2.4

Wilson became the Leagues strongest advocate, and in 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference, he acted as chairman of a multinational commission to set up and agree upon the precise wording of the League of Nations Covenant, a list of rules by which the League would operate.

The commission consisted of two representatives from, Britain, France, Italy, the USA, and Japan. While Belgium, China, Portugal, and Serbia were allowed one representative each. Later included was Czechoslovakia, Greece, Poland, and Romania.

After the First World War, anti-war sentiment spread across the globe, together with a determination that such a catastrophe must never be allowed to happen again. Because of this, There was considerable support for the idea of establishing a League of Nations designed to ensure future international peace.

On the 18^th of June 1919, the League of Nations was formally established by Part | of the Treaty of Versailles. However, it was also with Wilsons insistence that the LON be included in the other peace treaties as well.

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, El Salvador, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Italy, Japan, Liberia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Siam, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, South Africa, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.

Membership of the LON, prevent future war, promote disarmament, abolish secret diplomacy, arbitration, and collective security.

The opening section of the covenant makes it clear that member states were committing themselves to “promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security” and accepting the “obligation not to resort to war”. The League had three aims: preventing future wars, administering the post-war peace settlements, and promoting international cooperation.

It was the firm belief of many statesmen, Wilson among them, that the horrors of the First World War could have been avoided if only there had been an international organisation designed to settle disputes between nations before they descended into armed conflict. The League of Nations was designed to play this role in the future to prevent further wars.

Article 8 of the covenant begins “members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety.”

Wilson strongly believed that the main cause of World War One was the secret diplomacy that had led to the triple alliance and the triple Entente. In reality, both of these rival alliances had been created by a series of treaties that were essentially defensive rather than aggressive. If the full details of these treaties had been known and understood by everyone, they would have caused less fear and panic. Under Article 18 of the covenant, any future treaty entered into a member state would have been registered with and published by the League of Nations.

Member states agreed to arbitration by the League of Nations of any dispute between them (Article 13). The League of Nations would investigate the dispute, considering the rights and wrongs of each party. It would then pass judgement on how the dispute should be settled. The League’s decision would be binding on both parties.

Member states would work together against any country whose actions were seen as a threat to peace by acting aggressively or ignoring decisions made by the League. This could take the form of economic sanctions (the refusal to trade with a nation that was acting in defiance of the Leagues judgements. It was hoped that this economic pressure would force the aggressor nation to back down) or, if these failed, joint military action.

The General Assembly met annually in Geneva; a location selected because Switzerland seemed to symbolise the desire for peace. A neutral country who had taken no part in WW1, each member state could send up to three representatives to meetings of the Assembly, and each state was able to cast one vote. Its main role was to decide general policy, the admission of new members, and to handle the organisation’s finances. Any decision taken in the General Assembly had to be unanimous.

This was a smaller body, whose role was to settle political disputes between nations. It held four ordinary meetings per year, with extra meetings (known as extraordinary sessions) held in case of emergency. The Council met a total of 107 times between 1920 and 1939. As with the GA, decisions also had to be unanimous. The Council was made up of permanent and non-permanent members.

The four original members were Britain, France, Japan, and Italy. Germany became a permanent member in 1926, However when Germany and Japan pulled out of the League in 1933, the USSR became a permanent member.

Non-Permanent Members: Initially there were to be four non-permanent members, elected every three years by the General Assembly. The first non-permanent members were Belgium, Brazil, Spain, and Greece. The number of non-permanent members  increased to 6 in 1922, 9 in 1926, and 11 in 1933.

The Secretariat carried out the day-to-day work of the League: preparing agendas, publishing reports, and dealing with vital routine matters. It was based in Geneva and was directed by a Secretary General, the first of which was the British diplomat, Sir Eric Drummond, who held the post from 1919 to 1933.

Based at the Hague in the Netherlands, the Permanent Court was designed to deal with legal disputes between states. The Permanent Court consisted of 15 judges of different nationalities who were elected for a period of 9 years by the General Assembly. The Permeant Court ran from 1922-46 although they had no real way of ensuring that countries listened to their ruling.

A number of commissions and committees were established by the LoN to deal with specific problems. The main commissions dealt with issues such as the mandates, disarmament, refugees and slavery. There were committees for matters relating to international labour, health, child welfare, drug problems and women’s rights. These achieved some notable success during the 1920s. They facilitated the repatriation of some 400,000 pows, set up refugee camps, began the process of finding preventions to diseases such as malaria and leprosy, closed down a number of Swiss businesses that were selling drugs, and arranged for the freedom of some 200,000 slaves in countries such as Burma. However, little progress was made in the 1920s on disarmament, women’s rights, or restricting working hours.

The League planned to do this by arranging plebiscites and organising mandates.

The TOV determined that the Saar Valley should be administered by the LON for a period of 15 years, after which a plebiscite would take place so that local people could decide for themselves whether they wanted to be French or German. In 1935, the LON duly arranged this, and the Saar region returned to Germany.

As a result of the peace treaties ending WW1, many colonies were taken away from the defeated nations. In cases where it was felt that these territories were not yet ready for full independence, they would be run as mandates. This meant that their administration was entrusted to another country (known as the Mandatory) appointed by the League of Nations. The Mandatory had to submit an annual report to the LON, which established a Mandate Commission to review the progress of each mandated territory. 

• By seeking to improve working conditions and wage levels throughout the world through the ILO (International Labour Organisation).

• By providing loans to new countries like Austria and Hungary

• By encouraging the development of education

• By promoting improvements in public health, such as the prevention and control of disease

• By repatriating prisoners of war and resettling refugees.

mandates, disarmament, refugees, and slavery

international labour, drug problems, child welfare, health, and womens rights

• They made easier repatriation for some 400,000 prisoners of war and refugees (returning them to their country of origin)

• set up refugee camps

• began the process of finding preventions for diseases

• closed down a number of swiss companies selling illegal drugs

• arranged freedom of 200,000 slaves from countries such as Burma and British owned Sierra-Leone

The commissions and committees made little progress in matters such as disarmament, workers rights and women’s rights.

To deal with any country that posed a threat to peace, the LON would first carefully review the situation with the intention of forming a solution without further violence. However, if the countries involved didn’t respect the leagues ruling the LON members would be asked to impose economic sanctions on the aggressor. If this failed, the LON could then threaten collective military action. although flawed, this system was successful in resolving a number of political disputes in the 1920’s.

The Teschen area, with rich deposits of coal, had been one of the wealthiest and most industrialised regions of the former Austro-Hungarian empire. In 1919 there was violence between Czechoslovakia and Poland, as the two successor states had claimed the same region. The intervened and resolved the dispute by splitting the region between the countries in 1920. Although neither country was fully satisfied with the Leagues ruling they accepted it. The Teschen border dispute was a success for the LON.

The League was also successful in resolving a dispute of the Aland Islands (a group of some 6,500 islands situated in between Sweden and Finland). Although the population was exclusively spanish speaking, the Aland Islands had belonged to Finland since the early 1900s. Most inhabitants wanted the islands to become part of Sweden, but Finland was reluctant to lose sovereignty over them. The Swedish government raised the issue with the LON and the League decided that the islands should remain with Finland. Both nations accepted the Leagues ruling and the threat of war was diverted.

The Swedish government argued that the leagues ruling had not been influenced by the populations wishes. they argued that as Finland had acquired the territory by force, technically they were the aggressor, and that the league was not acting out of the core principle of self determination and was not in line with international law. Even so, the Swedish government accepted the Leagues ruling.

The decision was based on detailed consideration of all the issues involved by a specially appointed commission, and provided the outcome that was most likely to provide future peace in the islands. Moreover, it contained specific guarantees to protect the rights of Swedish people in the Islands to maintain their own language and culture.

The people of Upper Silesia, and important industrial region, were divided over wether they wished to become part of Germany or Poland, both of which laid claim to the area. This led to a series of local riots between 1919 and 1921, at which point the LON became involved. The LON decided that the area should be divided between Germany and Poland. This decision was accepted by both Germany and Poland and, importantly, by the vast majority of the Upper Silesians themselves.

In 1921, the league was confronted with open warfare between Yugoslavia and Albania. Following ongoing disputes between the two countries over territory on their joint border, Yugoslav troops entered Albanian land in November on 1921. The LON sent a commission, made up of representatives from Britain, France, Italy and Japan, to investigate the cause of the disagreement. On the basis of the commission’s recommendations, the LON found in favour of Albania. Yugoslavia complained bitterly, but had no alternative but to withdraw its troops.

The port of Memel and the surrounding area were placed under the control of the LON by the terms of the TOV. However, Lithuania claimed the region, and invaded in 1923. The LON’s decided that the area around the port should belong to Lithuania, but that Memel itself should remain an ‘international zone’. Lithuania accepted the decision. The action taken by the LON was a success in the sense that it prevented bloodshed. However, there was some criticism of the League’s decision because it seemed to condone the fact that Lithuania had been able to gain land by the use of force.

The city and region of Mosul had been part of the Turkish Empire until 1918. As a result of the PPS, Mosul (an area in which oil had already been discovered) became part of the British mandate of Iraq. Turkey demanded that it should be allowed to regain control of the region. In 1924, the LON found in favour of Iraq and Turkey accepted the decision.

Following a dispute, Greece invaded Bulgaria in 1925. Bulgaria ordered its troops to offer only token resistance in an effort to avoid open conflict. This was a clear indication that Bulgaria had faith in the League to find a peaceful settlement to the dispute. The LON condemned the invasion and called for Greece to withdraw and pay compensation to Bulgaria. Greece complied with the Leagues orders.

All of the successful disputes were relatively minor disputes concerning relatively weak powers in contrast to the likes of Italy, Britain, France, or Japan.

A dispute arose in 1920 between Poland and Lithuania, two nations who’s borders had been defined by the post-WW1 settlement agreed at the PPC. Vilna was the capital of Lithuania, but had a predominantly Polish population. In 1920, Polish troops occupied the city. following a request by Lithuania, the LON ordered Poland to remove its forces and tried to arrange a plebiscite to decide the region’s future. Although the Polish government initially agreed, it subsequently reinforced its troops in Vilna, and in 1922 annexed the city and its surrounding area. Poland had effectively defied the LON and the territory remained in Polish possession until 1939.

The key to understanding the leagues failure in this case is the role played by Britain and France, both of which supported Polands claim to Vilna. France in particular was keen to keep Poland as an ally in the event of any future conflict with Germany Without the support of these two major powers, the League was powerless to enforce its decision. As early as 1920, therefore, the underlying weaknesses of the LON were fatally exposed. France were putting their own national interests ahead of their commitment to the League.

In 1920 Poland invaded Russian territory. The Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga by which Poland gained some 80,000 square kilometers of territory. The LON took no action against Poland’s open agression. There were 2 main reasons for this. First, Russia was not a member of the LON at that time, and therefore collective security didn’t apply to them. Second, Russia’s communist government was unpopular in Britain and France, neither of which had any interest in defending it.

German failure to pay way reparations led to France and Belgium invading the Ruhr, Germany’s most important industrial region, in 1923. By taking this action, two members of the LON’s were effectively breaking the rules to which they has committed themselves by signing the Covenant of the League.Both France and Belgium were represented on the LON council, France as a permanent member and belgium as a non-permanent member. Since decisions of the Council had to be unanimous, the League was effectively prevented from taking action to deal with this incident. It was the Dawes plan of 1924 that finally led to the withdrawal of the French and Belgian troops from the Ruhr region, the LON having been powerless to either prevent or end it.

In 1923, Italy blamed Greece for the death of three Italian officials monitoring the border between Greece and Albania. Mussolini demanded compensation and occupied the Greek island of Corfu. Greece appealed to the LON, which ordered the Italian troops to withdraw. Mussolini refused to accept that the League had the authority to deal with this issue. He threatened to withdraw Italy from the LON and referred the matter instead to the Council of Ambassadors. The Council decided that Greece should pay considerable compensation to Italy. This incident exposed two fundamental weaknesses of the LON. First, as a member of the LON Council, Italy was in a position to prevent League from taking any action. Second, the League’s decision was effectively overruled by another body, the Council of Ambassadors. Also at the time, French interests were occupied in the Ruhr and they couldn’t afford a dispute with a great power such as Italy as well. As for Britain, they wouldn’t act without the French. Therefore both nations acted out of self interest once more.

That the LON’s effectiveness was heavily dependent on the attitudes of its most powerful members. With powerful members in support of the League, it was able to arrange and enforce peace settlements.

The LON emerged from the treaties agreed at the PPC, therefore the League was closely associated with treaties that were unpopular in many countries, and which inevitably led to numerous territorial disputes. To many, the LON was an organisation created by, and for the benefit of, the WW1 victorious nations. This perception was reinforced by the fact that none of the defeated nations was initially allowed to join.

The LON was concived as a global organisation. However, of the worlds major powers, only Britain, France, Italy, and Japan were members of the league throughout the early 1920’s. Germany was not allowed to join until 1926, the USSR did not become a member until 1934, and the USA never joined.

Despite the fact that the US president Woodrow Wilson had been so instrumental in the creation of the League, the US rejected the post-war settlement and the LON. This is because by the time that Wilson returned to the USA from the PPC, the Republican Party had gained control of the Senate and voted against him on the 19.11.1919. To most Americans, the best way to ensure that the US didn’t become involved in any more wars was to return to the policy of isolationism. The USA’s refusal to join the LON was a significant blow to its prospects of success, reducing both its credibility and its financial security.

The authority of the LON was frequently undermined. For example, ‘the Council of Ambassadors’, had been established to administer post-war treaties until the LON was fully operational. In reality, it continued to function until 1931, and on several occasions disagreed with and took precedence over the League’s decisions (as in the Corfu incident). Similarly, countries often chose to ignore the LON entirely, preferring to make separate agreements, such as the Locarno Treaties on 1925.

The Covenant of the LON required decisions by both General Assembly and the Council MUST be unanimous. Countries could not accept their actions might be determined by the decisions of other nations. This then gave the right to veto (to prevent a decision being acted on). Moreover, this need for everyone to be in agreement slowed down the process, especially since many decision required ratification by the General Assembly, which met only once a year. As a result, the LON appeared both slow and indecisive.

The leagues ability to confront aggression and threats to world peace was dependent upon collective security. Members had to work together to impose economic sanctions, or military action for it to work. Article 11 of the Covenant reads; ‘Any war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.’ The LON did not have an army of their own, and therefore expected other unwilling League member states to provide troops if military action required. This would fall to self interested Britain and France. However, in 1923 a resolution passed in which ‘each member state could decide for itself whether or not to provide armed forces in a crisis.’ This clearly undermined the entire principal on which collective security was based. In both Britain and France, where public opinion was strongly anti-war, there was an understandable reluctance to commit to military action. Governments in both countries believed that they were militarily weak (although the strongest in the LON) and that war must be avoided at all costs.

Nations commitments with the LON did not always fit with their own national interests. In 1921, for example, when the league took no action in response with Poland USSR because they did not want to help non-league countries or communist governments. Similarly France would clearly not endorse league action against occupation of Ruhr 1923.

The ILO was created by and financed through the LON under the leadership of Albert Thomas, France. The ILO achieved success in improving working conditions globally by banning poisonous white lead from paint, Limiting the hours small children were allowed to work, introduced old age pensions, and ratifying minimum wage in 77 countries by the end of the 1920s. The ILO also   campaigned strongly to improve working conditions,trying to introduce a maximum 48-hour work week and 8-hour work day. Unfortunately, majority of the Leagues members refused to adopt this because they thought it would cost their industries too much. The ILO was hampered by lack of funds and lack of power, and really only had the option to ‘name and shame’ countries/organisations that broke regulations. The ILO also failed to ban night work, and ensure paid holidays for employees. Even so the ILO made an enormous difference to the lives of underprivileged people.

The Health Organisation dealth with specific problems, such as the health risks of refugees in Turkey. The Health Organisation collected statistical information and informed good practice. They also sponsored research into infectious diseases at institutes in Singapore, London, and Denmark, helping to develop vaccines and medicines to fight deadly diseases, such as Leprosy and Malaria. The Health Committee was seen as the most successful of the Leagues organisations, its work continuing after 1945 and becoming the ‘World Health Organisation’ that we have today.

The Mandates Commission supervised territories that had been taken from Germany and Turkey at the end of WW1. Supervision was to ensure that the territories were well-governed and adequately prepared for own independence. For example, the commission facilitated the League’s efficient administration of Saar region until 1935, before arranging a plebiscite for locals, who voted to return to Germany. The commission demanded reports from Britain, France and Belgium to ensure they were following the strict rules laid down by the League. While the commission didn’t have the power to carry out inspections to ensure the accuracy of these reports, there is clear evidence that the mandatory powers treated these territories differently from their other overseas possessions. For example, Britain allowed its mandate of Tanganyika to purchase American goods that were cheaper than their British equivalent. In truth, however, there was little done to prepare these territories for future independence.

The LON was able to provide vital financial assistance to many countries facing economic difficulties. For example, Austria and Hungary were facing bankruptcy; the League arranged loans for the two nations, and sent commissioners to offer advice on how best to spend the money (1922-1923). This set Austria and Hungary on the path to economic recovery.

The LON played a significant role in responding to issues such as the exploitation of women and children, drug trafficking and slavery. It helped to free 200,000 slaves in places such as sierra Leone and Burma.