Quick questions on Decolonisation and the roots of regional conflict explained: H2 History

The states of Southeast Asia emerged from colonial rule in the years after the Second World War into a region structurally prone to conflict. They were new, fragile and often hostile to one another, their borders were contested, their societies were divided, and they came into being just as the global Cold War was settling over Asia. Understanding the roots of regional conflict means seeing how these conditions combined: the region did not simply inherit peace and then lose it, but was born into circumstances that made both internal upheaval and interstate friction likely. The analytical task is to disentangle which of these roots were most fundamental.

The first and deepest root was decolonisation itself. The new states inherited borders drawn by colonial powers for their own convenience, which frequently did not match the distribution of peoples and which left disputes over frontiers and territory. They inherited mixed populations divided along ethnic, religious and regional lines, the plural societies that made internal cohesion so hard. And they inherited weak institutions, so that the new governments often lacked the administrative reach and legitimacy to control their territories fully or to manage disputes peacefully.

A second root was the clash of nationalisms. The same nationalist energy that had won independence could turn outward against neighbours. New states asserted claims to disputed territories, championed co-ethnic populations across borders, and competed for leadership and prestige within the region. Where colonial borders had divided peoples or bundled them together arbitrarily, rival nationalisms could press conflicting claims to the same land or peoples.

The third root was the Cold War, which descended on Southeast Asia as the new states were finding their feet. The region became an arena of superpower rivalry, in which the United States, the Soviet Union and communist China competed for influence. This had powerful effects. It poured arms, money and military support into the region, raising the firepower available to governments and insurgents alike.

It is important to see that the roots of conflict produced both interstate friction and internal upheaval. Internally, the fragility of the new states and their plural societies bred communist and other insurgencies, separatist revolts and communal violence, as discussed in the nation-building topic. The Cold War sharpened these internal conflicts by arming and funding the sides and by giving them ideological significance. Externally, contested borders and clashing nationalisms produced disputes and confrontations between states.

The strongest judgement distinguishes root cause from aggravating factor. The fundamental roots of regional conflict lay in decolonisation and the region's own fragilities: contested borders, divided societies, weak states and competing nationalisms would have generated disputes even in the absence of the Cold War. The Cold War was an enormously important aggravating and amplifying force, internationalising local conflicts, raising their firepower and stakes, and prolonging them, and in some cases it was the decisive factor drawing great powers directly in. But it generally worked upon conflicts whose origins lay in the regional situation.

Identify two features of decolonisation that made regional conflict likely. [4 marks]

Explain how the Cold War amplified conflict in Southeast Asia. [12 marks]

"Decolonisation, not the Cold War, was the fundamental cause of conflict in Southeast Asia." How far do you agree? [20 marks]