Skip to content Show
During World War I, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson promoted the concept of "self-determination," meaning that a nation—a group of people with similar political ambitions—can seek to create its own independent government or state. The idea is also alluded to in the fifth of his Fourteen Points, although the words "self-determination" are never explicitly used. Why did Wilson promote the idea of "self-determination" even though it conflicted with the colonial claims of many allies? The worksheet found below explores this question and more through a brief excerpt from historian Erez Manela. The text for the worksheet is taken from a March 2019 Carnegie Council podcast entitled, "The Crack-Up: Egypt & the Wilsonian Moment, with Erez Manela" and is based upon a New York Times opinion piece written by Manela. Download the Worksheet Subscribe to the Carnegie Ethics Newsletter for more on ethics and international affairsHow and why did the principle of self-determination gain Woodrow Wilson’s support? The US administration had to work hard to justify getting involved in World War I to the American people. For that purpose, the Committee on Public Information was created, led by George Creel. This committee prepared and distributed millions of leaflets and handed out posters. Creel formed teams of public speakers—so-called “Four Minute Men”—for domestic political propaganda.
Journalism and posters supported fundraising, donations and state loans, and promoted mobilisation. Even President Woodrow Wilson’s slogan “Make the World Safe for Democracy” was developed by Creel’s group. President Wilson needed grand slogans to justify backing down from his previous promises. It became his major assertion that the US would intervene in the “war to end all wars”. A number of principles were highlighted in the hope that Americans would be willing to make sacrifices for them. In
addition to prohibiting secret pacts, eliminating trade barriers, opening up the seas to traffic and other similar demands, Wilson’s name is also associated with declaring the principle of self-determination as a means of relieving tensions in international relations. However, this was not an invention of the Wilson Cabinet.1 Insoluble ConflictThe issue stretches back at least a hundred years. Alongside the plans for ending World War I, one challenge in international relations that has not so far been solved became critical. It constitutes a dilemma, or rather a paradox: Which is more important for establishing and maintaining peace—emphasising particular values, such as national (ethnic) interests, needs and requirements, or securing democracy, order and stability? This issue is particularly acute in a situation where these two factors are mutually exclusive or at least seriously limit each other, such as in solving conflicts between self-determination, sovereignty and territorial integrity. It is not clear whether self-determination is a single and final act, such as establishing an independent state, or a lasting, repeated and continuous process—such as creating and strengthening autonomy.3 Another issue is the minimal effort for realising self-determination—is a public statement, manifesto or a law enough; should elections, voting or a referendum take place; or should an institution/representative body be formed etc.? Neither is it clear who has the right to self-determination. Is it an individual, a social, religious or other kind of group, an ethnic nation, or the population of a particular area, such as a state—its people? Turmoil in RussiaThroughout 1917, different interest groups in Russia discussed solutions to the question of nationality. They often used the concept of self-determination. The Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’
Deputies turned to the Entente (the principal Allied powers in World War I) with the explanation that, during the upcoming peace conference, they would, in the name of Russia, give the full right to self-determination to Poland, Lithuania and Latvia—i.e. the areas under German occupation at that time. On 12 October, the Estonian Provincial Assembly (Eestimaa Maanõukogu) demanded, in turn, the same right for Estonia. On 15 November, on the initiative of the
well-known legal expert Ants Piip, the Maanõukogu resolved questions related to convening the Estonian Constituent Assembly (Eesti Asutav kogu) and authority “based on the principle of the self-determination of the people”. It was decided to convene the Asutav kogu to create a final legislative and executive authority. Before this, the Maanõukogu had been the highest power. Hence, the principle of self-determination was used to define the form of government for
the short term. This meant that, for the Maanõukogu, self-determination was a process, not a single and final decision. Contacts Between Estonians and AmericansA peculiar misconception has spread about the first meeting between the future diplomats of Estonia and US
representatives. Lauri Mälksoo argues that, according to Ants Piip’s memoirs, Piip met the US ambassador to Russia, David Francis, in Petrograd, and that the ambassador listened to the Estonians but responded only with courtesies.5 There are several errors in this account. First, Piip was not in Petrograd at that time; second, the Estonian representatives did not meet the ambassador, who sent his concellor; and third, the response they got was quite comprehensive and significant. The Dilemma for EstoniaFor this reason we must ask: on what did Estonia rely when establishing independence? The answer can be found in the Treaty of Tartu: ConclusionEstonia’s
“birth certificate”—the Treaty of Tartu—was written on the basis of a law issued by Soviet powers, and Estonia agreed to it. Ants Piip could thus foresee a development in which such an interpretation could create at least an indirect argument for attacking Estonia’s rights. On the other hand, such a concept of self-determination was expressly used in an international contract for the first time in the peace treaty between Estonia and Soviet Russia. This agreement and other peace treaties signed
by Russia’s western neighbours did not yet fully become part of international law, but they were the first step towards it. Much has been written on many levels about the concept of self-determination itself, its ambiguity and development in time and space, since self-determination is a factor that has influenced the history of the whole world. The problems in the Middle East and Central Asia today are to a great extent tied to the fact that the so-called “mandate” areas handed over to the UK
and France after World War I failed to develop a democratic state and a more stable identity based on this. Religious forms of cohesion continued to dominate, linguistic and cultural forms to a lesser extent. Statehood was connected more with belonging to tribes or other communities and less with the Western rule of law, and, unfortunately, also the Wilsonian principle of self-determination. The US even remained a bystander in dealing with such problems for a while. The subject of
self-determination regained currency in 1941 (Atlantic Charter) on the initiative of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but that was of no great help to Estonia at the time. This article was published in ICDS Diplomaatia magazine. What does this quotation suggest about Wilson's track record on civil rights?What does this quotation suggest about Wilson's track record on civil rights? Despite being considered a progressive, Wilson had adopted "regressive" policies in response to inequalities experienced by African Americans.
Why did President Woodrow Wilson create the Committee on Public Information quizlet?The Committee on Public Information (1917-1919), also known as the CPI or the Creel Committee, was an independent agency of the government of the United States created to influence public opinion to support US participation in World War I.
Which of these events mood President Wilson in America toward entering World War I?The British gave President Wilson the Zimmermann telegram on February 24, and on March 1 the American press reported on its existence. The American public was outraged by the news of the Zimmermann telegram and it, along with Germany's resumption of submarine attacks, helped lead to the United States to join the war.
What arguments does Eugene V Debs make about the right of dissent in wartime quizlet?What arguments does Eugene V. Debs make about the right of dissent in wartime? Debs indicates that dissent is a fundamental aspect of American history. Revering once "public enemies" such as William Lloyd Garrison was now hypocritical in light of restricted liberties enacted by the Wilson administration.
|