Simon Davis

“A Projected New Trusteeship”? American Internationalism, British Imperialism, and the Reconstruction of Iran, 1938–1947

Diplomatic histories identify an early cold war “paradigm shift” as restoring the troubled Anglo–American “special relationship.” However, an integrated analysis of Second World War and post-war Iran suggests continuity in ideologically based Anglo–American differences on the reconstruction of the postwar world economic periphery, and that this was the defining context for crucially elusive relations during successive crises to come. The Americans had embraced Iran as an exemplar of “new deal internationalism,” being as much opposed to competing British neo-imperialist political and economic models there as to Soviet encroachments. They continued to identify autonomous British policies and interests antipathetically during the early cold war period and beyond, not merely out of economic self-interest, but at crucial moments disavowing geopolitical realpolitik. This perplex also determined during future crises of British power, in Iran and throughout the Middle East, that US interests would shift to new relationships, whenever having to decide, with indigenous peripheral actors rather than neo-imperialist European allies, precluding institutionalized, comprehensive Anglo–American partnership, which Britain had hoped would preserve and extend its role as a regional power. *The author gratefully acknowledges the importance of a PSC-CUNY Research Award in funding significant parts of the archival research on which this article is based.

‘Irish & Roman Catholic Which Upsets All the People Here’: Michael McDonnell and British Colonial Justice in Mandatory Palestine, 1927–1936

In 1927 Michael McDonnell, a diasporic Irish Catholic, was appointed Mandatory Palestines Chief Justice, being directed to institute firm British-style legal-judicial foundations for future self-governance. This entailed common, equal status for Arab and Jewish Palestinians, implicitly de-privileging the Jewish National Home. McDonnell was resisted in this by the British Mandates Anglo-Jewish, pro-Zionist Attorney General, Norman Bentwich. McDonnell prevailed but only at the cost of being characterized lastingly as a pro-Arab, Catholic anti-Semite. McDonnells continuing defence of a supreme, independent judiciary antagonized the Palestine Executive of High Commissioner Arthur Wauchope, who tried to co-opt rather than subordinate Zionist interests. Consequent frictions culminated in 1936 with McDonnell adjudicating against supra-legal British repression of Palestines great Arab rebellion. For this he was dismissed and ostracized, subsequently publishing critiques of British policy in fringe right-wing organs. Yet McDonnell professed explicitly non-racist views, reflecting a liberal-minded, constitutional Irish nationalist equation of Palestine with Ireland, seeing comparable settler-colonial abuses and native distress as remediable only by transcendentally impartial justice. Britain reneging on these principles led McDonnell, like those Irish imperial servants noted in India, to identify with colonial subjects against colonialism. His case is one of empire as a system of domination being challenged from within, although his removal foreshadowed emerging imperial counter-insurgencys tendency not only to repress subject populations but deny civil-progressive alternatives for managing post-colonial transition.