Since 1945, there has been a continual increase in the number of 
independent countries in the world, most have taken seats in the General 
Assembly of the United Nations.

From the point of view of the former imperial countries (Great Britain, France, 
Spain, Portugal, etc.), decolonization was a necessary evil, forced upon them 
as a result of economic difficulties--France in no way wanted to abandon colonies 
in Indochina in the early 1950s and North Africa in the late 1950s but did so 
only when faced with no other choice--and the resistance of the colonized peoples, 
who used the rhetoric of the imperial powers (human rights 
and self-determination) to justify their demands for independence.  This made 
the maintenance of empire an even more costly phenomenon.

In any case, the issue of independence was clouded by the competition for influence 
in the world that was part of the Cold war, which was often viewed in 
zero sum terms; "our" gain was "their" loss.  If "we" influence a country, put 
it in our column, but if they get control, take it from "our" column and 
put it in "theirs."  

The earliest effort to challenge this win-lose schematic was the 
Non-Aligned Movement in the 1950s which aimed at preventing countries 
from becoming pawns in the Cold War and thus, in essence, retaining, their 
dependent status, but now on the two superpowers.  BTW, "dependency" has become an "in" concept.

Finally, as countries became independent, what was often not realized 
was the fact that independence was easier said than done.  Political 
independence did not necessarily mean being independent, as economic/cultural 
dependence could continue, at a far more virulent level.