And several African nations sustained privileged economic ties with France, enabling better prices for goods and more access to industrial products. Even these beneficial relationships, however, did not guarantee prosperous
and thriving economic growth.
Recently, over the past 20 years, the economies of some Asian countries, (the Little Tigers) have displayed an impressive leap in industrial production and modernization. Countries like Singapore, S. Korea and Taiwan have, through strong governmental involvement, mobilized their work force, educational systems, and limited resource base and emerged as important producers of finished goods and high technology products. These economic success stories, however, remain the exception. For the dozens of other new states, the obstacles to economic self sufficiency, stability and prosperity remain insurmountable.
In short, the pattern that we traced briefly in 19th century Latin America was repeated post-1945, as many new nations had difficulty creating a stable and secure capitalist economic base in Africa, parts of Asia/Pacific, and some parts of the Near East. The global concerns and
crises resulting from debt, human suffering, political instability, and growing number of migrants and refuges fleeing poverty and misery are challenges all global citizens face heading into the 21st century.
POLITICAL PROBLEMS
In addition to the enormous burden of creating a stable economic system, many new leaders faced the equally intimidating task of creating stable, functional political systems. Traditional systems of rule were usually destroyed or subsumed by a long period of colonial rule. The task of rebuilding an independent system that maintained some Western influence but also reasserted native cultural traditions, proved extraordinarily difficult.
Many newly independent states did attempt to create a democratic, participatory system based on rule of law. However, most of these democratic governments faltered and fell prey to destructive civil wars, or armed take over by the military on the right, or radical left based
revolutionary leadership. Creating and sustaining a stable, functional democratic government proved an elusive goal for many states born after 1945.
LACK OF EXPERIENCE
One contributing cause of chronic political instability in many new states and governments was the lack of experience and insufficient education of the political elite and the masses. Very few imperial powers committed funds for educational opportunities in their colonies, and the education that did occur was usually only for a small native elite who served the colonial power. Most of the population in a colony did not receive formal education. And in the continued economic turmoil following independence, few funds were available for increasing literacy and education.
A participatory democracy does not succeed in a situation where the bulk of the population is uneducated and illiterate - those conditions breed elite rule and repressive governmental power. This, of course, was another pattern that we traced earlier in Latin America in the 19th century. We see it repeated in many parts of decolonized Africa, the Near East, and Asia.
Thus, while leaders throughout Africa and Asia came to power espousing liberal ideals, within 10 - 20 years, dictators dominated in most of those regions. In Africa, for example, in the late 1950's - early 1960's, most new states established liberal based states. However, by the 1970's, almost half of the continent's states were dominated by one man or one party rule, and that number increased over the ensuing decade. Most of these were right wing, military based dictators. In a few cases, the state was ruled under a repressive, socialist based party.
Whether on the left or right, dictatorship breeds dissent, rebellion, hostility, and violence. The only way to dislodge a hated dictator is through armed overthrow - resulting in chronic political violence such as coups, on-going rebellions and civil wars. In Africa, between 1965-1978, there were 33 coups in this continent; in some cases, multiple coups occurred in some countries. This kind of instability was and is extremely harmful to economic development, and results in chronic violence and atrocities, and heart wrenching human suffering.
IDEOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES
Adding to many internal political struggles was the fact that in a newly emerging country there often was intense disagreement about the political system and political direction to be followed. Just as in the West, parties and ideas ranged from the far right, through the middle, to the
far left of radical socialist goals. As the colonial leaders left or were expelled, the debate over what kind of policies and governmental ideals would now guide the country led, in some cases, to immediate civil strife and civil wars. Many of these struggles took place at the ballot box,
others degenerated into armed, military conflicts.
The complicating factor, of course, was that these struggles took place in the larger context of the Cold War. Thus, in Africa, in Latin America (where decolonization started in the 1800's), and in Asia, internal clashes and conflicts were often interpreted by the superpowers as a Cold
War confrontation between capitalism VS socialism; this resulted in superpower aid to one side in the form of money, weapons or even troops. And once one superpower committed to a civil struggle, the other was sure to follow. Thus local conflicts where newly independent citizens disagreed over the range of political/ social policies and options often became complicated by the Cold War involvement by the superpowers.
VIETNAM
One dramatic case of superpower involvement in a decolonization situation was the evolution of the Vietnam War. This war in SE Asia began as a regional fight for independence between the Vietnamese and the French; it escalated into a deadly and influential Cold War clash. The movement for Vietnamese independence can be traced back at least to the time that an emerging nationalist leader, Ho Chi Minh, went to the Paris Peace Conference to plead for greater autonomy. Frustrated by the fact that these pleas went unheard and unanswered, he returned and began to organize a nationalist independence movement - the same phenomenon taking place in India and other colonized regions during the interwar years.
Ho Chi Minh organized under the banner of nationalism, and also under the promise of Marxist-socialist solutions to the problems of poverty and economic backwardness. The Vietnamese Communist Party was formed in 1930. Ho Chi Minh's ideas were clearly radical socialist in terms of desiring more extensive social/economic changes, powerful party rule, and elimination of extreme class differences. Ho Chi Minh ultimately received aid from the Soviet Union and later China - recognize that as decolonization struggles occurred throughout the globe, both of these powers gained allies by funding anti-colonial movements and groups, especially those on the left of the political spectrum. Ho Chi Minh's primary basis of popular support, however, was responding to the nationalist desire to throw off French rule.
During WWII, the Japanese occupied Indochina, disrupting French control. After the surrender of Japan, the French attempted to come back and reestablish colonial control; nationalist leaders fought fiercely to resist this re-imposition of French imperial rule. In 1945, Ho Chi Minh
proclaimed the birth of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, referring to Enlightenment ideals and Western political concepts of liberty. A difficult and costly war ensued between 1946 - 1954 between France and Vietnamese nationalists led by Ho Chi Minh. In 1950, the U.S. began its long involvement in this struggle, which it interpreted through Cold War lenses. The Vietnam conflict was seen as a fight led by a Communist party leader which would result in the expansion of Soviet power and influence. The U.S. (as part of its increased presence in Asia following the "fall" of China) gave billions to the French to help them defeat the forces of Ho
Chi Minh.
The French, however, gave up this colonial struggle in 1954, after a devastating blow in the battle of Dien Bien Phu. In a settlement securing French withdrawal from Vietnam, the country was to be divided. The North was controlled by forces of the Vietminh (Vietnam League for
Independence), led by Ho Chi Minh. The South was led by an anti-communist government based in Saigon, which held onto power and was supported by the French and the U.S.. Elections were supposed to take place by 1956 to establish one government of a reunified Vietnam, but this did not take place. Instead, the region remained divided, with the U.S. increasingly committing support to the South Vietnamese leaders. North Vietnam (and the
Viet Cong forces in South Vietnam) were supported by the Communist powers.
U.S. involvement in this decolonization struggle, which had become a proxy war, increased between 1954 - 1971 from a commitment of money, to weapons, to military advisors, and ultimately active troops - reaching a peak commitment in 1968 of over 500,000 troops. The industrial might of modern military power was used in this war, including intensive air campaigns. Soviet and Chinese support of the North mirrored U.S. commitment to
Southern Vietnamese leaders. However, U.S. involvement could not secure the survival of a succession of S. Vietnamese leaders; N. Vietnamese forces could not be decisively defeated.
This war was viewed on American televisions but was still little understood by the populace at home; it was a war that seemed only to produce casualties and horrific images of suffering. By 1970's, strife and protest in the U.S. increased, directed at a seemingly unwinnable and
morally complex war. The military stalemate and faltering home support contributed to the decision by the U.S. to negotiate a withdrawal by 1973. Within 2 years of U.S. troop withdrawal, S. Vietnam fell to Northern troops. By 1975, Vietnam was reunified under the leadership of the
communist government of Ho Chi Minh. Vietminh leadership followed the path of extreme governmental control, a repressive state system, and the pursuit of a forced socialist agenda for economic and cultural change.
The losses and scars from this war, which merged issues of decolonization, nationalism, and Cold War agendas, are still fresh for Vietnamese and the U.S.. For the U.S., the questions raised by this Cold War involvement and the military losses/casualties have not been fully resolved; the political/social rifts that resulted from a costly, controversial war effort still have not healed. And of course, the costs were enormous for those in the peninsula of SE Asia, where internal divisions expanded into a full scale proxy war.
The amount of industrial firepower that was introduced during this war by the U.S., and the support/arms of the major Communist Powers led to massive destruction of homes, infrastructure, appalling level of civilian casualties, and even expansion into chemical warfare dropped in this peninsula. The destruction, bombing, and turmoil spread to Laos and
Cambodia, resulting in horrifying human suffering. Over the course of this decades long war, it is estimated that the amount of explosive tonnage dropped on this SE Asian peninsula was 3 times the destructive fire power used in the course of World War II! This was the cost of proxy war involvement in an already complicated and violent situation.
ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES
In addition to the destabilizing effects of ideological differences, many new governments also experienced difficulty achieving political stability due to severe economic and class differences. In most regions, a huge gap between the rich and poor existed before colonization based on land holdings. However, colonial rule often reinforced and even increased these class differences by favoring and rewarding a cooperative native elite. Also, the colonial emphasis on cash crop agricultural reinforced a class system of impoverished, cheap agricultural workers, and a small group of elite, exploitative land owners.
After achieving independence, the economic elite, not surprisingly, attempted to hold onto its power and privileges, and usually could only do this by holding onto political control. Democracy cannot flourish in an environment of extreme economic differences and hostilities; extreme
levels of competition, hostility, and class hatreds cannot be resolved peacefully at the ballot box. In most cases, the economic elite consolidated power through political repression or even military rule of a state, suppressing the mass of the people who were the "have nots." This
pattern was evident in the Near/Middle East, Latin America, parts of Asia, and some parts of the Pacific.
LATIN AMERICAN PROBLEMS
We already identified this phenomenon in Latin America - in fact these kinds of class differences, and the resulting political and social instability were still evident in this region after 1945. In looking at Latin America after WWII, what is evident is the difficulty of remedying deeply rooted class divisions, and the fact that democracy cannot flourish in these conditions. By the early 1900's, and still after WWII, military dictatorships held power in most L. American countries. By the 1970's, only 4 countries throughout all of Latin America were still even partially democratic.
Dictatorships based their power and support on the preservation of elite power and wealth; the poor did experience some state directed reforms that had limited impact on social problems. However, substantive reforms did not take place, and political power was NOT extended to the lower classes and groups in L. American states. Even by the 1960's, more than a century after achieving independence, it is estimated that in countries like Guatemala, the elite 2% of the population owned and controlled over 50 percent of the nation's wealth. In El Salvador, the top 2% of the population held onto over 60% of the wealth. Those inequities continue to
the present day. For those scraping to survive on what was left of the nation's wealth, the extreme poverty that resulted produced (and continues to produce) harrowing human conditions. In Ecuador, in the 1970's, (over a century after independence) it was estimated that 70% of the children born did not reach the age of 3.
This petrification of class divisions, and elite control of political power, led to the rise of increasingly radical and militant anti-government movements, in many cases these rebel groups espoused socialist ideals of economic redistribution. In a few cases, leftist revolutionary groups successfully took power, for example in Cuba the corrupt dictator Fulgencio Batista was overthrown in 1958 by Fidel Castro, who received aid from the Soviet Union. Castro proceeded to implement state driven, radical socialist policies, supported by a repressive state structure. In Nicaragua, in the 1979, the leftist based Sandinistas seized power from the repressive military leader Anastasio Somoza. So, in addition to military dictators holding onto power, against increasing dissent and other rebel groups, there were socialist dictatorships that rose in opposition.
Recognize, as economic and social divisions translated into political violence and conflict, many of these struggles became Cold War proxy conflicts. There were several brutal Latin American military dictatorships that received U.S. support primarily because they were fiercely
anti-Communist. The Soviet Union consistently lent aid and support to the rebels opposing these governments. In areas where socialist leadership took power, the Soviets subsidized the repressive rule of leaders such as Castro and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, while the U.S. funded rebel groups or even attempted overthrows, such as the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion
against Castro or the blockade of the Sandinista government.
Many countries in the "Third World" continue to struggle with the divisive issues of ideological difference, and enormous gaps in class and wealth. Political instability is a continued product of these divisions.
NATIONALISM
Probably one of the most difficult problems a new country faced after achieving independence was to confront divisions and even hatreds between different groups within its borders. The double edged nature of nationalism was clear as decolonization took place around the globe. The infectious and mobilizing spirit of nationalism was one of the primary fires that fueled independence movements against foreign European/U.S./Japanese rule. However, that very same passionate force of nationalist identification and fervent desire to preserve culture and
identity led to many vicious civil wars between competing nationalist groups once the country broke free.
As we noted several times in Europe, borders of official states rarely reflect the lines between national groups divided by ethnicity, language and/or religion. In Europe, competing nationalist agendas fueled border wars and civil conflict throughout the 19th and 20th centuries - and still
do today. This same disruptive influence was obvious in the dozens of new countries emerging on the world map in the 1950's - 1970's. Political borders in newly emerging states were challenged by competing nationalist groups. In fragile, fledgling new countries, this division often proved destructive and deadly. We will briefly look at three examples of this phenomenon.
INDIA
An early example of the divisive and weakening effects of nationalist division occurred in India. India actually looked like it would be a successful model of nationalist independence; nationalist hatreds destroyed that promise.
British control of India dated back to the 18th and 19th centuries. A campaign to oust British control became visible in India near the turn of the 20th century. Beginning in the early 1900's, the emerging Indian independence movement found an inspirational and far-seeing leader in
Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi is credited with broadening the Indian independence movement, transforming it from an elite orientation to a mass, popular movement. He also shifted the campaign for independence away from the normal pattern of terrorism and violence (which begets more violence), instead planning and coordinating non-violent actions that filled British jails, and escalated British frustrations. This non-violent movement (ahimsa) was based on the concept of "satyagraha" (soul force), and included actions such as boycotts and civil disobedience leading to mass arrests and sometimes violent responses by the British. Gandhi worked to make continued British rule in India costly, economically and militarily draining, and to show the brutal, morally reprehensible face of imperial rule to the world and the British themselves. This campaign ran parallel to the political activism and organization of traditional party leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru, and the Muslim League leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah.
After decades of contending with these challenges, the British, exhausted by World War II, began the negotiations to withdraw by 1947. The Labour Party which came to power right after the war, recognized the futility of a violent effort to hold onto this region. In this instance, virtually unique in the list of anti-colonial movements, independence was won with little bloodshed between the imperial power and the anti-colonial forces.
India, in fact, seemed to be in a better position to make the transition to independent political rule than most countries. The long standing bureaucracy of the Indian Civil Service was made up of a large number of educated and politically experienced Indians, and this structure for
ruling this enormous country was left virtually intact by the departing British. Of course, there remained the deep dilemmas of restoring Indian culture, and determining what the blend of Indian/British traditions should look like. India also faced enormous economic challenges of dealing with over-population, the limited production of an agriculturally based economy, and the vulnerability of under-developed production. However, politically, the future held promise.
However, this promise was smashed by the bloodshed that erupted as the time of independence drew near - this was violence between competing nationalist groups in India. There were two dominant visions of what an independent India should look like - and these competing views reflected a nationalist division based on religion and culture. In the Northern regions, the majority of the population were Muslim, thus their vision of India was one in which laws reflected Koranic tradition and social patterns. Whereas in the Southern and Central provinces of India, the dominant tradition was Hindu, reflecting a polytheistic tradition and adherence to the caste system in social/political functioning.
The tension between these two traditions in India, these two "nationalist" identities, exploded into ugly violence over the issue of whether a new India would be a Hindu or Muslim based country. Street violence led to the brutal death of thousands from both traditions; the once cooperative alliance between independence leaders broke down over this issue. (A
complicating factor was the large Sikh population in the North, yet a third voice in Indian politics and conflict.)
PARTITION
In fact, it became clear that the Hindu and Muslim "nations" could not coexist in one Indian state, and thus the country of India was divided as it emerged as a modern state. The Partition of 1947 split off the dominantly Muslim regions in the northeast and northwest into the Muslim
country of Pakistan (originally made up of two divided regions: East Pakistan in the region of Bengal and West Pakistan, around the Indus River.) The rest of the sub-continent became the Hindu dominated India. Those who found themselves on the "wrong" side of this divide faced
threats, violence, brutalization, and many were forced to flee. An estimated 5 million people were displaced by this Partition and forced to relocate to either the Muslim or Hindu side of the line. Atrocities were committed on both sides, and thousands continued to die in ugly street
violence. Even Gandhi could not escape this violence. As he entered a hunger strike to bring an end to this nationalist/religious violence, an extremist Hindu nationalist assassinated him.
Thus, the bloodshed and violence associated with Indian nationalism did not emerge so much from fighting the British, but rather fighting each other. In 1971, further division occurred when East Pakistan broke away from what was seen as a neglectful and discriminating government in West Pakistan. After a war of secession, a third country - Bangladesh - emerged; it was also a dominantly Muslim country. Thus, the former territory of India was forcefully and violently divided into three hostile countries. And the violence continues.
Within the existing borders of Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, there continue to be violent clashes between increasingly militant Muslims and Hindus - over past wrongs, over use of land and resources for competing religious purposes, and over land/water claims. There is also the competed over territory of Punjab and Sikh territory in the North of India. At the state level, after 1947, Pakistan and India fought several subsequent wars and borders skirmishes - up to the present day. And now both of India and Pakistan are nuclear powers!! Recognize, for all three countries, the money and energy spend on military build up and wars, and dealing with
disruptive civil conflicts, was and continues to be money not spent on economic betterment, confronting natural disasters or over population, nor is this money spent on the alleviation of the appalling poverty that dominates in this part of the world.
MIDDLE EAST
One of the most obvious examples where nationalist divisions created on-going political instability is the Near/Middle East, in particular the region known in the 1940's as Palestine. In this region, there are competing claims to the land that go back thousands of years. Conflicting
nationalist claims, reinforced by religious differences, focus on desire for control of the territory in and around the traditional land of Palestine. Long controlled by the Ottoman Empire, this region became a British mandate after WWI (as a result of the Paris Peace Conference). The
British soon found themselves fighting Jewish/Hebrew based nationalist groups, as well as Arab/Islamic interests in this territory. The deeply rooted confrontation between Jewish/Hebrew and Muslim/Arabic nationalism and competing claims to the land was fueled and made more complicated by British mismanagement. For example, the British, to gain the support of
both groups during WWI, in essence promised control of this territory to both groups with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In the years leading up to and after WWII, the British antagonized both segments of the colonial population in Palestine, and fueled the antagonism between them.
After WWII, the campaign to create a Jewish homeland and state in the historically significant region of Palestine took on new power, and international support, in particular after the shocking exposure of the Holocaust tragedies to the world. The mass slaughter of Jewish populations in Europe, many concluded, was possible due to the vulnerability of the Jews in Germany and the rest of Europe. The proposed new state of Israel, a homeland and state for the Jewish people based on Jewish/Hebrew national identity, received international support.
However, this proposal stirred up intense opposition amongst the Arabs who lived in this region (who became known as Palestinians) and was also opposed by Arab/Muslim states surrounding Palestine (later Israel). The British, wanting to wash their hands of this dilemma, left it to the newly formed United Nations to solve the problem of competing land claims. The U.N. in 1947 proposed a split of the territory (the two state solution), however this did not gain the necessary acceptance by both sides. Finally, as the British withdrew in1948, Jewish nationalist leaders took the initiative by declaring the founding of the state of Israel. Almost immediately, Israel was attacked by a coalition of Arab states - the Arab League - in what became the first of many Israeli/Arab wars. Many Palestinians left the region of Israel, some out of resentment, others were forcibly expelled or felt threatened by Jewish leaders and citizens of Israel. The number of Arabs/Palestinians that became refugees from Palestine is estimated in the hundreds of thousands.
The tensions resulting from the creation of the new, independent state of Israel, and the competing nationalist and territorial claims of Palestinians, is of course, one of the most troubled stories in world politics. Tensions between the state of Israel and an angry displaced
Palestinian population has led to constant civil violence, and the rise of terrorist reaction. In addition, there have been several wars fought between Israel and its Arab/Muslim neighbors. The territorial conflicts over land taken in these wars, and the issues of land/water rights, as
well as political power, for two "nations" of people living in one state continues to the present day.
Of course, conflict has recently reignited over competing claims to Jerusalem and other disputed territory in this region. Palestinians want their own nationalist control of territory they deem historically theirs. Jewish nationalists want to protect the integrity of their nation-state of
Israel on land they also claim as rightfully, and historically, theirs. Both groups also attach religious significance to territorial control. The inability to reconcile these historical and nationalist/religious claims to the same land is reflected in the appalling and endless cycle of
violence, atrocities, and hatred.
AFRICAN WARS
After WWII, one of the most dramatic arenas of independence and the birth of new countries was on the African continent. Beginning with the expulsion of British control from Ghana in 1957, dozens of new states emerged on this continent - throwing out French, Belgian, Portuguese, and British control. However, many of these new states immediately had to
contend with the draining and destructive issue of nationalist division. The scramble for territory that took place in this continent created borders drawn on the basis of colonial aggression and expansion.
The African continent prior to the European scramble was one of tremendous diversity - with an estimated 800 different languages, thousands of distinct tribal affiliations, several different religious beliefs, and lifestyles ranging from urban dwellers to migrating tribes following a
pastoral pattern of life. These diverse, and sometimes even hostile, groups were forced into colonial boundaries determined by Europeans. When African nations gained their independence, they were left with these same unstable and irrational borders. Due to the almost total absence of political experience and inclusion in rule during the colonial period,
there were little or no developed state craft skills of compromise, thus tensions and conflicts usually erupted into violence and civil war.
Recognize, the European model of the modern "state" itself was a foreign, imposed model, superimposed on tribal structures; an estimated 7000 pre-colonial tribes/kingdoms emerged as just 44 states after 1945 - clearly laying the foundation for internal/nationalist struggles. After
becoming independent, African tribes and peoples had to try to adjust to this political structure and to live with fellow citizens not of their own choosing. Wars also resulted because tribes or "nations" of Africans were divided between states imposed by the scrambling Europeans.
In some cases, civil violence emerged over which tribe/nation was to have political control. One of the most famous early wars affected the group that we read about in this class. The Ibo, as well as several other tribes, found themselves part of the newly independent state of Nigeria
after 1960. However, it was the Yoruba tribe that gained ascendancy and took control of the country. The Ibo felt they were being persecuted and discriminated against, and in 1967 declared their break from Nigeria, announcing the creation of a new country, the Republic of Biafra. A vicious civil war then raged in this new country - the Biafran war between the state leadership and the rebellious Ibo. This was a war fought by soldiers and civilians, and it produced appalling instances of slaughter, atrocities, and even human-created starvation and famine (the government starved out stronghold regions of the Ibo.) By 1970, the Ibo gave up, but only after millions were killed in this war, a terrible and destructive beginning for an already impoverished state.
This kind of depressing story was repeated throughout the African continent to a mind-numbing degree, and of course this kind of nationalist/tribal/ethnic conflict continues to the present day. Recent horrors in Rwanda (between the historically hostile Hutu and Tutsi tribes) , Burundi and now again in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (former Belgian Congo and Zaire) have produced horrifying images of bloated corpses and even references to the word genocide. Tribal based violence continues in places like Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sierra Leone,
Liberia, and even in South Africa, where Zulu and other tribes have turned their hatred from the common enemy of the white elite towards each other. Until these conflicts are resolved, there is little hope of progressive political rebuilding, and certainly no possibility of addressing the stark
problems of poverty, famine, disease, and declining life expectancy
The story of independence movements after 1945 is a mix of triumph and tragedy. The abolishment of colonial rule, in some cases extending back over two centuries, was clearly a step away from exploitation and the suffering that took place under imperialism. However, the "morning after" dilemmas of poverty, political instability, Cold War complications and persistent civil violence, have produced the devastating living standards that we associate with the term Third World. How these challenges will be met is an on-going story; decolonization is both a topic of history, and current events.