Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS & DECOLONIZATION in the 20TH CENTURY ~compare to Stearns’ Chapter 33~ In retrospect the Great War of 1914-1918, shook the foundations of Western hegemony. Perhaps unbeknownst to Europeans at the time, the tragedy of war that befell Europe served to undermine much of its authority in the world. As a result, this monumental event often serves as a marker event distinguishing the decades that followed World War I from all previous eras. For intellectuals and political leaders throughout Africa and Asia, the appalling devastation of World War I cast doubt on the claims that the Europeans had made for over a century that they were, by virtue of their racial superiority, the fittest of all peoples to rule the globe. With millions of lives lost, economies disrupted, and infrastructures destroyed, Europe faced an unprecedented rebuilding effort and made a mockery of European claims of superiority and racially ingrained capacity to rule. Then, as a result of a second devastating global war, much the world achieved its independence from European rule in the mid1900s after being colonized in the mid-1800s. Since it is impossible to relate the history of the independence struggles in all of the European colonies, the focus of this chapter will be the influence of the World Wars on independence movements and three basic patterns that decolonization followed: (1) peaceful independence movements based on negotiation, (2) violent wars for independence, and (3) nations that gained independence prior to the World Wars but remained heavily influenced by colonization’s legacy. 33.1 – Patterns of Independence Movements World War I: Anti-Colonial Nationalism is Born World War I presented the subjugated peoples of Africa and Asia with the spectacle of Europe’s “civilizers” sending their young men by the millions to be slaughtered in horrific trench warfare. Moreover, the fact that the three main adversaries in the war—Great Britain, France, and Germany— were colonial powers meant that when they plunged into war, they pulled their empires into the abyss with them. A truly global conflict erupted as the British and French were able to draw raw materials, laborers, and soldiers from their colonial possessions, and these proved critical to their ability to sustain the long war of attrition against Germany. European reliance on their colonial possessions was revealed and heightened by the war effort. To fight the war, European soldiers maintaining order in colonial possessions were sent to battlefronts in Europe to meet the need for manpower. This need to recall administrative and military personnel from British and French colonies meant that European officials were compelled to fill their vacated posts with African and Asian administrators, many of whom enjoyed real responsibility for the first time. Not only did Africans and Asians fill political needs, but the colonies were also key economic producers for Britain and France. Native populations supplied food for the home fronts, as well as vital raw materials such as oil, jute, and cotton for the battlefields. In fact, contrary to long-standing colonial policy, the hard-pressed British even encouraged a considerable expansion of industrial production in India to supplement the output of their overextended home factories. Thus, the war years contributed to the development in India of the largest industrial sector in the colonized world. Thus, the war itself was pivotal in the colonies’ native populations in fostering political leadership, seeds of industrial growth, and deep resentment for the sacrifices that the war effort required. Additionally, African and Asian soldiers by the hundreds of thousands served on the Western Front or in the far-flung theaters of war in Egypt, Palestine, Mesopotamia, and east Africa. So not only were Europeans killing each other, but for the first time, African and Asian soldiers were ordered by their European officers to kill other Europeans. In this process of war, the vulnerability of the seemingly invincible Europeans and the deep divisions between them were starkly revealed. Though the European colonizers had frequently quarreled over colonial territory in the late 19th century, during Chapter 33 World War I they actually fought each other in the colonies for the first time. Further undermining colonization, Europeans actively sought to earn the support of Western-educated elites, win the cooperation of new Arab allies, and maintain the loyalty of their traditional native allies by making promises regarding future leadership. Whether promised self-determination, greater access to administrative posts, or economic development, these concessions often seriously compromised Europe’s prewar dominance and plans for further expansion. In the end however, the British and French repeatedly broke their promises when negotiating the postwar settlement at Versailles. Wartime promises to the Arabs in return for supporting the Entente were forgotten, as Britain and France divided the Arab heartlands of the Middle East between themselves. China's pleas for protection from Japanese aggression were dismissed, and a youthful Ho Chi Minh, the future leader of Vietnam, was rudely refused an audience with Woodrow Wilson. The betrayal of these pledges understandably contributed a great deal to postwar agitation against colonial rule and eroded any remaining confidence in European leadership. When the British and French victors sought to restore their prewar political prerogatives, the first wave of decolonization was set in motion. The social and economic disruptions caused by the war gave added impetus to movements and processes already underway. African and Asian opposition to colonization dated back to the 19th century, but World War I led to a postwar surge in anti-colonial resistance that crystalized public support in colonies for nationalist agitators, who had previously been viewed as elitist. World War II: Nationalism Accelerates During World War II, the Nazi rout of the French and Japan’s rapid capture of Western colonies in Southeast Asia ended all remaining illusions colonized peoples had left about the superiority of their colonial overlords. Because the Japanese were non-Europeans, their early victories over the Europeans and Americans played a particularly critical role in destroying the myth of Caucasian invincibility. Additionally, Japan’s harsh conquest and heavy demands of Southeast Asians during the war further strengthened the masses’ determination to fight for self-rule. Amongst the European powers, colonies were again used for resources and soldiers – a policy that reiterated African and Asian distaste for European rule. When World War II ended, Europeans attempted to re-establish old colonial regimes – an effort that only furthered nationalist sentiment in Africa and Asia. When this growing tide of anti-European sentiment was combined with the reality that Europe was weakened by the devastation of World War II, change seemed inevitable. Then, the final factor that ended European colonial rule in Africa and Asia was a European populace whose determination to hold increasingly resistant colonies was sapped by the carnage of World War II. The end of World War II set the stage, in other words, for two of the great movements that would shape the ensuing decades in world history. First, Africans and Asians challenged the tired remnants of European control—the movement known as "decolonization." Scores of new nations were formed in the decades that followed World War II. From the Philippines to West Africa, independence was won in most tropical dependencies with surprisingly little bloodshed and remarkable speed; the opposite was true in colonies with large settler communities, where liberation struggles were usually violent and prolonged. Second, the emerging power of the U.S. and Soviet Union took on global implications. During WWII, the U.S. allied with Britain under the condition that all people have the "right… to choose the form of government under which they live." The Soviets were equally vocal in their condemnation of colonialism and were forthcoming with material support for nationalist campaigns. Then, given the context of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union aided the push toward self-rule in hopes of gaining ideological allies in Africa and Asia. Independence The nationalist movements that won independence for most of the peoples of Africa and Asia after World War II usually involved some degree of mass mobilization. Peasants and working-class 2 Chapter 33 townspeople, who hitherto had little voice in politics beyond their village boundaries, were drawn into political contests that toppled empires and established new nations. To win the support of the masses, nationalist leaders promised them jobs, civil rights, and equality once independence was won. The leaders of many nationalist movements nurtured visions of post-independence utopias in the minds of their followers. The people were told that a good life would follow once the Europeans, who monopolized the best jobs and exploited the economy, were driven away. Depending on the skills of their leaders and the resources at their disposal, newly independent nations have tackled the daunting task of development with varying degrees of success. Ways have been found to raise the living standards of some populations in emerging nations. But these strategies have rarely benefited the majority. It may be too early to judge the governments and economies newly independent nations, but few have developed the path to the social justice and development that nationalist leaders saw as the ultimate goal of decolonization. Although some countries have made significant progress, the majority of emerging nations struggle with political instability and economic development that is increasingly behind industrialized powers. Negotiated Independence 33.2 – India Because India and much of Southeast Asia had been colonized long before Africa, movements for independence arose in Asian colonies somewhat earlier than in their African counterparts. By the last years of the 19th century, Western-educated Indians had been organized politically for decades. Because of India's size and the pivotal role it played in the British Empire (by far the largest of the European imperialist empires), the Indian nationalist movement pioneered patterns of nationalist challenge and European retreat that were later followed in many other colonies. Growing Nationalism Surrounded by the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean, South Asia enjoyed a certain geographic unity, but before the 20th century few of its people thought of themselves as “Indians.” Cultural identities were rooted in differences of family, caste, language, region, and religion. Unlike previous invaders and imperial governments, the British never assimilated into Indian society because their acute sense of racial and cultural distinctiveness kept them apart. This served to intensify Indians’ awareness of their collective difference from their alien rulers. Furthermore, British railroads, telegraph lines, postal services, administrative networks, newspapers, and schools as well as the English language bound India’s many regions and peoples together more firmly than ever before and facilitated communication, especially among those with a modern education. The most important political expression of an “Indian” identity took shape in the Indian National Congress (INC), often called the Congress Party, which was established in 1885.This was an association of English-educated Indians—lawyers, journalists, teachers, businessmen—drawn overwhelmingly from prominent high-caste Hindu families. It represented the beginning of a new kind of political protest, quite different from the rebellions that had periodically erupted in the rural areas of colonial India. The INC was largely an urban phenomenon and quite moderate in its demands. Initially, its well-educated members did not seek to overthrow British rule; rather they hoped remove barriers to Indian employment in the colonial bureaucracy and increase Indian representation in local legislative bodies. From such positions of influence, they argued, they could better protect the interests of India during British colonial rule. Many Western-educated Indians were increasingly troubled, however, by the growing virulence of British racism. 3 Chapter 33 As an elite organization, the INC had difficulty gaining a mass following among India’s vast peasant population. That began to change during World War I. To attract Indian support for the war effort, the British in 1917 had promised “the gradual development of self-governing institutions,” which energized nationalist politicians to demand more rapid political change. Furthermore, British attacks on the Islamic Ottoman Empire antagonized India’s Muslims. INC politicians also increasingly stressed the drain of Indian resources and existence of rural poverty. As evidence, they cited how taxes on Indians paid for generous bureaucratic salaries that the Indians were qualified to assume, how the government only purchased steel or rail equipment from British manufacturers, and how policies promoting the production of cash crops (like cotton, jute, indigo) played a major role in regional famines. Occasional political concessions added some legitimacy to the INC, but often the British opinion was that a price had to be paid for the peace and good government that came with colonial rule. Finally, on 1919, a group of Indian protesters gathered in a public square in the city of Amritsar. To end the rally, British soldiers fired their guns into the crowd for ten minutes. The event, named the Amritsar Massacre, killed approximately 1000 Indian protesters and sparked mass appeal for independence. This was the context in which Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948) arrived on the Indian political scene. While it was economic inequality, political conditions, and repressive actions following World War I that broadened the interest in nationalism, it was Mohandas Gandhi that emerged to lead the movement. Gandhi quickly rose within the leadership ranks of the INC and used the growing momentum to turn localized protest into a sustained all-India campaign against the policies of the colonial overlords. Due to a combination of factors, Gandhi was more able to build a following amongst a wide spectrum of Indians—peasants and the urban poor, intellectuals and artisans, capitalists and socialists, Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi’s conduct and actions—his simple and unpretentious lifestyle, his support of Muslims, his frequent reference to Hindu religious themes— transformed the INC into a mass organization. Perhaps the most important strategy was one he developed a decade earlier as a lawyer in the Indian migrant community in South Africa. Gandhi's nonviolent but quite confrontational protest tactics endeared him both to the moderates and to more radical elements within the nationalist movement. His advocacy of peaceful boycotts, strikes, noncooperation, and mass demonstrations—which he labeled collectively satyagraha, or truth force—proved an effective way of weakening British control while limiting opportunities for violent reprisals that would allow the British to make full use of their superior military strength. It is difficult to separate Gandhi's approach to mass protest from Gandhi as an individual and thinker. His background as a Western-educated lawyer gave him considerable exposure to the world beyond India and an astute understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the British colonizers. These qualities and his soon legendary skill in negotiating with the British made it possible for Gandhi to build up a strong following among middle-class, Western-educated Indians. But the success of Gandhi's protest tactics also hinged on the involvement of ever increasing numbers of the Indian people in anti-colonial resistance. Gandhi's widespread popular appeal, in turn, gave him even greater influence among nationalist politicians. The latter were very much aware of the leverage his mass following gave to them in their ongoing contests with the British overlords. Under Gandhi's leadership, nationalist protest surged in India during the 1920s and 1930s. Gandhi’s ideology was a radicalism of a different kind, which earned him both supporters and detractors. He did not call for social revolution but sought the moral transformation of India by stressing inclusion and duty. For example, he also worked to raise the status of India’s untouchables, and many ordinary people spoke of Gandhi’s possessed miraculous powers (which earned him the nickname, Mahatma or Great Soul). But, Gandhi had to contend with a wide range of movements, whose very diversity tore at the national unity that he so ardently sought. Not everyone accepted Gandhi’s nonviolence or religious inclusiveness. And some in the Congress Party believed that efforts to improve the position of untouchables were a distraction from the chief task of gaining independence. By far the most serious threat to a unified movement derived from the growing divide 4 Chapter 33 between the country’s Hindu and Muslim populations. As early as 1906, the formation of a Muslim League contradicted the Congress Party’s claim to speak for all Indians. As the British allowed more elected Indian representatives on local councils, the League demanded separate electorates, with a fixed number of seats for Muslims. As a distinct minority within India, some Muslims feared that their voice could be swamped by a numerically dominant Hindu population, despite Gandhi’s inclusive philosophy. Some Hindu politicians confirmed those fears when they cast the nationalist struggle in Hindu religious terms or promoting the teaching of Hindi language over Urdu (favored by Muslims). Winning of Independence World War II soon put India on a path to independence, as hardships similar to those caused by World War I now added to a mass nationalist movement. At first, the Congress Party agreed to support the Allies’ war effort if the British committed to Indian independence once the conflict was over. Although some politicians indicated that they were willing to negotiate India's eventual independence, Britain’s leader, Winston Churchill, staunchly rejected this idea. Instead, nationalist leaders renewed civil disobedience campaigns. In 1942, the Quit India Movement called for immediate Indian independence, boycott of British goods, and non-cooperation with British employers. The British responded with repression and mass arrests; as a result, Gandhi and other INC politicians were imprisoned for much of World War II. The only nationalist group to support the British cause was the Muslim League, led by the uncompromising Muhammad Ali Jinnah. This wartime support won the Muslim League much favor as their demands for a separate Muslim state hardened and became a key factor in shaping decolonization in South Asia. Following the devastation of World War II, new British leadership was ready to negotiate with India's nationalist leaders. With independence all but assured, the process of decolonization focused on the type of states that would be carved out of the subcontinent after the British withdrawal. Jinnah and the Muslim League played on Muslim anxieties that a single Indian nation would be dominated by the Hindu majority, and that the Muslim minority would become the targets of increasing discrimination. It was therefore essential, they insisted, that a separate Muslim state called Pakistan be created from those areas in northwest and east India where Muslims were the most numerous. As religious tensions and violence rose, the British concluded that a bloodbath could be averted only by partition—the creation of two nations in the subcontinent: one secular, one Muslim. Thus, in the summer of 1947, the British handed power over to the Congress party, who headed the new nation of India, and to Jinnah, who became the first president of Pakistan. In part because of the haste with which the British withdrew their forces from the deeply divided subcontinent, a bloodbath occurred anyway. Viciously, religious violence destroyed whole villages and extremists attacked trains full of passenger. In addition to hundreds of thousands of casualties, these atrocities led to a massive refugee crisis (totaling 10 million) as Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims attempted to find safe areas for their communities. Those who fled were so terrified that they were willing to give up their land, their villages, and most of their worldly possessions. Gandhi himself, desperately trying to stem the mounting tide of violence in India’s villages, refused to attend the independence celebrations. The factionalism was compounded by Gandhi’s assassination by a Hindu fanatic in 1948, only a year after independence. The great triumph of independence, secured from the powerful British Empire, was overshadowed by the violent tragedy of partition. The India that emerged from partition enjoyed, perhaps, more advantages than any other nation that gained its independence in the 20th century. To begin with, India’s development started with a larger industrial sector, a better communication system, a more established bureaucracy, and a larger middle class than most other emerging nations. These advantages have yielded a remarkably stable government and an economy primed for growth. Following Gandhi’s assassination, the most logical choice for voters was prominent Congress official and close Gandhi ally, Jawaharlal Nehru. In contrast to Gandhi, Nehru thoroughly embraced science, 5 Chapter 33 technology, and industry as essential to India’s future. To achieve these goals, Nehru and his successors pushed state intervention and protectionism in some sectors but also encouraged foreign investment from both the U.S. and Soviet Union. The result has been industrial and agricultural growth that has generated the tax revenue necessary to promote literacy schemes, family planning, and village electrification. With these gains the Congress Party has continued to rule at the federal level for most of the independence era, even if opposition parties have controlled many local governments and remained vocal in the national parliament. So, despite corruption, secessionist movements, religious tension, and linguistic tension, India remains the world’s largest democracy. Civil liberties, exemplified by free press and elections, have also been upheld, and the government has outlawed caste discrimination. India has had the good fortune to be governed by INC leaders who were deeply committed to democracy, civil rights, economic development, and social reform. In recent decades, India has developed one of the largest and most sophisticated high-tech sectors in the world, providing tens of thousands of computer and Internet experts for U.S. and European firms. Despite its successes, India has suffered from growing pains that are so common in newly independent nations. Whatever the government's intentions, there have simply not been the resources to raise the living standards of a majority of its huge population. The middle class has grown – as seen in Indian films and affluent urban neighborhoods. But, nearly 50% of India's people have gained little since independence, often living on as little as $1.25 per day. In part, population growth has offset economic gains, but social reform has also been slow. Outlawing caste and urbanization have not ended the system’s latent practice in rural areas. And, groups such as the wealthy landlords, who supported the nationalist drive for independence, have continued to dominate the great mass of landless peasants. The Pakistan that emerged from partition was for several decades a clumsy two-part country: its western section in the Indus Valley and its eastern portion on the opposite side of India in the Ganges Delta. This situation did not bode well for the country. The Bengalis, occupying the poorer eastern section, complained that they were treated as second-class citizens. With political and economic power entrenched in the West Pakistan, boundary issues produced political instability and threatened the viability of Pakistan. Ultimately in 1971, extreme contrasts of geography and culture led to violence and the secession of East Pakistan, leading to the formation of the independent of country of Bangladesh. This separation did not solve Pakistan’s problems, however, as it has remained politically unstable, prone to military rule, and economically under-developed. 33.3 – Ghana (& Tropical Africa) Growing Nationalism With India’s earlier colonization, its nationalist movement organized much earlier than could be expected in Africa. Most of Africa had only come under European colonial rule a few decades before the outbreak of World War I. During that short time, European missionary efforts had produced small groups of Western-educated Africans in parts of west and southern Africa by the end of the 19th century. Like their counterparts in India, most Western-educated Africans were staunchly loyal to their British and French overlords during the First World War. But like in India, World War I was a pivotal point in Africa’s drive toward independence. Other key themes were also repeated—such as the lead taken by Western-educated elites, the importance of charismatic leaders in spreading the anti-colonial struggle to the masses, and a reliance on nonviolent forms of protest. With the backing of both traditional African leaders and Western-educated elites, the British and French were able to draw on their African possessions for manpower and raw materials throughout World War I. But this reliance took its toll on European dominance and Africa in the long run. In addition to local rebellions aimed at the use of African soldiers, the war effort seriously diminished demand for luxury cash crops and re-routed food that Africans produced. African villagers were not happy to go hungry so that their crops could feed the Entente armies. But, the British were quick to 6 Chapter 33 promise that once the war was won young Africans who enlisted in the armed forces would be rewarded with honors, public recognition, and opportunities for better jobs. So, while relations between Europeans and colonized Africans were tense during World War I, there were enough Africans loyal to the cause that colonial rule was not seriously disrupted or threatened. European justifications for their wartime demands were discredited after the war. Europeans kept few of their wartime promises, which contributed a good deal to unrest in the early 1920s. Simmering tensions came to the fore, as major strikes and riots broke out repeated in the postwar years. Under pressure, western-educated Africans were given greater opportunities to build political associations and serve in a limited number of administrative posts, especially in British colonies. As postwar tempers abated and political concessions were made, nationalist groups matured as they sought to strengthen their following and intellectual basis. Calls for political mobilization among the Westerneducated became even more pronounced in the late 1920s. Though most of these early political organizations were too loosely structured to be considered true political parties, some of their leaders recognized a growing need to build a mass base and sense of nationalism. By the 1930s, the Great Depression led to more aggressive questioning of British policies, and the economic slump also led African leaders to reach out to ordinary villagers through newspapers more than ever before. But, these efforts yielded little success, and the creation of a mass nationalist movement would only come to full fruition after colonies were plunged yet again into a second global war. World War II proved even more unsettling to Africa than the first global conflict. Forced labor and confiscation of crops returned; inflation again cut down on African earnings. But, the wartime needs brought on by World War II now led the British and French to abandon their longstanding restrictions on industrial development in colonial Africa. Factories were established to process urgently needed vegetable oils, foods, and minerals. These, in turn, contributed to a growing urban migration as Africans searched for work. Any lingering patience with the war effort was seriously tested when many Africans were unable to find employment. The urban unemployed made for a reservoir of disgruntled, idle workers that would be skillfully recruited by nationalist politicians in the postwar decades. Winning of Independence The process of independence in African tropical dependencies was epitomized by the British colony, Gold Coast. After hundreds of thousands of African soldiers spent six years using the latest European weapons to destroy Europeans, the desire to destroy their colonial rule seemed within reach. The emerging anti-European sentiment was compounded when African servicemen experienced renewed racial discrimination. Previously fighting bravely on behalf of Europeans, African veterans of World War II were soon among the staunchest supporters of postwar independence campaigns in British and French colonies. With an infusion of support, African nationalists turned more radical – pushing more aggressively for independence through civil disobedience. Leaders of political organizations now garnered widespread support. In this context, Kwame Nkrumah rose to prominence in Gold Coast. Highly educated in missionary schools and American universities, he witnessed a land in ferment upon returning to the Gold Coast in the late 1940s. Well-connected to civil rights activists in both the U.S. and Africa, Nkrumah and his political allies organized protests in early 1948 over issues of pensions for ex-servicemen, the dominant role of foreigners in the economy, the shortage of housing, and other economic and political grievances. When British police fired into a crowd of demonstrators and ex-servicemen in the coastal city of Accra, rioting broke out in towns across the Gold Coast colony. To calm the rioting, the British threw six African leaders, including Nkrumah, into jail. Having killed three former soldiers and wounding more than 60, both urban workers and cash crop farmers entered the political fray, united against the British. Until that point, change that placed real power in African hands was not a priority among British leaders. Now, the government steadily increased its financial backing for state and mission schools, and in 1948 the first center of higher learning, the University College, was opened. African leaders were also given seats on colonial legislative councils. Having just earned major political 7 Chapter 33 concessions, many Western-educated African politicians were reluctant to organize mass public support into an independence movement. Rejecting this cautious approach, Nkrumah broke with more established leaders and formed his own political party, the Convention People’s Party (CPP). Having already pioneered a new style of politics by organizing mass rallies, boycotts, and strikes, Kwame Nkrumah now called for “self-government now,” and pioneered the drive for independence in tropical Africa. With increasing popular backing, the CPP initiated a campaign of "positive action," intended to instigate widespread strikes and nonviolent resistance in 1950. When some violence occurred, Nkrumah was promptly arrested and imprisoned for agitation. But this merely increased his prestige as a hero of the cause. Undeterred by imprisonment or British threats, Nkrumah’s stature and following had grown to unparalleled levels by the mid-1950s. As a result, educated Africans were given more and more representation in legislative bodies, and gradually they took over administration of the colony. The British recognition of Nkrumah as the prime minister of an independent nation in 1957 simply concluded a transfer of power from the European colonizers to the Western-educated African elite that had been under way for nearly a decade. The new nation was named, Ghana, and set off a wave of peaceful transfers of power to nationalists in tropical Africa in the 1960s. After assuming power as prime minister of Ghana in 1957, Nkrumah moved vigorously to initiate programs that would translate his high aspirations for his people into reality. He was genuinely committed to social reform and economic uplift for the Ghanaian people. Nkrumah's time in office was initially successful, as forestry, fishing, and mining expanded. Also, production of Ghana’s main export, cocoa, doubled. Nkrumah taxed these additional revenues in order to invest in various development projects, because his main goal was to rapidly industrialize Ghana's economy. He reasoned that to become truly independent Ghana had to escape reduce dependence on the colonial trade system. In order to industrialize, Nkrumah used government funds to build a dam on the Volta River for irrigation and hydro-electric power. Government funds were also used for village projects in which local people built schools and roads. Nkrumah identified social reform as a key obstacle of development, so he introduced free health care and education. The education initiative called for a 7year plan to focus on mathematics, English and vernacular literacy, and the expansion of technical schools and apprenticeship programs. If he were to succeed, Nkrumah further believed that he must eliminate “tribalism”, a source of loyalties held more deeply than those to the nation-state. But Nkrumah’s ambitious schemes for everything from universal education to industrial development soon ran into trouble. Most devastatingly, the price of cocoa fell sharply soon after Ghana’s independence. Tens of thousands of cocoa farmers were hard hit, and the resources for Nkrumah's development plans suddenly dried up. Government development spending continued however, and the country was driven into debt—estimated at $1 billion by the mid-1960s. And discontent grew from Nkrumah’s his efforts to stamp out tribal and religious loyalties. Also, his leftist leanings may have won support from the Soviet bloc but led to growing tension with the U.S. As a result, groups, who previously helped Nkrumah come to power, grew hostile and challenged his initiatives. Nkrumah's response to these growing problems was a retreat into authoritarian rule and continuation of failed programs – even without funding. Increasingly dictatorial, he controlled the media and outlawed rival political parties. He also jailed opposition leaders, while making charismatic appeals to the masses. Nkrumah sought to maintain support by giving fiery speeches that emphasized a revival of African traditions and African civilization. Even the nation’s name, Ghana, was a hint at Nkrumah’s love of propaganda. The 10th century Ghanaian kingdom was actually centered much farther to the north and had little to do with the peoples of the Gold Coast. In addition to inventing connections to Ghana's past, Nkrumah staged events dedicated to the "revolution," which often consisted of building giant statues of himself. Crushing rivals, Nkrumah propagated a totalitarian, cult of personality by comparing himself to Confucius, Muhammad, Shakespeare, and Napoleon. His loyalists predicted that Nkrumah’s birthplace would serve as a "Mecca" for all of Africa's leaders, but in 1966, during the rapid deteriorating of the Ghanaian economy, he was removed from power by military coup. 8 Chapter 33 Violent Independence Movements In no way were all decolonization movements peaceful. The pattern of relatively peaceful withdrawal by stages that characterized the process of decolonization in most of Asia and Africa proved unworkable in: (1) most settler colonies and (2) several French colonies. In fact, several colonies needed to wage particularly bloody campaigns to achieve independence. In settler colonies, like Algeria and Kenya, substantial numbers of Europeans settled permanently in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In each case, the presence of European settler communities, varying in size from millions in Algeria to tens of thousands in Kenya, blocked both the rise of indigenous nationalist movements and concessions on the part of the colonial overlords. In French colonies, the French colonial governments had been administered through direct rule. Such an emphasis on hierarchy and French direction was only possible due to their focus on assimilating the indigenous people to French ways of life. Therefore, the French were more apt to view their colonies as truly part of France and any efforts toward independence as betrayals. Still, as in colonies that achieved independence through negotiation, the global context of the world wars and Cold War were pivotal in shaping these movements and violent struggles. 33.4 – Algeria (& Settler Africa) Growing Nationalism European colonial holdings were instrumental to their ability to conduct a massive world war in the beginning of the 20th century. Colonies were used for their material support of the war in Europe in addition to providing soldiers drafted for the frontlines. In an effort to offset the resulting poverty, famine, and hardships, European governments often promised that reforms and better pay would follow after the Great War had concluded. But, European’s failure to keep these promises bred discontent and use of African soldiers on the battlefront shattered any idea of white supremacy. As an influential colonial administrator pointed out, the desperate plight of the British and French also forced them to teach tens of thousands of Africans: …how to kill white men, around whom [they had] been taught to weave a web of sanctity of life. [They] also know how to handle bombs and Lewis guns and Maxims ... and [they have] seen the white men budge when [they have] stood fast. Altogether [they have] acquired much knowledge that might be put to uncomfortable use someday. The strain of World War I contributed a good deal to unrest during the 1920s and 1930s in Africa. This was particularly true of the French colonies, where opportunities for political organization, much less protest, were severely constricted before, during, and after the war. Major strikes and riots broke out repeatedly after the war. But, while the interwar years were a time of growing anti-European sentiment, they were largely peaceful. Although political organization was harshly restricted in French colonial Africa, France allowed a small but well-educated group of Africans representation in the French parliament. These conditions meant that French-speaking West Africans concentrated their organizational and ideological efforts in Paris during the 1920s and 1930s. West African expatriates, for example, began the negritude literary movement in Paris, which did much to combat the racial stereotyping that had so long viewed Africans as inferior to the Europeans. Writers eloquently argued that in the pre-colonial era, African peoples had built societies where women were freer and the elderly were better cared for than in the “civilized” West. The African leaders and writers of the interwar years may have done much to raise appreciation for African issues both in Europe and Africa, but calls for independence were much slower to develop. The global depression during the 1930s and a second world war in less than thirty years added significant economic strain to Africa – a continent long hurt by its dependence on trade with Europe. Palm oil, nuts, rubber, tin, aluminum, food stuffs were among the goods exported from Africa during 9 Chapter 33 World War II. The revenue from these exports only totally benefitted European-owned firms, at the expense of badly housed and underfed African labor. Now seeing independence as a necessity, Germany’s swift rout of the French and Belgians shattered whatever was left of the colonizers' reputation for military prowess. This was a dangerous development in settler colonies. Because the European settlers regarded the colonies to which they had migrated as their permanent homes, they fought all attempts to give the African majority political representation or even to grant them civil rights. European settlers also refused any reform measures that required them to give up any of the lands they had occupied. Fearful of angering the highly vocal settler minority, colonial officials did not push reforms particularly hard either. Economically desperate, forbidden from nonviolent protest, and unable to make headway through negotiations, many African leaders turned to violent, revolutionary struggles to win their independence after World War II. Winning Independence The first of these erupted in British-controlled Kenya in the early 1950s. Impatient with the failure of the nonviolent approach adopted by leader Jomo Kenyatta, an underground guerilla organization coalesced around a group of more radical leaders. In the early 1950s, the radicals mounted a campaign of terror against the British, the settlers, and Africans who were considered collaborators. At the height of the struggle in 1954, some 200,000 rebels violently fought for independence in Kenya. The British responded with an all-out military effort to crush the guerrilla movement, which was dismissed as savagery. In the process, the British, at the settlers' insistence, imprisoned Kenyatta, thus eliminating the nonviolent alternative to the guerrillas. The rebel movement had been militarily defeated by 1956 at the cost of thousands of lives. But the British were now in a mood to negotiate with the nationalists, despite strong objections from the European settlers. Kenyatta was released from prison, and he emerged as the spokesperson for the Africans of Kenya. By 1963 a multiracial Kenya had won its independence. Under what was, in effect, Kenyatta's one-party rule, it remained until the mid-1980s one of the most stable and more prosperous of the new African states. Perhaps the bloodiest decolonization was in the settler colony of Algeria. The struggle of the Arab and Berber peoples of Algeria for independence was longer and even more vicious than that in Kenya. In 1946, when the French government was restored following the fall of the Nazis, a new constitution was written establishing the Fourth Republic of France. In this document, Algeria was considered to be a department of France, with the same legal status as a province inside of France, and not just a colony. Long seen as an integral part of France, the presence of more than a million European settlers in the colony only served to bolster the resolve of French politicians to retain it at all costs. As Premier Pierre Mendes-France declared, “One does not compromise when it comes to defending the internal peace of the nation, the unity and integrity of the Republic. The Algerian departments are part of the French Republic. They have been French for a long time, and they are irrevocably French… Between them and metropolitan France there can be no separation.” In the decade after World War II, Algerian nationalists started to openly push for an end to colonialism and the special privileges held by white settlers. But by 1954, sporadic rioting grew into sustained guerrilla resistance. Led by the National Liberation Front (FLN), military outposts and government targets were attacked. Within a few years, large segments of the Algerian Arab population were mobilized into full-scale revolt against European dominance, and their attacks broadened to include the French settler population. The French government responded to the revolt with force, committing over 400,000 troops to Algeria. High-ranking French army officers came to see the defeat of this movement as a way to restore a reputation that had been badly tarnished by defeats in Vietnam during the same period. By 1958 most of the urban cells of the FLN were destroyed. However, the fight in the rural and mountainous regions of Algeria intensified. The FLN conducted a brutal campaign that the French countered with a massive show of military force that included aerial bombardments. Resettlement camps were established to isolate people thought to be supporting the rebels. Over two million Algerians were forced from their homes. In 1958, public opinion in France became so divided over Algeria that the French government in Paris collapsed from the strain in 1958, 10 Chapter 33 thereby putting an end to the Fourth Republic. As a result, revered French leader, Charles De Gaulle, agreed to take charge and called for a new constitution, establishing the Fifth Republic. By the end of 1959, the French army was the closest it would get to a complete military victory. As the Algerian rebels were gradually defeated in the field, the French people had wearied of the seemingly endless war. De Gaulle began a negotiated independence for Algeria as he became convinced that he could not restore France to its once powerful status as long as its resources continued to be drained by the Algerian conflict. De Gaulle’s call for self-determination led to an agreement between the Algerian nationalists and the French government that temporarily protected the rights of the colonists for a three-year period – after which, the colonists could either return to France or seek Algerian citizenship. These negotiations deeply angered the French settler community, who prolonged the Algerian struggle with a violent backlash. Settlers attacked Arabs, Berbers, and even French citizens who favored Algerian independence. One violent settler organization attempted to assassinate De Gaulle. Given the violent struggle, some six million Algerians voted for independence in 1962. On July 5, Algeria officially declared its independence from France. After the bitter civil war, a multiracial accommodation (like in Kenya) was out of the question. Over 900,000 French settlers left Algeria within months after its birth. In addition, tens of thousands of French-sympathizing Arabs fled to France and formed the core of the substantial Algerian population now present in France. Violent independence movements did not define all French colonies however. Ongoing negotiations with highly westernized leaders in Senegal and the Ivory Coast led to reforms and political concessions. The slow French retreat ensured that moderate African leaders, who were eager to retain French economic and cultural ties, would dominate the nationalist movements and the postindependence period in French West Africa. Between 1956 and 1960, the French colonies moved by stages toward nationhood. By 1960 all of France's West African colonies were free. But, the more conciliatory approach toward the peoples of West Africa came only after costly military struggles to hold on to their colonies in Algeria and Vietnam. 33.5 - Vietnam Growing Nationalism French interest in Vietnam reached back as far as the 17th century. Initially, the French were focused on extending trade and Catholicism to the region. But, like other tropical dependencies, Vietnamese conflicts provided the opening for French political control and colonization of Indochina. Despite a long tradition of rebelling against foreign rule, Vietnamese leaders fiercely resisted French rule with no success. By the mid-1800s, all of Indochina was under French control. In the decades that followed, the French concentrated on drawing revenue and resources from Vietnam while providing very little in return. The French determination to make Vietnam a profitable colony resulted in deepening social and economic problems that were already severe under Vietnamese rulers. Heavy French taxes and limited land for subsistence led to large numbers of Vietnamese fleeing their ancestral villages to work on plantations established by French and Chinese entrepreneurs. As a result of a troubling 19th century, Vietnam was a colony typified by economic inequity prior to World War I. The failure of Vietnamese rulers to resist the French did much to discredit the old, Confucian order. Perhaps because it was imported rather than homegrown, the Vietnamese rejected Confucianism and with less trauma than the Chinese once its failings were clear. But its demise left a vacuum that the Vietnamese, like the Chinese, would struggle for decades to fill. In the early 20th century, a new Western-educated middle class, similar to that found in other colonial settings, was formed. It was made up mainly of the children of the traditional elite. Some, taking advantage of their parents' wealth, went to French schools, spoke fluent French, craved French fashions, and worked in the French colonial administration. Despite a respect for French culture, many French-educated Vietnamese witnessed inequality that was troubling. Like their colonized 11 Chapter 33 counterparts elsewhere, well-educated Vietnamese soon formed political organizations that were initially concentrated on racism, improving their wages, and gaining access to positions in the colonial government. But the Versailles conference that ended World War I did much to re-ignite Vietnam’s traditional nationalist pride. By brushing aside talk of self-determination, the French sparked Vietnamese commitment to violent revolution in the early 1920s. Now firmly pitted against French colonial rule, the political organizations of elite Vietnamese merged into a nationalist movement led by the Vietnamese Nationalist Party (or VNQDD). With a following comprised of teachers and intellectuals, the Vietnamese Nationalist Party used clandestine attacks to assassinate French officials and Vietnamese collaborators in the late 1920s. Replacing their strategy of isolated attacks, the Nationalist Party launched large-scale mutiny in 1930 with the aim of expelling the French in a single blow. But, the mutiny was quickly put down, with heavy French retribution, harassment, and censorship. Leading figures were captured and executed, and the Nationalist Party never regained its political strength in Vietnam after the crackdown. While the liberal-oriented Vietnamese Nationalist Party led the charge, interest in communism grew amongst some in Vietnam. Dogged by its elite roots, the Nationalist Party was never able to develop mass support from peasants and urban laborers. Instead the Communist Party and its charismatic leader, Ho Chi Minh, supported the lower classes and their calls for independence during the 1930s. At the same time that Europeans and other Asians were flirting with the ideas of communism in the 1920s, Ho Chi Minh was studying Marxism in France and the Soviet Union. He also attended the Chinese military academic that was established by the Soviet Union. Although rivals of the Nationalist Party, the communists were also disillusioned by the failures of self-determination and were dedicated to revolutionary struggle against the French – now with broader support. Harsh French repression and then Japan’s invasion of Southeast Asia during World War II forced the communists underground however. But like the Chinese communists, these circumstances actually worked to Ho Chi Minh’s advantage in the long run. The communist party in Vietnam, called the Viet Minh, skillfully used guerilla tactics in north against the Japanese and French. In its remote rugged base, the Viet Minh established their organizational structure and ideology. Coupled with their guerilla defense of Vietnam, the Viet Minh garnered serious support from peasants by testing their programs for land reform and mass education. The fact that the Viet Minh actually put effort into providing assistance to the peasants convinced the much-abused Vietnamese people that here at last was a political organization genuinely committed to improving their lot. Winning Independence French colonial rule in Indochina was weakened by the Japanese invasion during World War II, and the Vietnamese communists were ready to use the colonizers' setbacks to advance the struggle for national liberation. With the abrupt end of World War II and Japanese rule, only the Viet Minh were prepared to fill the power vacuum. Rapidly advancing from the rural hill regions, the Viet Minh were in control of Hanoi by 1945, and Ho Chi Minh proclaimed the establishment of the independent nation of Vietnam. Although the communist Viet Minh had liberated much of the north, they had very little control in the south. While rival Vietnamese factions jostled for power in the south, the French reoccupied the southern Vietnam after World War II, eager to reclaim their colonial empire. From there, the French moved to reassert their colonial control over the whole of Indochina in 1946. The effect of this move was the division of Vietnam into a communist north and a French-held south. Despite the Viet Minh’s widespread support in North Vietnam, the French denounced the Viet Minh claim of independence as illegitimate, and a bloody war ensued. Soon Vietnam was consumed freefor-all as Vietnamese factions and the French all fought for control of Vietnam. After nearly a decade of guerilla war, the Viet Minh had gained control of much of the Vietnamese countryside, and the French clung to the fortified towns due to increasing American financial and military assistance. Finally, in 1954 the Viet Minh decisively defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu. The victory gained international recognition for a free, communist North Vietnam, but the south remained separate. With the French removed, the United Nations not only brokered a treaty that recognized an 12 Chapter 33 independent communist state in North Vietnam, it also planned for a reunited Vietnam. The treaty promised elections throughout Vietnam within two years to decide who should govern a combined north and south. However, this electoral contest never materialized. Like much of the world, Vietnam became entangled in the Cold War maneuvers of the United States and the Soviet Union. In the context of the Cold War the U.S. wanted to fiercely counter the growing fame of Ho Chi Minh as a communist leader, despite cooperation between the Viet Minh and U.S. armed forces against Japan during World War II. The anticommunist hysteria in the United States in the early 1950s fed the American perception that South Vietnam, like South Korea, must be protected from communist takeover. Appearing to have impeccable nationalist credentials, Ngo Dinh Diem was installed as the leader of a nominally democratic South Vietnam as a result. Propped up by U.S. economic and military assistance, Diem appeared to be a strong candidate to reunite Vietnam under a banner of democracy. Yet, his Catholic beliefs and connections to the U.S. would soon alienate him from the great majority of the Vietnamese people. In response to Diem, the communist Viet Minh in North Vietnam aided a communist resistance in the south, known as the Viet Cong. As the north sent weapons and advisors to their southern comrades, a guerilla war escalated with the communist Viet Minh and Viet Cong against Diem and the United States. As the communist tide swelled in the Vietnamese countryside, the United States escalated military intervention. From thousands of special advisors in the early 1950s, the U.S. commitment rose to nearly 500,000 men and women, who made up a massive force of occupation by 1968. But despite bombarding North Vietnam with more bombs than used in World War II on Germany, Italy, and Japan combined, Americans could not defeat the communist movement. In part, their failure resulted from their very presence, which made it possible for the communists to convince the majority of the Vietnamese people that they were fighting for their independence from yet another imperialist aggressor. Frustrated by guerilla war, the loss of 60,000 American lives, and one million South Vietnamese casualties, U.S. tension over the war effort necessitated a change. With the communists refusing to yield, U.S. diplomats negotiated an end to direct American involvement in the conflict in the early 1970s. Without U.S. support, the communists overwhelmed the south and united Vietnam under a single government in 1975 for the first time in over a century. In the years since communist victory in 1975, efforts to build an effective communist society in Vietnam have failed. After decades of war, this failure, in part, can be linked to U.S. efforts to isolate communist societies from the rest of the international community. Faced with a shattered economy, a devastated environment, and little international assistance, Vietnam's aging revolutionary leaders pushed hardline Marxist, Leninist, and even Stalinist agendas. Like their Chinese counterparts, the rigid dictatorial regime and centralized economy stifled growth and, if anything, left the Vietnamese people almost as impoverished as they had been during colonialism and war. By the late 1980s, the obvious failure of hardline approaches in Vietnam, the collapse of communist regimes throughout Eastern Europe, and the success of reform in China, prompted pragmatic reform measures in Vietnam aimed at expanding the market sector of the economy. In response, Japanese, European, and even American political and economic institutions have normalized relations with Vietnam’s government and invested in its industrial sectors. But, like many other postcolonial nations, Vietnam has paid a high price for its efforts at integration into the globalizing economy. Many of its workers have had to endure the sweatshop conditions widely found in foreign factories, social inequality has increased markedly, and the free education system and public services once provided by the communist state have nearly disappeared. 13 Chapter 33 Independent with Lingering Colonial Legacy 33.6 - South Africa: Persistence of White Supremacy South Africa’s twentieth century freedom struggle differed greatly from those of India, Ghana, or Algeria – most notably because Britain had granted South Africa its independence in 1910. Independence, however, had been granted to a South African government wholly controlled by a white settler minority, which represented less than 20 percent of the total population. The country’s black African majority had no political rights whatsoever within the state. Rather than fighting against an occupying European colonial power, black South Africans struggled against internal forces that lingered from a long colonial past. Economically, the most prominent white settlers were of British descent. They or their forebears had come to South Africa during the nineteenth century, when Great Britain was the ruling colonial power. But the politically dominant section of the white community, known as Boers or Afrikaners, was descended from the early Dutch settlers, who had arrived in the mid-seventeenth century. The term “Afrikaner” reflected their image of themselves as “white Africans” and permanent residents of the continent rather than colonial intruders. The Afrikaners had unsuccessfully sought independence from a British-ruled South Africa in a bitter struggle (the Boer War, 1899–1902), and a sense of difference and antagonism lingered. Despite continuing hostility between white South Africans of British and Afrikaner background, both felt that their way of life and standard of living were jeopardized by any move toward black African majority rule. The rigidity of this sizable and threatened settler community helps explain why black African rule and true independence was delayed until 1994. South Africa’s ability to preserve white supremacy until 1994 rested on several factors that distinguished it from other settler societies. To begin with, the white population of South Africa, equally divided between the Dutch-descended Afrikaners and the more recently arrived British, was a good deal larger than that of any of the other settler societies (roughly 4.5 million). And unlike the settlers in Kenya and Algeria who had the option of retreating to Europe, the Afrikaners had no European homeland to fall back upon. They had lived in South Africa as long as other Europeans had in North America, and they considered themselves quite distinct from the Dutch. Next, the Afrikaners had for centuries created an elaborate ideology of white supremacy that quoted biblical verses and spoke of struggle against both the African "savages" and the British "imperialists." Last, and ironically, British defeat of the Afrikaners in the Boer War from 1899 to 1902 also contributed much to the capacity of the white settler minority to maintain its place of dominance in South Africa. A sense of guilt – arising especially from the British use internment camps for Afrikaner women and children during the war – led the victors to make major political concessions to the Afrikaners in the postwar decades. The most important of these led parliamentary parties to select an Afrikaner as South Africa’s prime minister, which essentially turned over the fate of the black African majority to the openly racist Afrikaners. With Afrikaners now the driving force in South Africa, the continued subjugation of black Africans became a central aim of political parties that emerged in the 1930s and 1940s, most notably the Afrikaner National Party. After India gained independence, South Africa was by far the most strategic, populous, and wealthy area where colonial domination of the majority population remained. In 1948, the Afrikaner National Party was elected as the majority party in the all-white South African legislature. Following their electoral victory, the Nationalist party devoted itself to establishing lasting white domination over the political, social, and economic life of the new nation. Through thousands of laws, the Afrikaners instituted a rigid system of racial segregation, called apartheid. The Dutch Afrikaner-led Nationalist party further solidified its control through a series of elections in which the majority black population was not allowed to vote. Among other things, laws were passed that reserved skilled and high-paying jobs for whites. The right to vote and political representation were denied to the black Africans, and ultimately to Indians and those of mixed descent. It was illegal for 14 Chapter 33 members of any of these groups to hold mass meetings, organize political parties, or form labor unions. When taken together, the apartheid laws dominated all aspects of South African life until the 1990s, but the system was not designed to just ensure a monopoly of political power and economic dominance. The white minority, both British- and Dutch-descended, also imposed a system of extreme social segregation on all races of South Africa. Separate and unequal facilities were established for different racial groups for recreation, education, housing, work, and medical care. Socializing, dating, and sexual intercourse across racial lines were strictly prohibited. The Afrikaners opportunistically cultivated divisions among the diverse black African population, which contributed to their ability to preserve a bastion of white supremacy. Spatial separation was organized on a far grander scale than separate bathrooms. While the rest of Africa was gaining its independence, numerous homelands within South Africa were created, each designated for the main "tribal" groups within the black African population. Though touted by the Afrikaners as the ultimate way to preserve African cultures, the forced relocation of black South Africans to homelands left the majority population with a small portion land and some of the poorest land in South Africa. Non-white South Africans were required to carry passes that listed the parts of South Africa where they were allowed to work and live. If caught by the police without their passes or in areas where they were not permitted to travel, non-white South Africans were routinely given stiff jail sentences. To maintain the blatantly racist and inequitable system of apartheid, the white minority had to build a police state and expend a large portion of the federal budget on a well-trained military establishment. Because of the land's great mineral wealth, the Afrikaner nationalists were able to find the resources to fund their garrison state for decades. Unlike many other colonies and their predominantly agrarian economy, South Africa by the early twentieth century had developed a mature industrial economy, based initially in gold and diamond mining but by midcentury included secondary industries such as steel, chemicals, automobile manufacturing, rubber processing, and heavy engineering. Particularly since the 1960s, the economy benefited from extensive foreign investment and loans. Almost all black Africans were involved in this complex modern economy: working in urban industries or mines, providing labor for white-owned farms, or receiving payments from relatives who did. Because the homelands were overpopulated and poverty-stricken, the white minority was guaranteed a ready supply of cheap black labor to work in their factories and mines and on their farms. The extreme dependence of most Africans on the white-controlled economy rendered individuals highly vulnerable to repressive action. Denied citizenship in South Africa proper, black laborers were virtually forced to travel (often for months at a time) between their job sites and their homelands, where they had left their families. The combined effects of apartheid restrictions, police repression, and limited educational opportunities hampered the growth of black African political parties and their efforts to mobilize popular support for the struggle for decolonization. Black organizations did form, such as the African National Congress (or ANC), but in time they were declared illegal. During the 1950s, a young generation of leaders, like Nelson Mandela, emerged in the ANC. They focused on launching nonviolent civil disobedience campaigns—boycotts, strikes, demonstrations, and the burning of the hated passes. The government of South Africa responded with tremendous force, including the shooting of sixty-nine unarmed demonstrators at Sharpeville in 1960. African leaders such as Nelson Mandela were shipped off to maximum-security prisons, and other leaders, such as Steve Biko, were murdered while in police custody. The Afrikaner government banned the ANC, prohibited all forms of black protest, and brutally repressed even nonviolent resistance. With all avenues of constitutional negotiation and peaceful protest closed, many advocates of black majority rule turned to guerrilla resistance from the 1960s onward – authorizing selected acts of sabotage and assassination. In an effort to foster pride, unity, and political awareness among the country’s African majority, young people erupted in protest in 1976 in a segregated and impoverished black neighborhood outside Johannesburg. Hundreds of protesters were killed, and the South African government responded in the 1980s by declaring a state of emergency, which simply intensified the restrictions already in place. The government repeatedly justified its repression by labeling virtually all black protest as communist-inspired and playing on the racial fears of the white minority. It appeared that the hardening hostility between the unyielding white 15 Chapter 33 minority and the frustrated black majority was building to a very violent upheaval. Beyond this growing internal pressure, South Africa faced mounting international demands to end apartheid as well. Exclusion from the Olympics, the refusal of many entertainers to perform in South Africa, and the withdrawal of private investment funds isolated South Africa from the Western world. An international boycott greatly weakened the South African economy. The combination of internal and external pressures persuaded many white South Africans by the late 1980s that discussion with African nationalist leaders was the only alternative to a massive, bloody, and futile struggle to preserve white privileges. Led by the courageous F.W. de Klerk, moderate Afrikaner leaders pushed for reforms that began to dismantle the system of apartheid. The dramatic release of Nelson Mandela from prison in 1990 and the legalization of the ANC, signaled that at long last the leaders of the white majority were ready to negotiate the future of South African politics and society. Repealing many apartheid policies, a prolonged process of negotiations ultimately gave all adult South Africans the right to vote. In 1994, the first free and fair elections that included South Africa’s black majority resulted in the end of apartheid. The well-run and remarkably participatory 1994 elections brought to power the African National Congress party, led by Nelson Mandela, who became the first black president of South Africa. Mandela proved to be one of the most skillful and respected political leaders on the world scene as well as a moderating force in the potentially volatile South Africa. The peaceful surrender of power by F.W. de Klerk's Nationalist party, which was supported by most of the white minority, suggested that a pluralist democracy might well succeed in South Africa. But major obstacles remain. Bitter interethnic rivalries, hard-line white supremacist organizations, and the misdistribution of wealth make a just and equitable social order formidable. Yet, South Africa is considered, along with Brazil, Russia, India, China (BRICS) among the most powerful emerging states today. 33.7 – Latin America: Neo-Colonialism Despite gaining independence, the realities of the postcolonial economy presented major obstacles to the industrial development schemes that leaders of emerging nations often sought. This reality was particularly stark in Latin America, where nations had gained their independence a century earlier than other colonies but still had lingering economic ties with the West. Not only did Latin America and most of the nations that emerged from colonialism have little in the way of an industrial base, but their means of obtaining one were meager. To buy the machines and hire or train the technical experts that were essential to get industrialization going, the new nations needed to earn capital they could invest for these ends. Some funds could be accumulated by saving a portion of the state revenues collected from the peasantry. In most cases, however, there was little left once the bureaucrats had been paid, essential public works and education had been funded. Thus, most emerging nations depended on the sale of cash crops and minerals to earn the money they need to finance industrialization. Price fluctuations of these commodities created further problems. As a result, many Latin American (and African) nations struggled economically and politically in the 20th century due to neo-colonial dependence, where Europe and the United States exert so much economic and cultural control that it has been reminiscent of colonization. In Latin America, the countries who gained independence a hundred years earlier wrestled with growing feelings of nationalism aroused by lingering Western economic influence. Foreshadowing the experience of African and Asia after they earned their independence, Latin America witnessed a struggle between the forces of revolution and reaction during much of the 20th century. Mexican Revolution: 1910-1920 Several cataclysmic events launched Latin America into the 20th century and set in motion trends that would determine much of the region's subsequent history. The first of these events was the 10-year 16 Chapter 33 civil war and political upheaval of the Mexican Revolution. Like the Chinese Revolution and Russian Revolution that occurred during the same decade, the Mexican Revolution reflected concerns about world economic relationships. The Mexican regime of Porfirio Diaz had been in power since 1876 and seemed unshakable. During the Diaz dictatorship, tremendous economic changes had been made, and foreign investment in mining, railroads, and other sectors of the economy had created a sense of prosperity among the Mexican elite. However, this progress came at considerable expense. Foreign interests dominated the economy, and U.S. firms owned 20% of Mexico’s territory. The hacienda system of extensive landholdings by a small elite dominated agriculture and the peasant labor force. The government took repressive measures to quiet workers, peasants, and American Indians who opposed the loss of their lands or the unbearable working conditions. Political opponents often were imprisoned or forced into exile. In short, Diaz ruled with an iron fist through a corrupt political machine financed by exporting raw materials to foreign markets. As a result, Mexico faced major issues. The economy was dependent on exports, and growing nationalism resented foreign influence. As a result of Diaz’s iron grip on authority, foreign influence, and class divisions, a chaotic ten year civil war erupted in Mexico. In the north, small farmers, railroaders, and cowboys coalesced under the colorful commander Pancho Villa. In the south, a peasant-based guerrilla movement led by Emiliano Zapata developed around an old conflict between American Indians and sugar landlords with the goal of land reform. Even a few elites called for moderate political reforms to ease popular unrest. When Diaz sought to crush these efforts, he was driven from power by these numerous factions. With Diaz removed, these factions fought a violent struggle for power. Zapata demanded sweeping land reform. Military generals and government loyalists sought to install a dictatorship with large landowner and foreign support. And, moderate reforms pleased neither the lower nor upper classes. The tide of revolution could not be stopped by any of these single solutions. Moderate leaders were assassinated. Villa, Zapata, and the middle-class rose against the loyalists. An extended period of warfare followed, and the tides of battle shifted constantly. U.S. intervention complicated matters while aiming to bring order to border regions. Ultimately, Villa and Zapata maintained control of their home territories, but they could not wrestle control from more moderate political leaders in Mexico City. Alvaro Obregon, an able general who learned machine gun and trench tactics from the war raging in Europe, defeated Villa's cavalry in a series of bloody battles in 1915 and emerged as leader of the government. Politicians then began to consolidate the changes that taken place in the previous confused and bloody five years. In particular, a new constitution was written. The new Mexican Constitution of 1917 promised land reform, limited the foreign ownership of key resources, and guaranteed the rights of workers. Workers mobilized by the revolution to strike and some cases fight were given representation in the government. The constitution also placed restrictions on church ownership of property while promising educational reforms for the masses. By 1920, the civil war had ended, and Obregon was elected president. There was much to be done. The revolution had devastated the country; 1.5 million people had died, major industries were destroyed, and farming was disrupted. As in any revolution, the question of continuity arose when the fighting ended. The revolutionary leadership hoped to institutionalize the new regime by creating a one-party system. This organization, called the Party of the Institutionalized Revolution (PRI), developed slowly during the 1920s and 1930s into a dominant force in Mexican politics. Ten years after the revolution’s end, the PRI launched an extensive program of primary education and land reform, redistributing more than 40 million acres. Although Mexico became a multiparty democracy in theory, in reality the PRI controlled politics and, by accommodation and sometimes repression, maintained its hold on national political life. Some presidents governed much like the strongmen in the 19th century had done, but the party structure and the need to incorporate various interests within the government coalition limited the worst aspects of Caudillo rule. Voters were often only presented with a single candidate – one from 17 Chapter 33 the PRI, but the policy of limiting the presidency to one six-year term ensured some change in leadership. Between 1940 and 2000, rule became more focused on economic growth than the revolutionary social justice, but politics remained politics was dominated by the PRI. The Interwar Years Although Spanish and Portuguese colonies won political independence in the early nineteenth century, much of the 20th century witnessed a quest for genuine economic independence. During the 1800s, industry did not develop, and large landowners profited the most from economic development, using their advantage to enhance their social and political power. A turning point was World War I, despite Latin America’s limited involvement. The disruption of traditional markets for Latin American exports and the contraction of European imports caused an economic realignment in several nations of the region. They were forced to rely on themselves. A spurt of manufacturing began, and economic nationalism spread throughout Latin America as small steps were taken to overcome the traditional dependence on outside supply. In the 1920s, Latin American became increasingly disillusioned by World War I, open trade, and ineffective liberal governments. The Russian Revolution, ongoing Mexican Revolution, and political atmosphere in Europe following WWI served to spread radical ideas and new political possibilities throughout Latin America. One of the first institutions in Latin America to witness this ideological shift was the university. Taking their inspiration from two revolutions contrary to the ideals of the United States, university students hailed the Mexican and Russian Revolutions and in the 1920s began to demand reforms. Students and Latin American universities became distinctly political – with influential ideologies from Marxism to anti-imperialism explored. So, universities became training grounds for future political leaders, including Fidel Castro. The result was the formation of political parties that either openly espoused communism or otherwise adopted rebellious agendas for change. Although criticism of existing governments and liberal economies came from these left-leaning parties, it also came from traditional elements in society such as the Roman Catholic Church, which disliked the secularization represented by a capitalist society. The 1930s Great Depression made matters worse. Prices and exports of Latin American commodities collapsed as Europe and the United States drastically reduced their purchases and raised tariffs to protect domestic products. With their foreign sales plummeting, Latin American countries could not buy the industrial goods they needed from abroad. The global depression provoked an even greater shift toward economic nationalism, as popularly based governments were increasingly replaced by conservative authoritarian rule in the 1930s. Like their European counterparts, many Latin American nations turned to fascist inspired governments. Aimed at curbing capitalism, the authoritarian regimes of the 1930s and 1940s attempted to harness popular unrest while avoiding Marxism. Supported by church and military leaders, this conservative response to the problems of the Great Depression and economic nationalism did little to help conditions for the masses because of conservatives’ hostility to class conflict. One factor that slowed change in Latin America during the early 20th century was the continued presence of the United States. In the midst of all the intellectual change, the peoples of Latin America also most directly experienced the United States’ new economic and political power. U.S. military intervention became a common means of protecting American interests in Latin America—more than 30 efforts occurred before 1933. The U.S. grounds for these interventions were economic, political, and ideological. It was probably no coincidence that the capitalism embraced by the United States came under attack during this era. The Cold War – Communist Options World War II was not a turning point for Latin America, which was only modestly involved in the war, though the economies of many countries grew as a result of wartime demand. But, the Cold War was 18 Chapter 33 a turning point. The conflicting ideologies helped stimulate a new round of political agitation in Latin America that was increasingly communist-leaning in nature. By the 1940s, pressure for change had built up through much of Latin America. Although democratic and authoritarian reformers gained some traction following World War II, the intensifying Cold War led to a rejuvenated radical call for development. The swing toward socialism was prompted by persistent poverty. Although several Latin American countries expanded their industrial output while the world wars diverted European manufactures, the initiative receded after the wars leading to further unemployment and poverty. Many countries continued to depend on a key export crop, like coffee. These crops provided profits to owners while Western demand was high, but they also depended on low wages for workers. In some nations, ninety percent of land was owned by six percent of the population. Thus nationalizing mines and redistributing land became options for countries like Cuba and Guatemala. Throughout Latin America, the failures of political democratization, economic development, and social reforms led to consideration of radical solutions to national problems. But the well-developed Marxist philosophy was fraught with dangers because of the Cold War and the ideological struggle between the United States and Soviet Union. The first place where more radical solutions were tried was Guatemala. Guatemala faced some of the region’s worst problems, including illiteracy, poor health, and high mortality. Its economy depended almost exclusively on banana and coffee plantations, which were frequently controlled by American firms like the United Fruit Company. To counteract these conditions, Guatemalan president Arbenz utilized socialist principles to nationalize many aspects of the economy. His central program was to redistribute large tracts of cultivated land held by the privileged elite and foreign firms. These actions won Arbenz the support of the Soviet bloc, but put Guatemala in direct conflict with American interests - particularly United Fruit, who stood to lose half a million acres of land. As a result of this conflict of interests, the U.S. CIA organized a Guatemala opposition group to overthrow Arbenz and set up a pro-American military dictatorship. The failure of Guatemala’s attempt at radical change was a warning that change would not come without internal and foreign opposition. Cuba Achieving nominal independence in 1898 as a result of the Spanish-American War, Cuba was practically an American protectorate until the 1930s. Cuba’s political institutions were weak and its politicians corrupt. Long in the shadow of the United States, Cuba’s economy was highly reliant on sugar exports and imports from the United States. Yet Cuba was one of Latin America’s most prosperous countries by the 1950s, although enormous differences remained between the urban middle classes and rural poor. Cuba was ripe for a radical revolution when coupling these economic problems with a leader in Fulgencio Batista, who promised reform and a democratic constitution in 1940 but was little more than a corrupt dictator. In the 1950s, reform-minded opposition mounted, most notably among leftist, university-educated Fidel Castro. After initial failure and exile, Fidel Castro and his guerilla forces ultimately overthrew the Cuban government in late 1958. Castro pledged real democracy, justice, and prosperity for all by establishing collective farms, confiscating and redistributing property, and enlisting the support of the USSR. As result Cuba isolated itself from the U.S. and much of the international community. This in turn led to failed economic policies as the Soviet Union tried to subsidize a Cuban economy that remained dependent on exports. However, much of the revolution’s social reforms were successful as public health, education, literacy, and housing rapidly improved in rural areas to rates that exceeded most of Latin America. Since the fall of Communism in Europe, Cuba has become one of the last bastions of that system (along with North Korea) – now without Soviet aid. Yet the model of revolution and successful resistance to U.S. pressure was attractive to rebels in other Latin American nations. In particular, Che Guevara, a famous Argentinean militant, used his experience in helping the Cuban Revolution to spread anti-American and communist rhetoric to other Latin American countries. U.S. reaction to such movements has been containment or intervention. 19 Chapter 33 The Cold War – U.S.-backed Options By the mid-1960s and 1970s, political winds shifted again in direct response to region’s previous communist sympathies. This time many believed political stability rather than radical changes was instrumental to overcoming Latin America’s patterns of inequality and international dependency. Military governments offered the promise of stability, promoted capitalist economic growth, and, for a while, served the Cold War interests of the United States. The move toward military government was precipitated by at least three developments: a long history of caudillo and military intervention, the professionalization of the militaries, and the success of the Cuban Revolution. As a result, many turned to military governments for stability and the influential Catholic Church for social justice. Worried about revolutionary change, professional military officers often saw themselves as above politics and best equipped to solve their nation’s ills. The soldiers in power imposed a new type of bureaucratic authoritarian regime. Their governments were supposed to stand above the competing demands of various sectors and establish economic stability. Now, as arbiters of politics, the soldiers would place the national interest above selfish interests by imposing dictatorships. Government was essentially a presidency, controlled by the military, in which policies were formulated and applied by an organized bureaucracy. Political repression and torture were used to silence critics. By the 1980s, the global struggle between the Soviet Union and United States was increasingly tipping the balance of power in the direction of the U.S. The Soviet Union’s economy was sputtering, and the United States seemed steadily more politically stable and technologically innovative. In this context, many Latin American countries, with the notable exception of Cuba, witnessed an increase in democratization in the 1980s. The military regimes who dominated the politics of the 1970s had begun to return government to civilian politicians. Continuing economic problems and the pressures of containing opponents wore heavily on the military leaders, who began to realize that their solutions were no more destined for success than those of civilian governments. Moreover, fear of Cuban-style communism had diminished, and the end of the Cold War meant that the United States was less interested in sponsoring regimes that were safely non-communist but repressive. Again, economies continued to struggle however as inflation, national debt, and export economies intensified. Today Despite difficulties, by the 1990s it appeared democratic trends were well-established in Latin America, including in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Panama. The military bureaucrats and modernizers were returning to their barracks. The inability of democratic governments to make rapid economic gains and convince citizens that social problems would be addressed was evidenced by the continued popularity of some leftist groups. Communist inspired guerilla movements, like the Shining Path in Peru and FARC in Colombia, intermittently controlled areas of the countryside and disrupted national elections. In Colombia, these leftist insurgents used control of the drug trade to further its aims. And although socialist party politicians occasionally achieved electoral success, only Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela has seriously threatened democratic institutions since 1999. In Mexico, long an important nation in Latin America, progress was gradually made. At first, scandals in the 1980s brought serious political challengers of the PRI to the forefront. Corruption gradually led to mounting calls for change as the principles of the 1917 revolution seemed distant. Finally, in 2000, a new political party was able to get its candidate, Vicente Fox, elected and embarked Mexico on a transition from one-party government to multiparty democracy. In an effort to expand economic development, the United States and Mexico engaged in free trade agreement (known as NAFTA) that offered the promise of new manufacturing in Mexico. 20