Lecture 9 Flashcards
Westphalian sovereignty
Westphalian sovereignty: the right to determine policy within the state.
Obviously, all of these theoretical ideas about sovereignty are challenged by the impact of World War One and World War Two. What do we do with the components of empires that have been defeated or weakened.
From feedback
Westphalian sovereignty is a theory of sovereignty comprising the view that each state has exclusive sovereignty (control) over its territory. The first stage of its development can be traced to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which established the idea that rulers could establish rules around religion in their territory free of interference from other states. Westphalian sovereignty is the building block of sovereignty in the modern state system.
Implications?? LOTS!!
Unequally applied – Western states deemed to have Westphalian sovereignty but non-western entities not allowed non-interference. Westphalian sovereignty used as ‘standard of civilization’ to justify intervention
The UN Charter’s fundamental principles rely on this view of state sovereignty, particularly non-intervention.
Post 1945, the principles of territorial integrity and non-interference were actually seized upon by newly decolonized states – because it allowed independence from colonial powers. This in turn created a tension: when does non-interference become a moral harm? (Responsibility to Protect)
The gradual extension of this principle around the world is key to understanding the shift between the world of empires and the world of sovereign states; the engine of the change post war is national self-determination.
Aswan Dam
The Suez Canal was built in the mid-nineteenth century, opening in 1869. France and Egypt paid for the work and initially administered the canal; however, financial problems meant that Egypt sold its shares in the canals operating company to Britain. Britain became 44% shareholders, with France holding the rest. From 1888 onwards the canal was a neutral zone under British protection. After WWII, Britain had 80,000 troops garrisoned at a base in Suez (they leased the base in a 1936 deal with Egypt). Agitation to remove this garrison was already happening by 1945.
In 1945 Nasser nationalized the canal, hoping to use the profits to pay for the Aswan Dam. Britain and France had a lot at stake: Britain and its control over both the north and south entries to the canal, and France because civil war in Algeria was kicking off. All of this is also happening at the same time as the Hungarian Revolution.
The British and French response was coloured by a lot of things:
- Anthony Eden, British PM, was using amphetamines extensively with some erratic behaviour noticed
- Lots of analogies at work: Nasser as Hitler/Mussolini, Nasser’s writing as Mein Kampf
- British and French prevaricate but after a considerable time (nationalization in July, action in late October 1956) cook up a plan with Israel. Israel would invade and France and Britain would provide a ‘ceasefire’. This was old-style imperialism at its best: cook up a military incident and then react. It did however lead to the first peacekeeping mission (brainchild of Canadian PM Lester B Pearson) and this was the resolution to the crisis: ceasefire upheld by UN troops. (Note here the origins of peacekeeping were quite literal: standing between two groups to keep the peace – quite different later on; also note that the mechanism used here was the Uniting for Peace resolution, created during the KW with the idea that the GA might need to work around a deadlocked SC. Creation led by the US – but used against Br and Fr – and established the UN Emergency Force).
The US was furious, having advised Britain to stay out. The invasion is a military success but a PR disaster, both externally (see the US) and internally (large protests in Britain). The USSR threatened nuclear retaliation. The Americans exerted considerable economic pressure/ The upshot was the peacekeeping force, withdrawal of Br and Fr troops. Israel got some objectives, including freedom of navigation in the Straits of Tiran, which Egypt had blocked. The states of the non-aligned movement, which had its seeds at Bandung, were now more thoroughly committed to change. (there were 120 members in the GA). They are able to draft the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (UNGA Resolution 1514, 1960). This is a major milestone in the creation of the UN as a central force in decolonization.
From feedback
Should include: Nasser wanted to build a dam at Aswan to encourage greater development in Egypt.
Initial funding efforts fail so he nationalizes the Suez Canal, previously under British protection as a neutral zone but financially under the control of Br/Fr.
Br and Fr have very important strategic reasons to wish to stay involved: Br access to its (increasingly dwindling) number of colonies in Asia as well as the rest of its Middle Eastern interests; France because of the impact on its colonies in North Africa. The nationalization of the canal is thus a major provocation that leads to the Suez Crisis.
Brief explanation of the Suez Crisis – Br/Fr/Israeli plan for invasion, lack of US support, Soviets pressure for withdrawal.
Implications: major moment for multiple shifts in the world order.
Increasingly robust actions by former colonies against colonizers – Nasser’s act was bold and very effective.
Death knell for Br and Fr world ambitions – abandonment by the US very important
Unusual CW crisis in that the superpowers don’t have much to do with it (unlike future crises where they get heavily involved on both sides – in this case it’s probably because the US stayed out – remember that in 1956 Eisenhower is president and has a more limited view of containment).
Group of 77
From feedback
Group of 77: coalition of developing states founded in 1964 by 77 states who were ‘non-aligned’. Gradually extended and now has 134 members.
Implications:
Demonstrated that new states were keen to avoid ideological interference post-independence
Worked through the General Assembly and outside the UN system to achieve political change without superpower interference: strong positions on apartheid and disarmament
Shows the ability of small powers to cooperate and leverage against big powers
Demonstrates shift in power to the newly decolonized states through the 1960s and 1970s – activist; not just receiving independence but demonstrating political autonomy
Bandung Conference
The Bandung Conference, convened by Indonesia and organized by Indonesia, Burma, India, Ceylon and Pakistan in April 1955, is a first step to deal with problems about whether or not the Cold War actually becomes a new form of empire and the USSR and the United states extension of influence throughout the world, in many areas which shifted almost immediately from imperial to superpower relations. This was not lost on newly independent states, and contributed to the rise of the non-aligned movement.
Participants were a mixed group of the vehemently anti-colonial and states closely allied with the West and imperial powers.
The Conference sought to discuss how peace could be found (remembering here the proximity to the Korean War); but also about how to manage decolonization and increase economic development. The Conference was critical of the Soviet Union as well as Western colonial powers. The US had to strike a very careful balance between supporting participant states (to encourage them to be anti-communist) without annoying their European allies. Bandung passed a series of principles.
The Bandung ‘Ten Principles’ – Dasasila
Respect for the right of each nation to defend itself, singly or collectively, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
(a) Abstention from the use of arrangement of collective defence to serve any particular interests of the big powers
(b) Abstention by any country from exerting pressures on other countries
Refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any country.
Settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement as well as other peaceful means of the parties own choice, in conformity with the charter of the United Nations
Promotion of mutual interests and cooperation
Respect for justice and international obligations
Trusteeship Council
In the immediate post-war period it was hard for many states in the imperial world not to see ways in which imperialism was continuing in a slightly different form.
The UN established a Trusteeship system (along the lines of the LN Mandate System).
It is also difficult to look at this era without considering whether or not the Cold War actually becomes a new form of empire. The USSR and the United states clearly extend their influence throughout the world, in many areas which shifted almost immediately from imperial to superpower relations. This was not lost on newly independent states, and contributed to the rise of the non-aligned movement. But it’s an interesting question: empire implies direct control and administration, and while this may not have occurred, there is significant superpower meddling.
