World History Interactive Text Chapter Eighteen: Decolonization

The independence of Egypt in 1954 was, like the independence of India in 1947, another significant setback for the British Empire following World War Two. Although Egypt’s path to independence shared common feature’s with India’s, the reasons behind its colonization, and hence its significance to the British Empire, were quite different. The following points highlight the decolonization period and its heritage:

• 
  The failure of democracy in Egypt between 1923 and 1952, due in significant part to British manipulation of democratic processes and institutions for its own colonial purposes.
  
• 
  The creation of Islamic religious/charitable service groups that were also poitical and anti-colonialist, namely, the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan Muslimin). The Muslim Brotherhood is politically active today, and made the first attempt by a terrorist group to bring down the World Trade Center in 1993. Sayyid Qutb, ideological mentor of Usama bin Ladin, was a member of the Ikhwan.
  
• 
  Economic nationalism became an important aspect of the independence movement, led by Talaat Harb, founder of Bank Misr, and Ismail Sidqi, Prime Minister from 1930 to 1933.
  
• 
  Political frustrations led to the abolition of the crown and Revolution of 1952. A military committee called the Revolutionary Command Council was established in 1952, but by 1954 Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser formed a military dictatorship through one-party rule. His nationalization of the Suez Canal in 1956 let to the Suez War, from which ne emerged a victorious hero, the charismatic leader of the Arab World.
  

Three key developments combined to make Egypt a British colony by 1882: The Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in 1798, the conversion of agriculture to cash crops and to cotton in particular, and the digging of the Suez Canal (1859-1871). Given the deep control Britain eventually exercised over the economy of Egypt, Independence was not only a political issue, but an economic one as well. So long as Egypt was economically dependent upon Britain, could it ever become truly politically independent?

The Ottoman governors of Egypt, beginning with Muhammad Ali (r. 1805-1849) exercised increasing autonomy and defacto independence from Istanbul. Muhammad Ali began the reforms that established modern Egypt, including agricultural reforms which established cash-crop agriculture through the cultivation of indigo, sugar, and cotton for export. Egypt became a needed economic partner with Britain when the American Civil War disrupted the supply of cotton to British textile mills, and Egyptian agriculture became increasingly cotton-based, although the “partnership” was never equal. The heirs of Muhammad Ali used income from agricultural export to purchase increased autonomy from Istanbul, and establish their own lavish lifestyle.

Agricultural income tapered off, however, following the end of the American Civil War in 1865, and the governors of Egypt, particularly Khedive Ismail (r. 1863-79) were compensated by going into increasing debt to private European lenders. A sizeable portion of this debt was associated with the extravagant festivities surrounding the opening of the Suez Canal (1871-1875). By 1875 Egypt was on the verge of bankruptcy. Europeans powers, led principally by Britain and France, took control of the Egyptian budget in order to protect the interests of their nationals who were the major creditors of the Khedive, forming the Anglo-French Dual Financial Control designed to liquidate Egypt’s debt. By 1880, both France and Britain, who had no firm pre-existing intention to colonize Egypt, were now engaged in running the national budget, and eventually tied their national economic interests ever more closely with Egypt.

Colonization. In 1882, Britain took formal control of Egypt following a failed revolt by Colonel Ahmed Urabi. Like the Sepoy Mutiny in India, Egyptian nationalists view the Urabi Revolt as a first attempt at independence, not only from European Powers, but also from the Ottoman Empire itself. From 1882 to 1914 Egypt was technically part of the Ottoman Empire, but became a British colony in fact. When the Ottoman Empire sided with the Central Powers in World War One (1914), Britain severed what remained of Egypt’s ties to Istanbul, and declared the country a “Protectorate,” proclaiming the Ottoman Governor, Husayn Kamil (r. 1914-1917) “Sultan of Egypt.” At the end of the war Britain formalized the Protectorate under Fuad I (r. 1917-1936).

Pseudo-independence and the Wafd. When World War One ended, the way was theoretically opened to seek full independence at the Versailles Conference, based upon President Woodrow Wilson’s support of self-determination for the peoples of the former Ottoman Empire. A group of educated Egyptian nationalists, led by Sa’ad Zaghlul (d. 1927) formed a delegation (Arabic, wafd) to attend the Versailles Conference and seek for complete Egyptian independence from Britain. Britain opposed the wafd, and exiled Zaghlul and others to Malta. Widespread popular support for the wafd, including a general strike in Egypt, forced the British to release the wafd leadership and allow them to proceed to Versailles. By the time Zaghlul and the delegation arrived in Versailles, it was too late to participate meaningfully. Although a failure in the larger sense of gaining immediate independence at Versailles, the experience coalesced the leadership of the nationalist independence movement and demonstrated the extent of its popular support.

In 1922, under wafd pressure, Britain unilaterally granted Egypt pseudo-independence by means of a treaty, but reserved the right to conduct Egyptian military defense and exercise legal control over foreigners residing or doing business in Egypt. The 1922 treaty, with its “Four reserved Points,” also made Fuad I the King of an “independent” Egypt. In 1923, Britain followed-up on the 1922 treaty by (again, unilaterally) granting Egypt a constitution. The new constitution, although imposed by Great Britain and falling far short of independence, gave the wafd room for political maneuvering. The wafd therefore decided to participate in the new government hoping to eventually negotiate a complete independence in the near future., even though neither the treaty nor the Constitution were the product of negotiation or constitutional conventions, Easily the most popular political party in Egypt in the 1920s and 1930s, the wafd, won a series of elections but was kept from exercising full governmental power due to political manipulation by the British colonial government and the Egyptian King.

The inability of the wafd to secure independence and the political maneuverings of British administration prompted the establishment of other political forces, in addition to the political and economic nationalists. In 1928, Hasan al-Banna (1906-1949) established the Ikhwan Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood), one of the oldest and most enduring major Islamic political organizations in the world. Beginning with a dozen small branches, the Ikhwan spread its message of Islamic piety combined with charitable works, gaining popularity among impoverished Egyptians increasingly disappointed in parliamentary politics, and caught in the effects of global depression. Banna was particularly successful at networking with existing Islamic institutions such as charitable foundations, mosques, schools, and clinics, establishing a grass-roots political and religious organization that increasingly participated in attempts to force the British out of Egypt.

In 1935 the Constitution of 1923 was restored. The power of the wafd thereafter reached its apogee in 1936 with the adoption of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, negotiated in Montreaux, Switzerland. Although the 1936 treaty was, unlike the 1922 treaty, the result of negotiation between the wafd and Britain, it too fell short of full independence in that Britain still stationed a military force in Egypt and exercised control over the Suez Canal, Egypt’s most important national economic and strategic asset.

The Free Officers. Egypt became not only an allied camp during World War II, but was a battlefield as well: Hitler’s Afrika Korps was defeated at El Alamein in 1942, located about 150 miles northwest of Cairo. Determined to keep Egypt under control during the war, Britain forced the appointment of a wafd government in 1942 by surrounding the Abdeen Palace and compelling King Farouk to create a government under wafd control. This maneuver largely discredited the wafd as an independent democratic party, led to their political demise, and opened a political leadership vacuum in Egypt. King Farouk, who lived a playboy’s lifestyle that offended Egyptian Muslims and who was largely viewed as a British pawn, offered no popularly based post-war leadership for his country. From 1945 to 1948, Egypt drifted along without leadership or a sense of national purpose, under continued British control.

Events of the late 1940s and early 1950s prompted members of the Egyptian army to fill the leadership vacuum. For example, in May of 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel predictably provoked a regional war, the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, known by Israelis as the War of Independence. Israel fought against Egypt, joined by Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The Egyptian army, under the command of British and Egyptian officers, was defeated, and its most noteworthy effort was a successful retreat led by General Muhammad Naguib. Naguib and several other officers blamed the British and the King for sending them into battle without proper training, support, or munitions. A group of Egyptian officers, mostly of middle rank, organized a clandestine movement, called the Free Officers, in the aftermath of the 1948 loss. Dedicated to Egyptian independence, the group included future leaders of Egypt such as Lieutenant Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser and Lieutenant Colonel Anwar al-Sadat. The group recruited General Naguib as a figurehead leader, although he never exercised actual control over the group.

Between 1951 and 1951, a series of guerilla attacks by Egyptian police and soldiers were carried out against British troops, including those stationed in the Suez Canal Zone. On 25 January 1952, the British retaliated by attacking the Egyptian police stationed in barracks at Alexandria. Fifty were killed and over 100 were wounded. The next day (called Black Saturday), riots broke out in Cairo and parts of the city were set afire. Motivated by intense national feelings, the rioters targeted foreign properties such as the Shepheard’s Hotel and the British Tea Club, leaving the impression that the riot was less the product of mob retaliation than it was orchestrated by nationalist leaders. It is not clear whether there was any leadership behind the Black Saturday riots, but the inability of the King to control his own forces was quite apparent, and the Free Officers felt the time had come to make their move.

On 23 July 1952, they took control of the national radio broadcast system in Cairo, and issued an announcement through General Naguib:
I take this opportunity to request that the people never permit any traitors to take refuge in deeds of destruction or violence because these are not in the interest of Egypt. Should anyone behave in such ways, he will be dealt with forcefully in a manner such as has not been seen before and his deeds will meet immediately the reward for treason. The army will take charge with the assistance of the police. I assure our foreign brothers that their interests, their personal safety and their property are safe, and that the army considers itself responsible for them. May God grant us success.
Within days, the Free Officers ordered Farouk to abdicate the throne, and sent him into exile. The Free Officers governed Egypt through the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), and a civilian government headed initially by Ali Maher Pasha (whom the RCC appointed).

In 1953, the RCC banned all political parties, enforcing the ban through arrests. In 1954, General Naguib was removed by the RCC and placed under house arrest (where he remained until his death 18 years later). Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser assumed control of the RCC, and was elected the second president of the Republic of Egypt. In that same year, Nasser negotiated a withdrawal of British forces from Egypt (although a small civilian security and management force remained in the Suez Canal Zone to protect British and foreign interests in the Suez Canal Company). Egypt was politically independent, but not economically.

Following the U.S. announcement, Nasser made one of his characteristically bold political moves: he nationalized the Suez Canal Company on 26 July 1956. Nasser froze the assets of the company, and promised to pay shareholders the full value of their stock as of the closure of the stock market that same day. The nationalization had a dual effect: Nasser not only received necessary revenues from the canal to finance the development of Egypt and gain a significant measure of economic independence, but he became the unchallenged leader of the Arab world.

The British and French governments, primary shareholders in the Suez Canal Company, sought swift retaliation. Together with Israel, they planned a military strike that would remove Nasser. The plan was that Israel move first across the Sinai Peninsula. Britain and France would then intervene with air support and paratroopers. From a military perspective, the campaign was a success. Politically, it proved to be a disaster. Egyptian forces fell back, and Cairo itself came under attack. However, given other ongoing crises in Hungary and elsewhere, the United States concluded that the forcible removal of Nasser might destabilize the Middle East further. President Dwight D. Eisenhower put economic and political pressure on Great Britain to end the conflict. Without prior warning to its allies, Britain announced a ceasefire on 6 November 1956. By 1957, all forces, including Israeli Defense Forces withdrew. Nasser’s popularity soared. His bold nationalization initiative worked, and he survived the threat of combined military action by Egypt’s former colonial overlord. It mattered little that he was saved by U.S. intervention in the minds of his supporters: survival was survival. Egypt could now claim political and economic independence.
Case Study: Belgian Congo

The Scramble for Africa. The case of Belgian Congo illustrates a darker side of both colonization and decolonization. The following points highlight the decolonization period and its heritage:

• 
  The establishment of a private empire for King Leopold II of Belguim, called the Congo Free State, known for its atrocities and brutality to natives.
  
• 
  The sudden grant of independence in 1960 to an unprepared Congo that was deeply divided among its nationalists, leading to the Congo Crisis of 1960-1966.
  
• 
  The use of UN troops to repress rebellion, and the emergence of Joseph Mobutu, who ruled a “totalitarian kleptocracy” in the Congo (called Zaire for much of this time) for another 31 years, with significant US support within the global political climate of the Cold War.
  
• 
  Continued violence in the Congo Basin in the 1990s and beyond, including the Rwandan genocides, and the Second Congo War.
  

The Congo was partitioned by a concert of European powers call the Congress of Berlin (1884-85), as part of the “scramble for Africa.” Prior to the Congress, European colonial powers had operated mainly on the coastline of Africa. Details regarding the interior of Africa remained a mystery to Europeans until the explorations of Englishman David Livingstone (1813-1873), Portuguese explorer Serpa Pinto, and others in the mid-nineteenth century which proved the potential for expansion of colonial control into “dark” Africa as it was called.

The technological advancements of the industrial age, medical treatments for some tropical diseases (such as quinine as a treatment for malaria) made it possible to capitalize on these explorations, and begin the extraction of central Africa’s natural treasures (rubber, copper, diamonds, etc.). The ensuing contest for control of Africa threatened to bring European powers into direct military conflict. At the Congress of Berlin, the partition of the Congo River basin was in large measure finalized. According to the arrangements made at Berlin, France would take possession of the northern region, some 250,000-plus square miles of territory now called the Central Africa Republic. To the south, Portugal received over 350,000 square miles now called Angola. The core territories of the Congo basin went, however, to Belgium, and in particular, to the Belgian King, Leopold II.

Colonization until 1945. Leopold had his eye on the Congo basin for some time. In 1876 he organized the International Africa Association (IAA), a body of philanthropist and scientists, conceived as a humanitarian effort, with the goal of “discovering” the region and of “educating” indigenous peoples. The IAA instead became a front organization for various exploratory missions with the intent to establish a national claim to the territories explored. In 1877, Leopold sent Henry Morton Stanley to explore the region of the Congo. This expedition resulted in several agreements with native leaders and the establishment of military posts that combined to strengthen Leopold’s claims in Berlin. In the course of the Berlin Conference, Leopold became the sole shareholder and chairman of the corporate Congo Free State, which the United States recognized on 22 April 1884, followed by a number of other sovereign nations including Spain, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Portugal, illustrating agreement among world powers and relative success at avoiding war through the partition of Africa. The IAA was disbanded thereafter, it no longer being necessary to Leopold’s designed for the region.

Leopold immediately faced the problem of extracting profits. An early solution was to offer concessions to Europeans for the extraction of rubber, ivory, and other materials, within a “free trade” zone. However, nearly 100,000 square miles of the colony was outside the free trade zone, and was domaine de a couronne (Domain of the Crown), the profits from which went directly to Leopold. Leopold created an armed force to assist in the efficient extraction of maximum profits from the Domain of the Crown, called the Force Publique (FP, Public Force) which consisted of white (i.e., European) officers, and soldiers drawn from a variety of African ethnic groups. By the turn of the century, reports by missionaries and others in the region included tales of systematic atrocity committed by the FP. Reports, some of them substantiated by photographs, told of the taking of native wives hostage in order to assure labor from their husbands, rape, floggings, and the burning of villages. Reports also circulated that human hands were taken as trophies, purportedly as proof that FP soldiers were not wasting ammunition: one hand per bullet shot was the required proof. The humanitarian disaster in the Congo Free State, already on the minds of informed Europeans by 1900, was given literary detail in Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness, published in 1902.

The worldwide rubber boom of the 1890s peaked in the early 1900s, and Leopold went into debt to compensate for falling prices. The combination of debt and the scrutiny of the activities of the FP. In 1903, Britain’s House of Commons commissioned an inquiry into violations of the Berlin agreement, supported shortly thereafter by the United States and other European powers. In 1905, the Belgian government conducted its own investigation, agreeing with a report of FP atrocities compiled by Englishman Roger Casement the year before. Although Leopold made promises of reform, the government of Belgium annexed the Congo Free State on 15 November 1908, ending Leopold’s rule.

Humanitarian conditions in the Belgian Congo (as the colony was now called) may be said to have improved since Leopold’s rule. In November 1908 a law was promulgated that prohibited forced labor for private enterprises (but forced labor continued in practice even after World War Two). Some claim that this law was effective, in that cotton and palm oil production increased in the following decade and a half. Christian denominations, most Roman Catholic but some protestant, established schools for Congolese children, focusing on vocational training and religious education. The children were taught to read, write, and perform basic mathematical calculations, as well. The Belgian’s enforced a system of segregation, sometimes called a “moderate apartheid,” that included curfews. However, there were no formal segregation laws as such, as then existed in the United States, South Africa, and elsewhere.

Within the framework of Belgian ambivalence, a divided nationalism emerged. One group of nationalists, championed by the organization ABAKO and its leader Joseph Kasavabu (who later became President), argue for the creation of several new independent states, largely organized along ethnic lines, reflecting the varied tribal composition of Congolese society. In 1956, another group of nationalists formed the Mouvement National Congolais (MNC, Congolese National Movement), led by Patrice Lumumba, who later served as Prime Minister (with Kasavubu as President).

An independent Congo was created in 1960 (renamed the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1966), with about five month’s advance notice from Belgium. Although the new republic was a unified state envisioned largely along MNC lines, it was not prepared for independence. The manner of its independence and the violence it sparked within the country indicate that deep tribal-ethnic tensions still existed, that leaders were willing to resort to strong-arm tactics characteristic of rule under the Belgians, and the future of a unified Congo was in doubt. Among other problems, there was a mutiny of Congolese soldiers against their white commanders, and the secession of the province of Katanga. These developments had international implications as the country produced nearly three-quarters of the world’s uranium, and four-fifths of the world’s industrial diamonds.

The Congo Crisis (1960-1965). As the crisis deepened, Lumumba requested UN assistance. In 1960, the UN sent 10,000 troops under the direction of the Secretary-General with a four-fold mission: restore political stability, establish and maintain public order, stop foreign powers from taking advantage of the crisis, and build the economy. However, things did not go as planned. Lumumba demanded that the UN troops be sent to crush the rebellion in Katanga, which Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold refused to do. Lumumba accused the UN of siding with the rebels, and of falling under the influence of foreign companies mining the region. Lumumba requested assistance from the USSR to counter the UN presence, and received military aid, which he used against the rebels.

Conflict between the Prime Minster (the former leader of the MNC) and the President (the former leader of ABAKO), resulted in Lumumba’s dismissal from office by Kasavubu on 5 September 1960. In the nest few months, four different groups claimed to rule the republic, what one scholar termed the “government of opportunists.” In 1961, Hammarskjold traveled to the capital of Kinshasa (formerly Leopoldville) in an effort to restore order through international influence, but his plane crashed just outside the capital and Hammarskjold died. The new Secretary-General, U Thant, took his place in negotiations, which lasted for over a year and produce little change.

Mobutu ruled the Congo, which he re-named Zaire, for the next 31-plus years. Two things may be said about Mobutu’s regime: he kept control over the country and he was anti-communist. His rule has been described as “totalitarian kleptocracy,” maintained arguably with support from the West. By the time rebels overthrew Mobutu 1997 in the First Congo War, he had accumulated a private fortune estimated in excess of 5 billion, with a legacy of human rights violations, and amidst claims that he was behind global “advance-fee” fraud scams in the 1990s.

In 1998, just a few years after the Rwandan genocide of 1994 in which more than half a million Rwandans died in ethnic warfare between Tutsi and Hutu tribe members, the Congo and the region of central Africa descended into war, called the Second Congo War, or Africa’s World War. By the time the war ended, eight different nations were involved, and over twenty military organizations. It created millions of refugees, and left famine and epidemic disease in its wake. In 2004, the CBC estimated that 1,000 persons died each day in easily preventable cases of malnutrition and disease. It would appear that the problems of the Congo and central Africa are far from over.
Post-colonial Studies

The subject of decolonization is broad and complex, as has been shown. It involved, and some would say still involves, several dozen former-colonial countries, billions of people, and several continents, all spread over a period of decades. Consequently, scholarship on the subject is diverse, and the conclusions of scholars are sometimes very hotly debated. One group of scholars focuses upon sources, events, and trends from the perspective of the colonizers (called Metropolitans). Other academics focus on the sources, movements, trends, and peoples in the colony. Many, but not all, of the scholars in this latter group come from colonial societies themselves. One such group conducts Subaltern Studies (referring to subalterns, or “persons of lower rank,” those peoples neglected or under-represented in Metropolitan studies). Additionally, another group emerged called Postcolonialists, which included the late Edward Said, a former literature professor at Columbia University. Said wrote a book in 1978 called Orientalism, which condemned the historical methods of Metropolitans, or “Orientalists” as he called them. The influential work of Said and others led to the establishment of the field of post-colonial studies in the 1970s and 1980s. Postcolonials argue that the academic emphasis of the Metropolitans upon the home country and its civilization not only ignored colonial peoples and distorted our understanding of the conduct of colonialism and its lasting effects, but also that it was a form of colonial self-justification, allowing colonial powers to rationalize the subjugation of other peoples. The academic debate over the long-term effects of decolonization is sure to continue.

The effects of decolonization are diverse. The process resulted in the establishment of hundreds of new nation-states, such as India. Some of them adopted western forms of constitutional rule, others became communist and rejected western modes of governance, such as Cuba. Some political leaders followed the example of Ganhi and sought independence through satyagraha and passive resistance, while others looked to revolutionaries like Che Guevara for role models. Economic results are mixed, with some former colonies such as Singapore achieving high living standards ($51,600 per capita GDP in 2008 according to the CIA World Factbook), while others such as Liberia endure intense poverty ($500 per capita GDP in 2008 according to the CIA World Factbook). Finally, informal economic colonization arguably continues to exist, for example, US involvement in Guatemala and other “Banana Republics.” On the one hand, given the number of nations gaining independence post-World War II, decolonization may be considered at an end. On the other hand, in a climate of globalization and economic hegemony, it may be argued that colonization continues, and a future period of decolonization, perhaps even more violent than the first, awaits.