Colonialism and Sovereignty by Mandate: Tanganyika, the Close Alliance in East Africa and the League of Nations

The article examines Britain’s attempt to unite the mandate territory of Tanganyika with the neighboring colonies of Kenya and Uganda and the reaction to these plans in the League of Nations (LN). The project, prepared by the British Colonial Office, received the name of the “Closer Union” in East Africa and supported and developed by Lord A. Milner, L. Emery, as well as Lord Passfield (S. Webb). However, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations (PMC) noticed the disagreement between the “Close Union” and the terms of the mandate for Tanganyika. The creation of the “Close Union” was opposed by members of the PMC, representatives of Germany, and political and business organizations in East Africa. An open campaign in the press, as well as demonstrations of protest the creation of the “Close Union” influenced the members of the Council of the LN and the PMC. The LN Council concluded that Great Britain did not have sufficient sovereignty over Tanganyika to connect it to the “Close Union.” And in 1933, the PMC did not recommend creating a “Closer Union”, due to the impossibility of changing the status of Tanganyika during the period of the LN mandate. The history of the struggle in the LN around the problem of organizing the “Close Union” showed that the attitude towards the mandate system as a compromise between supporters of annexation and those who wanted to transfer the colonial territories taken from Germany and Türkiye to international administration began to change in favor of the latter. One should not think that the PMC and the LN were able to create a real administration of the mandated territories on the principles of internationalization. However, after the LN’s opposition to the “Close Union” project, the understanding of the sovereignty of the trust territory rises to a new level.

Keywords

League of Nations, mandate system, internationalization of mandate management, colonialism, imperialism, sovereignty, Tanganyika, “Closer Union”

Received

13.06.2024

Publication date

30.09.2024

Number of characters

46288

Cite

GOST	Khodnev A. Colonialism and Sovereignty by Mandate: Tanganyika, the “Close Alliance” in East Africa and the League of Nations // ISTORIYA – 2024. – V. 15. – Issue 9 (143) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://history.jes.su/S207987840032420-1-1 (circulation date: 02.10.2024). DOI: 10.18254/S207987840032420-1
MLA	Khodnev, Alexander S "Colonialism and Sovereignty by Mandate: Tanganyika, the “Close Alliance” in East Africa and the League of Nations." ISTORIYA 15.9 (143) (2024) DOI: 10.18254/S207987840032420-1
APA	Khodnev A. (2024). Colonialism and Sovereignty by Mandate: Tanganyika, the “Close Alliance” in East Africa and the League of Nations. ISTORIYA 15(9 (143)) DOI: 10.18254/S207987840032420-1

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 5

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Emel'yanov A. L. Kolonial'naya istoriya Afriki yuzhnee Sakhary. M.: MGIMO-Universitet, 2011.

2. Malkin S. G. Ot malykh vojn k geril'e: imperskaya shkola voennoj mysli Velikobritanii v ehpokhu Interbelluma // Novaya i Novejshaya istoriya. 2021. № 6. S. 22—30.

3. Mirzekhanov V. Imperial Myth as a National Idea: Explicit and Hidden Meanings of the 1931 International Colonial Exhibition in Paris // ISTORIYA. 2021. Vol. 12. Issue. 6 (104). URL: https://history.jes.su/s207987840016273-9-1/ DOI: 10.18254/S207987840016273-9

4. Mirzekhanov V. Civilisation and the Excluded: Ideas and Practices of Differentiation in the Colonies during the Interbellum // ISTORIYA. 2022. Vol. 13. Issue. 9 (119). URL: https://history.jes.su/s207987840022994-2-1/ DOI: 10.18254/S207987840022994-2

5. Ovchinnikov V. E. Istoriya Tanzanii v novoe i novejshee vremya. M.: Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoj literatury, 1986.

6. Fomin A. M. Vojna s prodolzheniem. Velikobritaniya i Frantsiya v bor'be za «Osmanskoe nasledstvo». 1918—1923 gg. M.: Russkij Fond Sodejstviya Obrazovaniyu i Nauke, 2010.

7. Fomin A. M. Formirovanie mandatnoj sistemy na Blizhnem Vostoke posle Pervoj mirovoj vojny. 1920—1924 gg. // Novaya i Novejshaya istoriya. 2014. № 1. S. 17—36.

8. Khodnev A. S. Kolonializm, imperializm i Liga Natsij // Novaya i Novejshaya istoriya. 2021. № 1. S. 104—116.

9. Callahan M. Mandates and Empire: The League of Nations and Africa. Brighton: Sussex Acadimic Press, 1999.

10. Hailey M. African Survey. A Study of Problems Arisen in Africa South of Sahara. L.: Oxford University Press, 1938.

11. Pedersen S. The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire. N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2015.

12. Rappard W. The Evolution of the League of Nations // The American Political Science Review. 1927. Vol. 2. No. 4. P. 792—826.

13. The League of Nations. The Mandate System. Geneva: Information Section, League of Nations Secretariat, 1927.

14. Wright Q. Sovereignty of the Mandates // The American Journal of International Law. 1923. Vol. 17. No. 4. P. 691—703.