Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading…
Transcript

British Prime Minister Clement Attlee’s invitation for Aung San to lead a Burmese delegation to London (January 1947) --> to discuss the holding of elections for the Constituent Assembly which would be empowered to write a constitution for an independent Burma

April 1947 general elections in Burma --> AFPFL won 171 seats in the 182-seat Constituent Assembly, thus enhancing the legitimacy and leadership position of the AFPFL under Aung San

Prospect of a Burman-dominated independent Burma alarmed the ethnic minorities --> ready to resort to force to defend their hard won independence from Burman control during the colonial period

High profile tour by Aung San in the frontier regions to allay the fears of the ethnic minorities in early 1947 --> managed to earn their trust by promising the ethnic minorities that they would have full autonomy in their internal administrations, and assured them of sufficient political representation in an independent Burmese government

Aung San recognised the risks of an all-out war against the considerable British military forces stationed in Burma --> preferred to rely on negotiations and compromises with the British to secure Burma’s independence

Demobilisation of the Burma National Army in accordance with Aung San’s agreement with the British --> replaced with a well-trained and well-armed Thakin paramilitary force, the People’s Volunteer Organisation (1945), which was a useful instrument for playing a war of nerves with the British

Problem of communist dissension within the AFPFL --> communist Thakin leaders opposed Aung San’s moderate stance and won considerable support in openly advocating for a more militant and violent approach to attaining independence

Expulsion of Thakin Soe’s Red Flag Communist Party (January 1946) --> a small but highly radical group that proceeded to go underground to sabotage the British colonial administration

Expulsion of Thakin Than Tun’s White Flag Communist Party (October 1946) --> sought to expand the nationalist campaign for independence into a larger social revolution with the aim of creating a Marxist state, and consistently pushed for the use of violence against the British

Old pre-war divisions (over aims and methods) were threatening to unravel the AFPFL as a Burmese united front by early 1946 --> tensions among the non-communist Thakins (e.g. Aung San and U Nu), communist Thakins (e.g. Than Tun and Soe) and pro-British Burmese politicians (e.g. U Saw)

Aung San called for a national rally at the Shwe Dagon Pagoda (January 1946) --> obtained the key backing of the moderate non-communist nationalists for his policy of peaceful constitutional struggle, and greatly enhanced Aung San’s stature as the foremost Burmese nationalist leader

British decision in early 1947 to grant independence to India --> Britain no longer had strong economic and strategic interests in retaining Burma as a colony

• Creation of the Anti-Fascist Organisation in 1944 --> active support by the Burma National Army in Britain’s counter-invasion of Burma against the Japanese

• Britain successfully liberated Burma before the Japanese surrender in August 1945 --> no power vacuum for the Anti-Fascist People’s Freedom League (AFPFL) to seize independence

Aung San was therefore able to use his immense popularity with the Burmese and firm leadership of a strong and united AFPFL to put pressure on the British to grant Burma speedy independence.

Panglong Agreement (12 February 1947) --> a historic accord between Aung San and the Shan, Kachin and Chin leaders which secured the ethnic minorities’ consent to joining an independent Burmese state

Aung San convinced the British that he could mediate successfully with the ethnic minorities as the leader of a Burmese state --> but key ethnic groups such as the Karens refused to sign the agreement and Aung San was subsequently assassinated in July 1947

Outbreak of the Cold War in Europe --> Aung San played on the communist threat during the January 1947 talks in London, warning the British that if independence was not swiftly granted, disgruntled nationalists would switch their support to the communists and the use of violence

British reluctance to recognise the leadership of AFPFL and give it a majority in the Burmese Executive Council --> Thakins had been “tainted” by their pre-war radical nationalist agendas and wartime collaboration with the Japanese, and the British were also keen to use the ethnic minorities (e.g. Karens, Shans) to keep the AFPFL in check

• Japanese decision to grant nominal and conditional independence to Burma in August 1943 with Ba Maw as Adipadi (Great Lord)

• Thakins had initially collaborated with the Japanese to expel the British from Burma, but later defected to the side of the Allies in 1944 following the drastic reversal of Japanese military fortunes

Aung San

(1915-1947)

Overview of Decolonisation Topic

Why was independence successfully achieved by Southeast Asian nationalist movements after WW2?

1. Role of nationalist leaders

2. Role of colonial powers

3. Impact of key external factors

No change to the constitutional process despite Aung San’s assassination --> British granted independence to Burma on 4 January 1948 with U Nu as Prime Minister

British failure to retain their political, economic and strategic influence in independent Burma even in an informal capacity --> U Nu’s government soon turned inwards into diplomatic isolation [unique experience from the rest of Southeast Asia]

British were not prepared to grant immediate independence to Burma in the post-war period --> unwilling to give further political concessions having already granted Home Rule to Burma (1937)

Burma White Paper (May 1945) --> Burma would be given self-government within the British Commonwealth, but only after Burma’s complete economic rehabilitation (in order to protect British investment and economic interests, as well as to provide the requisite stability for a future independent Burmese government to rule effectively)

Refusal of British Governor Reginald Dorman-Smith (1941-1946) to recognise the AFPFL’s leadership and implement faster political reforms in Burma --> Thakins successfully organised a number of strikes and demonstrations (mainly involving labour unions and students) to force his resignation in August 1946

Arrival of new British Governor Hubert Rance (1946-1948) --> Thakins enlarged an ongoing general strike (including the participation of the civil service) to bring the economy to a standstill, forcing the Burmese Executive Council to resign (highlighting the nation-wide support base of the AFPFL in the process)

Rance’s reluctance to call upon British forces to challenge the AFPFL --> decision to recognise the leadership of the AFPFL and give it a majority in the Burmese Executive Council, and appointed Aung San as deputy chairman (de facto Prime Minister) responsible for defence and external affairs

By May 1947, Burma was clearly progressing towards independence under the leadership of Aung San and the AFPFL --> Aung San provided the steadying influence so that the final process of independence was not jeopardised by the growing communist threat

Assassination of Aung San and six of his cabinet ministers in July 1947 by gunmen hired by U Saw --> a major blow to Burma in view of Aung San’s effective leadership and irreplaceable personal charisma and prestige [U Saw was swiftly arrested, tried and executed in 1948]

Decolonisation in Burma

U Nu

(1907-1995)

Would you consider the decolonisation process in Burma to be a case of the transfer of power by the British or the struggle for independence by the Burmese?

Thakin Than Tun (1911-1968)

Thakin Soe

(1906-1989)

Linking the provision of post-war economic reconstruction assistance to the acquisition of economic concessions from the Philippines --> passing of the 1946 Tydings Rehabilitation Act which offered up to US$900 million as payment for war damages was conditional on the Filipinos ratifying the Bell Trade Act

Logical implementation of the 1934 Tydings-McDuffie Act --> USA granted independence to the Philippines on 4 July 1946 in accordance with the pre-war plan

Peaceful and smooth transfer of power by the USA to the Philippines --> first country in post-war Southeast Asia to achieve independence

Restored the powers and positions of the pre-war pro-US Filipino political and social elites --> did not try them for treason even though they had collaborated with the Japanese (e.g. Jorge Vargas, Benigno Aquino)

Endorsed the presidential bid of Manuel Roxas and his decision to break away from Partido Nacionalista to form the Liberal Party (January 1946) --> Roxas was seen as being more popular and amenable to US interests as compared to Sergio Osmena

Supported Roxas’ persecution of the popular Hukbalahap as communist rebels despite their valiant anti-Japanese resistance efforts --> provided substantial economic and military assistance to help the Philippine government counter the Huk insurgency (1946-1954) and consolidate its political authority

Forcing the Filipinos to ratify the unequal 1946 Bell Trade Act which effectively ensured continuing US economic domination over the Philippines --> established a system of preferential tariffs which undermined control over imports and exports by the Philippine government, as well as a "parity" clause which granted US citizens and corporations equal right to utilise and exploit the country’s natural resources, despite provisions in the 1935 Philippine Constitution to the contrary which the Act required to be amended

Positioning the Philippines as a bastion of anti-communism in Southeast Asia due to the Cold War --> American fears of communist expansionism and desire to retain a powerful military presence in the region made them reluctant to fully relinquish de facto control over the Philippines, or support populist movements that championed socialist agendas (e.g. issue of agrarian reform) in opposition to the ruling anti-communist Filipino elites

• Japanese granted nominal and conditional independence to the Philippines in October 1943 with Jose Laurel as president

• USA successfully liberated the Philippines before the Japanese surrender in August 1945 --> no power vacuum for other radical nationalist groups (e.g. Hukabalahap) to exploit

"More often than not, nationalist movements in Southeast Asia did not win independence: it was handed to them on a plate." How far do you agree with this statement?

1. How far do you agree that it was the capabilities of the nationalists that determined the outcome of the decolonisation process?

2. “Nationalist movements made little difference to the pace and nature of decolonisation in Southeast Asia in the post-World War Two era.” How far do you agree with the above statement?

Unseemly haste by the USA to grant independence despite the massive disruptions and dislocations in the Philippines caused by World War Two --> Filipinos needed ample time and massive economic aid to rebuild their country during the post-war period

American display of calculating and neo-colonial attitudes over the issue of post-war reconstruction assistance, despite the courageous anti-Japanese resistance efforts by the Filipinos --> tied American aid to the Philippines to the acquisition of significant economic concessions, and seemed to prioritise Germany and Japan over the Philippines in terms of the granting of reconstruction assistance

Death of Commonwealth President Manuel Quezon (1944) --> succeeded by Sergio Osmena who, under strong US pressure, had to take on the difficult responsibility of persecuting Filipino collaborators, most of whom were his former peers and possibly future allies

April 1946 general elections in the Philippines --> Osmena’s Partido Nacionalista was defeated by Manuel Roxas (who had the staunch backing of US General Douglas MacArthur) and his Liberal Party

Signing of the 1947 Military Bases Agreement between the USA and the Philippines --> granted the Americans a 99-year lease for 16 bases or military reservations including Subic Bay Naval Base as well as the administration of the town of Olongapo, and Clark Air Base (in effect undermined Filipino sovereignty despite the granting of independence)

• Almost the entire ruling Filipino elite collaborated with the Japanese to form a puppet government

• End of political dominance by Partido Nacionalista and the rise to national prominence of Hukbalahap / Communist Party of the Philippines

Independence for the Philippines merely signified the changing nature of US control over the country --> from formal colonial power to informal neo-colonial influence

Decolonisation in the Philippines

Notwithstanding the rapid achievement of independence by the Philippines, how would you assess the overall achievements of the Filipino nationalists in the post-war decolonisation process?

Can we consider the Filipino experience to be an unequivocal case of the successful attainment of independence in Southeast Asia by the nationalist elites?

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi