Page 149 - Berkshire Encyclopedia Of World History Vol Two

498 berkshire encyclopedia of world history

between the communist and noncommunist worlds still 1882 until 1956; Iran from the late nineteenth to the mid-
seemed the most important issue in world politics, and twentieth century; and the “mandate” countries of Syria
the great fissure of 1917 the real beginning of modern and Iraq until after 1945. It might include parts of South
history, this was perhaps inevitable. Even so, it was America between the 1880s and the 1940s, or even later.
always a curiously Atlantic-centered view of the world. It It ought to include those parts of the former Soviet
disregarded the fact that for most of the world’s peoples, empire that were complacently regarded by the outside
the most important political fact after 1945 was the dis- world as willing members of the Soviet Union. In other
mantling of the apparatus of colonial rule or semicolonial words, a legalistic definition of decolonization drastically
domination that had extended over so much of the reduces the scale of the phenomenon, and ignores the
world, and its replacement by around 150 independent reality of foreign control in many countries where its over-
states. There was always a powerful case for saying that throw after 1945 (or since 1989) has been the most pow-
the “headline story” of world history between 1945 and erful influence on their international attitudes. Second,
1990 was decolonization. decolonization as the gaining of sovereignty is an unhelp-
ful guide to the substance of freedom and independence.
Toward a Definition Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa all
Part of the difficulty, of course, was definition. Like “impe- received full sovereignty by the Statute ofWestminster in
rialism,” “decolonization” is a slippery, elusive term that 1931. Each became free to pass its own laws, change its
historians and others frequently use without defining the constitution, and conduct its foreign policy. But all
meaning that they want to attach to it. But to think about remained part of the British empire and freely accepted
decolonization, its significance, and its causes is neces- the British Crown as head of state. When were they
sarily to ponder its meaning.We can hardly explain it, or decolonized? Indeed, Australia and New Zealand
decide when it began, without being sure what it is.Typ- became more dependent upon Britain for defense than
ically it has been used in a narrow and restrictive way to they had been before 1931. Similarly, Egypt was declared
mean the moment at which sovereign independence is independent after the wartime British protectorate was
granted to a former colonial territory. On occasions, this given up in 1922. But no realistic observer would have
has been extended to include the process, or series of doubted that the wishes of the British ambassador were
events, by which independence is reached. In other a cardinal factor in Egyptian politics.
words, the term has usually been confined to those coun- Decolonization is more usefully thought of as the
tries that were formally subordinated to an imperial demolition, slow and gradual in some places, more rapid
power (by annexation, settlement, conquest, or protec- in others, long-delayed in some, of a global regime that
torate status), and to the political and legal stages had existed in several dimensions since the 1880s, and
whereby they gained sovereignty. Defined in this way, it which had largely disintegrated by 1960.The most obvi-
is easy to see why decolonization has often seemed no ous aspect of this regime was the partition of large parts
more than a brief and predictable epilogue to the age of of the world into the imperial possessions of the Euro-
imperialism. pean powers (including Russia) and their junior partners,
There are two reasons why this conventional definition the United States and Japan. Second, these powers also
is of little use if we want to grasp the real nature of the claimed rights of “informal empire,” through extraterri-
change that took place. First, it takes no account of those toriality and “unequal treaties” in theoretically independ-
countries where foreign domination in less formal (and ent states (nineteenth-century China is the best example).
less obvious) guise was the dominant fact in their exter- Third, they asserted a legal “norm” that conferred the
nal relations.The list is a long one: it would include China right to intervene in states whose “standard of civilization”
for much of the period from 1842 until 1949; Egypt from fell below their own—a right usually exercised on behalf