How is contemporary form of socioeconomic intervention different from historical form of intervention such as the mandate system?
I. Introduction
This paper addresses the issue of contemporary socio-economic interventions and attempts to ascertain whether these contemporary interventions are different from the Mandate System that operated under the League of Nations after World War II. One important historical phenomenon that will feature prominently in the above stated analysis is colonialism as it is a practice that cannot be separated from the Mandate System. A brief definition and overview of colonialism is thus deemed necessary in this introductory part of this paper.
Margaret Kohn defines colonialism as “a practice of domination, which involves the subjugation of one people to another”. (para. 1) Colonialism also involves, notably, economic and political control of a people, state, or territory by another state. It is sometimes associated with imperialism. Europe, by the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century had colonized most parts of the non-European world. In spite of the era of enlightenment in Europe that gave birth to great political theorists who advanced democratic ideals, the rule of law, and the principles that advanced the notion that all humans are born free and that human rights are natural inalienable rights of the human, the subjugation of other non-European ‘humans’ under colonialism were justified under the philosophy of ‘civilizing mission.
The internationalization of colonialism and its justifications under international law is analyzed beneath
II. The Mandate System – International Institutions, International Law and Colonialism
The development of international law and institutions from the 20th century is typically epitomized in the formation of the League of Nations which was birthed after World War I ostensibly to prevent the re-occurrence of War. The international institutional system and law under the League of Nations however also portrayed the philosophical underpinnings and justifications that were used to defend colonialism. By the end of World War I, most of the parts of what is now the third world were under colonial rule by European states, notably Britain, France, Germany, Portugal, Belgium, Spain and Holland.
After the defeat of Germany and the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the territories and colonies held by the defeated powers were taken from them and put under the Mandate System of the League of Nations, to be administered by chosen states who were the victors of World War I. Article 22(1) of the League of Nations Covenant for instance stated that:
“To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilization and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant.”
The Mandate System could however be seen as an institutionalization and formal recognition at the international level, of what had persisted long before the War – i.e. colonialism. The Mandate System could be seen as addressing questions like: ‘How could the victorious powers of the World War I justify their continuous intervention, exploitation, and presence in their colonies when a lot of them (if not all) secured their colonies through wars against ‘natives’ in these colonies before subjugating them under colonial rule?’ This pertinent issue just signified one dimension of the state-of-play with regards to colonialism after World War I. the second situation had to do with the division of the ‘spoils’ of the defeated powers by the victorious powers – i.e. the administration of the colonies and territories held by the defeated powers under the Mandate System.
Long before the Mandate System came into effect under the League of Nations, colonial powers like Britain and France had justified their interventions in their colonies on the premise of civilizing the ‘natives’ of these colonies – a form of ‘manifest destiny’ to undertake a civilizing mission to the non-European world. The French were for instance notorious for their policy of assimilation in their colonies, especially in Africa, where ‘natives’ were supposed to be assimilated into French culture. Consequently, the “sacred trust of civilization” adduced by Article 22(1) of the League of Nations Covenant as being foundational in the establishment of the Mandate System, was an already existing philosophical justification that was being used by European colonialists for their interventions and involvements in their colonies.
Lord Lugard for instance, writing about Britain’s colonial involvement in Africa stated in his book The Dual Mandate that:
“the abounding wealth of the tropical regions of the earth must be developed and used for the benefit of mankind,” and that it was the obligation of colonial powers “not only to safeguard the material interests of the natives, but to promote their moral and educational progress.” (cited by Aghie 278)
Lugard’s argument epitomizes the philosophical justifications that were used in the defense of the colonial agenda – colonialism as a humanitarian undertaking and also as the expansion of international commerce for the good of mankind, including the colonized themselves. It is thus not an accident that the ‘Mandate’ mindset of the colonizers as articulated in Lugard’s The Dual Mandate became a policy of international law under the League of Nations. The Mandate System under the League of Nations would thus not only mirror the justifications for the colonial project, but would even do so linguistically as is evident in the title of Lugard’s book – The Dual Mandate – and the League of Nations’ ‘Mandate System’.
The Mandate System thus provided the opportunity to enshrine the colonial interventions of European states in the third world in a formalistic manner under international law. The despondent nature of the colonies painted by the Mandate System – “peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world” – did not only justify the taking over of the colonies of the defeated powers in World War I, but also became a justification for the entire colonial project embarked on by Europeans.
III. Contemporary Interventions in the Third World under International Institutions and International Law
As can be realized from the above, international institutions and international law were brought into being (to a very large extent) by European states and these international systems became crystallized particularly under the League of Nations. In the post World War II era, the international institutions who were given the mandate to stabilize the world’s economy were the Bretton Woods Institutions – the World Bank and the IMF.
The GATT/WTO was also added later to facilitate and work towards tariff reductions in trade among member states. These institutions have become the main protagonists in economic globalization (Bossche and Alexovicová, 667) and their advancement of the principles of market liberalization and privatization has resulted in some socio-economic interventions in the economies of developing countries. These interventions become reminiscent of the Mandate System under the League of Nations where the colonized were deemed to be helpless to stand on their own, hence needing the tutelage of the colonizing powers to advance their interests.
Under the WTO rules for example, the principles of non-discrimination in trade results in trade liberalization which exposes the weaker markets of third world countries to the stronger and more sophisticated manufacturing economies of developed countries. (Bosche 2005, 67) However, economic sectors like agriculture and textiles where third world countries have a greater comparative advantage over developed countries consistently face significant trade barriers in the markets of developed countries. The maintenance of Agricultural subsidies notably by the European Union states and the U.S. for instance makes it impossible for developing countries to be competitive in trade. These however are rules that operate in a way that allows the developed countries more market access to the markets of developing countries whereas the developing countries lack a reciprocal form of treatment in the products of economic importance to them.
In a sense, it can be argued that the mercantilist system that operated in the colonial era continues to operate in a different form under institutions like the WTO – i.e. the system of making the colonies the producers of primary products and the markets of value added manufactured products from the colonizing powers.
Also, interventions in the economies of third world countries by institutions like the World Bank and the IMF through its notorious structural adjustment programs have been observed to be very detrimental to the economies of these countries. (Oloka-Onyango, 26) Other paradigms of development like the neo-liberal economic reforms have been advanced by the Bretton Woods Institutions and in most cases been ‘imposed’ on many third world countries as conditionalities for loans and other forms of economic assistance.
Stringent rules and obligations of debt repayment set by the IMF and the World Bank in its dealings with third world countries have also resulted a significant reduction on government spending on needed social amenities like health and education. The interventions of these international institutions in the socio-economic sectors of third world countries thus have been detrimental to the development of these countries.
Thus in trying to ascertain whether current socio-economic interventions by the Bretton Woods Institutions constitutes a form of neo-colonialism that is similar to the Mandate System operated by the League of Nations, one cannot overlook the history of the formation of these institutions and the power influences behind the economic development paradigms that they advance. Just as international law under the League of Nations introduced the Mandate System to manage colonialism after World War I, the interventions in the economies of third world countries by international institutions like the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO, in the post World War II era, becomes reminiscent of its precursor – the Mandate System.
Jagdish Bhagwati for instance talks about powers behind the internationalization of the neo-liberal economic paradigm as the “Wall Street Treasury Complex”. (11) He further argues that:
“a definite networking of like-minded luminaries among the powerful institutions—Wall Street, the Treasury Department, the State Department, the IMF, and the World Bank . . . . This powerful network, which may aptly, if loosely, be called the Wall Street-Treasury Complex is unable to look much beyond the interest of Wall Street, which it equates with the good of the world.” (11-12)
Anghie also argues that the World Bank and the IMF are “in important respects, successors of the Mandate System”. (246) He further observes that when the World Bank talks about its development paradigm in the language of humanitarianism and human rights – i.e. the right to development – that right should be made evident in the empowerment of sovereign states to determine their own economic destiny and their preference of economic development. The right to development advocated by developing countries is the establishment of “a New International Economic Order that would attempt to bring about fundamental changes to the international economy and that would enhance the economic sovereignty of developing country states”.
Are Contemporary Forms of Interventions Different from Historical Forms?
The above presentation has attempted to analyze the Mandate System under the League of Nations and contemporary forms of interventions in third world countries to ascertain whether they are different phenomena or whether they are similar. It can be argued that one significant difference between colonialism and the Mandate System on one hand, and contemporary forms of interventions in third world countries by the Bretton Woods Institutions, is the fact that whereas colonialism and the mandate system were direct political and economic controls or subjugations, contemporary interventions are not that overtly direct. Contemporary forms of interventions are more economic than political, though it can be argued that economic control of a sovereign state by an outside power has political implications as it undermines the sovereignty of the controlled state.
The philosophical underpinnings of the interventions under the Mandate System and contemporary socio-economic interventions can however be said to be very similar. The rhetoric of ‘well-being and development’ adduced as justifications for the mandate system still reverberates in the rhetoric of the Bretton Woods Institutions as evidenced in the World Bank’s ‘Right to Development’ advocacy presented above.
It can also be said that though the power dynamics of contemporary interventions seems to have changed its geographical location from Europe to the U.S., the leverage that Europe wields in contemporary forms of socio-economic interventions in third world countries is still significant. A case in point is the Economic Partnership Agreement that the EU maintains with its ex-colonies which have been criticized as colonialism by proxy.
Works Cited
Anghie, Antony ‘Time Present And Time Past: Globalization, International Financial Institutions, And The Third World’, Journal Of International Law And Politics (2000)
Oloka-Onyango, Joe, ‘Beyond the Rhetoric: Reinvigorating the Struggle for Economic and Social Rights in Africa’, California Western International Law (1995) 1, 20-29
Bhagwati, Jagdish, ‘The Capital Myth: The Difference Between Trade in Widgets and Dollars’, Foreign Affairs, May-June 1998
Van den Bossche, Peter, and Alexovicová, I., ‘Effective Global Economic Governance by the World Trade Organisation’, Journal of International Economic Law, 8, 2005 667-690
Works Consulted
Stiglitz, J. E. Globalization and Its Discontents. (2002) London: Penguin Books
Stiglitz, J. E. and Charlton, A. (2005). ‘The Doha Round is Missing the Point on Helping Poor Countries’. The Financial Times, December 13, 2005
Yergin, D. and Stanislaw, J. The Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World’s Economy. (1998) New York: Touchstone