Dear BERMUN2 Participants,

Decolonization. The word is thrown around constantly, yet its meaning remains frustratingly unclear. Decolonize what, exactly? Does decolonization mean erasing every remnant of colonial influence: the borders, the languages, the institutions? Or does it mean something more fundamental: real sovereignty and the right for nations to make choices free from external coercion? And if we truly live in a “post-colonial” era, why do these questions remain unsolved?

One response to discussions of decolonization is to treat the legacy of colonialism as an all-encompassing explanation for the challenges that persist after independence. In discussions about development in Africa, for example, issues with corruption, weak institutions, and economic instability are often attributed to colonial history. But what many fail to understand is that post-independence states do exercise agency, a concept discussed by Professor Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò in his book, A̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ Decolonization: Taking African Agency Seriously.  They have formed governments, they have negotiated treaties, and they have made domestic and foreign policy decisions within the international system.

When leaders and governments make infrastructure deals that lead to long-term debt, or when resource extraction continues to benefit foreign corporations, not local communities, are these outcomes due to neocolonial powers or ex-colonial leaders? The Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, sits on the world's largest cobalt reserves, yet its eastern regions remain riddled with conflict while profits flow outward. To what extent, then, should the responsibility lie with post-independence leadership? When does colonial history explain present conditions? When does it become a convenient scapegoat?

Yet a focus on agency alone risks missing something crucial. Independence in the 1950s and 60s arrived alongside weak institutions, arbitrary borders, and economies designed for extraction. In many cases, financial arrangements and trade relationships established during the colonial period persisted, continuing to channel wealth outward even after formal political control ended. 

These vulnerabilities were further compounded during the Cold War, when foreign intervention frequently violated the sovereignty of newly independent states. In Guatemala, the CIA orchestrated a coup to protect foreign corporate interests threatened by President Jacobo Arbenz’s land reforms. In Indonesia, Western intelligence and political support contributed to the consolidation of military power following the 1965 upheaval, resulting in mass killings of civilians. Political domination did not vanish with decolonization but rather re-emerged in indirect forms that influenced post-independent leadership, as evidenced by Guatemala and Indonesia.

Most recently, neocolonial dynamics have been said to emerge with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has been presented as the future of South-South cooperation. However, these projects generate new forms of dependence, including debt burdens and foreign control over strategic assets. This economic subordination raises questions about what liberation from colonial influence means.

What is decolonization really? If colonial structures have adapted rather than disappeared, acknowledging this does not negate the agency of post-independence leadership, but neither does emphasizing agency erase colonial legacies. Does it require dismantling institutions simply because of their origins, or does it mean removing the economic and political barriers that continue to limit the choices available for post-colonial states? Moving forward, should the question not only be whether to decolonize, but what decolonization entails?