Storia delle relazioni internazionali

History of international relations

International relations after 1945

International relations: actors dealing together. History devoted to study the evolution of societies. Relations between actors with a particular weight in politics: governments, parties, NGOs, trade unions, political scientists, historians, etc. This is a history that was created after the study of historical treaties, agreements. After the 20s, also other elements, apart from governments, started to have a weight in international relations. International, intercultural, intersocial, and not only inter-governmental relations.

Pericentrism

Pericentrism: concept created by Tony Smith that considers the different interests between the empires (political centres with many relations – social, economic, cultural – with peripheries). In many cases, crises in the peripheries affect also strongly the empire. Necessity to make confrontations with different parts of the world (also Africa, Asia, Latin America).

• Conceptual categories: Cold War, Containment, Détente
• 1918: beginning of an impossibility of cooperation between the two main different blocks, competitors (some recognize in it the beginning of the Cold War). Then they became allies in WWII, but it was an informal alliance, unstable, a metatypical alliance.
• Borders: a concept transformed by political activities of men. Problem to define, defend, create, or justify a border. Legal element that transforms relations between states, societies, cultural approaches, etc.…
• Sources: docs, diplomatic papers, diplomats' memories and writings (Thatcher, Truman…) that are always tricky (they present their own personal points of view). Documents transform opinions into facts; they are fundamental.

Origins, method and definitions

Geographic discoveries (15th and 16th century)

Created the knowledge of the territories, laid the foundations for globalization and colonialism (at the beginning was not considered a negative approach, but the usual habit of civilized people). Birth of modern states (15th-17th century) led to the birth of the first diplomacy.

Treaties of Westphalia (1648)

The states recognized themselves pairs and equal in relations (committed to finding rules for their regulation). Creation of the identity of the states. From now on, it is possible to talk about diplomacy, with ambassadors, a body of officials, etc. Philosophy of international law and history of the documentation of diplomacy.

19th century

Crisis of Europe and appearance of new actors: tsarist/soviet empire, USA. Confirmation of the “Concert of Europe” European system of regulation of international affairs by the Great Powers based on the balance of power. In the 1950s, Europe “discovered” that it was only an appendix, not the centre of the world. It took half a century to acknowledge the conscience of its crisis. The consequence of this crisis was the CW (even though the crisis started way before). Diplomatic history emerged.

Diplomatic history

Diplomatic history emerged with the publication of the first diplomatic papers, the black books, (like those published by the Bolshevik parties in France to testify the tsarist actions) and international treaties. All the other governments, after 1919, started to do the same, to publish all their documents and possible answers to the public accusations in the famous “coloured book”: Italian white books, British blue books, Austrian pink books, Germans green books; all choose a color for their books. Black book remained a bad terminology. These books started a new process of knowledge and self-confidence.

The phases of industrial revolutions and the international companies transformed international relations. All these new actors created also new ideas, elaborations. International and foreign politics became a topic of discussions after the WWI (mainly in the USA and in the countries involved in the war). It was a brand new approach by the public and newspapers. With the end of WWI, a brand new society, able to discuss, criticize, recognize different and faraway models for the building of a different social position, was created.

The classical study of treaties, the diplomatic history, became gradually obsolete and incomplete (in terms of historical research), it was necessary to think also of the economic, social, cultural, ideological approach. The history of international relations took its place in the examination of the new international scenario. Diplomacy's task: translate battlefield verdicts into political settlements.

Peace-making after WWI

Peace is the impossibility of a conflict, the presence of agreements to avoid it, a common sense against the war. With different instruments this can be granted, thanks to federalism. Peace may be founded on hegemony and deterrence or it may come with the formation of a stable security community of states which share common values and goals. Peace conferences are actually truce conferences because they are temporary and maintain the fundamental power to make war; differently, a world federation would mean permanent peace.

Internationalism

Woodrow Wilson emphasized democracy with his 8 January 1918’s 14 points (a reformist reply to the Bolshevik’s peace manifesto and a notice to the Entente Cordiale that their secret agreements on war aims and spoils would have been revised) + the creation of the League of Nations, the principle of Collective security (principle of maintaining peace between states by mobilizing international opinion to condemn aggression; commonly seen as one of the main purposes of international organizations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations) and that of self-determination. He was an intellectual, the only president to be also a university professor. He can be considered an idealist, he spoke about the importance of abandoning the secrecy in international relations, promote the publication of its documents and a brand new way to make diplomacy (combining realism and idealism). The traditional diplomatic system (military alliance, secret treaties, balance of power politics) was undermined by the idea of a new diplomacy that should focus on internationalism and transparency. Order needed stronger international laws, a world court to enforce them, the ending of the system of international competition and sovereign states altogether.

It was from the USA and Russia that came the voice of change and not from the Europeans (Italian government had only the concern on Mediterranean stability). Lenin became chief proponent of the revolutionary solution to international anarchy and Wilson shared with him the conviction that the ill effects of inter-state competition had to be alleviated. The latter advocated a more open diplomatic system based on the rule of law, composed of free independent nation states guided by the “organized moral force of mankind”. Both Lenin’s and Wilson’s voices revitalized “ideology” as a factor in international relations: the former pulled out the war to save his regime and to later reshape world politics through workers revolution from below, the latter aimed to reform the international system through the exercise of American power at the top. The Russian revolution and the American entry in the war (1917) sharpened the distinction between liberal and autocratic powers.

Versailles Treaty 1919

The armistice (11th November 1918): The absurdity of the international system is represented by the international conferences. In 1919 in Paris, all the states wanted to stop the war, but at the same time, all of them were ready to start a new one; this paradox was the cause of instability. It was a peace characterized by the perception of the damages of the war, the selfishness of the participants in the agreements (the British and Americans quarreled over the “freedom of the seas” and the Allies split on the issue of reparations); it was a truce conference, not a peace one. The opening procedures of the Paris Conference were marked by administrative chaos and organizational improvisation; its settlement represented a series of trade-offs and compromises between the victorious allies; there were limits to the peacemaker’s capacity to refashion Europe. This conference wanted to create a peaceful system with an impossibility of conflict. But this idea in order to be granted required the building of specific instruments.

There were two types of meetings in the conference: the Council of Four (the 4 winners: France, Britain, Italy, USA) that held restricted meetings; the Council of Ten, with Japan (never considered a full winner) that held general meetings. During the latter, the Japanese requested the right of being recognized as racial equal partners in order to arrange a new international system; this was rejected (by everyone except Italy) and provoked a harsh reaction by the Japanese, that, however, obtained audience only in Japan. This was a symbol of the supremacist vision.

Its inconsistencies:

• The losers (Germany, Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey) did not participate in the conference, they did not have the possibility to say anything until justice had been done, Germany must be treated as moral inferior and banned from the League. Differently, after WWII during the second great conference in Paris the losers had been invited to present their positions (not Germany but Italy).
• The disappearance of some of the losers’ empires (German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian) also represented a big international problem. The situation was extremely complicated. It’s therefore very hard to speak about peace in this context, it is more accurate to define it a selfish conference.

The role of the USA

The USA played a major role in it. Wilson was the chief of an anticolonial country. After the 1898 war against Spain, the US had gained an empire outside of their continent: control upon Cuba and Philippines. They presented the war as one for human rights, equality, the possibility of the just development (against the Spanish colonizers). They presented themselves as saviors, good friends showing new models of society to the Philippines, who accepted their regime. They created a colony in the Philippines. Wilson had a peculiar position: he was against a colonial regime, but shared with Europe the position of an imperial state. In the Peace Conference, he played the role of the good guy, rejecting colonialism, and trying to convince the Europeans of the need for the creation of a new system based on policies of self-determination of peoples (each national group has the right to establish its own national territory; for the territories freed by the war). However, he still was responsible for an empire (Philippines, pacific islands, Cuba).

3 kinds (A, B, C) of mandates (poisonous instrument for international politics): compromise to unite the American vision (no more colonialism) with the British and French’s one (maintain colonialism and show Americans their idealistic vision). Another incoherent aspect was that, if the sole responsible nation was considered to be Germany (Art 231: War Guilt clause, of paramount importance for the following years), there were actually 5 treaties, and not a single one for all the losers, second mistake of the Paris Conference.

• Treaty of Saint Germain Austria (10 September 1919); it prohibited the union of Austria and Germany (Anschluss)
• Treaty of Neuilly Bulgaria (27 November 1919)
• Treaty of Trianon Hungary (4 June 1920)
• Treaty of Sevres Turkey (10 August 1920)

Each of them included provisions for the protection of ethnic, linguistic, and religious minorities. Treaty of Riga between Poland and Russia (1921)

Art 231 pushed and partly allowed the rise of Hitler ("Deutschland erwatch”), it was to become a means of Nazi propaganda, and one of the many mistakes of the Versailles treaty. London pact stated that in case of victories the signatories of the pact would make arrangements to give Italy some territorial compensation if France and Britain would gain something (more territories) from the colonies of the German Empire Italy was actually considered a minor victor. All of these arrangements had consequences also outside Europe: Middle East (divided between France and UK), Africa, and Pacific (where Japan had fought).

The League of Nations - “The idealistic dimension of peace”

This was not a new idea: the League of Nations had been proposed for the USA well before WWI (after the war of 1821) to defend themselves from the Europeans and reorganize the American continent, making it stronger. After WWI, Wilson recovered the idea of this league of nation, enlarging it to involve all the nations of the world. The League, based in Geneva, would consist of a Council and an Assembly, supported by a permanent secretariat. American main political doctrine = Principle of cooperation, cooperate together in a juridical way. He only proposed the evolution of an idea of cooperation, considering common rules, regulations, and laws. This league of nations should have a base of common cooperation, arbitrates; a system of control of international systems, to observe the rule of law, reduce armaments and prevent territorial integrity and independence of member states. But this did not work; the USA invented it but did not participate in it + Germany was admitted only after 1926. This showed the impossibility of creating a working international system while excluding one of its massive blocks. It was a compromise between the aspirations of liberal internationalists and the inescapable limitations of any voluntary associations of sovereign states. The League was the idealistic dimension of peace and the German settlement the punitive one.

The USA was the only country in the world where public opinion heavily defined foreign and internal policies. The American Senate refused the treaty, and Wilson was unable to change the Senate’s idea and consequently unable to let America enter the League of Nations. With this rejection, they were forced to conclude a separate treaty with Germany (1921). However, Americans did not entirely retreat from the international stage, their status as world’s largest creditor meant that they could not entirely cut themselves off from the outside world. Even the most isolationist Republican administrations did not shy away from pulling the financial levers to promote stability in Europe.

Also, the SU remained isolated, Lenin’s world revolution failed to materialize (the experience of civil war, Allied intervention, loss of Finland, Bessarabia, and Baltic states warned the dangers of survival in a world dominated by capitalism and imperialism). The SU promoted the overthrow of capitalism through the support of the international community and the building of “socialism in one country”. The result of this diplomatic position was a rapprochement with Germany, the other Great Power alienated from the Paris Peace. Rapallo treaty (1922) expanded economic co-operation (Russia helped Germany to evade disarmament, and Germany provided Russia with technical know-how).

Territorial consequences

Article 232 imposed Germany compensation for civilian damage. After 1925 the victors agreed on the total sum and imposed Germany to continue to pay until 1988 (meaning involving at least 4 generations in the resolutions of a conflict). This is the only time in history where a war ended with the imposition of economic reparations + surrender of colonies + army denied of heavy weapons and aircraft and very small navy. American tight-fistedness in 1919 ensured that the allies burdened the Weimar Republic with reparations. The struggle over reparations was primarily a political one and it also generated frictions within the Entente. Paris insisted on enforcement before leniency, London pressed for the latter in the hope that a German economic recovery would fuel a European one and revive British markets. In 1922 Germany was declared in default of reparations payments French and Belgium troops occupied the Rhineland, alienating Anglo-American opinion and causing a wave of hyperinflation; from this point forward Britain planted itself between France and Germany as a mediator, not anymore a French ally. Later, with the 1924 Dawes Plan (American loan to Germany and France) reparations were scaled down and France ended the 1923 occupation.

No matter how sharp the pencil to redraw the map borders was, the peacemakers’ lines cut across the ethnographic patchwork of Eastern Europe, leaving 30 million people on the wrong side of contestable frontiers.

Germany:

• East: west of Prussia given to Poland (the Danzig corridor Danzig, free city under the League divided its core territory) East upper Silesia, Hultschin land
• West: the Rhineland (core of German industrial production) + Alsace-Lorraine occupied by France in 1923, Saar (international statute).

Poland was created as a brand new state, taking territories from France, Germany, and Austria; this was a puzzle state, considered an element of instability.

Bulgaria and Greece:

• Western (Bulgaria) and Eastern (Turkey) Thrace given to Greece.

Austrian Empire was dismembered in:

• Czechoslovakia: Czech and Hungarian
• Part given to Poland
• Romania was given Bessarabia + Austrian Bukovina: Hungarians and Romanians
• Yugoslavia: state with some sort of control and stability only Italy saw it as a possible future threat. Italy got Istria, Trieste, Trento, Brenner pass.

Empires and colonies

The 2 largest empires belonged to the British (Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, the Indian subcontinent Africa, and the West Indies) and the French (Indochina, much of the North, Central, and West Africa). In the 19th century, while declining powers such as Spain and Portugal lost control over South America, the industrializing countries (in particular Britain and France) rapidly extended their possessions; this period saw the famous “Scramble for Africa”.

Main causes of the origins of imperialism: tensions in Europe (colonies symbol of greater status), trade and investment, civilizing mission (ideological justification for imperial gain). Colonies, once subjugated, provided the imperial powers with many material advantages, raw materials (their exportation boosted foreign currency earnings), food, munitions, men (soldiers). Mobilizing colonial resources added to the strength of imperial powers.