Jim Crow. Two words that encapsulated over a century of discrimination against black Americans on the federal, state and county levels of governance. By 1900 after the failure of the Re-Construction Era to plot any long term plans for civil equality between black and white, Jim Crow was in full effect, disenfranchising black Americans from every aspect of US civil society. However, Jim Crow was not borne out of a vacuum; rather it was the product of long term racial social customs developed since the advent of slavery on the East Coast. This essay will contend that systemic Jim Crow was created by a symbiotic relationship between low white society and de facto attitudes, which influenced high white politics and therefore acted as the impetus for the creation of de jure legislation.

The reciprocal relationship will be explored with specific focuses upon the dualistic impact of both anti-black and pro-white legislation, as well as the role of terrorist organisations such as the KKK in maintaining hysteria within black communities to prevent major black organisation against Jim Crow. What should be particularly remembered in this context is the horrific violence experienced by the black community in this era, as a result of Jim Crow; not just legal segregation. Whilst a specific focus will be given on the time period 1877-1900, it is contextually paramount that we see Jim Crow as reaching much further back into the 19^th Century for its origins as well as the lasting effect it held well into the 20^th Century that necessitated the 2^nd period of Civil Rights in the US. Equally, on a geographic scale this essay will maintain focus on the heart of Jim Crow; the Southern states.

Jim Crow De Facto Origins

Jim Crow is an idea borne out of the psychology of slavery. When the first African slaves were brought to American shores in 1619, they were brought with the idea that they were less than human; uncivilised; unable to comprehend the ‘greatness of European society’ – and so were forcibly made into millions of cogs in the proverbial American socio-economic wheel. This foundation was built upon in the psyche of the settlers that became known as Americans for the next 200 years.[1] Jim Crow holds its origins in the psyche of an inferiority-superiority social complex, yet was birthed not as common conceptions hold (in the legal discrimination) but in 17,18 & 19^th Century social connotations – Crow had been used as a term to refer to black Americans since the 1600s; ‘Jim’ or ‘Jimmy’ referred to a crowbar in the same era (connotations of criminality). However, primarily the original myth was disseminated through American society through ‘Jump Jim Crow’ a performative act by a white entertainer in blackface in order to belittle and demean black Americans, first performed in 1828.[2] These interpretations of black Americans were widely disseminated across society, as it will be seen the Northern Federal Government & Supreme Court were not shy to enact and support anti-black legislation, yet these social norms were nowhere more powerful than the South.

Even after the death of the Confederacy, in the face of a Union victory in 1865, the mentality of racial hierarchy maintained across white society through all economic classes. This aspect of Jim Crow cannot be stated more crucially for its impact upon the future of American race relations in the postbellum period. Jim Crow as a descriptive and encapsulating phrase for US race relations truly came into its own in the post-war era. As Union soldiers were stationed in the South, enforcing and changing the constitution to equally represent citizens, stripping the South of its bid for full autonomy and tearing its economic model in half – Jim Crow the social complex solidified in the hearts of southern whites.[3] This anger further fuelled the severity of racist beliefs among whites which in turn intensified the adherence to segregational norms, white supremacist politicians and violence towards the black community. This is evident in the proliferation of lynchings in the period 1877-1950 where 4,000 were recorded as happening, but is likely to be much higher. Lynchings had been prevalent during slavery, as punishment for escapees that didn’t make it, and so was an attempt to restore an older tradition of southern culture; a social maintenance of the Confederacy.

De Facto Jim Crow, and by extension the social meaning of lynchings was nowhere more exemplified than in the Colfax Massacre of 1873. Lynching was not only the actual act of hanging, but a metaphor for the inhumane murder methods hundreds of thousands of black Americans experienced in their final moments during the Jim Crow era alone.[4] De Facto Jim Crow was a long term historical trend in American history since its seeds were sown in the 17^th Century. Without its social construction, maintenance and development, US society would not have produced the type of racialised system, nor the racist politicians that went on to create De Jure Jim Crow, which legalised and enforced the De Facto Jim Crow belief system of racist white America.

[1] Federico, C. M. & Luks, S. The Political Psychology of Race. Columbus: ISPP, 2005

[2]  Woodward, C. V. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994

[3] Federico & Luks. The Political Psychology of Race.

[4] Wells, I. B. “Lynch Law in America”. Digital History.

Jim Crow De Jure Legacy

Through a short discussion of the origins of De Facto Jim Crow, it is evident that its impact upon the state of social relations, especially in the South was tremendous. However, it is only when legislation at all levels of governance, beginning with the Supreme Court, that Jim Crow as a whole is unleashed upon American Politics & Society. This institutionalisation of Jim Crow authorised actionable attitudes of (mainly) Southern whites to simultaneously disenfranchise black Americans and facilitate the expansion of white America. The Supreme Court, with the support of the Federal Government, led the charge against the Re-Constructive Era’s extension and protection of Civil Rights for black Americans. Within anti-black legislation there was both a civilian and criminal aspect to control over black freedom.

Historically, Jim Crow De Jure sprouted from ‘Black Codes’ which, after the Civil War, were based on Vagrancy Laws. Black freedmen prior to the Civil War and then all black Americans had to prove when asked by officials (a lot of the time any white) that they held a job that was recognised. If not, they could be arrested. Under the 13^th Amendment of 1865, Slavery was illegal UNLESS as punishment for a crime; making the legal system a gateway to the reintroduction of slavery.[1] Prison (black) labour was used in public works in every Southern state, with ‘convict leasing’ a commonly used practice by southern businesses and wealthy individuals to acquire free labour. As Douglas Blackmon wrote it was “slavery by another name”[2]. On the outside of the prison-slavery complex, black Americans were further subjugated to restrictive legal chains. Linking directly to the 1872 Louisiana State election and the subsequent Colfax Massacre, the 1876 ruling ‘US v Cruikshank’ was a shattering legal statement that did much to empower the De Facto enforcers of Jim Crow.

This legal ruling stated that the Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments, empowering them to continue discriminatory practices against black Americans within and without the legal system.[3] This ruling essentially invalidated the 14^th Amendment (1868) and the Enforcement Act (1870) both of which were crucial to the emancipation of black America, especially in the South. This early ruling allowed State Jim Crow Laws to develop over the next 20 years, which by 1896 were set to be even further emboldened by them. Plessy v Ferguson (1896) was the final nail in the Re-Construction coffin; again subverting the 14^th Amendment and establishing the ‘separate but equal’ legal doctrine that came to define 20^th Century Jim Crow.[4] This ruling confirmed the trend away from egalitarianism and an official endorsement of segregation de jure.

On the other side of society, white American’s benefitted from a focus on the expansion of their freedoms and a more direct adherence to the achievement of life, liberty and the pursuit happiness found in the Constitution. This had been set in motion even during the Civil War through the Homestead Act (1862), expanding America to territorially encapsulate and colonise the majority of the northern continent to the current borders of the United States. The Dawes Act (1887) built upon this, after a bloody campaign against Native Americans, tribal lands, borders and people were ripped up from their roots to make way for Manifest Destiny, and allow for European sedentary settlement.[5] Through this conjunction of anti-black and pro-white Federal legislation De Jure Jim Crow embedded itself into the foundations of the US; utilising and expanding the De Facto belief systems that had been brewing for nearly 300 years by the end of the 19^th Century.

[1] Lincoln, A. “The Constitution: Amendments 11-27”. The National Archives.

[2] Blackmon, D. A. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. New York: Anchor Books, 2008.

[3] Blackmon, Slavery by Another Name.

[4] Kelley, B. L. M. Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v Ferguson. Raleigh: University of North Carolina Press, 2010.

[5] Pratt, J. W. The Origin of “Manifest Destiny”. Washington: Oxford University Press, 1927.

Jim Crow Terrorism

As a testament to the extent of the intertwined connection between De Facto and De Jure Jim Crow, a historian can look no further than the emergence and actions of domestic terrorist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), White League and Red Shirts. In particular, the KKK as a private actor in Southern society had an untold effect upon the development of US racial politics in the 19^th and well into the 20^th Centuries. Through the use of extrajudicial means the KKK actively sought to undermine and replace Republican governance in the South and further afield, with the vast majority of this being undertaken through the direct targeting of black Communities wherever they existed.

Whilst State legislatures passed grandfather clauses, literacy tests and poll taxes (limiting the legal rights of black Americans) the KKK held a reign of terror across the South, using violence as a method to intimidate, mutilate and murder black Americans in order to maintain the political dominance of white supremacy.[1] This was a complete subversion of the 15^th Amendment (1870) and the Civil Rights Act (1866) guaranteeing each citizen the right to vote freely in State and Federal elections. In the case of North Carolina between 1868-70, Klan terrorism was already in full effect, even prior to the removal of Federal protections after the Re-Construction Era.[2]

By the middle of 1869, 15 murders and 100s of lesser atrocities had already occurred constituting severe psychological anxiety on the part of the surviving black community and Republican politicians whom bore arms in fear of their own safety from ‘Vigilante Justice’. Olsen delineates the state of affairs in North Carolina concisely; “Crime and violence of every sort ran unchecked until a large part of the South became a veritable hell through misrule which approximated anarchy…”.[3] This level of violence continued and expanded in the years after, catalysed by the wave of De Jure Jim Crow that was disseminated downwards from the top of American political circles, and would go on to last a further 100 years until the 2^nd Civil Rights Era.

[1] Rabinowitz, H. N. From Exclusion to Segregation: Southern Race Relations,1865-1890. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

[2] Schaefer, R. T. The Ku Klux Klan: Continuity and Change. Atlanta: CAU, 1971.

[3] Olsen, O. H. The Ku Klux Klan: A Study in Reconstruction Politics and Propaganda. Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Review, 1962.

Conclusion

Through this short discussion of the development of Jim Crow to its systemic height in 1900, it can be seen that the De Facto and De Jure aspects are inseparable from each other. Indeed this symbiotic relationship is exactly what allowed Jim Crow to seep into all levels of American politics and society during the 19^th Century and further yet into the 20^th Century. The long term cultivation of racial psychology in white society developed the ideology that became institutionalised in the post Re-Construction Era and beyond, forming legal jurisdictions that would entrench socially constructed beliefs into physically constructed barriers, dividing a nation in racial halves for over a century. The simultaneous disenfranchisement of black Americans and enfranchisement of white Americans had a dualistic effect, giving white America two legs up and kicking black America twice in the stomach. Vitally, it was private actors such as the KKK which kept traditional American society in check, with their ranks filled with working class to elite men, they were legally allowed to ensure Jim Crow maintained as a social and political system of control and maintain black disunity and disengagement. The white American socio-political complex worked as a fluid machine with one goal; to suppress all others to ensure their own growth – that machine would be known as Jim Crow.

References

Blackmon, D. A. Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. New York: Anchor Books, 2008.

Woodward, C. V. The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Kelley, B. L. M. Right to Ride: Streetcar Boycotts and African American Citizenship in the Era of Plessy v Ferguson. Raleigh: University of North Carolina Press, 2010.

Rabinowitz, H. N. From Exclusion to Segregation: Southern Race Relations,1865-1890. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Lincoln, A. “The Constitution: Amendments 11-27”. The National Archives. Accessed Nov 15, 2022. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27

Wells, I. B. “Lynch Law in America”. Digital History. Accessed Nov 15, 2022. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1113

Olsen, O. H. The Ku Klux Klan: A Study in Reconstruction Politics and Propaganda. Raleigh: North Carolina Historical Review, 1962.

Schaefer, R. T. The Ku Klux Klan: Continuity and Change. Atlanta: CAU, 1971.

Federico, C. M. & Luks, S. The Political Psychology of Race. Columbus: ISPP, 2005.

Pratt, J. W. The Origin of “Manifest Destiny”. Washington: Oxford University Press, 1927.

Royalism. Colonialism. Imperialism. Divide and Conquer. That was the practice of the British from the early 17th Century right until the decolonisation era that begun in the post-war era, which arguably is continuing in smaller ways today. Many understand the practices, the horrifying atrocities committed against millions of indigenous peoples by the invading forces that acted in name of ‘King/Queen and Country’. Yet why do we find ourselves skimming over the real root cause behind British imperialism? In this article we will explore how royal psychology bled through British society in order to co-opt the state, land and its people for imperialistic gains, which the royal family used to exponentially expand their own personal wealth, power and status (and still benefit from today). We will cover the history, the impacts of colonialism on oppressed and oppressor, and what a republican future would mean as a corrective measure to begin to resolve 400 years of colonialism.

As this is such a massive topic, this article will be the first of three pieces which will allow for each component to be properly explored and respect given to the people’s that lost everything to Empire. The title will remain the same yet the image will change (Not so different to Monarchy in itself..).

How the Royal Family forged an Empire on which the Sun never set

The most impactful founding tenant behind the moral justification of monarchy is the idea of ‘Divine Right’. The right for one to rule over another is rooted in the fervent religious belief that ‘God’ ordered it to be so. This idea is crucial to the founding psychological basis of Royalist thought, and thus provides a moral grounding for the subjugation of anyone they wish to, looting of any riches they please, and the expansion of their own territory into any part of the world. Arguably this basis is present in any monarchical or dictatorial organisation that subscribe to religion. However, it has been nowhere more powerful than in Britain. This much is obvious; the Monarchy still exists in 2022.

Yet this ideal was forged as early as British Kingdoms began to take territorial shape and convert to Christianity after the Benedictine missions to the Island in the centuries after the Roman collapse (5th Century CE). Arguably the idea was originally extrapolated from the experiences of Roman colonisation and civilisation. Royal embodiments of this idea include Alfred the Great, King Charles I and Queen Victoria to name a few. This idea has been so powerful within Britain, and contributed massively to the production of imperialistic mindsets throughout the halls of power during the colonial era. However, where things dramatically change is when Divine Right combined with racial theorists to produce another momentous ideology; white supremacy. The combination of these two deadly ideas formed the modernist ideological basis for greater colonial expansion beyond just trading relationships, and the time we generally think of when we think of the British Empire. Beginning at the height of power, the Royal White Family conceptualised themselves as religiously, financially and racially superior to all those below them and thus were justified in all ways to exploit as they pleased. It was ‘God’s’ will remember?

This narcissistic psychological foundation was disseminated from the top down into British society through the centuries, cementing the Monarchy as an immovable political actor in Britain. Co-opting the people into believing in the legitimacy of their own rule, whilst simultaneously convincing white Britons of all social classes of their superiority over the rest of the world. These were the founding characteristics that allowed the Royal Family to guide the nation onto a path of unending conquest. This as a result produced a social psychology of entitlement, and for those of a more liberal disposition a white saviour complex. Conservatives believed in the undisputed right to take, Liberals believed in the inability of foreign lands to govern themselves; both supported colonial expansion. The Royals had got what they wanted by the 17th Century; a serviceable population that, regardless of political sway, supported imperialism.

Divide & Conquer: The East India Company and The Royal African Company

Practically this was carried out through a method that would be used a thousand times over to a wide variety of nations, lands and peoples. Divide & Conquer, Royal Charters and Private Companies. Britain as an Island on the North-Western tip of the European continent did not possess the ability to field a massive fighting force of natives like various different empire’s had been able to in the earlier stages of colonial expansion. Instead they leaned on their strengths; Naval power and pitting regional groups against each other. In some cases utilising the local population to police their own oppression. This was the case in India when the East India Company (EIC) began to recruit Indians to collect taxes for the company from the local population that previously had been paid to the native Mughal Empire before it was defeated and forced to concede power by the EIC in 1765. How this links back to the Royals however, is through the issuing of Royal Charters. Royal Charters were unilateral decrees made by Monarch’s, given to private companies to carry out specific tasks on behalf of the crown in the imperialist sense.

The Crown did not have the ability to do it themselves; constrained by parliament (rarely), taxation problems, or an angry local population at home, the Crown could not and would not do their own dirty work. So they hired private companies (read militias) to carry it out, who acted in the name of the Crown and Country without any legal constraints on their actions, no accountability to a voting population and unlimited financial support from the Crown, government funds and private investors. You can see how things got very bad very quickly. An example of such a Charter is the 1672 Charter given to the Royal African Company (RAC) by Charles II. It ‘granted’ the company the ability to ‘trade’ along the west coast of Africa. This was a front; the original intention was to exploit the Gold Fields found in modern day Gambia during the Interregnum period by a ‘Prince Rupert’ who went on to become the colonial governor of Canada (Among the many other things he did). The RAC shipped more African slaves to the Americas than any other company in the history of the Atlantic slave trade, and was owned entirely by the British Crown. If that doesn’t show you how directly responsible the Crown is for the worst aspects of Colonialism during the British Empire then I’m not sure what does.

History is the Past; We are the Present

Through this short introspection of the History behind the foundations of Colonialism, the Royal Family, Social Psychology and practical views of Imperialism I hope you have learned something new. I encourage you to do further research yourself, starting with the links below that I used to create this article. Next week we will explore the impacts colonialism had on the fortunes of the oppressed and oppressors, and how this came to shape the path of history, and get us where we are today. This week took examples from the early stages of the British Empire, next week we will move onto the 18th-20th Centuries and analyse the development of Colonialism. Until next time, keep learning!

Links

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/04/east-india-company-original-corporate-raiders

https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/africa_caribbean/docs/charter_royal_african.htm

curtiswrightmaps.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_African_Company

https://www.britannica.com/place/British-Empire

 It is said that the spirits of all past rebellions are present when revolutionary aims are finally achieved. However the path from rebellion to revolution is not as linear as the line of questioning suggests. It is not a given that all rebellions naturally lead to future revolution. This essay will contend that the path to revolution is multiple; with rebellion not being a necessary precondition to revolution nor the most impactful form of political violence to revolution. However, the history of rebellion within a given society is a significant multiplier of the likelihood of future revolution. Secondly, the impact of rebellion upon future revolution is dependent upon the characteristics of said rebellion; in particular the disloyalty of the military, great power support for the regime and the relative unity of the rebels. Finally, the advent of Nationalism and its impact upon the framing of rebellion is discussed, which often leads to more successful outcomes. Overall, it can be concluded that rebellions do not ‘become’ revolutions themselves but rather ‘influence’ future revolutionary action, with the nature of influence being dependent upon the existence of specific factors within the character and context of rebellion. 

Literary discrepancy

Before engaging in the main body of this essay, I think it is important to define the terms of the debate, as there is a wide variety of definitions of rebellion and revolution which can change the nature of connection between the two concepts. Revolution in the context of this essay can be considered ‘a fundamental change in government, brought about by violence, often involving social groups ordinarily excluded from power’ (Stuart & Cowie, 2021). Rebellion can be defined as an organised direct threat to the continuation of a current regime through violent means, that often does not achieve its revolutionary goals. Furthermore the distinction between mass rebellion and elite rebellion has to be made; with the former being rebellion led by those outside of the existing power structure, and the latter being within. Most rebellions however are facilitated by the interplay of both of these in one way or another. 

The path to revolution is multiple

Within the question title, the assumption is made that rebellion is the only and most successful form of political violence that leads to revolution. This assumption cannot be adequately supported, and furthermore is actively undermined by the existing literature. Revolution within a given polity can be achieved through a number of forms of political violence including; war, civil war, riots, coups and rebellion. Of all these forms, it can be seen that rebellion has not had a considerable impact historically on the development of revolution. Russell (1974) finds that between 1900-70 28 mass rebellions took place, and of these 28 only 12 resulted in the capture of political power. Building directly from this, Walt (1992) finds that of the 12 successful mass rebellions, only 4 actually led to revolutionary change. This quantitative data brings Weede & Muller (1998, p. 49) to the conclusion that “…most mass rebellions fail to succeed in overthrowing the ruling class or the established regime…most of them fail to generate sufficient structural change to be called ‘revolutions’.” Indeed these findings are damning for the case of rebellion, as comparatively Taylor & Jodice (1983) find that in the period of 1948-77 alone 542 coup d’etat, usually conducted by the military, had occurred with 238 being successful; leading to revolutionary changes. Although a coup d’etat could be seen as a form of elite rebellion, it will not be counted as such (a coup d’etat is also just a form of coup), as usually these do not aim to bring about revolutionary changes, and are rather more concerned with societal & governmental stability; a polar opposite to revolution. Indeed Taylor & Jodice (1972: 1983) themselves describe a coup d’etat as an “…irregular power transfer.” 

However, this does not mean that rebellion has no ability to lead to revolution. It can be seen that the occurrence of rebellion is still a significant multiplier in catalysing revolution. The Cuban revolution is a prime example of this; previous to Castro’s own movement, Cuba had a long history of rebellion against authority, particularly against Spanish colonial rule from 1868-98. Although indirect to the Cuban revolution of 1959, these rebellious acts had both symbolic and practical implications; both the development of rebellious spirit within the people of Cuba overtime, and the development of assets that would aid future rebellion. For example, the creation of ‘guerilla paths’ across rural Cuba which became vital to the success of Castro’s own guerrilla movement against Batista in 1959. Even Castro’s own rebellious acts can be seen to directly link to his revolution; the attack on Moncada barracks in 1953 arguably directly catalysing revolutionary fervour within Cuba, with some even denoting this as the beginning of the Cuban revolution. Therefore, although rebellion is not a necessary precondition to revolution, its existence can have a positive multiplying effect upon the likelihood of future revolution. 

The nature of rebellion

Thus far it has been ascertained that rebellion does not ‘become’ a revolution directly, but rather positively influences the rate at which revolution is reached. The degree to which this influence is direct, is determined by three significant factors; military disloyalty, great power support and rebel unity. Firstly, Russell (1974, p. 79) contends that “Armed Force disloyalty is necessary for a successful outcome of rebellion…”. Indeed, this view can be seen to play out during both Russian revolutions of 1917 where mutiny within the armed forces was vital to boosting the ranks of the budding Soviets across Russia, and further ensuring success during the following civil war. This is further qualified by Chorley (1943, p. 243) who in one of the earliest studies conducted found that “In a revolutionary situation, the attitude of the army is…of supreme importance.” Secondly, DeFronzo (1991, p. 170) finds that great power desertion of client states signals revolutionaries to redouble their efforts of rebellion, as in the case of Cuba, where the US stopped arming Batista’s forces before the advent of revolution. Additionally to this, Weede & Jodice (1983 p. 54) contend that previous support given to regimes by great powers already has a delegitimizing effect, creating a negative correlation between itself and the tendency for revolution, or rebellion at a minimum. Finally, the level of unity within rebel groups, both physically and ideologically is paramount to the translation of rebellion into revolution. Indeed it is of vital importance that rebel groups are homogeneous militarily, primarily in order to adequately compete with regime forces, as the technological gap present could be considerable. Ideologically rebel groups most often fail when made of a loosely held coalition of groups, who have vastly different visions for the political future. This point can be illustrated through the English Revolution, in which the Parliamentarians were both organised militarily (New Model Army as an example of this) and were united within their desire to discontinue the practice of absolute monarchy. The existence of these three factors is essential to the successfulness of rebellion, and significantly increases the probability of rebellion having revolutionary consequences. (1200 words)

National liberation movements

Lastly it can be said that more often than not, rebellions are initiated by those with altruistic motivations. In a lot of cases the source of this motivation can be found in nationalistic sentiments of liberation and self-determination. Indeed, Weede & Jodice find that nationalism is only second to religion as the most potent source of altruism. This finding is of considerable value, as nationalistic propaganda seems to improve the solidary recruitment to revolutionary movements, which we have seen previously is in part vital to successful rebellions (1998, p. 56). This is further supported by DeFronzo (1991, p. 314) as he points out “The Cuban, Nicaraguan and Iranian revolutions were like the Vietnamese in the sense of being viewed as national liberation movements.” Therefore the framing of rebellious movements as efforts to liberate the nation from corrupt control or foreign intervention are highly important for successful rebellions and by extension, revolutionary change. 

Conclusion

Overall, it can be seen that rebellion is just one form of political violence that can initiate revolutionary change. Although it is a significant factor in increasing the chances of successful revolution, rebellion is by no means the most effective method. Yet, when rebellion does create revolutionary change, the presence of military disloyalty to the regime, great power support (and lack thereof) and rebel unity are critical characteristics. Finally, national liberation framing can have significant importance for both the specific recruitment of the military into revolutionary ranks, and overall support for the movement, increasing the chances of success. Through this short essay, the connection between rebellion and revolution have been discussed, with specific focus upon the nature of successful rebellion and the context in which it often occurs. However, much more detailed research is needed upon the topic area, specifically into pre-20th Century revolutionary history, which I admit was not fully explored within the bounds of this study. 

Bibliography

Chorley, K. (1943). Armies and the Art of Revolution. London: Faber & Faber.

DeFronzo, J. (1991). Revolutions and Revolutionary Movements. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Russell, D. E. H. (1974). Rebellion, Revolution and Armed Force. New York: Academic Press. 

Taylor, C. L. & Jodice, D. A. (1983). World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators. 3rd edn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 

Weede, E., & Muller, E. N. (1998). Rebellion, Violence and Revolution: A Rational Choice Perspective. Journal of Peace Research, 35(1), 43–59. 

Walt, S. M. (1992). ‘Revolution and War’, World Politics 44(3): 321-368.

The newly signed ‘AUKUS’ alliance between Australia, the UK and the US can be seen as a reactionary response to the current state of global power, and particularly focuses upon the importance of the Indo-Pacific region. This essay will contend that the alliance signals a shifting balance of power, which has the potential to threaten a ‘new cold war’ through regional security dilemmas. It speaks to a longer historical process of the rise of China, which has become highly assertive, particularly in contested areas of the South China Sea. Furthermore the reinforcing of long-held anglospheric ties, can be seen to be furthering neo-realist assumptions about the international stage; through direct trilateral action which formally increases military-strategic-industrial collaboration between the three powers. Overall, the alliance can be viewed in the context of a rising China which in both soft and hard power terms threatens US hegemony. Therefore in a period of changing global polarities of power, the AUKUS alliance seeks to act as a lightning rod; to ground China’s growth through military curtails. 

A new Cold War?

The AUKUS alliance is a strong indicator that the global balance of power (relative military power between states) is shifting significantly; to the sinosphere. China is fully committed to its growing role as regional military hegemon in the South Pacific, and rising world economic powerhouse. This new alliance seeks to directly challenge the dominance of the Indo-Pacific region by China, which it has come to enjoy since investing tremendously in its air & naval capabilities. Indeed the deal includes not just nuclear-powered submarines, but is extensive, with the UK national security adviser remarking it is “…perhaps the most significant capability collaboration in the world anywhere in the past six decades” (Wintour, 2021). The deal includes allowing the US and UK navies to utilise Australian ports, technological & intelligence collaborations and comes in the wider context of further military training activities with regional allies. Although not explicitly mentioned, the nature of the alliance implies a heavy concern among western allies, and the US in particular, to the threat a rising China brings to US hegemony, which has existed and expanded relatively comfortably over the last 30 years. In the American view, this hegemony has ensured stability in the region (politically and economically).

However, this perceived security dilemma could potentially lead to a regional arms race, in an attempt between both sides to cancel the increased threat from each other. This fundamentally pushes the source of power on the contemporary international stage into a bipolar order, with the stage set for a return of the military standoffs reminiscent of the last cold war. China sees the move as ‘ highly irresponsible’ and blames repeated patterns of western ‘cold war’ mentalities. This can be further supported by the fact that the US and UK are actively choosing to provide nuclear technology to a non-nuclear country. Although not weaponised, nuclear technology acts as a direct defensive deterrent and offers future potential to Australian proliferation, with the uranium for the motors enriched at 93-97% (qualifying as weapon-grade) (Zhu, 2021). This is not taken lightly as Australia could theoretically become only the sixth recognised state in possession of nuclear weapon technology, stretching the practical capabilities of the ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ thesis. Overall it can be seen that the AUKUS alliance, although was in response to a perceived threat, has reacted in an equally aggressive manner which raises the military stakes in a highly volatile region. This has the potential to repeat the past, and even fall into the ancient past; a Thucydides Trap. 

The Anglosphere return to neo-realism?

Additionally to the changing nature of polarity the AUKUS alliance has brought, it re-establishes old trends in both military pacts and neo-realist decision-making. Firstly the three partners have a long history of military cooperation, with the trio fighting beside each other in every major conflict of the 20th century. This precedent has been kept to, and sets a new tone for a new post-COVID international system. Indeed the Anglo states have taken a more unilateral approach to global security, circumventing both international institutional protocol and one of their oldest allies; France. This deal especially soured French relations with the trio, who already held a deal with Australia to manufacture the 12 submarines and who had begun a significant partnership with Australia in the Indo-Pacific, central to French foreign policy. However this can be seen to follow older trends such as the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence collaboration between English-speaking countries.

This direction of action can be seen as a resurgence of neo-realist decision-making at the international level, taking trilateral action to a global problem and thus working outside the now-norm of taking global solutions to global issues. Through the process of the creation of this alliance, the partners have re-asserted state superiority at the world stage; using the 2021 G7 conference as a chance to informally discuss some of the complexities of the alliance. Therefore, we can see Anglo action having significant consequences for the nature of the balance of power; returning to power-maximising motives in order to ensure regional stability in a highly strategic area, with particular re-establishment of Anglo alliances, which changes the make-up of the major balancing powers. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the AUKUS alliance proves highly important for exploring the current balance of power upon the global stage. The alliance fundamentally shifts the balance of power into a more bipolar scenario, leading the US to primarily face off against China with the potential to create future security dilemmas and arms races, which could be of major significance for the future of global power relations. Furthermore, the nature of balancing can be seen to be returning to an Anglo-led strategic alliance, that gives insight into the growth of post-COVID unilateral action, rather than through the usual institutional hoops. This is due in part to the resurgence of neo-realist thinking in western circles, which have started to prioritise the defence of US hegemony and a turn back to realist tactics of international relations. However, further analytical lenses could have been explored to more fully explain the AUKUS’ impact upon the balance of power, which would improve the quality of study.

Bibliography

Tewari, S. 2021 ‘Aukus: UK, US and Australia pact signals Asia-Pacific power shift’ BBC News, 16 September, viewed 16 November 2021, 

<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58540808> . 

Wintour, P. 2021 ‘What is the Aukus alliance and what are its implications?’ The Guardian, 16 September, viewed 16 November 2021, 

<https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/16/what-is-the-aukus-alliance-and-what-are-its-implications> . 

Zhu, M. 2021 ‘Aukus alliance: what is it, what does it have to do with China, and why is France angry?’ South China Morning Post, 10 October, viewed 16 November 2021, 

<https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3151700/aukus-alliance-what-it-what-does-it-have-do-china-and-why> .

In a turbulent international system, the continuation of ingrained principles such as those laid down in Westphalia is a hard task to continue. Yet for the most part, this remains true. This essay will ascertain that the principles of Westphalia still mainly operate as the rule-setting agenda that underpins International Relations. Furthermore, as a homogenised unit the West generally and the anglosphere more specifically, have been successful at maintaining theoretical and empirical dominance over their counterparts due to historic and continued reciprocity between states that has gatekept the higher echelons of the international stage from adversaries. However, since the end of the Cold War the decline of American hegemony and their international power-breaking capabilities, has led to a marked shift in global power balancing from western circles to a more multi-polar composition. This up-ends the primacy of Westphalian actors and principles, inviting competition from other sources of global power. Primarily, International Relations theory with ‘Chinese Characteristics’ is rapidly challenging Westphalian, and by extension anglospheric models of engagement within and without international institutions. Yet this attempt is still in its infancy, and it remains to be seen which philosophical pole will emerge to assert or reassert international control. 

The international system has existed for time immemorial in one form or another, led by ever-changing dynasties, empires and nation-states. However, to fully understand the impact that Westphalian principles have had upon the nature and character of the greater international order, the terms of debate must be set out. The peace of Westphalia is much agreed upon by historians to mark the creation of the origins of the modern international system. ‘Westphalia’ or the ‘Westphalian Order’ references the 1648 peace conference which is widely used to describe the longer process of state-building, democratisation and pluralisation that occurred before and after the conference, within European entities that then spread throughout the globe mostly in the form of empire and colonial expansion. Furthermore, it established a European (and now Western) rulebook which in large part dictated the course of European nation-state and empire building right up until the modern day. International order is defined succinctly by Lascurettes & Poznansky as entailing “…some level of regularity, predictability, and stability in the ways that actors interact with one another”. Finally, the question concerns the current balance of power, which essentially describes the battle between vying (cliques of) nation-states that attempt to dominate or at least heavily influence international politics. This essay will contend with these complex concepts and come to a supported judgement of the current state of the westphalian impact upon international power structures. 

The Westphalian Order 

Since 1648, the Westphalian conference has had a tremendous impact upon the nature and character of the international order. The Westphalian peace process formalised two core tenants of International Relations theory that underpin all international institutions today; state sovereignty and legal equality. In the context of constant warring between European entities, these principles enshrined norms of legal superiority in one’s own territory, with a policy of non-interference into another authorities’ domestic affairs, which find their philosophical roots in Realism. The impact of these is apparent in the modern world, as set out in Article 2 of the UN charter which enshrines the principles of equal sovereignty and non-intervention. Both these conceptual giants were the pillar stones of the original European ‘Standard of Civilisation’ which, based upon shared norms and values, has gone on to act as the benchmark for entry into international society for all state-like entities across the globe. 

These creations of 17th Century Europe still exist today as the primary barriers of International Relations, when dictating institutional relationships generally, yet particularly between western and non-western states. In major organisations Westphalian states often hold majorities within decision-making entities, such as the UN Security Council where three of the five permanent members are western nations (US, UK & France) as set out in the UN charter (Article 23). As well as setting the basis of institutional arrangements from a theoretical perspective, formal power relations are maintained as the westphalian-led western states dominate the initial creation, agenda-setting and decision-making aspects, which allow them to continue to pursue their own strategic goals. With this in mind, and the contemporary definition of ‘International Order’ we can clearly see that Westphalian principles and Westphalian-inspired states continue to define the International Order internally, yet also hold significant sway through unilateral action. 

Anglospheric Unity 

Westphalian principles have not only survived purely upon their inclusion in the makeup of western states and international organisations, rather their very existence today is predicated on their mutual maintenance by the anglosphere (US, UK, AUS, NZ, CAN). Specifically the reciprocal relations between the parties within and moreover, without international organisations as the main arbiter of international relations. Indeed, this can be seen through a variety of unilateral agreements, as well as more collaborative arrangements. For example, the recent AUKUS alliance, which as a military-industrial pact circumvents traditional institutions in favour of traditional allyship. The western partners engaged in trilateral action to extend and deepen militaristic ties in the Indo-Pacific region by providing Australia with nuclear capabilities. These recent developments continue the long history of reciprocity between anglo-saxon states, continuing an elite clique of states which hold considerable similarities due to the shared colonial history they all possess. 

These states, who all maintained westphalian state relation principles, played a considerable role in the creation of international law which deeply underpins the International Order (within and without international organisations). Drawing on the Westphalian state system, 19th century European states (particularly Britain) developed the notion of the ‘Standard of Civilisation’ based on European cultural norms, values and practices as the entry requirements to fully access international society and thereby shape the order. Bowden posits that “Any nation that did not meet the prerequisites for membership in European international society – which was much, if not most of the non-European world – was, by definition, ʻuncivilizedʼ”. Therefore by extension, these states were inferior to European ones. Williams goes on to further explain that this colonial creation was “…sustained by a central idea: the Westʼs religion, civilization, and knowledge are superior… This superiority, in turn, is the redemptive source of the Westʼs presumed mandate to impose its vision of truth on non-Western peoples.”. These findings have considerable explanatory power when discussing the foundations of the International Order during the 19th-20th Centuries, as these theories of superiority were ingrained in the DNA of international institutions, and therefore add reason as to why western states still remain in premier positions, such as in the UN as discussed previously, and therefore why the international order retains its Westphalian character. 

The Sinosphere 

However, these defining characteristics are being manipulated and changing due to the increased involvement within the international arena by a plethora of rising states that do not conform to western methodologies, but rather pursue their very own versions of International Relations. Particularly China, in the last 30 years has become more assertive within international institutions after learning the Westphalian rules of engagement. The development of International Relations with ‘Chinese Characteristics’ is in conjunction with China’s drive into positions of power and responsibility to begin to shape the globe to their own strategic objectives. As Kim states “Scholars who have closely studied IR discipline in China agree that there is a close link between the country’s academia and its policy circles.” Therefore showing the drive towards creating new scholarly models of IR which can be translated into policy choices.

Additionally as with the foundation of Westphalian models of International Relations, Kim finds that “…many Chinese scholars base their theory on ancient or modern Chinese history…” Indeed, China has a rich history to draw upon for the creation of their own IR scholarship, particularly in direct competition with Westphalian principles is the Chinese Tributary system which existed from as early as the 7th Century. These developments are revitalising the oft-associated ‘Confucian World Order’ which poses as a direct competitor to Western-led circles, and as China grows in assertiveness, is slowly changing the character of the current, and defining the future International Order. This is directly demonstrated by the Chinese-Russian tactical alignment in the U.N. Security Council which in July 2020 vetoed two resolutions regarding Syria and blocked the appointment of a French national as special envoy for Sudan. Although not fully formed, the growth in both Chinese scholarship and regional policy development is an indicator of future Eastern dominance of the International system.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, this essay has demonstrated the historical backdrop on which European principles and the Westphalian state system were founded within, how they developed through the drive to expand and thereafter colonise the globe. This accelerated globalisation and created the initial modern International Order, which underpinned all International Relations within and without global institutions. This has maintained agenda-setting power for the west, as well as the continued reciprocity between anglo-speaking states. However whilst it remains intact, this status quo is being more intensely challenged by different sources of International Relations scholarship. Specifically Chinese, which poses the most real and direct threat to Western and US-led hegemony in the international arena. In my view, as US dominance continues to decline, the leadership-vacuum left is and will continue to be filled by a China driven to model the globe in its image after centuries of Western dominion. 

Bibliography

1. Brown, Chris. Understanding International Relations. (Basingstoke, Palgrave, 2001)
2.  Charter of the United Nations. (2012). Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter (Accessed 10th January 2022).
3. Lascurettes, Kyle M. and Poznansky, Michael. International Order in Theory and Practice. (Oxford, University Press, 2021). 
4. Brett Bowden. The Colonial Origins of International Law. European Expansion and the Classical Standard of Civilisation. (Heidelberg, Journal of the History of International Law, 2005). 
5. Robert A. Williams Jr. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest. (New York, Oxford University Press, 1990).
6. Hun Joon Kim. Will IR Theory with Chinese Characteristics be a Powerful Alternative? (Oxford, The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 2016).
7. Jeffrey Feltman. “China’s expanding influence at the United Nations – and how the United States should react.” Brookings, Sept, 2020.