33.1: Independence in the Maghreb

33.1.1: French West Africa’s Move Toward Independence

French West Africa was a federation of eight French colonial territories in Africa that existed from 1895 until 1960, when the colonies established independence from France.

Learning Objective

Describe the move towards independence in French West Africa

Key Points

As the French pursued their part in the “scramble for Africa” in the 1880s and 1890s, they conquered large inland areas and soon dubbed them “Military Territories.”
In the late 1890s, the French government began to rein in the territorial expansion of the military officers in charge of these territories and transferred all the territories west of Gabon to a single governor based in Senegal.
These territories were formally named French West Africa.
Until after the Second World War, almost no Africans living in the colonies of France were citizens of France; rather, they were “French Subjects,” lacking rights before the law, property ownership rights, and the rights to travel, dissent, or vote.
Following World War II, the French government began extending limited political rights in its colonies, such as including some African subjects in the governing bodies of the colonies and giving limited citizenship rights to natives.
In 1960, a further revision of the French constitution, compelled by the failure of the French Indochina War and the tensions in Algeria, allowed members of the French Community (the successor to the French colonial empire) to unilaterally change their own constitutions, resulting in the end of French West Africa.

Key Terms

French Subjects: Residents of French colonies who unlike French citizens, lacked rights before the law, property ownership rights, and the rights to travel, dissent, or vote.
Protectorate: A dependent territory that has been granted local autonomy and some independence while still retaining the suzerainty of a greater sovereign state.
scramble for Africa: The invasion, occupation, division, colonization, and annexation of African territory by European powers during the period of New Imperialism, between 1881 and 1914.

French West Africa was a federation of eight French colonial territories in Africa: Mauritania, Senegal, French Sudan (now Mali), French Guinea (now Guinea), Côte d’Ivoire, Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso), Dahomey (now Benin), and Niger. The capital of the federation was Dakar. The federation existed from 1895 until 1960.

Background: French Colonial Empire

The French colonial empire constituted the overseas colonies, protectorates, and mandate territories under French rule from the 16th century onward. A distinction is made between the “first colonial empire,” which was mostly lost by 1814, and the “second colonial empire,” which began with the conquest of Algiers in 1830. The second empire came to an end after the loss of bitter wars in Vietnam (1955) and Algeria (1962), and peaceful decolonization elsewhere after 1960.

The French colonial empire began to fall during the Second World War, when various parts were occupied by foreign powers (Japan in Indochina, Britain in Syria, Lebanon, and Madagascar, the USA and Britain in Morocco and Algeria, and Germany and Italy in Tunisia). However, control was gradually reestablished by Charles de Gaulle. The French Union, included in the Constitution of 1946, nominally replaced the former colonial empire, but officials in Paris remained in full control. The colonies were given local assemblies with only limited local power and budgets. A group of elites known as evolués emerged: natives of the overseas territories who lived in metropolitan France.

The French Union was replaced in the new Constitution of 1958 by the French Community. Only Guinea refused by referendum to take part in the new colonial organization. However, the French Community dissolved itself in the midst of the Algerian War; almost all of the other African colonies were granted independence in 1960 with local referendums. A few colonies chose instead to remain part of France under the status of overseas territories. Robert Aldrich argues that with Algerian independence in 1962, the Empire had practically come to an end, as the remaining colonies were quite small and lacked active nationalist movements.

Rights and Representation in French Territories

As the French pursued their part in the “scramble for Africa” in the 1880s and 1890s, they conquered large inland areas, at first ruling them as either a part of the Senegal colony or as independent entities. These conquered areas were usually governed by French Army officers and dubbed “Military Territories.” In the late 1890s, the French government began to rein in the territorial expansion of its “officers on the ground” and transferred all the territories west of Gabon to a single Governor based in Senegal reporting directly to the Minister of Overseas Affairs. The first Governor General of Senegal was named in 1895, and in 1904, the territories he oversaw were formally named French West Africa (AOF). Gabon would later become the seat of its own federation French Equatorial Africa (AEF), to border its western neighbor on the modern boundary between Niger and Chad.

Until after the Second World War, almost all Africans living in the colonies of France were not citizens of France. Rather, they were “French Subjects,” lacking rights before the law, property ownership rights, and the rights to travel, dissent, or vote. The exception were the Four Communes of Senegal; those areas had been towns of the tiny Senegal Colony in 1848 when, at the abolition of slavery by the French Second Republic, all residents of France were granted equal political rights. Anyone able to prove they were born in these towns was legally French. They could vote in parliamentary elections, previously dominated by white and Métis residents of Senegal.

The Four Communes of Senegal were entitled to elect a Deputy to represent them in the French Parliament in the years 1848–1852, 1871–1876, and 1879–1940. In 1914, the first African, Blaise Diagne, was elected as the Deputy for Senegal in the French Parliament. In 1916, Diagne pushed through the National Assembly a law (Loi Blaise Diagne) granting full citizenship to all residents of the so-called Four Communes. In return, he promised to help recruit millions of Africans to fight in World War I. Thereafter, all black Africans of Dakar, Gorée, Saint-Louis, and Rufisque could vote to send a representative to the French National Assembly.

After the Fall of France during World War II in June 1940 and the two battles of Dakar against the Free French Forces in July and September 1940, authorities in West Africa declared allegiance to the Vichy regime, as did the colony of French Gabon in AEF. While the latter fell to Free France already after the Battle of Gabon in November 1940, West Africa remained under Vichy control until the Allied landings in North Africa (operation Torch) in November 1942.

French West Africa

A “Section Chief” in the building of the Dakar–Niger Railway, pushed by African workers, Kayes, Mali, 1904

A photo of a white French “Section Chief” being pushed on a rail cart by two black African workers in Mali, 1904.

Toward Independence

Following World War II, the French government began extending limited political rights in its colonies. In 1945 the French Provisional Government allocated ten seats to French West Africa in the new Constituent Assembly, called to write a new French Constitution. Of these, five would be elected by citizens (which only in the Four Communes could an African hope to win) and five by African subjects. The elections brought to prominence a new generation of French-educated Africans. On October 21, 1945 six Africans were elected: the Four Communes citizens chose Lamine Guèye, Senegal/Mauritania Léopold Sédar Senghor, Côte d’Ivoire/Upper Volta Félix Houphouët-Boigny, Dahomey/Togo Sourou-Migan Apithy, Soudan-Niger Fily Dabo Sissoko, and Guinea Yacine Diallo. They were all re-elected to the 2nd Constituent Assembly on June 2, 1946.

In 1946, the Loi Lamine Guèye granted limited citizenship rights to natives of the African colonies. The French Empire was renamed the French Union on October 27, 1946, when the new constitution of the French Fourth Republic was established. In late 1946 under this new constitution, each territory was for the first time (excepting the Four Communes) able to elect local representatives, albeit on a limited franchise, to newly established General Councils. These elected bodies had limited consultative powers, although they did approve local budgets. The Loi Cadre of June 23, 1956 brought universal suffrage to elections held after that date in all French African colonies. The first elections under universal suffrage in French West Africa were the municipal elections of late 1956. On March 31, 1957, under universal suffrage, territorial Assembly elections were held in each of the eight colonies (Togo as a UN trust Territory was by this stage on a different trajectory). The leaders of the winning parties were appointed to the newly instituted positions of Vice-Presidents of the respective Governing Councils — French Colonial Governors remained as Presidents.

The Constitution of the French Fifth Republic of 1958 again changed the structure of the colonies from the French Union to the French Community. Each territory was to become a “Protectorate,” with the consultative assembly named a National Assembly. The Governor appointed by the French was renamed the “High Commissioner” and made head of state of each territory. The Assembly would name an African as Head of Government with advisory powers to the Head of State. Legally, the federation ceased to exist after the September 1958 referendum to approve this French Community. All the colonies except Guinea voted to remain in the new structure. Guineans voted overwhelmingly for independence. In 1960, a further revision of the French constitution, compelled by the failure of the French Indochina War and the tensions in Algeria, allowed members of the French Community to unilaterally change their own constitutions. Senegal and former French Sudan became the Mali Federation (1960–61), while Côte d’Ivoire, Niger, Upper Volta (now Burkina Faso) and Dahomey (now Benin) subsequently formed the short-lived Sahel-Benin Union, later the Conseil de l’Entente.

33.1.2: The Algerian War of Independence

The Algerian War of Independence was a war between France and the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) from 1954 to 1962, which led to Algeria’s independence from France and was infamous for the extensive use of torture by both sides.

Learning Objective

Argue for and against the tactics used by the FLN in order to gain independence

Key Points

In 1834, Algeria became a French military colony and, in 1848, was declared by the constitution of 1848 to be an integral part of France.
The Algerian War was fought between France and the Algerian National Liberation Front (FLN) between 1954 and 1962 and was characterized by complex guerrilla warfare and the extensive use of torture by both sides.
The conflict started in the early morning hours of November 1, 1954, when FLN guerrillas attacked military and civilian targets throughout Algeria in what became known as the Toussaint Rouge (Red All-Saints’ Day).
The FLN turned to killing civilians during the Philippeville Massacre, which brought on harsh retaliation by the French army.
After major demonstrations in favor of independence from the end of 1960 and a United Nations resolution recognizing the right to independence, De Gaulle decided to open a series of negotiations with the FLN, which concluded with the signing of the Évian Accords on March 1962.

Key Terms

“scorched earth”: A military strategy that targets anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area. Specifically, all of the assets that are used or can be used by the enemy are targeted, such as food sources, transportation, communications, industrial resources, and even the people in the area.
Pieds-Noirs: A term referring to Christian and Jewish people whose families migrated from all parts of the Mediterranean to French Algeria, the French protectorate in Morocco, or the French protectorate of Tunisia, where many lived for several generations before being expelled at the end of French rule in North Africa between 1956 and 1962.
guerrilla warfare: A form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.

Overview

The Algerian War, also known as the Algerian War of Independence or the Algerian Revolution, was a war between France and the Algerian National Liberation Front (French: Front de Libération Nationale – FLN) from 1954 to 1962 and led to Algerian independence from France. An important decolonization war, this complex conflict was characterized by guerrilla warfare, maquis fighting, and the use of torture by both sides. The conflict also became a civil war between loyalist Algerians supporting a French Algeria and their Algerian nationalist counterparts.

Effectively started by members of the National Liberation Front on November 1, 1954, during the Toussaint Rouge (“Red All Saints’ Day”), the conflict shook the foundations of the weak and unstable Fourth French Republic (1946–58) and led to its replacement by the Fifth Republic with Charles de Gaulle as President. Although the French military campaigns greatly weakened the FLN’s military, with most prominent FLN leaders killed or arrested and terror attacks effectively stopped, the brutality of the methods employed by the French forces failed to win hearts and minds in Algeria, alienated support in metropolitan France, and discredited French prestige abroad.

After major demonstrations in favor of independence from the end of 1960 and a United Nations resolution recognizing the right to independence, De Gaulle decided to open a series of negotiations with the FLN, concluding with the signing of the Évian Accords on March 1962. A referendum took place on April 8, 1962 and the French electorate approved the Évian Accords. The final result was 91% in favor of the ratification of this agreement and on July 1, the Accords were subject to a second referendum in Algeria, where 99.72% voted for independence and just 0.28% against.

The planned French withdrawal led to a state crisis, various assassination attempts on de Gaulle, and attempts at military coups. Most of the former were carried out by the Organisation de l’armée secrète (OAS), an underground organization formed mainly from French military personnel supporting a French Algeria, which committed a large number of bombings and murders both in Algeria and in the homeland to stop the planned independence.

Algerian War

French forces killed Algerian rebels, December 1954

A photo of several French solders standing around the dead bodies of Algerian rebels.

Philippeville Massacre

The FLN adopted tactics similar to those of nationalist groups in Asia, and the French did not realize the seriousness of the challenge they faced until 1955 when the FLN moved into urbanized areas. An important watershed in the War of Independence was the massacre of Pieds-Noirs civilians by the FLN near the town of Philippeville (now known as Skikda) in August 1955. Before this operation, FLN policy was to attack only military and government-related targets. The commander of the Constantine region, however, decided a drastic escalation was needed. The killing by the FLN and its supporters of 123 civilians, elderly women, and babies, including 71 French, shocked Governor General Jacques Soustelle into calling for more repressive measures against the rebels. The government claimed it killed 1,273 guerrillas in retaliation; according to the FLN and to The Times, 12,000 Algerians were massacred by the armed forces and police as well as Pieds-Noirs gangs. Soustelle’s repression was an early cause of the Algerian population’s rallying to the FLN. After Philippeville, Soustelle declared sterner measures and an all-out war began. In 1956, demonstrations by French Algerians caused the French government to not make reforms.

Guerrilla Warfare

During 1956 and 1957, the FLN successfully applied hit-and-run tactics in accordance with guerrilla warfare theory. Whilst some was aimed at military targets, a significant amount was invested in a terror campaign against those deemed to support or encourage French authority. This resulted in acts of sadistic torture and brutal violence against all, including women and children. Specializing in ambushes and night raids and avoiding direct contact with superior French firepower, the internal forces targeted army patrols, military encampments, police posts, and colonial farms, mines, and factories, as well as transportation and communications facilities. Once an engagement was broken off, the guerrillas merged with the population in the countryside, in accordance with Mao’s theories. Kidnapping was commonplace, as were the ritual murder and mutilation of civilians. At first, the FLN targeted only Muslim officials of the colonial regime; later, they coerced, maimed, or killed village elders, government employees, and even simple peasants who refused to support them. Throat slitting and decapitation were commonly used by the FLN as mechanisms of terror. During the first two-and-a-half years of the conflict, the guerrillas killed an estimated 6,352 Muslim and 1,035 non-Muslim civilians.

Although successfully provoking fear and uncertainty within both communities in Algeria, the revolutionaries’ coercive tactics suggested they had not yet inspired the bulk of the Muslim people to revolt against French colonial rule. Gradually, however, the FLN gained control in certain sectors of the Aurès, the Kabylie, and other mountainous areas around Constantine and south of Algiers and Oran. In these places, the FLN established a simple but effective—although frequently temporary—military administration that was able to collect taxes and food and recruit manpower, but was unable to hold large, fixed positions.

Guerilla Warfare

Muslim civilians killed by the FLN, March 22, 1956

Photo of several civilians laying dead across a road.

French Use of Torture

Torture was used since the beginning of the colonization of Algeria, initiated by the July Monarchy in 1830. Directed by Marshall Bugeaud, who became the first Governor-General of Algeria, the conquest of Algeria was marked by a “scorched earth” policy and the use of torture, e legitimized by a racist ideology. The armed struggle of the FLN and of its armed wing, the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) was for self-determination. The French state itself refused to see the colonial conflict as a war, as that would recognize the other party as a legitimate entity. Thus, until August 10, 1999, the French Republic persisted in calling the Algerian War a simple “operation of public order” against the FLN “terrorism.” Thus, the military did not consider themselves tied by the Geneva Conventions, ratified by France in 1951.

Violence increased on both sides from 1954 to 1956. In 1957, the Minister of Interior declared a state of emergency in Algeria, and the government granted extraordinary powers to General Massu. The Battle of Algiers from January to October 1957 remains to this day a textbook example of counter-insurgency operations. General Massu’s 10th Paratroop Division made widespread use of methods used during the Indochina War (1947–54), including systematic use of torture against civilians, a block warden system (quadrillage), illegal executions, and forced disappearances, in particular through what would later become known as “death flights,” in which victims are dropped to their death from airplanes or helicopters into large bodies of water. Although the use of torture quickly became well-known and was opposed by the left-wing opposition, the French state repeatedly denied its employment, censoring more than 250 books, newspapers and films (in metropolitan France alone) which dealt with the subject and 586 in Algeria.

33.1.3: Moroccan Independence

France’s exile of Sultan Mohammed V in 1953 to Madagascar and his replacement by the unpopular Mohammed Ben Aarafa sparked active opposition to French and Spanish rule and led to Moroccan independence in 1956.

Learning Objective

Order the events that led to Moroccan independence

Key Points

The French Protectorate in Morocco was established by the Treaty of Fez in 1912.
Between 1921 and 1926, a Berber uprising in the Rif Mountains led by Abd el-Krim led to the establishment of the Republic of the Rif; the rebellion was eventually suppressed by French and Spanish troops.
In 1943, the Istiqlal Party (Independence Party) was founded to press for independence with discreet US support; that party subsequently provided most of the leadership for the nationalist movement.
France’s exile of Sultan Mohammed V in 1953 to Madagascar and his replacement by the unpopular Mohammed Ben Aarafa sparked active opposition to the French and Spanish protectorates.
France allowed Mohammed V to return in 1955, and the negotiations that led to Moroccan independence began the following year.
In March 1956 the French protectorate was ended and Morocco regained its independence from France as the “Kingdom of Morocco.”

Key Terms

protectorate: A dependent territory that has been granted local autonomy and some independence while retaining the suzerainty of a greater sovereign state. Unlike colonies, they have local rulers and experience rare cases of immigration of settlers from the country it has suzerainty of.
Atlantic Charter: A pivotal policy statement issued on August 14, 1941, that defined the Allied goals for the post-WWII world, including no territorial aggrandizement; no territorial changes made against the wishes of the people; self-determination; restoration of self-government to those deprived of it; reduction of trade restrictions; global cooperation to secure better economic and social conditions for all; freedom from fear and want; freedom of the seas; and abandonment of the use of force, as well as disarmament of aggressor nations.
Rif War: Also called the Second Moroccan War, this war was fought in the early 1920s between the colonial power Spain (later joined by France) and the Berbers of the Rif mountainous region.

French and Spanish Rule in Morocco

As Europe industrialized, North Africa was increasingly prized for its potential for colonization. France showed a strong interest in Morocco as early as 1830, not only to protect the border of its Algerian territory but also because of the strategic position of Morocco on two oceans. In 1860, a dispute over Spain’s Ceuta enclave led Spain to declare war. Victorious Spain won a further enclave and an enlarged Ceuta in the settlement. In 1884, Spain created a protectorate in the coastal areas of Morocco.

In 1904, France and Spain carved out zones of influence in Morocco. Recognition by the United Kingdom of France’s sphere of influence provoked a strong reaction from the German Empire, and a crisis loomed in 1905. The matter was resolved at the Algeciras Conference in 1906. The Agadir Crisis of 1911 increased tensions between European powers. The 1912 Treaty of Fez made Morocco a protectorate of France, triggering the 1912 Fez riots. From a legal point of view, the treaty did not deprive Morocco of its status as a sovereign state as the Sultan reigned but did not rule. Spain continued to operate its coastal protectorate. By the same treaty, Spain assumed the role of protecting power over the northern and southern Saharan zones.

Tens of thousands of colonists entered Morocco. Some bought large amounts of the rich agricultural land, while others organized the exploitation and modernization of mines and harbors. Interest groups that formed among these elements continually pressured France to increase its control over Morocco – a control which was also made necessary by the continuous wars among Moroccan tribes, part of which had taken sides with the French since the beginning of the conquest. Governor General Marshall Hubert Lyautey sincerely admired Moroccan culture and succeeded in imposing a joint Moroccan-French administration while creating a modern school system. Several divisions of Moroccan soldiers served in the French army in both World War I and World War II, and in the Spanish Nationalist Army in the Spanish Civil War and after. The institution of slavery was abolished in 1925.

Moroccan Resistance

Sultan Yusef’s reign from 1912 to 1927 was turbulent and marked with frequent uprisings against Spain and France. The most serious of these was a Berber uprising in the Rif Mountains called the Rif War, led by Abd al-Karim who at first inflicted several defeats on the Spanish forces by using guerrilla tactics and captured European weapons and managed to establish a republic in the Rif. Though this rebellion originally began in the Spanish-controlled area in the north of the country, it reached the French-controlled area until a coalition of France and Spain finally defeated the rebels in 1925. To ensure their own safety, the French moved the court from Fez to Rabat, which has served as the capital of the country ever since.

Rif Rebellion

Abd al-Karim boarding a train in Fez on his way to exile after the Rif Rebellion was defeated in 1925.

Photo of Abd el-Krim boarding a train in Fes on his way to exile.

In December 1934, a small group of nationalists, members of the newly formed Moroccan Action Committee, proposed a Plan of Reforms that called for a return to indirect rule as envisaged by the Treaty of Fez, admission of Moroccans to government positions, and establishment of representative councils. The Action Committee used moderate tactics to suggest reforms including petitions, newspaper editorials, and personal appeals to French. Nationalist political parties, which subsequently arose under the French protectorate, based their arguments for Moroccan independence on World War II declarations such as the Atlantic Charter.

Toward Independence

During World War II, the badly divided nationalist movement became more cohesive, and informed Moroccans dared to consider the real possibility of political change in the post-war era. However, the nationalists were disappointed in their belief that the Allied victory in Morocco would pave the way for independence. In January 1944, the Istiqlal Party, which subsequently provided most of the leadership for the nationalist movement, released a manifesto demanding full independence, national reunification, and a democratic constitution. The sultan approved the manifesto before its submission to the French resident general, who answered that no basic change in the protectorate status was being considered.

The general sympathy of the sultan for the nationalists was evident by the end of the war, although he still hoped to see complete independence achieved gradually. By contrast, the residency, supported by French economic interests and vigorously backed by most of the colonists, adamantly refused to consider even reforms short of independence. Official intransigence contributed to increased animosity between the nationalists and the colonists and gradually widened the split between the sultan and the resident general.

Mohammed V and his family were transferred to Madagascar in January 1954. His replacement by the unpopular Mohammed Ben Aarafa, whose reign was perceived as illegitimate, sparked active opposition to the French protectorate both from nationalists and those who saw the sultan as a religious leader. By 1955, Ben Arafa was pressured to abdicate; consequently, he fled to Tangier where he formally abdicated. The most notable violence occurred in Oujda where Moroccans attacked French and other European residents in the streets. France allowed Mohammed V to return in 1955, and the negotiations that led to Moroccan independence began the following year. In March 1956 the French protectorate was ended and Morocco regained its independence from France as the “Kingdom of Morocco.”

A month later, Spain ceded most of its protectorate in Northern Morocco to the new state but kept its two coastal enclaves (Ceuta and Melilla) on the Mediterranean coast. In the months that followed independence, Mohammed V proceeded to build a modern government structure under a constitutional monarchy in which the sultan would exercise an active political role. He acted cautiously, with no intention of permitting more radical elements in the nationalist movement to overthrow the established order. He was also intent on preventing the Istiqlal from consolidating its control and establishing a one-party state. In August 1957, Mohammed V assumed the title of king.

Flag of Morocco

Morocco gained independence from France and Spain in 1956 and became the Kingdom of Morocco, a constitutional monarchy led by King Mohammed V.

Image of the Moroccan flag, which is red with a green star in the center.

33.1.4: The Libyan Arab Republic

A military coup in 1969 overthrew King Idris I, beginning a period of sweeping social reform led by Muammar Gaddafi, who was ultimately able to fully concentrate power in his own hands during the Libyan Cultural Revolution, remaining in power until the Libyan Civil War of 2011.

Learning Objective

Explain Libya’s transition to authoritarian rule under Gaddafi

Key Points

From 1911-1943, Italy colonized and ruled over the territory of modern-day Libya, first as known as Italian North Africa and then as Italian Libya.
Toward the end of WWII, the allied forces took Libya from Italy and occupied it until 1951, when it became an independent kingdom ruled by King Idris I.
On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by Muammar Gaddafi staged a coup d’état against King Idris, giving rise to a period of social reform under the authoritarian rule of Gaddafi.
Gaddafi’s rule was highly controversial, both praised for his anti-imperialism and criticized for his repressive treatment of citizens; his regime was known for executing dissidents publicly, often rebroadcast on state television channels.
Gaddafi ruled until 2011, when he was deposed during the Libyan Civil War.

Key Terms

2011 Libyan Civil War: An armed conflict in 2011 in the North African country of Libya, fought between forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and those seeking to oust his government.
Muammar Gaddafi: A Libyan revolutionary, politician, and political theorist. He governed Libya as Revolutionary Chairman of the Libyan Arab Republic from 1969 to 1977 and then as the “Brotherly Leader” of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 1977 to 2011. A controversial and highly divisive world figure, he was decorated with various awards and lauded for both his anti-imperialist stance and his support for Pan-Africanism and Pan-Arabism. Conversely, he was internationally condemned as a dictator and autocrat whose authoritarian administration violated the human rights of Libyan citizens and supported irredentist movements, tribal warfare, and terrorism in many other nations.
Nasserism: A socialist Arab nationalist political ideology based on the thinking of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt’s second president and one of the two principal leaders of the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. Spanning the domestic and international spheres, it combines elements of Arab socialism, republicanism, nationalism, anti-imperialism, developing-world solidarity, and international non-alignment.
Bedouin: A recent term in the Arabic language that is used commonly to refer to the people (Arabs and non-Arabs) who live or have descended from tribes who lived stationary or nomadic lifestyles outside cities and towns.

Italian Libya

The Italo-Turkish War was fought between the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) and the Kingdom of Italy from September 29, 1911, to October 18, 1912. As a result of this conflict, Italy captured the Ottoman Tripolitania Vilayet province and turned it into a colony. From 1912 to 1927, the territory of Libya was known as Italian North Africa. From 1927 to 1934, the territory was split into two colonies, Italian Cyrenaica and Italian Tripolitania, run by Italian governors. Some 150,000 Italians settled in Libya, constituting roughly 20% of the total population.

In 1934, Italy adopted the name “Libya” (used by the Ancient Greeks for all of North Africa, except Egypt) as the official name of the colony (made up of the three provinces of Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan). Omar Mukhtar was the resistance leader against the Italian colonization and became a national hero despite his capture and execution on September 16, 1931. His face is currently printed on the Libyan ten dinar note in recognition of his patriotism. Idris al-Mahdi as-Senussi (later King Idris I), Emir of Cyrenaica, led the Libyan resistance to Italian occupation between the two world wars. Ilan Pappé estimates that between 1928 and 1932, the Italian military “killed half the Bedouin population (directly or through disease and starvation in camps).” Italian historian Emilio Gentile estimates 50,000 deaths resulting from the suppression of resistance.

In June 1940, Italy entered World War II. Libya became the setting for the hard-fought North African Campaign that ultimately ended in defeat for Italy and its German ally in 1943.

From 1943 to 1951, Libya was under Allied occupation. The British military administered the two former Italian Libyan provinces of Tripolitana and Cyrenaïca, while the French administered the province of Fezzan. In 1944, Idris returned from exile in Cairo but declined to resume permanent residence in Cyrenaica until the removal of some aspects of foreign control in 1947. Under the terms of the 1947 peace treaty with the Allies, Italy relinquished all claims to Libya.

Kingdom of Libya

On November 21, 1949, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution stating that Libya should become independent before January 1, 1952. Idris represented Libya in the subsequent UN negotiations. On December 24, 1951, Libya declared its independence as the United Kingdom of Libya, a constitutional and hereditary monarchy under King Idris, Libya’s only monarch.

The discovery of significant oil reserves in 1959 and the subsequent income from petroleum sales enabled one of the world’s poorest nations to establish an extremely wealthy state. Although oil drastically improved the Libyan government’s finances, resentment among some factions began to build over the increased concentration of the nation’s wealth in the hands of King Idris. This discontent mounted with the rise of Nasserism and Arab nationalism throughout North Africa and the Middle East, so while the continued presence of Americans, Italians, and British in Libya aided in the increased levels of wealth and tourism following WWII, it was seen by some as a threat.

Libyan Revolution: Gaddafi

On September 1, 1969, a small group of military officers led by 27-year-old army officer Muammar Gaddafi staged a coup d’état against King Idris, launching the Libyan Revolution. Gaddafi was referred to as the “Brother Leader and Guide of the Revolution” in government statements and the official Libyan press.

On the birthday of Muhammad in 1973, Gaddafi delivered a “Five-Point Address.” He announced the suspension of all existing laws and the implementation of Sharia. He said that the country would be purged of the “politically sick.” A “people’s militia” would “protect the revolution.” There would be an administrative revolution and a cultural revolution. Gaddafi set up an extensive surveillance system: 10 to 20 percent of Libyans worked in surveillance for the Revolutionary committees, which monitored place in government, factories, and the education sector. Gaddafi executed dissidents publicly and the executions were often rebroadcast on state television channels. He employed his network of diplomats and recruits to assassinate dozens of critical refugees around the world.

In 1977, Libya officially became the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” Gaddafi officially passed power to the General People’s Committees and henceforth claimed to be no more than a symbolic figurehead, but domestic and international critics claimed the reforms gave him virtually unlimited power. Dissidents against the new system were not tolerated, with punitive actions including capital punishment authorized by Gaddafi himself. The new “jamahiriya” governance structure he established was officially referred to as a form of direct democracy, though the government refused to publish election results. Gaddafi was ruler of Libya until the 2011 Libyan Civil War, when he was deposed with the backing of NATO. Since then, Libya has experienced instability.

Libyan Revolution of 1969

Muammar Gaddafi at an Arab summit in Libya in 1969, shortly after the September Revolution that toppled King Idris I. Gaddafi sits in military uniform in the middle, surrounded by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (left) and Syrian President Nureddin al-Atassi (right).

A photo of Muammar Gaddafi with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to his left and Syrian President Nureddin al-Atassi to his right, shortly after the coup that brought him to power.

33.2: The Democratic Republic of the Congo

33.2.1: Independence from Belgium

In May 1960, a growing nationalist movement, the Mouvement National Congolais led by Patrice Lumumba, won the parliamentary elections. On June 30, 1960, the Congo gained independence from Belgium.

Learning Objective

Contrast Congo’s transition to independence with those of other African states

Key Points

Colonial rule in the Congo began in the late 19th century under King Leopold II, who annexed the territory as his personal possession, naming it the “Congo Free State” and violently exploiting the native population for the extraction and production of rubber and other natural resources.
By the turn of the century, however, the violence of Free State officials against indigenous Congolese and the ruthless system of economic extraction led to intense diplomatic pressure on Belgium to take official control of the country, which it did in 1908, creating the Belgian Congo.
An African nationalist movement developed in the Belgian Congo during the 1950s, primarily among the educated class.
One of the major forces in the nationalist movement was the Mouvement National Congolais or MNC Party led by Patrice Lumumba, who pressured Belgium to relinquish the Congo as colonial territory.
The proclamation of the independent Republic of the Congo, and the end of colonial rule, occurred as planned on June 30, 1960 when Lumumba gave an unplanned and controversial speech attacking colonialism.

Key Terms

évolués: A French term used during the colonial era to refer to a native African or Asian who had “evolved” by becoming Europeanised through education or assimilation and accepted European values and patterns of behavior.
Mouvement National Congolais (MNC): A political party in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, founded in 1958 as a nationalist, pro-independence, united front organization dedicated to achieving independence “within a reasonable” time and bringing together members from various political backgrounds to achieve independence.
King Leopold II: The second King of the Belgians, known for the founding and exploitation of the Congo Free State as a private venture.

Belgian Rule

Colonial rule in the Congo began in the late 19th century. King Leopold II of Belgium, frustrated by Belgium’s lack of international power and prestige, attempted to persuade his government to support colonial expansion around the then-largely unexplored Congo Basin. The Belgian government’s ambivalence eventually led Leopold to create the colony on his own account. With support from a number of Western countries who viewed Leopold as a useful buffer between rival colonial powers, Leopold achieved international recognition for a personal colony, the Congo Free State, in 1885.

By the turn of the century, however, the violence of Free State officials against indigenous Congolese and the ruthless system of economic extraction led to intense diplomatic pressure on Belgium to take official control of the country, which it did in 1908, creating the Belgian Congo.

During the 1940s and 1950s, the Congo experienced an unprecedented level of urbanization and the colonial administration began development programs aimed at making the territory into a “model colony.” One of the results of these measures was the development of a new middle class of Europeanised African “évolués” in the cities. By the 1950s the Congo had a wage labor force twice as large as that of any other African colony. The Congo’s rich natural resources, including uranium—much of the uranium used by the U.S. nuclear program during World War II was Congolese—led to substantial interest in the region from both the Soviet Union and the United States as the Cold War developed.

Force Publique

Force Publique soldiers in the Belgian Congo in 1918. At its peak, the Force Publique had around 19,000 African soldiers, led by 420 white officers.

A photo of Force Publique soldiers in the Belgian Congo in 1918, walking through a river with supplies.

Nationalist Politics

An African nationalist movement developed in the Belgian Congo during the 1950s, primarily among the évolués. The movement consisted of a number of parties and groups which were broadly divided on ethnic and geographical lines and opposed to one another. The largest, the Mouvement National Congolais (MNC), was a united front organisation dedicated to achieving independence “within a reasonable” time. It was created around a charter which was signed by, among others, Patrice Lumumba, Cyrille Adoula and Joseph Iléo, but was often accused of being too moderate. Lumumba became a leading figure within the MNC, and by the end of 1959, the party claimed 58,000 members.

Although it was the largest of the African nationalist parties, the MNC had many different factions that took differing stances on many issues. It was increasingly polarized between moderate évolués and the more radical mass membership. A radical faction headed by Iléo and Albert Kalonji split away in July 1959, but failed to induce mass defections by other MNC members.

Major riots broke out in Léopoldville, the Congolese capital, on January 4, 1959, after a political demonstration turned violent. The colonial army, the Force Publique, used force against the rioters—at least 49 people were killed, and total casualties may have been as high as 500. The nationalist parties’ influence expanded outside the major cities for the first time, and nationalist demonstrations and riots became a regular occurrence over the next year, bringing large numbers of black people from outside the évolué class into the independence movement. Many blacks began to test the boundaries of the colonial system by refusing to pay taxes or abide by minor colonial regulations.

Independence from Belgium

In the fallout from the Léopoldville riots, the report of a Belgian parliamentary working group on the future of the Congo was published in which a strong demand for “internal autonomy” was noted. August de Schryver, the Minister of the Colonies, launched a high-profile Round Table Conference in Brussels in January 1960 with the leaders of all the major Congolese parties in attendance. Lumumba, who had been arrested following riots in Stanleyville, was released in the run-up to the conference and headed the MNC delegation. The Belgian government had hoped for at least 30 years before independence, but Congolese pressure at the conference led to a target date of June 30, 1960. Issues including federalism, ethnicity, and the future role of Belgium in Congolese affairs were left unresolved after the delegates failed to reach agreement.

Belgians began campaigning against Lumumba, whom they wanted to marginalize; they accused him of being a communist and hoping to fragment the nationalist movement, supported rival, ethnic-based parties like CONAKAT. Many Belgians hoped that an independent Congo would form part of a federation, like the French Community or British Commonwealth of Nations, and that close economic and political association with Belgium would continue. As independence approached, the Belgian government organised Congolese elections in May 1960. These resulted in a broad MNC majority.

The proclamation of the independent Republic of the Congo and the end of colonial rule occurred as planned on June 30, 1960. In a ceremony at the Palais de la Nation in Léopoldville, King Baudouin gave a speech in which he presented the end of colonial rule in the Congo as the culmination of the Belgian “civilising mission” begun by Leopold II. After the King’s address, Lumumba gave an unscheduled speech in which he angrily attacked colonialism and described independence as the crowning success of the nationalist movement. Although Lumumba’s address was acclaimed by figures such as Malcolm X, it nearly provoked a diplomatic incident with Belgium; even some Congolese politicians perceived it as unnecessarily provocative. Nevertheless, independence was celebrated across the Congo.

Independence from Belgium

Patrice Lumumba, leader of the MNC and first Prime Minister, pictured in Brussels at the Round Table Conference of 1960.

A photo of Patrice Lumumba, leader of the MNC-L and first Prime Minister, pictured in Brussels at the Round Table Conference of 1960, with several other Congolese men around him.

33.2.2: Lumumba and the Congo Crisis

The Congo Crisis was a period of political upheaval and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1960 and 1965, initially caused by a mutiny by the white leadership in the Congolese army and resulting in the execution of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba.

Learning Objective

Describe the political atmosphere surrounding Lumumba’s time in office

Key Points

Shortly after Congolese independence in 1960, a mutiny broke out in the army led by the white military leadership, marking the beginning of the Congo Crisis.
Lumumba appealed to the United States and the United Nations for assistance in suppressing the Belgian-supported Katangan secessionists.
Both parties refused, so Lumumba turned to the Soviet Union for support.
This led to growing differences with President Joseph Kasa-Vubu and chief-of-staff Joseph-Désiré Mobutu as well as foreign opposition from the U.S. and Belgium.
Lumumba was subsequently imprisoned by state authorities under Mobutu and executed by a firing squad under the command of Katangan authorities.
The United Nations, which he had asked to come to the Congo, did not intervene to save him.

Key Terms

Émile Janssens: A Belgian military officer and colonial official, best known for his command of the Force Publique at the start of the Congo Crisis.
Patrice Lumumba: Congolese independence leader and the first democratically elected leader of the Congo as prime minister. As founder and leader of the mainstream Mouvement National Congolais (MNC) party, he played an important role in campaigning for independence from Belgium.
Force Publique: A gendarmerie and military force in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1885 (when the territory was known as the Congo Free State), through the period of direct Belgian colonial rule and for a short time after independence.

The Congo Crisis

The Congo Crisis was a period of political upheaval and conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo between 1960 and 1965. It began almost immediately after the Congo became independent from Belgium and ended unofficially with the entire country under the rule of Joseph-Désiré Mobutu. Constituting a series of civil wars, the Congo Crisis was also a proxy conflict in the Cold War in which the Soviet Union and United States supported opposing factions. Around 100,000 people were killed during the crisis.

A nationalist movement in the Belgian Congo demanding the end of colonial rule led to the country’s independence on June 30, 1960. Minimal preparations had been made and many issues, such as the questions of federalism and ethnicity, remained unresolved. In the first week of July, a mutiny broke out in the army and violence erupted between black and white civilians. Belgium sent troops to protect fleeing whites and two areas of the country, Katanga and South Kasai, seceded with Belgian support. Amid continuing unrest and violence, the United Nations deployed peacekeepers, but the UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld refused to use these troops to help the central government in Léopoldville fight the secessionists. Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, the charismatic leader of the largest nationalist faction, reacted by calling for assistance from the Soviet Union, which promptly sent military advisors and other support.

The involvement of the Soviets split the Congolese government and led to an impasse between Lumumba and President Joseph Kasa-Vubu. Mobutu, in command of the army, broke this deadlock with a coup d’état, expelled the Soviet advisors, and established a new government effectively under his control. Lumumba was placed in captivity and subsequently executed in 1961. A rival government, founded by Antoine Gizenga and Lumumba supporters in the eastern city of Stanleyville, gained Soviet support but was crushed in 1962. Meanwhile, the UN took a more aggressive stance towards the secessionists after Hammarskjöld was killed in a plane crash in late 1961. Supported by UN troops, Léopoldville defeated the secessionist movements in Katanga and South Kasai by early 1963.

With Katanga and South Kasai back under the government’s control, a reconciliatory compromise constitution was adopted and the exiled Katangese leader, Moise Tshombe, was recalled to head an interim administration while fresh elections were organized. Before these could be held, however, Maoist-inspired militants calling themselves the “Simbas” rose up in the east of the country. The Simbas took control of a significant amount of territory and proclaimed a communist “People’s Republic of the Congo” in Stanleyville. Government forces gradually retook territory and in November 1964, Belgium and the United States intervened in Stanleyville to recover hostages from Simba captivity. The Simbas were defeated and collapsed soon after. Following the elections in March 1965, a new political stalemate developed between Tshombe and Kasa-Vubu, forcing the government into near-paralysis. Mobutu mounted a second coup d’état in November 1965, now taking personal control. Under Mobutu’s rule, the Congo (renamed Zaire in 1971) was transformed into a dictatorship which would endure until his deposition in 1997.

The Death of Lumumba

Pro-Lumumba demonstrators in Maribor, Yugoslavia in February 1961.

Photo of a crowd of people in Slovenia protesting the death of Lumumba.

Force Publique Mutiny

Despite the proclamation of independence, neither the Belgian nor the Congolese government intended the colonial social order to end immediately. The Belgian government hoped that whites might keep their position indefinitely. The Republic of the Congo was still reliant on colonial institutions like the Force Publique to function from day to day, and white technical experts installed by the Belgians were retained in the broad absence of suitably qualified black Congolese replacements (partly the result of colonial restrictions regarding higher education). Many Congolese assumed that independence would produce tangible and immediate social change, so the retention of whites in positions of importance was widely resented.

Lieutenant-General Émile Janssens, the Belgian commander of the Force Publique, refused to see Congolese independence as a change in the nature of command. The day after the independence festivities, he gathered the black non-commissioned officers of his Léopoldville garrison and told them that things under his command would stay the same, summarizing the point by writing “Before Independence = After Independence” on a blackboard. This message was hugely unpopular among the rank and file—many of the men had expected rapid promotions and increases in pay to accompany independence. On July 5, several units mutinied against their white officers at Camp Hardy near Thysville. The insurrection spread to Léopoldville the next day and later to garrisons across the country.

Rather than deploying Belgian troops against the mutineers as Janssens wished, Lumumba dismissed him and renamed the Force Publique the Armée Nationale Congolaise (ANC). All black soldiers were promoted by at least one rank. Victor Lundula was promoted directly from sergeant-major to major-general and head of the army, replacing Janssens. At the same time, Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, an ex-sergeant-major and close personal aide of Lumumba, became Lundula’s deputy as army chief of staff. The government attempted to stop the revolt—Lumumba and Kasa-Vubu intervened personally at Léopoldville and Thysville and persuaded the mutineers to lay down their arms—but in most of the country the mutiny intensified. White officers and civilians were attacked, white-owned properties were looted, and white women were raped. The Belgian government became deeply concerned by the situation, particularly when white civilians began entering neighboring countries as refugees.

Lumumba’s stance appeared to many Belgians to justify their prior concerns about his radicalism. On July 9, Belgium deployed paratroopers, without the Congolese state’s permission, in Kabalo and elsewhere to protect fleeing white civilians. The Belgian intervention divided Lumumba and Kasa-Vubu; while Kasa-Vubu accepted the Belgian operation, Lumumba denounced it and called for “all Congolese to defend our republic against those who menace it.” At Lumumba’s request, white civilians from the port city of Matadi were evacuated by the Belgian Navy on July 11. Belgian ships then bombarded the city; at least 19 civilians were killed. This action prompted renewed attacks on whites across the country, while Belgian forces entered other towns and cities, including Léopoldville, and clashed with Congolese troops.

33.2.3: Mobutu and Zaire

During the Congo Crisis, military leader Joseph-Desiré Mobutu ousted the nationalist government of Patrice Lumumba and eventually took authoritarian control of the Congo, renaming it Zaire in 1971, and attempted to purge the country of all colonial cultural influence.

Learning Objective

Discuss how Mobutu was able to seize power in the Congo

Key Points

Mobutu Sese Seko was the military dictator and President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1965 to 1997, which he renamed the Republic of Zaire in 1971.
Patrice Lumumba previously appointed Joseph Mobutu chief of staff of the new Congo army and by taking advantage of the leadership crisis between Kasavubu and Lumumba, Mobutu garnered enough support within the army to create mutiny, eventually allowing him to stage a bloodless coup and take control of the Congo’s government.
A one-party system was established, and Mobutu declared himself head of state.
Although relative peace and stability were achieved, Mobutu’s government was guilty of severe human rights violations, political repression, a cult of personality, and corruption.
Mobutu had the support of the United States because of his staunch opposition to Communism; they believed his administration would serve as an effective counter to communist movements in Africa.
Embarking on a campaign of pro-Africa cultural awareness, or authenticité, Mobutu began renaming the cities of the Congo starting on June 1, 1966, as well as mandating that Zairians were to abandon their Christian names for more “authentic” ones and adopt traditional attire such as the abacost.

Key Terms

Joseph-Désiré Mobutu: The military dictator and President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which was renamed Zaire in 1971) from 1965 to 1997, who formed an authoritarian regime, amassed vast personal wealth, and attempted to purge the country of all colonial cultural influence while enjoying considerable support from the United States due to its anti-communist stance.
Authenticité: An official state ideology of the Mobutu regime that originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, aimed at ridding the country of the lingering vestiges of colonialism and the continuing influence of Western culture and create a more centralized and singular national identity.

Rise to Power

Following Congo’s independence on June 30, 1960, a coalition government was formed, led by Prime Minister Lumumba and President Joseph Kasa-Vubu. The new nation quickly lurched into the Congo Crisis as the army mutinied against the remaining Belgian officers. Lumumba appointed Joseph-Désiré Mobutu as Chief of Staff of the Armée Nationale Congolaise, the Congolese National Army, under army chief Victor Lundula.

Encouraged by a Belgian government intent on maintaining its access to rich Congolese mines, secessionist violence erupted in the south. Concerned that the United Nations force sent to help restore order was not helping to crush the secessionists, Lumumba turned to the Soviet Union for assistance, receiving massive military aid and about a thousand Soviet technical advisers in six weeks. Kasa-Vubu was encouraged by the U.S. and Belgium to stage a coup and thus dismissed Lumumba. An outraged Lumumba declared Kasa-Vubu deposed. Both Lumumba and Kasa-Vubu ordered Mobutu to arrest the other. As Army Chief of Staff, Mobutu came under great pressure from multiple sources. The embassies of Western nations, which helped pay the soldiers’ salaries, as well as Kasa-Vubu and Mobutu’s subordinates, all favored getting rid of the Soviet presence.

Mobutu accused Lumumba of pro-communist sympathies, thereby hoping to gain the support of the United States, but Lumumba fled to Stanleyville where he set up his own government. The USSR again supplied him with weapons and he was able to defend his position. In November 1960, he was captured and sent to Katanga. Mobutu still considered him a threat and on January 17, 1961, ordered him arrested and publicly beaten. Lumumba then disappeared from the public view. It was later discovered that he was murdered the same day by the secessionist forces of Moise Tshombe after Mobutu’s government turned him over to them at the urging of Belgium. On January 23, 1961, Kasa-Vubu promoted Mobutu to major-general.

Mobutu’s Coup

Prime Minister Moise Tshombe’s Congolese National Convention won a large majority in the March 1965 elections, but Kasa-Vubu appointed an anti-Tshombe leader, Évariste Kimba, as prime minister-designate. However, Parliament twice refused to confirm him. With the government in near-paralysis, Mobutu seized power in a bloodless coup on November 25, a month after his 35th birthday.

Under the auspices of a regime d’exception (the equivalent of a state of emergency), Mobutu assumed sweeping—almost absolute—powers for five years. In his first speech upon taking power, Mobutu told a large crowd at Léopoldville’s main stadium that since politicians had brought the country to ruin in five years, “for five years, there will be no more political party activity in the country.” Parliament was reduced to a rubber-stamp before being abolished altogether, though it was later revived. The number of provinces was reduced and their autonomy curtailed, resulting in a highly centralized state.

A constitutional referendum after Mobutu’s coup of 1965 resulted in the country’s official name being changed to the “Democratic Republic of the Congo.” In 1971 Mobutu changed the name again, this time to “Republic of Zaire.”

Zaire and the Authenticité Movement

Facing many challenges early in his rule, Mobutu was able to turn most opposition into submission through patronage; those he could not co-opt, he dealt with forcefully. In 1966 four cabinet members were arrested on charges of complicity in an attempted coup, tried by a military tribunal, and publicly executed in an open-air spectacle witnessed by over 50,000 people. Uprisings by former Katangan gendarmeries were crushed, as was an aborted revolt led by white mercenaries in 1967. By 1970, nearly all potential threats to his authority had been smashed, and for the most part, law and order was brought to most of the country. That year marked the pinnacle of Mobutu’s legitimacy and power.

The new president had the support of the United States because of his staunch opposition to Communism; the U.S. believed his administration would be an effective counter to communist movements in Africa. A one-party system was established and Mobutu declared himself head of state. He periodically held elections in which he was the only candidate. Although relative peace and stability were achieved, Mobutu’s government was guilty of severe human rights violations, political repression, a cult of personality, and corruption.

Corruption became so prevalent the term “le mal Zairois” or “Zairean Sickness,” meaning gross corruption, theft, and mismanagement, was coined, reportedly by Mobutu himself. International aid, most often in the form of loans, enriched Mobutu while he allowed national infrastructure such as roads to deteriorate to as little as one-quarter of what had existed in 1960. Zaire became a “kleptocracy” as Mobutu and his associates embezzled government funds.

Authenticité, sometimes Zairianisation in English, was an official state ideology of the Mobutu regime that originated in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The authenticity campaign was an effort to rid the country of the lingering vestiges of colonialism and the continuing influence of Western culture and create a more centralized and singular national identity. The policy, as implemented, included numerous changes to the state and to private life, including the renaming of the Congo (to Zaire) and its cities (Leopoldville became Kinshasa, Elisabethville became Lubumbashi, and Stanleyville became Kisangani), as well as an eventual mandate that Zairians were to abandon their Christian names for more “authentic” ones. In addition, Western-style attire was banned and replaced with the Mao-style tunic labeled the “abacost” and its female equivalent. In 1972, Mobutu renamed himself Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga (“The all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, goes from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake”), Mobutu Sese Seko for short. Mobutu ruled until 1997, when rebel forces led by Laurent-Désiré Kabila expelled him from the country. Already suffering from advanced prostate cancer, he died three months later in Morocco.

Prince Bernhard and Mobutu Sese Seko

Mobutu Sese Seko with the Dutch Prince Bernhard in 1973. It was also around this time that he assumed his classic image—abacost, thick-framed glasses, walking stick and leopard-skin toque.

Mobutu Sese Seko with the Dutch Prince Bernhard in 1973.

33.2.4: Cold War Politics in Zaire

For the most part, Zaire enjoyed warm relations with the United States because of its anti-communist stance, receiving substantial financial aid throughout the Cold War.

Learning Objective

Evaluate the role the United States played in propogating Mobutu’s regime

Key Points

During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union started placing immense pressure on post-colonial developing nations to align with one of the superpower factions.
The Congo Crisis was a proxy conflict in the Cold War in which the Soviet Union and United States supported opposing factions.
The CIA backed military chief of staff Mobutu to oust Prime Minister Lumumba, eventually leading to Mobutu forming an authoritarian regime in the Congo, which he renamed Zaire in 1971.
The United States was the third largest donor of aid to Zaire (after Belgium and France), and Mobutu befriended several US presidents, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush.
Because of Mobutu’s poor human rights record, the Carter administration put some distance between itself and Zaire; even so, Zaire received nearly half the foreign aid Carter allocated to sub-Saharan Africa.
Mobutu’s relationship with the U.S. radically changed shortly afterward with the end of the Cold War, and the U.S. began pressuring Mobutu to democratize his regime.
Mobutu’s relationship with the Soviet Union was generally negative, although he did allow some relations to maintain a non-aligned image.

Key Terms

proxy conflict: A conflict between two states or non-state actors where neither entity directly engages the other. While this can encompass a breadth of armed confrontation, its core definition hinges on two separate powers utilizing external strife to somehow attack the interests or territorial holdings of the other.
non-aligned: A group of states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc, especially during the Cold War.

Decolonization in the Cold War

The combined effects of two great European wars weakened the political and economic domination of Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East by European powers. This led to a series of waves of African and Asian decolonization following the Second World War; a world that had been dominated for over a century by Western imperialist colonial powers was transformed into a world of emerging African, Middle Eastern, and Asian nations. The Cold War started placing immense pressure on developing nations to align with one of the superpower factions. Both promised substantial financial, military, and diplomatic aid in exchange for an alliance in which issues like corruption and human rights abuses were overlooked or ignored. When an allied government was threatened, the superpowers were often prepared to intervene.

The Congo Crisis can be seen in this context as a proxy conflict in the Cold War with the Soviet Union and United States supporting opposing factions, Patrice Lumumba and Mobutu, respectively. The CIA backed Mobutu’s initial coup against Lumumba and the Soviet Union provided Lumumba weapons and support while in exile. When Lumumba was killed and Mobutu took total control of the Congo’s government, he enjoyed considerable support from the United States due to his anti-communist stance.

Relations with the United States

For the most part, Zaire enjoyed warm relations with the United States. The U.S. was the third largest donor of aid to Zaire (after Belgium and France), and Mobutu befriended several U.S. presidents, including Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Relations did cool significantly in 1974–1975 over Mobutu’s increasingly radical rhetoric (which included his scathing denunciations of American foreign policy) and plummeted to an all-time low in the summer of 1975, when Mobutu accused the Central Intelligence Agency of plotting his overthrow, arrested eleven senior Zairian generals and several civilians, and condemned a former head of the Central Bank (Albert N’dele). However, many people viewed these charges with skepticism; in fact, one of Mobutu’s staunchest critics, Nzongola-Ntalaja, speculated that Mobutu invented the plot as an excuse to purge the military of talented officers who might otherwise pose a threat to his rule. In spite of these hindrances, the chilly relationship quickly thawed when both countries found each other supporting the same side during the Angolan Civil War.

Because of Mobutu’s poor human rights record, the Carter administration put some distance between itself and the Kinshasa government; even so, Zaire received nearly half the foreign aid Carter allocated to sub-Saharan Africa. During the first Shaba invasion, the United States played a relatively inconsequential role; its belated intervention consisted of little more than the delivery of non-lethal supplies. But during the second Shaba invasion, the U.S. provided transportation and logistical support to the French and Belgian paratroopers that were deployed to aid Mobutu against the rebels. Carter echoed Mobutu’s (unsubstantiated) charges of Soviet and Cuban aid to the rebels, until it was apparent that no hard evidence existed to verify his claims. In 1980, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to terminate military aid to Zaire, but the Senate reinstated the funds in response to pressure from Carter and American business interests in Zaire.

Mobutu enjoyed a very warm relationship with the Reagan Administration through financial donations. During Reagan’s presidency, Mobutu visited the White House three times, and criticism of Zaire’s human rights record by the U.S. was effectively muted. During a state visit by Mobutu in 1983, Reagan praised the Zairian strongman as “a voice of good sense and goodwill.”

Mobutu also had a cordial relationship with Reagan’s successor, George H. W. Bush; he was the first African head of state to visit Bush at the White House. Even so, Mobutu’s relationship with the U.S. radically changed shortly afterward with the end of the Cold War. With the Soviet Union gone, there was no longer any reason to support Mobutu as a bulwark against communism. Accordingly, the U.S. and other Western powers began pressuring Mobutu to democratize the regime. Regarding the change in U.S. attitude to his regime, Mobutu bitterly remarked: “I am the latest victim of the cold war, no longer needed by the US. The lesson is that my support for American policy counts for nothing.” In 1993, Mobutu was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department after he sought to visit Washington, DC.

Mobutu and Nixon

Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., October 1973. Mobutu enjoyed warm relations with the United States during the Cold War, receiving substantial financial aid despite criticism of his human rights abuses.

Photo of Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., October 1973.

Relations with the Soviet Union

Mobutu’s relationship with the Soviet Union was frosty and tense. Mobutu, a staunch anticommunist, was not anxious to recognize the Soviets; he remembered well their support, albeit mostly vocal, of Lumumba and the Simba rebels before he took power. However, to project a non-aligned image, he did renew ties in 1967; the first Soviet ambassador arrived and presented his credentials in 1968. Mobutu did, however, join the U.S. in condemning the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia that same year. Mobutu viewed the Soviet presence as advantageous for two reasons: it allowed him to maintain an image of non-alignment, and it provided a convenient scapegoat for problems at home. For example, in 1970, he expelled four Soviet diplomats for carrying out “subversive activities,” and in 1971, 20 Soviet officials were declared persona non grata for allegedly instigating student demonstrations at Lovanium University.

Relations cooled further in 1975, when the two countries found themselves opposing different sides in the Angolan Civil War. This had a dramatic effect on Zairian foreign policy for the next decade; bereft of his claim to African leadership (Mobutu was one of the few leaders who denied the Marxist government of Angola recognition), Mobutu turned increasingly to the U.S. and its allies, adopting pro-American stances on such issues as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and Israel’s position in international organizations.

Mobutu condemned the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and in 1980, his was the first African nation to join the United States in boycotting the Summer Olympics in Moscow. Throughout the 1980s, he remained consistently anti-Soviet, and found himself opposing pro-Soviet countries such as Libya and Angola; in the mid-1980s, he described Zaire as being surrounded by a “red belt” of radical states allied to the Soviet Union and Libya.

The collapse of the Soviet Union had disastrous repercussions for Mobutu. His anti-Soviet stance was the main catalyst for Western aid; without it, there was no longer any reason to support him. Western countries began calling for him to introduce democracy and improve human rights.

33.3: Zimbabwe

33.3.1: The Unilateral Declaration of Independence

In 1965, the conservative white minority government in Rhodesia unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom, but did not achieve internationally recognized sovereignty until 1980 as Zimbabwe.

Learning Objective

Describe the events that followed the Unilateral Declaration of Independence

Key Points

The British South Africa Company of Cecil Rhodes first demarcated the present territory during the 1890s; it became the self-governing British colony of Southern Rhodesia in 1923.
In 1965, the conservative white minority government unilaterally declared independence as Rhodesia.
After the cabinet released the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI), the British government petitioned the United Nations for sanctions against Rhodesia and in December 1966, the UN complied, imposing the first mandatory trade embargo on an autonomous state.
The United Kingdom deemed the Rhodesian declaration an act of rebellion, but did not re-establish control by force.
The state endured international isolation and a 15-year guerrilla war with black nationalist forces; this culminated in a peace agreement that established universal enfranchisement and de jure sovereignty in April 1980 as Zimbabwe.

Key Terms

Wind of Change: A historically significant address made by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to the Parliament of South Africa on February 3, 1960, in Cape Town. He spent a month in Africa visiting a number of what were then British colonies. The speech signaled clearly that the Conservative-led British Government intended to grant independence to many of these territories, which happened subsequently in the 1960s.
Rhodesia: An unrecognised state in southern Africa from 1965 to 1979, equivalent in territorial terms to modern Zimbabwe.

Background

The Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) was a statement adopted by the Cabinet of Rhodesia on 11 November 1965, announcing that Rhodesia, a British territory in southern Africa that had governed itself since 1923, now regarded itself as an independent sovereign state. The culmination of a protracted dispute between the British and Rhodesian governments regarding the terms under which the latter could become fully independent, it was the first unilateral break from the United Kingdom by one of its colonies since the United States Declaration of Independence nearly two centuries before. Britain, the Commonwealth, and the United Nations all deemed Rhodesia’s UDI illegal, and economic sanctions, the first in the UN’s history, were imposed on the breakaway colony. Amid near-complete international isolation, Rhodesia continued as an unrecognized state with the assistance of South Africa and Portugal.

The Rhodesian government, comprised mostly of members of the country’s white minority of about 5%, was indignant when amid decolonization and the Wind of Change, less developed African colonies to the north without comparable experience of self-rule quickly advanced to independence during the early 1960s while Rhodesia was refused sovereignty under the newly ascendant principle of “no independence before majority rule.” Most white Rhodesians felt that they were due independence following four decades’ self-government and that Britain was betraying them by withholding it. This combined with the colonial government’s acute reluctance to hand over power to black nationalists—the manifestation of racial tensions, Cold War anti-communism, and the fear that a dystopian Congo-style situation might result—to create the impression that if Britain did not grant independence, Rhodesia might be justified in taking it unilaterally.

Unilateral Declaration of Independence

A photograph of the proclamation document announcing the Rhodesian government’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence (“UDI”) from the United Kingdom, created during early November 1965 and signed on 11 November 1965.

The Road to Recognition

A stalemate developed between the British and Rhodesian Prime Ministers, Harold Wilson and Ian Smith respectively, between 1964 and 1965. Dispute largely surrounded the British condition that the terms for independence had to be acceptable “to the people of the country as a whole.” Smith contended that this was met, while Britain and black nationalist leaders in Rhodesia held that it was not. After Wilson proposed in late October 1965 that Britain might safeguard future black representation in the Rhodesian parliament by withdrawing some of the colonial government’s devolved powers, then presented terms for an investigatory Royal Commission that the Rhodesians found unacceptable, Smith and his Cabinet declared independence. Calling this treasonous, the British colonial Governor Sir Humphrey Gibbs formally dismissed Smith and his government, but they ignored him and appointed an “Officer Administering the Government” to take his place.

While no country recognized the UDI, the Rhodesian High Court deemed the post-UDI government legal and de jure in 1968. The Smith administration initially professed continued loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II, but abandoned this in 1970 when it declared a republic in an unsuccessful attempt to win foreign recognition. The Rhodesian Bush War, a guerrilla conflict between the government and two rival communist-backed black nationalist groups, began in earnest two years later, and after several attempts to end the war Smith agreed the Internal Settlement with non-militant nationalists in 1978. Under these terms, the country was reconstituted under black rule as Zimbabwe Rhodesia in June 1979, but this new order was rejected by the guerrillas and the international community. The Bush War continued until Zimbabwe Rhodesia revoked the UDI as part of the Lancaster House Agreement in December 1979. Following a brief period of direct British rule, the country was granted internationally recognized independence under the name Zimbabwe in 1980.

33.3.2: The Bush War

The Bush War was a civil war that took place from July 1964 to December 1979 in Rhodesia, in which three forces were pitted against one another: the mostly white Rhodesian government and two black nationalist parties.

Learning Objective

Describe the Bush War

Key Points

In 1965, the conservative white minority government led by Ian Smith unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom as Rhodesia, which led to sanctions from the UN.
The United Kingdom deemed the Rhodesian declaration an act of rebellion, but did not re-establish control by force.
A guerrilla war subsequently ensued when Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), supported actively by communist powers and neighboring African nations, initiated guerrilla operations against Rhodesia’s predominantly white government.
The war intensified, eventually forcing Smith to open negotiations with the militant nationalists, resulting in Internal Settlement the implementation in June 1979 of universal suffrage and end of white minority rule in Rhodesia.
The resulting government was still unrecognized by the international community and the war continued until the British government invited Muzorewa, Mugabe, and Nkomo to participate in a constitutional conference at Lancaster House, resulting in the Lancaster House Agreement, which granted full independence to what was then named the Republic of Zimbabwe.

Key Terms

Lancaster House Agreement: Negotiations in 1980 that brought internationally recognized independence to Rhodesia (as the Republic of Zimbabwe) following Ian Smith’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence in 1965.
Ian Smith: A politician, farmer, and fighter pilot who served as Prime Minister of Rhodesia from 1964 to 1979. The country’s first premier not born abroad, he led the predominantly white government that unilaterally declared independence from the United Kingdom in 1965, following prolonged dispute over the terms. He remained Prime Minister for almost all of the 14 years of international isolation that followed, and oversaw Rhodesia’s security forces during most of the Bush War, which pitted the unrecognized administration against communist-backed black nationalist guerrilla groups.
Internal Settlement: An agreement signed on March 3, 1978, between Prime Minister of Rhodesia Ian Smith and the moderate African nationalist leaders comprising Bishop Abel Muzorewa, Ndabaningi Sithole, and Senator Chief Jeremiah Chirau. The agreement led to the creation of an interim government in which Africans were included for the first time in Rhodesia.

Overview

The Rhodesian Bush War—also known as the Zimbabwe War of Liberation—was a civil war from July 1964 to December 1979 in the unrecognized country of Rhodesia (modern-day Zimbabwe). The conflict pitted three forces against one another: the Rhodesian government, under Ian Smith (later the Zimbabwe Rhodesian government of Bishop Abel Muzorewa); the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU); and the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army of Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU).

In the first phase of the conflict (until the end of 1972), Rhodesia’s political and military position appeared strong. Nationalist guerrillas had been unable to make serious military inroads against Rhodesia. In the early 1970s, the two main nationalist groups faced serious internal divisions. The black nationalists continued to operate from secluded bases in neighboring Zambia and from the Portuguese colony of Mozambique, making periodic raids into Rhodesia. By 1973 guerrilla activity was increasing in the aftermath of the Altena Farm raid, particularly in the northeast part of the country where portions of the African population were evacuated from border areas. But it would take the collapse of Portuguese rule in Mozambique to create new military and political pressures on the Rhodesian Government to accept the principle of immediate majority rule.

The war and its subsequent Internal Settlement, signed in 1978 by Smith and Muzorewa, led to the implementation in June 1979 of universal suffrage and end of white minority rule in Rhodesia, renamed Zimbabwe Rhodesia under a black majority government. However, this new order failed to win international recognition and the war continued.

Negotiations between the government of Zimbabwe Rhodesia, the British government, and Mugabe and Nkomo’s united “Patriotic Front” took place at Lancaster House, London in December 1979, and the Lancaster House Agreement was signed. The country returned temporarily to British control and new elections were held under British and Commonwealth supervision in March 1980. ZANU won the election and Mugabe became the first Prime Minister of Zimbabwe on 18 April 1980, when the country achieved internationally recognised independence.

Lancaster House Agreement

Bishop Abel Muzorewa signs the Lancaster House Agreement in 1980 seated next to British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington.

Photo of Bishop Abel Muzorewa signing the Lancaster House Agreement seated next to British Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington.

Background

The origins of the war in Rhodesia can be traced to the colonization of the region by white settlers in the late 19th century and the dissent of black African nationalist leaders who opposed white minority rule. Rhodesia was settled by Britons and South Africans beginning in the 1890s and while it was never accorded full dominion status, white Rhodesians effectively governed the country after 1923. In his famous “Wind of Change” speech addressed to the parliament of South Africa in 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan stated Britain’s intention to grant independence to British colonies in Africa under black majority rule.

Many white Rhodesians were concerned that decolonization and majority rule would bring chaos, as in the former Belgian Congo in 1960. Britain’s unwillingness to compromise on the policy of “No independence before majority rule” led to Rhodesia’s unilateral declaration of independence on November 11, 1965. Though Rhodesia had the unofficial support of neighboring South Africa and Portugal, which governed Mozambique, it never gained formal recognition from any country.

Many white Rhodesians viewed the war as one of survival with atrocities in the former Belgian Congo, the Mau Mau Uprising campaign in Kenya, and elsewhere in Africa fresh in their minds. Many whites and a sizable minority of black Rhodesians viewed their lifestyle as under attack, which both groups had considered safer and with a higher standard of living than in many other African countries. Although the vote in Rhodesia was technically open to all regardless of race, property ownership requirements effectively denied the franchise to most of Rhodesia’s blacks. The 1969 constitution provided for “Non-Europeans” (principally blacks) to elect representatives for eight of the seats in the 66-seat parliament. Eight seats were reserved for tribal chiefs.

Amidst this backdrop, black nationalists advocated armed struggle to bring about independence in Rhodesia under black majority rule. Resistance also stemmed from the wide economic inequality between blacks and whites. In Rhodesia, whites owned most of the fertile land while blacks were crowded on barren land following forced evictions or clearances by the colonial authorities.

Two rival nationalist organisations soon emerged: the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) and the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), following a split in the former in August 1963 caused by disagreements over tactics as well as tribalism and personality clashes.

The Bush War

Two soldiers of the Rhodesian African Rifles aboard a patrol boat on Lake Kariba, December 1976. Black Rhodesians made up most of the government’s Security Forces, but some units were all-white.

Photo of black soldiers aboard a military boat during the Bush War.

33.3.3: Mugabe and the Republic of Zimbabwe

Robert Mugabe rose to prominence in the 1960s as the leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and has ruled the nation as its president since 1980, establishing a dictatorship that has caused widespread human rights violations and economic depression.

Learning Objective

Explain Mugabe’s rise to power and the regime he established in Zimbabwe

Key Points

Robert Mugabe is the current President of Zimbabwe and has ruled the nation since 1980, first as Prime Minister and then as President in 1987.
Mugabe rose to prominence in the 1960s as the leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) during the conflict against the conservative white-minority government of Rhodesia.
At the time of his 1980 election victory, Mugabe was widely acclaimed as a revolutionary hero who was embracing racial reconciliation.
According to human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the government of Zimbabwe under the leadership of Mugabe has committed and continues to commit systematic and widespread human rights violations, and his regime is recognized by many as a dictatorship.
Although the economy of Zimbabwe initially improved when Mugabe became Prime Minister in 1980, it has since steadily declined and many critics blame Mugabe’s economic mismanagement.

Key Terms

Rhodesian Bush War: A civil war from July 1964 to December 1979 in the unrecognized country of Rhodesia (later Zimbabwe-Rhodesia). The conflict pitted three forces against one another: the Rhodesian government under Ian Smith (later the Zimbabwe Rhodesian government of Bishop Abel Muzorewa); the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army, the military wing of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe African National Union; and the Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army of Joshua Nkomo’s Zimbabwe African People’s Union.
Zimbabwe African National Union: A militant organization that fought against the white minority government in Rhodesia, which won the 1980 elections under the leadership of Robert Mugabe.

Robert Mugabe

Robert Gabriel Mugabe is the current President of Zimbabwe, serving since December 22, 1987. As one of the leaders of the rebel groups in opposition to white minority rule, he was elected Prime Minister in 1980, serving in that office as head of the government until 1987, when he became the country’s first executive head of state. He has led the Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front (ZANU–PF) since 1975. As of August 2016, he is the world’s oldest and one of the longest serving heads of state. His 36-year rule has been characterized by gross human rights violations, resulting in placement on the world list of dictators.

Mugabe rose to prominence in the 1960s as the leader of the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) during the conflict against the conservative white-minority government of Rhodesia. Mugabe was a political prisoner in Rhodesia for more than 10 years between 1964 and 1974. Upon release Mugabe, along with Edgar Tekere, immediately left Rhodesia with the assistance of Rekayi Tangwena in 1975 to launch the fight during the Rhodesian Bush War from bases in Mozambique. At the end of the war in 1979, Mugabe emerged as a hero in the minds of many Africans. He won the general elections of 1980 after calling for reconciliation between the former belligerents, including white Zimbabweans and rival political parties, and thereby became Prime Minister upon Zimbabwe’s independence in April 1980.

Soon after independence, Mugabe set about creating a ZANU–PF-run one-party state, establishing a North Korean-trained security force, the Fifth Brigade, in August 1981 to deal with internal dissidents. Mugabe attacked former allies ZAPU in which the Fifth Brigade crushed an armed rebellion by fighters loyal to his rival Joshua Nkomo, leader of the minority Ndebele tribe, in the province of Matabeleland. Between 1982 and 1985 at least 20,000 people died in ethnic cleansing and were buried in mass graves. Mugabe consolidated his power in December 1987, when he was declared executive president by parliament, combining the roles of head of state, head of government, and commander-in-chief of the armed forces with powers to dissolve parliament and declare martial law.

In 2008, Mugabe suffered a narrow defeat in the first round of a presidential election but subsequently won the run-off election in a landslide after his opponent Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew; Mugabe then entered a power-sharing deal with Tsvangirai as well as Arthur Mutambara of the MDC-T and MDC-M opposition party. In 2013, the Election Commission said Mugabe won his seventh term as President, defeating Tsvangirai with 61 percent of the vote in a disputed election in which there were numerous accounts of electoral fraud.

Robert Mugabe

Prime Minister Mugabe in 1982. At the time of his 1980 election victory, Mugabe was widely acclaimed as a revolutionary hero who was embracing racial reconciliation.

Photo of Robert Mugabe in 1982 with a suit and tie and think rimmed glasses.

Criticism

Since 1998, Mugabe’s policies have elicited domestic and international denunciation. Mugabe’s critics accuse him of conducting a “reign of terror” and being an “extremely poor role model” for the continent, saying his “transgressions are unpardonable.” In solidarity with the April 2007 general strike called by the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU), British Trades Union Congress general secretary Brendan Barber said of Mugabe’s regime: “Zimbabwe’s people are suffering from Mugabe’s appalling economic mismanagement, corruption, and brutal repression. They are standing up for their rights, and we must stand with them.” Lela Kogbara, Chair of ACTSA (Action for Southern Africa) similarly has said: “As with every oppressive regime women and workers are left bearing the brunt. Please join us as we stand in solidarity with the people of Zimbabwe in their struggle for peace, justice and freedom.”

According to human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the government of Zimbabwe violates the rights to shelter, food, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of assembly, and the protection of the law. There have been alleged assaults on the media, the political opposition, civil society activists, and human rights defenders.

Robert Guest, the Africa editor for The Economist for seven years, argues that Mugabe is to blame for Zimbabwe’s economic freefall:

“In 1980, the average annual income in Zimbabwe was US$950, and a Zimbabwean dollar was worth more than an American one. By 2003, the average income was less than US$400, and the Zimbabwean economy was in freefall. Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe for nearly three decades and has led it, in that time, from impressive success to the most dramatic peacetime collapse of any country since Weimar Germany.”

The downward spiral of the economy has been attributed mainly to mismanagement and corruption by the government and the eviction of more than 4,000 white farmers in the controversial land confiscations of 2000. The Zimbabwean government and its supporters attest that Western policies to avenge the expulsion of their kin sabotaged the economy.

By 2000, the living standards in Zimbabwe had declined from 1980. Life expectancy was reduced, average wages were lower, and unemployment had trebled. As of 2009, three to four million Zimbabweans—the greater part of the nation’s skilled workforce—had left the country. Mugabe claimed that Zimbabwe’s economic problems were a result of sabotage by the country’s white minority and Western nations. He called on supporters “to strike fear in the hearts of the white man, our real enemy.” He accused his black opponents of being dupes of the whites. Amid growing internal opposition to his government, he remained determined to stay in power. He revived the regular use of revolutionary rhetoric and sought to reassert his credentials as an important revolutionary leader.

33.4: South Africa

33.4.1: Imperialism in South Africa

Much of South Africa’s history, particularly of the colonial and post-colonial eras, is characterized by clashes of culture, violent territorial disputes between European settlers and indigenous people, dispossession and repression, and other racial and political tensions.

Learning Objective

Analyze the social consequences of imperialism in South Africa

Key Points

In 1652, a century and a half after the discovery of the Cape sea route, Jan van Riebeeck established a refreshment station at the Cape of Good Hope at what would become Cape Town, on behalf of the Dutch East India Company.
The Dutch transported slaves from Indonesia, Madagascar, and India as labor for the colonists in Cape Town.
The British annexed the Cape Colony in 1806 and continued the frontier wars.
Conflicts arose among the Xhosa, Zulu, Sotho, and Boer groups who competed to expand their territories.
The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom, ending in a Zulu defeat.
After winning the First Boer War, the Boers were ultimately defeated in the Second Boer War by 1902.
Within the country, anti-British policies among white South Africans focused on independence.

Key Terms

Afrikaans: A West Germanic language spoken in South Africa, Namibia, and to a lesser extent, Botswana and Zimbabwe. It evolved from the Dutch vernacular of South Holland (Hollandic dialect) spoken by the mainly Dutch settlers of what is now South Africa, where it gradually began to develop distinguishing characteristics in the course of the 18th century.
Dutch East India Company: A chartered company primarily in the spice trade founded in 1602. It was the first multinational corporation in the world and the first company to issue stock. The largest and most valuable corporation in history, it possessed quasi-governmental powers including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts, negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies.
Khoikhoi: A group of people native to southwestern Africa. Unlike the neighboring hunter-gatherer San people, they traditionally practiced nomadic pastoral agriculture.
Boers: The Dutch and Afrikaans word for “farmer.” As used in South Africa, it was used to denote the descendants of the Dutch-speaking settlers of the eastern Cape frontier in Southern Africa during the 18th century.

Dutch Settlement in South Africa

Portuguese mariner Bartolomeu Dias was the first European to explore the coastline of South Africa in 1488 while attempting to discover a trade route to the Far East via the southernmost cape of South Africa, which he named Cabo das Tormentas, meaning Cape of Storms.

In 1647, a Dutch vessel, the Haarlem, was wrecked in the present-day Table Bay. After being rescued, the marooned crew recommended that a permanent station be established in the bay. The Dutch East India Company (in the Dutch of the day: Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie, or VOC), one of the major European trading houses sailing the spice route to the East, had no intention of colonizing the area, wanting only to establish a secure base camp where passing ships could shelter and here hungry sailors could stock up on fresh supplies of meat, fruit, and vegetables.

While the new settlement traded out of necessity with the neighboring Khoikhoi, one could hardly describe the relationship as friendly, and the authorities made deliberate attempts to restrict contact. Partly as a consequence, VOC employees found themselves faced with a labor shortage. To remedy this, they released a small number of Dutch from their contracts and permitted them to establish farms, with which they would supply the great VOC settlement from their harvests. This arrangement proved highly successful, producing abundant supplies of fruit, vegetables, wheat, and wine; they later raised livestock. The small initial group of free burghers, as these farmers were known, steadily increased and began to expand their farms further north and east into the territory of the Khoikhoi.

In addition to establishing the free burgher system, van Riebeeck and the VOC made indentured servants out of the Khoikhoi and the San and began to import large numbers of slaves, primarily from Madagascar and Indonesia. These slaves often married Dutch settlers, and their descendants became known as the Cape Coloureds and the Cape Malays. A significant number of the offspring from the white and slave unions were absorbed into the local proto-Afrikaans speaking white population. The racially mixed genealogical origins of many so-called “white” South Africans have been traced to interracial unions at the Cape between the European-occupying population and imported Asian and African slaves, the indigenous Khoi and San, and their offspring.

With this additional labor, the areas occupied by the VOC expanded further to the north and east, with inevitable clashes with the Khoikhoi. The newcomers drove the beleaguered Khoikhoi from their traditional lands and destroyed them with superior weapons when they fought back, which they did in a number of major wars and with guerrilla resistance movements that continued into the 19th century. Europeans also brought diseases that had devastating effects against people whose immune system was not adapted to them. Most survivors were left with no option but to work for the Europeans in an exploitative arrangement that differed little from slavery.

As the burghers, too, continued to expand into the rugged hinterlands of the north and east, many began a semi-nomadic pastoralist lifestyle, in some ways not far removed from that of the Khoikhoi they displaced. In addition to its herds, a family might have a wagon, a tent, a Bible, and a few guns. As they became more settled, they would build a mud-walled cottage, frequently located by choice days of travel from the nearest European. These were the first of the Trekboere (Wandering Farmers, later shortened to Boers), completely independent of official controls, extraordinarily self-sufficient, and isolated. Their harsh lifestyle produced individualists who were well-acquainted with the land. Like many pioneers with Christian backgrounds, the burghers attempted to live their lives based on teachings from the Bible.

Dutch Settlement in South Africa

Painting of an account of the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck, by Charles Bell.

Painting of several Dutch explorers carrying the Dutch flag approaching native Africans. A large mountain looms in the background.

English Annexation

During the Napoleonic Wars, the Cape Colony was annexed by the British and officially became their colony in 1815. Britain encouraged settlers to the Cape, and in particular, sponsored the 1820 settlers to farm in the disputed area between the colony and the Xhosa in what is now the Eastern Cape. The changing image of the Cape from Dutch to British excluded the Dutch farmers in the area, the Boers who in the 1820s started their Great Trek to the northern areas of modern South Africa. This period also marked the rise in power of the Zulu under their king Shaka Zulu. Subsequently several conflicts arose between the British, Boers, and Zulus.

The discoveries of diamonds and gold in the 19th century had a profound effect on the fortunes of the region, propelling it onto the world stage and introducing a shift away from an exclusively agrarian-based economy towards industrialization and the development of urban infrastructure.

The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. Following Lord Carnarvon’s successful introduction of federation in Canada, it was thought that similar political effort coupled with military campaigns might succeed with the African kingdoms, tribal areas, and Boer republics in South Africa. In 1874, Sir Henry Bartle Frere was sent to South Africa as High Commissioner for the British Empire to bring such plans into being. Among the obstacles were the presence of the independent states of the South African Republic and the Kingdom of Zululand and its army. The Zulu nation spectacularly defeated the British at the Battle of Isandlwana. Eventually, though, the war was lost, resulting in the end of the Zulu nation’s independence.

The Boer Republics successfully resisted British encroachments during the First Boer War (1880–1881) using guerrilla warfare tactics that were well-suited to local conditions. The British returned with greater numbers, more experience, and new strategy in the Second Boer War (1899–1902) but suffered heavy casualties through attrition. By 1902, 26,000 Boers (mainly women and children) had died of disease, hunger, and neglect in concentration camps. On May 31, 1902, a superficial peace came with the signing of the Treaty of Vereeniging. Under its terms, the Boer republics acknowledged British sovereignty, while the British committed themselves to reconstruction of the areas under their control.

Within the country, anti-British policies among white South Africans focused on independence. During the Dutch and British colonial years, racial segregation was mostly informal, though some legislation was enacted to control the settlement and movement of native people, including the Native Location Act of 1879 and the system of pass laws. Power was held by the ethnic European colonists.

Boer Wars

Boer women and children in a concentration camp. The discoveries of diamonds and gold led to new conflicts culminating in open warfare between the Boer settlers and imperial Britain, who fought essentially for control over the nascent South African mining industry.

Photo of a few dozen Boer women and children in a concentration camp.

33.4.2: The Union of South Africa

Following the defeat of the Boers in the Second Boer War (1899–1902), the Union of South Africa was created as a dominion of the British Empire, which unified into one entity the four previously separate British colonies: Cape Colony, Natal Colony, Transvaal Colony, and Orange River Colony.

Learning Objective

Describe the structure of the Union of South Africa

Key Points

During the years immediately following the Anglo-Boer wars, Britain set about unifying the four colonies, including the former Boer republics, into one self-governed country named the Union of South Africa.
This vision came into being on May 31, 1910, with the unification of four previously separate British colonies: Cape Colony, Natal Colony, Transvaal Colony, and Orange River Colony.
Among other harsh segregationist laws, including denial of voting rights to black people, the Union parliament enacted the 1913 Natives’ Land Act, which earmarked only eight percent of South Africa’s available land for black occupancy.
Dissatisfaction with British influence in the Union’s affairs reached a climax in September 1914, when impoverished Boers, anti-British Boers, and bitter-enders launched a rebellion that was quickly squashed.
In 1931 the union was fully sovereign from the United Kingdom with the passage of the Statute of Westminster, which abolished the last powers of the British Government on the country.

Key Terms

South Africa Act 1909: An Act of the British Parliament which created the Union of South Africa from the British colonies of the Cape of Good Hope, Natal, Orange River Colony, and Transvaal.
Afrikaner: A Southern African ethnic group descended from predominantly Dutch settlers who first arrived in the 17th and 18th centuries.

Roots of the Union

During the immediate post-war years, the British focused their attention on rebuilding the country, in particular the mining industry. By 1907 the mines of the Witwatersrand produced almost one-third of the world’s annual gold production. But the peace brought by the treaty remained fragile and challenged on all sides. The Afrikaners found themselves in the difficult position of poor farmers in a country where big mining ventures and foreign capital rendered them irrelevant. Britain’s unsuccessful attempts to anglicize them and impose English as the official language in schools and the workplace particularly incensed them. Partly as a backlash, the Boers came to see Afrikaans as the volkstaal (“people’s language”) and a symbol of Afrikaner nationhood. Several nationalist organisations sprang up.

Blacks remained marginalized in society. The British High Commissioner Lord Alfred Milner introduced “segregation,” later known as apartheid. The authorities imposed harsh taxes and reduced wages while the British caretaker administrator encouraged the immigration of thousands of Chinese to undercut any resistance. Resentment exploded in the Bambatha Rebellion of 1906, in which 4,000 Zulus lost their lives after rebelling due to onerous tax legislation.

Union of South Africa

The British moved ahead with their plans for union. After several years of negotiations, the South Africa Act 1909 brought the colonies and republics – Cape Colony, Natal, Transvaal, and Orange Free State – together as the Union of South Africa. Under the provisions of the act, the Union remained British territory, but with home-rule for Afrikaners. The British High Commission territories of Basutoland (now Lesotho), Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Swaziland, and Rhodesia (now Zambia and Zimbabwe) continued under direct rule from Britain.

English and Dutch became the official languages. Afrikaans did not gain recognition as an official language until 1925. Despite a major campaign by Blacks and Coloureds, the voter franchise remained as in the pre-Union republics and colonies, and only whites could gain election to Parliament.

Among other harsh segregationist laws, including denial of voting rights to blacks, the Union parliament enacted the 1913 Natives’ Land Act, which earmarked only eight percent of South Africa’s available land for black occupancy. White people, who constituted 20 percent of the population, held 90 percent of the land. The Land Act would form a cornerstone of legalized racial discrimination for the next nine decades.

General Louis Botha headed the first government of the new Union with General Jan Smuts as his deputy. Their South African National Party, later known as the South African Party or SAP, followed a generally pro-British, white-unity line. The more radical Boers split away under the leadership of General Barry Hertzog, forming the National Party (NP) in 1914. The NP championed Afrikaner interests, advocating separate development for the two white groups and independence from Britain.

The First Union Cabinet

General Louis Botha headed the first government of the new Union and followed a generally pro-British, white-unity line.

Photo of the first Cabinet of the Union of South Africa, 11 white men.

Dissatisfaction with British influence in the Union’s affairs reached a climax in September 1914, when impoverished Boers, anti-British Boers, and bitter-enders launched a rebellion. The rebellion was quashed and at least one officer was sentenced to death and executed by firing squad.

In 1924 the Afrikaner-dominated National Party came to power in a coalition government with the Labour Party. Afrikaans, previously regarded as a low-level Dutch patois, replaced Dutch as an official language of the Union. English and Dutch became the official languages in 1925.

The Union of South Africa came to an end after a referendum on October 5, 1960, in which a majority of white South Africans voted in favor of unilateral withdrawal from the British Commonwealth and the establishment of a Republic of South Africa.

33.4.3: Apartheid

The National Party in South Africa imposed apartheid in 1948, which institutionalized racial segregation through a series of legislation that established strict racial classification, forced relocation of nonwhites to “tribal homelands,” and segregated public facilities and institutions.

Learning Objective

Explain what aspects of South African policy comprise the movement referred to as “apartheid”

Key Points

Racist legislation during the apartheid era was a continuation and extension of discriminatory and segregationist laws that began in 1856 under Dutch rule in the Cape and continued throughout the country under British colonialism.
Beginning in 1948, successive National Party administrations formalized and extended the existing system of racial discrimination and denial of human rights into the legal system of apartheid, which lasted until 1991.
While whites enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa, comparable to that of Western nations, the black majority remained disadvantaged by almost every standard, including income, education, housing, and life expectancy.
The first grand apartheid law was the Population Registration Act of 1950, which formalized racial classification and introduced an identity card specifying racial group for everyone older than age 18.
The second pillar of grand apartheid was the Group Areas Act of 1950, which put an end to diverse areas and determined where one lived according to race; each race was allotted its own area, which was used in later years as a basis of forced removal to “tribal homelands” known as bantustans.
The National Part passed a string of legislation that became known as petty apartheid aimed as segregating South Africa’s social institutions, the first of which was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act 55 of 1949, prohibiting marriage between whites and people of other races.
After a long and sometimes violent struggle by the African National Congress and other anti-apartheid activists both inside and outside the country, discriminatory laws began to be repealed or abolished in 1990.

Key Terms

bantustans: Also known as “homeland,” a territory set aside for black inhabitants of South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) as part of the policy of apartheid.
National Party: A political party in South Africa founded in 1915 that first became the governing party of the country in 1924. The policies of the party included apartheid, the establishment of a republic, and the promotion of Afrikaner culture.
Nelson Mandela: A South African anti-apartheid revolutionary, politician, and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was the country’s first black head of state and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election. His government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid by tackling institutionalized racism and fostering racial reconciliation.
grand apartheid: Apartheid laws that dictated housing and employment opportunities by race.
petty apartheid: Apartheid laws that segregated public facilities and social events.

Overview

Apartheid was a system of institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination in South Africa between 1948 and 1991. Broadly speaking, apartheid was delineated into petty apartheid, which entailed the segregation of public facilities and social events, and grand apartheid, which dictated housing and employment opportunities by race. Prior to the 1940s, some vestiges of apartheid had already emerged in the form of minority rule by white South Africans and the socially enforced separation of black South Africans from other races, which later extended to pass laws and land apportionment. Racist legislation during the apartheid era was a continuation and extension of discriminatory and segregationist laws forming a continuum that commenced in 1856 under Dutch rule in the Cape and continued throughout the country under British colonialism. Apartheid as a policy was embraced by the South African government shortly after the ascension of the National Party (NP) during the country’s 1948 general elections.

Apartheid Legislation

The first piece of apartheid legislation was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act in 1949, which was followed closely by the Immorality Act of 1950, making it illegal for South African citizens to marry or pursue sexual relationships across racial lines. The Population Registration Act, 1950, classified all South Africans into one of four racial groups based on appearance, known ancestry, socioeconomic status, and cultural lifestyle. NP leaders argued that South Africa did not comprise a single nation, but was made up of four distinct racial groups: White, Black, Coloured and Indian. The Coloured group included people regarded as of mixed descent, including of Bantu, Khoisan, European, and Malay ancestry. Such groups were split into 13 nations or racial federations. White people encompassed the English and Afrikaans language groups; the black populace was divided into ten such groups.

Places of residence were determined by racial classification under the Group Areas Act of 1950. From 1960 to 1983, 3.5 million nonwhite South Africans were removed from their homes and forced into segregated neighborhoods in one of the largest mass removals in modern history. Most of these targeted removals were intended to restrict the black population to ten designated “tribal homelands,” also known as bantustans, four of which become nominally independent states. These removals included people relocated due to slum clearance programs, labor tenants on white-owned farms, the inhabitants of the so-called “black spots” (black-owned land surrounded by white farms), the families of workers living in townships close to the homelands, and “surplus people” from urban areas, including thousands of people from the Western Cape. The government announced that relocated persons would lose their South African citizenship as they were absorbed into the bantustans.

Bantustans in South Africa

A key act of legislation during Apartheid was the Homeland Citizens Act of 1970. It authorized the forced removals of thousands of African people from urban centers in South Africa and South West Africa (now Namibia) to what became described colloquially as “Bantustans” or the “original homes.”

Map of South Africa showing the locations of bantustans.

The NP also passed a string of legislation that became known as petty apartheid. Acts passed under petty apartheid were meant to separate nonwhites from daily life. Blacks were not allowed to run businesses or professional practices in areas designated as “white South Africa” unless they had a permit. Transport and civil facilities were segregated. Black buses stopped at black bus stops and white buses at white ones. Trains, hospitals, and ambulances were segregated. Because there were fewer white patients and white doctors preferred to work in white hospitals, conditions in white hospitals were much better than those in often overcrowded and understaffed black hospitals.

Petty Apartheid

Sign reserving a Natal beach “for the sole use of members of the white race group,” in English, Afrikaans, and Zulu. Acts passed under petty apartheid were meant to separate nonwhites from daily life.

Photo of a sign on a Durban beach that reserves it “for the sole use of members of the white race group”, in English, Afrikaans, and Zulu.

Precursors

A codified system of racial stratification began to take form in South Africa under the Dutch Empire in the late 18th century, although informal segregation was present much earlier due to social cleavages between Dutch colonists and a creolized, ethnically diverse slave population. With the rapid growth and industrialization of the British Cape Colony in the 19th century, racial policies and laws became increasingly rigid. Cape legislation that discriminated specifically against black Africans began appearing shortly before 1900. The policies of the Boer republics were also racially exclusive; for instance, the constitution of the Transvaal barred nonwhite participation in church and state.

The Franchise and Ballot Act of 1892 instituted limits based on financial means and education to the black franchise, and the Natal Legislative Assembly Bill of 1894 deprived Indians of the right to vote. The Glen Grey Act of 1894, instigated by the government of Prime Minister Cecil John Rhodes, limited the amount of land Africans could hold. In 1905, the General Pass Regulations Act denied blacks the vote, limited them to fixed areas, and inaugurated the infamous Pass System. The Asiatic Registration Act (1906) required all Indians to register and carry passes. In 1910 the Union of South Africa was created as a self-governing dominion, which continued the legislative program. The South Africa Act (1910) enfranchised whites, giving them complete political control over all other racial groups while removing the right of blacks to sit in parliament. The Native Land Act (1913) prevented blacks, except those in the Cape, from buying land outside “reserves.” The Natives in Urban Areas Bill (1918) was designed to force blacks into “locations.” The Urban Areas Act (1923) introduced residential segregation and provided cheap labor for industry led by white people. The Colour Bar Act (1926) prevented black mine workers from practicing skilled trades. The Native Administration Act (1927) made the British Crown the supreme head over all African affairs.

Opposition and Abolishment

Apartheid sparked significant international and domestic opposition, resulting in some of the most influential global social movements of the twentieth century. It was the target of frequent condemnation in the United Nations and brought about an extensive arms and trade embargo on South Africa. During the 1970s and 1980s, internal resistance to apartheid became increasingly militant, prompting brutal crackdowns by the National Party administration and protracted sectarian violence that left thousands dead or in detention. Some reforms of the apartheid system were undertaken, including allowing for Indian and Coloured political representation in parliament, but these measures failed to appease most activist groups.

Organized resistance to Afrikaner nationalism was not confined exclusively to activists of the oppressed, dark-skinned population. A movement known as the Torch Commando was formed in the 1950s, led by white war veterans who had fought fascism in Europe and North Africa during World War II only to find fascism on the rise in South Africa when they returned home. With 250,000 paid-up members at the height of its existence, it was the largest white protest movement in the country’s history. By 1952, the brief flame of mass-based white radicalism was extinguished when the Torch Commando disbanded due to government legislation under the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950. Some members of the Torch Commando subsequently became leading figures in the armed wing of the banned African National Congress.

Between 1987 and 1993, the National Party entered into bilateral negotiations with the African National Congress, the leading anti-apartheid political movement, to end segregation and introduce majority rule. In 1990, prominent ANC leaders such as Nelson Mandela were released from detention. Apartheid legislation was abolished in mid-1991, pending multiracial elections set for April 1994.

33.5: Egypt

33.5.1: Egypt’s First Revolution

The Egyptian revolution of 1919 was a countrywide revolution against the British occupation of Egypt and Sudan carried out in the wake of the British-ordered exile of revolutionary leader Saad Zaghlul and other members of the Wafd Party in 1919.

Learning Objective

Describe the events of Egypt’s First Revolution

Key Points

Although the Ottoman Empire retained nominal sovereignty over Egypt, the political connection between the two countries was largely severed by the seizure of power by Muhammad Ali in 1805 and re-enforced by the British occupation of Egypt in 1882.
On December 14, 1914, the Khedivate of Egypt was elevated to a separate sultanate and declared a British protectorate, thus terminating definitively the legal fiction of Ottoman sovereignty over Egypt.
Over the course of the war, dissatisfaction with the British occupation spread among all social classes, and by war’s end the Egyptian people demanded their independence.
After World War I, Saad Zaghlul and the Wafd Party led the Egyptian nationalist movement to a majority at the local Legislative Assembly.
When the British exiled Zaghlul and his associates to Malta on March 8, 1919, Egyptians and Sudanese from all walks of life rose up against the British, leading the British government to conclude that the protectorate status of Egypt was not satisfactory and should be abandoned.
The revolution led to Britain’s recognition of Egyptian independence in 1922 and the implementation of a new constitution in 1923.

Key Terms

Khedivate of Egypt: An autonomous tributary state of the Ottoman Empire, established and ruled by the Muhammad Ali Dynasty following the defeat and expulsion of Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces, which brought an end to the short-lived French occupation of Lower Egypt.
Saad Zaghlul: An Egyptian revolutionary and statesman who led Egypt’s nationalist Wafd Party. In 1919 he led an official Egyptian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference demanding that the United Kingdom formally recognize the independence and unity of Egypt and Sudan, and was exiled by the British government in response. He served as Egypt’s first Prime Minister from January 26, 1924, to November 24, 1924, after independence from Britain.

Background: British Protectorate

Although the Ottoman Empire retained nominal sovereignty over Egypt, the political connection between the two countries was largely severed by the seizure of power by Muhammad Ali in 1805 and re-enforced by the British occupation of Egypt in 1882. From 1883 to 1914, though the Khedive of Egypt and Sudan remained the official ruler of the country, ultimate power was exercised by the British Consul-General.

When the Caucasus Campaign of World War I broke out between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, Britain declared martial law in Egypt and announced that it would shoulder the entire burden of the war. On December 14, 1914, the Khedivate of Egypt was elevated to a separate sultanate and declared a British protectorate, thus terminating definitively the legal fiction of Ottoman sovereignty over Egypt. The terms of the protectorate led Egyptian nationalists to believe it was a temporary arrangement that would be changed after the war through bilateral agreement with Britain.

Prior to the war, nationalist agitation was limited to the educated elite. Over the course of the war, however, dissatisfaction with the British occupation spread among all social classes. This was the result of Egypt’s increasing involvement in the war, despite Britain’s promise to shoulder the entire burden of the war. The British poured masses of foreign troops into Egypt, conscripted over one and a half million Egyptians into the Labour Corps, and requisitioned buildings, crops, and animals for the use of the army. In addition, because of allied promises during the war (such as President Wilson’s Fourteen Points), Egyptian political classes prepared for self-government. By war’s end the Egyptian people demanded their independence.

Events of the 1919 Revolution

Shortly after the First World War armistice of November 11 concluded in Europe, a delegation of Egyptian nationalist activists led by Saad Zaghlul made a request to High Commissioner Reginald Wingate to end the British Protectorate in Egypt and Sudan and gain Egyptian representation at the next peace conference in Paris.

Meanwhile, a mass movement for the full independence of Egypt and Sudan was being organized at a grassroots level using the tactics of civil disobedience. By then, Zaghlul and the Wafd Party enjoyed massive support among the Egyptian people. Wafdist emissaries went into towns and villages to collect signatures authorizing the movement’s leaders to petition for the complete independence of the country.

Seeing the popular support that the Wafd leaders enjoyed and fearing social unrest, the British proceeded to arrest Zaghlul and two other movement leaders on March 8, 1919 and exiled them to Malta. In the course of widespread disturbances between March 15 and 31, at least 800 Egyptians were killed, numerous villages were burnt down, large-landed properties plundered, and railways destroyed.

For several weeks, demonstrations and strikes across Egypt by students, elite, civil servants, merchants, peasants, workers, and religious leaders became such a daily occurrence that normal life was brought to a halt. This mass movement was characterized by the participation of both men and women and by spanning the religious divide between Muslim and Christian Egyptians. The uprising in the Egyptian countryside was more violent, involving attacks on British military installations, civilian facilities, and personnel. By July 25, 1919, 800 Egyptians were dead and 1,600 others were wounded.

The British government sent a commission of inquiry, known as the “Milner Mission,” to Egypt in December 1919 to determine the causes of the disorder and make a recommendation about the political future of the country. Lord Milner’s report, published in February 1921, recommended that the protectorate status of Egypt was unsatisfactory and should be abandoned. The revolts forced London to issue a unilateral declaration of Egyptian independence on February 22, 1922.

Egyptian Revolution of 1919

Egyptian women demonstrating during the revolution of 1919.

Image of Egyptian women wearing black dresses, black head covers, and white veils over their faces, carrying an Egyptian glad, demonstrating against British occupation during the revolution of 1919.

Aftermath

Although the British government offered to recognize Egypt as an independent sovereign state, this was only upon certain conditions. The following matters were reserved to the discretion of the British government: the security of the communications of the British Empire in Egypt, the defense of Egypt against foreign aggression, and the protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the Sudan.

The Wafd Party drafted a new constitution in 1923 based on a parliamentary representative system. Egyptian independence at this stage was nominal as British forces continued to be physically present on Egyptian soil. Moreover, Britain’s recognition of Egyptian independence directly excluded Sudan, which continued to be administered as an Anglo-Egyptian condominium. Saad Zaghlul became the first popularly elected Prime Minister of Egypt in 1924.

33.5.2: British Involvement in Egypt Post-Independence

The Kingdom of Egypt was established in 1922 following the Unilateral Declaration of Egyptian Independence, but the Kingdom was only nominally independent since the British continued to have varying degrees of political control and military presence until 1952.

Learning Objective

Explain the ties between Britain and Egypt after the establishment of an independent Egyptian state

Key Points

The formal British protectorate over Egypt was ended by the Unilateral Declaration of Egyptian Independence (UDI) on February 28, 1922.
Shortly afterwards, Sultan Fuad I declared himself King of Egypt, but the British occupation continued in accordance with several reserve clauses in the declaration of independence.
The situation was renegotiated in the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936, which granted Britain the right to station troops in Egypt for the defense of the Suez Canal and its link with the Indian Empire and to control the training of the Egyptian Army.
After the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, the British agreed to withdraw their troops and did so by June 1956.
Britain went to war against Egypt over the Suez Canal in late 1956, but with insufficient international support was forced to back down.

Key Terms

Suez Canal: An artificial sea-level waterway in Egypt connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea through the Isthmus of Suez. It offers watercraft a shorter journey between the North Atlantic and northern Indian Oceans via the Mediterranean and Red seas by avoiding the South Atlantic and southern Indian Oceans, reducing the journey by approximately 4,300 miles.
Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936: A treaty signed between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Egypt. Under the terms of the treaty, the United Kingdom was required to withdraw all its troops from Egypt except those necessary to protect the Suez Canal and its surroundings, numbering 10,000 troops plus auxiliary personnel. Additionally, the United Kingdom would supply and train Egypt’s army and assist in its defense in case of war.

The Kingdom of Egypt was the independent Egyptian state established under the Muhammad Ali Dynasty in 1922 following the Unilateral Declaration of Egyptian Independence by the United Kingdom. Until the Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936, the Kingdom was only nominally independent, since the British retained control of foreign relations, communications, the military, and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Between 1936-52, the British continued to maintain military presence and political advisors at a reduced level. The kingdom was plagued by corruption, and its citizens saw it as a puppet of the British.

The legal status of Egypt was highly convoluted due to its de facto breakaway from the Ottoman Empire in 1805, its occupation by Britain in 1882, and its transformation into a sultanate and British protectorate in 1914. In line with the change in status from sultanate to kingdom, the Sultan of Egypt, Fuad I, saw his title changed to king.

The kingdom’s sovereignty was subject to severe limitations imposed by the British, who retained enormous control over Egyptian affairs and whose military continued to occupy the country. Throughout the kingdom’s existence, Sudan was formally united with Egypt. However, actual Egyptian authority in Sudan was largely nominal due to Britain’s role as the dominant power in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan.

During the reign of King Fuad, the monarchy struggled with the Wafd Party, a broadly based nationalist political organization strongly opposed to British domination, and with the British themselves, who were determined to maintain control over the Suez Canal. The importance of the canal as a strategic intersection was made apparent during the First World War when Britain and France closed the canal to non-Allied shipping. The attempt by German and Ottoman forces to storm the canal in February 1915 led the British to commit 100,000 troops to the defense of Egypt for the rest of the war. Other political forces emerging in this period included the Communist Party (1925) and the Muslim Brotherhood (1928), which eventually became a potent political and religious force.

King Fuad died in 1936 and Farouk inherited the throne at age 16. Alarmed by Italy’s recent invasion of Abyssinia, he signed the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, requiring Britain to withdraw all troops from Egypt except those necessary to protect the Suez Canal and its surroundings, numbering 10,000 troops plus auxiliary personnel. Additionally, the United Kingdom would supply and train Egypt’s army and assist in its defense in case of war. The 1936 treaty did not resolve the question of Sudan, which under the terms of the existing Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreement of 1899 was meant to be jointly governed by Egypt and Britain with real power remaining in British hands. With rising tension in Europe, the treaty expressively favored maintaining the status quo. The treaty was not welcomed by Egyptian nationalists like the Arab Socialist Party, who wanted full independence. It ignited a wave of demonstrations against the British and the Wafd Party, which supported the treaty.

On September 23, 1945, after the end of World War II, the Egyptian government demanded the modification of the treaty to terminate the British military presence and to allow the annexation of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Following the Wafd Party’s victory in the boycotted 1950 election of Egypt, the new Wafd government unilaterally abrogated the treaty in October 1951. Three years later with new government leadership under Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, the UK agreed to withdraw its troops in the Anglo–Egyptian Agreement of 1954; the British withdrawal was completed in June 1956. This is the date when Egypt gained full independence, although Nasser had already established an independent foreign policy that caused tension with several Western powers.

British Infantry near El Alamein, 17 July 1942

During World War II, British troops used Egypt as a base for Allied operations throughout the region. The British maintained a significant presence in Egypt, even after the latter’s formal independence in 1922.

Image of armed British soldiers lined up against a wall of sandbags in the Alamein, Egypt.

33.5.3: The Egyptian Revolution of 1952

From July 22-26, 1952, a group of disaffected army officers led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser overthrew King Farouk, whom the military blamed for Egypt’s poor performance in the 1948 war with Israel.

Learning Objective

Analyze the reasons for the Revolution of 1952

Key Points

The Egyptian monarchy was seen as both corrupt and pro-British, and the military blamed King Farouk for Egypt’s poor performance in the 1948 war with Israel.
The Egyptian revolution of 1952 was led by the Free Officers Movement, a group of army officers led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Along with overthrowing King Faruq, the movement had more ambitious political aims, such as abolishing the constitutional monarchy and ending the British occupation of the country.
In November 1954, President Naguib, who became the first Egyptian president during the revolution, was ousted and replaced by Nasser.
Just four years after the revolution, the Suez Crisis of 1956 became a political victory for Egypt, as it left the Suez Canal in uncontested Egyptian control for the first time since 1875, eliminating the vestiges of British occupation.
Wholesale agrarian reform and huge industrialization programs were initiated in the first fifteen years of the revolution, leading to an unprecedented period of infrastructure building and urbanization.

Key Terms

Suez Crisis: An invasion of Egypt in late 1956 by Israel, followed by the United Kingdom and France. The aims were to regain Western control of the Suez Canal and remove Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser from power. After the fighting started, political pressure from the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Nations led to a withdrawal by the three invaders. The episode humiliated Great Britain and France and strengthened Nasser.
Free Officers Movement: A group of nationalist officers in the armed forces of Egypt and Sudan that instigated the Egyptian Revolution of 1952. Originally established in 1945 as a cell within the Muslim Brotherhood under Abdel Moneim Abdel Raouf, it operated as a clandestine movement of junior officers during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Muhammad Naguib joined in 1949, after the war, and became their official leader during the turmoil leading up the revolution because of the hero status he had earned during the war and his influence in the army.
Arab nationalism: A nationalist ideology celebrating the glories of Arab civilization and the language and literature of the Arabs, calling for rejuvenation and political union in the Arab world. Its central premise is that the peoples of the Arab world, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Ocean, constitute one nation bound together by common linguistic, cultural, religious, and historical heritage. One of its primary goals is the end of Western influence in the Arab world, seen as a “nemesis” of Arab strength, and the removal of Arab governments considered dependent upon Western power.

Overview

The Egyptian revolution of 1952, also known as the 23 July Revolution, began on July 23, 1952, by the Free Officers Movement, a group of army officers led by Muhammad Naguib and Gamal Abdel Nasser. The revolution’s initial goal was to overthrow King Faruq. The movement also had more ambitious political aims and soon moved to abolish the constitutional monarchy and aristocracy of Egypt and Sudan, establish a republic, end the British occupation of the country, and secure the independence of Sudan. The revolutionary government adopted a staunchly nationalist, anti-imperialist agenda, expressed chiefly through Arab nationalism and international non-alignment.

The revolution was faced with immediate threats from Western imperial powers, particularly the United Kingdom, which had occupied Egypt since 1882, and France. Both were wary of rising nationalist sentiment in territories under their control throughout the Middle East and Africa. The ongoing state of war with Israel also posed a serious challenge, as the Free Officers increased Egypt’s already strong support of the Palestinians. These issues conflated four years after the revolution when Egypt was invaded by Britain, France, and Israel in the Suez Crisis of 1956. Despite enormous military losses, the war was seen as a political victory for Egypt, especially as it left the Suez Canal in uncontested Egyptian control for the first time since 1875, erasing what was considered a mark of national humiliation. This strengthened the appeal of the revolution in other Arab and African countries.

Wholesale agrarian reform and huge industrialization programs were initiated in the first 15 years of the revolution, leading to an unprecedented period of infrastructure building and urbanization. By the 1960s, Arab socialism became a dominant theme, transforming Egypt into a centrally planned economy. Fear of a Western-sponsored counter-revolution, domestic religious extremism, potential communist infiltration, and the ongoing conflict with Israel were all cited as reasons for severe and longstanding restrictions on political opposition and the prohibition of a multi-party system. These restrictions would remain in place until the presidency of Anwar Sadat from 1970 on, during which many of the policies of the revolution were scaled back or reversed.

The early successes of the revolution encouraged numerous other nationalist movements in other Arab and African countries, such as Algeria and Kenya, where there were anti-colonial rebellions against European empires. It also inspired the toppling of existing pro-Western monarchies and governments in the region and continent.

The Egyptian Revolution of 1952

Prime Minister Gamal Abdel Nasser (right) and President Muhammad Naguib (right) in an open-top automobile during celebrations marking the second anniversary of the Egyptian Revolution of 1952.

Photo of Prime Minister Gamal Abdel Nasser (right) and President Muhammad Naguib (right) in an open-top automobile during celebrations marking the second anniversary of the Egyptian Revolution of 1952.

Causes

The Egyptian monarchy was seen as both corrupt and pro-British, with its lavish lifestyle that seemed provocative to the free officers who lived in poverty. Its policies completed the image of the Egyptian government as a puppet in the hands of the British government. The end of the monarchy would signal an end of British intervention. The military also blamed King Farouk for Egypt’s poor performance in the 1948 war with Israel and lack of progress in fighting poverty, disease, and illiteracy in Egypt. In the warning that General Naguib conveyed to King Farouk on July 26 upon the king’s abdication, he provided a summary of the reasons for the revolution:

In view of what the country has suffered in the recent past, the complete vacuity prevailing in all corners as a result of your bad behavior, your toying with the constitution, and your disdain for the wants of the people, no one rests assured of life, livelihood, and honor. Egypt’s reputation among the peoples of the world has been debased as a result of your excesses in these areas to the extent that traitors and bribe-takers find protection beneath your shadow in addition to security, excessive wealth, and many extravagances at the expense of the hungry and impoverished people. You manifested this during and after the Palestine War in the corrupt arms scandals and your open interference in the courts to try to falsify the facts of the case, thus shaking faith in justice. Therefore, the army, representing the power of the people, has empowered me to demand that Your Majesty abdicate the throne to His Highness Crown Prince Ahmed Fuad, provided that this is accomplished at the fixed time of 12 o’clock noon today (Saturday, 26 July 1952, the 4th of Zul Qa’ada, 1371), and that you depart the country before 6 o’clock in the evening of the same day. The army places upon Your Majesty the burden of everything that may result from your failure to abdicate according to the wishes of the people.

After the Revolution

In the following two years, the Free Officers consolidated power, and following a brief experiment with civilian rule, abrogated the 1953 constitution and declared Egypt a republic on June 18, 1953, with Muhammad Naguib as Egypt’s first president.

Within six months all civilian political parties were banned and replaced by the “Liberation Rally” government party, the elites seeing a need for a “transitional authoritarianism” in light of Egypt’s poverty, illiteracy, and lack of a large middle class. In October and November 1954 the large Islamist Muslim Brotherhood organization was suppressed and President Naguib was ousted and arrested. He was replaced by Nasser, who remained president until his death in 1970.

President Nasser announced a new constitution on January 16 at a popular rally, setting up a system of government in which the president had the power to appoint and dismiss ministers. A law was passed on March 3 granting women the right to vote for the first time in Egyptian history. Nasser was elected as the second president of the Republic on June 23. In 1957, Nasser announced the formation of the National Union (Al-Ittihad Al-Qawmi), paving the way to July elections for the National Assembly, the first parliament since 1952.

33.5.4: The United Arab Republic

In 1958, Egypt joined with the Republic of Syria to form a state called the United Arab Republic.

Learning Objective

Assess the reasoning for the formation of the United Arab Republic

Key Points

Several Arab nations envisioned a united Arab nation called the pan-Arab state, and in the late 1950s, just a few years after the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, Egypt and Syria began talks to unite into a single sovereign nation.
One of the major motivations for the merger was to protect both nations from a communist takeover.
Nasser’s terms for unification were seen as unfair to the Syrians, but they felt they had no choice and decided in 1958 to merge with Egypt to become the United Arab Republic.
Instead of federation of two Arab peoples, as many Syrians had imagined, the UAR turned into a state completely dominated by Egyptians.
Nasser quickly reduced Syrian political representation in the government, cracked down on communists, and consolidated his power over the Republic.
Soon, Syrian business and army circles became disaffected with Nasser, which resulted in the Syrian coup of September 28, 1961, and the end of the UAR.

Key Terms

Pan-Arabism: An ideology espousing the unification of the countries of North Africa and West Asia from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea, referred to as the Arab world. It is closely connected to Arab nationalism, which asserts that the Arabs constitute a single nation. Its popularity was at its height during the 1950s and 1960s. Advocates of pan-Arabism have often espoused socialist principles and strongly opposed Western political involvement in the Arab world. It also sought to empower Arab states from outside forces by forming alliances and to a lesser extent, economic cooperation.
Syrian Crisis of 1957: A period of severe diplomatic confrontations during the Cold War that involved Syria and the Soviet Union on one hand and the United States and its allies, including Turkey and the Baghdad Pact, on the other. The tensions began on August 18 when the Syrian government presided by Shukri al-Quwatli made a series of provocative institutional changes, such as the appointment of Col. Afif al-Bizri as chief-of-staff of the Syrian Army, alleged by Western governments to be a Soviet sympathizer.
Afif al-Bizri: A Syrian career military officer who served as the chief of staff of the Syrian Army between 1957–1959. He was known for his communist sympathies and for spearheading the union movement between Syria and Egypt in 1958.

The United Arab Republic (UAR) was a short-lived political union between Egypt and Syria. The union began in 1958 and existed until 1961, when Syria seceded from the union after its 1961 coup d’état. Egypt was known officially as the “United Arab Republic” until 1971. The president was Gamal Abdel Nasser. It was a member of the United Arab States, a loose confederation with North Yemen which in 1961 dissolved along with the Republic.

Establishment of the UAR

Established on February 1, 1958, as a first step towards a larger pan-Arab state, the UAR was created when a group of political and military leaders in Syria proposed a merger of the two states to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Pan-Arabism was very strong in Syria, and Nasser was a popular hero-figure throughout the Arab world following the Suez War of 1956. There was thus considerable popular support in Syria for union with Nasser’s Egypt. The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party was the leading advocate of such a union.

In mid-1957 western powers began to worry that Syria was close to a communist takeover; it had a highly organized communist party and the newly appointed army’s chief of staff, Afif al-Bizri, was a communist sympathizer. This caused the Syrian Crisis of 1957 after which Syrians intensified their efforts to unite with Egypt. Nasser told a Syrian delegation, including President Shukri al-Quwatli and Prime Minister Khaled al-Azem, that they needed to rid their government of communists, but the delegation countered and warned him that only total union with Egypt would end the “communist threat.” According to Abdel Latif Boghdadi, Nasser initially resisted a total union with Syria, favoring instead a federal union. However, Nasser was “more afraid of a Communist takeover” and agreed on a total merger.

Nasser’s final terms for the union were decisive and non-negotiable: “a plebiscite, the dissolution of parties, and the withdrawal of the army from politics.” While the plebiscite seemed reasonable to most Syrian elites, the latter two conditions were extremely worrisome. They believed it would destroy political life in Syria. Despite these concerns, the Syrian officials knew it was too late to turn back. They believed that Nasser’s terms were unfair, but given the intense pressure that their government was under, they believed they had no other choice.

Egyptian and Syrian leaders signed the protocols, although Azem did so reluctantly. Nasser became the republic’s president and soon carried out a crackdown against the Syrian Communists and opponents of the union, which included dismissing Bizri and Azem from their posts.

Nasser with Syrian Delegation

Nasser shaking hands with al-Bizri. Afif al-Bizri, the Syrian army’s chief of staff, spearheaded the union with Egypt.

Photo of Nasser shaking hands with al-Bizri surrounded by a Syrian delegation.

Nasser Consolidates Power

Advocates of the union believed Nasser would use the Ba’ath Party to rule Syria. Unfortunately for the Ba’athists, it was never Nasser’s intention to share an equal measure of power. Instead, heestablished a new provisional constitution proclaiming a 600-member National Assembly with 400 members from Egypt and 200 from Syria, as well as the disbanding of all political parties including the Ba’ath. Nasser gave each of the provinces two vice presidents, assigning Boghdadi and Abdel Hakim Amer to Egypt and Sabri al-Assali and Akram El-Hourani—a leader of the Ba’ath—to Syria. The new constitution of 1958 was adopted.

Though Nasser allowed former Ba’ath Party members to hold prominent political positions, they never reached positions as high ias did the Egyptian officials. During the winter and the spring of 1959–60, Nasser slowly squeezed prominent Syrians out of positions of influence.

In Syria, opposition to union with Egypt mounted. Syrian Army officers resented being subordinate to Egyptian officers, and Syrian Bedouin tribes received money from Saudi Arabia to prevent them from becoming loyal to Nasser. Also, Egyptian-style land reform was resented for damaging Syrian agriculture, the communists began to gain influence, and the intellectuals of the Ba’ath Party who supported the union rejected the one-party system.

Instead of federation of two Arab peoples, as many Syrians had imagined, the UAR turned into a state completely dominated by Egyptians. Syrian political life was also diminished as Nasser demanded for all political parties in Syria to be dismantled. In the process, the strongly centralized Egyptian state imposed Nasser’s socialistic political and economical system on weaker Syria, creating backlash from the Syrian business and army circles. This resulted in the Syrian coup of September 28, 1961, and the subsequent end of the UAR.

33.5.5: Sadat and Cold War Influences

The presidency of Anwar Sadat saw many changes in Egyptian politics and policy: breaking with Soviet Union to make Egypt an ally of the United States, initiating the peace process with Israel, reinstituting the multi-party system, and abandoning socialism by launching the Infitah economic policy.

Learning Objective

Discuss the ways in which the Cold War affected Sadat’s time in power

Key Points

In 1970 President Nasser died and was succeeded by Anwar Sadat, another officer in the “Free Officers” movement that instigated the 1952 Revolution.
Sadat switched Egypt’s Cold War allegiance from the Soviet Union to the United States, expelling Soviet advisors in 1972.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched the October War, a surprise attack against the Israeli forces occupying the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights, in an attempt to regain part of the Sinai territory that Israel had captured six years earlier.
The conflict sparked an international crisis between the U.S. and the USSR, both of whom intervened, and while the war ended with a military stalemate, it presented Sadat with a political victory that later allowed him to regain the Sinai in return for peace with Israel.
Sadat made a historic visit to Israel in 1977, which led to the 1979 peace treaty in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from Sinai.
Sadat launched the Infitah economic reform policy, creating a “open door” for foreign investment while clamping down on religious and secular opposition.
On October 6, 1981, Sadat and six diplomats were assassinated while observing a military parade commemorating the eighth anniversary of the October 1973 War.

Key Terms

Anwar Sadat: The third President of Egypt, serving from October 15, 1970 until his assassination by fundamentalist army officers on October 6, 1981. He was a senior member of the Free Officers who overthrew King Farouk in the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, and a close confidant of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, under whom he served as Vice President twice and whom he succeeded as President in 1970.
infitah: Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s economic policy of “opening the door” to private investment in Egypt in the years following the 1973 October War (Yom Kippur War) with Israel. It was accompanied by a break with longtime ally and aid-giver the USSR — replaced by the United States — and by a peace process with Israel symbolized by Sadat’s dramatic flight to Jerusalem in 1977.
détente: The term is often used in reference to the general easing of the geopolitical tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States which began in 1969 as a foreign policy of U.S. presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford; a “thawing out” or “un-freezing” at a period roughly in the middle of the Cold War.

Overview

The Sadat era in Egypt refers to the presidency of Anwar Sadat, the 11-year period of Egyptian history spanning from the death of president Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1970 through Sadat’s assassination by fundamentalist army officers on October 6, 1981. Sadat’s presidency saw many changes in Egypt’s direction, reversing some of the economic and political principles of Nasserism by breaking with Soviet Union to make Egypt an ally of the United States, initiating the peace process with Israel, reinstituting the multi-party system, and abandoning socialism by launching the Infitah economic policy.

The October War of 1973 a began when the coalition launched a joint surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism, which occurred that year during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Egyptian and Syrian forces crossed ceasefire lines to enter the Israeli-held Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights respectively. After Israel lost the defensive war, Egypt and Israel came together for negotiations with Israel, culminating in the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in which Israel traded the Sinai to Egypt for peace. This led to Egypt’s estrangement from most other Arab countries and Sadat’s assassination several years later.

Muhammad Anwar al-Sadat

Muhammad Anwar el-Sadat was the third President of Egypt, serving from October 15, 1970, until his assassination by fundamentalist army officers on October 6, 1981.

Photo of Anwar Sadat, third President of Egypt

Early Years

After Nasser’s death, another of the original revolutionary “free officers,” Vice President Anwar el-Sadat, was elected President of Egypt. Nasser’s supporters in government settled on Sadat as a transitional figure who they believed could be manipulated easily. However, Sadat had a long term in office and many changes in mind for Egypt, and by astute political moves was able to institute a “corrective revolution,” (announced on May 15, 1971) which purged the government, political, and security establishments of the most ardent Nasserists. Sadat encouraged the emergence of an Islamist movement which had been suppressed by Nasser. Believing Islamists to be socially conservative, he gave them “considerable cultural and ideological autonomy” in exchange for political support.

Following the disastrous Six-Day War of 1967, Egypt waged a War of Attrition in the Suez Canal zone. In 1971, Sadat endorsed in a letter the peace proposals of UN negotiator Gunnar Jarring, which seemed to lead to a full peace with Israel on the basis of Israel’s withdrawal to its prewar borders. This peace initiative failed as neither Israel nor the U.S. accepted the terms as discussed.

To provide Israel with more incentive to negotiate with Egypt and return the Sinai, and because the Soviets had refused Sadat’s requests for more military support, Sadat expelled the Soviet military advisers from Egypt and proceeded to bolster his army for a renewed confrontation with Israel.

1973 October War (Yom Kippur War)

In 1971, Sadat concluded a treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union, but a year later ordered Soviet advisers to leave. Soviets were engaged in détente with the United States and discouraged Egypt from attacking Israel. Despite this discouragement, rumors of imminent Soviet intervention on the Egyptians’ behalf during the 1973 Yom Kippur War brought about a massive American mobilization that threatened to wreck détente. Sadat favored another war with Israel in hopes of regaining the Sinai peninsula and reviving a country demoralized from the 1967 war. He hoped that at least a limited victory over the Israelis would alter the status quo. In the months before the war, Sadat engaged in a diplomatic offensive and by the fall of 1973 had support for a war of more than a hundred states, including most of the countries of the Arab League, Non-Aligned Movement, and Organization of African Unity. Syria agreed to join Egypt in attacking Israel.

Egypt’s armed forces achieved initial success in the crossing and advanced 15 km, reaching the depth of the range of safe coverage of its own air force. Having defeated the Israeli forces to this extent, Egyptian forces, rather than advancing under air cover, decided to immediately penetrate further into the Sinai desert. In spite of huge losses they kept advancing, creating the chance to open a gap between army forces. That gap was exploited by a tank division led by Ariel Sharon, and he managed to penetrate onto Egyptian soil, reaching Suez city. In the meantime, the United States initiated a strategic airlift to provide replacement weapons and supplies to Israel and appropriate $2.2 billion in emergency aid. OPEC oil ministers led by Saudi Arabia retaliated with an oil embargo against the U.S. A UN resolution supported by the United States and the Soviet Union called for an end to hostilities and for peace talks to begin. On March 5, 1974 Israel withdrew the last of its troops from the west side of the Suez Canal, and 12 days later Arab oil ministers announced the end of the embargo against the United States. For Sadat and many Egyptians the war was seen as a victory, as the initial Egyptian successes restored Egyptian pride and led to peace talks with the Israelis that eventually allowed Egypt to regain the entire Sinai peninsula in exchange for a peace agreement.

Relations with United States

In foreign relations Sadat instigated momentous change, shifting Egypt from a policy of confrontation with Israel to one of peaceful accommodation through negotiations. Following the Sinai Disengagement Agreements of 1974 and 1975, Sadat created a fresh opening for progress by his dramatic visit to Jerusalem in November 1977. This led to an invitation from President Jimmy Carter of the United States to President Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Begin to enter trilateral negotiations at Camp David.

The outcome was the historic Camp David accords, signed by Egypt and Israel and witnessed by the U.S. on September 17, 1978. The accords led to the March 26, 1979, signing of the Egypt–Israel Peace Treaty, by which Egypt regained control of the Sinai in May 1982. Throughout this period, U.S.–Egyptian relations steadily improved, and Egypt became one of America’s largest recipients of foreign aid. Sadat’s willingness to break ranks by making peace with Israel earned him the enmity of most other Arab states, however. In 1977, Egypt fought a short border war with Libya.

Reforms Under Sadat

Sadat used his immense popularity with the Egyptian people to try to push through vast economic reforms that ended the socialistic controls of Nasserism. Sadat introduced greater political freedom and a new economic policy, the most important aspect of which was the Infitah or “open door.” This relaxed government controls over the economy and encouraged private investment. While the reforms created a wealthy and successful upper class and a small middle class, they had little effect upon the average Egyptian who began to grow dissatisfied with Sadat’s rule. In 1977, Infitah policies led to massive spontaneous riots (‘Bread Riots’) involving hundreds of thousands of Egyptians when the state announced that it was retiring subsidies on basic foodstuffs.

Liberalization also included the reinstitution of due process and the legal banning of torture. Sadat dismantled much of the existing political machine and brought to trial a number of former government officials accused of criminal excesses during the Nasser era. Sadat tried to expand participation in the political process in the mid-1970s but later abandoned this effort. In the last years of his life, Egypt was wracked by violence arising from discontent with Sadat’s rule and sectarian tensions and experienced a renewed measure of repression including extra judicial arrests.