Theme 3: Internationalism Flashcards
Did the first world war bring about the end of empire?
Burbank and Cooper argue that the decades immediately following the First World War saw imperial continuity. It took another world war to threaten colonial structures.
^ only those on the losers’ side of the conflict faced colonial unravelling
How, according to Manela, did the Paris peace conference change the international model of statehood?
Erez Manela - Paris peace conference ‘launched the transformation of (…) standards of international relations that established the self-determining nation-state as the only legitimate political form throughout the globe’
^ the aftermath of this conference did not see a tidal wave of decolonisation, however. In parts of the world subject to colonialism, imperial subjects erupted into violence at the refusal of their self-determination
How had WW1 changed colonial citizens’ expectations?
British Empire - plans for giving greater autonomy to the colonies were considered, along with ideas of methods for common decision-making. In the British West Indies, for example, wartime experience led to more fervent claims of rights and fair treatment
French empire - in Algeria and French West Africa, political activists increasingly claimed rights as French citizens
Changes to the composition of empires in the aftermath of WW1
-Japan was able to acquire new lands at China’s expense
- the British and French took over Germany colonies in Africa, the Pacific and the Middle East
- Germany lost its overseas colonies and territories in Europe
- Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire crumbled (the victors of the war carved up the old Ottoman territory - e.g. Sykes-Picot agreement, Balfour Declaration)
How had empire played a role in WW1?
The fact that Britain and France were able to utilise their imperial resources more efficiently than Germany was a key factor in their victory (e.g. use of Indian troops in France and Mesopotamia, use of Africans in the Carrier Corps of Great Britain)
^ colonial troops were generally loyal to their empires, creating the myth that the colonial population believed in the imperial cause (e.g. Gandhi supported Britain’s defence of its empire at the Indian National Congress)
Quote about the state of colonial rule after WW1
Jan Jansen and Jurgen Osterhammel - ‘colonial rule emerged relatively unscathed from World War 1’
Did WW1 change the attitudes of colonial powers towards their territories?
After the war, empires became more regressive - e.g. during the war, the French PM Clemenceau had suggested that Muslim Algerians could be granted rights as French citizens, but went back on his word. The British government had a similar attitude.
^ in India, the refusal of the British to grant full political participation after the war sparked fury in the Indian National Congress
New colonial brutality - e.g. aerial bombardment against rebels in British Iraq in 1920, shelling of Damascus in French Syria in 1925
What mechanism used by the UN arguably represented a new type of imperialism?
The aftermath of the war did not end imperialism - in fact, it created a new degree of imperialism through the use of the mandate (with categories A, B and C ranked by how likely a state was to earn a right to self-determination
Examples of rise of protests against colonialism
1920 - uprising in Iraq against British rule
1919 - demonstrations in India led to the Amritsar Massacre
Example of a nation that had hoped for help against an imperial power
Chinese - leaders hoped that European empires would aid China against Japan’s aggressive expansionism
- ^ Chinese delegates humiliated at the Paris peace conference - refused to sign the treaty
Case study of Japan as a rising imperial power after WW1
Japan had begun its imperial expansion after its victory over China in 1895 - gained significant territories like Taiwan, the Penghu islands and, eventually, Korea
1902 - British-Japanese alliance
1905 - Japan’s victory in the RJW catapulted its international status
1911 - the British renewed the alliance w/ Japan, but made attempts to stop Japanese encroachment into China - failed: in August 1914, Japanese troops moved into the Chinese mainland and Germany’s island colonies
1919 - Japan in a position to demand substantial rewards at Paris peace conference (e.g. gained the Pacific islands north of the equator as Class C mandates)
The end of WW1 did not end Japan’s desire for empire. In fact, its ambitions grew, culminating in the invasion and occupation of Manchuria in 1931 (and the subsequent capture of Shanghai and Nanjing during WW2)
Limits of Wilsonian principles of self-determination
Woodrow Wilson supported self-determination for white people only
^ Wilson’s Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, was concerned that his talk of self-determination created a ‘danger of putting such ideas into the minds of certain races.’
Wilson argued for a form of trusteeship, stating that it was the ‘duty’ of civilised nations to take charge of peoples who are unable to govern themselves. He did not see self-government as a right, but ‘gained, earned, graduated into from the hard school of life’
Alternative models of self-determination
Lenin had published the article, ‘The socialist revolution and the right of nations to self-determination’ in 1916, in which he argued that oppressed nations must be granted the rights they were being denied under imperial systems
The Comintern, founded in 1919, became a forum for anti-imperialism (however, at this time the Bolsheviks had reclaimed the Baltic States and Ukraine - Union of Soviet Socialist Republics formed in 1923 - at odds with their apparent ideal of self-determination)
What did the Emperor of Ethiopia bring to the attention of the LoN?
June 1936 - Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia spoke at the League of Nations to demand a restoration of the independence of his nation. Italian troops had swept into the country and effectively annexed it
^ the Italians had used poison gas (illegal according to international convention) against the Ethiopians, yet claimed to represent moral superiority and civilisation
Evidence of double standards at the Paris Peace Conference
At Paris in 1919, the victors of WW1 had recognised the sovereignty of new East European and Baltic states (but did not grant this same recognition to non-European or non-white states)
Composition of the League of Nations
The League’s most powerful founding states were empires, but as a whole it was comprised of 41 members, each of which were formally equal - the four states that claimed permanent seats on the League Council (Britain, France, Italy and Japan) were all imperial powers
The League contained Balkan, Baltic and East European States, as well as China and Siam in Asia, Persia in the Middle East, Haiti and (from 1924) the Dominican Republic in the Caribbean and Liberia and (from 1923) Ethiopia in Africa
^ (Britain considered Ethiopia to be uncivilised and initially opposed its membership)
‘Positive’ element of the Mandates system
William Ormsby-Gore suggested that inhabitants of mandates should be able to petition the League if they felt the terms of the mandate were being violated
^ e.g. news broke that South Africa had bombed a rural tribe in the South West African mandate, and the new commission was instructed to investigate the incident
Why was the composition of the Mandates Commission inherently problematic?
Most members of the commission were former colonial officials - many of them would have thought it a given that ‘backwards’ peoples needed to be ruled over by a ‘civilised’ power
^ e.g. excused France’s brutal repression of an uprising in Syria in 1925, arguing that the French were simply upholding the rule of law by force
How did the Mandates Commission become more effective?
A German voice on the PMC changed the way it operated - e.g. under pressure from Kastl, the Commission began to scrutinise economic policies and contracts in the mandated territories to ensure they met the requirements set out in international law
e.g. of PMC becoming more assertive - the ‘Closer Union’ project, in which the territory of Tanganyika was to be incorporated into a new, white-ruled Dominion in East Africa, had to be abandoned as it was reported that the plan could result in legal action at The Hague
Did the mandate system lead to independent states?
Of the 14 mandated territories, only Iraq was granted ‘independence’, and this was only possible through making substantial concessions to Britain
Arguments that the membership of the League of Nations represents an expansion of international society
Hedley Bull, Adam Watson - argued that the fact that states such as Haiti and Liberia were included as members in the league shows that the creation of the league marked an expansion of international society. Also believed the league to have been centred around the principle of equality and representation
^ this interpretation does not consider that membership in the league was hierarchical
Article 1 of the covenant - ‘any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony may become a Member of the League’. This allowed for dominions such as British India to be accepted as members, but their status as not fully autonomous was always noted (not genuine equality amongst member states)
Evidence of the mandate system as a racial hierarchy
- nations like Poland were immediately granted statehood
- many nations under Ottoman rule were seen as capable of autonomy but only under the guidance of another state
- the former German colonies in the Pacific and Africa were viewed is incapable of self-government
Criticisms of the way in which the Middle East was dealt with after the fall of the Ottoman Empire
Kais Firro - ‘the colonialist eye that drew the borders of the new Arab states of the Middle East following the First world war had little regard for the socio-economic and cultural realities pre-existing on the ground’
What is notable about the actions of the Lebanese and Hijazi delegations at the Paris Peace Conference?
they did not advocate for an alternative model, but aimed to reform international society and power structures from within (e.g. while rejecting the imposition of Mandates, they accepted the rhetoric of civilisation that was used to rationalise the Mandate system)
How do the examples of the Lebanese and Hijazi delegations show that there was an alternative model to Wilsonian self-determination?
Neither of the declarations of the Hijazi and Lebanese delegations spoke explicitly of self-determination, instead asking for recognition of their claims to independence.
This rhetoric did not derive from the ‘Wilsonian moment’ - built upon movements prior to WW1, such as the ‘first Arab congress’ of 1913 (which called for the devolution of administrative powers to the Arab provinces of the Ottoman empire)
What arguments were used by Middle Eastern states instead of Wilsonian self-determination?
1919 King-Crane Commission (an American body sent to discern the political wishes of the peoples of the Eastern Mediterranean) - the Syrian General Congress sent an appeal to this body based on arguments based in ethnic nationalism and sacrifices made its peoples during the war
^ also appealed to civilisational arguments, stating that ‘the Arabs resident in Syrian land are a people whose level of progress is no lower’ than certain European nations
^^ did NOT reject the mandate system, but rather that system’s application to Syria
This shows that nineteenth century civilisational thought was still more influential than Wilsonian idealism
What is important to note in the Hijazi delegation’s use of civilisational arguments?
the Hijazi delegation did not reject the European idea of civilisational hierarchies, but instead sought to use this idea for their benefit - e.g. requested ‘foreign technical advice and help’ but also made a point of emphasising that Syria is ‘sufficiently advanced politically to manage her own internal affairs’
What does Mazower give as an example of expanding involvement in the international community?
New technical bodies for the exchange of specialist knowledge and research were no longer confined to the Great Powers - e.g. Egypt was not even fully sovereign when it became a founding member of the International Postal Union
Tenets of belief for internationalists
- advocated for a model of diplomacy based upon transparency, not secret deals and exclusion
- believed in cooperation between nations driven by economic progress
- considered militaristic diplomacy to be irrational (cooperation, they thought, was far more beneficial for everybody)
What made the Great Powers throw their weight behind a ‘permanent peacetime world security organisation’ (LoN)?
- negative answer - the powers that were the key actors in the 1815 Concert of Europe were no longer relevant (Habsburg empire collapsed, Tsarist Russia fell into a state of revolution and civil war, Germany was defeated and humiliated) - the Concert of Europe had entrenched a hierarchy of European states with 4 ‘great powers’ (those involved in the quadruple alliance) at the top
- Wilson’s role in forming the post-war intl order was crucial - without him the Brits would never have committed to the League
- existing precedent of US involvement in intl diplomatic affairs - in 1881 Washington, D.C., became the venue of the first major diplomatic conference ever to be held outside Europe
Evidence that internationalism was an influential idea prior to Wilson
Wilson’s predecessor William Howard Taft had expressed a desire for a permanent ‘court of nations’ and had pushed for full treaties or arbitration with Canada and Britain - he failed to get these treaties ratified in the Senate (nationalist opposition of Henry Cabot Lodge)
^ reflection of the challenge Wilson would later face
Debate about models of internationalism (Roosevelt)
Roosevelt called for an international organisation to enforce the rule of law via the “international police power”
^ Roosevelt believed that law needed to be protected by force, not just empty declarations of morals - Roosevelt’s proposals were riddled with issues, both that it would force states to go to war over seemingly small issues, but was also too lax, as the court’s judgements had no sanction behind them
Debate about models of internationalism (Taft)
The vastly popular wartime lobbying group that was headed by Taft, the League to Enforce Peace, went much further: it wanted all “justiciable” disputes to be submitted to an international court by league members (and all other disputes to be submitted to a panel of arbitrators), who would sign up to fight any state that declared war before making such a submission. On the other hand, in Taft’s system, states would not be obliged to accept the rulings of international adjudication.
Wilson’s position on the Roosevelt v Taft debate
President Wilson rejected both of these proposals, arguing that the world did not need institutions and legal codes, but a global acceptance of certain values
Explain ‘Americanism’ as an influential force on Wilson
- Since the 1870s, a series of “inter-American conferences” had been taking place
- ^ led to a Pan-American Union that was initially a U.S. initiative to expand trade but became an instrument for encouraging hemispheric cooperation
- during WW1 (and in the aftermath of the Mexican Revolution) the State Department began to push for a multilateral American partnership with an eye to promoting peace in the region
- ^ Charles Elliot, the president of Harvard, supported the formation of this League, arguing that it would promote a similar model to keep the peace in Europe
Summary of Wilson’s 14 points
talked of a need for a ‘general association of nations’ to protect states’ territorial integrity (very ambiguous - unclear how strong such a union might be) - in contrast, Lloyd George spoke with far greater clarity about the ‘general principle of national self-determination’
Role of Jan Smuts in the British Commonwealth
- leading theorist of imperial rule - wanted to form a new white South African nation to bring together Boers and Brits (played a major role in shaping the policy of racial segregation in twentieth-century South Africa, being a leading early philosopher behind the practice - proponent of ‘race realism’)
- saw the future as an alliance of white peoples (bringing together Australians, Canadians, NZ, SA etc…)
- Smuts thought that creating the British Commonwealth would allow SA to benefit from both national autonomy and also security and commercial advantages
Role of Jan Smuts in the formation of the LoN
Dec 1918 - Smuts circulated a pamphlet entitled ‘A Practical Suggestion’ in which he argued for a version of the League of Nations idea - argued that the league should draw up principles of international law (far more radical than most proponents of the League - e.g. Cecil seemed to be proposing an improved version of the 1815 Concert of Europe, a model supported by most of the Cabinet)
Wilson was influenced by Smuts’s radicalism, but the Brits were less keen - conservatives in particular feared that the League would lead to Britain’s military being engaged in conflicts all over the world. Lloyd George’s position is difficult to discern - he insisted the League must be effective and not, in his words, a “sham”; on the other hand, he ruled out its enjoying independent executive powers
When the League was formed, it followed Smuts’s proposed model of a tripartite division of powers (mirroring a parliamentary democracy)
Key weaknesses of the League at its inception
Weaknesses - while the League had something that looked like a legislature, it had no lawmaking capabilities and every council member had veto powers. Crucially, the League also lacked any means of enforcement. The strongest response the League could muster would be sanctions.
Example of support for the League
Thai prince Devawongse supported the League as it guaranteed ‘the safety of the smaller nation against the greater’
Evidence of poor leadership as a weakness of the LoN
The League fell into further disrepute under Joseph Avenol - sacrificed Ethiopia to keep Italy in the League in 1935, pushed out some Jewish officials and tried on several occasions to bring Nazi Germany back in. Under his leadership, Nazi Germany took over Austria. When Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939, they did not bother to invoke the League Covenant (a clear indicator that the League had fallen into irrelevance)
Evidence of inherent weaknesses of the League
The issues with the League did not necessarily come from poor leadership - it also had systemic issues at its core
- its founders had believed that intl public opinion was crucial - meant that statesmen focused more on theatrics than serious policymaking and deliberation
- the unanimity rule on the council made real action nearly impossible
- the lack of a credible deterrent diminished the League’s authority
Successes of the League
the League was successful in other areas, particularly in international humanitarian cooperation
- set up a new Permanent Court of Intl Justice, Intl Labour Organisation and a health bureau
- involved in refugee crises in eastern Europe and the Middle East (particularly after the Armenian genocide), dealt with the public health disasters brought about by influenza and typhus
- ^ the health organisation responded effectively to, for example, the crises brought about by colonial rule to the health of Asian peasant farmers
- became something of an umbrella organisation of many of the international associations formed before and during WW1
Example of unsuccessful LoN initiatives
Some League initiatives were not particularly successful - e.g. internal arguments about whether to readmit German members limited the value of the International Institute for Intellectual Cooperation
^ also, the League failed in its main economic goal of stabilising capitalism: bodies such as the IMF and World Bank were set up decades later in response to the League’s failures in this area
^^ there was a Financial Committee, run by bankers and treasury officials, which had the goal of restoring monetary stability in east-central Europe (e.g. by setting up central banks and advising governments on budgetary discipline). However, this was dominated by the Brits, which led to the French coordinating their own reconstruction effort outside of the League structure.
Mazower’s overall assessment of the LoN
Mazower argues that we should focus on the enduring influence of the League in fostering internationalism, rather than its failures.
Summary of Japan’s foreign policy in the 1920s
- Japan maintained moderate, cooperative foreign policies during the 1920s.
- Economic ties with the U.S. were crucial, with America buying 40% of Japan’s exports annually.
- Japan participated in the International Chamber of Commerce (1919) and hosted the World Sunday School Convention (1920), reflecting engagement in global cultural and economic affairs.
- The Washington Naval Conference (1921-1922) led to naval disarmament agreements.
- Foreign Minister Shidehara Kijūrō was a proponent of international accommodationism.
Japan’s role in the LoN assembly
- Japan actively participated in the League’s Assembly, where all members had representation.
- The First Assembly (November 1920) saw Japan send a large delegation led by Ishii Kikujirō, reflecting its commitment.
- Key Japanese diplomatic strategies:
- Encouraged the inclusion of Germany and Austria in the League.
- Avoided confrontation over racial equality, despite domestic pressure.
- Rejected premature arms limitations due to U.S. absence.
Japan’s role in the LoN council
The Council was the League’s executive body; Japan held a permanent seat and actively participated.
- Japanese representatives, particularly Ishii Kikujirō, played key roles in settling disputes.
- Japan balanced diplomacy carefully, avoiding excessive confrontation with Britain and France while asserting its own interests.
Japan’s role in the LoN secretariat
- Japan was represented in the Secretariat by Nitobe Inazō, an international scholar.
- Japan maintained a presence but did not send many officials, partly due to language barriers and the Eurocentric nature of Secretariat operations.
- Sugimura Yōtarō, another Japanese official, became a key figure in League diplomacy, known for his dedication and involvement in the Political Section.
Context of Japan’s racial equality clause
Immigration Discrimination Against Japanese
- United States & Canada:
- 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act (U.S.) set a precedent for anti-Asian policies.
- 1907 Gentlemen’s Agreement: Japan agreed to limit immigration to the U.S. to reduce hostility.
- 1913 California Alien Land Law: Banned Japanese immigrants from owning land.
- 1924 U.S. Immigration Act: Completely banned Japanese immigration to the U.S., fueling anti-American resentment in Japan.
- Australia & South Africa:
- Both countries implemented the “White Australia Policy” and anti-Asian immigration laws.
- Japan saw this as a clear sign of racial discrimination by the British Commonwealth.
Why was there opposition to the racial equality clause?
- U.S. (President Woodrow Wilson)
- The U.S. opposed the clause due to strong domestic anti-Japanese sentiment, particularly in California.
- Wilson, chairing the League negotiations, was personally opposed to racial equality, believing in Anglo-Saxon superiority.
- He also feared losing support from U.S. senators, who were anti-immigration.
- British Empire (Australia & Canada)
- Australia’s Prime Minister Billy Hughes led the opposition, defending the White Australia Policy.
- Canada, under Prime Minister Robert Borden, also feared an influx of Asian immigrants.
- While Britain itself was open to negotiation, it sided with its dominions to maintain imperial unity.
Explain the controversy around the vote for the racial equality clause
- The racial equality clause received a majority vote (11 in favor, 5 against).
- However, President Wilson declared that “unanimous approval” was needed for it to pass—a procedural move to block it.
- Japan was humiliated and saw this as a betrayal by its Western allies.
- The rejection was met with public outrage in Japan.
- Many Japanese newspapers denounced the hypocrisy of Western powers, calling it a violation of the League’s own ideals of fairness.
- Some Japanese nationalists used the rejection as proof that Japan could not trust the West, fueling later militarism.
How did Japan continue to play a part in the
- Despite its disappointment, Japan still joined the League as a permanent Council member.
- Japanese diplomats tried to push for racial equality in indirect ways:
- Economic & Legal Equality: Japan pushed for equal treatment of foreigners in trade and law.
- Educational Reforms: Japan supported the teaching of Esperanto as a universal language to reduce racial and national bias.
- Japan’s calls for racial equality were largely ignored by Western powers.
Key events that soured Japan’s relations with the League
- 1928 Jinan Incident – Conflict between Japan and China worsened.
- 1931 Mukden Incident – Japan’s army invaded Manchuria, marking Japan’s break with the League’s peace policies.
- In response to international condemnation over Japan’s invasion of Manchuria, Japan left the League of Nations in 1933.
- This marked a turning point, as Japan abandoned cooperation with Western powers and moved toward imperial expansion.
Examples of Wilson’s rhetoric being used within anticolonial movements
- In India, Gandhi and Nehru referenced Wilson’s speeches to argue against British rule.
- In Egypt, nationalists used Wilsonian language to demand independence from Britain.
- In Korea, activists invoked Wilson’s self-determination principle during the March 1st Movement (1919) against Japanese rule.
Example of Wilson disappointing anticolonial movements
Wilson agreed to recognise the British protectorate over Egypt in April 1919
Wilson was non-committal when the Chinese minister in Washington sought U.S support for China’s sovereignty
^ April 1919 - the ‘Big Three’ (Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George) recognised Japanese control over the Shandong province
