British Decolonization

  • Carl Watts
    Uploaded by
© Carl P. Watts (2010) Carl P. Watts ‘British Decolonization’, in Fred Nadis and Jack Waskey (eds), World History Encyclopedia Era 9: Promises and Paradoxes 1945-Present (ABC-CLIO, 2010). Introduction The British Empire reached its greatest extent after the First World War, by which time it covered one quarter of the earth’s surface and governed a similar proportion of the world’s population. Yet between 1947 and 1964, Britain granted independence to most of its colonies. Unlike other empires in history – such as the Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman, or Habsburg – the collapse of the British Empire was remarkably rapid. This article outlines the chronology of British decolonization and highlights the historical debate over its causes. It should be noted that historians disagree on the relative importance of the metropolitan (domestic British), colonial (nationalist), and international causes of British decolonization. When did decolonization take place? British decolonization is usually associated with the period after 1945 but the 1931 Statute of Westminster had already granted independence to the white Dominions of Australia, Canada, Eire (Irish Free State), Newfoundland, New Zealand, and South Africa. After the Second World War, Clement Attlee’s Labour Government gave independence to India, Pakistan, Burma, and Ceylon, terminated Britain’s Mandate in Palestine, and prepared for the end of British rule in the West African colonies of the Gold Coast (Ghana) and Nigeria. The Conservative Governments of Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden were less enthusiastic about liquidating the British Empire. Between 1951 and 1957, Britain created (unsuccessful) federations of British colonial territories in Central Africa and the West Indies, but also granted independence to Sudan, Ghana, and Malaya. Eden’s successor, Harold Macmillan, recognized that Britain needed to accelerate the pace of colonial withdrawal, so between 1957 and 1963 nine African colonies and the Mediterranean island of Cyprus acquired their independence. In 1964 Labour returned to power under the leadership of Harold Wilson and the process of African decolonization continued. However, Wilson ran into a serious problem in 1965 when the white settler minority of Southern Rhodesia unilaterally and illegally declared itself independent. Wilson also announced in 1967 that Britain could no longer maintain its position ‘East of Suez’ and began the process of withdrawal from Aden and the Gulf States. In the 1970s, the process of British decolonization came to an end. Britain withdrew from its bases in Singapore, divested itself of its smaller colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific, and in 1980 it was finally able to grant independence to Rhodesia (Zimbabwe). The Falklands War of 1982 reminded Britain that it still had responsibilities to very small numbers of colonial subjects in far-flung outposts, but despite some rhetoric about the British imperial spirit it was clear that the War was an aberration. In 1997, Britain handed back Hong Kong to China and there is now little left of the British Empire apart from a few small territories such as the Falkland Islands, the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar. Most former colonies have, however, become members of the Commonwealth, which remains a significant international organization. © Carl P. Watts (2010) What caused British decolonization? Economic pressures seem to be relevant because several instances of colonial withdrawal – in 1931, 1947, 1957 and 1967 – coincided with economic crises. On the other hand, the development of Dominion status, and decisions on Indian and African independence had antecedents that went back much further than the difficult economic circumstances that attended those episodes of decolonization. Economics were really only relevant to the decision to withdraw from ‘East of Suez’. By this time Britain could not afford to discharge its global military roles because the British economy was relatively weak and the cost of military hardware was increasing exponentially. It is also worth noting that by the 1960s most British exports were going to Europe rather than the Commonwealth and it was during this period that Britain accelerated decolonization in Africa and applied to join the European Economic Community. However, the changing pattern of British trade tended to confirm rather than cause British decisions on decolonization. British electoral politics and party ideologies were not very significant because imperial issues were largely absent from general elections. Decolonization tended to cause more debate within political parties than between them. This was particularly true for the Conservative Party, which oversaw much of Britain’s colonial withdrawal during the period 1951-64 despite the fact that many Conservatives were opposed to decolonization. A more significant political factor to consider is the ‘official mind’ of British policy-makers. It is no longer fashionable to suggest that they simply recognized the time was ripe to grant independence to the colonial peoples whom the British had carefully groomed to govern themselves. It has been suggested that Britain’s ruling elite lost its will to govern the colonies, but policy-makers searched constantly to maintain Britain’s global power and the desire to preserve British influence also remained even when formal power was relinquished. Historians such as Gallagher, Robinson, and Louis have argued that as Britain withdrew from its Empire it cultivated good relations with colonial elites and reverted to the nineteenth-century technique of informal imperialism. On the other hand, Cain and Hopkins have demonstrated that the City of London turned increasingly away from the Empire-Commonwealth and the sterling area, which undermined the strategy of informal imperialism. There is therefore some dispute about metropolitan explanations of British decolonization. Although British policy-makers sought to maintain Britain’s global influence, this was becoming increasingly difficult as a result of international developments. During the interwar period the League of Nations Mandate system introduced the idea of accountability into colonial administration, suggesting that imperial powers had a responsibility to develop territories for the benefit of the colonial population. The Second World War gave great hope to colonial nationalist movements. The Atlantic Charter of August 1941 suggested inter alia that territorial adjustments after the War must accord with the wishes of the people in those territories, which colonial peoples thought applied to them as well as the population of occupied territories in Europe. In 1941-42, Japanese military success against the British and other European empires in the Far East shattered the image of white racial superiority that underpinned imperialism. After the War, the United Nations provided a critical forum for anti-colonial pressure. Chapter XI of the UN Charter established the principles that guided UN decolonization efforts, whilst Chapters XII and XIII established the International Trusteeship System and Trusteeship Council that succeeded the League of Nations Mandate System. The 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, and the General Assembly Special Committee © Carl P. Watts (2010) on Decolonization established two years later, were a source of great pressure on Britain, especially in relation to difficult racial issues such as the Central African Federation and Southern Rhodesia. The Commonwealth was another forum through which former British colonies could exert pressure on British imperial policy and this consideration was never far from the minds of British policy-makers, especially after the African members compelled South Africa to withdraw from the Commonwealth in 1961. Britain also had to contend with contradictory impulses from the United States in the context of the Cold War. On the one hand the United States was ideologically opposed to imperialism and put pressure on Britain to quit its colonies so that the United Sates could gain access to new markets and resources. After 1960 it also seemed desirable to force the pace of decolonization in Africa to prevent Communism from becoming more attractive to nationalist movements seeking international support. On the other hand the United States also urged Britain to intervene militarily or slow the pace of decolonization where it looked as if an independent territory would turn Communist, such as in Zanzibar and British Guiana during the 1960s. Changes in the international environment were sometimes critical for establishing the conditions in which decolonization could take place. For example, the collapse of the Portuguese Empire in Africa in 1974-75 exposed the flank of the white supremacist regime in Rhodesia to infiltration by nationalist guerilla forces from Angola and Mozambique. This generated sufficient pressure to set in motion the process by which Rhodesia became legally independent as the state of Zimbabwe in 1980. Historians disagree most strongly on the significance of colonial nationalism as a factor in British decolonization. It is unclear whether nationalist groups such as Sinn Fein in Ireland, the All India Muslim League and Indian National Congress, or the National Organization of Cypriot Fighters caused Britain to withdraw from its colonies or merely accelerated a process to which the British were already committed. What is certainly true is that colonial nationalism often shaped the post-imperial state as much as British constitutionalism. For example, the Attlee Government wanted to leave behind a unitary state when it quit India, but the strength of Muslim nationalism meant the creation of an independent Pakistan. The Central African Federation, established in 1953, was supposed to create a middle ground between the demands of African nationalists for independence on the basis of majority rule and the refusal of the white minority to countenance this, but in the period 1959-63 the Federation caved in under the weight of its own contradictions. Similarly, the Federation of South Arabia, which was established in 1963 and lasted only four years, failed because Aden Colony was not politically compatible with the Arab Emirates of the South to which it was joined. The significance of colonial nationalism must therefore be considered seriously in any account of British decolonization. Further Reading Brown, Judith M. and Wm. Roger Louis (eds), The Oxford History of the British Empire Vol. IV: The Twentieth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Cain, Peter J. and Anthony G. Hopkins. British Imperialism: Crisis and Deconstruction 19141990. London: Longman, 1993. Darwin, John. Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1988. © Carl P. Watts (2010) Gallagher, John. The decline, revival and fall of the British Empire: the Ford Lectures and other essays. Ed. Anil Seal, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Hyam, Ronald. Britain’s Declining Empire: The Road to Decolonisation, 1918-1968. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. McIntyre, William D. British Decolonization, 1946-1997: When, Why and How did the British Empire Fall? Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998.

British Decolonization

Carl Watts
Uploaded by
Carl Watts