What do Pedersen and Manela each suggest was significant about the post-World War I years in terms of colonial history? Do you find their arguments convincing?
HIST 285 / AFS 270 | SPRING 2019
HIST 285 / AFS 270 | SPRING 2019
What do Pedersen and Manela each suggest was significant about the post-World War I years in terms of colonial history? Do you find their arguments convincing?
After the end of World War I, the rise of the doctrine of self-determination ushered in a new era of colonial strife in the wake of the crumbling of empires. Manela’s article highlights the effect of self-determination as a peacekeeping concept, created to monitor the relationship between the colonies and the Western powers. President Wilson had a significant impact during this period, especially the interwar period, when he pushed self-determination in order to enchant the elites and broader public. The effect of WWI on the Allied powers significantly restructured the colonial structure of the interwar period, as colonial states became frustrated and mobilized for better economic and political factors. Colonies no longer wanted to be colonies, they wanted to be their own states, in control of their own futures. While the concept of political equity failed, Wilson’s policy is similar to other mandates made in the interwar period, as described by Pedersen. Pederson began by explaining the many mandates enacted by the League of Nations in the 1920s. These mandates were different from self-determination policies as they functioned under the concept that the indigenes could not govern themselves, and these mandates formed a trust between colonies and Western countries. Pederson evaluated the limits of international authority and the mandatory powers that came with that power. Transnational practices in the interwar period aided in the destabilization of the global political scene leading up to WWII, but also provided codified law that aided nationalist movements in gaining their own independence. While I do not find Pedersen’s argument applicable at all, Manela’s article and the principle of self-determination are more agreeable. By allowing colonies to define and delineate their own futures, these same colonies can become independent of their once governing powers. While self-determination has its flaws as a concept, it is the concept that can provide a better foundation for the revolutionary, separatist movements found later in the 1900s.
Manela suggests that the “Wilsonian moment” post-World War I was very significant in the relationship between dominant powers and colonies. Specifically, the concept of self-determination and international society that was pushed by Woodrow Wilson. Manela states that, after the concept of self-determination was presented by Wilson, colonies felt, “They could now take the struggle against imperialism to the international arena… Many of the petitioners adopted Wilson’s rhetoric of self-determination and the equality of nations to formulate their demands and justify their aspirations” (Manela 2007). Overall, Manela believes that self-determination led to post-World War I colonies aspiring for more independence, power, and representation.
On the other hand, Pedersen believes that a system of mandates was necessary to maintain power over colonies post-World War I. These mandates fell into three categories: A, B, and C. “A” mandates pertained to mandatory, worldwide powers; “B” mandates referred to the more remote, divided land areas that did not hold much promise or power; “C” mandates allowed the aforementioned mandatory powers to treat these lands as their own territories and use as they wish. Underlying all of these mandates is the idea that they were created for, “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” (Pederson 2006). This view involves the subordinate of colonies and colonial peoples into an inferior, pitiable position that is in need of help from those that are believed to be more civilized.
Clearly, there are some issues with the beliefs presented by Pedersen. I think that she adheres to a more traditional, discriminatory way of viewing colonies and those that lived within them. I do not agree with her positive view of the mandates, and, instead, I see them as a way for more dominant societies to continue to exploit and abuse colonies and colonial peoples. The ideas presented by Manela, in my opinion, are much more progressive and inclusive. The view of Wilson that Manela discusses allow for the colonies to gain agency in many ways while simultaneously not permitting the monopolization of power into the hands of a few countries.
Pederson and Manela argue two opposing viewpoints of the years following World War I. While Pederson argues mainly from the viewpoint that coincides with mandatory rule, and inevitably the prominent countries that are the aforementioned rulers of mandatory rule. Where in contrast Manela argues through the perspective of the formerly colonized areas, that desire to utilize the self-determination that believed would be brought about by president Wilson. While both arguments are convincing in their own right, the differing interpretations inevitably result in my opinion with one more plausible then the other. Thus, I have to agree with Pederson. While the notion of self-determination was definitely prominent, due to the country of origin it largely remained in-significant in lieu of the immense population that imposed mandatory rule. This is not to discredit self-determination, but rather to argue the validity in respect to the time period, where mostly self-determination, while idealized, was not often implemented.
Pederson argues that the years following World War I served as crucial moments in colonial history, as they were indicative of the international shift in opinion regarding whether or not it was lawful, or ethical, to impose mandates on countries. In contrast to past colonialism, each area took a different form. To clarify, one definition of mandate could not encompass all the different types (as we have learned throughout the class, especially in regard to law). Pederson even proposes multiple forms of mandates in his argument. Where it ranges from the imperial power only offering guidance, to drastic, and arguably a continuation of colonial rule, as it was not widely believed that the original natives of the area would possibly be able to govern themselves, in accordance with the current political climate. Which is why it is therefore necessary, argues Pederson, that each mandatory rule been viewed with different lenses. Furthermore, Pederson demonstrates the importance of the United Nations in context of colonial power, as now there is one unifying agent that imposes the ruling, not just one country amongst many, but all for one (at least it is supposed to theoretically). Unfortunately, the mandatory rule was not as beneficial as was hoped, since a plethora of imperial powers were not willing, or in some cases able, to revitalize the areas they were supposed to through mandatory rule. Such as Australia, which populated New Guinea, and merely utilized it as a buffer zone, and thus did not place it among its high priorities list. As the common proverb there is more than one way to skin a cat suggests, there is more than one way to have mandatory rule. This is crucial to colonial history as we begin to shift from the uniform examples of what colonialism is and being able to have a fairly consistent definition of such; whereas now it is more delicate to define what is and what isn’t encompassed with one definition of mandatory role. Thus, I find Pederson’s argument very convincing, as he is able to argue an already accepted viewpoint, derived form common sense, that to define vernacular is a task more difficult than it would be to fly to the sun’s center.
For Manela, he argues within his argument that the years immediately following World War I people hoped to be a new era. One championed by president Wilson. As he was the person who was in charge of, arguably, the most powerful country in the world following the war. This inspired countless people to believe in the rhetoric of self-determination, where the countries would be able to take their own future into their own hand. Which is in direct contrast to Pederson, and his mandatory rule, which was designed to regulate a supposed incapable society. Although, it was not Wilson’s main priority to assimilate self-determination, rather it was to favor the more prominent and powerful countries first. Which can be interpreted in terms of colonial history as indicative of the shift in value. Where before people were clawing tooth and nail to get to the colonizable areas, as is seen by the rush for Africa, now they were primarily forgotten about. Although Manela is able to support his idea throughout the essay, he is merely using speculation as to what was theorized and promised by a man who is not able to speak for himself now. Thus, his argument is not as convincing as is Pederson’s, who does utilize a more supported thesis.
Pederson expounds the mandates system established post-World War I as an order that engaged imperial leaders in pontification regarding undemocratic rule over alien populations. The commissioners, appointed without fixed term, became insidiously more knowledgeable, independent, and unruly. While the mandates system purported to govern dependent territories differently, they solely borrowed from their own colonies and perpetuated oppressive colonial structures. Pederson gives significance to the fact that the mandates commission could generate norms and offer a sense of legitimacy to the powers that accepted them; thus, Pederson claims that the mandates system, along the timeline of colonial history, was a means of education through which inhabitants of the mandates learned to assert themselves through the language of international norms and in international organizations. Nonetheless, viewing the mandates system as an “educative instrument” is ultimately an insular perspective that blossoms from oppressive seeds, whereas Manela emphasizes a more catalytic, rather than inhibitory, moment of protest and progress in colonial history.
Manela hones her focus to the “Wilsonian moment,” which initiated the evolution of international norms and standards that established the self-determining nation-state as the sole legitimate political entity around the globe. The circulation of ideas relating to self-determination and a liberal international order instigated many colonized and marginalized peoples to attain recognition as sovereign actors; thus, the “Wilsonian moment” bolstered anticolonial protests that greatly destabilized dominant imperial powers. To Manela, the post-World War I moment was significant as it critically shaped the appropriate context for the articulation and dissemination of the Wilsonian message, which then catalyzed widespread anticolonial sentiment and self-determination. I find Manela’s argument, thus, more convincing as the roots of its rationale are situated in a place of autonomy and constructive dissent, rather than the residue of continued subordination found in Pederson’s argument.
Mandela’s text offers an interesting interpretation of the post-World War I period; in it, he suggests that the movement of “self-determination” as spread by American President Woodrow Wilson inspired nationalists the world over to redefine their goals as states and adopt new, more distinct social and political identities. Pederson’s text relays the history of the mandate system, jumpstarted by the League of Nations, which was purportedly meant to offer support to immature nations from more established ones on their paths toward self-sovereignty. Uniquely, Pederson discusses the possibility that the mandate system has already existed in other formats, and he defines a genuine sense of altruism or the necessity for guidance as distinguishing the mandate system from other forms of mandatory rule (such as pure colonization or other invasions). I am not particularly convinced by either of these notions. We have already discussed at length in class the concept or relativism, which Pederson’s proposal is lacking. To necessitate a mandate system, a state must be in a position that is inferior and must be moving toward one that is superior; this is not a relativist outlook. Mandela’s argument, too, strikes me as infantilizing, as though these ideas had never occurred to these people until Woodrow Wilson suggested them. Though I am sure that his rhetoric had an impact, I think that Mandela exaggerates that impact or at the very least does not do enough work in analyzing the other factors that might have been at play. Mandela’s argument is definitely more convincing than Pederson’s, but it is too bold for my liking.
Pederson’s argument recognizes the change in colonial powers following the first World War. He focuses on the Mandates System and argues that the system, although its intentions were to offer help to developing nations so they could eventually gain self-sovereignty, did not fulfill its purpose and ultimately created more issues for non-self-governing nations.
Manela’s argument focuses on Wilson’s Fourteen Points and like Pederson, he also recognizes the change in colonial power after the war. Unlike Pederson, however, Manela believes this change was significant and for the better. He says, “the period between 1917 and 1920 saw a sharp escalation of resistance to imperial penetration and control and the emergence or realignment of institutions and individuals that would play central roles in subsequent anticolonial struggles.”
I find both of their arguments to be too one-sided. Like most things, the effect that the first World War had on imperial powers is not all good or all bad. Just as we have struggled to pinpoint a definition for law, freedom, or slavery, it is also difficult to determine if Wilson’s Fourteen Points or the Mandate System have been beneficial or harmful. When considering such complex topics, both positive and negative consequences should be mentioned and evaluated in one’s argument, and although Manela and Pederson briefly touch upon opposing views, I wish they had dug deeper.
Pederson argues that the significance of the post WWI years in terms of colonial history lies in the development of the mandates system of the League of Nations: she ultimately claims that the publicity function of that system “generat[ed] and promulgat[ed] . . . international norms” (Pederson 564). The stated goal of the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations was to create an oversight system for former German colonies and the lands composing the former Ottoman Empire. This body, along with a “permanent section of the League secretariat” that aided it, composed the mandate system (Pederson 568). The system was merely an advisory one: it had no legal authority, and could not enact coercive measures nor force any party to behave in a certain way: indeed, it possessed no enforcement mechanism. This, according to Pederson, did not matter: the significance of the commission was that it generated international discourse regarding standards of acceptable behavior on the behalf of individual governments. The commission’s meetings were a matter of public record: its advisory comments regarding the behavior of various colonial powers were available for all to see. International norms were therefore created through the commission and made legitimate through their publication. Pederson does concede that different actors within the international system valued these norms to varying degrees, as a result of domestic political realities. While Britain, for example, viewed its public image and legitimacy as paramount (and thus responded to colonial criticisms in a far more liberal fashion), South Africa did the opposite.
Yet Manela asserts that the significance of the post WWI years in this same context lies in the failure of the so-called “Wilsonian moment,” in which the President asserted that self-determination would rule the day. When it became evident that President Wilson would be unable to implement his vision at the end of post World War I negotiations (i.e. the same negotiations that brought about the Treaty of Versailles, which in effect said nothing of substance about self-determination), various groups who sought self-determination, and by extension, expressed a desire for the decolonization of their populations, rose up in an effort to affect that change. These attempts to bring about reform were incredibly successful. Indeed, they brought about the universal sentiment that the “self determining nation-state [would be considered] the only legitimate political form throughout the globe]” (Manela). Manela also claims that these aforementioned movements were transnational: that the infatuation with Wilsonian ideals, and eventual frustration and palpable anger toward the man who was entirely unable to enact them, transcended the classical relationships between states. It was this characteristic that made them so effectual.
Manela speaks of Wilson’s call for self-determination. Manela portrays the council in better light than Pederson, because Manela focuses more on the outside than the inside (council). By focusing on the outside, Manela shows that sentiments favoring nationalism and national unity spurred from the convention itself. The post WW1 convention is viewed as a historical change from repression to freedom by creating temporary blocks of authority in order for those blocks to become independent. Manela argues that the convention itself gave voice to citizens in foreign nations due to the convention flirting with the ideas of freedom and other progressive social changes. Another important factor is the era of self-determination yielding nationalism. Nationalistic ideas diffusion among the people under foreign rule created anti-colonial sentiments. Therefore, it wasn’t the committee itself that created social uprisings in these areas, but it was the ideas conveyed at the meetings by political figures.
Pedersen is extremely more skeptical than Manela. Pedersen argues that the mandates established by the convention were viewed as administrative. This means that legal issues brought up in these countries under siege had to go through a council consisting exclusively of Europeans. Pedersen wants the mandates system viewed as a discursive arena instead. Also, Pederson talks about the argument that the council only augmented control in foreign lands. He argues it was the non-consensual rule in the international realm that created certain uprisings in certain areas. However, there are many elements that went into the uprisings, yet Pedersen views the council as the greatest component for such changes in these states. Overall, Pedersen views these mandates positively and necessary. I find Manela’s argument more convincing, because I believe that the world was in despair after World War 1, thus it makes sense people looked up to Wilson as a source of hope. Instead of adopting Wilson’s ideologies, the outsiders focused on the principles of freedom and self-determination Wilson spoke of.
Manela’s article focuses on the significance of the Wilsonian movement during discussions on international relations after WWI. The Wilsoniam movement encompassed Wilson’s 14 Points, the doctrine of self-determination, and the idea that justice, rather than power, would be the focus of international relations. Manela states “Wilson’s promise of a new world order captured the imaginations across the world,” and “The future of international society seemed to belong to Wilson’s vision and depend on his influence as the leading figure of world affairs.” This demonstrates the significance of Wilson on international relations. Wilson’s over-idealized views on self-determination held no weight in colonial areas; the old, imperial logic of international relations remained intact.
Pedersen argues that the mandate system was the most significant about the years following WWI. This system was to continue to exploit the colonial areas and keep them subordinate, since according to its creator Jan Christiaan Smuts, “savages” could not govern themselves.
I am not convinced by either of these arguments. Because Manela’s solely focuses on Wilson’s impact on international relations, and Pedersen’s on the mandate system, I feel as though these arguments are too one-sided and do not successfully explain the context of colonized areas after the war.
Pederson discusses the post-World War I mandate system, what was viewed by many in the time as “a transitional form, a halfway house between dependence and independence, perhaps even a tool for making those earlier and more exploitative,” but modern historians have viewed the system in a different light. Pederson bases her argument in the complexity of the policy in different regions, but maintains that the Mandate system was less a “means of transforming governance” than it was “an engine for the generation of international norms.”
Manela argues that the self-determination model of international relations championed by Woodrow Wilson never truly extended to the colonial world. He claims that a “Wilsonian Moment” immediately after World War I’s end promised a vision of “a just international society based on the principle of self-determination,” but that European sovereignty eclipsed these ideals from taking root in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East. Manela focuses on the political and economic evolutions in Egypt, China, Korea, and India following the Treaty of Versailles; increasing nationalist sentiments, anti-colonial fervor, and their perspective roles in international affairs. Manela’s analysis is long overdue, as the implications of World War I in the shaping of colonial and post-colonial societies are rarely the primary focus of historical analysis. However, I remain unconvinced that the analysis of these four nations can be emblematic of postwar impacts in general, as the evolution of Middle Eastern and Sub-Saharan African societies looked significantly different than Egypt, India, Korea, and China.
Pederson examines the mandates that were established post World War I. In this, Pederson explains that the mandates were “peoples not yet able to stand by them- selves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.” From this, it is made evident that the mandates were to restrict the territories from self-governance. Pederson also describes that the mandates were not established to be a system administered on the ground, but rather a system that scrutinized certain regions and allowed room for the continuation of colonial rule.
Manela discusses the failure of the “Wilsonian moment” and his “self-determination for his people.” However, unlike Penderson, Manela believed that this brought about success after the war. Despite both reasonings, I am not convinced by either Manela or Pederson’s arguments. This is because I feel as though the arguments do not elaborate enough on how World War I impacted colonial history as both Manela and Pederson were very one sided in their arguments.
Both Pedersen and Manela argue that the post-WWI years were formative for the future of imperial powers’ relationships with the colonized.
Pederson’s argument revolves primarily around the mandates system organized through the League of Nations after WWI, a system primarily designed to internationalize control of the Middle East. Through the mandates system, the conquered territories were to be held as “mandates” by the imperial powers. Pederson argues that the mandates system holds a contentious position in the eyes of historians today: did the system serve as a more benevolent version of imperialism, acting as a mere transition between dependence and independence? Or was the system simply a reiteration of colonial rule, weighted with the same paternalistic values and beliefs?
Ultimately, Pederson argues that rather than a mechanism for transforming actual governance, the system was merely “an engine for the generation and promulgation of international norms”. Pointing to scenarios where rhetoric around independent African nations involved the commonly shared sentiment of turning them into mandates for their own good, Pederson argues the mandates system should ultimately not be seen as a mechanism for teaching self-governance and rather as simply another way to keep the colonized under control.
Manela, on the other hand, focuses on Woodrow Wilson’s rhetoric as a means for inciting nationalism and activism in several colonized territories—namely, India, China, Korea, and Egypt. As a leading global symbol for self-determination, Wilson’s views emphasized “justice over power” as the driving force of international relations—a sharp twist from the rhetoric of the mandates system that resulted. After WWI, conditions were ripe for change: the weakened European and imperialist powers made it not only easier for colonial nationalists to challenge such powers but also gave them an international legitimacy, as many of the colonized had fought alongside the Allies to victory. Coupled with Wilson’s radical rhetoric, and the emergence of anticolonial nationalism surged across the Middle East and Asia. Ultimately, Manela argues that the “Wilsonian moment” was a driving force for the shift in international rhetoric and norms that characterized the period after WWI, especially for the educated elites in colonized nations.
I find both arguments convincing, especially because the two are not mutually exclusive. I can see Pederson’s point of regarding the mandates system post-WWI as a discursive one over an administrative one, thus shaping legal colonial history towards a reiteration of past patterns, with imperial states holding a rather paternalistic view over the colonized. Simultaneously, I agree with Manela’s argument of the post-war rhetoric changing the way the colonized themselves viewed their own relation to governance and to imperialist powers, leading eventually to rebellion and revolt.
In the context of the post-World War I international stage, the moves made by global powers towards a mandate system over pure colonialism provided little administrative oversight but acted as a foot in the door for the criticism of public opinion. In Susan Pedersen’s essay “The Meaning of the Mandate System” a convincing argument is put forth about the role the mandate system played in liberalizing colonial rule. Through highlighting the integral role international public opinion played, Pedersen forwards the argument that although colonial governments could operate with administrative colonial autonomy under the mandate system, they had to answer to the deafening protest of the public.
What is important to understand when examining colonialism in a post WWI context is that the mandate system enacted brought colonized populations to a global stage. What Pedersen highlights in her writing is that the mandate system was beneficial despite its lack of administrative oversight, or as she explains, “however unequal the terms of their entry into its [international political environment] realm, nationalist movements in the Middle East and to a degree in Africa and the Pacific learned through the League to appeal to ‘international opinion’ over the heads of the mandatory government” (Pedersen 581). Although the mandate system did very little in terms of administrative oversight, with colonial governance changing very little, progress was made due to the channels created by the League of Nations inadvertently. Through the proverbial side door, movements within these occupied regions were able to air their grievances with international spotlight. Through pathos-based campaigns, occupied populations were able to target the foreign populous to gain favor and inch further away from the brutality of colonialism. Through the use of public complaints these populations in the Middle East especially, but also Africa and the Pacific islands, were able to leverage unfavorable public opinion towards colonialism to overcome the vested economic interests of the mandated powers and eventually earn independence.
In conclusion, Pedersen’s work forwards a convincing argument about the role public opinion played in subverting the power of the colonizers despite the lack of administrative oversight through the mandate system. The posturing act of creating an otherwise powerless committee opened the door for colonized populations to express their opinions on a global stage and therefore the mandate system was inevitable positive due to its inadvertent effects.
According to Manela, the “Wilsonian moment” after World War I was very significant in the relationship between colonial powers and colonies. Manela suggests that the movement of “self-determination” as spread by American President Woodrow Wilson inspired nationalists the world over to refine their goals as states and adopt new political identities. Manela’s argument focuses on Wilson’s Fourteen Points recognizes the change in colonial power after the war. He seems to believe such changes were monumental in post-war colonial history, as he proclaimed that the period “ saw a sharp escalation of resistance to imperial penetration and control and the emergence … of institutions and individuals that would play central roles in subsequent anticolonial struggles.”
Pedersen is seemingly more cynical by referring to the complexity of the policy in different regions while maintaining that the Mandate system established by the convention was more of “an engine for the generation of international norms” than it was a “means of transforming governance”. He also addresses how none of the allies actually considered giving the colonies back to Germany and points out hypocrisy of the British because they “took care to compile an official report detailing German colonial atrocities” but simultaneously did not want to follow up on its “ambiguous offer of Arab independence”.
I am not convinced by either of these arguments because Manela’s exclusively focuses on the Wilsonian moment’s impact on post-World War I years in terms of colonial history, while Pedersen only seems to address the mandate system and its impact. Both arguments are relevant, but too one-sided and do not wholly address the phenomenon of imperialism and colonies post WWI.
Manela suggests that the significance of post-World War 1 years revolved around reconfiguring sociopolitical ideologies- he talks about the system implicated that tried to shift the balance of colonial powers by offering nations suffering from colonialism a grander opportunity to sustain themselves, but contends that this did not work and rather created a larger gap in power between colonial and non colonial nations. Manela talks a lot about President Wilson’s contention for ‘self-determination’ suggests that nations should focus on the value of justice rather than political power as the importance of an international society, given the improvements in technology at the time (travel), rose to prominence. That being said, Manela suggests that Wilsons ideas did not actually reach colonial areas, and if they did they were not held in true regard. While Wilson’s ideas did hold true in a few colonial areas, their reach was not extremely expansive. Pederson suggests that the mandate system was the most important post WWI aspect pertaining to colonial history as the mandates suggested that the colonised nations lacked the ability to govern themselves and served as a means to keep them restricted. As such, I believe that Manela’s analysis is somewhat too basic and requires a larger examination on the state of colonial affairs after WWI. Further, even though both Pederson and Manela contend that the post WWI years were imperative for the future of the dynamic between imperial and colonised nations, both arguments remained somewhat unconvincing as they proved to be rather vague and lacking a more extensive analysis on the impact the war had on colonial history.
Manela argues that the greatest significance of the post-WWI period was Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points, a declaration of the belief that peoples throughout the world deserved self-determination. This electrified the intellectuals of colonial populations, Manela argues, not just because it was a somewhat revolutionary idea, but because when Wilson presented it, he was the most powerful and well-liked man in the world, and at least seemed to have the power to make it happen. Though the Treaty of Versailles did not remotely resemble the decolonial effort these people hoped it would, ideas are notoriously hard to eliminate once they have been shared. I think this argument is fairly persuasive.
Pederson examines the colonial mandates, a system by which the former colonies of the losing sides of WWI were administered by the League of Nations (but effectively Britain and France). Pederson thinks that the mandates were more of a public relations move (perhaps a “rephrasing” of colonialism) that a true reform, though they did seem to be the distant ancestors of later United Nations oversight, occupation or peacekeeping missions. It is pretty clear, though, that Britain and France wanted their defeated enemy’s colonies for themselves.
I found a quote in Pederson to be very interesting when considering Manela’s arguments. South African Prime Minister Jan Christiaan Smuts speaks of certain parts of the world “inhabited by barbarians, who not only cannot possibly govern themselves, but to whom it would be impracticable to apply any idea of self-determination.” This is a repetition of the old colonial adage about the grand “civilizing mission” by which Europeans control the uncivilized for their (alleged) own good. I thought it provided an interesting way by which advocates of self-determination could also justify holding onto colonies. Though the designation of “barbarian” in this context is, of course, entirely arbitrary and most likely determined by the speaker’s economic interests rather than any sort of universal standard. Still, this shows how the grand champions of democracy, Britain/France/United States, were attempting to mesh their rhetoric with their own colonial actions.
Pederson focuses heavily on the mandate system that was implemented in German colonies and Ottoman territories. European Allied powers took control over these territories in order to prepare them for self rule. He states that this semi colonial was in fact to impose their dominance on territories formerly controlled by their enemies. It was a public display of power rather than attempt to bring political progress to colony’s populations. It silenced the voices of the people regarding decisions made about their own government and in no way prepared them for the governing of their own country. Manela discusses the history of colonialism in eastern parts of the world following WW2. He follows the actions of President Woodrow Wilson and his plan to promote equality and self determination for residents of countries like India, China and Egypt. He also explains how Wilsons efforts to bring about these things fell very short of his exceptions. Credit is given to the nationalist from these countries who began revolutions in order to regain their sovereignty after realizing the failure of the Wilsonian post war settlement. Both authors seem to debunk general assumptions about the motives and effectiveness of Western European powers and the United States to build and empower countries who suffered colonization during WW2.
Pederson and Manela both identify the post-World War I years as a transformative era for European nations, the nations they colonized, and the ideas surrounding nationalism and sovereignty.
Pederson takes a dig at the League of Nations, created by President Woodrow Wilson after the first World War (but never joined by the United States due to Congress’s failure to sign the US into membership). The mandate system the League of Nations began to utilize was not entirely like the “Wilsonian” mandates of self determination that Manela discusses, but rather they formed a new relationship between the European colonizers and the colonized countries. This relationship would be marked by the idea that these colonized countries could not properly govern themselves and needed the presence of the European leadership. As Pederson states, the mandate system “when adroitly used,…legitimized and rationalized those populations’ continued subjection to non-consensual alien rule.” Despite these new but virtually identically oppressive mandates, this period between the first and the second World War saw the League of Nations foster a period of international discourse and shared practices, which, ultimately, led to the rise of nationalism in countries that were previously colonized.
Manela, on the other hand, focuses on the Wilsonian idea of self-determination— the idea that nations can govern themselves, and goes on to discuss how this progressive idea was also a tool to monitor these quasi-liberated nations/regions and their formed colonizers. Like Pederson, Manela recognizes Wilson’s prowess during the interwar period— he was a heavy-hitter that played to the ideals of Americans and the international community, despite not being a formal member of the League of Nations. Manela and Pederson both discuss a similar notion at the ends of their respective pieces— both the mandate system and practices of self-determination led to colonies that desired more than “elbow room” in self-governance. As Manela says, “it is [the previously colonized nations], and not Wilson, who are the main protagonist of the story that follows.” Therefore, it could be argued, that these mandates enabled a nationalistic movement in the colonies.
While Pederson does achieve creating a defensible argument, it does seem short-sighted. She definitely paints the mandate system in a positive light, while I would argue the mandate system was ultimately oppressive and almost a new form of the same controlling colonial law. I am more convinced by Manela’s argument, as self-determination, even a bastardized form of it, is obviously more progressive and more in-line with modern thinking concerning ex-colonial nations.
In response to the relationship between the Europeans powers and the colonies post World War I, Manela and Pederson explained new ideologies of governance. Manela focuses on Wilson, and argues that his failure to take into account the aspirations of African Americans was the problem within the indigenous people of European colonies. Wilson believed that there has to be increasing protection of non-Europeans to formulate a system of equality. As a result, Manela argues that Wilson’s words impacted the colonial intellectuals, especially ideologies like ‘self-determination’ and ‘consent of the governed’. Despite Wilson’s failure of reducing the appetite for imperial conquest and failing to satisfy the dreams of the colonized, Manela gracefully connects Wilson’s promise with colonialism and nationalism.
Pederson, on the other hand focused on the Mandate System enacted by the League of Nations in the 1920s. The significance of the Mandate System, as Pedersen argues, does not lie within the legal authority itself as it possessed no form of enforcement mechanism. Rather, the Mandate System was successful in creating an international norm, which served as the standard for other colonial powers. However, the council consisted exclusively of Europeans which essentially undermined the ability of self-governance of the colonized people. Ultimately, the Mandate system was not a means to transform the system into one of self-governance but rather to keep the colonized under European control.