Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:35:30.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

African Origins of the Mandates Idea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Wm. Roger Louis
Wm. Roger Louis
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor in the Department of History at Yale University.
Get access

Extract

As the Allied troops overran the German colonies the First World War British publicists began to debate whether these territories should be returned to Germany, placed under some sort of international control, or sliced up and annexed by the conquering powers. There was little support for the proposal to hand diem back to Germany. In part this was because of the widely held belief that the Germans were guilty of “atrocities” in Africa no less appalling than those committed in King Leopold's Congo Free State before it was annexed by Belgium in 1908. The real question was whether the German colonies should be annexed or “internationalized.” On the left of the political spectrum the Independent Labor Party urged international administration as a means of uprooting imperialism as a cause of war. On the right the conservative press advocated annexation pure and simple as a means of preventing war by strengthening the British Empire. The mandates system itself was a compromise between these opposing ideas. It was viewed by those on the left as a limited triumph in the cause of internationalization; and by those on the right as annexation in all but name.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , Winter 1965 , pp. 20 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Minutes of the British Imperial War Cabinet (secret), December 20, 1918, Sir Robert Borden Papers (National Archives of Canada).

2 Ibid.

3 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (13 vols.; Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942–1947), Vol. 3, p. 750.Google Scholar

4 The origins of these West African negotiations are still obscure, but see the copies of the Anglo-French agreements of September 13, 1914, and February 28, 1916, for Togoland and the Cameroons, respectively, in the Records of the American Commission to Negotiate Peace (National Archives of the United States, 185.115/24).

5 See my chapter, “Great Britain and International Trusteeship: the Historiography of the Mandates System,” in Winks, Robin W. (ed.), The Historiography of the British Empire (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, forthcoming).Google Scholar

6 Speech of Edmund Burke on Fox's East India Bill, December 1, 1783.

7 Smuts, Jan C., The League of Nations: A Practical Suggestion (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1918)Google Scholar. On Smuts' ideas about mandates, see also SirHancock, Keith, Smuts: The Sanguine Years, 1870–1919 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), Chapters 20 and 21.Google Scholar

8 The main discussions concerning mandates at the Peace Conference may be found in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: The Paris Peace Conference, 1919 (13 vols.; Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942–1947), Vols. 3 and 5Google Scholar. See also Stannard Baker, Ray, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement (3 vols.; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1922)Google Scholar; Lansing, Robert, The Peace Negotiations (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1921)Google Scholar; Lloyd George, David, The Truth About the Peace Treaties (2 vols.; London: V. Gollancz, 1938)Google Scholar; Hunter Miller, David, “The Origin of the Mandates System,” Foreign Affairs, 01 1928 (Vol. 6, No. 2), pp. 277–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Charles, Seymour (ed.), The Intimate Papers of Colonel House (4 vols.; Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1926–1928)Google Scholar; Shotwell, James T., At the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Macmillan, 1937)Google Scholar; and Birdsall, Paul, Versailles Twenty Years After (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1941)Google Scholar. Some recent scholarship on this problem includes Haas, Ernst B., “The Reconciliation of Conflicting Colonial Policy Aims: Acceptance of the League of Nations Mandate System,” International Organization, 11 1952 (Vol. 6, No. 4), pp. 521–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tillman, Seth P., Anglo-American Relations at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Louis, Wm. Roger, “The United States and the African Peace Settlement of 1919: The Pilgrimage of George Louis Beer,” Journal of African History, 1963 (Vol. 4, No. 3), pp. 413–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Beer's Diary, February 25 and July 13–August 4, 1919. See also his remarks in Gray, Louis H. (ed.), African Questions at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Macmillan, 1923)Google Scholar. Cf. his comments in Temperley, H. W. V. (ed.), A History of the Peace Conference of Paris (6 vols.; London: H. Frowde, Hodder & Stoughton, 1920), Vol. 2, p. 236.Google Scholar

10 Beer's Diary, February 25, 1919.

11 Lippmann, Walter, The Stakes of Diplomacy (New York: H. Holt and Company, 1915), p. 149.Google Scholar

12 See Potter, Pitman B., “Origin of the System of Mandates Under the League of Nations,” American Political Science Review, 11 1922 (Vol. 16, No. 4), pp. 563–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Evans, Luther H., “Some Legal and Historical Antecedents of the Mandatory System,” Proceedings of the Southwestern Political Science Association, 1924 (Vol. 5), pp. 143–161Google Scholar; Russel Batsell, Walter, “The United States and the System of Mandates,” International Conciliation, 1925 (No. 213)Google Scholar; and Potter, Pitman B., “Further Notes,” American Political Science Review, 11 1926 (Vol. 20, No. 4), pp. 842–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 In this connection, see Stengers, J., “A propos de l'Acte de Berlin ou comment naît une légende,” Zaire, 10 1953 (No. 8), pp. 839–844.Google Scholar

14 December 31, 1885.

15 SirJohnston, Harry, “Practical Politics: The Programme of the Labour Party,” The Cambridge Magazine, 11 16, 1918 (Vol. 8, No. 6), p. 134.Google Scholar

16 Quoted in Leslie Buel, Raymond, The Native Problem in Africa (2 vols.; New York: Macmillan, 1928), Vol. 2, p. 415.Google Scholar

17 Robinson, R. E. and Gallagher, J., “The Partition of Africa,” in Hinsley, F. H. (ed.), The New Cambridge Modern History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1962), Vol. 11, p. 606.Google Scholar

18 This was well-known to the British Foreign Office at the time. See SirAnderson's, PercyMemorandum on the Nature of the King of the Belgians Co[mpany], March 2, 1884 (FO 84/1809) (London: Public Record Office).Google Scholar

19 See Berriedale Keith, Arthur, The Belgian Congo and the Berlin Act (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1919). p. 79.Google Scholar

20 See Cattier, Felicien, Etude sur la Situation de léEtat Indépendant du Congo (2nd ed.; Brussels: Vve F. Larcier, 1906), pp. 324–327.Google Scholar

21 See SirHarry, Johnston's introduction to Morel, E. D., Red Rubber (New York, 1906).Google Scholar

22 Scott Keltie, J., The Partition of Africa (2nd ed.; London: E. Stanford, 1895), p. 229.Google Scholar

23 See, for example, Morel's, E. D. letter in The Times, 10 5, 1907Google Scholar; and the Official Organ of the Congo Reform Association (Liverpool: Congo Reform Association, October 1907)Google Scholar. This idea seems to have developed substantially through E. D. Morel's correspondence with F. W. Fox in October 1905. ( Morel Papers [London School of Economics].)

24 Unpublished History of the Congo Reform Association, Morel Papers (London School of Economics).

25 Morel, E. D., The Black Man's Burden (London: B. W. Huebsch, 1920), p. 167.Google Scholar

26 SirJohnston, Harry, “Our Colonial Policy,” New Statesman, 09 11, 1915.Google Scholar

27 Africa and the Peace of Europe (London: National Labor Press, 1917), p. 70.Google Scholar

28 The Nation, June 30, 1917 (Vol. 21, No. 13), p. 326.Google Scholar

29 For a historian's judgment on Germany's colonial rule, see Rudin, Harry R., Germans in the Cameroons, 1884–1914 (London: J. Cape, 1938), p. 11.Google Scholar

30 See, for example, “Report on the Natives of South-West Africa and their Treatment by Germany 1918,” Accounts and Papers, August 1918 (Vol. 17).Google Scholar

31 For a systematic treatment of the idea of trusteeship during the First World War and discussion of the various Labor Party proposals, see Winkler, Henry R., The League of Nations Movement in Great Britain, 1914–1919 (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1952), Chapter 8.Google Scholar

32 SirJohnston, Harry, “Practical Politics: The Programme of the Labour Party,” The Cambridge Magazine, 11 16, 1918 (Vol. 8, No. 6), p. 134.Google Scholar

33 Spectator, November 2, 1918 (Vol. 121, No. 4714), p. 476.Google Scholar

34 Harris, John H., “Tropical Colonies—‘International Government,’” Fortnightly Review, 11 1917 (Vol. 108), pp. 742–745.Google Scholar

35 The Nation, January 19, 1918 (Vol. 22, No. 16), p. 507.Google Scholar

36 New Statesman, February 1, 1919 (Vol. 12, No. 304), pp. 363–364.Google Scholar

37 Wright, Quincy, Mandates Under the League of Nations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930). pp. 22–23, note 53a.Google Scholar

38 “Windows of Freedom,” Round Table, December 1918–September 1919 (Vol. 9), p. 26.Google Scholar

39 Wells, H. G., In the Fourth Year: Anticipations of a World Peace (London: Chatto & Windus, 1918), p. 43.Google Scholar

40 Temperley, , op. cit., Vol. 6, p. 502.Google Scholar

41 Beer's Diary, July 7–15, 1919.

42 Temperley, , op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 236.Google Scholar