In a world in which we are familiar with the work of the United Nations on our television screens and for many of us, more closely to home, as we see their work in the field so to speak (whilst MUNers, of course, get to experience its work in a very real way), it is perhaps hard to understand just what a novelty the League of Nations was. So, what was it?

Essentially it was an international body that set out to persuade individual states, and if necessary, force states to bow to the will of the international community. This covered things like border disputes arising from the Paris treaties but also any other territorial disputes between states. But how to deal with non-member states? And what of civil wars? These would be much more contentious matters (and in the time frame you are looking at there were civil wars in Russia, a non-member state, and Spain). It also set out to deal with social issues such as basic human rights and decent living and working conditions throughout the world. This ranged widely and included the plight of refugees, slavery, health matters, safety in the work place, and so on.

All well and good, except for one crucially important thing. Nation states had got used to the idea of seeing themselves as ‘sovereign powers’, and new states expected to be regarded in the same manner. So what is meant by a ‘sovereign power’? Essentially, it means that the government of an individual country is solely responsible for that country’s laws and other policies, both domestic and foreign. No outside authority has any rights to impose anything it doesn’t agree with.

So, we have a potential clash of interests, whether it is the imposition of minimum health standards or the imposition of relations with another state. Countrie’s are happy to have things “imposed” if it is to their benefit (especially if it is paid for by the international community). For example, health care or education provisions. But they are less happy if it goes against their cultural values. Freedom of religion, for example, might be a contentious issue. Whilst things that come with a cost, minimum health standards or educational rights, might be considered unaffordable or not a priority. As for imposing decisions with respect to territorial matters. Well, that is going to be seen as highly contentious for the country that considers itself to be losing out. Added to this is the cost incurred by countries that might be required to impose the League’s will: military force doesn’t come cheap. And what about the potential cost in lives? It is difficult for a government to say to its own people that the cost of its citizens lives in dealing with a problem not of its own making, and not directly affecting the country, was a price worth paying. And in democracies, politicians are always aware of the next election.

So, we can see how the League of Nations, a seemingly wonderful idea, had significant issues to face when theory came to be put into practice.

Why American membership of the League was critically important

 

  • America was, in 1919, by far the most economically powerful country in the world
  • America had actually benefited economically from the war
  • And with economic power comes military power
  • America was also the only power that could have had a strong military presence in both Europe and the Pacific region
  • At the same time, Britain and France were both severely economically weakened by the cost of sustaining total war for more than four years
  • President Wilson, his 14 Points, had provided the moral leadership that had created the League of Nations
  • France had only been persuaded to compromise on issues of security vis-à-vis Germany by the Anglo-American guarantee

Millions of people would have been much worse off if not for the work of the League and its commissions.

 

Europe, in the aftermath of WW1 and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, faced a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale. It was estimated that a million and a half refugees had fled the Bolshevik revolution and in total there were some half a million prisoners of war in 1920 and they wanted to return home. There were also more than a million refugees in the Balkans for different reasons. Consequently refugee camps were a necessity and the League worked to make sure diseases like cholera, smallpox and dysentery didn’t take hold. In 1921 the League set up a Commission of Refugees. It was a major success for the League and, in 1922, Fridtjof Nansen, its first High Commissioner, won the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

The League’s Health Organisation was another major success and was the forerunner of the UNs World Health Organisation. Successful initiatives included its campaign to reduce leprosy and its campaign to eradicate the mosquito and so reduce the spread of malaria and yellow fever. It also worked with non-member states, for example preventing a typhus epidemic in Russian Siberia. And it also helped to set up research institutions which worked on vaccines for diseases like diphtheria and tuberculosis.

 

The Slavery Commission sought to stamp out slavery. For example, it organised raids against slave owners and traders in Burma, and it worked to end the ‘white slave’ trafficking of women and children into prostitution. Another major success was the freeing of 200,000 slaves in Sierra Leone and a much-reduced death rate – from 50% to 4% on the Tanganyikan railway. It gathered evidence published reports and sort to exert maximum pressure on governments to act. Countries such as Iraq, Jordan and Nepal abolished slavery altogether. However, it couldn’t interfere in the sovereign right of nations to enforce their own laws and it had to rely on raising awareness and moral force

 

The International Labour Organisation (ILO) covered issues such as working hours, child labour, women’s rights and employers’ liability. Like the Slavery Commission it collected evidence of working conditions around the world and published its findings trying to persuade governments to take action. It called for minimum standards such as a minimum employment age of fifteen, an eight-hour working day, a forty-eight hour working week, annual holidays with pay, and the right to join a trade union. It also called for minimum wage rates, sickness and unemployment insurance. Health and safety in the workplace was another focus. It also lobbied for old-age pensions. It relied on establishing minimum standards and publicising them, hoping to shame reluctant governments to impose them but again, like the Slavery Commission, it couldn’t interfere in the sovereign right of nations to legislate as they saw fit.

There were other commissions, and a fuller account of their work is given in my e-book on the League of Nations, but these four examples will give you something to think about when you are assessing whether the League was a success or not.

What was the significance of Manchuria?

 

  • Japan was a permanent member of the League’s Council
  • It showed that Britain and France were struggling to maintain their status as world powers
  • It showed that without America, the ability for the League to act effectively was very limited
  • It showed that Soviet membership would also strengthen the League
  • The League was slow to act when attempting to resolve an issue so far away (it was a different world than the one we live in today)
  • Mussolini and Hitler took note of the League’s inability to act as well as the weakness of Britain and France