Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-03-31
BY RUPERT EMERSON

In terms both of the American
tradition and of the views held by
. most Americans today, the answer
to the question Should the United
States oppose colonialism?" is as
obvious as the answer to that trite
old question: Are you against sin?
1t is only after a ready and re-
sounding answer Of Eyes" has been
given to both questions that the
troubles really start. The main line
of anticolonialism is easy to state
and has been laid down by count
less official and unofficial American
spokesman, but doubts and second
thoughts begin to emerge when the
United States has to make decisions
in particular cases. such as French
North Africa or Cyprus. Suez or
West New Guinea.
The particular cases have an I'M
happy way of becoming entangled
with all kinds of extraneous issues
and of not being nearly as clear
cut as the general principles which
are supposed to apply to them. And.
indeed, some Americans, in the light
OF present circumstances and de-
velopmentS. are beginning to doubt
whether the equating of colonialism
with sin is as sound proposition
across the board as it seemed only
q short time ago.
On the other side of the fence,
there are many in Asia and Africa
who are beginning to have grave
doubts that the United States is
prepared to live up to its anti
colonial principles when it is faced
with the necessity of doing some
thing concrete about them.
From q Simpler boy
The standard American position
regarding colonialism, shaped at a
time when issues were far less con-
troversial than they are now, was
derived from q number of familiar
sources. First place among them
surely goes to the revolutionary re-
lection by the American republic
of its own colonial origins. To
that prime source of anticolonialism
must be added American sympathy
for the underdog, for democracy
and for freedom in the large.
The ironic twist which has de-
veloped since the end of World War
II is that while great upsurge Of
anticolonialism has swept the rest
of the world, the United States has
tended to shy away from the prac-
tical consequences of its own ira
ditional anticolonial beliefs. We
have changed and SO has the world
In which we live.
For the United States. the heart
of the matter is that as it has grown
In power and fortune it has in
evitably moved toward increasingly
conservative attitudes.
In earlier days the United States
could see its own strength and pres
tige enhanced. or at least not en-
dangered, by overturns elsewhere
which weakened the fabric of the
European empires. Now it is likely
to view movements of revolution
and independence with a wary eye
for fear that they may further
weaken its friends and play into the
hands of its threatening Communist
rivals, although it is at the same
time uneasily aware that its hesi-
tations undermine its standing
with the uncommitted and antico-
lonial peoples.
From another angle what has
happened is that the attack on Colo
nialism has taken on totally new
dimensions in the past decade or
two.
What was the utopian dream
of Missionaries before 1914 and. in
the interwar decades. the work Of
fighting revolutionaries, has since
1945 become the accomplished fact
of freedom for hundreds of millions
of people-from India to Indonesia,
from Ceylon to the Gold Coast
with more millions fiocking to join
them year by year. One of the sig
nificant effects for the United States