HY113 From Empire to Independence: The Extra-European
World in the 20th Century
WEEK 1 Introduction: So, you think you know the twentieth century?
Essential Reading: n/a
The Twentieth Century (C20) has been endlessly studied as it unfolded. Often defined through two
chronological periods:
1900-45 The struggle against German attempts to acquire hegemony in Europe, obviously encapsulated in
WW1 and WW2.
1945-90 The Cold War: A global struggle for power between two superpowers and two ideologies with final
victory going to the forces of American liberal capitalism. (It is a struggle which ends with Francis Fukuyama
declaring ‘the end of history’.)
To give an idea of what we are trying to achieve let us look at the world in 1900. Due to spread of Euro
imperialism in latter part of C19, much of world ruled by Europe, famously ¼ of globe coloured Red to denote
the Empire ‘on which the sun never set’.
Only independent states during the 1900s are:
Africa Ethiopia and Liberia
Asia Ottoman Empire, Persia, Afghanistan, Siam, China, Japan, Korea
Caribbean Haiti and Cuba
Most of Latin America had thrown off Spanish/Portuguese rule during C19, but here independence largely
nominal due to economic and financial power of Europe. At present historical debate about degree of GB
control in L. Am, particularly Argentina due to informal empire.
The same was true for other independent countries, some merely survived as useful buffers between GPs,
such as Siam. Nonetheless, this was often underpinned by Superpowers having significant financial control
over supposedly independent states e.g. GB over Persia. Therefore, only two real Powers outside
Europe/N.America, these being Ottomans and Japan.
Tied to Euro domination is influx of Western ideologies and religions. Spread of Christian missionaries into
further reaches of the world challenging and sometimes overturning traditional societies. Linked to talk of
‘civilizing mission’ and the White’s Man Burden’.
But just as events traditionally seen as important can be seen differently so other overlooked events become
significant.
1911 – The Chinese revolution
1923 – The establishment of the secular republic of Turkey
1928 – The establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
1947 – The independence of India and Pakistan from British rule.
1948 – UNGA passes Universal Declaration on human rights. Start of ‘apartheid regime in South Africa.
1955 – The Bandung conference of Asian-African states.
1957 – The independence of Ghana from British rule.
1960 – Japan introduces ‘income doubling’ policy, and Organization of Oil Exporting Countries (OPEC)
established.
1961 – The first conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Belgrade, same year AfroAsian states gain
absolute majority in UNGA.
1963 – The OAU established.*
1964 – Foundation of PLO
1968 – UN Human Rights conference in Teheran
1975 – UN Women’s Conference in Mexico City
,1978 – Deng Xiaoping introduces policy of ‘four modernizations’
1979 – Foundation of Islamic Republic of Iran
1981 – Failure of North-South development conference at Cancun.
1992 – UN conference on environment and development in Rio de Janeiro
Which in future will be seen as more important or symbolic: 1991 collapse of Soviet Union or 1994 collapse of
‘White’ South Africa?
(1) How did the newly independent states achieve their independence? What kind of nationalist elites were
involved in this political process? To what degree was independence on the terms of the colonial power or the
forces of national liberation? Why in some areas were wars of national liberation fought while in others power
was handed over relatively peacefully?
How to build nation-state on foundation of a colonial state.
Implications for unity and democracy.
Contrast, for example, the experience of Ghana with that of Algeria.
(2) Need to look at ways in which these states have attempted to influence international agenda.
Japanese attempt to introduce racial equality.
Refusal to accept that post-1945 that Cold war was only possible interpretation of the contemporary
international system, rather insistence on struggle against imperialism and rise of neutralism and non-
alignment. Also need to look at how states within 3W manipulated CW to own ends.
Attempt to transpose this to international economics with espousal of under-development thesis, and need for
a ‘New International Economic Order.’ How effective were these efforts? Have they made a difference?
(3) Need to look at divisions among these states.
Why have wars taken place? Notably events such as Sino-Indian War of 1962 which put severe strain on non-
aligned movement, Indonesian-Malaysian confrontation, 1963-66, the Egyptian-Saudi confrontation over
Yemen in 1960s.
Why have attempts at pan-Asian, pan-Arab, pan-African, pan-Islamic identities failed?
(4) Competition between different models of economic, social and political development. Non-European world
has been far from united in espousing how development should take place:
Western liberal capitalism - ‘modernization’ theories of 1950s and 1960s.
Marxism-Leninism
Maoism and Dengism (?)
Japan’s developmental state
India’s non-Marxist socialism
Sukarno speech to Bandung conference April 1955.
‘For many generations our people have been the voiceless ones in the world. We have been
the un-regarded, the people for whom decisions were made by others whose interests were
paramount, the peoples who lived in poverty and humiliation. Then our nations demanded,
nay fought for independence, and achieved independence, and with that independence came
responsibility.’
,WEEK 2 Colonial Nationalism between the Wars
Essential Reading: x4
Class Questions
* ‘Decolonization is the most appropriate paradigm for understanding the international history of
the twentieth century’ Discuss…
- What is decolonisation?
- Other paradigms: Cold War, WW1 +WW2, ideological – Marxist, Liberal, Feminist interpretation,
economic
1. ‘The American century’ critically assess this interpretation of the period between 1901 and
2000.
- How do we define a Nation being the preeminent force in a Century? Economic dominance,
Military strength, Cultural exports, Global influence (foreign policy, isolationism vs interventionist)
- This assumption clearly takes the exceptionalism approach to history, wherein a timeline can be
dominated by one actor as opposed. This is in many ways a faulty assumption as multiple actors can
coexist and influence events such as the limited influence of the US on the
- The American century, is this synonymous with the COLD WAR Century? – The Cold War is a
defining event of the period. Is the Cold War a purely geographical war or ideological? DO we call it
the American Century because the US WON – DID THEY? Are the ideologies the ends or the means
of a nation state, which one drives the outcome?
- Counter Arguments: Isolationism from 1921-33 (Republican years) can shift the advent of the
‘American Century’ towards only occurring post 1941.
- Furthermore, one could say that American soft power has not declined, and that the global social
and economic order still reflect a post-war consensus on multilateralism and liberal thought.
- On the contrary, one could argue that while transnational bodies such as NATO, UN, WHO and IMF
reflect an American bureaucratic structure, their efficacy has been heavily eroded into the 20 th C.
The growth of populism under Duarte in the Philippines, the symbolic election of Bong Bong Marcos
and the relative isolationism of Indonesia from global debates of morality, returns the pacific region
to one of smaller power blocs and hostile interaction.
- Input vs Outcome
- Not the ‘American century’ but the ‘century of decolonisation’ Arne Westadt emphasised the
tensions in America at the turn of the century when writing about presidential nominee, William
Bryan’s opposition to colonialism ‘When accepting the Democratic nomination for president in 1900,
William Jennings Bryan castigated the American colonization of the Philippines, claiming that such
policies undermined the essence of republicanism: ‘‘Our whole history,’’ Bryan said, ‘‘has been an
encouragement not only to the Filipinos, but to all who are denied a voice in their own government
p1’
-1898 – Treaty of Paris, ceded Philippines to America
- But did the Atlantic Charter go hand in hand with decolonisation? Force the Britich to relinquish
India? Did America aid or hinder decolonisation?
2. ‘The Twentieth Century was defined by a contest between socialist and capitalist views of
modernity.’ Discuss…
1)Best, A., Hanhimaki, J., Maiolo, J.A., & Schulze, K.E. (2014). International History of the Twentieth
Century and beyond: Third Edition (3rd ed.). Routledge.
https://doiorg.gate3.library.lse.ac.uk/10.4324/9781315739717
Chapter 3/22 Japan, China and the origins of the Pacific war, 1900-41 p58-80
, General IR questions about Japan1 by Scholars about 1900-41:
Why did Japanese Expansionism occur – what prompted the desire for Empire and end to
Isolation?
Was the Japanese Military solely responsible for war or were there economic elites
involved?
What ideological and cultural roots inform Japanese foreign policy?
Did Pan-Asianism and belief about Japanese exceptionalism influence Imperial Japan?
What other actors prompted Japanese ‘aggression?’ – Triangular relationship of
Japan/Russia/China
- If (part of the) the history of the 20c is to be described as the rise of non-western
powers in tandem with the decline of Colonial European ones, then the History of Japan
is arguably the starting point of this transition. The Russo-Japanese War (1904-05) and
definitive Japanese victory at the Straits of Tsushima (1905), emphasised that an Asian
nation could challenge a Western power both through military might and economic
development.
- One catalyst for Japanese expansion was the erosion of China as the dominant regional
Power. Under the Qing Dynasty, China was eroded from the coast by Western powers
looking to exploit labour and resources while internal large scale-rebellions such as the
1899-1901 Boxer Rebellions.
- The Authors argue that Japan recognised that the weakening of China would lead to a
regional power vacuum and that this would provide the opportunity for either
themselves or a hostile Western power to ‘create a new East Asian international order
in its own image p59.’
- Japan at War: vs China (1894-95) and vs Russia (1904-5)
- Japan developed at an astounding pace after only opening in 1853, gaining territory
over Taiwan (1894), South Manchuria (1905) and the Korean Peninsula by 1910.
- Its growth and resultant regional importance prompted recognition form Western
powers e.g., Japan formed an alliance with Britain in 1902, further enhancing tension
with Russia as Britain wished to minimise Russian influence in the region.
- Western concerns about expansion were chiefly economic. America feared that if Japan
sought greater security for its territorial gains, then America would lose access to the
Chinese Market. The decline of the Qing Dynasty and their abdication in 1912 further
proved that China was vulnerable to a restructuring of their ruling elite.
- Japan may have been deterred from invading China had the attention and physical
muscle of Western powers not been redirected towards WW1 (1914-18). Japan
capitalised on their sudden primacy in the regionally in two keyways. Firstly, the sudden
decline of European trade with the region led to a boom for Japanese exports, while
domestically, scarcity of European imports of ‘iron, steel and chemicals encouraged the
development of Japan’s own heavy industrial base p61.’ Japan also created strategies to
gain land by giving loans to those willing to cede it to them between 1916-18.
- Secondly, Japan entered the War in 1914, to honour its alliance with GB, by declaring
war on Germany and attacking the German possession of Jiaozhou in Shandong, China.
The ’21 demands’ of 1915 display growing Japanese ambitions to expand territory in
China despite at that point in time not gaining and significant concessions from wary
British and US diplomats.
- The US (Wilson Administration) sees Japanese economic influence in India and
Southeast Asia as a violation of their ‘Open door’ policy and tensions simmer under the
surface of joint US-Japanese intervention in Siberia as both are competing for regional
resources.
1
Meiji era (1867-1912), Taisho era (1912-1926), Showa era (1926-1989)
