Decolonization defined as the end of formal European Empires, resulting in the independence of these regions, occurred during the post-colonial phase of globalization initiated in the 1950s and remains operative today. This form of global expansion has simultaneously resolved minor “incompatibilities”[footnoteRef:1] and initiated change resulting in the establishment of new conflicts beyond the formal end of the Empire. This essay will discuss the significant globalizing changes that the process of decolonization prompted during the post-colonial period. Decolonization facilitated an atmosphere of improved migrational and communicative patterns, as well as hastened global trade and the acquisition of capital. The establishment of transnational relations led to the globalizing effect of improved interconnections due to the development of independent nation-states. The increased dedication to the protection of human rights and the promotion of self-determination, significantly exemplify the globalizing factors resulting from the process of decolonization. Decolonization was often characterized by violent exchanges to gain independence, resulting in tumultuous social, political, economic, and cultural changes which continued exceeding the official end of the Empire. Ultimately, the expansion and demise of the pre-eminent British and French Empires through processes of decolonization actively possessed several globalizing factors in the creation of independent nation-states in the post-colonial era. [1: Hopkins, “Globalisation and Decolonisation,” 730.]
Globalizing refers to the mechanisms that initiated the “movement of people and transmissions of practices...thereby accelerating their interdependence,”[footnoteRef:2] as decolonization led to the formation of hastened migration and communication, as well as the improved movement of goods and capital. New shifts in the way capital and goods were transported reflected a move away from colonial relationships to interdependent markets, as the industry became more dominant than governments in “diversify[ing] colonial economies.”[footnoteRef:3] While the British treasury did not allow major spending on colonial infrastructure for industry, they were able to invest strategically to provide relationships which included tax breaks and other financial incentives, with key multinationals to protect its own markets as decolonization occurred. Marketing boards, for instance in British colonies, were encouraged to purchase items made in the UK from cars to domestic items.[footnoteRef:4] This, therefore, led to an inter-reliance on “government, finance, and commerce.”[footnoteRef:5] The French also embraced a similar form of the economic relationship, as exemplified through their exploitation of opportunities when portions of their African territories were included in the European Economic Community providing them with “exclusive trade partnerships.”[footnoteRef:6] From this, emerged an era often referred to as neo-colonialism, where securing strong post-colonial relationships would allow for favorable investment, aid, and advice, to ensure a smooth global transition from colonial empires to decolonized states from 1940-1960.[footnoteRef:7] Similarly, migration during this period enabled thousands of Europeans to travel to countries that “retained connections to the homeland,”[footnoteRef:8] creating significant global connections. In many of its dominions, a dependency on these migrants was necessary to assist in the development of their economies. Migration also occurred from the areas previously administered back to the European heartland, which consequently reshaped European societies demographically, culturally, and politically.[footnoteRef:9] Thus, decolonization led to significant global changes, resulting in the increase of migration, as well as the improvement of communication allowing for accelerated trade and capital production. [2: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 144. ] [3: ibid., 157. ] [4: White, “Decolonisation in the 1950s,” 102. ] [5: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 157. ] [6: ibid., 156. ] [7: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 159. ] [8: ibid., 156. ] [9: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 156. ]
New forms of transnational connection arose as a result of decolonization, posing a significant globalizing effect during the post-colonial era. Decolonization led to the creation of independent nation-states, former colonies that now took on much of the trappings of the nation-state as it emerged in Western Europe, and to some extent, Eastern Asia. The British enshrined an ideal of self-government among the white population in these nations, devising a model of a negotiated settlement, where colonial parliaments could develop their own laws and policies in order to keep white colonies tied to Britain. Notably, this method of decolonization was successful in settler colonies, as exhibited through the decentralization of British power from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia after World War One, however, was not extended to non-white settler colonies. In 1948, South Africa demonstrated its independence in internal affairs through the continuance of apartheid, shaping the post-independence years, but remained tied to Britain by its overseas trade, need for foreign investment, and membership of the Sterling Area.[footnoteRef:10] This resulted in the construction of stronger national identities, as the liberation of these territories politicized South Africa’s black population, rebalancing power in the nation. This, in turn, encouraged a sense of “national consciousness in peoples who have, for centuries, lived in dependence upon some other power...as the growth of national consciousness in Africa [became] a political fact.'[footnoteRef:11] However, in many of these communities, there was a lack of infrastructure and modern education to support this independence. Thus, the establishment of these nation-states had a large failure rate due to the lack of development required for complete autonomy. However, the issuing of the Atlantic Charter by the US and UK governments in August 1941, assisted in the establishment of self-governance and self-determination of colonies, lobbying for the promotion of democracy, and for territorial adjustments,[footnoteRef:12] improving transnational connections globally. The agreement led to many globalizing effects, as the decolonization of nations led to a reduction of trade restrictions, and global interconnection to improve economic and social links. Supporters of the Atlantic Charter signed ‘The United Nations Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’ in 1960, proclaiming that the continuation of colonialism will hinder the development of “international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against...ideals of universal peace.”[footnoteRef:13] This, therefore, resulted in the dismantling of the British Empire during the 1960s. By the end of the twentieth century, an almost “unnoticed decolonization”[footnoteRef:14] occurred, as South Africa became the dominant economic power, ultimately bolstering global transnational relations. [10: Hopkins, “Globalisation and Decolonisation,” 735.] [11: MacMillan, The Wind of Change Speech.] [12: The Atlantic Charter. ] [13: United Nations: Declaration of Granting Independence.] [14: Hopkins, “Globalisation and Decolonisation,” 735. ]
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The growth of international agencies and transnational groups dedicated to the protection of human rights and the promotion of self-determination, significantly exemplify the globalizing factors resulting from the process of decolonization. The principles of self-determination as espoused by President Wilson in his fourteen-point plan for world peace after World War One, detailed the necessity of a “free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims [and that they]...must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.”[footnoteRef:15] These Wilsonian principles were generally well-received in London and Paris, however, neither believed the extension of these ideals would be applied to the non-European world. As “anti-colonial insurgency”[footnoteRef:16] grew, and the League of Nations redefined the “right of petition,”[footnoteRef:17] international thinking embraced the notion of self-determination and individual human rights. This was evident through the peaceful transition of power which facilitated the decolonization of India with the nation being offered dominion status in 1929, by the British viceroy Lord Irwin. As Britain continued to be placed in a difficult negotiating position, formal Indian independence was recognized in 1947. This was necessary in order to fight off rising nationalism within the colony and 'recognize that the peoples of the world ardently desired the end of colonialism in all its manifestations.”[footnoteRef:18] Thus, this peaceful model of negotiated settlement resulted in the collapse of Empire, as globalization during the period of decolonization not only dismantled imperial systems but “assisted the replacement of the social and political hierarchy that had helped to sustain them.”[footnoteRef:19] This was possible as India had a coherent, literary, religious, and political system, allowing the nation to maintain a developmental trajectory, which was unattainable by many other nation-states. Other examples of international pressure occurred after World War Two, as Western nations became critical of the treatment of civilians in the Soviet bloc, exposing a “humanitarian double standard”[footnoteRef:20] when challenged about colonial issues. The West insisted these were domestic issues that had become less prominent, regarding international law and the pursuit of human rights globally.[footnoteRef:21] However, as the international system continued to develop a “global rights order”[footnoteRef:22] once local colonial issues fell under international scrutiny, as “these profound shifts knew no frontiers; they applied globally.”[footnoteRef:23] This moral order sanctioned imperial dominance and gave way to a new era of human rights. The UN Declaration of Independence attempted to acknowledge the 'subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights.”[footnoteRef:24] This, therefore, assisted in normalizing the view that self-determination should be promoted within Empires to enable individual nation-building and abolish “racially stratified empires.”[footnoteRef:25] Therefore, the right to self-determination assisted the global process of nation-building during the period of decolonization, as international agencies promoted universal concepts of minority and civil rights which, in turn, exacerbated new strains of anti-colonial nationalism.[footnoteRef:26] [15: Woodrow Wilson: Speech on the Fourteen Points. ] [16: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 144. ] [17: ibid., 150.] [18: United Nations: Declaration of Granting Independence.] [19: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 143. ] [20: ibid., 155.] [21: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 155.] [22: ibid., 155.] [23: Hopkins, “Globalisation and Decolonisation,” 729. ] [24: United Nations: Declaration of Granting Independence.] [25: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 156.] [26: ibid., 143.]
Post-1945 decolonization facilitated armed conflicts with new models for revolutionary warfare which spread across Empires and were instrumental in the increased globalized patterns of violence that developed and instituted change. During the period of post-colonial globalization, a significant global change occurred, eventuating in the dismantling of major Empires and the removal of territorial control. Financial and political institutions initiated by the decisions of government, economics, social change, and cultural representation transformed the way in which “colonialism is articulated, explained, and understood.”[footnoteRef:27] Decolonisation is often defined as “locally specific,” privileging the view that each country independently maintained national agency in the decision to end Empire within a nation.[footnoteRef:28] However, the prevalence of such conflict across each case of decolonization prompts questions relating to the perceived ‘uniqueness’ of this violence.[footnoteRef:29] Instead, a more holistic perspective of decolonization must be obtained, broadening the analysis of the end of formal Empire in Africa and Asia, to view decolonization as a “truly global movement that is shaping the present century.”[footnoteRef:30] As such, colonial conflicts should be viewed as interconnected, characterized by the “transmission of ideas and practices from one region to another.”[footnoteRef:31] [27: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 154. ] [28: ibid., 154. ] [29: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 154. ] [30: Hopkins, “Globalisation and Decolonisation,” 734. ] [31: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 154. ]
In assessing the globalizing impacts of decolonization post-1945, analysis of the violent model of French ‘La Mission Civilisatrice’ in ending the Empire, must be acknowledged to highlight the conflicts that arose and outlasted the formal decolonization process. The French did not devolve self-governance on their colonies, rather assumed a policy of assimilation, characterized by the integration of non-European subjects into the French Empire, exporting French religion, cultural norms, republican heritage, and language to its colonial possessions. The French colonial system was highly centralized, restricting the establishment of local government, and designed to hinder the development of Indigenous institutions, creating an atmosphere of violence that existed beyond the formal end of the Empire. Despite its status as a Republic, France ruled its colonies in an autocratic and undemocratic manner, as avenues of legitimate protest were limited, denying colonial subjects the right to defend their own independence. An example of French autocratic control over their colonies is exemplified through the violent transition of power as Vietnam fought for independence by developing a mass-based nationalist, anti-colonial movement leading to the defeat of French and Japanese forces. As in Vietnam, a combination of growing discontent from intellectuals who had studied overseas and had embraced new ideas of equality from oppression; French censorship of publications considered radical, economic discontent aggravated by the world depression; and the authoritarian nature of French rule, led to growing discontent which seemed to be motivated just as much by global, as well as local issues.[footnoteRef:32] The defeat of the French colonial efforts during the First Indochina War in May 1954, resulted in the division of Vietnam into a Communist-controlled North, and democratic South supported by US military aid within a Cold War context. Although the Vietnamese were successful in gaining independence from the French elites, this victory led to the outbreak of the Second Vietnamese War against America. Therefore, the continuation of violence beyond the formal end of the Empire existed due to significant globalizing mechanisms as violence and conflict perpetuated as a result of decolonization in the post-1945 period. [32: Betts, France and Decolonisation, 45.]
Decolonization after 1945 is characterized by a focus on the end of formal Empires, namely Britain, and France, in Africa and Asia, as countries in each continent obtained independence, beginning with India in 1947 and Africa in the 1970s, posing several globalizing effects on the world. Decolonization prompted greater migrational patterns, bolstered trade, and developed significant transnational connections, improving global interactions as well as changing conceptualizations of human rights and principles of self-determination. Decolonization created an atmosphere of increased globalized patterns of violence and conflict that outlasted the ‘formal’ end of Empires. Ultimately, the end of the Empire through processes of decolonization should be “framed globally, not nationally”[footnoteRef:33] as the development of independent nation-states created several significant globalizing changes. [33: Thomas and Thompson, “Empire and Globalisation,” 154. ]
Bibliography
- Betts, Raymond. France and Decolonisation. New York, United States: Macmillan International Higher Education, 1991.
- Hopkins, A.G. “Globalisation and Decolonisation.” The Journal of Commonwealth and Imperial History 45, no.5 (2017): 729-745. https://doi.org/10.1080/03086534.2017.1370218
- MacMillan, Harold. The Wind of Change Speech, 1960. https://web-archives.univ-pau.fr/english/TD2doc1.pdf
- The Atlantic Charter. 1941. The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy. Accessed October 25, 2019. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp
- Thomas, Martin, and Andrew Thompson. “Empire and Globalisation: From ‘High Imperialism’ to Decolonisation.” The International History Review 36, no.1 (2014): 142-170. http://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2013.828643
- United Nations: Declaration of Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, 1960. Fordham University: Internet History Sourcebooks. Accessed October 24, 2019. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1960-un-colonialism.asp
- White, Nicholas. “Decolonisation in the 1950s: The Version According to the British Business” In The British Empire in the 1950s: Retreat or Revival? 102-105. Basingstoke: Martin Lynn, 2006.
- Woodrow Wilson: Speech on the Fourteen Points, 1918. Fordham University: Internet History Sourcebooks. Accessed October 21, 2019. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1918wilson.asp
Stuck on your essay?
