Colonialism Author(s): Rupert Emerson Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 1, Colonialism and Decolonization (Jan.

, 1969), pp. 3-16 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/259788 Accessed: 27/12/2009 05:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Contemporary History.

http://www.jstor.org

Colonialism

Rupert Emerson
It is difficultto decide which is to be accountedthe more extraordinaryevent: western Europe's achievementof imperial predominanceover so much of the worldin the last few centuries,or the recentspectacular demiseof virtuallythe entirecolonialsystem as one of the major manifestationsof the decline of that predominance.My inclinationis to press the claim of the overthrow Here was a systemof world-wide and abandonment colonialism. of dimensionswhichonly a few yearsearlierstill had a look of solidity

affairsof very large segments of mankindfor centuriesin some instances,for decadesin many others. Is there any other occasion a on which so globaland commanding schemeof things was swept awayin so brief a time ? That westerncolonialism- in brief, as a workingdefinition,the impositionof whiterule on alienpeoplesinhabitinglandsseparated by salt water from the imperialcentre - should have come to so in sudden an end is all the more extraordinary that at least one of the principal circumstancesinvolved in its coming into being remainedto some degreeintact. It is an obvious conditionof the establishmentand maintenanceof colonialrule that there should be a significantdisparityin powerbetween those who govern and those on whom alien rule is imposed, and this disparitywas increasingly multiplied as Europe moved from the Renaissance through the Enlightenmentinto the IndustrialRevolution. The sudden downfallof colonialismshould indicate a strikingchange in the power relationships.Such a changethere has undoubtedly been in variousrespects, and yet it is notoriousthat the gap between the advancedand the backward(if a euphemisticallydiscarded term may be employed) has continued to widen rather than to contract. In science and technology, productivity and material well-being, transportand communications,armaments, and political and social organization,the advancedpeoples have 3

and permanence to it and which had ordered - or disrupted - the

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

been moving ahead more rapidlythan the developinghave been catchingup with them. The disparityin powerhas in some senses with it. One grown,but it no longercarriesimperialpredominance signal and peculiarfact, to be addedto the appallinglosses of two world warson one side and the rise of nationalism the other, is on that the possessionof increasinglysophisticatedweaponssystems has by no means assured easy military superiorityto those who havethem, as witnessMalaya,Kenya,Algeria,andfirstthe French and then the Americansin Vietnam. But at least as importantas any other element is the sapping of the will to empire and the change in the climate of domestic as well as world opinion from acceptanceto rejectionof colonialism,in which the rise of communism as a world force can be accordedas large a role as the observermay be inclined to allot it. The repudiation of colonialism has been both swift and allembracing,even though it has not yet caughtup with the Portuguese, thus incidentallyraisingthe question whetherreadinessto suppress ruthlessly can in appropriatecircumstanceshold back for some indefinite period what otherwise seems the irresistible forwardsweep of nationalism. In the past, if colonialismwas not praisedor at leastindifferently acceptedas a fact of nature,the attackwas not ordinarilydirected abusesor practices. againstit as an institutionbut againstparticular Now the entire range of colonialismis condemnedout of hand. Although many warningsignals had foretold what was to come, the most ardentenemies of colonialismopened fire with all their batteriesfor the first time in their first international gatheringon their own, the Bandung Conference of 29 Asian and African countriesin I955. Here it was flatlylaid down that 'colonialismin is all its manifestations an evil which should speedily be brought to an end', and that the subjectionof peoples to alien rule and exploitationis a denial of fundamentalhuman rights, contraryto the UN Charter,and an impedimentto world peace. Five years later these central tenets of the anti-colonialcreed were spelled out in furtherdetail in the UN GeneralAssemblyDeclarationon to the Grantingof Independence ColonialCountriesand Peoples,1 had which summedup what the anti-colonialists been workingtowardsfrom the beginningand chartedthe courseto be followedin
1 Resolution I514 (XV).

COLONIALISM

the future. Reiteratingsome of the key phrases of the Bandung this Declarationwent far beyond Bandungin final communiqud, that it was unanimouslyadopted by the GeneralAssembly, even though the United States, GreatBritain,France,and six otherillassortedcountriesabstained.Solemnlyproclaiming'the necessity of bringingto a speedy and unconditional colonialismin all its end forms and manifestations',the Declarationproceeded to affirm the central positive propositionthat 'All peoples have the right to self-determination',a phrase taken over intact in the first article of each of the two Covenantson Human Rights, unanimously adopted by the Assembly in I966. A resolutionof 1965 went a step further than the Declarationin assertingin its preamble that the continuationof colonial rule and the practice of apartheidnot only threateninternational peace and security, but also 'constitutea crime againsthumanity'. In similarvein the Charterof the Organization AfricanUnity of proclaims it as one of its purposes to eradicate all forms of colonialismfrom Africa,and maintains'the inalienable right of all people to control their own destiny'. In other times and places colonialismhas been pilloriedas permanent to aggression be rightfully attackedby all comers,and the communistpowers,however much they may differamongthemselves,give theirsupportto wars of liberationon the groundthat they are just wars. It is, of course, evident that the radically anti-colonialpronouncementsof the UN and other internationalbodies have no necessary effect on actual colonial situations - a state of affairs which generatesa sense of bitterfrustration amongthe particularly African leaders.2Portugal holds its colonies without appearing to be gravelyworriedby the UN challengeto its rule, and Britain, the United States, and the handfulof others involved in colonial affairshold on to a dwindlingfew of their overseaspossessionsor trust territoriesand act towardsthem in such fashionand at such tempo as they themselves determine. The hostility of the UN majority to colonialismno doubt influences the policies of the remainingcolonialpowers,but they accept neitherthe accusation of being international criminalsnor the injunctionthat they must
2 The frustration of Africans in the directly colonial sphere is greatly aggravated by their inability to do anything drastic themselves about South Africa, Southwest Africa, and Rhodesia, or to persuade others who might achieve significant results to swing into action.

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

take immediatesteps to grantindependence.If a case challenging the right of a colonialpowerto hold the territories controlswere it to be brought before the InternationalCourt, the Court would presumablysustain the right of the colonial power to rule, althoughthe new majorityon the Courtmight callfor a speedingup of steps taken to ensure complete independenceand freedom in accordwith UN resolutions. Takenat face value(whichthe immediately precedingcomments indicate they need not be), the anti-colonialresolutionsadopted by the GeneralAssemblyand by the Committeeof 24, established to implement the 1960 Declaration, go far beyond both the languageof the Charterand the apparentassumptionsof its prina advance cipal drafters.Whilethe Charter represented substantial over the League Covenant which, apart from the inconclusive mandatessystem, virtuallyignored the colonialproblem- as did the Leagueitself - it recognizedonly a principle of self-determination and in ChapterXI went no furtherthan to exact a pledge of movementtowardsself-government. it did open up a crackof But international concernwith colonialissues into whichin due course the anti-colonialmajority drove a huge wedge of international which the colonial accountability,giving to the UN prerogatives powerswould never have dreamedof concedingat San Francisco or for a decade and more thereafter.In the course of the anticolonialdrive, the safeguarding domesticjurisdictionin Article of was for all practicalpurposesdeletedfromthe Charter far as as 2:7 colonial issues were concerned. An experienced observer fresh from the San Francisco conferencereported that independence was not mentionedas a goal becauseonly the United Statesamong the colonial powers saw it as the natural outcome of colonial status, and he explicitlydeniedthat the obligationof the powersto provide information concerning their non-self-governingterritories gave the UN 'authorityto meddle in colonialaffairs....3 But the 'meddling'has swollen to ever largerdimensions. With the adoption of the I960 Declarationone of the most important moral and theoretical bulwarks of colonialism was
3 Huntington Gilchrist, 'Colonial Questions at the San Francisco Conference', American Political Science Review, October 1945, 987-8. He conceded, however, that if there had not been a controversy over the use of the word 'independence', it would have been clear that the pledge to develop free political institutions must have included independence.

COLONIALISM

demolished. Under the Covenant tutelage had been overtly acknowledgedas necessaryfor peoples not yet able to stand by themselves in a strenuous world, and the advancedpowers had takenon the burdenof tutelageas the sacredtrust of a civilization presumably identified with themselves. Implicitly under the Charterthe same doctrineheld, althoughthe clear identification of civilizationwas evaded, and for the trust territoriesthe goal of independence was now stated. In I960 the justification of colonialismon grounds of tutelage was unambiguously removed, since Article3 of the Declaration that yearheld that 'Inadequacy of of political, economic, social or educationalpreparedness should never serve as a pretext for delayingindependence'.The colonial powers, of course, did not accept the new standardwhich had been laid down, but henceforward their plea that a colonialpeople was not yet readyfor independencewould be met by citationof a UN resolutionunanimouslyadopted. One of the most entertainingand hazardousof parlourgames is speculationas to what might have happenedif there had been no colonialism,speculationwhich seems peculiarlyin orderat a time whenthe anti-colonialists havestrippedthe lastshredsof legitimacy from colonialismno matterwhat the circumstances. is possible It to come to at least tentative conclusionsas to the effects which colonialrule in fact had on differentpeoples, but we have only the most dubious of clues as to the might-have-beensif the same peoples had entirelyescapedsubjectionto such rule. Colonialand ex-colonialpeopleshavefrom time to time found it temptingto assumethat if they had remainedfree all kindsof good things would have fallen to their lot, enablingthem to advanceon the path to modernity,prosperity,strength,and nationalunity far morerapidlythan provedpossibleunderaliencontrol.Much more rarely does there appearto be a belief that it would have been to preferable lingerundisturbedin the oldertraditional society, or to seek to return to it, sloughing off the alien intrusions of modernity.It is manifestlyhighly consolingto believe that one's presentwoes, weakness,poverty,and internaldivisionsderive,not from anythinginherentin one's own race, society, or history, but from the wounds inflicted on an otherwisesound body by those who encroached it and exploitedit for their profitand pleasure. on In its simplest form this satisfying myth holds that the peoples 7

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

involvedwerejust aboutto launchthemselveson an autonomously inspired drive towards catching up with the advancedcountries when they weretakenover by the imperialists herdedbackinto and a less developed way of life than they had alreadyachieved, or were at least deniedthe advancement which would otherwisehave been theirs. The majordifficultywith any such claim is that the evidence,if any, on which it might be basedis highly unconvincing.Thus it is sometimes said that just as Europe's diverse ethnic groups were forged into nations over the centuries,so Africa'stribes were in into nationsat the processof being amalgamated stablelarge-scale time when the slave trade and later the Scrambledisrupted all set hope of Africandevelopment,imposing an arbitrary of European boundariesinsteadof those which would have emergedfrom an unforced natural evolution of the continent. What actually appearsto be the case is that Africantribes were, in an essentially way,dividing,coalescing,formingempiresandbreaking haphazard them up again,as other peoplesaroundthe worldhavethroughout historyseen their politicalcommunitieswax and wane. No general or is trend either of amalgamation of disintegration evident in the complex and inadequatelyrecorded history which is available. What politicalshape Africanpeoples might have taken on if they had been left to themselvesis a mystery to which only the most answerscan be given. What we do speculativeand controversial know is that there was a multiplicity of tribes in many kinds of relationswith each other and that these tribes were forced into a peculiarpatternof colonial states whose boundarieshave, in the few brief and tempestuous years since independence,held surprisingly constant, as have those of many ex-colonial territories elsewhere, such as Indonesia and the Philippines. Again, what would have been the fate of India if British rule had never been established? Would it have been possible to hold the entire subcontinenttogether,untroubledby an imperialistpolicy of divideand-rule,or, in reverse,lackingthe unity which Britainimposed, would it have brokenup on the Europeanmodel into, say, a dozen or more historicallyand linguisticallydeterminedstates? If one would play this parlourgame, the prime necessityis that the rules be firmly and clearly established in advance, because can variousradicallydifferentassumptions be madewhichproduce quite differentresults. To discuss the hypotheticalfate of peoples 8

COLONIALISM

exempt from colonialismwithout having determinedwhat substitute relationshipwith other peoples is to take its place as the of framework the inquiry,is to openthe doorto hopelessconfusion. To drawon Africaas an exampleagain:if the rules lay down the utterly fanciful assumptionthat no intercoursewhatever,directly or throughintermediaries, took place betweenAfricaand the new civilizationgrowingup in westernEurope,then there is no reason to read back into the history that never happenedthe belief that Africanswould on their own have then or in due courseproduced some approximation the unique Europeandevelopments.Such of a civilizationhad not in fact emergedanywhereelse in the world, therewere no significanthints that it was likelyto blossomforthin Africa,and, when introducedprimarilyunder colonialauspices,it took hold only tenuouslyand slowly. What kind of civilizationof its own Africamight have producedif it had beenfencedoff from the rest of the worldfor the lastfew centuries,andfor a millennium or two ahead, can be guessed only by spinningidle clouds in the air. The presumptionmust be that its peoples would have preserved their traditional guise, subject of course to eccentric eruptionswhich no one could predict. If total isolation be abandonedas wholly unreal, a number of kinds and gradations intercourse of with the increasingly dynamic, restless,and powerfulpeoplesof westernEurope,and a little later of the United States, Japan,the Soviet Union, and China come into the picture.The changesthat one can ring on such a themein the realms of speculationare so diverse as to make it a fruitless occupationto seek to pursuemore than two or three of them. For the present purpose the heart of the matter is the ease or the suffering,the speed or the slowness, the effectivenessor the inof societiesto the adequacyof the processof adaptation traditional characteristic forms and forces of modernitywhich have indisputably demonstratedtheir power and productivity, whatever the evils which accompany them. Peacemust in some fashionbe made with them if there is to be any hope of extended independent survivaland of achievingsufficientwell-being at home to escape grave disaffectionand upheaval,perhapsplayedupon and guided from abroad. If contactwith the advancedcountries,but not colonialism,be allowed,perhapsits most utopianform would confinethe contact to men of skill and benevolencewho, financedfrom outside and
9

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

able to draw on large capital sums for such projects as came to seem in order - roads, railroads,ports, dams, irrigationworks, schools, hospitals, etc. - would disinterestedlysee to it that the traditional societiesmadethe mostpainlesstransition modernity into with preservingthe best of the old society or the elecompatible ments most essentialto the maintenanceof its corporatelife and spirit. But the questions which come immediatelyto mind are legion. Would one include among such men missionaries,one of whose majorpurposeswould be the introductionof Christianity, or perhapsIslam or some otherfaith, at the evidentcost of thereby socialorder? one undermining of the mainpillarsof the traditional Would that old orderbe taken as the startingpoint both in terms of an indirectrule based on the traditionalauthoritiesand in relation to the demographic-geographic scopeof the societyor must the old order be swept away to make way for the new ? So massive a scale of benevolencehas never been seen in this world, nor can we have any assurance that, even if the men and the meansto practise difficultjob by which they it could be found, the extraordinarily would be confrontedcould be done. Would the expatriatesengaged in such an enterprisebe acceptedas benevolentinstructors by those whose lives they sought to change, or as intrudersto be got rid of as speedilyas possible;and would they be tough-minded enough to inflict the kind of blows which are usually needed to breakthe cakeof custom and to startthe flow of a new kind of life and labour? To asksuch questionsis to open up some of the major and the which have in fact surrounded practitioners controversies theoristsof colonialism. At a next remove, coming uncomfortably,and indeed indistinguishably,close to historicalreality except for the continuing ground rules ban on colonialregimes, far the most likely turn of events would be that westerneconomicinterests- traders,seekers after raw materialsor labour, money lenders - would establish themselvesin what has now come to be known as the third world. Since only governmentsstrongerthan any the third world could providewould be able to bar them from entry or effectivelyregulate them, such interestscould not only penetratedeeply into the undevelopedcountriesbut often also dominatethem, and, as an accidental by-product for which they accept no responsibility, profoundly disrupt them. Two possibilities appear: either the economicinterestsinvolvedwould calculatethat they could get by,
IO

COLONIALISM

with no morethan occasional despitedisruptionsand disaffections, of manipulation the existing governmentof the countryin which they were operating,althoughits ultimatecollapseor drasticoverhauling could be foreseen; or, in order to establishand maintain the conditionsnecessaryfor carryingon profitable enterprise,they would move to take over the governmentand reconstructit to meet their own needs. Here, evidently, one begins to swing full circle. A government stemming from outside the society has been imposed, but, as the game'sgroundrules require,it is a governmentderivingfrom the economic enterpriseitself and not from the governmentof the countryfrom which that enterpriseoriginallyset out. At this point it is not irrelevant go backto the dictumof Adam Smiththat the to worst of all governmentsfor a colonyis the governmentof a company. The argumentis essentiallythe simple one that a company's primaryconcernis to makea profit,while a governmenthas other responsibilitieswhich, gravely as it may neglect them, are likely to have some positive bearingon its activities.At its by no means unknownworst a colonial governmentmay in fact be little more than an agent providinglabourand other facilitiesfor commercial interests, or itself exploiting the manpowerand resourcesof the country for the profit of the home government,as in the Dutch East Indies for much of the nineteenthcentury.The hope, howin ever, certainlynot withoutsome measureof justification colonial history, is that a colonialgovernmentwill come to accept at least a minimumof responsibilityfor the well-beingof its subjectsand their adaptation to the modern world. Although the altruistic desire to promote welfare and adaptationto modernityhas presumablynever been the root reasonfor imperialistexpansion,the existence of a governmentand its civil servantsnonethelessprovides anotherchannelof contact with the modern world - sometimes a quite inadequateone, as in the case of Spainand Portugal in recent times - and may provide a safeguardagainstthe worst abuses of exploitationand neglect. As the colonial powers progressed into the mid-twentieth century'they increasinglytended to acknowledgethat their responsibilitieswent beyond the crude maintenanceof law and order, harshly summarizedin the term 'pacification',and beyond the provisionof the basic facilities required by their businessmen,planters, and miners. At least the rudiments of welfare, economic and social development, and
II

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

political advancement came to be accepted by most colonial governments as necessary features of contemporarycolonial
rule.

It is, I trust, clear that I am not contendingthat colonialism offeredany ideal means of access to the modernworld. Indeed, I am not at all sure that any ideal means of accessexists, althoughI am sure that colonialregimes do not provideit. But when I play the game of ruling out colonialism, leaving other conditions realisticallyas they were, I find myself inexorablydriven to the conclusionthat, as an interimandtransitional measure,colonialism is likely to be the lesser of the evils in a predatory world. It has in fact been the agency of diffusion through which hundreds of millionsof people have begun the long and painfultransitionfrom their traditionalsocieties into the modern world created by the Westandnow available the alternative in of packaging communism. Two furtherobservations maybe brieflyadded.The conditionof otherwise comparable countries, such as Liberia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan,and the CentralAmericanstates for the last century and a half, all of which escapedcolonialismor most of it, leads to no optimisticconclusionthatall wouldhavebeenwell if colonialism had neverbeen invented. Second,that colonialism oddly seen to is have its virtues was demonstratedby the earlier insistence of African spokesmen and men of good will in general that the ColonialOfficeshould retain controlin Kenya and the Rhodesias until the Africanscould take over, ratherthan allow white settlers to take over predominant politicalcontrol. Whatever its achievementsthroughout the ages as one of the choseninstruments the diffusionof civilization, those on whom for colonialism has been imposed detest it for its besetting sin of arrogance.For a relativelybrief period there are a few who find the colonialsituationmore than barelytolerable:the first generation or two of the new western-educatedelite who feel a great distance between themselves and their less fortunate traditionbound countrymen, and set as their goal acceptance by the superiorbeings who have takencommandof their society. As selfgovernmentand independencecome nearer, others - the traditionally privilegedor other hangers-onwho have been artificially sustained by the colonial authorities,or ethnic groups who feel threatenedby those who are coming into power- may preferthe
I2

COLONIALISM

existingcolonialstatusto what lies ahead.But the growingand increasinglyuniversalsentimenthas been one of refusalto tolerate the inherentarrogance a system in which alien superioritypreof sides over the inferior'native'. The issue is not at all necessarilythe arrogance individualsin of a crude sense, althoughthat is also frequentlyinvolved and finds in colonialism an ideal breeding ground. Outside the colonial relationshipindividualsand groups representingthe two races or communitiesare often able to get along easily and happily, as is demonstratedby the surprisingreadinessof ex-colonial peoples to establish close and friendly relations with both the former imperialpower itself and with the many expatriatesin the newly independentcountries. The arrogance colonialismtakes many forms. The simplest, of most straightforward form, endowed with the most ancient heritage, is the principle that the right of the stronger,the right of conquest, puts the conqueredwholly at the disposal of the conqueror. A more sophisticatedversion rests upon belief in some form of racial or culturalsuperioritywhich justifiescolonialrule either on a permanentbasis, since the 'natives' are congenitally incapable of overcoming their backwardness,or for as long a period - seen, perhaps,as lasting many generationsor even centuries - as they are regardedby their colonial masters as being incompetent to manage their own affairs.At least in the more or less contemporary scene the presumptionhas been that such superioritycarrieswith it the white man's burden of seeking to of bring aboutthe advancement the colonialwards,but it may also serve merelyto establishthe legitimacyof continuedcolonialrule. Basic tenets of the colonialismof the last centurieswere the sole sanctity of Christianityand the self-evident supremacy of the white man. The arrogance the League Covenant'sassumption of that the sacredtrust of civilizationin relationto the mandates,and by implicationto all colonial peoples, was vested in the colonial powers has already been noted. It was an integral part of the that he honestly believed arroganceof the colonialadministrator that he spoke more authentically the colonialmasses than did for the new-style nationalistleaders.No doubt he sometimesdid, but the natureof the colonialsystemmadethe nationalist inevitable the heir to power. It might be contendedthatthe supremearrogance displayed was
I3

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

by the devoted and unself-seeking colonial civil servant or of who set as his goal only the transformation the native missionary society and its beliefsinto a closerreplicaof his own. There is here in a sense an ultimacyof arrogance which far surpassesthat of the strong ruler who exploits his subjectsfor what he can get out of them but is indifferentto their creeds and institutions,allowing them to save their souls in their own fashion. Rebelling againstthe inherent arroganceof the colonial situafinds the appealto the dignityof man his tion, the anti-colonialist most passionatelyconvincingslogan. It would be absurd to think that any definitive verdict on colonialismcan be pronouncedin this immediateaftermath the of era of westernimperialistexpansion.It is far too variedand complex a phenomenonto lend itself to an easy summingup, and its effects, of which we have seen only the first manifestations,will surely be felt for generationsto come. The climate of opinion at the moment is peculiarlyconfusing because, while the dominant trend is the condemnationof colonialism in all its forms and manifestations,a renewed sense begins to creep in that perhaps all was not evil and that, howeverclumsilyand often inadvertently, it madepositivecontributions which are not to be ignored.4In the of their unexpectedly peaceful departure from many manner dependentcountries,the colonialpowersmadepossiblea calmand even friendlyreassessmentof what they had accomplished,failed in, and put on the agenda for future action. The ceremonial speeches of good will and mutual congratulationswhich have the accompanied loweringof imperialflags and the raisingof the new nationalbannerswere by no means wholly insincere,as has been shown by the close ties maintainedbetween so many of the newly independentstates and their formeroverlords. of It may be, too, that the shortcomings the new countriesmake
4 Professor Ali A. Mazrui of Makerere University College, Uganda, sees colonialism as having helped to transform Africa's intellectual universe: 'In fact, the most significant thing about the colonial experience for Africa is that it was at once a political bondage and a mental liberation. We might even say that the colonial fact was the most important liberating factor that the African mind has experienced in historical times.' 'Borrowed Theory and Original Practice in African Politics' in Herbert J. Spiro, ed., Patterns of African Development (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., I967), 92. A generally favourable estimate of the colonial experience is made by Peter Duignan and L.H. Gann, Burden of Empire (New York, I967).

14

COLONIALISM

the colonialinterludelook better than might otherwisehave been expected. The naive vision of oppressivecolonialismgiving way to the freedomand progressof liberationhas been supplantedby a more grubby reality. One-partyone-man rule, military dictatorships, corruption,inadequaciesand failures in developmentand modernization,and other deficienciesdim the lustre of independence and tend to turn what the anti-colonialists paintedall black into more neutralgrays.Except perhapsfor a handfulof the older to Asianand Africancivil servants,who look backnostalgically the no daysof colonialbureaucracy, one wantsto returnto colonialism, but it can at least be assessedwith a largermeasureof cool dispassion. Or, of course,the otherside of the coin may be that precisely becauseit colonialismis held responsiblefor presentshortcomings failedto educate,democratize, develop,and modernize,leavingthe underdeveloped peoples whom it exploitedstill undeveloped. To the sins of colonialismin this latter version must be added the accusationthat the former colonial powers, and particularly the United States, are followinga neo-colonialist policy of seeking to maintainthe substanceof controlover the nominallyindependent new states through the acquisition of economic predominance. Neo-colonialismis a difficultterm of which to makemuch sensible use because it is usually employed by the spokesmenof the left who, discoveringimperialism everyactionor inactionof in the non-communist countries, lump together everything from monopolistic exploitation and armed intervention to technical assistance and the Peace Corps. The general drift, however, is clear: the advancedcountriesare in variousways deeply involved in the formercolonies. Given the extent of the ties built up under colonial rule and the amount of debris it left behind, the gross disparities in wealth and power which continue to divide the world, and the demand of the new countriesfor aid in development, it would be incredibleif there were not many relationships which could be tagged with the label of neo-colonialism.A more importantquestion than the invidious use of the label is whether the diverse activitiesit embracesare meeting some of the urgent needs of the new countries,notablyin the sphereof development, and meeting them in ways both more effectiveand more tolerable to the people concernedthan the colonialregimeswhich preceded them. It is arguablethat what is extraordinary not the extent of is
I5

CONTEMPORARY HISTORY

imperialistyearningto restore the substance of colonialism,but rather the readinessto be rid of what have come to be seen as imperial burdens. For profit, prestige, and political advantage, and from a sense of tasks left unaccomplished,the ex-colonial sought to maintaina greateror less powers have understandably degree of contact with their former dependencies. In some instances- Houphouet-Boigny's Ivory Coast is the most frequently cited example- expatriate economic,political,and culturalcontrol and influencehave undoubtedlygone beyond what is compatible with real independence, although the later recapture of independenceis by no meansexcluded.The dilemmaconfrontingpoor and ill-equipped countries which are strugglingboth to survive and develop and to cling to freedomis a very real one, and some have sold out or come close to it. On the other side, the recordof such countriesas Burmaand Indonesia,Guinea and Mali, which in their differentfashions have sought to cut loose from the adWithallthe temptations vancedWest,hasnot beenveryimpressive. to them in this conditionof the world'saffairs,the erstwhile open imperialists seem in large measure to have accepted the antiimperialistconvictions of their opponents. Of a yearning for a there is little trace. renewalof imperialistaggrandizement save at the rarest of intervals,men have Throughout history, acted upon the assumption that expansion, conquest, and farflung rule over others were the fruits and symbols of virility and grandeur.Have we now come to a turningpoint in history,or will the next throw of the global dice bring forth a new imperialism ? and a new colonialism

i6