Woodrow Wilson envisioned the League of Nations as the institutional centerpiece of a new international order in which disputes between countries could be resolved through diplomacy and collective action rather than through another catastrophic general war.
The idea was closely connected to Wilson's Fourteen Points, which he presented to Congress in January 1918. The Fourteen Points called for, among other aspirations, freedom of the seas, reductions in armaments, greater openness in international diplomacy, adjustments to national borders based upon the principle of self-determination, and most importantly for Wilson's later vision the creation of a "general association of nations" that would provide mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity.
Wilson believed that international politics needed to move beyond the traditional balance-of-power system. The old European system had produced repeated wars and had ultimately failed spectacularly in 1914. Instead of individual states relying primarily upon military alliances to protect themselves, Wilson wanted nations to become members of a permanent international organization in which aggression against one member would be regarded as a concern for all.
This was the principle of collective security. In theory, an aggressor could not simply attack a weaker neighbor and expect the great powers to stand aside. The League could condemn the aggressor, impose economic sanctions and, if its members were willing, authorize collective military action. The underlying assumption was that the combined diplomatic, economic and potentially military power of the international community would deter future aggressors.
It was an ambitious idea, perhaps too ambitious for the political realities of the time. Wilson's greatest problem was that the country he represented never joined the organization.
The Treaty of Versailles incorporated the Covenant of the League of Nations, but the United States Senate had to ratify the treaty before the United States could become a member. Wilson faced powerful opposition, particularly from Republican senators such as Henry Cabot Lodge, who feared that membership could compromise American sovereignty and potentially oblige the United States to become involved in conflicts that did not directly threaten American interests.
These concerns had merit. Collective security raised a genuinely difficult constitutional and strategic question: Could the United States preserve its freedom of action if it accepted an obligation to defend the territorial integrity of other countries?
Wilson was unwilling to accept major reservations to the Covenant, while his opponents were unwilling to approve it without them. The result was a political deadlock. The Senate rejected ratification, the United States never joined the League, and Wilson's vision suffered an enormous blow.
Wilson had helped design an international organization intended to prevent future wars, yet his own country, arguably the nation with the greatest potential economic and military weight behind the organization remained outside it.
Nevertheless, I would be cautious about saying that the eventual failure of the League was simply Wilson's fault. The League had structural weaknesses that went well beyond the absence of the United States.
Most importantly, the League had limited coercive power. It possessed no independent military force and depended upon its members to enforce its decisions. Economic sanctions could be imposed, but their effectiveness depended upon broad international participation. Military action was even more a problem as governments had to convince their own populations and legislatures that intervention was worth the cost. Such was the great contradiction of the postwar world.
The victorious powers had just emerged from the most destructive conflict the world had yet experienced. Britain and France had suffered enormous casualties and economic disruption, and their populations had little enthusiasm for another major European war. The very societies that had created the League were therefore reluctant to provide the military muscle necessary to enforce its principles.
The League was also not the completely neutral organization that Wilson's rhetoric might suggest. The victors of the First World War, particularly Britain and France, possessed enormous influence within the new international system. Germany was initially excluded, Soviet Russia was outside the organization for much of its early existence, and the defeated Central Powers had little say in the initial construction of the postwar order.
This created another problem: the League was supposed to be an organization of collective security, but it was also an instrument of the postwar settlement. Countries dissatisfied with that settlement could therefore view the League as an institution designed to preserve a system they regarded as unjust.
The League did enjoy some successes. It helped settle a number of smaller international disputes, administered mandates and territories, and sponsored humanitarian initiatives. Its record was therefore not one of complete failure.
Its real test, however, came when confronted by determined aggressor states. Japan's seizure of Manchuria in 1931, Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and Germany's increasingly aggressive actions in Europe demonstrated the fundamental weakness of the system. The League could condemn aggression, but condemnation was not enough. Sanctions were incomplete or ineffective, and the great powers were unwilling to risk another general war in order to enforce collective security. The League therefore possessed moral authority without sufficient coercive power.
Wilson's vision was consequently both revolutionary and deeply flawed. He correctly recognized that simply returning to the old balance-of-power system was unlikely to provide permanent peace. His Fourteen Points represented an attempt to construct a new international order based upon diplomacy, national self-determination, disarmament and collective security.
Unfortunately his vision underestimated the difficulty of persuading sovereign states to subordinate their immediate national interests to an international organization particularly when doing so might require them to sacrifice blood and treasure.
The League of Nations was therefore not doomed because it lacked the United States, nor was its failure solely the fault of Wilson. The absence of American participation was a major weakness, but the more extensive problem was that collective security required something that governments after 1918 were reluctant to provide: a willingness to use real power against aggressors. In the end, the League had the architecture of a world government but the enforcement capabilities of a diplomatic forum. It is this distinction that would become painfully apparent in the 1930s.
No comments:
Post a Comment