A“Segregated”Asia::845 West and Asia,with the Americans carrying the banner for Western and white imperialism. In their quest for influence on the Asian scene,the United States was ham- pered,in a second feature of continuity from its wartime experience,by ties with the European colonial powers.During the Iosos,Washington often saw its anticolonial credentials undermined by the support it felt compelled to offer European-controlled areas faced with Communist threats and pressures,while the PRC lost little opportunity to push home such double standards in their own search for influence among Asian nationalist movements.6 It was widely recognized that the United States faced a demanding challenge if it wanted to convince Asian nationalist leaders of its good intentions.In May 1951,one of the important National Security Council (NSC)48 series of policy papers on the area warned that Asian resentment tended to be directed at talk of Western- style democracy,when this had so often in the past been associated with colonial oppression and white privilege:"The United States faces a formidable political and propaganda task in establishing relations with Asia on a basis of mutual confidence and common interest,and in influencing the intense nation- alism to take a direction harmonious with the interests of the Free World."7 For Americans,alignment with"the West"as a distinct entity could not be easily avoided,and this dilemma was raised in its most volatile form when it came to the issue of race,where the U.S.domestic record was a serious handicap.For Asian societies emerging from colonial rule,racial discrimination had been an intrinsic component of Western imperial domination,and the area continued to be acutely sensitive as new governments sought recognition and equality of status and treatment by the major powers.At a press conference in Cairo in June 1953,Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took the opportunity to remind his audience that "the strongest urge still in Asia and Africa is basically the nationalist urge against foreign domination.But together with that I may associate of course the urge against racial domination."9 Following her trip to India in 1954,Eleanor Roosevelt reported that"we have against us their feeling that we,because our skins are white,necessarily look down upon all peoples whose skins are yellow or black or brown.This thought is never out of their minds [and]they always asked me pointedly...about our treatment of minori- ties in our country."To many Asian observers,American talk of leadership of 16.See,for example,the essays in David Ryan and Victor Pungong,eds.,The United States and Decolonization:Power and Freedom (London,2000). 17.NSC 48/5,"U.S.Objectives,Policies and Courses of Action in Asia,"17 May 1951, Foreign Relations of the United States (hereafter FRUS),1951(Washington,DC,1977),pt.1, 6:44 18.See,for example,Philip Mason,Patterns of Dominance (London,1971),33-38;Hugh Tinker,Race,Conflict and the International Order:From Empire to United Nations (London,1977), 17-22. 19.Nehru statement,25 June 1953,Ravinder Kumar and H.Y.Sharada Prasad,eds., Selected Works of Jawabarlal Nebru,2d series,vol.22 (New Delhi,1998),82. 20.Eleanor Roosevelt,India and the Awakening East (London,1954),91.West and Asia, with the Americans carrying the banner for Western and white imperialism. In their quest for influence on the Asian scene, the United States was ham￾pered, in a second feature of continuity from its wartime experience, by ties with the European colonial powers. During the 1950s, Washington often saw its anticolonial credentials undermined by the support it felt compelled to offer European-controlled areas faced with Communist threats and pressures, while the PRC lost little opportunity to push home such double standards in their own search for influence among Asian nationalist movements.16 It was widely recognized that the United States faced a demanding challenge if it wanted to convince Asian nationalist leaders of its good intentions. In May 1951, one of the important National Security Council (NSC) 48 series of policy papers on the area warned that Asian resentment tended to be directed at talk of Western￾style democracy, when this had so often in the past been associated with colonial oppression and white privilege: “The United States faces a formidable political and propaganda task in establishing relations with Asia on a basis of mutual confidence and common interest, and in influencing the intense nation￾alism to take a direction harmonious with the interests of the Free World.”17 For Americans, alignment with “the West” as a distinct entity could not be easily avoided, and this dilemma was raised in its most volatile form when it came to the issue of race, where the U.S. domestic record was a serious handicap. For Asian societies emerging from colonial rule, racial discrimination had been an intrinsic component of Western imperial domination, and the area continued to be acutely sensitive as new governments sought recognition and equality of status and treatment by the major powers.18 At a press conference in Cairo in June 1953, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took the opportunity to remind his audience that “the strongest urge still in Asia and Africa is basically the nationalist urge against foreign domination. But together with that I may associate of course the urge against racial domination.”19 Following her trip to India in 1954, Eleanor Roosevelt reported that “we have against us their feeling that we, because our skins are white, necessarily look down upon all peoples whose skins are yellow or black or brown. This thought is never out of their minds [and] they always asked me pointedly . . . about our treatment of minori￾ties in our country.”20 To many Asian observers, American talk of leadership of A “Segregated” Asia? : 845 16. See, for example, the essays in David Ryan and Victor Pungong, eds., The United States and Decolonization: Power and Freedom (London, 2000). 17. NSC 48/5, “U.S. Objectives, Policies and Courses of Action in Asia,” 17 May 1951, Foreign Relations of the United States (hereafter FRUS), 1951 (Washington, DC, 1977), pt. 1, 6:44. 18. See, for example, Philip Mason, Patterns of Dominance (London, 1971), 33–38; Hugh Tinker, Race, Conflict and the International Order: From Empire to United Nations (London, 1977), 17–22. 19. Nehru statement, 25 June 1953, Ravinder Kumar and H. Y. Sharada Prasad, eds., Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, 2d series, vol. 22 (New Delhi, 1998), 82. 20. Eleanor Roosevelt, India and the Awakening East (London, 1954), 91