The Theoretical Success Of Decolonization

In order to determine if decolonization by removal of the native body could ever be successful, one must look to the case of American decolonization. While America went from being a colony under the rule of another country to a nation, it was the colonizer who decolonized and not the native body. American decolonization removed the British hand-holding that taught America how to be a country. After this process, however, the newly American people still had natives who wanted their land back. European diseases and violent conflict over the land wrecked the native body, and once nationhood was achieved, the government began passing policies like the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

From 1945 and beyond, leaders have selected different paths to affect change. Some encouraged independence through violence, peaceful actions, diplomacy, and the commitment of their struggling nation. Others sparked revolutions by appealing to the peoples’ needs. Through policy, and sometimes uniting a people, trailblazers changed the face and structure of their nation. A column from a journalist during the time period would help to see a broader perspective during such varying and exciting time. Decolonization, revolution, and nation building are all goals of any effective leader willing to make a change.

The process of decolonization proved to have its own struggles within those who were seeking their independence from imperialist powers. Evidently, these nationalist movements were different in many regions, but they generally shared the sentiment that “Westernization” had taken something away from them. This proved to be the case in Africa and Asia, where the colonization movement from imperialist powers was of strong presence, and that had trouble weakening during and after the Cold War. Part of this struggle was due to the forms of government that were imposed, and because many of these colonies had been in this position for such long time that they were not able to predict upcoming conflicts after their independence. However, in many cases, the problems were more complicated and often implied a combination of reaction to westernization and internal conflicts. Undoubtedly,

The United Nations was to be a place where there was peace between the countries, a place where they can dispute their differences, a place to support each other and benefit from the allies a country made by being in the United Nations. It was “designed to make possible lasting freedom and independence for all its members” (Document B). Not long after it was founded, it started falling apart. People had different idea of how it should have been ran but the people who got their way was the bigger and stronger countries. They came to an agreement that the bigger countries—the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China—would have veto power and the other countries that were a part of it would take smaller roles in the decisions

Hello, everyone. I am William Andel, representing the United States of America on a important matter. Many people feel the need for a change. This is not just a simple change,either; it is an international change. Everywhere in the world, people are ravaged by war and suffering. Everyone would like to snuff that out, I’m sure, but the UN is at the forefront of this change. Why have we ignored the countries that have reached out to help?

dominating nations, was no longer plausible. Instead, they became merely a safety risk due the conflicting global powers in the Cold War. As a result of European countries gradually declining in their global-impression, the contentment upon decolonization amplified amid a variety of nations.

Thus, in this context of a unipolar system dominated by U.S., it is highly unlikely that a great power like U.S., motivated by its relentless pursuit of power and security, would allow itself to be deterred by U.N. resolutions that do not comply with its own interests. This also reflects the realist interpretation of international system which is characterized by anarchy and therefore, it is not considered prudent for a State to entrust its safety and survival on another actor or international institutions such as United Nations.

Because it is a systematic negation of the other person and a furious determination to deny the other person all attributes of humanity, colonialism forces the people it dominates to ask themselves the question constantly: "In reality, who am I?" (The Wretched of the Earth 250)

What effect has decolonization brought? The decolonized nations cope with their own course of action on all fronts - economic, social, political and cultural. Even as they struggle to rid themselves of the shackles of the erstwhile influences, they try to regain touch with their ‘golden past’ and also believe in a brighter future. With centuries of economic exploitation to undo, it does seem to be a daunting task. However, colonial theorists like Frantz Fanon believe that the colony regaining its place in the order, returning to its hierarchic origin is but inevitable.

The decolonization process after the Second World War resulted in the end of British hegemony in the Indian Ocean. The subsequent Cold War which ensued was again marked by superpower rivalry in the region, enhancing the region’s global strategic value. When this period came to an end, the littoral countries of the IOR to a certain extent rediscovered some of the economic, social and cultural facets that made the ocean the bridge between Africa, Asia and Australia . However, regional cooperation & coordination is still a far reality which is a dire necessity for overall development in the region. In the 21st century the Indian Ocean security has evolved to be multifaceted and dynamic. The emerging threats and challenges which are typically common to the entire region, range across a wide spectrum with transnational maritime crimes such as piracy, illegal immigration, human trafficking, smuggling and illegal unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing activities at one end to the more serious challenges of natural disasters, climate change and even interstate maritime disputes erupting into fully fledged confrontations at the other end . The word ‘Maritime Security deals with the prevention of illicit activities in the maritime domain’. In the previous chapter we have been acquainted with the geostrategic and economic importance of the region which has resulted in the shift of world’s interest to this part of the maritime province.

Decolonization can be achieved by gaining independence, along with interaction of power also, it is a political process that causes violence in in a lot of circumstances and may sometimes be resolved by negotiating on peaceful terms. But can also lead to violent resistance and arm struggle by the native population. Eventually with World War coming to an end, it brought a revolution of decolonization in many countries. For many people, this was a positive thing as they were to obtain independence from colonies and empires. Decolonization was a long process to begin with, it took almost thirty years after World War II for some places. With colonial powers getting weaker, that was great chance for independence for Africa and Asia. Not only

The last class session in New York City focused on the work of selected departments in the UN Secretariat. Susana Malcorra (Chief of Staff), Farhan Haq (Deputy Spokesman), and Steven Siqueira (Senior Advisor at DPA) delivered enlightening lectures. However, the most revealing was Mr. Siqueira’s discussion. He toured the class through the changes in the UN to its current state. He first described the transformation in the UN from 1992 to 2012 and categorized these changes into five waves. He closed with lessons learned and the road ahead.

The process of decolonization in Africa during the 1950’s through the 1970’s was a very smart yet risky idea. For some places independence was easily gained yet in other areas it was a battle. During the time periods where colonization existed, Africa was peaceful and kept things in order. People had control over their specific locations and there were no questions to be asked. Once it was decided to remove these rights, things got out of hand rather quickly. Violence was a main occurrence during the decolonization timeframe because rules, rights, leaderships, etc. got altered and drastically changed. Sometimes nonviolence was used but it usually wasn’t as effective. A major example of using nonviolence actions to gain independence is when

The transcript for Think Tank with Ben Wattenberg from September 16th 2004 on “Does the U.N. Work?” is a debate with two opposing views one for and one against the United Nations. Timothy Wirth the President of the United Nations Foundation, former U.S. Senator and former undersecretary for global affairs at the U.S. Department of State goes against Josh Muravchik a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of “Exporting Democracy: fulfilling America’s Destiny, and, The Imperative of American Leadership: A Challenge to Neoisolationism.” Wirth argues for the UN and Muravchik against. The central argument made by Muravchik is that the United Nations never really became what it was meant to be. It was conceived as an institution that was to maintain world peace but never could fulfill that role however, the United States itself is now the main power to keep peace in the world. The attempt to counterbalance American power in Muravchik’s opinion is dangerous since it will cause the world to be much less peaceful since the U.S. is able to keep the peace that the U.N can not do. On the contrary, Wirth argues that the U.N. a product of WW2 still is inline with its original intention, to make sure nations get together and no single country is able to impose its will on others. Wirth understands that times have changed and the U.N. is trying to modernize itself in accordance to the modern world. Wirth does understand that countries will have their own self-interests

In the 1990s, when other fields failed to predict some major events of the twentieth century, including the struggle to decolonise, post-colonialism entered the field of International Relations. Postcolonialism can be surmised as the theory of International Relations which uses the effect of colonialism to describe the conditions of countries today, with a focus on personal information from its peoples. 'Post-colonial' refers to the analysis of colonialism and anti-colonialism. 'Postcolonial' is used to indicate the analysing of the current era of International Relations as the postcolonial era. The relevance of postcolonial theory for the study of International Relations will be discussed and analysed.