제국의 해체－영국과 프랑스의 ‘탈식민화’ 비교－ (End of Empires: A Comparative Approach of British and French ‘Decolonization’)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국서양사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 서양사론 / 106호 / 33 ~ 59페이지
· 저자명 : 이용재

초록

One of the most momentous changes after the Second World War has been the dismemberment and almost complete removal of European colonial empires. Various explanations for European withdrawal from empires have been put forward by historians over the recent years,including the metropolitan, international and peripheral perspectives.
This paper makes a comparative survey of the patterns of decolonization in Britain and France, the two great imperialist powers, according to the above three models for interpreting the fall of empires.
First, the British imperial policy was generally regarded as more liberal and more practical-oriented than France’s. The British administration did establish a tradition of meeting colonial discontents through reform and succeeded in leading them into the Commonwealth. By contrast, France’s refusal to accept the realities of anti- colonialism, in contrast to Britain’s more conciliatory attitude, led to large-scale conflicts in Indochina and Algeria.
Second, British decolonizers were also fortunate in terms of the international environment they faced. Generally, Britain had a better relationship with the Americans than the French. Despite strains in the ‘special relationship’ during the 1950s (especially during the Suez crisis), by the 1960s, Anglo-American friendship was fully resurrected,while about no Franco-American coalition in decolonization came.
Third, Britain’s relatively more successful and crisis-free management of decolonization might also explain the quality and character of colonial nationalism it faced. France’s opponents proved far more formidable. In Black Africa, the French were fortunate to find elites who were prepared to collaborate with rather than confront them. But in Algeria and Vietnam, no such elites existed or emerged.
The French failed to manage an authoritative moderate group with whom they could negotiate with. In India, Gandhi needed to agitate the British, but his non-violent stance allowed the more liberal instincts of British colonial administrators to prevail.
British, it can be argued, seemed more fortunate in these three respects than the French. But this does not mean that French decolonization was always far more brutal and violent than Britain’s.
The Britain also had to face the violent conflicts and blood bathes in Kenya and Malaysia. This shows that the final and most important pattern of decolonization depends on colonial nationalism.

영어초록

One of the most momentous changes after the Second World War has been the dismemberment and almost complete removal of European colonial empires. Various explanations for European withdrawal from empires have been put forward by historians over the recent years,including the metropolitan, international and peripheral perspectives.
This paper makes a comparative survey of the patterns of decolonization in Britain and France, the two great imperialist powers, according to the above three models for interpreting the fall of empires.
First, the British imperial policy was generally regarded as more liberal and more practical-oriented than France’s. The British administration did establish a tradition of meeting colonial discontents through reform and succeeded in leading them into the Commonwealth. By contrast, France’s refusal to accept the realities of anti- colonialism, in contrast to Britain’s more conciliatory attitude, led to large-scale conflicts in Indochina and Algeria.
Second, British decolonizers were also fortunate in terms of the international environment they faced. Generally, Britain had a better relationship with the Americans than the French. Despite strains in the ‘special relationship’ during the 1950s (especially during the Suez crisis), by the 1960s, Anglo-American friendship was fully resurrected,while about no Franco-American coalition in decolonization came.
Third, Britain’s relatively more successful and crisis-free management of decolonization might also explain the quality and character of colonial nationalism it faced. France’s opponents proved far more formidable. In Black Africa, the French were fortunate to find elites who were prepared to collaborate with rather than confront them. But in Algeria and Vietnam, no such elites existed or emerged.
The French failed to manage an authoritative moderate group with whom they could negotiate with. In India, Gandhi needed to agitate the British, but his non-violent stance allowed the more liberal instincts of British colonial administrators to prevail.
British, it can be argued, seemed more fortunate in these three respects than the French. But this does not mean that French decolonization was always far more brutal and violent than Britain’s.
The Britain also had to face the violent conflicts and blood bathes in Kenya and Malaysia. This shows that the final and most important pattern of decolonization depends on colonial nationalism.

참고자료

· 없음