Figure 3: Celebrations at Independence

Figure 4: Independence Square in Cameroon

Ironically, in Africa, European countries, especially France and the UK, needed their colonial possessions more than ever before. Countries like Nigeria provided raw materials were resold on the world market with the profits going to help rebuild London or Bristol. World War Two caused prices to more than double and limited the supply of goods. As these goods remained unavailable or unaffordable people were upset. The push to maximize the production of raw materials fueled the desire for independence and caused a crisis of legitimacy among African chiefs, needed in the facilitation of colonial rule. Furthermore, the inflation and drastic increase in the cost of living that followed World War Two sparked new protests, now involving unemployed ex-soldiers centered in urban areas. Many charismatic young men emerged as leaders with the organizational support of women.New anti-colonial parties–normally one dominant anti-colonial party per colony–that were capable of mass mobilization were formed to lead the masses throughout the various colonies to demand for independence. Making demands for self-government and promising greater access to education along with economic development, helped these parties appeal to the majority thus obtaining popular support. The process of negotiating for independence began and in 1957 Ghana gained its independence; with much of Africa following over the next 7 years.

The Mau Mau Uprising

White settlers slowed down the pace of independence in Kenya, with a brutal civil war erupting between loyalist and anti-colonial factions of the Kikuyu ethnic group.The white settler population spun the conflict as a brutal race war encouraged by the alleged communist sympathizers. Supporters of the Mau Mau Rebellion comprised of those who were left landless or poor as a result of colonial rule and the seizure of land by white settlers. The British responded to this outbreak of violence and paranoia among white settlers by sending in more than 10,000 soldiers and recruiting loyalist Kikuyus and other Africans as soldiers and camp guards. Over one thousand members of Mau Mau were hanged by the British, often on circumstantial testimony, following unfair trials. Tens of thousands more were imprisoned where they were subjected to brutal beatings, forced hard labor, and starvation. Many of the women imprisoned were raped while others watched their young children in the prison camps with them die. The overall cost of the war and the public relations nightmare pushed the British to grant Kenya independence in 1963. The Mau Mau lost the war but they won their independence.

The British newspaper, The Guardian, wrote in an editorial on 11 April 2011: [T]here is something peculiarly chilling about the way colonial officials behaved, most notoriously but not only in Kenya, within a decade of the liberation of the [Nazi] concentration camps and the return of thousands of emaciated British prisoners of war from the Pacific.

In countries with white settlers, who were still a minority of the population, the situation of decolonization was more complex. The European population in Algeria procured the intervention of the French army to stop the decolonization process. Communist rebels were brutally beaten back in Malaya. Thus, decolonization was linked to the larger Cold War concerns. In 1965, the white minority of Rhodesia declared independence from British rule but refused to share power with the African majority. Consequently, the new country found itself embroiled in a civil war and beset by global sanctions until the two sides reached a power-sharing arrangement in 1981. In short, the colonialists lost any claims to moral superiority, the ideological underpinnings of the entire system. In addition, they realized that suppressing the revolts in the colonies actually cost much more, of the already scarce resources, than what the colonies produced. Even the most conservative of forces were advocating for decolonization.

In the Belgian Congo, the Belgians responded to political demonstrations and demands of independence by using the local military to fire upon the protesters, killing approximately 500 people. The Belgians quickly decided that they no longer wanted to rule the colony and handed over power to the Congolese. However, they maintained control over the army who responded by mutinying and attacked white settlers who quickly fled. The country quickly fell apart as the Katanga Region, with the help of foreign mercenaries, seceded from the larger Belgian Congo. The young charismatic leader Patrice Lumumba struggled to hold the country together; even though he was seen as a potential Soviet ally by the United States. With Belgian and local assistance, Lumumba was kidnapped and killed in a remote area. Army general Mobutu Sese Seko then came to power, and by developing a strong relationship with the United States remained in power until 1997.

Comments by Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, August 20, 1962 If, however, after this period Katangese agreement is not forthcoming, I will emphatically renew an appeal to all governments of Member States of the United Nations to take immediate measures to ensure that their relations with the Congo will be in conformity with laws and regulations of the Government of the Congo. Further, failing such agreement, as I indicated in my statement of 31 July: “I have in mind economic pressure upon the Katangese authorities of a kind that will bring home to them the realities of their situation and the fact that Katanga is not a sovereign State and is not recognized by any Government in the world as such . . . this could justifiably go to the extent of barring all trade and financial relations.” In pursuance of this, a firm request would be made by me to all Member Governments to apply such a ban especially to Katangese copper and cobalt.

As the British, French and Portuguese flags came down in often dramatic handing-over of power ceremonies, the citizens of the former colonies were excited. Many felt that after over fifty years of foreign rule and economic exploitation, their lives and the lives of their children would improve.They envisioned better opportunities with regard to employment and economic development; access to education and other neglected social services; infrastructural development; and a new sense of nationalism. For the young generation of the late 1950s and 1960s with a secondary school degree, the career opportunities in the rapidly expanding bureaucracy and military–with the overnight departure of European officers–were almost endless and many felt that that they were indeed participating in building a nation. Despite this new hope and enthusiasm, the departing colonial powers did little to prepare their colonial subjects for independence. Countries such as Tanzania and Zambia possessed fewer than twenty college graduates, often young men. The economies of all sub-Saharan countries, except for South Africa, were designed for the export of raw materials; thus, they had almost no manufacturing capacities. In some countries one ethnic group dominated the political scene leading to a sense of alienation by others, causing many to argue that they were still under foreign rule. A sense of nationalism needed to be reinforced, often using the school system. This is because the strong anti-colonial sentiments did not translate into support for the new nations. Women were largely denied a share of political power and experienced few immediate improvements in their lives. Thus, while achieving independence was a milestone and generated a great deal of excitement, difficulties emerged in governing, and essentially creating, new nations.

As the 1960s progressed it became increasingly clear that Africa was a pawn on the chessboard that was the Cold War conflict at large. The continent became the site for proxy wars that pitted the two superpowers against one another, most prominently in places like Angola and Mozambique but drawing nations across the continent into the superpowers’ orbit. It is, indeed, difficult to understand the period of decolonization and independence in isolation from the Cold War, which informed and complicated all relationships between former colony and colonial master from the 1950s onward. The British formulated policy toward Africa during the 1960s and 1970s with the Cold War always in mind.

Nkrumah “I Speak of Freedom” 1961 “.It is clear that we must find an African solution to our problems, and that this can only be found in African unity. Divided we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world. Although most Africans are poor, our continent is potentially extremely rich. …I believe strongly and sincerely that with the deep-rooted wisdom and dignity, the innate respect for human lives, the intense humanity that is our heritage, the African race, united under one federal government, will emerge not as just another world bloc to flaunt its wealth and strength, but as a Great Power whose greatness is indestructible because it is built not on fear, envy and suspicion, nor won at the expense of others, but founded on hope, trust, friendship and directed to the good of all mankind…This is our chance. We must act now. Tomorrow may be too late and the opportunity will have passed, and with it the hope of free Africa’s survival.

The dynamics of the Cold War are perhaps most clearly illustrated in a colony that the British never controlled. British actions in Congo in the 1960s – an area entirely beyond its sovereignty and apparent influence – demonstrate both the importance of Cold War considerations in formulating British policy and the lengths to which British agents were willing to go to support their nation’s interests. In September 1961 United Nations Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld was murdered on his way to negotiate a truce between forces contesting power in Congo. His plane was shot down over Northern Rhodesia, probably by agents employed by the US Central Intelligence Agency and Britain’s MI-6. In one of the starkest examples of the direct connection between decolonization and Cold War politics, the United States, Britain and Belgium refused to allow the mineral-rich Congo to fall into the hands of Africans who had sought assistance from the Soviet Union to protect their new democratic nation.

In the Belgian Congo, the Belgians responded to political demonstrations and demands of independence by using the local military to fire upon the protectors, killing upwards of 500 people. The Belgians quickly decided that they no longer wanted to rule the colony and handed over power to the Congolese. However, they maintained control over the army who responded by mutinying and attacked white settlers who quickly fled. The country quickly fell apart as the the Katanga region seceded from the country (with help from foreign mercenaries). The region held more than 60 percent of the country’s natural resources, such as huge amounts of vast stores of copper, uranium, tin, manganese, diamonds, and cobalt, and contained European mining companies with strong influence over the local elites. The young charismatic leader Patrice Lumumba struggled to hold the country together while being seen as a potential Soviet ally by the United States. The United Nations dispatched 3500 troops and pledged to support the sovereignty of the country. The country’s territory was maintained. However, Joseph-Desiré Mobutu, a young colonel in the Congolese army on the US payroll, staged a coup and took control of the country. With Belgian and local assistance, Lumumba was kidnapped and killed in a remote area. Army general Mobutu Sese Seko then came to power and by developing a strong relationship with the United States remained in power until 1997.

Figure 5: Official Portrait of Patrice Lumumba

Comments by Secretary-General of the United Nations, U Thant, August 20, 1962 If, however, after this period Katangese agreement is not forthcoming, I will emphatically renew an appeal to all governments of Member States of the United Nations to take immediate measures to ensure that their relations with the Congo will be in conformity with laws and regulations of the Government of the Congo. Further, failing such agreement, as I indicated in my statement of 31 July: “I have in mind economic pressure upon the Katangese authorities of a kind that will bring home to them the realities of their situation and the fact that Katanga is not a sovereign State and is not recognized by any Government in the world as such . . . this could justifiably go to the extent of barring all trade and financial relations.” In pursuance of this, a firm request would be made by me to all Member Governments to apply such a ban especially to Katangese copper and cobalt.

The United States and Britain, among other western powers, provided monetary and military support to some of the most brutal dictators in Africa in return for loyalty and, not incidentally, unhindered access to much-needed minerals and other raw materials. From Mobutu Sese Seko in Congo to Idi Amin in Uganda, to name but two, the western powers frequently bankrolled corruption and despotism in African states in their struggle against communism. Despite its propaganda efforts to portray the capitalist nations as the sources of all that was evil in the world, the Soviet Union did the same.

Figure 6: Soviet Stamp of Patrice Lumumba

Figure 7: Lumumba’s Tomb

Thus, decolonization was linked to larger Cold War concerns. Despite being only a generation removed from the brutality of World War Two, in these areas of violence, attacks by both sides (but especially by the colonizer) created a situation of brutal imprisonment with rape and other atrocities occurring behind the barb wire, attacks on the civilian population and massive violations of human rights. In short, the colonizing countries lost any claims to moral superiority (the ideological underpinning of the entire system) and the countries realized that suppressing the revolts actually cost much more scarce resources than the colonies produced. Even the most conservative of forces were advocating for decolonization.

The year 1960 was dubbed the “Year of Africa” by Time Magazine. This was occasioned by the new political developments, between 1957 and 1964, that saw majority of sub-Saharan African countries obtain their independence. The days of independence in each African country witnessed celebrations and were marked by optimism. For the generation coming of age in the early 1960s, marks of progress were everywhere. However, these new nations faced problems that included irrational boundaries, country shape and sizes; economic underdevelopment; and limited provision of social service. The quick departure of the colonial state-in some cases nearly overnight-and their sudden support for democracy was a complete reversal from past practices. In some cases, the colonial power structure was reversed. For instance, in Rwanda, the Tutsis were no longer the dominant ethnic group in Hutu-dominated government. These changes in power structure left some unanswered questions such as what role traditional chiefs, ethnic minorities, including South Asians, and tribal identity would play in the post-colonial state. To fill the void left by the departing colonial state officials, public positions were quickly filled by those graduating from secondary schools and universities; who became the new government bureaucrats and political leaders. Post-colonial state officials embarked on solving the problems of the colonial state including infrastructure development, the expansion of education systems, the provision of health care, and formulating strategies to spur economic development.

Following the independence of African states, the nascent political leaders, nearly all male, largely ignored female participation. These leaders co-opted female political organizations; denied females positions in political parties and governments; and suppressed the contributions of women to nation-building after independence. The few exceptions, such as Elizabeth Bagaya of Uganda, were appointed by regimes to win international support and to counter more repressive patriarchal campaigns. Despite the vast expansion of education that characterized the early post-colonial period, limited female participation in schools further alienated women from formal political activity. Additionally, female participation in politics in post-colonial Islamic countries was restricted due to religious factors. In countries such as Sudan, Niger, and Mali, women’s access to education, voting, and membership in political parties was below other African countries. Women also found themselves dealing with rising patriarchal culture through attacks on female clothing, such as miniskirts, and limited freedoms once married. Women responded to abuses by government and the suppression of democracy through protests, the withdrawal of support for the government, and covert campaigns of whispers and gossip designed to weaken problematic regimes. Moreover, they maintained their important economic activities especially in local markets and fused economic and political activities in order to agitate for higher wages, fair treatment, and the provision of the much needed social services.

African states faced many problems through the 1960s and into the 1970s. First, many countries became increasingly authoritarian. With little tradition of electing officials and little loyalty to the nation-state in general, many leaders became dictators, refusing to share power or have free and fair elections. With the backing of the United States or Soviet Union-or even the former colonial power- leaders took advantage of generous foreign aids and loans to fund large-scale development projects that were often unnecessary or would serve as conduits to pilfer money. They allied themselves with the military and developed their secret police force to reinforce their hold on power. Many of them rewarded their followers and members of their ethnic groups while imprisoning, exiling, or killing political opponents and rival ethnic groups. The elections that did occur were largely shameful; done as mere public relations exercises. In some cases, the military intervened to remove a leader from power but with no sense on how to rule; hence, military rule was often similar to a dictatorship and lasted only a short time. While social services were provided, economic development was slower than promised. African countries received less money for their exports of primary products and commodities while their imports for manufactured goods increased, especially consumer goods and military products. Overall, the 1960s was a decade that started full of optimism but ended in despair as many of the promises made at independence failed to materialize.

Figure 8: Colonel Mobutu

Mobutu Sese Seko (4 October 1930 – 7 September 1997) began his career in the army of the Belgian Congo. Upon independence, Patrice Lumumba gave Mobutu the position of Secretary of State. Soon after, Mobutu was conspiring with the United States and Belgium to remove Lumumba. He launched a coup against Lumumba in 1960 and eventually killed him in 1961. He increased his power through a second coup in 1965. In the early years of Mobutu’s regime, he promoted development projects, that were sometimes unnecessary; launched a campaign to develop and promote a national culture; renamed the country Zaire and promoted its importance on the world stage. Over the course of his rule, he developed into a totalitarian leader who refused to share power and developed a cult of personality around him. He used his position of power to obtain great wealth–through corruption and exploitation, using the country’s resources for his personal gain–with estimates of his net worth ranging from $4-$15 billion. By the 1980s, the economy of the country was in disarray and became worse in the 1990s when a civil war broke out. He was finally removed from power in 1997 when he fled to Morocco and died soon after.