Decolonization Various Interpretations Decolonization is the historical circumstances that led to transfer of power to Africans, John Hargreaves had 2 views- (1)was a European initiative -depression, world wars (2) international pressure made colonies undesirable Argument: decolonization involved negotiation and military action both French & British were unwilling to leave. War in Libya- Spain had to fight, France had to fight in Algeria, British showdown in Kenya & Zimbabwe Portuguese faced off with nationalist in Angola, Mozambique

Anthony low Asian mirror-decolonization was impacted by violent events in Asia e.g. Malaysia, Indonesia Struggle and activities of India National Congress influenced transfer of power in 3 rd world countries- Role of Mahatma Gandhi lesson that violence can be avoided in transfer of power Argument: but colonial powers never learnt a lesson- case of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Algeria, Angola, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique etc

Rodger Louis and Ronald Robinson Decolonization-a European initiative rise of USA as a world power led to decolonization-the ideological belief of self- determination propounded by USA. Argument Britain conceded to retain relationship with USA. But what of other powers like Belgium, Spain or Portugal? why did they decolonize? USA –not genuine- had deep seated fear of Soviet intervention to support nationalist cause. Hence USA acted to contain Communism Soviet also had fear of capitalism and wanted to stop it

Robinson & Louis Decolonization a European initiative, Britain had made up her mind, reviewed her position in Africa and mapped a road to independence, there was a timetable That riots and rebellions only accelerated independence. Argument No timetable due to methods used such as bitter armed struggle- the human resource, weapons and finances used to put down the uprisings

Fredrick Cooper Disagrees with Louis & Robinson If there was a timetable why the serious challenges, why the armed military revolutions/rebellions? Cooper- independence was not supported Europeans were not willing to go but instead initiated reforms at end of the war to appease the Africans The reforms both good and bad e.g. massive through exploitation to pay off the war debts-aka “second colonization”

Suret Canale Decolonization not a European initiative Supports Cooper, Powers were not willing to go There was no plan no design no timetable They were broke and wanted colonies for economic exploitation to get on their feet. Used indirect exploitation excessively after WWII. Decolonization was a result of conflict bet imperialist and liberation movements

Jack Woods “Africa the lion Awakes” Not a European initiative Not associated with the Asian mirror Europeans were forced out; An African initiative due to discontent at all levels the youth, traders, workers, peasants even the colonial chiefs were fed up, each group was suffocating, Groups set aside their differences and fought. Argument- Not all liberation movements were totally national e.g. Nigeria divided on religious base. Buganda wanted separatism from rest of Uganda

Adu Boahen Decolonization was not well thought and carefully executed by the colonial powers. It was an African initiative Decolonization involved struggles sometimes peaceful e.g. Tanganyika, Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda. Many were violent e.g. Algeria, Kenya, Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Libya and S. Africa. Portugal, France, and Belgium never thought of leaving Africa- were forced out by armed resistance African independence was costly it was got by blood and not given on a silver platter, it was grabbed.

Ali Mazrui “Triple Heritage” decolonization was an African initiative Africans fought and won Independence e.g. Kenya, Algeria, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Angola, South Africa, Guinea Bissau, etc Role of the ex-soldiers in various countries that launched long protracted guerrilla warfare. Many formed underground movements to engage colonial rule e.g. Mau Mau in Kenya Role of trade unions that called strikes and boycotts e.g. Enugu mine workers, Toure and his 66 days strike

Conclusion Colonial powers Never supported decolonization, they had their own agenda e.g. economic collapse of Europe and containment of communism. Asians and Pan-Africans supported decolonization struggle Africans too had their agenda, to fight for self- determination in accordance with the Atlantic Charter, a war they fought well, only methods used differed Routes followed –constitutional, or armed struggle, the aim was one- to wrestle power from imperialists. So to look at European initiative and ignore African initiative & Asian/Pan-Africa friends is to distort history,- all factors were at play.