The U.S. sought to stockpile basing rights before decolonization made islands unavailable

Evidence

With the decolonization process unfolding rapidly, Barber argued that if the United States wanted to protect its “future freedom of military action,” government officials would have to act fast to “stockpile” basing rights, grabbing as many islands as possible as quickly as possible to retain territorial sovereignty in perpetuity. Just as a sensible investor would “stockpile any material commodity which foreseeably will become unavailable in the future,” Barber said, the United States had to find small, little-noticed colonial islands around the world and either buy them outright or ensure that Western allies maintained sovereignty over them. Otherwise the islands could be lost to decolonization forever. Once officials secured the islands, the military could then prepare them for base construction whenever future needs required. — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 169

Categorization

  • XREF: The investor-stockpiling logic parallels the earlier discussion of strategic hoarding of resources in imperial planning models. — connects to: US support for decolonization served its own imperial aims — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 207; U.S. planners feared decolonization would force withdrawal of overseas bases; Postwar decolonization forced the military to maintain colonies under new guises via bases (+2 more)
  • SHARE: The explicit framing of basing rights as a commodity to be stockpiled like materials is a striking framing for someone studying colonial basing economics.
  • corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 169

Broader Connections