V o L u m e I : a d

References

Bunn, Matthew. Foundation for the Future: The ABM Treaty and National Security.

Washington, DC: Arms Control Association.

Newhouse, John. Cold Dawn: The Story of SALT. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win-

ston, 1973.

Smith, Gerard. Doubletalk: The Story of SALT I by the Chief American Negotiator. New

York: Doubleday, 1980.

Willrich, Mason, and John Rhinelander, eds. SALT I: The Moscow Agreements and

Beyond. New York: Free Press, 1974.

See Missiles, Antiballistic

Anticolonialism is defined as hostility toward the domination of one nation

or territory by another, usually for exploitative purposes. The Cold War era,

particularly from the mid-1950s on, witnessed an explosion of anticolonial-

ism, resulting in the creation of a host of new and independent states, espe-

cially in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. As many nations struggled to gain

independence from European control during the Cold War, the two super-

powers competed for their loyalty by proclaiming dedication to anticolonial

principles. In practice, however, the superpowers often compromised their

alleged principles by replacing European colonialism with new types of exter-

nal control that limited the ability of developing-world nations to exercise

self-determination.

Resistance to foreign rule by colonized peoples runs as far back as ancient

history. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, however, anticolonialism

began to take shape as an element of Western political discourse. Enlighten-

ment thought, with its emphasis on self-determination and mutual obliga-

tions between the government and the governed, gave rise to a liberal strand

of anticolonialism that underpinned the American Revolution. In later years,

Marxism inspired a more radical form of anticolonialism. The Russian

Vladimir I. Lenin gave that view its fullest articulation in the early twentieth

century, describing colonialism as a by-product of capitalism and calling for

its destruction through communist revolution.

Both the liberal and radical variants gained strength following World War

I. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson made self-determination a central part of

his plan to establish a new global order rooted in democracy, free trade, and

collective security. Meanwhile, nationalist leaders of colonial territories, frus-

trated by the unwillingness of the European powers to cede control, increas-

ingly concluded that they could achieve their liberation only through protest,

confrontation, and war. Anticolonial agitation gained considerable momentum

Anticolonialism

141

Antiballistic Missiles

Anticolonialism

---

during the interwar years even as European empires reached their greatest

geographical extent.

World War II marked a major turning point by opening new opportuni-

ties for the expression of anticolonialism. In part, the war itself played a role

by severely weakening the European colonial powers. German victories over

France and the Netherlands, combined with Japanese occupation of French,

Dutch, and British territories in the Far East, disrupted or destroyed colonial

administrations and emboldened nationalists by crushing the myth of colo-

nial invincibility. Nationalists stepped into the vacuum and asserted them-

selves with unprecedented power and conviction.

In part, too, World War II sparked a surge of anticolonialism by pulling

the United States into the forefront of international politics. Even before it

joined the fighting, Washington revived old Wilsonian rhetoric and placed

decolonization high among Allied war aims. At their meeting at Placentia Bay,

Newfoundland, in August 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to sign the Atlantic Charter, which

pledged respect for “the right of all peoples to choose the form of govern-

ment under which they will live.” During the war, Roosevelt demanded steps

toward the gradual dissolution of European empires, especially in South and

Southeast Asia, and the establishment of a new world system based on self-

determination and free trade.

Following the war, U.S. policymakers recognized powerful incentives

to stick to the course of gradual anticolonialism charted by Roosevelt. Given

the apparent inevitability of decolonization around the globe, it made good

sense to position the United States on the side of nationalists who would one

day control vast resources crucial to the U.S. economy. The emergence of the

Soviet Union as a rival beyond the European theater only heightened Wash-

ington’s concern about maintaining friendly relations with nationalists in the

developing world.

These anxieties were offset, however, by another dynamic that led the

United States to back away from its avowed anticolonial principles in the first

decade of the Cold War. While American leaders understood the desirability

of cultivating partnerships in the developing world, they set a higher priority

on the need to form robust coalitions among industrial nations to resist

Soviet aggression. In this effort, Washington’s partners were precisely those

countries that controlled colonial empires. Anxious to bolster Britain, France,

and other colonial powers as alliance partners, the United States soft-pedaled

its anticolonial agenda, advocating compromise solutions that stopped short of

full independence for colonial territories. Such halfway solutions disappointed

nationalist leaders, who often came to view the United States as a force of

repression more than one of liberation.

Historians have suggested other reasons for America’s failure to translate

anticolonial ideals into support for developing-world nationalism during the

Cold War. Diplomatic historian William Appleman Williams argued that U.S.

declarations of anticolonialism masked Americans’ own ambitions to control

the destiny of other parts of the world in order to serve American interests.

Since the nineteenth century, Williams argued, the United States had sought

142

Anticolonialism

---