World History essay (Term 3)

Student Number: 001

Was the global Cold war a continuation of colonialism through slightly different means?
In historical writing which seeks to compare different time periods and geographic locations the
historian must be aware of the risk of falling into generalisations that do not apply in every
circumstance. In this vein, broad historical studies must always be taken with a pinch of salt and a
recognition that whatever thesis is proposed in response to a ‘big history’ question will always come
with caveats and anomalies. Having provided this opening red herring, in this essay I will argue that
the Cold war was a continuation of colonialism through slightly different means. The method I will
employ to prove this thesis is to argue that the underlying purpose of colonialism and the Cold war
was the same, namely seeking economic domination over weaker nations in order to achieve a
global hegemony. However the reference in the statement to the means by which this economic
hegemony was achieved is important, as the methods by which economic dominance was achieved
in the two different time periods varied. The historical circumstances of colonialism meant that the
type of control over the colonies was different to the influence over the satellite states during the
Cold war. The precursor to colonialism was essentially a much more regional based idea of empire
and political/economic control, the means colonialism used in this context where thus in congruence
with the social context in which it arrived. However the context of the Cold war was a post-
colonialist world which was rapidly ‘modernising’ this difference caused the methods of control by
the US and USSR to take different forms from former colonial ideas.

Colonialism was the process by which European powers took control of nations outside of the
continent and extracted resources from these nations. One of the most famous of these was the
British empire which controlled the Americas and India as well as many other nations. The fact that
what was later known as the United States was a former colony impacted the way in which the U.S
acted after World War 2 and the break-up of the European empires. The U.S of course took an anti-
colonialist stance and were thus one of the reasons why the European powers gave up their
colonies. The U.S colonial experience was unique, as was every other colonial experience, however
in the U.S experience the majority of people who moved to the U.S were immigrants, initially from
Britain. The result of this was that much of the indigenous population had been wiped out. The
British were thus seen as a type of parent country which exercised power over America. This power
was then challenged by the Americans when the British imposed what were deemed unfair taxes on
the American people, particularly on products such as tea and tobacco. This was thus deemed as
economic exploitation which the American states felt pushed them too far, the American war of
independence was thus caused by economic exploitation by the colonial rulers.

Similarly the case of British India involved a similar case of economic exploitation. However again
certain particularities in the Indian case must be taken into consideration. British influence in India
began as a purely economic endeavour with the Crown not actively involved, rather the British East
India company was given a trading monopoly by the Crown. The initial interests of the British
government were to have exclusive trading rights with the Indian subcontinent. The British would
export cotton, textiles, salt and other things to British factories and sell the produce back to India
and other places. India provided the British with raw materials to push their industrial drive and a
market for them to sell their goods. It was only after wide scale disruption within India following the
Sepoy mutiny that the British Crown intervened and officially took over in India, disbanding the East
India company. The Sepoy mutiny was likely to have been triggered because of cultural/religious
insensitivities practiced by the East India company officers, namely using beef and pork fat to line
cartridges which was prohibited in the Hindu and Muslim faith. However the question can be asked
that if this wide scale disruption had not occurred, would the British Crown have taken over in India?
What if questions are always very different to answer, however if the economic basis for British
involvement in India is accepted then it is very unlikely the Crown would have taken over. Rather
because the context had changed in India because of the mutiny the British tactics also had to shift.
The rule of the Crown instead of the East India company meant that the Indian people now became
official citizens within a British empire. This change was almost like a tokenistic gesture to make it
appear as if the relationship was now shifting to something more parallel however in reality little
changed. British actions in India continued to treat Indians as second-class citizens, such as the
Rowlatt Acts. British economic policies in India were still exploitative which prompted Ghandi to
launch Salt marches and boycott British goods. The changing social context of a rising of pressure
within the colony and also some pressure from home due to negative images caused the British
government to change the method by which colonialism was employed, while still keeping the
economic benefits for the host country. Instead of a company as sole occupier of India, power was
transferred to the Government as the image was put across that this would provide Indians with
more rights as citizens of a British empire. It could thus be argued that ideology of equal citizenship
within the British empire was used as a smoke screen in order to appease the Indian people, as the
British continued their economic policies in India.

The French and Spanish also had large colonial influence in Africa and Latin America. Two nations of
particular interest are Vietnam and Cuba, due to the key role they played in the Cold War. Vietnam
was under French control however the French were more likely to resort to violence in order to keep
influence in their colonial territories. In Vietnam the economic conditions were very unfavourable
for the local population. In North Vietnam they were exploited by absentee landlords and in the
South there was an unregulated labour market dominated by French and Chinese plantation
owners.1 In response to this there was a widespread movement against foreign trade behind the
figure of Ho Chi Min. The colony had thus been exploited for many years by the French and were
thus against foreign trade. Ho was initially supported by Eisenhower, as he was seen as an anti-
colonialist fighter. The French engaged in talks with Ho in 1946, with the intention to include
Vietnam in a French union which would theoretically be voluntary and equal.2 However in practice it
was obvious that the French would be the head of this union and membership in the union would be
necessary. The French thus attempted to shift their power in the colony from being complete rule to
a voluntary rule, however this was still to strong in the age of autonomy for the former colonies.

The French and Vietnamese reached an impasse and resorted to war, Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong
defeated the French and favoured communism as the means by which the Vietnamese could deal
with their economic problems. However the U.S could not allow communism to spread in Vietnam.
U.S policy at this time was to contain communism, and the then American president Lyndon Johnson
feared appearing weak on communism and thus continued Kennedy’s policy of supporting Diem and
other dictators in South Vietnam. However the ultimate need in the south was radical land reform
and redistribution which the U.S were unwilling to implement. The U.S involvement in Vietnam was
within the context of years of French exploitation which made the Vietnamese suspicious of foreign
involvement. This severely restricted the options for the U.S as the desired economic policies
seemed too socialist for the Americans to accept and would perhaps be seen to allow communism to
spread in the region. Public opinion and American paranoia would also not permit any country falling

1
J.W.Young, J.Kent International Relations since 1945. Oxford University Press 2004. p.109

2
J.W.Young, J.Kent International Relations since 1945. Oxford University Press 2004. p.108
to communism if more socialist policies suited the country more. Whatever the reason was the
economic policies were central in the causes for the dispute between first the French and the
Vietcong and then the Americans and the Vietcong. The two powers would not accept a financial
system in Vietnam that was not suited to the Western raw capitalist system which would most likely
suit their needs.

The example of Vietnam also alludes to the difference between the colonial experience and the
experience of the Cold War. In the Colonial experience of countries such as Vietnam they did not in
any way appeal to external forces for aid, rather the external agent took over power, this was
sometimes done by pitting a group against another however the initial impetus came from external
forces. However in some examples in the Cold War there was also internal impetus. In the
Vietnamese case it can be seen dictators in the South appealing to the U.S for aid. And the Vietcong
appealing to Moscow for support. However the situation becomes clearer when one looks at the
example of Cuba.

In Cuba President Kennedy backed a anti-Castro policy which was then continued by Johnson, this
was perhaps because Castro was the leader of a popularist movement which had overthrown the
pro-U.S dictator Bautista. However the real reason is most likely to be that 40% of all sugar
production in Cuba was owned by the U.S and when Castro came to power, one of the first things he
did was to expropriate 1000 acres of farmland.3 In this same year Eisenhower launched a covert
operation to oust Fidel. In the following year (1962) Castro publicly declared his conversion to
Marxist-Leninism. It is unclear whether Castro would have joined the U.S.S.R if the U.S had not
perused such a hostile campaign against Fidel. The example of Cuba thus typifies many other
examples during the Cold War. Many countries simply had two options to choose from, and if one
country was against a particular ruler then the only option that was open to them was the other
country. In addition to this Cuba, like Vietnam had been exploited by foreign regimes and the most
favourable economic policy seemed to be a more socialist policy however the U.S did not want to
permit this.

The U.S policy in South America can be seen as ensuring open markets by any means necessary, this
included the most common means that this was achieved, supporting dictators. Again, it can be
argued that this was to do with U.S security as South America was so close to the U.S. The U.S
administration constantly referred to South America in terms of ideology however in 1952 only 3
nations had any kind of diplomatic relationship with Moscow. Rather the real reason was the risk of
economic policies which would not favour the U.S. Many South American countries were completely
dependant on the U.S for trade and example of this was in Nicaragua where 80/90% of crops were
exported to the U.S.4 The Eisenhower administration continually supported dictatorships in Southern
America as they felt this was the best way to secure American interests in the region. However by
1960 ten dictators had been overthrown in South America and the U.S administration realised that
supporting dictators would only lead to more and more revolutionaries. The U.S were thus caught in
a catch twenty-two. On the one hand they realised dictators would only cause more unrest within
the region with the people more likely to turn to socialist regimes and thus Moscow. However the
U.S also needed dictators in order to ensure stability in the region.

3
J.W.Young, J.Kent Intern tional Relations since 1945. Oxford University Press 2004. p.333

4
J.W.Young, J.Kent International Relations since 1945. Oxford University Press 2004. P.333
The U.S policy in response to the Cold War was predominantly to secure open, unrestricted markets.
This would allow the U.S to ensure their trade requirements were met. A similar goal was also
achieved by the Colonial powers prior to the Cold War. The difference between colonialism and the
Cold War were the different methods used in order to achieve this, these were dictated by historical
circumstance. The French and British were able to take power be force and then continue to hold it
by force while offering some tokenistic ideas of rights where necessary in response to the degree of
disruption in the colonies in the form of resistance movements. However the American situation was
different, as a former colony the U.S could not be seen to support colonialism and thus the U.S
influence over nations were more ‘soft’. The main agenda for the U.S, like the old colonialist nations
was to achieve the financial conditions in these nations which would suit them best. Similar to the
colonialist nations they often dressed this up as an ideological endeavour (the British often fell back
on an idea of a responsibility to civilise the populations they conquered). The U.S were also required
to consider public opinion which was perhaps not such an obvious issue in the early period of
colonialism but later became more of an issue. The Cold war can thus be seen as a continuation of
colonialism because of the shared underlying premise of financial control that the countries sought
over the colonies and later the satellite states.
Bibliography

J.W.Young, J.Kent International Relations since 1945. Oxford University Press 2004.