Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

United States reactions to empire, colonialism, and cold war in Black Africa, 1949–57

2005; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 33; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/03086530500123804

1743-9329

John Kent,

African history and culture studies

Abstract United States interest in and involvement with Black Africa under colonial rule began in the immediate years following the Second World War when Africa was seen primarily as an adjunct to European recovery with economic requirements predominating. When the continent assumed political importance for American Cold War policy, Washington began to grapple with the dilemma of winning African support and preserving the alliance with European colonial powers. The African dimension was seen as having future significance in the Cold War while the Atlantic alliance served present Cold and hot war planning needs. After a brief attempt to portray colonialism in a positive Cold War light and develop a more independent policy, Washington reverted to working with the colonial powers towards implementing the common goals of self-government. It was defined in the latter part of the first Eisenhower administration as providing the best political compromise in the Cold War while offering the prospect of mutually profitable relations with dependent African countries. Notes [1] Of the new genre, see especially Dominic Lieven, Empire: The Rusian Empire and its Rivals (London, 2000), preface and ch.1, for a discussion of the meaning of empire within an international and regional framework. There is now a plethora of work on the theoretical and conceptual approach to empire, including for the brave-hearted Michael Doyle, Empires (Ithaca, NY, 1986). On the modern American ‘empire’ as world power since 1945, a general introduction is Michael Cox, ‘Whatever Happened to American Decline? International Relation and the New United States Hegemony’, New Political Economy, 6, 3 (2001). For two brief articles that go beyond the meaning of empire and the world system which it operates in to examine not just the historical contingency of twentieth-century empire but also its relationship to agency, see Jack Snyder, ‘Imperial Temptations’, and Stephen Peter Rosen, ‘An Empire If You Can Keep It’, National Interest (Spring 2003). [2] V. McKay, ‘The African Operations of United States Government Agencies’, in W. Goldschmidt (ed.), The United States and Africa (New York, 1958); J. Marcum, The Angolan Revolution, Vol.1 1950–1962 (Cambridge, MA, 1962); R. Emerson, Africa and United States Policy (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1963). [3] Wm. Roger Louis, Imperialism at Bay 1941–45: The United States and the Decolonisation of the British Empire (Oxford, 1977). [4] See Ebere Nwaubani, The United States and Decolonisation in West Africa (Rochester, NY, 2001); David Ryan and Victor Pungong (eds.), The United States and Decolonisation Power and Freedom (Basingstoke, 2000). [5] Reorganisation of the State Department 1949, Statement by the Secretary before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), I, 1949, 3. [6] ‘George C. McGhee’, Current Biography (1950), 368–69. [7] State Department report (undated), FRUS, V, 1950, 1504. [8] Loans were ‘hard’ loans with competitive interest rates. Property credits were credits to foreign governments in the form of: (a) the disposal of surplus properties, e.g. merchant ships; (b) settlement for lend-lease articles; and (c) commodity credit used to finance raw material shipments to occupied areas for manufacture and export. [9] Summary of US Government foreign credits and grants 1945–1950, FRUS, I, 1949, 755. [10] For the wartime British assessment given after an American tour, see Report by G. Spry on United States Relations with the British Empire, 1 May 1944, FO 371/38523, National Archives, Kew (NA). [11] Swinton to Stanley, 15 Oct. 1943, CO 968/88/6, NA. [12] See note by P.-M. Henry for R. Delavignette, 26 Feb. 1949, Aff Pol 222/5, Archives Nationales Section Outre Mer (ANSOM). [13] Combined Policy Committee Minutes, 13 Sept. 1949, FRUS, I, 1949, 522. [14] State Department Report Political and Economic Problems of Africa (undated), FRUS, V, 1950, 1506. [15] State Department Report Political and Economic Problems of Africa (undated), FRUS, V, 1950, 1506. [16] State Department Report Political and Economic Problems of Africa (undated), FRUS, V, 1950, 1507. The non-governmental experts recommended that any US aid should place less emphasis on European recovery than on Africa. [17] Memo by McGhee to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk), 17 Feb. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1511. [18] Memo by McGhee to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk), 17 Feb. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1520. [19] Memo by McGhee to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk), 17 Feb. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1518–19. [20] Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations reached at Lourenc¸o-Marques, Memo by G. McGhee to the Secretary of State and the Under Secretary of State (Webb), 12 April 1950, Memo by McGhee to the Secretary of State and the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Rusk), 17 Feb. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1518–19, 1516. This was after the first meeting of the Committee for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara had taken place in January 1950 with a membership of Britain, France, Belgium, Portugal, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. [21] The meaning of the Cold War is crucial. Here it is taken, as it was at the time, as being separate from, but linked to, military deployments, conflicts or power projection whether in preparation for or deterrence of hot war and the preservation of ‘security’. It was seen then and interpreted now as a political and ideological conflict fought by all means short of international armed conflict in Africa and elsewhere. [22] For the idea of a more assertive American approach to the Cold War based on undermining the Soviet Union and its satellites, see Scott Lucas, Freedom's War: The US Crusade Against the Soviet Union 1945–1956 (Manchester, 1999); and G. Mitrovich, Undermining the Kremlin: America's Strategy to Subvert the Soviet Bloc, 1947–1956 (Ithaca, NY, 2000). [23] John W. Young and John Kent, International Relations since 1945: A Global History (Oxford, 2004), 140. [24] Melvyn P. Leffler, A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration and the Cold War (Stanford, CA, 1992), 314; for a discussion of NSC 68, see Young and Kent, International Relations since 1945, 138–46. [25] State Department Report Political and Economic Problems of Africa (undated), FRUS, V, 1950, 1507. [26] Memo by G. McGhee for the Secretary of State, 12 April 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1517–18. [27] Review of Problems in French Africa below the Sahara Memo by Director of the Office of African Affairs (Bourgerie) and the Second Secretary of the Embassy in France (Lloyd), 25 Sept. 1950, Memo by G. McGhee for the Secretary of State, 12 April 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1517–18, 1561. [28] On the deal between Houphouet and Mitterand, see John D. Hargreaves, Decolonisation in Africa, 2nd edn. (London, 1996), 154–55. [29] Review of Problems in French Africa below the Sahara, Memo by Director of the Office of African Affairs (Bourgerie) and the Second Secretary of the Embassy in France (Lloyd), 25 Sept. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1561. [30] Regional Policy Statement on Africa South of the Sahara prepared by the Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian and African Affairs, 29 Dec. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1587. [31] Regional Policy Statement on Africa South of the Sahara prepared by the Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian and African Affairs, 29 Dec. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1588–94. [32] Regional Policy Statement on Africa South of the Sahara prepared by the Bureau of Near Eastern, South Asian and African Affairs, 29 Dec. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1598. [33] Consul General Dakar to State Dept, 23 Feb. 1950, Central Decimal File (CDF) 1950–54, 611.70/2, Box 2844, Record Group (RG) 59, US National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). [34] Consul General Salisbury to State Department, 8 May 1953, CDF 1950–54, 611.70/4, Box 2844, RG 59. [35] Secretary of Defence to Secretary of State, 18 Sept. 1950, FRUS, V, 1950, 1731. [36] Paper of Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee of the Committee on Problems of Dependent Areas, 26 April 1950, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1078–79. [37] Preliminary Thoughts on the Subject of a US Policy towards Colonial Areas and Colonial Powers, Memo by Knight, 21 April 1952, Paper of Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee of the Committee on Problems of Dependent Areas, 26 April 1950, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1078–79, 1104. [38] US Policy towards Colonial Areas and Colonial Powers, Memo by Assistant Secretary of State for UN Affairs, 13 May 1952, Preliminary Thoughts on the Subject of a US Policy towards Colonial Areas and Colonial Powers, Memo by Knight, 21 April 1952, Paper of Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee of the Committee on Problems of Dependent Areas, 26 April 1950, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1078–79, 1104, 1117. [39] On British attitudes to the ‘timing’ element amongst critics of colonialism, see David Goldsworthy, ‘Britain and the International Critics of British Colonialism 1951–56’, Journal of Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 29 (1991). [40] Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136. [41] Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136, 1087, 1092–93. [42] Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136, 1087, 1092–93, 1087, 1096–97. [43] The Issue of Colonialism Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs (undated), Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136, 1087, 1092–93, 1087, 1096–97, 1170. [44] Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, The Issue of Colonialism Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs (undated), Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136, 1087, 1092–93, 1087, 1096–97, 1170, 1087, 1175. [45] Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy Towards Dependent Territories, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, The Issue of Colonialism Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs (undated), Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136, 1087, 1092–93, 1087, 1096–97, 1170, 1087, 1175, 1083. [46] Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs and Office of UN Political and Security Affairs, 8 May 1952, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy Towards Dependent Territories, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, The Issue of Colonialism Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs (undated), Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136, 1087, 1092–93, 1087, 1096–97, 1170, 1087, 1175, 1083, 1113–14. [47] US Policy on Colonial Issues Memo by US Representative on Trusteeship Council Mason Sears, 18 Aug. 1953, Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs and Office of UN Political and Security Affairs, 8 May 1952, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy Towards Dependent Territories, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, The Issue of Colonialism Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs (undated), Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136, 1087, 1092–93, 1087, 1096–97, 1170, 1087, 1175, 1083, 1113–14, 1162–63. [48] Preliminary Thoughts on the Subject of US Policy towards Colonial Areas and Colonial Powers Memo by Knight 21 April 1952, US Policy on Colonial Issues Memo by US Representative on Trusteeship Council Mason Sears, 18 Aug. 1953, Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs and Office of UN Political and Security Affairs, 8 May 1952, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy Towards Dependent Territories, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, The Issue of Colonialism Memo by Office of Dependent Area Affairs (undated), Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Statement on United States Policy towards Dependent Territories by Colonial Policy Review Sub-Committee, 26 April 1950, Colonial Policy Group Discussions Memo (undated) by Pollak to Working Group, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1136, 1087, 1092–93, 1087, 1096–97, 1170, 1087, 1175, 1083, 1113–14, 1162–63, 1105. [49] For such general Cold War developments, see especially Lucas, Freedom's War. [50] Editorial note, FRUS, III, 1952–54, 1167. [51] Draft Policy Statement by the Bureau of Near East, South Asian and African Affairs, March 1954, FRUS, XI, pt.3, 1952–54, 98–101. [52] Memo by Assistant Secretary for International Organisation Affairs (Key) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State (Murphy) 20 April 1955, FRUS, XVIII, 1955–57, 6–7. [53] The Colonial Office was accused of complacency and its argument that primitive Africans were generally unaware of communism unless anti-communist campaigns drew their attention to it was deemed ‘a dangerous and a fallacious generalisation’. Minute by H.A.H. Cortazzi (Information Research Department), June 1956, FO 371/118676. [54] EIG (Economic Intelligence Group) (56) 2, 2 March 1956, FO 371/118677. [55] See CDF 611.70, 1955–59, Box 2513, RG 59. [56] Memo by Office of African Affairs (Hadsel), 4 Aug. 1955, FRUS, XVIII, 1955–57, 13–22. [57] Consul General Monrovia (R. Jones) to State Department, 31 Oct. 1955, CDF 611.70, Box 2513, RG 59. [58] Consul General Leopoldville (McGregor) to State Department, 28 Dec. 1955, FRUS, XVIII, 1955–57, 24–30. [59] Brussels to State Department, 21 March 1956, CDF 611.70, 1955–59, Box 2513, RG 59. [60] Consul General Monrovia to State Department, 19 March 1956, Brussels to State Department, 21 March 1956, CDF 611.70, 1955–59, Box 2513, RG 59. [61] US Problems in Africa Memo by the Office of African Affairs, 17 Feb. 1956, Consul General Monrovia to State Department, 19 March 1956, Brussels to State Department, 21 March 1956, CDF 611.70, 1955–59, Box 2513, RG 59. [62] US Problems in Africa Memo by the Office of African Affairs, 17 Feb. 1956, US Problems in Africa Memo by the Office of African Affairs, 17 Feb. 1956, Consul General Monrovia to State Department, 19 March 1956, Brussels to State Department, 21 March 1956, CDF 611.70, 1955–59, Box 2513, RG 59. [63] Consul General Dakar (Vaughan Ferguson) to State Department, 6 Sept. 1955, FRUS, XVIII, 1955–57, 149–157. [64] Consul General Dakar (Mallory Browne) to State Department, 30 Nov. 1956, Consul General Dakar (Vaughan Ferguson) to State Department, 6 Sept. 1955, FRUS, XVIII, 1955–57, 149–157, 161–65. [65] Consul General Dar es Salaam (Ware) to State Department, 12 March 1957, Consul General Dakar (Mallory Browne) to State Department, 30 Nov. 1956, Consul General Dakar (Vaughan Ferguson) to State Department, 6 Sept. 1955, FRUS, XVIII, 1955–57, 149–157, 161–65, 195–200. [66] Memo of Conversation between Dulles and Selwyn Lloyd and officials Bermuda, 23 March 1957, Consul General Dar es Salaam (Ware) to State Department, 12 March 1957, Consul General Dakar (Mallory Browne) to State Department, 30 Nov. 1956, Consul General Dakar (Vaughan Ferguson) to State Department, 6 Sept. 1955, FRUS, XVIII, 1955–57, 149–157, 161–65, 195–200, 53–56. [67] Minute by W. Morris (Chancery Washington), 28 Feb. 1956, and Memorandum by J.A. Ford (Consulate San Francisco), 26 April 1956, FO 371/118714. [68] See Goldsworthy, ‘Britain and the International Critics of British Colonialism, 1951–56’. [69] J.E. Coulson (Washington) to FO enclosing a Summary of Representative Frances P. Bolton's Report on a 15 day Tour of Africa, 22 Aug. 1956, FO 371/118683; J.H.A. Watson to C.W. Furlonge on Nixon being impressed by British colonial policy, 3 July 1957, FO 371/125304. [70] Ronald Hyam and Wm. Roger Louis (eds.), British Documents on the End of Empire, Series A 4 II, The Conservative Government and the End of Empire 1957–64 (London, 2000); minute by Lord Perth to Macmillan, Annex draft brief on British colonial policy and the attitude of the US, 23 Feb. 1957, PREM 11/3239, PM(57)6 224–26, NA. [71] C.E. Diggines to Dalton-Murray, 4 Jan. 1957, FO 371/125304. [72] J.H.A. Watson to C.W. Furlonge, 3 July 1957, C.E. Diggines to Dalton-Murray, 4 Jan. 1957, FO 371/125304. [73] NSC 5719/1, 23 Aug. 1957, FRUS, XVIII, 1955–57, 75–87. [74] On the idea of Euro-Africa in the late 1940s, see John Kent, ‘Bevin's Imperialism and the Idea of Euro-Africa’, in M. Dockrill and John W. Young (eds.), British Foreign Policy 1945–56 (Basingstoke, 1989)