Jump to content

Puppet state

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Standshown (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 29 January 2008 (Removed frivolous and ignorant additions to this topic - see my notes on the talk page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A puppet state is a state[1] [2] [3] that is nominally independent, but in reality, under the control of another power.[4]

"Puppet state" is a term of political criticism, used to denigrate a current government which is perceived as unduly dependent upon an outside power. It implies that government's lack of legitimacy, in the view of those using the term. The term is closely associated with the state of Manchukuo, established under Japanese auspices in Manchuria in 1932. Although the term might reasonably be used to describe a significant number of states in the past, only Manchukuo is routinely designated as a "puppet state".

In fact many puppet states (notably Panama, Cuba (both created under US auspices), Croatia and Slovakia (under Nazi Germany domination) and even, in some ways, Manchukuo (under the Japanese), have depended on the mobilization of unrequited national aspirations.

The term has two distinct but related meanings.[citation needed] First, it refers to a state whose government depends on a foreign power for its existence and which closely follows the will of that foreign power in key policy issues; sometimes economic, sometimes strategic. Such a government is also known as a puppet régime. In this respect, "puppet state" is one of many terms that describe the subordination of one state to another in the international system. Second, the term refers to a state that has been created by the intervention of an external power in territory under the sovereignty of another state. In this respect, a puppet state is a secessionist state enabled and supported by an external power.

Under these definitions[citation needed], a puppet state either lacks democratic legitimacy (because its policies are determined elsewhere) or it lacks sovereign legality (because it was created in breach of the rules of sovereign succession). For these reason, the term "puppet state" can be useful if applied only in the modern world, that is, the world in which states are presumed to be a reflection of the will of their people, and in which war has been outlawed as means of formal territorial acquisition. For subordinate relations in pre-modern times, the terms vassal state and tributary state are preferable.

The concept of a "puppet state" implies some deliberate attempt to deceive.[citation needed] Either the citizens of the alleged puppet state or the international community are assumed to be deceived into believing that the puppet state is really independent when it is not. This presumption of deception makes the term a partisan one, prone to semantic disputes. Each side believes that it sees a reality which the other side cannot, or refuses to, see.

The two main difficulties in deciding whether a particular regime constitutes a puppet state are (a) the difficulty of observing the process by which the external power transmits its will to the puppet and (b) the fact that those who act as puppets may see themselves sincerely as following their national interest.

See also client state, satellite state and protectorate.

The first puppet states

The first puppet state, in the sense of a state which claimed popular legitimacy but which was significantly dependent on an external power, was the Batavian Republic, established in the Netherlands under French revolutionary protection.

The first puppet states, in the sense of new states whose creation was made possible by the intervention of a foreign power, were the Italian republics created in the late 18th and early 19th centuries with the assistance and encouragement of Napoleonic France. See French client republics.

Cuba and Panama separated from the sovereign power (respectively Spain and Colombia) by United States intervention were examples of states which began as puppets doing the will of an intervening hegemon but which developed into truly independent states.

In 1895, Japan detached Korea from its tributary relationship with China, giving it formal independence which was in reality only a prelude to Japanese annexation.

Other entities sometimes considered puppet states are:

Puppet states of Imperial Japan

During Japan's imperial period, and particularly during the Pacific War (parts of which are considered the Pacific theatre of World War II), Japan established a number of states that historians have come to consider puppet régimes. See also Axis powers of World War II

Nominally sovereign states

Other plans

Japan had plans for other puppet states.

The projected White Russian state in Outer Manchuria was a Japanese puppet régime that never got beyond the planning stages. In addition to the Japanese, the Germans supported the formation of this state. In 1943, the plans for a White Russian state died for good after the Battle for Stalingrad.

In 1945, as the Second World War drew to a close, Japan planned to grant puppet independence to Indonesia. These plans ended when the Japanese surrendered on 15 August 1945.

Puppet states of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy

Several European governments under the domination of Nazi Germany and Italy during World War II have been described as puppet régimes. The formal means of control in occupied Europe varied greatly. These régimes fall into several categories. See also Axis powers of World War II

Existing states in (forced) alliance with Germany and Italy

Existing states under German or Italian rule

New states formed to reflect national aspirations

The Italian Social Republic

  • Italian Social Republic (1943–1945, known also as the Republic of Salò) - General Pietro Badoglio and King Victor Emmanuel III withdrew Italy from the Axis Powers and moved the government in southern Italy, already conquered by the Allies. In response, the Germans occupied northern Italy and founded the Italian Social Republic (Repubblica Sociale Italiana or RSI) with Italian dictator Benito Mussolini as its "Head of State" and "Minister of Foreign Affairs". While the RSI government had some trappings of an independent state, it was completely dependent on Germany. When directed to do so, Mussolini provided Germany with Italian citizens to work as forced laborers.

Puppet states of the Soviet Union before 1939

The Soviet Union had several puppet states in the 1920s.

  • The Far Eastern Republic (1920-1922) Was sometimes described as a puppet state of the Soviet Union. But its identity as a "state" was ambiguous at best and it was more of a "buffer" than a puppet state.
  • Tuvinian People's Republic, also Tannu Tuva (1921-1944) Achieved independence from China by means of local nationalist revolutions only to come under the domination of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. In 1944, Tannu Tuva was made an integral part of the Soviet Union.

Puppet states of the Soviet Union after 1939

As Soviet forces prevailed over the German Army on the Eastern Front during the Second World War, the Soviet Union supported the creation of communist governments in Eastern Europe. Specifically, the People's Republics in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Poland were dominated by the Soviet Union. While all of these People's Republics did not "officially" take power until after World War II ended, they all have roots in pro-Communist war-time governments. For example, Bulgaria's pro-Communist Fatherland Front seized power in Bulgaria on September 9, 1944. The Fatherland Front government was Soviet dominated and the direct predecessor of the People's Republic of Bulgaria (1946–1990). On the other hand, keeping with the Bulgarian example, it could be argued that the People's Republic of Bulgaria under Prime Minister Georgi Dimitrov (1946–1949) was far from being a Soviet puppet. On yet another hand, an argument for co-belligerence status could also be made for these states.

Iraq and Iran during World War II

The Axis demand for oil and the concern of the Allies that Germany would look to the oil-rich Middle East for a solution, caused the invasion of Iraq by the United Kingdom and the invasion of Iran by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Pro-Axis governments in both Iraq and Iran were removed and replaced with Allied-dominated governments.

  • Kingdom of Iraq (1941–1947) - Iraq was important to the UK because of its position on the route to India. Iraq also could provide strategic oil reserves. But, due to the UK's weakness early in the war, Iraq backed away from the pre-war Anglo-Iraqi Alliance. In April 1941, the Hashemite monarchy in Iraq was over-thrown and there was a pro-German coup under Rashid Ali. The Rashid Ali regime began negotiations with the Axis powers and military aid was quickly sent to Mosul via Vichy French-controlled Syria. The Germans provided a squadron of twin engine fighters and a squadron of medium bombers. The Italians provided a squadron of biplane fighters. In mid-April 1941, the Anglo-Iraqi War began and troops of the 10th Indian Infantry Division invaded Iraq. By May, they and other Commonwealth forces in Iraq forced the pro-German government to capitualate and caused Rashid Ali to flee the country. The Hashemite monarchy (King Ghazi and Prime Minister Nuri al-Said) was restored. The UK then forced Iraq to declare war on the Axis in 1942. Commonwealth forces remained in Iraq until October 26, 1947.
  • Iran (1941–1946) - German workers in Iran caused the United Kingdom (UK) and the Soviet Union to question Iran's neutrality. In addition, Iran's geographical position was important to the Allies. So, in August 1941, the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran was launched (Operation Countenance). In September 1941, Reza Shah Pahlavi was forced to abdicate his throne. He was replaced by his son Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was willing to declare war on the Axis powers. By January of 1942, the UK and the Soviet Union agreed to end their occupation of Iran six months after the end of the war.

Satellite states

Main article: Satellite state

At the conclusion of the Second World War, there was an understanding between the Allied powers that each state would temporarily occupy the territories they captured during the war before ultimately re-establishing the nations of occupied Europe. For the most part, the territories occupied by the United States and United Kingdom became democracies with market economies aligned with the United States, while the territories occupied by the Soviet Union became communist states aligned with the Soviet Union. This extended so far as to lead to the division of Germany, in which the Soviet occupation sector became East Germany while the United States, United Kingdom, and French occupation sectors became West Germany.

Eastern European members of the Warsaw Pact, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and East Germany, were Soviet satellite states centrally controlled by Moscow. While Soviet leaders claimed that the Warsaw Pact nations were equals entering into a mutual alliance, the reality was different and decisions were often enforced by Soviet Union with threats of or use of force. For example when Polish communist leaders tried to elect Władysław Gomułka as First Secretary they were issued an ultimatum by Soviet military that occupied Poland ordering them to withdraw election of Gomulka for the First Secretary or be crushed by Soviet tanks [1].

Prague Spring in 1968 led to an invasion of Czechoslovakia by the other Warsaw Pact states. As a rationale for this action, the Soviet Union expressed the Brezhnev Doctrine, which stated that it was the duty of all socialist states to protect any socialist state from falling to capitalism. The Western bloc interpreted the Brezhnev Doctrine as an expression of Moscow's authority over other communist states.

American political analysts and the American public believed so strongly that Eastern Europe's communist states were Soviet puppet states that Gerald Ford's insistence during a debate in the 1976 U.S. presidential election campaign that Eastern Europe was not dominated by the Soviet Union was considered a major gaffe, leading his opponent, Jimmy Carter, to reply that he would like to see Ford convince Czech-Americans and Polish-Americans that their countries did not live under Soviet domination. Similarly, in 1987, U.S. President Ronald Reagan, in a speech at the Berlin Wall, challenged not the East German leader, but rather Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall".

Gorbachev ultimately renounced the Brezhnev Doctrine, jokingly calling his policy the "Sinatra Doctrine" after the song "My Way" because of its explicit allowance of Eastern European countries to decide their own internal affairs. Within only a couple years of Gorbachev's abandonment of the Brezhnev Doctrine, Eastern Europe's communist regimes all fell and their states sought better relations and integration with the West, abandoning ties to Soviet Union.

South Korea and Vietnam

During the 1950–1953 Korean War, South Korea was accused of being an American puppet state by North Korea and its allies. At the same time, the United States alleged that North Korea was a Soviet puppet state. The de facto end of the war and decades of intervening time have distanced these allegations to most, but to this date, North Korea's government reiterates the accusation about South Korea, citing law that places the South Korean army under American command in time of war.

In 1955, the Vietnamese Catholic leader Ngo Dinh Diem, encouraged by the United States, declared the creation of the South Vietnam (RVN) in the southern part of Vietnam. The northern part of the country was then largely under control of the communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV). This declaration involved a breach of the 1954 Geneva Accords which had provided for elections to re-unite the country, but the RVN claimed a right to exist on the basis of sovereign succession from the previous, French sponsored State of Vietnam. The creation of the RVN reflected fears that the elections would deliver a communist victory, perhaps because of electoral manipulation or intimidation in the north.

Many people in the south were afraid of the likely consequences of communist rule, but the RVN was also a tool of the United States in its struggle to 'contain' communism. The RVN hosted vast numbers of US troops and its governments were closely aligned with United States policy. The Vietnam War, better called the Second Indochina War, is sometimes described as a proxy war in which both sides were puppets of the competing great powers in the Cold War. Many observers, however, see one side as the puppet and the other side as genuinely nationalist. Some observers describe both sides as representing nationalist alternatives. The Paris Peace Accords were preceded by months of intensive negotiations over whether the National Front for the Liberation of Vietnam (Viet Cong) should be treated as an independent party or as a puppet of North Vietnam.

Decolonization

In some cases, the process of decolonization has been managed by the decolonizing power to create a neo-colony, that is a nominally independent state whose economy and politics permits continued foreign domination. Neo-colonies are not normally considered puppet states.

South Africa's 'Bantustans'

During the 1970s and 1980s, four ethnic bantustans, some of which were extremely fragmented, were carved out of South Africa and given nominal sovereignty. Two (Ciskei and Transkei) were for the Xhosa people; and one each for the Tswana people (Bophuthatswana) and for the Venda people (Venda Republic).

The principal purpose of these states was to remove the Xhosa, Tswana and Venda peoples from South African citizenship (and so to provide grounds for denying them democratic rights). All four were reincorporated into South Africa in 1994.

After the Cold War

The War on Terrorism

In more recent times, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Iraq have led to largely U.S.-led regime change efforts in these two nations, fostering accusations among critics of the administration that the governments established under U.S. occupation are American puppet states. In a January 2008 interview, Afghan President Hamid Karzai accepted to being labelled America's "puppet" in return for U.S. assistance, stating, "if I am called a puppet because we are grateful to America, then let that be my nickname."[9]

Some Russians also accused Georgia of being a US puppet regime, while Hezbollah is accusing Lebanon of being a puppet at the hands of the Bush administration.

References

  1. ^ http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/interam/intam03.htm Montevideo Convention 1933 articles 1 and 3
  2. ^ Constructing the Nation-State: International by Connie L. McNeely Contributor John W. Meyer Greenwood Press 1995 page 52

    Traditional international law has commonly relied on the criteria laid down in the 1933 Montevideo Convention when referring to a state. ... These "classical" criteria rest upon the idea of effectiveness among territorial units and are indeed reflected in the early discussions of statehood in the United nations.

    Security Council records also show that, along with the traditional criteria, reference has been made to a member of other matters in connection with the statehood of an applicant, to greather and lesser degree, including mode of the establishment of state, foreign occupation of its territory, relations with a former sovereign, the extent of the applicant sovereignity, the ratification of peace treaties with ex-enemy applicants, war-related disabilities, the legitimacy of the statehood obtained through aggression and conquest, defense arrangements with other powers, the de jure versus de facto status of applicant and its government, recognition of the applicant by United Nations members, and diplomatic relations with other states.

  3. ^ State Failure, Sovereignty And Effectiveness by Gerard Kreijen, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2004 page 110

    A telling example of this attitude and the empirical approach underlying it id the questionnaire that applicants for the League of nations were required to complete. The questions were

    1. Is the application for admission to the League of Nations in order?
    2. Is your government recognized de jure or de facto and by which State?
    3. Does your country possess a stable governments and settled frontiers? What are its size and populaton.
    4. Is your country fully self-governing?
    5. What has been the conduct of your country, including both acts and assurance, with regard to (1) your international obligations; (2) the prescriptions of the League as to armaments?

  4. ^ Concise Oxford English Dictionary ISBN-10: 0198610475
  5. ^ The Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Postcommunist States and Nations) David J. Smith from Front Matter ISBN-10: 0415285801
  6. ^ Estonia: Identity and Independence: Translated into English (On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics) Jean-Jacques Subrenat, David Cousins, Alexander Harding, Richard C. Waterhouse on Page 246. ISBN-10: 9042008903
  7. ^ The Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Postcommunist States and Nations) David J. Smith from Front Matter ISBN-10: 0415285801
  8. ^ The Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (Postcommunist States and Nations) David J. Smith from Front Matter ISBN-10: 0415285801
  9. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/01/25/karzai.interview/?iref=mpstoryview

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puppet_state&oldid=187589537"