Chapter 37 Chapter 27 The End of the Empires (Part 2)

Colonial revolutions were even more visible in Africa than in Asia.In Asia, the triumph of nationalism was entirely expected due to ancient native cultures and local political organizations that have been agitating for the past few decades.In Africa, however, nationalist movements were far more naive and weak, and the Japanese occupation of other areas did not shake or awaken the continent.But just as Asia was liberated in the first postwar decade, Africa was liberated in the second postwar decade.During this decade, at least 31 African countries won their independence; the few remaining colonies loomed painfully as unfashionable relics of the past.The process of this awakening of nationalism in various regions of Africa is different due to different historical backgrounds and different developments at that time.Colonial revolutions should therefore be seen not as revolutions on the African continent, but as revolutions in tropical Africa, South Africa, and North Africa, respectively.

No major nationalist movements emerged in tropical Africa until after the end of World War I.The form they took depended on the policies and administrative systems developed by the colonial power.In British West Africa, power was held in the hands of the Governor, who was appointed by London and advised by the Executive Council and the unicameral Parliament.The Executive Council is made up entirely of British officials, but the unicameral parliament also includes several Africans.In these colonies the African chiefs tried to change the unicameral assembly into an African assembly, and the executive council into an African cabinet responsible to that assembly.In contrast, in the French colonies, where power rested to a greater extent in Paris, the French Africans sought to join political parties in the mother country in order to be able to influence decisions in the capital.

These tactics had little impact until World War II.Only a few Western-educated leaders are sober and active; the majority of the people are insensitive.Minorityist organizations are more debating societies than political parties, and they devote more energy to maligning European administrators than engaging with their own people.The Second World War dramatically changed this traditional African model.First, during the years of the war, the African economy began to expand massively due to the urgent need for African raw materials and food. From 1939 to 1953, Congo's exports increased 14 times, and government tax revenue increased 4 times.During the same period, Northern Rhodesia's exports increased nine-fold and government tax revenue increased twenty-fold.In British West Africa, the government set up buying offices for such basic products as cocoa and palm oil.These buying offices broke the shackles of the European trading companies on the peasant economy; leading to the creation of locally controlled marketing bureaus after the war.These marketing bureaus ensured stable prices for farmers' products and also accumulated large reserves that were used to finance local economic and social causes.

As a result of this general economic boom, Africa has developed rapidly in building schools, paving roads, improving housing, sanitation, and medical facilities.At the same time, Africans, having seen many peoples in Asia gain independence, naturally ask why they should not yet throw off the yoke of colonialism.The problem has become acute with the return of military veterans, the vast majority of whom have served in the French armies in Europe and the British armies in Burma and the Middle East.All these factors combined to vibrate and awaken tropical Africa from its traditional torpor.New roads, new schools, and new economic opportunities mean new horizons, greater agency, and higher aspirations.A new climate incompatible with continued European domination was developing in various ways.

Nationalist movements first erupted on the Gold Coast in 1948, where smallholders, now earning more than ever before but with insufficient and expensive consumer goods, suspected profiteering European businessmen and organized protests against Extensive batches by European comptoirs.Riots ensued in the cities and widespread disturbances in the countryside.At this point, a new leader emerged who was able to exploit this discontent quite successfully: Kwame Nkrumah—who had studied at American and British universities, where he had turned to colonialism. Marx's socialist ideas were popular among students, and met other African leaders such as Kenya's Jomo Kenyatta.He demanded immediate independence and quickly eclipsed the old West African nationalists in 1949 by establishing the truly popular-based People's Congress Party.

In the 1951 national elections under the new constitution, the party won an overwhelming majority of the vote.On the day of the general election, Nkrumah was in prison because he was accused of inciting riots, but after the British Governor recognized the situation, he released Nkrumah and arranged for him and his colleagues in the executive branch. Position.Over the next few years, the cabinet became an all-African cabinet with all powers except defense and foreign affairs.Thanks to this apprenticeship in self-government, it turned out to be possible to transition to full independence without resorting to violence or chaos.By 1957, thanks to Nkrumah's initiative and British statesmanship, the Gold Coast became the independent state of Ghana within the Commonwealth.

Once colonial control was broken in Ghana, it was impossible not to break it elsewhere.The most decisive developments came in Nigeria, Africa's most populous country with 35 million people.The three regions of the country - North, West and South - are quite different from each other in terms of ethnic composition, cultural traditions and economic development; Independence was not won until 1960.Other British West African colonies such as Sierra Leone and Gambia won their independence in 1961 and 1963, respectively, and these countries became independent mainly because they were very poor and small.

The British did not foresee that their neocolonial policies would affect the rest of tropical Africa so quickly.The surrounding French colonies were the first to be affected.It seems quite counterintuitive that the Parisian government has adopted a policy of conciliatory policy towards North Africa, while maintaining a policy of reconciliation towards sub-Saharan Africa. In 1956, they promulgated the Organic Act, which allowed for the establishment of representative institutions in the 12 regions of French West Africa and the island of Madagascar.Two years later, the new de Gaulle regime, brought to power by the crisis in Algeria (see section VII of this chapter), decided to avoid a similar torment in tropical Africa.The new regime granted sub-Saharan African colonies the right to vote for full independence or to vote for self-government as separate republics in the French "community" that would replace the empire.Initially, the strategy appeared to be successful; in the ensuing referendum, all regions except Guinea, influenced by trade union leader Sekou Toure, voted for autonomy.However, the arrangement proved short-lived. In 1959, Senegal and the French Sudan demanded full independence within the French Community as the Confederation of Mali.When that request was granted, four other regions—Ivory Coast, Niger, Dahomey, and Upper Volta—went a step further and gained independence from the French Community.By the end of 1960, all the former colonies of French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa had won their independence, and all but one had become members of the United Nations.

In contrast to the smooth transition to independence in French and British West Africa, the Belgian Congo endured a painful and costly struggle involving not only Belgian and Congolese factions but also some of the major powers.The strict patriarchal rule of the Belgians was a source of this disaster.While Belgian officials often openly adopted measures to promote economic development and technical training, they did not allow Africans, or Belgians resident in Africa, the opportunity for political training.The native educated eminence was few and inexperienced, and inter-clan alliances and rivalries remained prominent.This was the situation in the Congo when the French colony opposite Congo gained self-government. Reece Lumumba emerges.Because of his radical, national approach to Congolese independence, he won a huge following not only among Pan-Africanists everywhere, but also in his own country.

In early 1959, after nationalist uprisings had rocked the Congo, the Belgians rashly decided that they could best protect their vast economic interests by allowing free elections and immediate independence.The result has undoubtedly been conflict and confusion.Lumumba became the first prime minister, but he found that he could rule the country only with the help of Belgian military and civilian officials.Some native soldiers rebelled against Belgian officers, and attacks on whites occurred all over the country.At the same time, war broke out among the tribes who took the opportunity to avenge their feud.Most seriously, the mineral-rich province of Katanga has effectively seceded from Congo due to an unholy alliance between local African politicians and Belgian mining groups.The growing chaos forced the Belgian government to reconsider and send its troops back to strongholds and airfields.

The Cold War had arrived when the Soviet Union threatened to intervene unilaterally under the guise of supporting the Congolese against imperialist resumption of their rule.Faced with the prospect of a North Korea-style situation in Africa, the United Nations has taken on the responsibility of maintaining order in Congo with an international force composed mostly of Africans.After months of riots, some order appears to have been restored, but Lumumba and UN Secretary-General Daga Hammarskjöld were sacrificed; Lumumba was assassinated by Katangan separatists , Hauscheld was killed in a plane crash while on a mediation mission to Congo. At that time, in East Africa on the other side of the continent, the cause of nationalism encountered very stubborn resistance because of the white immigrants on the balmy plateau.In Kenya, the conflict between African and white immigrants was particularly intense as white immigrants took over most of the best arable land.This led to the uprising of the Mau Mau, a secretive terrorist group formed by members of the Kikuyu tribe.White immigrants were killed on many isolated farms, but many Kikuyu who refused to join the uprising were also massacred.Before the end of the war, nearly 7,000 people in Mau Mau were killed, more than 83,000 were imprisoned, and many more were held in makeshift shelters.The insurrection, which resulted in disgusting atrocities on both sides, did compel the British to admit the futility of attempting a policy of conciliation in West Africa and a policy of hardliness in East Africa.So they released Jomo Kenyatta, a prominent leader of the Kikuyu people.Kenyatta, who was educated in London and has written on the traditional life of the Kikuyu people, was arrested and jailed on suspicion of sympathizing with the Mau Mau uprising, although his collusion charges were never actually proven.At this time, he was released and, like Nkrumah, won the majority of votes in the general election and was approved to become prime minister in 1963.That same year, Kenya became an independent nation amid celebrations in Nairobi for long-awaited freedom. In neighboring Uganda, which was peacefully freed in 1962, the problem was simpler because whites had not been allowed to occupy land in the past.Tanganyika was a German territory before World War I and became a British mandate in 1922, while two of its territories, Rwanda and Ulundi, became Belgian mandates. All three regions gained independence in 1962, a transition in which Tanganyika's Julius K. Nyerere played a key role. In 1953, the Central African Federation was established south of Tanganyika, which included Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.Although the establishment of the Federation claimed to be aimed at "racial cooperation", it was full of crises and riots. The root cause was that 300,000 Europeans ruled more than 9 million Africans politically and economically. Most of these Europeans lived in Southern Rhodesia, an autonomous region bordering the northern border of the Republic of South Africa.The nationalist movement made great strides in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, both of which were granted self-government by African prime ministers in 1962.Since Southern Rhodesia refused to follow suit and refused to grant voting rights to Africans, the federation became impossible and was dissolved on January 1, 1964.By the end of the year, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland became fully independent states of Zambia and Malawi respectively. The center of the struggle then shifted to Southern Rhodesia, now known as Rhodesia, where the black majority demanded the right to vote.The London government sought a middle ground aimed at gradually granting Africans the right to vote.The white minority was staunchly opposed, and Southern Rhodesia, under Prime Minister Ian Smith, rejected British rule in 1965 and became a fully, officially independent country by 1970.The new Rhodesia's constitution gave 230,000 whites 50 seats in parliament, compared with 16 for 4.5 million Africans.Explaining the discrepancy, Smith said that 60 years ago Africans were "savages wandering around in hides" who had made some progress but still had "a long way to go". In the rest of tropical Africa—Angola and Mozambique—Portugal has been trying to stem the tide of colonial revolution by spreading the cliché that Portugal has no colonies—only Portugal's own overseas provinces.Lisbon has strong support from South Africa, a country interested in maintaining the status quo in Angola and Mozambique in order to stem the spread of African nationalism.However, uprisings broke out in both colonies, and sporadic fighting continued in isolated areas.Guerrillas were armed and trained abroad, so take Angola, where the Portuguese found that maintaining their rule required a garrison of 50,000 men.Even so, the Lisbon government admitted in March 1970 that guerrilla groups armed with mortars and automatic weapons had launched a massive offensive that had inflicted "significant" Portuguese casualties. The fundamental difference between tropical Africa and North and South Africa is that the former region has fewer European immigrants, while the latter two regions have a large number of European immigrants.This difference explains the brutal armed struggle that devastated Algeria between 1954 and 1962, as well as the intense underground conflict that devastated South Africa in the mid-1970s. In 1909, following the Boer War (see Chapter 18, Section 2), South Africa became a self-governing dominion within the Commonwealth of Nations.More than half a century later, in May 1961, South Africa broke away from the Commonwealth of Nations and became an independent republic.The main reason for this secession was South Africa's conflict with the new members of the Commonwealth of Nations plus Nigeria and India over apartheid. Apartheid consisted of two basic policies: the exclusion of all non-whites from sharing any political life; - reservations), where some people generally infer that they will one day form an independent country there.It seems quite counterintuitive that in 1960 there were only 3.8 million whites in South Africa out of a total population of 20 million, and white Afrikaners (Boers) who controlled South African politics and created apartheid made up only one fifth of the white minority 2. Afrikaners were able to do whatever they wanted, partly because they placed representatives in parliament who would benefit the predominantly rural areas, and partly because many English-speaking whites supported apartheid for economic reasons.This is especially true of the Labor Party, which fears that non-whites will compete with whites for jobs if they are given equal opportunities.In fact, the first Afrikaans (nationalist) government came to power in 1924 only because of the support of the South African Labor Party. It was widely believed that apartheid was not an economically or politically viable project.Had Africans been segregated in pre-designated Bantustans, the entire economy of South Africa would have collapsed.In addition to the labor of 2 million mixed races and 600,000 Indians, African labor is essential to running agriculture, commerce, mining and other local industries.Furthermore, bantustans cannot feed even one-third of the African population, and the government is unwilling to spend large sums of money to increase the receiving capacity of bantustans.Most importantly, the vast majority of Africans do not want to be isolated as isolated "tribes".Rather, they were an integral part of the Union of South Africa in which they demanded their fair share, a claim supported by growing African nationalist forces in other parts of the continent. The course of the North African colonial revolution was influenced not only by the continuation of the large European settlements, but also by two other factors not found in the rest of the continent: the period during the Second World War Some campaigns on North African soil and, more importantly, an upsurge of Arab nationalism throughout North Africa. From 1940 to 1943, the British, French and American coalition forces fought against the Italian-German coalition forces in the coastal areas of North Africa and Northeast Africa.After the war, Ethiopia became an independent country again and got Eritrea, which used to belong to Italy.Italian Somaliland was still ruled by Italy for 10 years before being united with British Somaliland to form the independent Somali Republic.The Italian colony of Libya did not get rid of British military rule until December 24, 1951, and became an independent country led by King Idris El Senusi; Religious leaders of the regiment (see chapter 21, section 3).Granting Libya autonomy weakened the power of the British and French empires in the rest of North Africa.Since Libya was the least developed part of North Africa, its independence made British influence over Egypt and Sudan, and French rule over Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco, seem especially inappropriate and intolerable to Arab nationalists (as for Nationalist struggles in Egypt and Sudan (see Section VIII of this chapter). In North Africa, as in Indochina, the French fought long and tenaciously to hold onto their dominions, a major reason being the region's considerable French immigration - 250,000 in Tunisia, 400,000 in Morocco, 1 million in Algeria .These colonists, in collusion with the powerful French economic interests in North Africa, fought desperately against all proposals for self-government, and undermined many ad hoc motions in this regard at certain cabinet meetings in Paris. Tunisia and Morocco have legal status as protectorates, which France claims it administers on behalf of their traditional rulers.Both regions were under French dictatorship - not even the Europeans who lived there were given political rights.This foreign rule spurred national liberation movements: in Tunisia, the New Constitutional Party led by Habib Bourguiba was formed in 1934; Year established. After World War II, Tunisia and Morocco won their freedom without too much trouble.The French were determined to hold on to Algeria, and in order to concentrate their forces on this main objective they did not hesitate to suffer elsewhere.Thus, when Tunisia began armed resistance in 1952, the French agreed to autonomy after two years of guerrilla warfare; having made this concession in Tunisia, they were ready to make the same concession in Morocco.They allowed Sultan Mohammed, who had been exiled for his sympathies with the Moroccan Independence Party, to be restored to his throne; Mohammed then demanded full independence, which the French grudgingly conceded on March 2, 1956.That month, Tunisia also became a fully independent country, and Bourguiba became the president of the new republic. At this time, the French can concentrate on dealing with the vital Algerian problem.Legally speaking, Algeria is not a French colony, but an integral part of France, which is represented in the National Assembly in Paris.In fact, double standards of citizenship's rights and duties prevail in Algeria, so that the country is economically and politically ruled by Europeans, who make up only one-tenth of the total population of 10 million.On the other hand, the colonists here, like the Afrikaners on the other side of the continent, did not see themselves as mere colonists.Algeria is their homeland, as is the homeland of the native Algerians.Their ancestors worked and were buried here, and they are determined to safeguard their ancestral legacy.This meant that they firmly opposed any concessions to the Algerian nationalists. An armed uprising against French rule broke out in the autumn of 1954.The French don't want to compromise here since they were just kicked out of Indochina 4 months ago.With the enthusiastic support of colonists and military officers still reeling from the humiliation of Indochina, the Parisian government was determined to suppress the uprising.The result was a brutal, exhausting struggle that dragged on until 1962.At the height of the war, the French had to send 500,000 men to Algeria, thereby transferring almost all the divisions assigned to the European North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In addition, this war also consumed Paris every year. Nearly $1 billion.Algerians lost even more in manpower, with 1 million dead, or one-ninth of their population.Another million were forcibly herded into "reorganized" camps, an unsuccessful attempt by the French to isolate the rebels, and more than 300,000 more fled as refugees into neighboring Morocco and Tunisia. Apart from the financial costs, the French suffered little by comparison, but their costs were much greater than might have been expected.French soldiers were forced to take part in the bestiality of this repressive war and were traumatized at an incalculable cost; French priests and many intellectuals spoke out against this "dirty war" with guilt.The government responded with arbitrary arrests and occasional censorship of the press.In fact, the heaviest price the French paid was the constant violation of their liberty, which eventually led to the downfall of the Fourth Republic itself. In May 1958, a "Committee of Public Safety" in North Africa seized power in Algeria in an attempt to replace the republic with a dictatorship that they speculated would be more successful in keeping the empire together.A demoralized National Assembly bowed to this power, not least because most of the army was still in Algeria. In June 1958, the National Assembly voted to hand over full power to Charles de Gaulle, who would rule France as he liked for six months and set about drafting a new constitution.Before the year was out, the Fourth Republic had given way to the Fifth, and power had shifted decisively from the legislature to the executive—specifically, to the president. President de Gaulle now used his immense prestige to end the bloodshed in Algeria despite the opposition of the colonists and soldiers who had made his rise to power possible. In March 1962, after French citizens voted in favor of the move, de Gaulle agreed to a ceasefire and to a referendum to decide the future of Algeria.A "secret military organization" immediately launched a terrorist campaign in Algeria and France in an attempt to overthrow the agreement, but due to the support of the people, de Gaulle insisted on his course of action. On July 3, 1962, the Algerian people overwhelmingly De Gaulle declared Algeria's independence after he voted for independence.At this time, all of North Africa was free for the first time since the French soldiers landed in Algeria in 1830.Granting Algeria independence marks the end of a French African empire that once covered nearly 4 million square miles and included more than 41 million people. At the time, Arab nationalism was as militant in the Middle East as it was in North Africa.In the interwar years, the British relinquished control of Egypt and Iraq, both of which joined the League of Nations.But Arab nationalists were far from satisfied, as the British still exercised control over these countries.They retained various privileges, including a garrison at the Suez Canal, three air bases in Iraq and the right to run Sudan alongside Egypt.All the more outrageous is the intransigence of the French, who continue to control Syria and Lebanon as mandates.Most importantly, Arab nationalism had been aroused by the immigrant mass of Jews into British-controlled Mandatory Palestine in the mid-1930s (see Chapter 21, Section 2). During World War II, the most politically conscious Arabs either remained neutral or openly opposed the Western powers.An Arab scholar, referring to the painful years between the two world wars, puts it this way: "... there is no difference between oppression in the name of democracy and oppression in the name of fascism." Chosen." Many Arab leaders were sure Hitler would win, and they wanted to be on the victor's side.These factors explain why a pro-Axis uprising broke out in Iraq in May 1941, and why King Farouk I of Egypt gave the British only grudging aid in spite of his treaty obligations. Although Arab nationalists failed to realize their aspirations during World War II, the new postwar balance of power presented them with an excellent opportunity, which they immediately took advantage of.Britain and France, which controlled the Middle East before the war, began to decline sharply.A power vacuum was created that both the US and the USSR wanted to fill.The Arabs cleverly exploited the weakening of Britain and France and the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union to turn one against the other, thereby enabling them to obtain concessions that would have been absurd just a few years ago.The Arabs also benefited from their control over the vast oil reserves of the Middle East, which seemed especially indispensable to the West in the first postwar years. In October 1944, the Arabs formed the League of Arab States to coordinate their policies and fully expand their influence.The Arab League had its first success against the French in Syria and Lebanon. In May 1945, a French expedition landed in Beirut and proceeded to bomb Damascus in an attempt to intimidate the local nationalists; a tactic earlier popular in the 1920s was not working at this time.The Council of the Arab League met immediately and passed a resolution calling for the withdrawal of all French troops.Churchill supported the Arabs.Not least because the war was not over; he did not want to confront the Arab nationalism that had been evoked in the Middle East.Under British pressure, the French withdrew their troops and, in July 1945, agreed to end their domination of the Middle East. In Egypt after the war, nationalist leaders aimed to abolish or amend the 1936 treaty, which was the legal basis for British control of the Canal Zone and the Sudan. In 1946, direct negotiations between the two sides were terminated without an agreement.the second year.Egypt took its issue to the UN Security Council, but again without satisfactory results. In 1951, Egypt took direct action, announcing the abrogation of the 1936 treaty.Farouk was proclaimed "King of Egypt and the Sudan," and the Volunteers launched a guerrilla campaign against British forces stationed in the Canal Zone.Neither declaring Farouk king nor engaging in guerrilla warfare proved ineffective.The resulting disappointment, combined with general discontent over the disastrous defeat in the Palestine War, culminated in a military coup in July 1952.General Mohammad Najib seized power and forced King Farouk to abdicate. On August 12, 1953, Najib removed a major source of friction between Egypt and Britain when he concluded an agreement with Britain on that day, according to which the Sudanese had the right to independence, union with Egypt or Other courses of action to choose from.The Sudanese decided to become independent, and in 1956, Sudan joined the ranks of free nations.The remaining grievances of the Egyptians - the continued presence of the British in the Suez Canal Zone - were first dispelled by Gamal Abdul Nasser, who replaced Najib as head of Egypt's new regime. On 19 IO 1954, after long negotiations, Nasser signed an agreement with the United Kingdom, according to which the British garrison would withdraw from the Canal Zone under the conditions stipulated, and the British installations there would be transferred to Egypt. Arab nationalism succeeded in Syria and Lebanon, in Egypt and Sudan, but failed miserably in Palestine.The mass extermination of Jews in Hitler-controlled Europe created enormous pressure to open Palestine to the desperate survivors. In August 1945, President Truman proposed to let 100,000 Jews enter the trusteeship; in April 1916, an Anglo-American investigative committee submitted a report in favor of the president's proposal.The Arab League responded by warning that it would stand firm against the influx of Jews and that it was prepared to use force to stop it if necessary.Instead, the United Nations sent a fact-finding commission to Palestine, and the General Assembly, after receiving the commission's report, voted on November 29, 1947, to divide the mandate.On May 14 of the following year, the Jews announced the establishment of a Jewish state called Israel based on this partition resolution; on the same day, President Truman recognized the new state.The next day, the Arabs carried out what they had repeatedly threatened to do, sending troops across the Israeli border. The course of the war was the opposite of what one would expect.The Arab armies lacked discipline, unity, and effective leadership; the Israelites, having fought to the death, had all three of these virtues.Not only did they repel Arab attacks from all directions, but they pushed forward and captured more territory than the United Nations General Assembly had decided to allocate to them.After two failed truces, the Israelis decided to finally sign an armistice with the Arab states between February and July 1949. The truce did not lead to reconciliation.Two issues continue to divide Israel from surrounding Arab states, one is what to do with the nearly 1 million Arab refugees who fled Israel during the war and have been living in rough refugee camps near the Israeli border .The Arab countries firmly demand that these refugees return to their original homeland, but Israel refuses to do so. On the one hand, it is because these refugees are firmly opposed to Israel. If they are allowed to return, they will definitely destroy this country. Jewish refugees from the country had during this period occupied the areas where the Arabs had evacuated.In addition to the refugee issue, there was the border issue: the armistice gave Israel more territory than the United Nations gave them; Territory, which they had won in wars waged by the Arabs themselves, was needed by the constant influx of Jewish immigrants from all over the world. These two problems led to renewed wars in 1956 and 1967. In 1956, to stop repeated border harassment, Israel attacked Egypt, joined by Britain and France, which nationalized the Suez Canal in Nassar.The United States and the Soviet Union strongly opposed this aggression and forced the three invading countries to withdraw their troops. From June 5 to 10, 1967, Israel launched another six-day blitzkrieg, with completely different results.Claiming that surrounding Arab states were preparing to invade, Israel claimed that its forces quickly advanced to the Suez Canal and the Jordan River, while also capturing Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and Sharm el-Sheikh in the Strait of Tiran. On November 22, 1967, the UN Security Council passed a resolution requiring Israel to withdraw from the occupied areas and recognize Israel's independence and integrity.This resolution has not been able to take effect, because Israel requires direct peace negotiations with Arab countries, while Arab countries require Israel to withdraw its troops first and then negotiate. Since the founding of Israel, events in the Middle East have been dominated by two factors: the unresolved Israeli-Arab conflict and the encroachment of the Cold War.For example, the United States sought to strengthen its position in the Middle East by actively planning the Baghdad Treaty, signed by the United Kingdom, Turkey, Iraq, and Pakistan on November 1, 1955, which stipulated that the signatories should "defend their territories without invaded or subverted, to promote the prosperity and prosperity of the peoples of the region".美国的目的是要实施当时在华盛顿很受欢迎的“北层”防御战略，这一战略计划旨在设法使阿拉伯国家不再一心反对以色列，因为这种反对正在使人们不再注意到来自北面的苏联的危险。美国的决策者们设想出的这一战略是：设法使“北层”中东国家言归于好，成为阻止苏联向南推进的障碍物。这会使伊朗的注意力转向北方反对苏联，而且很有希望的是，这还会孤立埃及，促使它转向非洲而不是以色列和中东。 实际上，这一战略起了适得其反的作用；塞纳尔和苏联人自然都强烈反对，他们通过缔结以埃及的棉花换取苏联的军用物质的军事条约对此进行报复。这一条约使苏联在中东获得了一个前所未有的立足点。中东下一个重大发展是塞纳尔于1956年7月26日将苏伊士运河收归国有，这一出人意料的、大胆的举动是对美国国务卿约翰·福斯特·杜勒斯突然撤销为修建阿斯旺高坝提供资金的临时提议这种做法的报复。苏伊士运河公司的许多有权势的股东提出了强烈抗议。英国保守党内阁中的许多曾反对过早从苏伊士运河撤军的成员这时要求对塞纳尔采取强硬措施。法国人也因塞纳尔对阿尔及利亚反叛者的宣传和向他们提供的物质援助而在作这样的考虑。以色列一直在独立计划对埃及发动一场先发制人的战争，以制止边境的不断袭击。当英国人和法国人风闻到以色列的计划时，他们决定将军队联合起来采取联合行动——因此，1956年10月29日，以色列进攻西奈半岛，两天后，英法进攻苏伊士运河。 从一开始起，进攻计划就被无可挽回地搞糟了。以色列人迅速通过了西奈半岛上埃及人的防线，但英国人和法国人却没有作好充分准备，直到11 月5日才开始真正登陆。埃及人的抵抗软弱无力，一位英国上校说：“这很象一次极好的演习。”但到这时，进攻已为时太晚。来自四面八方的批评和反对愈来愈猛烈。正如所预料的那样，苏联就竭力进行反对，并发出事实上的最后通牒，要求英法停止进攻。美国事先没得到进攻的消息，这时也激烈反对它的盟国，尽管未和苏联人采取一致步骤。联合国以压倒的多数通过了一项决议，要求所有外国军队都“立即”撤出埃及。侵略国最初拒绝了这一要求，但最后，它们还是因国外不可抗拒的压力和国内严重的意见分歧而不得不让步。联合国向西奈半岛派遣了一支紧急部队，以维持以埃之间的和平，到12月底时，英法联军的最后一支部队乘船返回了本国。 苏伊士危机的直接后果对西方来说是一次惨重的失败，对纳赛尔及其苏联支持者来说却是一次彻底的胜利。美国同其欧洲盟国之间的关系遭到了严重的损害，尽管是暂时的。纳赛尔的军队虽然被以色列人轻而易举地击溃，但他本人却成为整个阿拉伯世界的英雄，因为他夺取并保住了苏伊士运河。 从更长远的观点看，可以认为远征苏伊士是老牌帝国主义的最后立场。如果考虑到纳赛尔援助阿尔及利亚反叛者、靠近苏联、进行持续不断的反西方广播宣传运动和最后夺取苏伊士运河这些所作所为的挑衅性，那么，对英法采取那样的行动也就不会感到奇怪了。以过去的观点和惯例来判断，远征苏伊土似乎完全是可解释的、正当的行动，它的发起者就是这样认为的。 然而，意味深长的是，这一远征并没有被2O 世纪中叶的世界承认为是情有可原的、正当的。相反，它遭到了亚洲和非洲国家的坚决反对。英国决定让步的一个原因是印度和巴基斯坦提出了直截了当的警告：如果英国不让步，它们将退出英联邦。即使在英国和法国国内，也存在着严重的意见分歧。例如，英国绝大多数报纸就支持谴责这一远征为“艾登的战争”的无数次集会和示威游行。苏伊士危机的意义在于，它象一道闪电，揭示了纳赛尔和尼赫鲁的世界与罗得斯和吉卜林的世界尽管仅相隔半个世纪，却有着很大的不同。帝国主义的时代已让位于殖民地革命的时代。 25 年内，几乎拥有世界总人口的三分之一的63个国家赢得了独立。如此空前规模的一场运动必然产生深远的国际影响。似乎十分有悖常理的是，其中最重要的一个影响实质上是消极的——即殖民地的丧失并没有毁灭殖民国家。在过去几十年里，马克思主义者一直在宣传说：资本主义欧洲的繁荣依赖于对其巨大的海外帝国的剥削，这些帝国的丧失会削弱资本主义。这一学说也为帝国主义者自己所坚信。1895年，塞西尔·罗得斯说： 为了将联合王国的4000万居民从残酷的内战中拯救出来，我们的殖民政治家必须获得新的土地来安置这个国家过剩的人口，为工厂和矿山生产的产品提供新的市场。正如我始终所说的那样，帝国就是一个涂黄油的面包。如果你们想避免内战，就必须成为帝国主义者。 今天，随着英帝国几乎被完全放弃，英国正在享有前所未有的繁荣。人民大众并不象罗得斯所预言的那样正在走投无路的情况下起来造反，而是得到了这个福利国家的关心，这种关心的程度在19 世纪是不可想象的。同样，虽然荷兰失去了印度尼西亚、比利时失去了刚果、法国失去了印度支那和阿尔及利亚，但所有这些国家的生活水平均比历史上任何时候都高，西德这个不再有殖民战争须资助的国家也绝非偶然地成为经济上进步最快的国家。相反，葡萄牙因拒不放弃其殖民地，所以一直处在其特有的贫困之中。因此，可以断定，发达国家的繁荣并不依赖于对海外不发达地区的征服——事实上，一切正相反。这一后朝帝国主义时代的一个迫切问题是如何利用发达世界的人力物力资源来完全改变富国愈来愈富、穷国愈来愈穷的趋势。 虽然殖民地革命未对帝国主义国家的繁荣产生不利影响，但它无疑影响了这些国家的帝国组织体系。在宪法上作些改动显然是没有什么实际意义的宣传手段。安哥拉爆发革命后，葡萄牙急急忙忙地准许所有非洲人都享有充分的公民权利和义务的做法就是如此。戴高乐的做法则属于另一种类型：他向法属殖民地提议，给它们选择完全独立或在法兰西“共同体”内实行自治的权利。如前所述，这些殖民地最终都选择了独立。因此，仍留在法兰西帝国势力范围之内的只是少数极小的前哨基地，如马提尼克岛、瓜德罗普岛、留尼汪岛、圭亚那和法属索马里兰。另一方面，巴黎同前殖民地的联系并没有完全断绝；过去的交往留下了无法磨灭的印记。新独立的国家在教育、商业、金融和技术等领域仍在指望法国提供指导与援助。 战前帝国最重要的遗留物是英联邦，即从前的英帝国和英联邦的后继者，到1970 年时，它由29个独立的成员国和27个附属国组成。这些附属国多半是面积很小、无法独自生存的保护领地。1926年的《贝尔宫宣言》对联合王国与战前自治领（见第十八章第四节）之间的关系下了如下权威性的定义：“英帝国内部的各自治社区，地位平等，它们在其内政或外交事务的任何方面都决不使一个社区从属于另一社区，不过，共同效忠英王这一点使它们合成一体，它们是作为英联邦的成员自由地联合在一起的。” 1931年的《威斯敏斯特条例》给了联合王国的这一定义以法律效力。 第二次世界大战之后，英联邦因许多已赢得独立的前亚非殖民地的加入而得到扩大。这些国家的加入引起了有关英联邦前途的新的基本问题。以往，英联邦的成员国一向仅限于那些主要由原籍联合王国的人拓居的国家，这些人同“母国”有着牢固的、天然的联系，而新的戍员国则是亚非国家，它们有着敌视英国统治的政治传统。经受了两次世界大战严峻考验的英联邦中的这种微妙关系能使这些不同的成员国团结在一起吗？或者，英联邦会象法兰西共同体那样迅速地解散吗？结果是：英国人体面地、迅速地放弃了帝国权力，这种颇有先见之明的做法赢得了令人愉快的赞颂。确实，似乎十分有悻常理的是，两个离开英联邦的国家都是前自治领——爱尔兰和南非。 今天的英联邦可以定义为由完全独立的国家组成的自由联盟，这些国家有着广泛的共同利益，这种共同利益一定程度上源于如下事实：每个国家都曾经与英帝国联系在一起。英联邦中的一些国家是共和国，另一些则是效忠于女王伊丽莎白二世的君主国。但所有国家都无例外地承认女王是英联邦象征性的首脑。使英联邦团结一致的这种联系一半是无形的、一半是有形的：无形的联系包括共向的遗产、共同使用的英语以及政治、法律、司法和教育方面的共同传统；有形的联系包括提供关税优惠的贸易协定网和通过许多常设委员会和总理们的定期会议就外交事务不断进行的意见交换。所有讨论都基于自愿合作的原则，尼赫鲁将这一原则形各为“环绕着英联邦的丝一般的联系。” 殖民地革命不仅导致了旧的帝国组织的改组，而且导致了前殖民地国家新的国际联盟的形成。这些新国家相信，如果它们同心协力，就能更有效地对付共同的问题，随意地施加影响；为此，它们举行了几次会议。 第一次会议于1955 年4月在印度尼西亚的万隆举行，参加会议的是代表世界近一半人口的29个亚非国家，这些国家包括新解放的殖民地国家如利比亚和锡兰，不完全自治的殖民地国家如黄金海岸和苏丹、共产党国家如中国和北约组织成员国如土耳其。由于这次会议规模很大、有各种不同的国家参加，因此，几乎没有可能就具体问题达成协议。但是，代表们对某些基本问题麦达了一致的意见，例如，他们一致谴责殖民主义和种族歧视，主张全面裁军和经济合作，对冷战普遍地抱着认为“两家都该死”的态度。 非洲的与万隆会议极为相似的会议是1963 年5月由所有非洲国家参加的亚的斯亚贝巴会议。在这次会议召开前，所谓的卡萨布兰卡集团（加纳、几内亚、马里、摩洛哥、利比亚、阿尔及利亚和阿拉伯联盟共和国）与蒙罗维亚集团（包括尼日利亚和大多数前法属殖民地）之间正在闹分裂；前者往往更好战、更积极地保持中立，后者通常较温和。这种危险的分裂在亚的斯亚贝巴会议上被消除了。大多数代表要求建立某种持久的、大陆范围的组织，不过也有些代表宁愿有一个强有力的集权制组织；还有一些代表要求建立不同程度的松散的自治共同体。最后，大会宣布成立非洲统一组织，下设秘书长、秘书处并规定定期召开国家首脑会议。这个组织采纳的宪章以所有成员国主权平等、和平解决争端、支持所有剩余的非洲殖民地的解放和在冷战中不结盟的原则为基础。 虽然自万隆会议以后召开了好几次第三世界会议，但它们都没有象所预期的那样有效。一个原因是许多杰出的领导人消失了，他们的消失或者是由于去世（如尼赫鲁），或者是由于政治上的垮台（如苏加诺和恩克鲁玛）。另一方面，亚非国家在联合国中凭借其数量上的优势大大地增加了它们的影响。联合国刚成立时，在51 个成员国中亚非国家仅占13个，到197O年时，在124个成员国中它们已占70个——绝对多数。这一大批新成员国从根本上改变了联合国中的均势。值得注意的是，早在1961年，原先由斯堪的纳维亚人担任的联合国秘书长职务已由缅甸人吴丹担任。与此同时，一位印度人代替美国人成为吴丹的行政秘书，两名非洲人成为副秘书。 由于表决力量中的这一变化，于1969 年12月结束的第24届联合国大会已被称为“小国会议”。各种决议尽管遭到一两个核超级大国——苏联和美国的反对，但还是被通过了。这些决议中有些要求立即暂停大国间的核武器竞赛，有些要求成立一个国际组织来开发海底资源，有些要求取缔所有的化学武器和细菌武器，包括美国在越南战场上使用的催泪毒气和脱叶剂。当然，小国的这种表决力量并没有改变国际政治生活中的严酷现实。 1964年初，美国国务卿迪安·腊斯克在下面这段话中清楚地说明了这一点：“现在，能组成联合国大会三分之二的多数的国家仅拥有世界总人口的10% ，也就是说，他们总共只捐助摊派预算的5% 。……联合国如果没有那些问它提供资源并有能力采取行动的会员国的支赞，根本无法采取重大行动”。确实，小国越将他们的观点强加给联合国大会，大国越趋向于独自在外界作出真正重大的决定。正如一位不再抱幻想的代表在1969年底所说的那样；“小国管理着东河岸边的美丽建筑物，两个大国管理着世界其余地方。”