Bieling, Mona

The end of the First World War was a crucial time for nationalist leaders and minority communities across the European continent and beyond. The impact of the post-war spread of self-determination on the redrawing of Eastern European borders and on the claims of colonial independence movements has been extensively researched. By contrast, the international historiography has paid little attention to minority nationalist movements in Western Europe. This article focuses on three regions (Catalonia, Flanders and South Tyrol) that experienced considerable sub-state national mobilization in the interwar period. We aim to understand whether the leaders of Western European minorities and stateless nations shared the same enthusiasm as their anti-colonial and Eastern European counterparts for the new international order that self-determination seemed to foreshadow in the months following the end of the First World War. Because the American President Woodrow Wilson stood out as the most prominent purveyor of the new international legitimacy of self-determination, the article further examines how Western European nationalist movements exploited Wilson's image and advocacy to achieve their own goals. Nationalist forces in Catalonia, Flanders and South Tyrol initially mobilized self-determination and referred to Wilson as a symbol of national liberation, but this instrumentalization of self-determination was not sustained. Large-scale mobilization occurred only in Catalonia, and, even there, it disappeared suddenly in spring 1919. Furthermore, sub-state nationalist movements in Western Europe tended to mobilize self-determination to gain regional autonomy, rather than full independence, thus pursuing internal, not external, self-determination. The willingness of these movements to privilege autonomy over full independence made them more receptive to compromise. Radical forces would become stronger only in the 1930s and largely for reasons not directly connected to the post-war mobilization around self-determination.

This primary source commentary analyzes a letter (dated 28 July 1929) sent by Alexander Eig, botanist and custodian of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s herbarium, to Judah Magnes, chancellor and later first president of Hebrew University. This letter, which discusses the creation of a botanical garden connected to the university, shows how the emerging Jewish community of botanists at the newly established Hebrew University was carvingout space foritselfin the international communityof botanical experts. Moreover, the letter exemplifies the importance of people’s mobility in creating botanical knowledge, as well as the movement of plants, seeds, and other specimens, and highlights interaction between scientific institutions as an important aspect of nation-building. Mandatory Palestine’s position as the “Holy Land,” as well as its location across Middle Eastern and Mediterranean environmental spaces, made Jerusalem a unique and attractive center for botanical knowledge creation, as was recognized early on by the Jewish botanists in question.

British colonial understanding of arid Mediterranean environments was characterised by the idea of degradation: these environments were seen as an aberration from the ‘norm’ of the lush and fertile British forests and grasslands. The struggle against desertification was central to British efforts to model the people and environments of their colonies according to their own ideals. The goat played an important role in the British understanding of arid landscapes as degraded, desertified and generally ‘lacking’, as it became the ultimate symbol for destruction. Nomadic goat-herding, a practice with hundreds of years of history, was singled out as the most destructive form of land use. Connected to the negative image of the goat was the stereotypical image of its owner: nomadic and semi-nomadic lifestyles were deemed not only unproductive but outright reckless. Sedentarisation of the nomad was one of the main goals of British colonisers as a form of population control and maintenance of colonial power. This article examines the British colonial belief in Ruined Landscape Theory as applied to arid Mediterranean environments and tries to uncover the goat’s role in British environmental orientalism, focusing on Palestine during the British Mandate period, ca. 1917–1948.

Most historiographical currents examining the history of human rights postulate a clear break between the collective rights tradition of interwar minority protection and the ensuing age of individual human rights. Two observations, however, suggest a more nuanced account of the transition from the League of Nations’ to the United Nations’ rights systems. First, the minority treaties were a hybrid system containing a mix of individual and collective rights provisions that enabled interwar rights advocates to use them as a model for the adoption of human rights instruments. Second, at the end of WWII, several delegations at the UN strongly defended the inclusion of elements of interwar minority protection within the Genocide Convention (GC) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Although these efforts were unsuccessful, they show that there was no consensus in favour of an exclusively individualist conception of human rights. More importantly, opposition to the inclusion of minority protection clauses came from Western diplomats who defended their governments’ prerogative to promote the assimilation of the people inhabiting their territory into the majority culture of the state. Therefore, what prevailed during the drafting process of the GC and the UDHR was an assimilationist interpretation of human rights; one that in a context of national heterogeneity promised to favour the rights of some groups (national majorities) over those of others (national minorities).