TIME: Almanac 1995

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1995 / TIME Almanac 1995.iso / time / caps / 50s / 50third < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1993-04-15 | 7KB | 153 lines

<text id=93HT0297> <link 93XP0201> <link 93XP0197> <link 93HT0327> <title> 1950s: Third World </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1950s Highlights </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> Third World </hdr> <body> [While Communist and free-world nations contended fiercely, the 1950s also witnessed the emergence of a Third World, consisting mostly of countries in Asia and Africa liberated from colonialism since World War II. In 1955, leaders of 29 of those countries met in Bandung, Indonesia, to forge a common perspective on world problems that would be neither Western or Eastern.] (April 25, 1955) The Bandung Conference nations came together with a loose binding of things in common. Most were newly sovereign countries. All but one or two had been dominated for years by Western colonialism or imperialism. All yearned for a greater place in the sun. They differed in a myriad of ways--religion, ideology, ambitions and inhibitions, animosities, economies, resources and enemies. They could not hope to find much common footing for their mixture of neutralism, Communism, pro-Westernism, anti-Communism, anti-Westernism, and simple, provincial unconcern. Even the conference's five sponsors--India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon--were not agreed on what the conference should try to achieve. (May 2, 1955) In Bandung's dusty streets, fezzes mingled with turbans, longyis with Bond Street suits. A swirl of exotic prophets, devious schemers and earnest advocates swarmed in from afar to urge their causes. Resplendent in a red tarboosh and black gown, the former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem materialized like a wraith from the past. There was a young Turkestani from Brooklyn to protest against the "tragic conditions of Moslems in the Soviet Union and China," a delegation from South Africa to urge condemnation of apartheid. The men of many colors and faiths met in pride and excitement. "Our people have been the voiceless ones in the world," cried Indonesia's President Soekarno. "But the nations of Asia and Africa are no longer the tools of others and the playthings of forces they cannot control. Look! The peoples of Asia raised their voices, and the world listened." [While violence and guerrilla warfare was going on in some colonial empires, notably that of France in North Africa, elsewhere there was peaceful change that would lead to the tide of decolonization in the 1960s.] (March 25, 1957) All around the world last week (except in the unlit third of it ruled by the Communists) could be seen the evidence of dying colonialism and the gestation of new kinds of government. In some cases, the transfer of authority was grudging; in other, power was being grabbed before responsibility was proved. But a surprising part of the changeover was an orderly transfer of sovereignty. One by one they made the headlines--from Ghana on West Africa's Gold Coast to Singapore in the Far East, to the West Indies federation in the Caribbean. What was going on was an unparalleled historic phenomenon which some in Britain, greatest of the West's colonial powers, like to call "creative abdication" (to the unconcealed horror of diehard imperialists, who see only retreat). In places where British governments and proconsuls had bungled, "creative abdication" was a euphemism for a hasty cutting of losses. But in other places it represented a conscientious attempt to surrender an outdated authority to win a new relationship more valued because it was volunteered. One way or another in the twelve years since World War II--years during which Russia enslaved all of Eastern Europe--Britain has given self-rule to six nations (India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma, Sudan, Ghana) and 507 million people, and of them all, only Burma and Sudan had voted to leave the Commonwealth, Britain is now in the process of giving measured self-rule to 61 million more. Among them: -- Singapore: In London's Colonial Office, experts last week dickered with 42-year-old Chief Minister Lim Yew Hok, a Malayan-born Chinese they once mistrusted, now respect. Main sticking point in drawing up a constitution for a new state of Singapore: whether Britain should keep police powers in the Red-infested Southeast Asian metropolis (pop. 1,200,000). Probable outcome: a compromise which will give Singapore full self-government but allow British intervention if troublemakers get out of hand. -- Malaya: Despite a nine-year-old Communist uprising, Chief Minister Tengku Abdul Rahman, a wealthy Malayan Moslem prince, announced that his government would cut British forces in Malaya by 50% and start building its own army after the Federation (pop. 6,200,000) achieves independence next August. -- Nigeria: In the midst of a hot election campaign, ebullient Nnamdi Azikiwe, Premier of Nigeria's Eastern Region, announced that he would ask Britain for self-government in May. Probable result: local self-government for two of Nigeria's three regions sometime this year, independence for the entire Federation (pop. 32 million) by 1960. -- Malta: Negotiations are under way with Maltese Premier Dom Mintoff, who surprisingly wants to get closer to Britain, hopes to see Malta integrated as closely as Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom itself. A little flattered, a little uncertain, the British want to be doubly sure that most Maltese feel the same way as their young Premier. -- Cyprus: Even in this most rebellious of British possessions there was a glimmer of progress. Last week EOKA, the Greek Cypriot underground, offered to call off its two-year-old campaign of terrorism if Britain would free Archbishop Makarios, exiled spiritual and political leader of Cyprus' Greek population. In London Prime Minister Macmillan hastily called a special Cabinet meeting to consider this face-saving way out. Britain until now has insisted that Makarios himself must formally denounce EOKA terrorism. Looking on at this process, the U.S. had once taken the simple view that all nations should get their independence as quickly as possible. If someone suggested that a people was not yet ready for freedom, the answer was that, as G.K. Chesterton said of blowing one's nose, there are some things that people can do better for themselves than anyone can do for them. In Indonesia, in Morocco and elsewhere, the U.S. has learned that to receive independence requires as much self-discipline and maturity as to give it. Leaders of the young new nations would probably agree that freedom is a risky venture, more so than they once recognized, and that their worst problems persist after the imperialists get out. Yet who among them would want to abandon their independence? </body> </article> </text>