Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism (Problems of International Politics)

She not only shows that nationalist events were more likely to occur when imperial authority was disrupted, but that the form of nationalist protests differed in these moments as well, with large demonstrations being preferred to strikes, store closings, or meetings. She also presents a fascinating discussion of nationalist agitation during settled times, which finds that anti-colonial movements often took advantage of the cover provided by apolitical religious or secular holidays to avoid repressive reactions by imperial authorities. First, her assessment of political equality and nationalist reaction rests on a provocative counterfactual: Had the French made genuine efforts to transform colonial subjects into citizens, could political independence have been postponed, or even avoided altogether?

Can we draw broad conclusions from these seemingly exceptional cases? Along the same lines, successive French post-war regimes did make modest strides towards political equality. The fact that these sorts of concessions were met by further demands suggests that political equality was essentially indivisible: What economic interests or ideological values would have held such a sprawling entity together?

Nationalism may not have been an ideological inevitability, but something like the nation-state may well have been a practical one. Second, because Lawrence is interested in variation in nationalist mobilization, her analysis is primarily focused on the level of individual movements in specific colonies. This leaves the motives of French politicians and administrators somewhat underdeveloped. Why did French leaders make the concessions towards equality that they did? Why did they refuse to go further? The answers to these questions are critical, because, as Lawrence notes, it was the French decision to devolve authority to a number of colonies under the Loi-cadre that eroded French authority and ultimately paved the way for political independence.

In particular, left-leaning parties tended to favor greater political equality than did right-leaning parties. But one wonders about the broader context: Because Lawrence is interested more in nationalist mobilization than decolonization itself, she tends to sidestep these complex questions, but they seem central to understanding why the French allowed openings for nationalist mobilization to appear in the first place.

One also wonders whether the two categories of disruption to imperial authority are entirely unrelated: A third and related set of questions concerns the ability of international factors to influence both the motives and opportunities for nationalist action. These statements suggest that international factors are important, but it is not clear entirely how.

Did the sharing of ideas and best practices between anti-colonial movements shape their willingness and capacity to mobilize along nationalist lines? Did patterns of Cold War competition, along with the particular stance taken by the United States and international organizations towards colonial questions, shape French decisions about how best to balance fresh concessions versus increased repression?

Along the same lines, one wonders whether the hypotheses Lawrence develops are applicable to all colonial empires or are unique to the French experience. The ideological foundations of the French empire may have made issues of assimilation and citizenship much more potent concerns than in other colonial contexts.

Moreover, because the Third Republic was defeated so dramatically in , it is perhaps unsurprising that this would have significant repercussions across an exposed and vulnerable empire. In this context, the post-war record of Britain paints a somewhat different picture. Despite remaining in firm British control throughout the war, India experienced immediate, and widespread, nationalist mobilization in its aftermath.

In contrast, although Malaya suffered under Japanese occupation, Britain was able to quickly reestablish authority and dampen nationalist demands through timely constitutional concessions. In short, to understand global patterns of nationalist mobilization, as well as explain variations across different empires, we may have to turn to different sets of variables. Yet Lawrence should be commended for producing a work that pushes scholars of international relations to grapple seriously with the interrelated origins of nationalist mobilization, imperial collapse, and post-colonial state building.

A dria Lawrence has written an important book on the politics of decolonization and the timing of nationalist mobilization in the French Empire. Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism is motivated by two empirical puzzles. First, she observes that—contrary to many of the existing accounts [2] —mobilization against the French Empire was—at least at first—not nationalist in content but rather turned nationalist at a later stage.

According to Lawrence, many scholars characterize protests for equal rights that did not involve any nationalist claims as nationalist, thus dodging the shift to nationalist content that took place over time. Second, Lawrence points to the difficulties in organizing protests and highlights the important variation in timing, intensity, and location of nationalist protests across the French Empire as well as within Senegal, Algeria, and Morocco in particular.

From these puzzles she generates her research question: Under what conditions did colonial subjects mobilize for national independence from the French Empire? In her award-winning book, Lawrence combines archival research, fieldwork, and historical analysis, and moves between different levels of analysis cross-colony analysis of the territories of the French empire, and several subnational analyses including Senegal, Algeria, but most prominently of Morocco both across space and over time , to test her argument.

Her research design allows her to test her argument against prominent alternative arguments such as norm diffusion, damaged French prestige, versions of modernization theory, and experiences of local exploitation. Lawrence focuses on French colonies in the twentieth century—French North Africa in particular. Thus, the mode of conquest, the nature of the metropole, and whether the empire was contiguous or not are variables that are not varying in this research design and shape her scope conditions.

Her careful process tracing should be emulated by other social scientists who engage in historical qualitative work. Lawrence makes a strong and convincing case that anti-colonial mobilization was not always nationalist in content—i. In fact, she shows that in many cases demands for equality were not simply initial stages of nationalist mobilization—as many scholars before her have suggested [3] —but rather alternatives to nationalist goals. Algeria , rather than cases like Morocco where assimilation was not the stated goal. Lawrence uses the term nationalism to describe only its indigenous version.

Is there a possibility however that colonial subjects who were asking for equality and citizenship were also motivated by nationalism. French nationalism—and its particular content—gave certain colonial subjects the discourse and the inspiration to make such demands at the first place. The French constitutive story could—and did—change to include Muslims. In other words, the French understanding of nationhood was not irreconcilable with Islam, or at least was a legitimate point of contestation in French political discourse.

The civic understanding of French nationhood does not seem too far from their position. All in all, a distinction between movements that engaged in anti-colonial activity—not of the indigenous nationalist variety—and movements that demanded inclusion to the French nation is in order. Lawrence is careful to note that she is not trying to account for the emergence of nationalism. My own sense is that it remains unclear why colonial subjects who were disappointed by the French empire would turn to nationalism and nationalist mobilization instead of pan-Arabism, communism, federalism, [7] or internationalist ideas.

Perhaps in the case of the French Empire socialization into a French understanding of nationhood was the reason that colonial elites turned to indigenous nationalism instead of turning to other ideologies once the policies of the French Empire disillusioned them. Lawrence is transparent in her theoretical discussion and addresses head-on the potential endogeneity problem for her political equality argument.

Lawrence argues that the cost to France of extending political equality was lower for certain colonies since the population was small and French control was long established. This was the case, for example, when it comes to the Four Communes in Senegal. But she also provides an alternative reading for the role of size: The two variables, size and time in the Empire, can be seen as indicators of assimilability of the population to the French nation.

Moreover, small size and dependence on France could also impact the likelihood of the development of indigenous nationalist movement. Thus, the French may have targeted certain colonies with political equality and assimilationist policies because they thought of them as more assimilable. In Chapter 3 she meticulously tests this hypothesis using data on urbanization as a proxy.

She finds that this linear correlation does not hold true in the French Empire. In other words, there may be an interaction between the level of modernization and the identity of the modernizer. The following hypotheses would then follow: The underlying assumption here is that loyalties to the modernizer would develop in the cases where the French were the modernizers.

Older colonies, that were modernized by French rule, were more likely to receive political equality and thus less likely to mobilize against the Empire using the idiom of indigenous nationalism. Of course, data availability would severely constrain such an endeavor. Lawrence joins a list of scholars who view nationalist mobilization as a by-product. Her argument is a much-needed corrective in a literature filled with anachronistic arguments. A question that emerges from my point of view—which is fundamentally shaped by the study of the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire—is how would her argument account for the emergence of nationalist mobilization in the absence of disruptions.

In particular, there is evidence from other parts of the world that nationalist mobilization is often the result of external involvement—covert, clandestine, or overt—by Great Powers, [10] kin states, [11] as well as transnational non-state actors. Lawrence discusses briefly the Pan-Arab movement but pays very little attention to external actors and their involvement in this process. The author is right to point out to the domestic political opportunity structure but, apart from the mechanism of occupation by a third party, there is little consideration of the role of transnational movements and external backing by patrons.

The nature of the French Empire and its politics may be unique in that respect—maybe educating elites from the colonies in the metropole was one way of fending off such external threats—but a comparative look forces us to theorize this variation. Nationalist movements were not just the result of disillusionment with the French Empire; the absence of colonizers also lead to the emergence indigenous nationalist movements, as in the case of Morocco in the s Overall, Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism makes a significant contribution to the study of nationalism and nationalist mobilization.

Scholars and policy-makers interested in nationalism, social movements, and decolonization should read it. Her careful empirical work at different levels of analysis and her compelling theoretical framework give rise to many crucial questions that we have not adjudicated in comparative politics at large and in nationalism studies in particular. I n the 25 years following World War II, the European colonial empires confronted waves of violent and non-violent mobilization for national independence. A powerful conventional wisdom treats these uprisings as a natural consequence of imperial rule in the age of nationalism.

In this view, differences of identity — race, religion, and language — rendered the continuation of a common sovereignty unacceptable to colonized populations. In writing Imperial Rule and the Politics of Nationalism , I contested this conventional wisdom by examining the response of indigenous political actors to imperial rule in the late colonial era.

Table of Contents

Specifically, my analysis of anti-colonialism in the French Empire had four main goals: The reviewers provide valuable comments on all four of these goals, for which I am exceedingly grateful. It is a privilege to take part in the current wave of social science scholarship devoted to systematic, historical inquiry and I am particularly appreciative of the opportunity to exchange views with two scholars within this community whose new work has contributed significantly to our understanding of how powerful states have conquered and ruled peoples with differing ethnic and national identities.

With their commentary in mind, I revisit each goal below. My first objective was to unsettle accounts that group together demands to reform imperial rule and demands for independence under the same conceptual umbrella: Prior work portrays movements seeking political rights within the imperial structure as the initial stage of nationalist movements for independence.

Proponents of political reform argued that the democratic principles of the French republic were universal and therefore applicable to the colonies. They opposed the authoritarian nature of colonial rule and advocated treating colonial subjects as political equals. In contrast, it was the foreign nature of French rule that nationalists seeking independence opposed. Instead of emphasizing individual rights, or equality between French citizens and colonial subjects, they stressed the distinctiveness of the nation. While both sets of demands were anti-colonial, their aims were different.

It is important to recognize the distinctiveness of these platforms if we wish to understand why political activists shift from one set of goals, particularly if, as I found, the fate of one movement affects the other. In his review, Harris Mylonas revisits the argument that both of these forms of anti-colonialism were, at their core, manifestations of nationalism. Between and , three dozen new states in Asia and Africa achieved autonomy or outright independence from their European colonial rulers.

There was no one process of decolonization. In some areas, it was peaceful, and orderly. In many others, independence was achieved only after a protracted revolution. A few newly independent countries acquired stable governments almost immediately; others were ruled by dictators or military juntas for decades, or endured long civil wars. Some European governments welcomed a new relationship with their former colonies; others contested decolonization militarily.

The process of decolonization coincided with the new Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, and with the early development of the new United Nations. Decolonization was often affected by superpower competition, and had a definite impact on the evolution of that competition. It also significantly changed the pattern of international relations in a more general sense. The creation of so many new countries, some of which occupied strategic locations, others of which possessed significant natural resources, and most of which were desperately poor, altered the composition of the United Nations and political complexity of every region of the globe.

In the mid to late 19th century, the European powers colonized much of Africa and Southeast Asia. May Learn how and when to remove this template message. New Imperialism and Colonialism. American imperialism and Timeline of United States military operations. United Nations Trust Territories. Decolonization of the Americas. List of national independence days. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. The darker side of Western modernity: The United Nations and Decolonization.

The Rise of the West: A History of the Human Community. The University of Chicago Press. Palmer, The age of the Democratic Revolution: Morris, The emerging nations and the American Revolution Archives Europeennes de Sociologie,. A Very Short Introduction. Internet Modern History Sourcebook. Canadian Journal of History. Archived from the original on The case of medieval and Ottoman Serbia". Explorations in Economic History. Po-chia Hsia, and Bonnie G. The Making of the West Peoples and Cultures. Crowd events in Bombay city in Journal of South Asian Studies 8. The Making of India and Pakistan A Comparison of Schoolbooks on the 'History of Cyprus'.

A Reappraisal of Filipino Views on Independence". Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion: Torres, "Puerto Rico, the 51st state: Brands, Bound to Empire: The United States and the Philippines pp Metropolitan Revolution and the Dissolution of Empire Hargreaves, Decolonization in Africa The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations.

Revolutions and the Revolutionary Tradition: In the West — To be or not to be?. Systematic Political Geography 2nd Edition. United Nations General Assembly Resolution South—South cooperation and Third Worldism. Landlocked developing countries Least Developed Countries Heavily indebted poor countries.

Emerging markets Newly industrialized country Transition economy. Colonization , decolonization , and neocolonialism. Americas Africa Asia Oceania. Antiquity — Imperialism Chartered companies Interventionism Colonialism chronology history empires settler colonialism wars Current: Wars of national liberation — Predecessors of sovereign states in Europe in South America Independence referendum Sovereign states formation dates. Independence Internal colonialism Nation-building Neo-colonialism Postcolonialism international relations.

Terra nullius Indigenous peoples Uncontacted peoples. Retrieved from " https: History of colonialism Sovereignty Decolonisation. Julian—Gregorian uncertainty CS1 maint: Views Read Edit View history. In other projects Wikimedia Commons. This page was last edited on 16 December , at By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Organization of Ibero-American States. Community of Portuguese Language Countries. Commonwealth of Independent States.

Decolonization - Wikipedia

Thirteen colonies of British America declare their independence a year into a general insurrection. Recognized by Great Britain in at the Treaty of Paris. After initially revolting only to restore French control, Saint-Domingue declares its independence as Haiti. West Florida today part of the United States. West Florida declares independence, but is almost immediately annexed by the United States as part of Orleans Territory under its claims from the Louisiana Purchase. Annexation recognized by Spain in Recognized by Spain in Venezuela declares its independence.

During its revolution , it joins Gran Colombia , before seceding to achieve independence in Gran Colombia today Colombia and Panama. Cartagena declares its independence. Cundinamarca and the United Provinces of New Granada followed suit in Briefly retaken by Spain, saved by Simon Bolivar and united as Colombia in The Federal League declares its independence of the restored Spanish crown , after having successfully revolted against Napoleonic Spain in Attacked by Portugal , some provinces united with the future Argentina; others, after a protracted struggle, successfully formed Uruguay in The United Provinces of South America formally declare their independence of the restored Spanish crown, after having successfully revolted against Napoleonic Spain in its name in Became Argentina in Chile declares its independence of the restored crown, after having unsuccessfully revolted against Napoleonic Spain in its name in Recognized by the Spanish in East Florida today part of the United States.

Following a failed liberal insurrection in New Spain , the colony declares its independence as the Mexican Empire after a liberal mutiny succeeds in Spain. Texas independent in , annexed to the United States in Chiapas and then all of Guatemala declares its independence as part of the Mexican Empire. Santo Domingo declares independence as Spanish Haiti , requests union with Gran Colombia , and is swiftly annexed by Haiti. It will achieve independence in only to restore Spanish rule in A Chilean expeditionary force declares the independence of Peru.

Bolivia formed from Upper Peru in Recognized by the Porte in in the Treaty of Constantinople. Quito declares independence as a part of Gran Colombia. Independent from Colombia as Ecuador in Brazil , long the seat of the Portuguese royal government, declares independence under a rogue prince after the king returns to Lisbon.

Recognized by Portugal in Liberia declares its independence as an organized nation. Independence was officially recognized by the United States in Montenegro declares its independence. Recognized in at the Congress of Berlin. Voluntarily united with Serbia as Yugoslavia in Ionian Islands today part of Greece.

Santo Domingo regains independence as the Dominican Republic after four years as a restored colony. Britain grants internal autonomy to Canada, while keeping control of foreign policy. Britain retained legal powers over Canada until , and a role in Canada constitutional law until Serbia declares its full independence from the Ottoman Empire. The United Principalities of Romania declare their independence. In , the Insular Government over the Philippines was replaced with the Commonwealth.

Britain grants internal autonomy to Australia, while keeping control of foreign policy. Britain retained legal powers over South Africa until , and shared a role in Australia constitutional law until Guantanamo Bay is leased in perpetuity as a US Naval base. Bulgaria , largely autonomous since the Congress of Berlin , declares itself fully independent of the Ottoman Empire. Britain grants internal autonomy to South Africa, while keeping control of foreign policy. Britain retained legal powers over South Africa until , and shared a head of state until Recognized in the Treaty of London.

The independence of Russian Poland as a new kingdom is proclaimed by occupying German and Austro-Hungarian forces. Finland declares its independence. Recognized in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk , although Karelia remained disputed. Crimea today de jure part of Ukraine , de facto part of Russia. Crimean People's Republic declares independence but Crimean Tatar forces hold out less than a month against the Bolsheviks. Idel-Ural today part of Russia. The republic was crushed by the Bolsheviks a few months later. Kazakhs declare independence of the Alash Autonomy. This lasted for less than three years before being defeated by the Bolsheviks.

Azerbaijan , Georgia , Armenia. All three would be conquered by the Red Army in — Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania. Estonia , Latvia and Lithuania declare independence. All three were initially able to secure their independence by ; however, on , all three were invaded by the Soviet Union and were later annexed. Czechoslovakia today the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Bohemia , Moravia , and sections of Silesia , Galicia , and Hungary declare their independence as Czechoslovakia. Recognized in the Treaty of Trianon in Slovakia independent from to Carpathian Ruthenia independent in , eventually annexed to Ukraine.

Secession of Slovakia in After the signing of the Danish—Icelandic Act of Union , Iceland becomes a sovereign state in personal union with Denmark. End of the protectorate over Afghanistan , when the United Kingdom accepts the presence of a Soviet ambassador in Kabul. The Iraqi revolt prevents the mandate over Mesopotamia from being enacted, and was replaced with the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty in In , Greater Lebanon became the Lebanese Republic.

Communist Mongolian revolutionaries , with the help of the Red Army , expel the Chinese government presence from Outer Mongolia. Mongolia was recognized by the United Nations in Northern Ireland , the north-east area of the island, remains within the United Kingdom. Egypt is unilaterally granted independence by the United Kingdom. However, four matters imperial communications, defence, the protection of foreign interests and minorities, as well as Sudan remain "absolutely reserved to the discretion" of the British government, which greatly restricts the full exercise of Egyptian sovereignty.

Canada , Ireland , South Africa. The Balfour Declaration declares the dominions of the British empire as autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status. Weihai today part of China. The United Kingdom returns the leased port territory at Weihaiwei to China. The Statute of Westminster grants virtually full independence to Canada, the Irish Free State , and the Union of South Africa when it declares the British parliament incapable of passing law over these former colonies without their own consent. This doesn't take effect over New Zealand, Newfoundland , and the Commonwealth of Australia, until independently ratified by these dominions.

End of League of Nations Mandate over Iraq. The United Kingdom continues to station troops in the country and influence the Iraqi government until Vietnam , Laos , Cambodia [51]. After the Fall of France , the new French State de facto cedes control of French Indochina to Japan, weakening the colonial system that would make it difficult for France to control their colony once it is returned to them. Eritrea , Somalia , Ethiopia [52].

Decolonization

Eritrea , Tigray Province appended to it , Italian Somaliland , and Ethiopia are taken by the Allies after an uneasy occupation of Ethiopia since —36, and no longer joined as one colonial federal state. Ethiopia , the only African state to escape the Scramble for Africa , returns to being a sovereign nation, while the Ogaden desert disputed by Somalia remains under British military control until Australia ratifies the Statute of Westminster. Japanese seize control of the Dutch East Indies.

Throughout the occupation the Japanese dismantle the colonial system and stirs national fervor among the native population, which will cause major problems for the Dutch when the colony is returned to them. Lebanon declares independence, effectively ending the French mandate previously together with Syria. Following a plebiscite , Iceland formally becomes a republic, ending the personal union between Denmark and Iceland. Vietnam , Laos , Cambodia [56]. In the last months of World War II, Japanese forces in French Indochina overthrew the largely powerless colonial administration and declare the independence of the Vietnam which was formed from three separate colonies Cambodia , and Laos.

After the surrender of Japan , all three states would be disestablished and, in theory, returned to French colonial rule. Korea today North Korea and South Korea. Taiwan today de jure part of China , de facto an independent state with limited recognition , Mengjiang today part of China , Manchuria today part of China [57].

After the surrender of Japan, Mengjiang and Manchukuo are returned to China. Taiwan is put under the post-war occupation of China in accordance with the arrangement in General Order No. However, just two days later, the Dutch East Indies declares independence , which after four years of armed struggle and mounting international pressure is recognized by the Netherlands in Before France is able to regain control over French Indochina, Vietnam declares independence.

France will recognize Vietnam in following a humiliating defeat , although between that year and Vietnam was divided into a communist north and a largely anti-communist south under American influence , before reuniting under North Vietnam rule. The treaty of Manila is signed, effectively ending over years of foreign domination in the Philippines.

United States military bases continued to be stationed in the islands. The former Emirate of Transjordan became an independent Hashemite kingdom when the United Kingdom relinquishes its League of Nations mandate. The former Mandate of Syria became an independent Republic.

New Zealand ratifies the Statute of Westminster India , Pakistan today Pakistan and Bangladesh. The British government leaves India , which is partitioned into the secular, but Hindu-majority state of India and the Muslim state of Pakistan the eastern half of which will later became independent as Bangladesh in Myanmar , Sri Lanka. Burma , which had separated from British India earlier and did not gain independence in , and Ceylon , which despite being a part of the Indian subcontinent was only briefly a part of British India, became independent.

The Jewish-controlled part of Palestine declares independence as the state of Israel; the remainder of Palestine became de facto part of the Arab states of Egypt Gaza strip and Transjordan West Bank. Newfoundland today part of Canada. The Dominion of Newfoundland joins Canada.

France , United Kingdom. Pondicherry today part of India. The Puducherry enclave is incorporated into India. Suez Canal today part of Egypt. In the aftermath of July 23 revolution , the United Kingdom withdraws from the last part of Egypt it controls: United Kingdom , Egypt de jure , de facto just United Kingdom. Sudan today Sudan and South Sudan. Egypt ends it claims of sovereignty over Sudan , forcing the United Kingdom to do the same.