Decolonization

World War II was important for Dutch decolonization, as the Dutch were unable to regain effective control of the Dutch East Indies. Their attempts to do so while negotiating with Sukarno and the other Indonesian nationalists were accompanied by two resorts to the use of force that were opposed by the United States. In 1949, nationalist resistance and fear of losing American economic assistance for post-war reconstruction led the Dutch to grant independence to Indonesia. The United States had in the inter-war years made a commitment to grant the Philippines independence, which was fulfilled in 1946 and held up to the Europeans as an example. The end of Belgian rule in the Belgian Congo (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) in 1960 was the most rapid transfer of power, and the lack of an effective state apparatus was more noticeable than elsewhere. It was a factor in the civil war which broke out within weeks of independence. Spanish decolonization in Latin America had been largely accomplished in the South American Wars of Independence in the first quarter of the 19th century and in the liberation of Cuba in the Spanish-American War of 1898. In Africa, Spanish Río Muni and Fernando Póo were united and granted autonomy in 1963; they became independent as Equatorial Guinea in 1968, and the Spanish Sahara (now Western Sahara) followed in 1976. The end of the Portuguese Empire was more protracted and bloody, with large-scale wars of liberation taking place in Angola from 1961, in Guinea-Bissau‚ and Cape Verde from 1962, and in Mozambique from 1964. The winning of independence by these territories in 1974 and 1975 followed a military coup d’état in Portugal in 1974 that destroyed the willingness of the Portuguese forces to continue fighting. The territory of Portuguese Timor was seized by Indonesia in 1975.

The imperial powers believed decolonization would help them gain economic benefits outside their formal empires, while retaining informal influence with their former dependencies. Yet they did not have the economic or military influence to achieve these goals. Even where apparently orderly and successful, decolonization has often left a legacy of difficulties. These ranged from civil wars between different ethnic groups, as in Zaïre and Nigeria, to conflicts between successor states, as in East Africa and South East Asia.

To some extent, internal conflicts can be attributed to the nature of decolonization and to the legacy of colonialism. Although the imperial powers tried to create viable and powerful states, as with the federations in the West Indies and Central Africa, decolonization often failed to produce a sense of common, national identity. Many of the colonial boundaries divided people of the same ethnic group, and brought together others who had no racial, linguistic, or cultural ties. It frequently proved difficult to create a national identity and a civic consciousness based on loyalty to the state or nation. Successors to the imperial rulers have often put the needs of kinsmen, clients, or interest groups before the needs of their new nation states. Decolonization has often helped make ethnic and regional conflicts more common.

Few former dependencies in Africa have prospered after decolonization, as their weak position within the international capitalist economy has worsened. The failure of too rapid a modernization process has added to the difficulties created by market forces that tend to work against those who are reliant on the export of basic commodities. Yet how significant decolonization, or indeed the imposition of colonial rule, was in the economic development of the developing world remains an unresolved question. The significance of the colonial legacy in the development of countries like Malaysia and Indonesia remains unclear.

The impact of colonial rule was itself only a brief phenomenon for many African and Asian societies, and its ending part of a broader shift in world politics. The rise of the United States and the Soviet Union was significant, and as the colonial world became the developing world, international trade patterns were also changing. The ending of formal empire produced the mass return of settlers from the Portuguese, French, and Belgian empires. Also, emigration to the overseas dependencies has been replaced by the immigration of former subjects to the metropoles of the decolonizing powers, which has had a cultural impact on a global scale.

Most of Britain’s former dependencies have become part of the Commonwealth of Nations, whereas France has tended to preserve links with its former overseas possessions through close military ties. In addition the French have incorporated their Caribbean and Indian Ocean possessions into metropolitan France as départements d’outre mer (DOMS). Their Pacific islands are also legally part of France, but as territoires d’outre mer (TOMS) they have more administrative autonomy. French attempts to make provision of educational aid in Cambodia and elsewhere conditional on use of the French language are typical of many former colonial powers’ efforts to maintain their colonial legacy. Even without the problems of Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Timor-Leste, and the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), decolonization remains incomplete.