Free Custom «Did Decolonization Have a Major Impact on International Politics and the International Political System?» Essay Paper

Introduction

Decolonization was instrumental to cause a major political change to the current world and its implications are still hard to measure due to their massive character. Many alterations, positive and negative, minor and major, can be attributed to the decolonization for the key ones refer to the self-determination of the nations, launching of the pro-human rights initiatives all over the world in response to the dictatorship, and other forms of inhuman political behavior.

Decolonization is dotted by the numerous events occurring in many countries within practically the same historical period. In Asia, this process was initiated by Gandhi who led the Salt March in 1931 and the issuance of the Government of India Act in 1935 that followed. In 1947, India and Pakistan proclaimed their independence from Great Britain (Bonfatti, 2015). Decolonization in Africa was launched by the first apartheid legislation in South Africa and granting of independence to Ghana in 1957. The wave was supported by other African countries, including Congo and Algeria, that fought for their separation from the imperialistic countries and managed to gain sovereignty in 1960 and 1962 respectively (Bonfatti, 2015). The Middle East was also affected by this world tendency and its first roots started to emerge in 1917 with the signing of Balfour Declaration (Bonfatti, 2015). In 1922, Great Britain received the mandate in the Palestine case whereas in 1948 the partition of Palestine eventually occurred and resulted in the first Arab-Israeli War. In 1956 Egypt nationalized Suez Canal. The decolonization in this region ended with the Palestine Liberation Organization formation in 1964.

Declarative Independence of the Colonies, the Decolonization and Its Impact on the International Order

Decolonization did not follow a linear scenario in all of the cases since the newly formed states were not always ready to accept the independence and live without the control and orders coming from above. At the same time, it is quite interesting to follow the dissolution of the USSR as the post-echo of the decolonization that previously occurred within the territory that was kept under the control of the Russian Empire (Fraser, 2013). The further development of the countries that left the Union depended greatly on their pre-Union history. For instance, the countries located in the Baltic region, including Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, immediately adopted the course for the European integration and soon became the members of the EU and, more importantly, the NATO (Bonfatti, 2015). This strategy was inherent for these countries with the enriched connections with the European countries and European past. While being a part of the USSR, they were usually treated a little bit differently, which later impacted their development. In a certain way, they were prepared for the independence.

A different story, however, occurred to the rest of the republics that previously belonged to the USSR, especially Belarus and Ukraine. Despite the declared independence, these countries were still greatly controlled by Moscow, as the center of the previous Russian Empire and the decision maker during the USSR epoch. The ties between this political center and former colonies-republics were strong in regard to all kinds of areas, including the social, political, and cultural among others. They were supported by the profoundly financed and led propaganda in the counties of the former USSR that created the illusion of certain connection that existed among these countries. Yet, new political dimensions were launched in November 2013 when the Revolution of Dignity was about to start in Ukraine with the following revolt of the government and war on Russian Federation (Baylis & Smith, 2017). The latter is definitely a hybrid war for independence as Ukraine literary breaks all the connections with Russia. Nearly twenty years passed after Ukraine gained independence, when its nation managed to form the political will to separate mentally, socially, and economically from its former patron, the Russian Federation. It actually demonstrates the way that the colonies are connected with the imperialistic states and that they are not quite ready to accept the independence or there are reasons to consider that the independence was just declaratory when, in fact, the imperialistic states continued to keep control over their colonies through the various manipulations in the social and political spheres.

Overall, the colonies that depart from the imperialistic countries followed different paths. Some of them were supported by the assignee of the Empire, as in the case of Great Britain that established a number of social, cultural, economic, and financial programs aiming at the support of the previous colonies. France, for example, introduced the laws that guaranteed the mechanisms assisting the people with African origin to better accommodate to the French realities and to gain all the support from the principal country as a result of the misdeeds that have been made in regard to the residents of the colonies in the past. At the same time, in case of the Russian Federation, the legacy of the USSR was primarily left with the Russian Federation whereas the former republics, that can, in fact, be perceived as the colonies were left with almost nothing. All in all, the consequences of the decolonization processes and the international politics, thereof, largely depended on the principal country, its legal tradition and the political framework that prevailed in it.

Lundestag (2017), discussing the idealistic approach towards the decolonization, asserts as well that the ideas of decolonization and separatism emerged long before it was actually initiated by the imperialistic states or demanded by the colonies. In this regard, contrary to the idealists, the realists argue that much changed in the way in which the principal countries affected their previous colonies. They stress that the previous colonies did not gain independence from the imperialistic countries as the latter kept the boundaries that were inherent to the colonial times and that promoted the ethnic rivalry among the ethnic minorities, used the fear and inhumane treatment in order to set the separation and other destabilizing movements within the country to make it weaker, both internally and externally (Fraser, 2013). Apart from that, realists emphasize that after being under the imperialistic rule for years, the independent countries then lack a system of the institutions that would allow it to function effectively as a state (Baylis & Smith, 2017). The corruption and poverty are the additional forces that prevent these states from prosperity and flourishing. The arguments of the idealists fail as the political elite of these countries tries to imitate the previous dominating country and, it takes years to grow a new political circle that will fully establish the independent course of action and free the country from the influence of the foreigners acting in the way that contradicts the national interests. In many countries, the transition from the colony to the independent state was quite a violent and dangerous path.

The decolonization also served for the launching of the influential international organizations with the enormous impact and implications. Despite the fact that many countries are considered as the members of these organizations, the political power and strong influence still rest with the winners of the Second World War. The Security Council, for instance, is made up of the allies, including the Russian Federation, the USA, Great Britain, and other major nations (Fraser, 2013). In this regard, the world order did not change much, except for the formalization of the politics and rules of the game that should be followed by all the members of the international community (Baylis & Smith, 2017). In fact, the imperialistic countries today hold the most of the powers and can influence the previous colonies through the legal and financial instruments of the international organizations and institutions, such as the NATO, UN, IMF and others (Baylis & Smith, 2017). Therefore, the international politics and international order changed to benefit these countries in particular, and the previous colonies are still tied with the previous principal states, though the mechanisms for exercising the control over them have become more noble and manipulative.

The decolonization process should also be considered in regard to the advancement of the human rights theory. The rise of the human rights was inherent to the countries that were about to gain independence. In a certain way, the separation from the imperialistic countries served as the catalyst that contributed greatly to the adoption of the human rights doctrine in the states that were yesterday controlled by the dominating states and had little say in terms of the public matters within their territories (Fraser, 2013). In some of the states, the human rights development preceded the independence and caused wars with the imperialistic countries. The events of the Algerian War and the latter accusations to France as the metropolitan government served as the reason for others to oppose such countries and to start embracing their civil rights (Lindblad, 2015). The gaining of independence was a starting point for the democratic transformations in the countries and for the advancement of human rights. In many countries, the doctrine of human rights appeared overnight whereas in others it occurred as a result of moral interventionism. The NGOs that promoted the protection of the human rights greatly contributed to this movement (Olaiya, 2014). The foreign countries might have supported them, though in some cases they established their activities and programs aiming at the promotion of the political activism in the country and building of the new political reality. The promotion of human rights became a prominent and mobilizing strategy of self-help in the face of the acute danger that came from the dictatorship in the neighboring countries, especially in the region of Latin America as well as communist Europe.

The Cold War frequently opposes the decolonization as the major factor that has changed the world order. However, many experts still state that the World War Two and the following Cold War were the mechanisms that resulted in the decolonization and independence movements across the world (Tan, 2015). They created the mental shifts in the residents of the colonial territories regarding their role in the international politics and well-being of the imperialistic countries. In the mind of the West there was no longer strong colonial rule that proved stability through the years (Baylis & Smith, 2017). The rationalized view on decolonization also provided that it occurred due to a number of historical reasons that actually inevitably caused the emerging of separatism movements (Jackson, 1993). In many cases, they appeared long before the decolonization and proclamation of independence actually took place. It created the possibility of changes and independence in some of the cases. The colonizers or the colonies did not initiate the shift; it occurred naturally as a result of the organic development of the civilization. To illustrate, in case of Southern Asia, the pro-Western partners supported the countries in the promotion of the self-government. In particular, the American support for the decolonization grew together with the pressures that were retrieved from the pacing ideologies of freedom and redemption from the imperialistic influences.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the decolonization was indeed one of the actors that primarily contributed to the change of the international order that had long lasting consequences for many countries and nations. First, it created the formal legal foundations for the freeing of the states from the control of the imperialistic countries and granted the right of self-determination. Moreover, it served as the platform for launching the human rights NGOs and rising a generation of the political activists who created the opportunity for the former colonies to attain perspectives for the better future. On the other hand, it legitimized the powers and impact of the imperialistic states as they gained membership in the most important international organizations. Some of them continued to support the former colonies in order to repay the debt for the grievances that they caused to the previous generations. The financial, political, and social programs were financed by the British, French and other governments, which facilitated the economic development of the former colonies. Yet, other imperialistic countries such as the Russian Federation, on the contrary, employed the mechanisms and manipulations that allowed it to exercise control over the former colonies and leverage economically from it while keeping the legacy of the USSR. All in all, the decolonization served as the bifurcation factor that gave impetus to the democratic political transformations that would have long-term implications for both, imperialistic states and their former colonies.