World War II marked the waning days of the
colonial project.
The traditional colonial powers—Britain
and France in particular—were exhausted,
and the new players on the global stage—the
United States and the Soviet Union—expressed
ideologies steadfastly opposed, at least in
principle, to the practice of colonialism.
But the political context set the stage for
the project of economic development that would
follow.
And it's precisely this political context
that we will explore now.
You'll recall from the previous module that
there were two broad periods of decolonization.
The first took place primarily in the first
part of the nineteenth century and was dominated
by Latin America's push for independence from
Spain and Portugal.
The second began with independence for India
and lasted through the mid-1990s, when South
Africa finally established itself as a nonracial
democracy.
Today, only a handful of "Non-Self-Governing
Territories" remain in the world.
These are mostly small islands like American
Samoa, Bermuda, Guam, the British and U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the Falkland Islands.
Many of these "non-self-governing territories"
have been granted referenda on independence
and have chosen to retain their unique status
as protectorates of the United States, Britain,
France, or Spain.
Thus we can effectively say that the era of
colonization "at least in the traditional
sense" has drawn to a close.
The era of decolonization, particularly the
post-World War II era, was driven by a couple
of factors.
Remember that the colonies were intended to
generate revenues, or at least not to cost
the colonizing country anything.
But in the aftermath of World War II, it became
increasingly clear that most colonies represented
a significant expense for the colonial power.
And strategies of nonviolent resistance, like
those employed by Gandhi in India, and guerilla
wars against colonial occupation, like those
against France in Algeria and Vietnam, only
served to drive up the cost of administering
the colonies.
The colonial powers, whose economies had been
depleted by the war, thus increasingly viewed
colonies as a liability rather than as a source
of revenue.
Further, the principle of national self-determination,
which held, in essence, that nations had the
right to determine their own futures and oversee
their own affairs, had taken hold.
National self-determination had been part
of President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points,
and was central to the founding of the League
of Nations.
The Charter of the United Nations, signed
in San Francisco in 1945, proclaimed "the
respect for the principle of equal rights
and national self-determination of peoples"
as one of the primary aims of the organization.
At the same time, the Cold War brought the
United States and the Soviet Union to the
fore, replacing Britain and France as the
most influential counties in the world.
The dominant ideology of the United States—a
politics rooted in liberal individualism and
an economy founded on free market capitalism—was
antithetical to the idea of colonialism.
Similarly, the Soviet ideology of communism
was, at least rhetorically, opposed to the
idea of colonization.
Indeed, as the push towards decolonization
progressed, many guerilla movements, from
Asia to Africa to Latin America, embraced
communism as part of their liberation ideology.
As a result, neither the Americans nor the
Soviets were willing to embrace colonialism
as a part of their worldview.
The post-World War II era of decolonization
was sparked by independence for India in 1947.
Remember that India was arguably the most
important British colony.
It was Britain's most important source of
cotton and jute, both of which were essential
for British industrialization.
India was also a key producer of spices and
tea that defined the English lifestyle.
By the turn of the 20th century, India was
generating more wealth than the rest of the
British Empire combined.
And it was a captive market for British manufactured
goods.
India was also symbolically important as "the
jewel in the crown of the British empire."
Not surprisingly, much of British colonial
policy can be understood as a function of
British interests in India.
Why did Britain fight the Dutch for control
of South Africa?
Because South Africa was a key transit point
and natural stopover for British ships sailing
to and from India.
Why did Britain push so hard against France
for control over Egypt?
Because control of Egypt gave them control
over the Suez Canal, dramatically cutting
transit times to and from India.
Why did Britain fight Russia for control of
Afghanistan?
Because Afghanistan was seen as a natural
barrier preventing Russian expansion into
India.
So when Britain gave in to longstanding Indian
demands for independence in 1947, it marked
a fundamental shift in British colonial policy
and signaled to the rest of the British Empire
that decolonization and independence was now
a matter of when not if.
For if the British were unwilling to fight
to retain colonial possession of India, it
seemed unlikely they would fight for to retain
control of their more far flung colonies.
The first African country to achieve independence
was Ghana in 1957, a decade after India's
independence.
By then, British Prime Minister Harold McMillian
could speak of the "winds of change sweeping
across" Africa, and noting that "Whether we
like it or not, this growth of national consciousness
is a political fact.
We must all accept it as a fact, and our national
policies must take account of it."
McMillian's speech, delivered on February
3, 1960 to the all-white South African parliament,
was coldly received.
But the speech signaled an important and dramatic
shift in British colonial policy, and its
impact was felt almost immediately.
Within just a few years, most of Africa would
have its independence.
But remember the changing global context into
which these new states were being born.
Anglo-French rivalry had been supplanted by
the American-Soviet rivalry of the Cold War.
And both the United States and the Soviet
Union were eager to recruit allies to their
respective sides.
Knowing that the fundamental challenges faced
by the new postcolonial states were centered
on the question of economic development, both
American and Soviet governments promised extensive
material aid.
They also both proclaimed that their economic
system was the most appropriate to achieve
development in the global south.
Today it's easy to dismiss the promise of
economic development under a communist system
as sheer fantasy.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the
break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 signaled
a broader shift away from communism as a viable
economic system.
But in the 1960s, the shortcomings of communism
were not as clear.
After all, the United States had taken over
100 years to industrialize, a feat which communist
Russia had accomplished in less than one-quarter
that amount of time.
From the perspective of the Third World, then,
the communist model represented both a viable
and attractive alternative to capitalist development.
In this context, developing a model of capitalist
development that could shorten the 100 year
timeframe was a central priority of American
foreign policy.
That's why, in 1945, President Harry S. Truman
would describe an emerging era of development,
observing that,
"More than half the people of the world are
living in conditions approaching misery...
Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both
to them and to more prosperous areas.
For the first time in history humanity possesses
the knowledge and the skill to relieve the
suffering of these people...
I believe that we should make available to
peace-loving peoples the benefits of our store
of technical knowledge in order to help them
realize their aspirations for a better life...
The old imperialism — exploitation for foreign
profit — has no place in our plans.
What we envisage is a program of development
based on the concepts of democratic fair-dealing."
And that vision of development came in the
form of Modernization Theory, which we'll
explore in a later lecture.
