Nothing but a euphemism (Imperialism still stinks, Part 3)

Third in a series by guest author Dr. Dahlia Wasfi

League of Nations logo.
Image in public domain.

At the end of World War I in 1918, the Arab peoples (including Iraqis, Syrians, and Palestinians) triumphantly declared their liberation from colonial rule according to their pre-war agreements with the Allied powers. However, as a result of the Sykes-Picot pact, the Balfour Declaration, and the newly formed League of Nations, these lands remained under foreign control (albeit a different foreign power).

The League of Nations was created in 1919 for the purpose of preventing another world war. Even though one of its founding principles was the concept of national self-determination, the League rejected Arab declarations of sovereignty. Subsequently, at the 1920 Conference of San Remo[1], France obtained mandates over Syria and Lebanon, while the British gained Palestine, Trans-Jordan, and Iraq[2].

The “mandates” in the Arab World were commissions from the League of Nations that authorized France and Great Britain to govern over each region. From the British perspective, the mandates were distinct from the exploitative colonialism of the previous era because of the League’s requirement for a local constitutional government. The Crown considered the mandate concept as a transitional stage towards Arab autonomy, reflecting “the spirit of the age” of national independence[3].

For the indigenous peoples, however, the term “mandate” was nothing more than a euphemism for imperialism—and their continued subjugation.

The peoples’ anger spawned massive independence movements against their new rulers.  They had bled and died fighting the Ottomans for their liberation. Through the mid- and later 20th century, they would fight the British, French, and other colonial powers who had betrayed them.


[1] Munier, Gilles. “Iraq: An Illustrated History and Guide.” Interlink Books,  Northampton. 2004. p.32

[2] Owen, Roger. “State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, 3rd Edition.” Routledge, New York. 2004. p.6

[3] Ibid

Proportionality in recourse to war (Just war, part 8)

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison:  Today we again welcome another in our series on just war, by guest author Dr. Michael Corgan.]

Proportionality with respect to just war principles is a broad idea. It refers both to the decision to go to war and  to conduct during a war, even a just one. Here we deal with jus ad bellum or the level at which war can be fought.

Falklands war, ship sinking
Argentine ship sinking after British submarine attack (Image in public domain)

The U.N. Charter in Articles 41 and 42 suggests that a range of actions can be contemplated against an aggressor state, with war (military action) as the last resort. Clearly any concept of just war means that all other means must be attempted before resorting to war.

The historical record on this point is not reassuring.

But if this last resort–the use of actual war–is called for, the scale of the war must still be appropriate to a frustration or undoing of the aggressor’s actions. It must not be used as a  pretext for a major effort to “teach a lesson” to the aggressor or to reduce his future
capacities for waging war. Two recent examples may illustrate.

In 1982 the Argentinian government of General Galtieri invaded the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands and captured the small British garrison there. When the British counterattacked to retake the islands, they made it clear that their actions would be confined to a war zone around the Falklands and no action would be taken against the Argentine mainland. Nor was any.

Ten years later the U.N. Security Council authorized the first war against Iraq. Fighting was ended after 100 hours in which the Iraqi forces were driven out of Kuwait. Some military action was taken in Iraq itself but there was no drive to Baghdad.

Contrast this relative restraint with the “shock and awe” introducing the second Iraq war in 2002 and its lingering on for nearly ten years.

In both the Falklands and the first Iraq war there were some excesses, but the wars were, relatively speaking, constrained to undoing the effects of the aggressions. Yet another test for a just war is that its employment of force and its duration be only what is required to undo a specific aggression and no more.

Michael T. Corgan, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Department of International Relations, Boston University

Revolting against tyranny: Then and now

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today’s post is by our guest contributor Dr. Mike Corgan.]

The protests against tyranny suddenly sweeping the Middle East still focus on the achievement of the Egyptian people and what they accomplished. Now the world waits to see what the army will do.

George Washington portrait by Peale
George Washington, 1776, by Charles Wilson Peale (Photographic reproduction in public domain; from Wikimedia Commons)

As we in the U.S. celebrate this Presidents’ Day weekend, it is well to think beyond the car and flat screen TV sales and reflect on just how lucky we were with our revolution and why we honor these two presidents.

George Washington was unquestionably the ablest military man among the Americans who chose to fight British absentee governance and taxation. Qualities far beyond his generalship immortalize his  service to democracy and his country.

When the war was over and the British had surrendered he could have been king if he wanted it. Instead he went to Congress and laid his sword on a table and said his work was done. How many other military leaders of a victorious revolutionary army have ever surrendered to civilian control like that? None–before or since. We were lucky beyond all others.

Yet again, when the army later threatened to march on Congress in Philadelphia to get promised benefits, Washington went to the plotters in Newburgh and defused the situation. He pleaded with his officers not to undo all they had stood for in the name of democracy against tyranny and force with a military show of force.

His oratory and sincerity and even his dramatic putting on of glasses and saying that he himself had grown blind in the service of his country ended the affair, many plotters leaving the meeting in tears. Our revolution succeeded in its aims for many reasons, but George Washington was one of the most important ones.

Michael T. Corgan, Associate Chair and Associate Professor of International Relations, Boston University