The United States and the Liquidation of European Colonial Rule in Tropical Africa, 1941-1963

Les États-Unis et la liquidation de l’autorité coloniale européenne en Afrique tropicale, 1941-1963. – Les États-Unis occupent une place de choix dans la littérature consacrée à la fin du colonialisme en Afrique. Ce pays, dit-on, a facilité le processus en poussant les Européens a de rapides concessions politiques avec les Africains. Ce point de vue a encore du poids aujourd’hui, et il est fréquemment exprimé dans les livres et les cours consacrés à l’histoire de l’Afrique. Peu importe que les prétentions d’un anticolonialsime américain soient fondées non pas sur une étude de sources de première main mais sur des suppositions. Le nombre croissant de documents officiels désormais accessibles à tous plaide en faveur d’une étude empirique d’un sujet intimement lié au discours africaniste sur la décolonisation. C’est exactement l’objectif de cet article qui montre que la perception courante du rôle des États-Unis dans le processus de décolonisation est trompeuse. Les États-Unis, de manière tout à fait évidente, souhaitaient et s’efforçaient de conserver une forte présence européenne en Afrique, même après les indépendances. Cet article explique les raisons de cette attitude et attire l’attention sur certains aspects saillants de la politique américaine envers l’Afrique entre 1941 et 1963 : un parti pris excessif en faveur de l’Europe, le souhait d’exploiter les ressources africaines pour reconstruire l’Europe, et le peu d’importance accordée à l’Afrique dans les calculs stratégiques des États-Unis.In the existing literature on the end of European colonial rule in Africa, the United States (U.S.) occupies a pride of place.  The U.S., it is said, played a facilitating role, by prodding the Europeans into speedy political concessions to Africans.  This viewpoint remains quite influential and is still regurgitated in textbooks and classrooms in African history.  It does not matter that the claims for American anticolonialism are based, not on study of the relevant primary records, but on assumptions.  The increasing availability, through declassification, of the U.S. official records strongly argues for an empirical study of a subject so germane to the Africanist discourse on decolonization.  This is precisely what this paper does–and it clearly shows that the popular perception of the U.S. role in the decolonization process is very misleading.  The U.S., its is quite apparent, desired and worked for a strong European presence in Africa, even after the independence.  The paper also offers explanations for this policy behavior, and in the process, draws attention to other salient aspects of the U.S. policy towards Africa in the period 1941-1963: for example, the overly Eurocentric bias of policy, the interest in exploiting African resources for the rehabilitation of Europe, and Africa’s low rating in U.S. strategic calculations

American historians on the Cold War: A historiographical interpretation

This article categorizes the American historical scholarship on the Cold War into five, perhaps six, clusters. After discussing these clusters, it argues that in spite of paradigmatic differences, there are also areas of agreement in the literature. For one thing, it is clear that before the end of World War II, and therefore before the Cold War acquired its distinctiveness, the U.S. had a well-articulated vision of the world order it desired in place of the one shattered by World War II: this was essentially an international political economy which conformed with, protected and promoted U.S. prosperity and security. But at the same time, American leaders convinced themselves that the Soviets were a potential threat to this objective. The evidence is clear that this conviction derived from an ingrained American aversion to the Soviet Union which dates back to the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. In this context, the Cold War began when it became clear that Moscow would not participate in the multilateral global order envisioned and led by Washington. Lagos Historical Review Vol. 6, 2006: 1-3