Theme 3: Internationalism Flashcards
(56 cards)
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)
