Issuu on Google+

The Globe: World News From All Sides

The
Moscow
Summit
of
1949‐1950
 By
Joshua
Lasky
 The
Sun
Will
Never
Set
on
the
 Persian
Empire
 By
Jeremy
Iloulian
 
 Bu


Parallels
between
the
Haitian
 Revolution
and
the
American
 Anti‐Slavery
Movement
 By
Lucas
Divine
 The
Realist
Cycle
 By
Richard
Benjamin
 Bloomfield


World News from all Sides Spring 2010—Issue One

1




The Globe: World News From All Sides

TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Letter
from
the
Editor……………………………………………………………………………………3
 The
Moscow
Summit
of
1949‐1950……………………………………………………………4‐12
 By
Joshua
Lasky
 
 The
Sun
Will
Never
Set
on
the
Persian
Empire………………………………………….12‐18
 By
Jeremy
Iloulian
 
 Parallels
Between
the
Haitian
Revolution

 The
American
Anti‐Slavery
Movement……………………………………………………..18‐30
 By
Lucas
Divine
 
 The
Realist
Cycle……………………………………………………………………………………..31‐36
 By
Richard
Benjamin
Bloomfield
 
 
 
 
 
 


COPYRIGHTED 2010 © Copyright
©
2010,
[The
Globe].
Unless
otherwise
noted.
All
rights
reserved.
 Reproduction
of
any
content,
in
whole
or
in
part,
without
the
express
permission
of
 the
Chairman
of
the
International
Affairs
Society
is
strictly
prohibited.
Violations
are
 subject
to
legal
action.
The
Globe
is
a
production
of
the
International
Affairs
Society
 and
is
a
registered
student
organization
of
The
George
Washington
University
in
 Washington,
D.C.
The
views
expressed
in
this
publication
are
those
of
the
authors,
 and
not
necessarily
those
of
The
George
Washington
University,
its
entities,
or
the
 International
Affairs
Society.

2




The Globe: World News From All Sides

LETTER
FROM
THE
EDITOR
 Dear
Readers:
 I
am
proud
to
present
the
third
edition
of
the
The
Globe:
World
News
 from
All
Sides
for
the
2009‐2010
academic
year.
The
Globe
is
the
only
 undergraduate
academic
journal
at
the
George
Washington
University
 devoted
solely
to
International
Affairs.

The
Globe
is
an
amazing
 opportunity
for
International
Affairs
Society
members,
Elliot
School
 students,
and
those
interested
in
international
affairs
to
publish
their
 academic
papers
and
articles
in
a
professional
manner.
More
than
that,
 it
is
an
opportunity
to
open
discussion,
publish
ideas
and
to
think
and
 write
critically
on
world
issues.


 The
Globe
and
its
submissions
are
drawn
from
many
different
areas
of
 interest
within
international
affairs
from
economics,
to
politics,
to
 interdisciplinary
discussions.
This
edition
is
no
exception
and
with
 every
issue,
we
hope
to
bring
our
readers
new
outlooks
on
International
 Affairs
a
discipline.
 Enjoy
this
Spring
online
edition,
a
culmination
of
the
best
submissions
 received
throughout
the
semester,
and
look
out
for
our
Spring
print
 edition
coming
soon!
 
 Cheers,

 
 Lauren
Jacobson
 Editor‐In‐Chief

 


Assistant
Editors:
 Justin
Snyder
 Nabeela
Malik
 Jeff
Richards
 



 3




The Globe: World News From All Sides

The
Moscow
Summit
of
1949­1950
 The
Historical
Viewpoint
versus
the
Contemporary
Viewpoint
 


By:
Joshua
Lasky
 


During
the
period
of
time
immediately
following
the
end
of
the
Chinese
Civil


War,
by
all
appearances
there
was
a
great
blow
to
the
Western
world
as
a
result
of
 the
alliance
between
the
Soviet
Union
and
China.

Meeting
for
the
first,
and
as
it
 turns
out
only,
time
at
this
summit
in
Moscow,
Joseph
Stalin
and
Mao
Zedong
 appeared
to
present
a
united
Communist
front
against
the
forces
led
by
the
United
 States.

However,
behind
the
scenes,
the
relationship
between
Stalin
and
Mao
was
 not
completely
harmonious.

Each
of
them
held
their
own
ideas
for
what
the
 vanguard
of
Communism
should
be.

These
differences
played
out
in
the
private
 talks
held
in
Moscow
towards
the
end
of
1949
and
the
beginning
of
1950.

An
 average
follower
of
Cold
War
tensions
may
not
have
been
able
to
pick
up
well
on
 these
cracks
in
the
facade;
however,
a
careful
examiner
of
newspaper
articles
 emerging
at
the
time
may
have
been
able
to
see
a
glimpse
of
the
true
relationship
 between
Stalin
and
Mao.
 


The
meeting
between
the
two
leaders
in
December
of
1949
was
primarily


held
in
order
to
figure
out
the
future
path
for
China
and
how
the
Soviet
Union
could
 aid
in
its
progress.

Earlier
that
year,
there
had
been
discreet
struggles
between
 Stalin
and
Mao
regarding
their
unique
partnership.

This
can
be
observed
in
the
 telegrams
sent
between
Stalin
and
Mao
in
January
1949
in
response
to
the
Nanjing
 government's
plea
to
the
West
and
the
USSR
for
mediation
in
the
Chinese
Civil
War.



4




The Globe: World News From All Sides The
Communists
had
won
several
high
profile
military
victories
and
appeared
to
be
 on
the
verge
of
taking
China
for
good.

In
telegrams
dated
on
the
10th
and
11th
of
 January
Stalin
notified
Mao
of
the
requests
for
aid
sent
out
by
Nanjing
and
suggested
 that
the
two
sides
aim
towards
seeming
to
desire
direct
negotiations
between
the
 Communists
and
the
Guomindang
but
make
the
requirements
for
peace
talks
so
 stringent
that
they
would
never
agree
to
sit
down
for
them.

As
Stalin
puts
it,
"our
 draft
of
your
reply
to
the
Guomindang
proposal
is
aimed
at
the
undermining
of
the
 peace
negotiations.
Clearly,
the
Guomindang
would
not
agree
to
peace
negotiations
 without
foreign
powers’
mediation,
especially
that
of
the
USA.
It
is
also
clear
that
the
 Guomindang
will
not
agree
to
negotiate
without
the
participation
of
Jiang
Jieshi
 [Chiang
Kaishek]
and
other
war
criminals.
We
assume
therefore
that
the
 Guomindang
would
reject
peace
negotiations
on
CCP
terms."1

The
real
surprise
to
 Stalin
is
the
response
from
Mao
being
hostile
rather
than
receptive.

Mao
dictates
a
 Soviet
response
in
his
telegram
from
January
13th
that
would
have
Stalin
denounce
 any
attempts
for
foreign
mediation
in
the
Chinese
Civil
War,
an
action
which
would
 put
the
USSR
at
odds
with
the
United
States.

Mao
took
the
position
that
victory
was
 almost
in
sight,
what
would
the
point
be
in
inviting
the
possibility
of
peace
at
that
 point
in
the
conflict?

Mao
notes
that,
"
if
the
USSR
in
its
reply
to
the
note
by
the
 Nanjing
government
will
take
the
position
outlined
in
your
telegram
of
January
10,
it
 would
make
the
USA,
England
and
France
assume
that
participating
in
mediation
is
 an
appropriate
thing,
and
give
the
Guomindang
a
pretext
for
scolding
us
as
warlike
 























































 1
"Stalin
to
Mao
Zedong,
11
January
1949."
CWIHP.


http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF1A4.pdf


5




The Globe: World News From All Sides elements."2

That
is,
if
the
Soviet
Union
even
hinted
at
supporting
a
mediated
end
to
 the
Chinese
Civil
War,
the
rest
of
the
great
powers
would
instantly
support
the
idea.

 Mao
very
much
desired
the
unconditional
surrender
of
the
Guomindang
forces
and
 did
not
want
to
risk
total
victory
over
a
political
maneuver.

He
summarized
by
 noting
that,
"we
are
inclined
towards
rejecting
the
peace
deception
by
the
 Guomindang
with
full
righteousness,
because
now,
as
the
balance
of
class
forces
in
 China
has
already
changed
irreversibly
and
the
international
opinion
is
also
 unfavourable
to
the
Nanjing
government,
the
PLA
will
be
able
to
cross
the
Yangzi
 this
summer
and
start
the
offensive
towards
Nanjing.

It
looks
like
we
do
not
have
to
 make
one
more
political
detour.
In
the
present
situation
this
maneuver
would
be
 damaging
rather
than
beneficial."

After
receiving
this
response
Stalin
backtracked
 significantly,
eventually
caving
in
to
the
response
created
by
Mao
for
the
Soviet
 response
to
the
Guomindang
peace
proposal.

To
the
outside
observer,
someone
 who
had
just
read
the
statement
provided
by
Soviet
Union,
it
seemed
that
their
 government
had
always
been
on
the
side
of
rejecting
the
proposal
for
outside
 mediation;
indeed,
the
four
great
powers
together
declined
to
participate
in
any
 such
mediation
around
the
same
time.3

However,
in
reality,
Mao
made
a
shocking
 rejection
of
Soviet
intervention
in
the
Chinese
Civil
War.

Compared
to
the
servility
 of
the
leaders
of
the
Soviet
Union's
eastern
European
satellites,
Mao
appeared
to
 make
a
concerted
effort
to
be
seen
as,
at
the
very
least,
a
junior
partner
in
the
 























































 2
"Mao
Zedong
to
Stalin,
13
January
1949."
CWIHP.


http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF1A4.pdf
 3
"U.
S.,
BRITAIN
SAID
TO
BAR
CHINA'S
BID."
New
York
Times
(1857­Current
file);
Jan
15,
1949;
 ProQuest
Historical
Newspapers
The
New
York
Times
(1851
‐
2005).
pg.
4.


6




The Globe: World News From All Sides Communist
movement.

This
theme
would
return
in
future
meetings
between
Soviet
 and
Chinese
leaders
later
that
year
in
the
Moscow
summit.
 


In
December
1949
Mao
arrived
in
Moscow
for
a
celebration
of
Stalin's


seventieth
birthday,
a
convenient
excuse
to
hold
talks
related
to
the
furthering
of
 Soviet‐Chinese
ties
in
the
form
of
a
formal
treaty
of
friendship.

The
headlines
 proclaimed
warm
receptions
for
the
Chinese
leader
and
nothing
but
praise
from
 Mao
to
Stalin.

Under
the
blanket
of
the
media
coverage
things
looked
somewhat
 different.

In
these
talks
there
was
limited
disagreement
between
Mao
and
Stalin
on
 a
few
different
topics
including
a
possible
treaty
of
friendship
and
what
to
do
 regarding
the
Nationalist
fortification
of
Formosa.

At
the
December
meeting,
Stalin
 voiced
a
concern
regarding
altering
any
of
the
provisions
set
forth
under
the
Yalta
 Agreement,
particularly
regarding
the
status
of
Soviet
soldiers
stationed
at
Port
 Arthur,
reminding
Mao
that,
"since
a
change
in
even
one
point
could
give
America
 and
England
the
legal
grounds
to
raise
questions
about
modifying
also
the
treaty’s
 provisions
concerning
the
Kurile
Islands,
South
Sakhalin,
etc."4

Understandably,
 Mao
Zedong
was
somewhat
wary
of
proceeding
forward
under
an
agreement,
which
 had
been
made
before
his
government
had
even
come
to
power.

However,
Stalin
 was
for
the
time
able
to
convince
Mao
that
informal
agreements
that
would
not
alter
 the
letter
of
the
Yalta
Accords
were
the
best
way
to
not
arouse
the
ire
of
the
West.

 For
example,
the
Soviet
Union
would
retain
the
written
right
to
station
forces
at
Port
 Arthur
for
the
remainder
of
the
thirty‐year
lease;
however,
an
informal
agreement
 























































 4
"Conversation
between
Stalin
and
Mao,
Moscow,
16
December
1949."
CWIHP.


http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF1A4.pdf.
Pg
5.


7




The Globe: World News From All Sides could
have
Russian
troops
leave
as
soon
as
five
years
down
the
line.

Secondly,
Mao
 was
somewhat
concerned
about
the
PLA's
inability
to
strike
at
the
remaining
 Guomindang
forces
that
had
established
themselves
on
the
island
of
Formosa,
now
 known
as
Taiwan.

He
desired
that
the
Soviet
Union
provide
him
with
direct
and
 indirect
means
to
invade
the
island
and
end
the
civil
war
once
and
for
all.

Stalin
 hesitated
to
do
this,
arguing
that
"what
is
most
important
here
is
not
to
give
 Americans
a
pretext
to
intervene."

At
the
time
this
would
likely
have
frustrated
Mao
 because,
in
his
mind,
the
Soviet
Union
clearly
had
the
means
to
provide
him
the
 ships
and
training
necessary
to
carry
out
the
operation,
yet
were
unwilling
to
do
so.

 At
the
same
time
as
all
of
these
discussions
were
taking
place,
the
New
York
Times
 published
articles
highlighting
the
boasts
of
the
Russian
and
Chinese
press.

Such
 statements
include
a
quote
from
the
People's
Daily
featuring
Mao
remarking
that,
 "the
Chinese
people
can
make
uniting
with
the
Soviet
Union
their
own
basic
policy."5

 Also,
the
Times
declared,
again
referring
to
Mao,
that
it
would
be,
"more
and
more
 difficult
for
his
wishful
apologists
in
this
country
to
cling
to
the
theory
that
he
will
 somehow
prove
to
be
a
Chinese
Tito."6

By
taking
these
articles
at
face
value,
one
 would
have
no
idea
of
the
fundamental
differences
in
opinion
that
would
later
fuel
 the
Sino‐Soviet
split.

However,
in
an
article
written
a
couple
days
earlier
in
the
 Washington
Post,
AP
reporter
John
Hightower
envisioned
certain
cracks
in
the













���











































 5
"CHINESE
COMMUNIST
CHIEF
WELCOMED
IN
MOSCOW."
New
York
Times
(1857­Current
file);
Dec


19,
1949;
ProQuest
Historical
Newspapers
The
New
York
Times
(1851
‐
2005).
pg.
17.
 6
"MAO
MAKES
HIS
PILGRIMAGE."
New
York
Times
(1857­Current
file);
Dec
18,
1949;
ProQuest
 Historical
Newspapers
The
New
York
Times
(1851
‐
2005).
pg.
E8.


8




The Globe: World News From All Sides friendship
between
the
Soviet
Union
and
China.7

Taking
Manchuria
as
the
primary
 issue,
he
argued
that
the
Russians
were
reluctant
to
give
up
their
special
rights
in
 China
following
the
victory
of
the
Communist
forces
and
that
they
still
wanted
a
 special
zone
of
influence
in
Manchuria.

In
actuality,
Manchuria
was
an
issue
for
 which
Mao
would
chafe
under
Stalin's
repeated
remarks
on
the
issue
in
their
later
 meeting
in
January.

Articles
such
as
this
one
correctly
predicted
troubles
in
the
 relationship
between
the
Soviet
Union
and
China
given
the
multitude
of
issues
that
 were
on
the
table
at
the
time.
 


More
tensions
arose
during
this
January,
1950
meeting
between
Stalin
and


Mao.

During
this
meeting,
Stalin
completely
reverses
the
position
he
took
on
the
 subject
of
writing
a
new
treaty
that
would
go
against
the
Yalta
Accords.

In
fact,
he
 goes
as
far
as
to
say
that,
"it
does—and
to
hell
with
it!

Once
we
have
taken
up
the
 position
that
the
treaties
must
be
changed,
we
must
go
all
the
way."8

Needless
to
 say
this
came
as
quite
the
surprise
to
Mao
who
quickly
agreed
with
Stalin's
 magnanimous
decision
before
the
Soviet
leader
could
change
his
mind
once
more.

 Following
this
point,
certain
disagreements
began
to
emerge.

First
of
all,
regarding
 the
administration
of
KChZhD
(Chinese
Changchun
Railroad),
the
Chinese
 government
wanted
a
majority
stake
while
the
Soviets
wanted
to
split
it
evenly
as
 they
had
done
in
their
other
satellite
states.

This
appears
to
be
Mao's
first
attempt
 to
gain
some
sovereignty
from
the
Soviets
in
relation
to
their
domestic
affairs.

 























































 7
Hightower,
John
M.
"Stalin‐Mao
Rift
Hinted
Over
Control
In
Manchuria."
The
Washington
Post


(1877­1954);
Dec
18,
1949;
ProQuest
Historical
Newspapers
The
Washington
Post
(1877
‐
1992).
pg.
 M1.
 8
"Conversation
between
Stalin
and
Mao,
Moscow,
January
22,
1950."
CWIHP.
 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACF1A4.pdf.
Pg
7.


9




The Globe: World News From All Sides While
they
are
by
all
accounts
grateful
to
the
Soviet
government
for
their
aid,
the
 last
thing
on
their
agenda
is
to
simply
become
another
Soviet
satellite.

This
issue
 comes
up
again
when
Stalin
repeatedly
brings
up
the
matters
of
Manchuria
and
 Xinjiang;
as
these
are
territories
of
China,
it
would
be
natural
for
Mao
to
wonder
 what
position
Stalin
is
in
where
he
may
tell
China
what
to
do
within
its
own
borders.

 This
reiterates
the
problems
proposed
by
the
Post
article
from
December
1949.

He
 would
also
have
to
wonder
based
on
Stalin's
question
as
to,
"what
sort
of
a
situation
 we
should
look
forward
to
in
the
future:
will
we
be
signing
separate
agreements
 with
Xinjiang,
Manchuria
and
other
provinces,
or
a
single
agreement
with
the
 central
government?"

From
Mao's
perspective,
Stalin
could
be
treating
these
 provinces
as
if
they
were
not
part
of
China
and
could
be
turned
into
Soviet
spheres
 of
influence.

He
would
also
have
to
wonder
whether
he
was
being
treated
as
an
 equal
ally
or
a
subservient
vassal.


 


Not
surprisingly,
news
sources
were
not
getting
all
of
the
information


regarding
these
meetings
between
Soviet
and
Chinese
officials.

For
instance,
an
 article
published
in
the
New
York
Times
claimed
that
Mao
was
not
even
a
party
to
 the
negotiations
on
the
22nd
despite
the
fact
that
he
was
one
of
the
major
players.9

 It
is
possible
that
Soviet
sources
played
down
Mao's
role
in
order
to
reduce
the
 media
attention
on
the
negotiations
taking
place.

On
the
other
hand,
the
Times
was
 able
to
pick
up
on
the
fact
that
there
was
significant
back
and
forth
bargaining
going
 on,
and
not
all
of
it
in
good
humor,
in
detailing
the
several
requests
and
counter‐ 























































 9
"STALIN
SEES
CHOU;
PACT
MAY
BE
TOPIC."
New
York
Times
(1857­Current
file);
Jan
23,
1950;


ProQuest
Historical
Newspapers
The
New
York
Times
(1851
‐
2005).
pg.
1.



 10



The Globe: World News From All Sides requests
made
by
both
sides.

Through
looking
at
the
news
articles
from
this
time
 period
without
the
meeting
notes
at
hand,
it
would
be
easy
for
Americans
to
assume
 the
worst
from
these
meetings
between
Mao
and
Stalin.

Certain
articles
describing
 Mao
vowing,
"a
firm
intention
to
display
the
strongest
support
of
Stalinist
 international
policy,"
would
have
shown
worldwide
readers
a
clear
picture
of
a
 united
Communist
front.10

Considering
that
the
Soviet
Union
and
China
comprised
a
 significant
share
of
Europe
and
Asia
it
would
have
been
disastrous
for
the
West
if
 these
two
countries
had
been
able
to
partner
successfully.

The
key
in
this
 discussion
is
the
ability
to
look
beyond
the
headlines;
by
carefully
observing
the
 dynamic
between
the
Soviet
and
Chinese
leaders,
it
is
clear
that
the
beginnings
of
 resentment
are
brewing.

Between
Stalin's
astonishment
earlier
in
1949
as
to
the
 brazen
reply
of
Mao
to
his
advice
on
the
Nanjing
telegram
and
Mao's
bitterness
over
 having
to
discuss
domestic
Chinese
issues
with
an
outsider,
Americans
would
have
 been
much
more
at
ease
with
this
knowledge
on
hand.

On
the
other
hand,
careful
 readers
of
these
newspaper
articles
would
have
been
able
to
gather
that
there
were
 significant
negotiations
going
on
behind
closed
doors
and
that
a
Sino‐Soviet
alliance
 was
in
reality
far
from
a
sure
thing.
 


Ultimately,
the
depiction
of
the
relationship
between
Joseph
Stalin
and
Mao


Zedong
is
not
fundamentally
different
by
going
through
either
the
contemporary
 news
source
coverage
or
through
the
records
of
the
conversations
themselves.

 While
the
initial
cracks
that
led
to
the
Sino‐Soviet
split
were
starting
to
come
into
 























































 10
"MAO
MAKES
HIS
PILGRIMAGE."
New
York
Times
(1857­Current
file);
Dec
18,
1949;
ProQuest


Historical
Newspapers
The
New
York
Times
(1851
‐
2005).
pg.
E8.



 11



The Globe: World News From All Sides place
during
this
summit
meeting,
both
Mao
and
Stalin
were
still
striving
towards
a
 goal
of
friendship
between
their
two
countries.

Perhaps
not
until
the
early‐1950's,
 during
the
Korean
War,
would
Mao
and
Stalin
begin
jockeying
for
leadership
of
the
 Communist
movement
in
earnest.

Looking
hard
enough
into
the
articles
of
the
time
 period,
it
is
indeed
possible
to
discern
that
there
could
be
serious
tensions
between
 the
Soviet
and
Chinese
leaders,
particularly
regarding
their
relationship
within
an
 alliance.

As
a
result,
although
to
non‐informed
Americans
at
the
time
a
Sino‐Soviet
 alliance
would
have
looked
all
but
inevitable,
others
would
have
seen
the
potential
 for
trouble
in
the
Communist
paradise.


The
Sun
Will
Never
Set
on
the
Persian
Empire
 
 By:
Jeremy
Iloulian
 


The
year
is
632.
Imagine
you
live
in
the
Arabian
Peninsula.
Your
prophet
that


has
taught
you
and
your
family
members
the
submission
of
God
has
just
passed
on
 to
be
greeted
in
heaven
by
God.
But
out
of
suffering
and
mourning
comes
a
great
 time
for
your
people.
For
the
rest
of
your
lifetime
news
returns
to
Mecca
on
how
the
 Arabs
win
battle
after
battle.
Your
children
live
on
to
the
creation
of
one
of
the
 largest
empires,
the
Arab
Empire.
And
the
best
part
of
all
of
this
is
that
not
only
do
 the
armies
return
with
military
success,
but
religious
success
too.
People
 everywhere
seem
to
be
converting
to
this
new
wonderful
religion
you
call
Islam
and
 they
begin
to
adopt
your
habits
as
Arabs.
Everywhere
new
people
begin
to
call
 themselves
Arabs.
Except
for
one,
one
ancient
kingdom
that
fell
in
the
east
seems
to



 12



The Globe: World News From All Sides convert
to
your
religion
but
doesn’t
learn
the
holy
language
of
Arabic
nor
practices
 your
customs.
Why?
Why
does
this
country
not
submit
to
your
culture,
to
your
 ways?
 
The
country
that
the
Arabs
would
speak
of
would
later
be
known
as
the
 Persian
Empire.
And
that
word,
Empire,
which
means
so
much,
would
be
the
reason
 why
Persia
never
became
Arab.

 Until
modern
times
the
area
of
land
that
was
between
Iraq
and
Afghanistan
 was
known
as
Persia.
The
most
significant
event
to
happen
in
Persian
history
was
 the
coming
of
Islam
and
of
the
Arab
invaders.
Islam
is
the
youngest
major
world
 religion.
By
the
time
that
Muhammad
died
in
632
the
only
place
under
Islam
or
Arab
 control
was
the
Arabian
Peninsula.
(Arabs
and
Muslims
are
not
interchangeable
but
 until
this
point
all
the
Muslims
were
Arabs).
So
to
spread
the
word
of
this
great
 religion,
the
Arabs
would
continue
to
expand
their
empire.
From
632
to
655
the
 Arabs
expanded
through
the
near
east
and
by
750
the
Arabs
had
conquered
Spain
in
 the
west,
across
North
Africa,
into
Egypt,
Syria,
Iraq,
Persia,
and
even
parts
of
 central
Asia.
When
the
Arabs
came
to
each
country
they
would
not
only
defeat
the
 armies
but
impose
their
culture
and
Islam
as
well.

 Within
the
context
of
all
global
history,
the
countries
that
militarily
had
 submitted
to
the
Arabs
also
submitted
to
their
culture.
In
a
lecture
that
Bernard
 Lewis
gives
(a
professor
at
Princeton)
he
explains
what
changed
in
these
countries
 with
the
introduction
of
Islam
and
Arabism:
“The
previous
languages
were
 forgotten,
the
identities
expressed
in
those
languages
were
replaced,
and
the
ancient
 civilizations
of
Iraq,
Syria,
and
Egypt
gave
way
to
what
we
nowadays
call
the
Arab



 13



The Globe: World News From All Sides world.”11
Persia
was
the
only
country
that
did
not.
Iran
accepted
Islam
as
the
new
 religion
but
it
never
became
Arab
unlike
its
neighbors
in
the
west.

 Lewis
makes
a
compelling
argument
in
his
lecture
about
why
Iran
did
not
 turn
into
another
Arab
state:
that
Iran
had
a
strong
sense
of
nationalism
within
 herself
which
had
been
there
for
almost
two
and
half
millennia.
The
most
important
 point
to
note
is
that
Iran
was
never
conquered
with
the
exception
of
Alexander
the
 Great
until
the
Arabs.
But
even
then
the
Macedonian
control
and
Greek
ideas
only
 stayed
there
for
less
than
150
years.
As
Lewis
points
out
when
compared
to
Egypt
 or
Iraq,
both
countries
that
had
thriving
civilizations,
Persia
was
never
conquered.
 Both
Egypt
and
Iraq
had
been
conquered
multiple
times
from
the
Macedonians,
 Assyrians,
Romans,
and
even
the
Persians
themselves.
Those
civilizations
did
not
 control
their
own
kingdom
for
almost
entire
millennia.
Iraq,
Egypt,
Syria,
and
the
 Maghreb
(North
Africa
minus
Egypt)
most
likely
had
become
used
to
the
fact
that
 new
conquerors
would
come
and
go
and
new
traditions
would
too.
In
some
cases
if
 a
cultural
heritage
was
not
accepted
by
the
people
who
were
conquered,
for
 example
Carthage
with
Rome,
the
entire
civilization
was
destroyed.
So
in
theory
 those
countries
that
were
conquered
understood
the
fact
that
it
was
better
to
 continue
living
than
to
not
switch
cultures.

 Also
because
Persia
was
never
conquered
with
the
exception
of
Alexander,
 she
would
have
believed
herself
to
be
a
superpower
at
the
time
or
an
Empire.
With
 superpower
status
(militarily
speaking)
the
state
creates
a
dominant
culture
and
 strong
sense
of
nationalism.
We
have
seen
that
to
be
true
with
the
Cold
War
in
 























































 11
Ibid,
1.



 14



The Globe: World News From All Sides which
the
United
States
and
the
Soviet
Union
not
only
were
the
strongest
by
military
 measures
but
also
led
the
world
in
two
different
lifestyles.
Persia
was
a
contender
 with
Rome,
which
has
been
regarded
as
one
of
the
most
powerful
empires
ever
in
 Europe
and
the
world.
In
a
historical
database
called
AD
it
states,
“Persia
was
a
 small
nation
that
grew
to
be
the
world's
first
superpower”.12
So
because
Persia
was
 the
first
superpower
to
exist
it
had
obtained
a
level
of
strength
no
other
country
 ever
had!
To
have
Persia
understand
that
creates
a
nationalistic
pride
that
neither
 Egypt
nor
Iraq
ever
had
or
will
have.
Just
with
word
terminology,
to
call
oneself
an
 Empire
would
create
a
strong
sense
of
nationalistic
fever.
And
to
create
even
more
 nationalism
and
pride
Persia
was
regarded
as
an
Empire
not
just
by
herself
but
 others
in
the
past
and
present.

By
creating
this
sense
of
nationalism
even
when
the
 Arabs
came
in
and
won
by
military
means,
the
people
would
not
surrender
in
terms
 of
culture.
Instead
the
Persians
fought
back
by
keeping
their
own
sense.

 If
anything,
Iran
actually
influenced
the
Arab
world
and
Islam
herself
through
 cultural,
spiritual,
and
political
means.
As
Lewis
says,
“The
Iranian
contribution
to
 this
new
Islamic
civilization
is
of
immense
importance.
The
work
of
Iranians
can
be
 seen
in
every
field
of
cultural
endeavor.”13
Lewis
even
goes
on
to
explain
that
a
new
 version
of
Islam
was
formed
called
Islam‐I‐Ajam,
otherwise
known
as
Persian
Islam.
 For
sometime,
Persian
Islam
even
became
the
more
dominant
of
the
two
different
 forms
of
Islam
in
terms
of
political
power.
Persian
Islam
spread
to
central
Asia,
 























































 12
"Persians."
0
AD.
Wildfire
Games,
6
Nov.
2004.
Web.
1
Oct.
2009.


<http://wildfiregames.com/0ad/page.php?p=6360>.
 
 13
Bernard
Lewis.
"Iran
in
History."
Tel
Aviv
University,
Tel
Aviv.
18
Jan.
1999.
Lecture.



 15



The Globe: World News From All Sides India,
and
Turkey,
which
then
became
the
Ottoman
Empire
and
the
Mughal
Empire.
 So
at
one
point
you
had
three
Islamic
superpowers,
Persia,
the
Ottoman
Empire,
and
 the
Mughal
Empire
and
all
three
of
them
practiced
Persian
Islam:
“The
center
of
the
 Islamic
world
was
under
Turkish
and
Persian
states,
both
shaped
by
Iranian
 culture”,
once
Egypt
was
conquered
by
the
Ottomans
only
Arabia
and
the
Maghreb
 practiced
Arabian
Islam.14
This
sense
of
nationalism
almost
became
a
cycle.
Because
 Persia
had
such
a
strong
national
identity
before
the
coming
of
the
Arabs
they
were
 able
to
diversify
themselves
from
the
Arab
invaders
and
their
version
of
Islam.
By
 doing
so
the
Persians
never
would
assimilate
into
Arab
society
and
even
pushed
 themselves
further
out
of
that
world.

 Even
the
language
itself
did
not
change
unlike
many
other
languages
in
 countries
that
fell
to
the
Arab
conquerors.
As
Lewis
points
out,
“Aramaic
is
a
Semitic
 language
related
to
Arabic,
and
the
transition
from
Aramaic
to
Arabic
was
much
 easier
than
would
have
been
the
transition
from
Persian,
an
Indo‐European
 language,
to
Arabic.”15
For
the
time
Persian
was
so
unique
for
Middle
Eastern
 languages
and
it
embodied
that
sense
of
nationalism
and
empire
that
Persians
had.
 Additionally,
Persian
was
so
embedded
in
the
culture
through
poetry
and
literature
 that
it
made
it
hard
for
Arabic
to
replace
the
language
entirely.
And
because
Persian
 was
embedded
in
the
culture
it
did
not
collapse
to
Arabic
as
one
can
see
with
Coptic
 in
Egypt.



























































 14
Ibid,
2.
 15
Ibid,
2.



 16



The Globe: World News From All Sides 
The
final
major
part
that
had
Persia
maintain
a
sense
of
national
identity
and
 Empire
was
acceptance
of
Shi’ite
Islam.
“Iran
has
been
associated
with
Islam,
and
in
 the
more
recent
centuries
with
Shi'ite
Islam,
which
some
have
seen
as
an
 expression,
a
reappearance
of
the
Persian
national
genius
in
an
Islamic
disguise.”16
 This
form
of
Islam
was
brought
under
the
Safavid
Dynasty
as
well
as
the
term
Iran
 which
has
become
part
of
the
modern
day.
Iran
is
one
of
the
only
Shi’ite
states
today,
 and
at
the
time
of
the
Safavid
Dynasty
Persia
was
the
only
Shi’ite
state.
By
making
 herself
different
again
from
the
Arab
world
in
which
version
of
Islam
is
practiced
 (the
Arab
world
primarily
observes
Sunni
Islam)
Persia
separates
herself
and
even
 could
assert
that
she
is
now
a
Persian
and
a
Shi’ite
Empire.
Idea
of
a
Shi’ite
Empire
 still
exists
today.
One
of
the
entries
of
the
Turkish
Journal
of
International
Relations
 states,
“In
2004
Jordan’s
King
Abdullah,
anxiously
warned
of
the
prospect
of
a
‘Shia
 crescent’
spanning
Iran,
Iraq,
Syria,
and
Lebanon.”17
So
that
nationalistic
fever
 became
even
stronger
with
the
acceptance
of
Shi’ite
Islam.
 Persia’s
culture
and
nationalistic
pride
became
too
strong
for
the
Arabs
to
 overcome.
Because
of
centuries
of
empire,
a
distinct
language,
and
the
adoption
of
 new
religious
ideals,
the
idea
of
being
Persian
never
collapsed
to
the
Arab
world
as
 Egypt,
Syria,
Iraq,
and
the
Maghreb
would.
Persia
became
the
first
empire
to
exist
 and
still
continues
today
as
an
important
player
in
modern
politics
and
the
Middle


























































 16
Ibid,
9.


17Amir
M
Haji‐Yousefi
"Whose
Agenda
is
Served
by
the
Idea
of
a
Shia
Crescent?"
Alternatives:
Turkish


Journal
of
International
Relations
8.1
(2007):
1‐22.
Spring
2009.
Web.
23
Sept.
2009.
 <http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/tjir/v8i1/f_0016605_14357.pdf>.
 



 17



The Globe: World News From All Sides East,
and
in
today’s
world,
it
seems
to
be
Iran,
not
the
Arabs,
that
dominates
the
 policies
and
actions
of
the
Middle
East.


Parallels
Between
the
Haitian
Revolution
and

 the
American
Anti­Slavery
Movement
 
 By:
Lucas
Divine
 
 


The
essay
explores
how
the
struggle
for
freedom
in
Haiti
influenced
and
was


paralleled
in
America’s
struggle
against
slavery,
particularly
within
the
context
of
 Toussaint
L’Ouverture’s
theories
on
the
revolution.
The
essay
begins
with
a
 discussion
of
early
Haitian
history
to
foster
an
understanding
of
this
momentous
 rebellion.
The
nation’s
pariah
status
from
the
global
community
that
initially
 followed
the
revolution
is
also
analyzed
to
understand
the
immediate
global
 response
to
Haiti’s
revolution.
This
essay
also
examines
the
responses
of
African
 American
political
thinkers,
to
the
Haitian
Revolution
and
Toussaint.
An
analysis
of
 the
involved
parties
and
their
intentions
during
the
revolution
indicate
that
the
 revolution
was
not
simply
a
racial
revolution
but
rather
based
on
freedom
and
 equality.
The
role
of
religion
will
be
explored
from
both
American
Christian
and
 Haitian
Voodoo
perspectives
to
determine
if
there
is
any
correlation
between
 religion
and
revolution.
In
conclusion,
the
success
of
the
revolution
will
be
analyzed
 in
terms
of
both
practicality
and
the
ideal.



 18



The Globe: World News From All Sides Background Haiti
was
discovered
in
1492
by
Christopher
Columbus,
who
claimed
one‐third
of
 the
island
of
Hispaniola
(modern
day
Haiti)
on
behalf
of
Spain18.
The
native
 population
was
quickly
eradicated.
In
1492,
there
was
a
native
Arawak
population
 of
over
three
million19.
Within
twenty
two
years,
the
Arawaks
numbered
less
than
 twenty
seven
thousand
and
by
1542
only
two
hundred
Arawaks
remained20.
By
the
 revolution,
the
native
population
had
become
extinct
due
to
the
brutal
genocide
of
 the
natives
through
their
exposure
to
European
diseases
and
being
worked
 unmercifully,
and
often
literally
to
death,
by
the
Spanish
21.

 France
came
into
possession
with
the
forced
cession
of
what
is
now
modern
 day
Haiti,
with
the
Treaty
of
Ryswick,
which
ended
the
War
of
the
Palantinian
 Succession/
Nine
Years’
War
(1688‐1697).
By
the
1700’s
Hispaniola
was
renamed
 Saint
Dominique
(modern
Haiti)
and
was
France’s
and
the
world’s
most
lucrative
 colony22.
Between
half
a
million
and
three
quarters
of
a
million
slaves
cultivated
 crops,
the
main
crops
being
sugar,
rum,
cotton,
tobacco,
and
indigo
which
generated
 enormous
profits
for
the
slave
owners23.
Haiti
quickly
became
the
greatest
importer
 of
a
slave
workforce
through
the
African
slave
trade24.
The
economy
of
Haiti
alone
 comprised
two‐thirds
of
France’s
overseas
trade25.
 























































 18
Matthewson,
Tim.
A
Proslavery
Foriegn
Policy:
Haitian‐American
Relations
During
the
Early


Republic.
1st
ed.
Westport:
Praeger,
2003.
 19
Chin,
Pat,
Greg
Dunkel,
Sara
Flounders,
and
Kim
Ives,
comps.
eds.
Haiti:
a
Slave
Revolution
200
 Years
After
1804.
1st
ed.
New
York:
International
Action
Center,
2004.
 20
Ibid.,
p.121
 21
Ibid.,
p.121
 22
Ibid.,
p.122
 23
Matthewson,
p.3
 24
Chin,
p.171
 25
Ibid.,
p.171



 19



The Globe: World News From All Sides Revolution
 The
immediate
effects
of
the
Haitian
revolution
were
the
ejection
of
French
 occupying
troops,
the
establishment
of
Haiti
as
the
first
free
black
republic
 composed
of
former
slaves,
and
the
subsequent
pariah
status
imparted
upon
Haiti.
 The
impingement
of
the
ideals
espoused
by
the
revolutionaries
had
vast
 consequences
to
slave‐holding
countries
and
global
politics;
most
notably
the
 abrupt
end
of
the
era
of
colonialism.

 
 


However,
The
expulsion
of
the
French
was
only
the
first
step
towards
Haitian


independence.
With
the
turmoil
in
France,
stemming
from
the
chaos
of
the
French
 Revolution
of
1789–1799,
Haiti
was
primed
for
revolution.
It
was
not
only
the
black
 slaves
who
desired
their
freedom
but
also
the
planters
who
moved
for
 independence
from
France
and
free
coloreds
who
sought
full
citizenship
that
 pushed
Haiti
into
a
violent
revolution.
François
Dominique
Toussaint
Louverture
 served
in
all
practicality
as
a
dictator
following
the
violent
uprising
of
over
a
 hundred
thousand
slaves
under
the
Voodoo
leader
Boukman,
who
called
for
all
 whites
to
be
purged
from
Haiti26.

Thousands
of
blacks
rose
up
in
the
Plaine
du
Nord
 and
executed
their
former
masters.
Less
then
a
week
after
the
initial
outbreak
of
 violence,
slaves
controlled
the
northern
region
of
Haiti
and
began
to
persecute
the
 remaining
whites.
The
French
legislature
declared
slavery
illegal
in
1792.
However,
 Napoleon
exhibited
the
immediate
racism
challenging
Haiti
in a threatening letter to Toussaint claiming, 























































 26
Matthewson,
pp.10‐13



 20



The Globe: World News From All Sides The circumstances in which you found yourself, surrounded on all sides by enemies without the metropole being able to either assist or revictual you, rendered articles of that constitution legitimate that otherwise would not be.27 Napoleon was alluding to the 1801 Constitution drafted and instituted by Toussaint that declared Haiti a sovereign state. Effectively Napoleon is claiming Toussaint’s constitution to be null and void and threatens Toussaint must concede to French rule as: A contrary conduct would be irreconcilable with the idea we have conceived of you. It would have you lose the many rights to recognition and the benefits of the republic, and would dig beneath your feet a precipice which, in swallowing you up, could contribute to the misfortune of those brave blacks whose courage we love, and whose rebellion we would, with difficulty, be obliged to be punished.28 Napoleon acknowledges black Haitian’s freedom and even states admiration for their desire for freedom. His political support of the Haitian revolution represents a parallel between the Haitian and French Revolutions as even the racist Napoleon was politically required to provide support for the freedom seeking Haitians. Although, Napoleon feigned support of the Haitian Revolution, he secretly plotted to reinstitute slavery under French rule in Haiti through a campaign phase in which, Toussaint, Moyse, and Dessalines will no longer exist and three thousand or four thousand blacks who have retreated into the hills of the Spanish part will form what we call the islands maroons, and who we will succeed in destroying with time, steady effort, and a well-organized strategy of attack29 Upon learning of Napoleon’s intentions, through an intercepted letter intended for General LeClerc, which was written by Napolean, Toussaint rejected the idea of any type of French rule. Not only did Toussaint reject French rule because he recognized that Napoleon would seek revenge on the revolution’s leaders but also because Toussaint 























































 27
Schoelcher,
Victor.
Vie
de
Toussaint
Louverture.
Paris:
Paul
Ollendorf.
1889.

 28
Ibid.,
p.62


29
Dubois,
Laurent,
Garrigus,John.
Slave
Revolution
in
the
Caribbean
1789‐1804:
A
Brief
History
with


Documents
.���Cambridge,
London:
Harvard
University
Press.
p.176



 21



The Globe: World News From All Sides recognized that agreeing to French rule would be a concession against the freedom they had finally achieved. Napoleon
continued
to
with
his
plans
to
reinstate
France
as
the
 governing
body
of
Haiti
resulting
in
the
eventual
capture
and
imprisonment
of
 Louverture
until
Louverture’s
death
in
a
dreary
French
prison
in
180330.
 Further
evidence
of
France’s
animosity
towards
the
free
black
republic
is
 shown
through
the
exclusif,
an
economic
policy
instituted
following
French
return
 to
Haiti,
intended
to
exhaust
Haiti
into
economic
submissiveness
or
ruin
them
in
 spite
by
requiring
one‐hundred
percent
of
imports
and
exports
from
and
to
 France31.
Dessalines
soon
led
Haitian
troops
against
the
French.
With
the
death
of
 LeClerc
and
the
brutality
of
his
successor,
the
Vicomte
de
Rochambeau,
Haitian
 freedom
became
ever
more
tangible.
With
the
aid
of
a
British
blockade
and
 Napoleon’s
waning
interest
in
the
Western
Hemisphere
Dessalines
was
able
to
lead
 the
Haitians
to
freedom
in
1803.
 Haiti
as
a
Pariah
Nation
and
The
Problem
of
Reconstruction

 The
pariah
status
imparted
upon
Haiti
following
their
successful
revolution
is
 difficult
to
comprehend.
Following
the
ideals
of
“liberté,
égalité,
and
fraternité”
 fought
for
in
the
French
Revolution,
Haiti
hoped
to
fight
for
its
independence
and
be
 recognized
as
an
independent
and
sovereign
nation.
Ironically,
however,
 independence
for
slaves,
and
blacks
at
that,
was
not
endorsed
but
rather
 admonished.
The
real
motive
in
shunning
Haiti’s
independence
was
to
rebuke
any
 hopes
of
independence
fostered
in
slaves
of
the
United
States
and
the
European
 























































 30
Chin,
p.28
 31
Ibid.,
p.67



 22



The Globe: World News From All Sides colonies,
supported
solely
by
the
institution
of
slavery.
Thomas
Jefferson
even
 authorized
forty
thousand
dollars
and
one
thousand
weapons
sent
to
the
French
 troops
in
Haiti
in
order
to
preserve
the
institution
of
slavery32.
Following
the
 success
of
the
revolution,
the
United
States
banned
the
importation
of
Haitian
goods
 and
immigration
of
Haitians
in
order
to
prevent
a
revolution
on
American
soil33.
 Economic
sanctions
and
lack
of
economic
aid
further
harmed
Haiti’s
initial
 reconstruction
efforts
following
its
economic
self‐destruction.
Following
their
 discriminatory
practices
against
the
Haitian
state,
the
United
States
denied
Haiti
 recognition
as
a
sovereign
nation
until
1862,
fifty‐nine
years
following
actual
 independence
from
French
and
Spanish
rule34.
 Haiti’s
pariah
status
within
the
global
community
further
complicated
 internal
reconstruction
in
a
post‐slavery
society,
which
presented
problems
in
and
 of
itself.
Toussaint
believed
that
education
was
essential
and
refuted
the
claim
that
 blacks
should
be
“classed
apart
from
the
rest
of
mankind”35.
This
ideology
is
similar
 to
Booker
T
Washington’s
theories
that
blacks
should
be
exposed
to
an
industrial
 education
rather
then
an
intellectual
education:
 At
the
bottom
of
education,
at
the
bottom
of
politics,
even
at
the
bottom
of
 religion,
there
must
be
for
our
race
economic
independence.
 
 
Both
Washington
and
Toussaint
are
able
to
recognize
that
in
the
short‐term,
an
 intellectual
education
cannot
be
the
primary
concern
if
a
stable
nation
is
to
be
built.
 While
the
importance
of
an
industrial
education
was
much
more
vital
to
the
 























































 32
Ibid.,
pp.24‐27


33
Matthewson,
p.62
 34
Ibid.,
p.62
 35
Pluchon,
Toussaint
Louverture.
Paris.
1989.
pp.
263‐268



 23



The Globe: World News From All Sides reconstruction
and
viability
of
Haiti
as
am
autonomous
nation,
the
United
States
was
 still
largely
agricultural
during
Washington’s
life.
 The
Effect
of
the
Revolution
on
Other
Slave
Based
Nations
 Haiti’s
pariah
status
begs
the
question
of
whether
the
revolution
really
was
a
step
in
 the
right
direction
toward
emancipation.
Historically
speaking,
Haiti
as
the
world’s
 first
black
republic
has
been
a
catastrophic
failure,
turning
what
was
once
a
 lucrative
and
growing
colonial
possession
under
French
rule
(commonly
referred
to
 as
“the
crown
jewel
of
their
empire”
during
the
period)
into
one
of
the
most
 backward
nations
in
the
modern
world.
The
precedent
set
by
the
Haitian
revolution
 only
furthered
the
racist
beliefs
that
blacks
could
not
function
sufficiently
on
their
 own.
Had
the
Haitian
revolution
resulted
in
a
strong
and
centralized
government
it
 is
unquestionable
that
other
slave
countries
would
have
followed
suit
with
slaves
 violently
revolting
for
independence
in
similar
fashion
to
that
of
the
Haitians.
In
 response
to
the
failures
of
the
Haitian
Revolution,
David
Walker
claims
in
his
 “Appeal
to
the
Coloured
Citizens
of
the
World”
that
blacks,
“have
to
prove
to
the
 Americans
and
the
world,
that
we
are
MEN,
and
not
brutes,
as
we
have
been
 represented,
and
by
millions
treated
(line
254‐256).”
Toussaint
seemed
to
subscribe
 to
a
similar
philosophy,
evidenced
through
his
policies
intended
to
force
“freed”
 blacks
back
to
working
their
plantations36.
In
Toussaint’s
Forced
Labor
Decree
of
 1800
he
states:
 
 You
will
easily
conceive,
Citizens,
that
Agriculture
is
the
support
of
 Government;
since
it
is
the
foundation
of
Commerce
and
wealth,
the
source
of
Arts
 























































 36
Dubois,
Laurent.
Avengers
of
the
New
World:
The
Story
of
the
Haitian
Revolution.
Cambridge,


London:
Harvard
University
Press.
p.177



 24



The Globe: World News From All Sides and
industry,
it
keeps
everybody
employed,
as
being
the
mechanism
of
all
Trades.
 And,
from
the
moment
that
every
individual
becomes
useful,
it
creates
public
 tranquility;
disturbances
disappear
together
with
idleness,
by
which
they
are
 commonly
generated,
and
everyone
peaceably
enjoys
the
fruits
of
his
industry….
 Whereas,
since
the
revolution,
laborers
of
both
sexes,
then
too
young
to
be
 employed
in
the
field,
refuse
to
go
to
it
now
under
pretext
of
freedom,
spend
their
 time
in
wandering
about,
and
give
a
bad
example
to
the
other
cultivators;
while,
on
 the
other
hand,
the
generals,
officers,
subalterns,
and
soldiers,
are
in
a
state
of
 constant
activity
to
maintain
the
sacred
rights
of
the
people
….
 
 Following
the
revolution
in
Haiti,
many
slaves
felt
that
they
no
longer
needed
to
 work
hard
or
work
at
all
in
some
cases.
Toussaint
and
Walker
realized
that
although
 blacks
have
proven
themselves
as
able
to
work,
through
their
years
of
slave
labour
 on
plantations,
they
must
now
prove
themselves
as
able
to
work
while
free
and
 equal.
Slavery
and
freedom
are
two
polar
opposites
that
require
radically
different
 work
ethics.
It’s
indisputable
that
slaves
knew
how
to
work,
as
their
work
ethic
is
 clearly
demonstrated
through
their
years
of
slave
labour.
However,
once
free
one
 has
to
weigh
the
opportunity
cost
of
leisure
time
against
that
of
work.
Black
slaves
 simply
had
not
encountered
such
an
idea
before
and,
in
Haiti’s
case,
this
meant
 many
blacks
chose
not
to
work.
This
challenge
led
Toussaint
to
instituting
his
 mandatory
labour
laws.
While
Walker
may
not
have
supported
a
similar
system
in
 the
US,
the
Haitian
economy
was
solely
based
on
agriculture
whereas
in
the
US
there
 was
at
least
some
degree
of
industrialization
that
blacks
could
potentially
become
 involved
in.

 Rejection
of
a
Purely
Racial
Revolution
 Other
nations
held
the
common
perception
that
the
Haitian
Revolution
was
 purely
a
racial
struggle.
While
this
would
have
had
more
drastic
implications
on
 other
slave
holding
nations,
this
view
should
be
disregarded.
At
the
outset
of
the



 25



The Globe: World News From All Sides revolution
there
were
black
slaves
who
fought
on
behalf
of
white
plantation
owners
 and
the
King
of
France37.
Some
Europeans
also
supported
revolutionary
sentiment
 in
Haiti.
The
Amis
de
Noirs
(literally
translating
to
Friends
of
the
Blacks)
brought
 revolutionary
texts
to
Haiti;
the
Declaration
of
the
Rights
of
Man
which
hailed
from
 the
French
Revolution
clearly
stated
in
the
first
article
that
“Men
are
born
and
 remain
free
and
equal
in
rights”,
a
concept
which
proved
to
be
especially
 incendiary38.
Various
other
articles
of
the
Constitution
assert
the
equality
of
men
in
 all
aspects.
There
was
also
the
war
of
extermination
waged
between
Mulattoes
and
 black
slaves
to
consider.
Haitian
Mulattoes,
of
both
white
European
and
black
 African
lineage,
were
often
well
educated
and
wealthy39.
As
was
common
within
the
 United
States,
whites
were
generally
more
accepting
of
blacks
who
appeared
more
 white.
Mulattoes
consequently
were
granted
more
opportunities
to
attend
school
 and
obtain
better
jobs
then
darker
blacks.
Many
Mulattoes
were
considered
free
 citizens
and
some
even
held
slaves40.
They
normally
associated
themselves
with
the
 French
government
and
supported
the
suppression
of
slave
insurrections
as
these
 insurrections
threatened
the
power
and
social
hierarchy
in
which
Mulattoes
had
 established
themselves
as
superior
to
blacks41.
The
Mulattoes
and
black
slaves
 slaughtered
one
another
in
a
desperate
power
struggle;
the
black
slaves
fought
for
 freedom
while
the
Mulattoes
fought
to
maintain
their
status
and
privileges
42.
 During
the
revolution,
Louverture
appointed
Jean‐Jacques
Dessalines
to
pacify
the
 























































 37
Chin,
p.42
 38
Ibid.,
p.43
 39
Ibid.,
p.38
 40
Ibid.,
p.38
 41
Ibid.,
p.38
 42
Ibid.,
p.39



 26



The Globe: World News From All Sides South
(where
many
Mulattoes
were
involved
in
resistance)43.
Dessalines
sought
to
 eradicate
the
Mulattoes,
provoking
Toussaint
to
remark,
“I
did
not
want
this!
I
told
 him
to
prune
the
tree,
not
to
uproot
it.44”
Toussaint
clearly
didn’t
desire
blood
and
 retribution
on
Mulattoe
insurgents
as
much
as
he
desired,
“Liberty
and
Equality
to
 reign
in
Saint‐Domingue.
I
want
to
bring
[that
state]
into
existence.45”
These
 discrepancies
against
the
common
perception
of
the
revolution
as
simply
a
racial
 struggle,
shed
a
new
light
on
the
Haitian
Revolution,
as
not
a
revolution
purely
 based
on
race,
but
rather
a
revolution
of
equality,
or
inequality
in
the
white
and
 Mulattoe
case,
both
politically
and
economically.
The
revolution
was
propelled
by
 the
Haitian
mass
(composed
primarily
of
the
roughly
three
hundred
and
fifty
 thousand
slaves),
which
did
not
discriminate
between
free
blacks,
who
supported
 the
suppression
of
slaves’
rights,
and
their
white
counterparts.
Both
groups
were
 equally
responsible
for
their
oppression
in
black
Haitian’s
eyes.
Haiti
also
ardently
 supported
the
emancipation
of
all
slaves
under
the
control
of
the
major
colonial
 powers
on
a
global
scale.
Haiti
contributed
supplies
and
funds
to
South
America’s
 revolution
from
Spanish
control
while
Haiti
was
still
in
ruins
and
blockaded
by
 French
forces46.
This
action,
while
leading
to
the
liberation
of
half
the
nations
of
 South
America,
precluded
relations
with
Spain47.
With
Haiti’s
pariah
status
within
 the
global
community
they
could
have
used
the
support
from
and
benefits
of
trade
 with
a
super‐power
such
as
Spain.
Therefore,
Haitian’s
(including
Toussaint)
must
 























































 43
Corbett.
Pp.34‐48
 44
Ibid.


45
Dubois.
P.184
 46
Chin,
p.207
 47
Ibid.,
p.208



 27



The Globe: World News From All Sides have
believed
that
liberty
and
equality
were
more
valuable
then
beneficial
relations
 with
Spain.

 Role
of
Religion
 As
religion
supports
the
basis
of
the
revolution,
freedom
and
equality,
the
 role
of
religion
in
spurring
revolution,
both
within
Haiti
and
within
the
United
 States,
cannot
be
understated.
Clearly,
in
Haiti’s
case
religion
was
an
integral
aspect
 of
society.
The
revolution
is
traced
to
the
Voodoo
led
uprising
by
Boukman
and
 while
Toussiant
himself
did
not
believe
in
Voodoo
practices
(he
was
in
fact
a
 Catholic
himself)
he
continued
to
refer
to
Voodoo
concepts
such
the
“Supreme
 Being”
in
his
Proclamation.
The
concept
of
a
supreme
being
is
very
much
a
Haitian
 concept,
although
it
would
also
appeal
to
Christians,
both
within
and
outside
of
 Haiti.
The
“Supreme
Being”
can
function
either
as
a
Christ
figure
within
Catholicism
 or
as
a
monotheistic
god
within
Haitian
voodoo.
If
nothing
more,
Toussaint
 leveraged
the
Voodoo
religion
of
Haiti
to
his
political
ends
by
making
himself
seem
 as
Haitian
as
possible.
Without
Toussaint’s
masterful
use
of
syncretism
he
would
 otherwise
be
a
strange
choice
as
a
black
revolutionary
of
the
people.
He
was
not
a
 common
slaver
laborer…
instead;
he
was
a
coachman
to
a
plantation
owner.
As
 such,
Toussaint
was
respected
within
the
white
community
and
envied
within
the
 black
community.

Toussaint
held
a
station
of
status
and
had
somewhat
of
an
 education
through
the
proselytizing
Jesuits,
prior
to
their
expulsion,
from
Haiti.
 Toussaint
also
became
somewhat
revered
within
the
Voodoo
society
due
to
his
 knowledge
of
herbalism
that
was
passed
on
from
his
father.
Practicing
Voodoo
itself
 was
a
resistance
to
slavery.
The
French
outlawed
Voodoo
services
as
they
were



 28



The Globe: World News From All Sides frightened
by
the
music,
dancing,
and
ceremonies
performed
under
Voodoo.
Despite
 Voodoo
being
outlawed
many
Haitians
continued
to
practice
Voodoo
as
direct
 defiance
to
their
state
of
servitude.
Voodoo
supports
that
there
are
various
spirits,
 good
and
evil
being
two
of
these
spirits,
which
are
able
to
possess
people.
Perhaps
 the
Voodoo
practicing
Haitians
believed
they
were
casting
out
the
evil
spirits
of
the
 white
men
through
their
struggle
against
slavery.
 Christianity can be argued to be either pro-slavery or anti-slavery. The Bible sanctions the practice of slavery and states numerous accounts of slavery during biblical times. In Genesis of the Old Testament slavery is attributed to Cain: Cursed
be
Canaan!
The
lowest
of
slaves
will
he
be
to
his
brothers.
He
also
 said,
'Blessed
be
the
Lord,
the
God
of
Shem!
May
Canaan
be
the
slave
of
Shem.

 
 It
was
believed
that
the
Canaanites
settled
in
Africa
and
therefore
their
decedents
 were
the
black
inhabitants
of
Africa.
Christian
based
civilizations
up
until
the
 nineteenth
century
practiced
slavery
and
socially
it
was
acceptable,
even
 commonplace.
With
the
enlightenment
there
was
renewed
interest
in
philosophy,
 particularly
epistemology.
The
shift
from
classical
superstitious
and
intolerant
 thought
to
post‐enlightenment
thought,
which
questioned
traditional
institutions
 and
morals,
brought
changes
within
the
church
and
state.
State
secularism
began
to
 gain
influence
and
the
religious
justification
of
certain
institutions
and
morals
were
 no
longer
left
unquestionable.

 The
revolutionary
era
exhibits
the
dramatic
shift
in
thinking,
within
the
 citizens
of
various
nations
of
the
world,
which
resulted
from
the
Enlightenment.
 With
the
often‐violent
change
demanding
that
state
thought
shift
toward
political



 29



The Globe: World News From All Sides and
economic
freedom
and
equality
so
to
did
a
similar
change
in
religious
thought
 occur.
The
Church’s
focus
on
old
testament
thought
which
preached
ideas
of
slavery
 and
a
less
forgiving
god
shifted
to
the
new
testament
emphasis
on
how
God
is
 forgiving,
a
view
much
more
compatible
with
post‐Enlightenment
thought.
While
 there
were
and
are
still
people
who
argue
that
Christianity
supports
slavery
the
 majority
would
argue
that
Christianity
no
longer
supports
slavery
but
rather
 promotes
universal
equality
and
freedom.
Within
America
Christianity
was
the
 predominant
religion.
While
the
South
would
often
preach
that
Christianity
 supported
slavery,
the
North
was
doing
the
exact
opposite.
This
shows
that
religion
 did
not
play
as
much
of
a
role
in
America’s
revolution
as
it
did
in
Haiti’s
but
it
was
 definitely
an
integral
contribution
to
revolutionary
thought.

 Thus,
one
might
wonder
if
Haiti’s
revolution
was
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
 not
only
for
Haitian
independence
but
also
for
the
perception
of
blacks
worldwide.
 During
the
revolution
the
voodoo
leader
Dutty
Boukman
stated,
“Listen
to
the
voice
 of
liberty,
which
speaks
in
the
hearts
of
us
all.48”
It
was
in
emotion
rather
than
logic
 that
the
revolution
originated.
Boukman
and
his
followers
failed
to
perceive
the
 challenges
that
would
lie
ahead
for
a
free
black
republic.
Therefore,
the
revolution
 was
successful
in
terms
of
procuring
the
ideal
of
freedom:
freedom
from
French
 oppression
in
the
form
of
slavery;
but
practically
speaking
freedom
came
at
a
steep
 price.

 
 























































 48
Corbett,
Robert.
"Haiti
and
Its
Diaspora."
Haiti
mailing
list.
24
Oct.
1999.
8
Oct.
2006


<http://www.websterfl.edu/~corbetre/haiti‐archive/msg00868.html>.





 30



The Globe: World News From All Sides

The
Realist
Cycle
 By:
Richard
Benjamin
Bloomfield
 


Realists
view
international
politics
as
a
state
of
war
because
of
their


belief
in
realist
cycle.
The
realist
cycle
consists
of
natural
conflict
inherent
in
a
state
 of
war
which
leads
to
the
formation
of
alliances
to
defeat
common
adversaries,
then
 a
betrayal
or
collapse
of
these
alliances
in
the
pursuit
of
self
interest
results
in
a
 return
to
conflict.

Three
conditions
must
be
present
for
the
realist
cycle.

These
 conditions
are
the
lack
of
a
central
authority
to
prevent
war,
the
fear
generated
from
 the
power
of
others
and
the
nature
of
sovereign’s
decision
making.

These
three
 circumstances
result
in
a
continual
circut
of
combat.

This
paper
will
present
and
 analyze
the
ideas
of
Hobbes,
Machiavelli
and
Thucydides
in
order
to
explain
this
 cycle
and
how
it
results
in
a
perpetual
state
of
war.

 


Hobbes’
Leviathan
will
be
used
to
address
the
structural
causation
of
the


state
of
war,
Machiavelli’s
The
Prince
will
describe
the
nature
of
leaders
and
their
 impact
on
international
politics.

Thucydides’
History
of
The
Peloponnesian
War
 illustrates
how
the
fear
of
a
relative
rise
in
power
of
a
common
threat
will
cause
 actors
to
form
alliances
and
fight.


We
will
use
Machiavelli’s
principality
as
the
term
 for
actors
on
the
international
stage
for
simplicity’s
sake
and
because
in
realist
 thinking,
the
nature
of
a
country’s
governance
and
composition
does
not
change
the
 way
it
behaves
internationally.

 


Hobbes
does
not
describe
the
state
of
war
as
direct
military
confrontation,
it


is
instead
the
condition
in
which
the
“will
to
contend
by
battle
is
sufficiently



 31



The Globe: World News From All Sides known”(Hobbes
88).

This
condition
is
perpetual
so
long
as
principalities
maintain
 the
disposition
to
fight
each
other.

The
only
thing
that
may
alter
this
state
of
war
 and
keep
principalities
out
of
conflict
is
the
presence
of
“a
common
power
to
keep
 them
all
in
awe”(88).

A
principality
may
erect
a
common
power
domestically
and
 cease
anarchy
internally
but
no
such
absolute
authority
exists
in
the
international
 realm.

If
the
only
thing
that
may
change
a
state
of
war
to
a
state
of
peace
is
the
 presence
of
a
common
power
and
no
such
power
exists
internationally
then
 principalities
must
interact
in
a
constant
state
of
war.

In
this
state
of
war
each
 principality
is
concerned
for
its
own
survival
and
must
act
it
in
its
own
interest.

 Every
Principality
is
pitted
against
all
the
rest
in
a
struggle
to
assure
its
continued
 existence.

In
this
anarchical
state
each
principality
must
rely
on
its
own
force
of
 arms
for
defense
and
aggrandizement;
however
when
principalities
are
presented
 with
a
common
threat
or
interest
they
might
form
confederations
or
 alliances(Hobbes
102).
 


Thucydides
portrays
the
Hellenic
world
as
being
almost
entirely
divided


between
the
Peloponnesian
league
led
by
Sparta
and
the
Delian
League
led
by
 Athens
(Thucydides
35).

No
hierarchical
power
reigns
over
these
groups
which
 might
prevent
conflict
therefore,
they
are
in
a
state
of
war.

When
hostilities
emerge
 between
Corinth
and
Corcyra,
the
latter
seeks
out
an
alliance
with
the
Athenians
in
 hope
their
support
will
give
Corcyra
a
decisive
advantage.

The
Athenians
entertain
 this
alliance
with
Corcyra
because
the
combination
of
their
navies
would
make
the
 Athenian
alliance
“the
greatest
naval
power
in
Hellas”(55).

The
Athenians
commit
 themselves
on
the
side
of
the
Corcyra
because
it
is
in
their
self‐interest
to
be
more



 32



The Globe: World News From All Sides powerful
in
relation
to
the
Spartans.

According
to
Thucydides,
this
upset
in
the
 balance
of
power
caused
fear
in
Sparta
and
thus
made
war
inevitable(49).
 


This
course
of
events
is
representative
of
the
realist
view
of
international


politics
as
a
state
of
war
because
each
actor
is
making
decisions
motivated
by
the
 desire
to
increase
its
relative
strength
compared
to
adversaries
in
order
to
save
 itself
from
being
conquered.

War
is
unavoidable
because
it
is
the
only
way
each
side
 may
assure
its
continued
existence.

This
marks
the
start
of
the
realist
cycle.

In
a
 state
of
war
principalities
must
ally
with
others
or
face
obliteration
when
faced
with
 a
common
and
existential
threat.

These
alliances
must
be
in
both
actor’s
self
 interest
which
in
a
state
of
war
consists
of
mutual
strategic
advantage.

The
 necessity
of
a
mutually
beneficial
alliance
in
a
state
of
war
is
proven
by
the
case
of
 the
Melians.


 


The
Melians
remained
neutral
until
they
were
attacked
by
Athens
who
then


offered
them
the
chance
to
surrender
or
face
destruction(400‐402).

The
Melians
 refused
to
surrender
because
they
believed
their
ties
of
kinship
to
Sparta
(the
 Melians
were
a
Spartan
colony)
would
cause
the
Peloponnesian
league
to
rush
to
 their
defense.

This
was
not
the
case,
the
Spartans
were
unwilling
to
expend
their
 forces,
and
the
Melians
were
annihilated
by
Athens
(408).


 


When
principalities
are
allied
together
they
do
not
fight
each
other
so
what


prevents
an
alliance
from
expanding
to
include
every
principality
while
persisting
 indefinitely
and
thereby
lifting
the
world
out
of
a
state
of
war?

Hobbes
believes
that
 once
a
victory
against
a
mutual
enemy
is
obtained
common
interests
dissolve
among
 allies
and
they
fall
into
war
amongst
themselves
(119).





 33



The Globe: World News From All Sides 


This
dissolution
is
also
due
to
the
nature
of
a
sovereign's
decision
making.



Sovereigns
become
jealous
and
fearful
of
their
allies
because
“whoever
is
 responsible
for
another
becoming
powerful
ruins
himself”(Machiavelli
15).

Each
 sovereign’s
own
“ambitions
and
rivalries”(15)
ruin
the
chance
of
an
alliance
existing
 after
the
elimination
of
a
common
threat.

This
must
occur
because
“men
are
 continually
in
competition
for
honor
and
dignity”
in
comparison
to
other
rulers
and
 can
“relish
nothing
but
what
is
eminent”(Hobbes
119).

Machiavelli
believes
 principalities
must
judge
themselves
by
their
ability
to
stand
alone
and
“assemble
 an
army
equal
to
an
encounter
with
any
aggressor”(36)
including
their
former
allies.

 He
also
believes
sovereigns
must
train
themselves
exclusively
in
the
art
of
war(47).
 


A
constant
desire
for
prestige,
power
and
control
on
the
part
of
principalities


combined
with
the
militant
nature
of
sovereigns
will
not
allow
principalities
to
 remain
in
an
alliance
in
the
absence
of
a
common
fear.

Without
mutually
beneficial
 alliances
principalities
are
again
pitted
against
each
other
in
a
chaotic
state
of
 perpetual
conflict.

This
circuit
of
conflict,
alliance
creation
for
victory
in
war
 followed
by
the
collapse
of
alliances
due
to
the
nature
of
sovereigns
which
then
 leads
to
further
battles
explains
why
realists
view
international
politics
as
a
 perpetual
state
of
war.

When
international
relations
are
explained
with
the
realist
 cycle
it
becomes
apparent
that
principalities
will
fight
with
each
other
so
long
as
 there
is
no
higher
authority
stopping
them
from
doing
so.

The
presence
of
the
 realist
cycle
results
in
international
politics
being
viewed
as
a
state
of
war
because
 there
is
no
alternative
to
eternal
conflict.



 34



The Globe: World News From All Sides 


It
is
difficult
not
to
view
international
politics
from
the
realist
perspective
for


several
reasons.

Even
if
the
sovereign
of
a
principality
is
not
militaristic
and
judges
 the
quality
of
his/her
territory
by
standards
other
than
military
strength
he/she
 cannot
presume
others
do
and
must
maintain
a
sufficient
army
for
defense.

This
 will
not
work
because
if
a
sovereign
knows
another
only
maintains
a
minimal
 military
it
will
be
inclined
to
raise
a
large
force
or
enter
an
alliance
with
another
 principality
and
conquer
the
weak
territory.

A
defensive
alliance
in
which
 principalities
pledge
to
defend
one
another
in
case
of
aggression
does
not
prevent
 conflict
either
because
nothing
can
stop
a
sovereign
from
taking
advantage
of
an
 ally’s
vulnerability
and
attacking
it.

These
possibilities
mean
all
alliances
are
 temporary
and
can
only
exist
in
the
presence
of
a
common
enemy,
which
returns
us
 to
the
realist
cycle
and
the
state
of
war.

A
possible
solution
for
ceasing
conflict
and
 thereby
ending
the
state
of
war
is
a
system
in
which
each
principality
makes
a
 bilateral
defensive
alliance
with
every
other
principality
in
the
world.

In
this
system
 nobody
can
go
to
war
because
all
other
principalities
would
be
bound
to
defend
the
 attacked
principality.

This
system
would
result
in
military
gridlock
because
no
 principality
could
attack
another
with
the
hope
of
success.
 


The
realist
perspective
is
very
difficult
to
argue
against
because
it
is
based
on


premises,
which
are
very
pessimistic
in
nature
and
difficult
to
discount.

If
 principalities
always
seek
to
further
their
ambitions
militarily
the
realist
cycle
 becomes
a
self
fulfilling
prophecy.

As
long
as
principalities
either
act
this
way
or
 believe
others
do
so,
it
is
impossible
to
transcend
the
state
of
war.

The
realist
 interpretation
of
international
politics
is
rooted
in
paranoia
and
unfettered
ambition



 35



The Globe: World News From All Sides and
so
long
as
nothing
prevents
principalities
from
achieving
their
desires
by
 military
force
the
realist
cycle
will
remain
perpetual
and
international
politics
will
 be
a
state
of
war.



 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 36



The Globe: World News From All Sides 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


www.gwias.com
 



 37



The Globe: Spring 2010 1st Edition