Episode Recording -- "Strategic Freedom in the Cold War"

0:00–1:50: Introduction/Teaser Trailer: 

Hello! I am Charlie Robinson, your host, and welcome in this episode of Strategic Freedom in the Cold War. On this podcast, we will discuss why the United States supported decolonization even though most colonized regions were under the influence of allies of the United States.

Let us set the stage. Imagine the United States and Soviet Union as two wolves. They hunt together and were friends and help each other take down a pack of prey, Nazi Germany, Italy, and Japan. Both wolves want more than the other, so as soon as they defeat their prey they start fighting over the remains. These two former friends form two different wolf packs, Nato and the Warsaw pact respectively, to fight over these remains and the rest of the forest. This is a perfect metaphor for the United States and Soviet Union after the second World War. Both countries used to help each other and were friends but now they want more influence.

Now imagine this, The United States is a gardener. Uncle Sam is urging his friends to cut down their old overgrown trees, not just to let new plants grow, but also so that weeds of communism do not take shade underneath their old canopy. This is yet again another great metaphor which explains why the United States Supported decolonization. Uncle Sam reasoned, that if his friend’s old empires weren’t taken down and given help growing into nations of their own then they might side with communism and join his new enemy, the Soviet Union.

These two metaphors that we just explored give a brief understanding of why the United States supported decolonization. We will explore why and how The United States’ support for decolonization was driven by a complex interplay of ideological, geopolitical and economic interests, but the United States often prioritized strategic alliances and trade partnerships over the pure promotion of independence or self-determination often supporting authoritarian regimes or colonial powers which aligned with Uncle Sam’s geopolitical objectives.

2:00–3:00:  Reintroduction: 

The Reasoning for why and how the United State supported decolonization is a very complex issue. It was driven by a complex interplay of ideological, geopolitical, and economic interests which will be explored in this podcast. The United States followed a rough idea of if you are not communist you are my friend which was promoted by the United States’ idea of Domino Theory. Uncle Sam often prioritized strategic alliances over supporting democracy or self-determination often supporting authoritarian regimes which will also be explored in this episode of Strategic Freedom of the Cold War. This topic of decolonization is still very present today because different forms of supporting decolonization or proxy wars can still be seen and felt today. All of these issues will be discussed in length in

3:00–5:00:  Segment 1: Ideological Commitment to Self-Determination and Democracy

            Uncle Sam and all of his citizens had an Ideological Commitment to Self-determination and Democracy. As outlined in a United Nations meeting, The United States believed that every population had the right to rule themselves. They believed that all people should have a choice on their governance, through consent rule, and not be forced into being governed by an outside power, through a sort of imperial rule. In April, 1955, many independence seeking countries gathered at the Bandung conference in Djakarta, Indonesia. At this conference they outlined the reasons that they were seeking for Independence and the reasons why it was right for them to obtain independence. These countries believed that their time had come and that it was their right for their populations to determine the future of their populations. Much of the public of the United Staes supported these people’s right for self-determination especially many African Americans. Because most of the United States population was in favor of this ideology, so too was the government. However it should be known that there were times that good ole Uncle Sam did not support self-determination because there were times when countries did not want to end up at the table with Uncle Sam. This will be discusses in segment 2. Overall, The United States as well as its citizens wanted to support decolonization in favor of self-determination because they believed that it was the right thing to do and they believed that people should be able to self-determine their future.

Source(s): “Declaration on Granting Independence to colonial countries and peoples, December 14, 1960, United Nations, General Assembly, Official Records, Fifteenth Session, Supplement No. 16, pp. 66-67

Joseph L. Locke and Ben Wright, The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. Textbook, Volume 2: Since 1877, (Standford, California: Standford University Press, 2023), Chapter 25, Part V.

Source(s): “Speech at the Opening of the Bandung Conference, April 18, 1955, Africa-Asia Speaks from Bandong, (Djakarta Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1955), 19-29.”

Source(s): Fredrick Logevall, Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam (New York: Random House, 2012), 48.

5:00–7:00:  Segment 2: Geopolitical considerations in the cold war 

During the Cold War the United States had an ideology that if you were not my enemy you were my friend. This means that the United States would support a government as long as they were not communist. In doing so it ensured that the Soviet Union had less friends and that the United States had more. As we will explore in this segment, the explore why supporting decolonization was important in helping the United States’ geopolitical situation during the cold war.

            Uncle Sam believed heavily in the domino theory. This means that they thought that the containment of Communism was necessary to thwart the spread of Communism. Locke and Wright explain this in the American Yawp, stating, “Based on the logic of militarized containment established by NSC-68 and American Cold War strategy, interventions in Korea and Vietnam were seen as appropriate American responses to the ascent of communism in China. Unless Soviet power in Asia was halted, Chinese influence would ripple across the continent, and one country after another would fall to communism. Easily transposed onto any region of the world, the Domino Theory became a standard basis for the justification of U.S. interventions abroad.” This was the framework for why the United States justified its entanglements around the world which entered the country into proxy wars against China and the Soviets. Uncle Sam and his children firmly believed that they had duty to stop the dominos from falling in order to keep communism from ruining yet another country.

            However, just because the United States was supporting a friend in a different neighborhood of the world did not necessarily mean that their friend was upholding to democratic values. Sometimes the United States would even support anti colonialists against one of their key allies because it showed that they believed that people should rule themselves.This means United States often supported anti colonial leaders who seemed less likely to side with communist influence because it would ensure that a friendly government replaced the crumbling colonial one and it would send a message to the world that the United States supported self determination. Locke and Wright from the American Yawp comment on this as well. They state, “American planners felt that successful decolonization could demonstrate the superiority of democracy and capitalism against competing Soviet models. Their goal was in essence to develop an informal system of world power based as much as possible on consent (hegemony) rather than coercion (empire).” This information from theAmerican Yawp, shows the importance of supporting decolonization movements across the world. It would transmit to the world that the United States truly supported self-determination and freedom where power comes from the peoples vote which differed from the old ways of the colonialists or the ways of the authoritarian Soviets and the Communists.

Lastly in this section, we look an idea which is: if you are not my enemy you are my friend. The United States often supported non democratic authoritarian regimes because they were not communist and therefor where also against the soviets. These countries might use brutal inhumane methods and were run by terrible dictators but hey… Uncle Sam did not care as long as you would help him stop communism. The United States alignment with the non aligned movement was due to ideology that if they were not under soviet influence, then they were a counterweight to soviet influence. Once again, Locke and Wright comment on this in The American Yawp, illustrating, “American strategy became consumed with thwarting Russian power and the concomitant global spread of communism. Foreign policy officials increasingly opposed all insurgencies or independence movements that could in any way be linked to international communism. The Soviet Union, too, was attempting to sway the world.” This shows that the United States would support anyone as long as they would help them uproot the weeds of communism in their respective little corner of the world.

Overall, in this section we explored how the United States supported both decolonization processes and authoritarian regimes as long as they were allies in thwarting communism.

Source(s): “Speech at the Opening of the Bandung Conference, April 18, 1955, Africa-Asia Speaks from Bandong, (Djakarta Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1955), 19-29.”

Joseph L. Locke and Ben Wright, The American Yawp: A Massively Collaborative Open U.S. Textbook, Volume 2: Since 1877, (Standford, California: Standford University Press, 2023), Chapter 25, Part V.

7:00–9:00:  Segment 3: Economic Interests and Ties to the Global Trade Networks

            Decolonization not only helped other countries, but it also helped the United States of America. The United States was economically entangled around the world through both economic interests at home and a necessity to keep global trading favorable. The United States supported decolonization because it favored their economic interests.

            With all of these former colonies becoming closer and closer towards the end of the decolonization process and nearing independence, the United States realized that they had a new opportunity for trading partners. They realized that every nation that became free was another nation that could be a market for Uncle Sam to buy and sell from. The United States chose to be a helping and supporting hand through decolonization because it would give them a better relationship once the country did become independent. The United States wanted to foster new foreign governments so that they could foster new markets to trade with America and consume American goods. Brad Simpson discusses this stating, “Historians have largely ignored the economic dimensions of self-determination, treating it in strictly political terms. But U.S. officials and business leaders saw such a right posing serious risks to the framework of foreign trade and investment underpinning the U.S. liberal order. Representatives of Socony Vacuum, General Motors, ARAMCO, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, for example, responded with alarm when the UN General Assembly in 1952 passed a resolution endorsing nationalization, which Guatemala cited to help justify its liberal land reform law.” This argument by Simpson shows why United States would suddenly care about these foreign countries. As soon as the governments of these foreign countries shifted away America and were looking inwards through nationalism and not buying American goods, American interests got agitated. This is a prime example of why America supported decolonization because they wanted to be on favorable terms after wards so that they could sell their goods in said countries market. In being on the favorable side of a country, Uncle Sam would also have better access to rare raw materials to fuel its economy. Although the United States stated many times that it did support self-determination or decolonization for access to resources it time and again still miraculously gained favorable trade agreements in order to obtain Uncle Sam’s desired resources.

After World War Two, when both Germany and Japan were defeated, the United States had large swaths of its economy tied into its military industrial complex. The catch with this was that in order for the United States to continue maintaining or growing this part of their economy, they would need to continue waging wars or supporting those who did. This means that the United States now would have an interest in going to war because companies would continue receiving money or receive more money from the Federal Government if they did go to war. As messed up as that is… it is true… The United States had a monetary reason to go to war. Locke and Wright warn us about this stating, “In Eisenhower’s formulation, the “military-industrial complex” referred specifically to domestic connections between arms manufacturers, members of Congress, and the Department of Defense. Yet the new alliance between corporations, politicians, and the military was dependent on having an actual conflict to wage, without which there could be no ultimate financial gain. To critics, military-industrial partnerships at home were now linked to U.S. interests abroad.” Again, this means that companies and lobbyists at home had an interest to encourage the government to go to war and had an interest of growing its warring capabilities. Now the United Staes had a financial interest in fighting the Soviets or backing some side in every war around the globe.

Source(s): Dwight D. Eisenhower, Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, 1035–1040.

Source(s): Stephen Metz, “Political Science Quarterly,” American Attitudes toward decolonization, No. 3, Page 8

Source(s): Brad Simpson, “The United States and Curious History of self determination,” Diplomatic History, Vol 36, No. 4: Pages 682-684.

9:00–10:00:  Outro: 

We have explored why and how The United States’ support for decolonization was driven by a complex interplay of ideological, geopolitical and economic interests, and why the United States often prioritized strategic alliances and trade partnerships over the pure promotion of independence or self-determination often supporting authoritarian regimes or colonial powers which aligned with Uncle Sam’s geopolitical objectives. These topics were very important in the 20^thcentury but remember a lot of these same patterns are still happening today. I want you to have a look around in the news and remember that the reason for good ole Uncle Sam supporting another nation is often a multifaceted idea.

10:00–10:40:  Call to action: 

Thank you all for listening to this episode of Strategic Freedom in the Cold War. Please leave a review and I hope you see you all in the next episode. I hope you have learned something new! Again, thank you so much for listening! Signing off, your host, Charlie Robinson.