American Foundations and the ‘Scientific Study’ of International Relations in Europe, 1910-1940 Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) by Katharina Elisabeth Rietzler University College London (UCL) 2009 1 Declaration I, Katharina Elisabeth Rietzler, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 19 July 2009 2 Abstract This thesis deals with the role of American philanthropic foundations in promoting an expert-led approach to international politics in Europe between the two world wars. Harking back to earlier forms of transatlantic elite internationalism, American foundations financed a number of institutions for the ‘scientific’ study of international relations, and constructed a transnational network of international relations specialists. The organisations at the heart of this study, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, funded a variety of think tanks, academies and research institutes, some of which had international and some of which had national constituencies. Institutions supported by the foundations included the Hague Academy of International Law, the Geneva Graduate Institute of International Studies, the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Deutsche Hochschule für Politik . Efforts to promote the cooperation between these institutions culminated in the funding of the International Studies Conference, a federation of institutes for the study of international relations organised under the auspices of the League of Nations in 1928. The philanthropic project to promote a ‘scientific’ approach to international relations turned the foundations into actors in a new international politics which they sought to rationalise at the same time. This new international politics was marked by the post- 1919 intertwining of governmental, intergovernmental and nongovernmental structures. Adopting a transnational approach which avoids conventional bilateral perspectives, this dissertation explores foundation activity in a variety of contexts. It analyses the foundations’ role as promoters of international expert exchange and internationalist education; as protagonists of American cultural diplomacy and targets of the cultural diplomacy of other countries; and finally, as nongovernmental organisations which undermined intergovernmental structures. Ultimately, this thesis contributes to the transnational history of American philanthropic foundations and sheds light on the role of nongovernmental organisations as actors in 20 th century international politics. 3 Table of Contents Acknowledgments Abbreviations Introduction 7 1 Philanthropic Internationalism 41 2 Foundations and the Internationalisation of 88 International Studies 3 International Relations As Seen From the Capital: 140 Philanthropy and Cultural Diplomacy 4 Competing Internationalisms: American Foundations and the 188 International Studies Conference 5 Epilogue 242 Conclusion 258 Appendix 276 Bibliography 277 4 Acknowledgments First, I would like to thank my supervisors, Kathleen Burk and Adam Smith. They have been unflinching in their kindness, provided encouragement and advice when I needed it but also gave me as much intellectual freedom as possible. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work under them. Several institutions have supported the research on which this dissertation is based. The UCL Graduate School awarded a generous scholarship that ensured my financial independence for three years and provided additional material assistance for research trips and conference attendance. The UCL History Department helped with several travel bursaries and, most of all, a supportive and stimulating institutional setting. Further grants were provided by the German Historical Institute in Washington, D.C., the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History and the Rockefeller Archive Center. Librarians and archivists make history writing possible and I certainly would not have been able to complete my research without their aid. Jane Gorjevsky at Columbia University’s Rare Book and Manuscript Library and Erwin Levold at the Rockefeller Archive Center have been particularly helpful over several years. I was fortunate to be able to discuss my research at several scholarly gatherings in Britain and abroad, and I have benefited greatly from the comments and suggestions that I received. I would especially like to thank Helge Pharo of the Forum for Contemporary History at the University of Oslo who made it possible for me to come to Norway as a visiting scholar. Many people have freely given their advice, criticism and good cheer. I cannot mention them all here but I would like to single out those who have commented on parts of the dissertation in draft form: Daniel Laqua, John A. Thompson, Bjørn Arne Steine, Hanne Vik and Waqar Zaidi. I have much appreciated their thoughtful advice. I would also like to thank Mark and Susan Kaminsky who have been very gracious hosts on several occasions. Throughout my graduate studies my family and friends have provided tremendous material and emotional support for which I am very grateful. Above all, special thanks go to Ananyo Bhattacharya. 5 Abbreviations The following abbreviations are used in the body of the thesis and the appendix: AJIL American Journal of International Law ASIL American Society for International Law CEIP Carnegie Endowment for International Peace CEPE Centre d’études de politique étrangère CF Commonwealth Fund FPA Foreign Policy Association FRPS Foreign Research and Press Service ICIC International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation IDI Institut de droit international IHEI Institut Universitaire de Hautes Etudes Internationales /Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva IIIC International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation IPR Institute of Pacific Relations IR International Relations IRC International Relations Club ISC International Studies Conference LSE London School of Economics and Political Science LSRM Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial OSS Office of Strategic Services RF Rockefeller Foundation RIIA Royal Institute of International Affairs YMCA Young Men’s Christian Association 6 Introduction On 26 April 1917, twenty days after the American declaration of war against Imperial Germany, Elihu Root, the President of the American Society of International Law, addressed his peers at their 11 th annual meeting. In an attempt to rouse enthusiasm for the United States’ war against autocracy and Prussian militarism, Root chose the effect of democracy on international relations as the theme of his address. Echoing Woodrow Wilson’s ‘democratic peace theory’, Root claimed that autocratic regimes were inherently warlike, due to “the deep and settled purpose of a ruling family or a ruling aristocratic class to enlarge its power”, whereas democracies held no such “sinister policies of ambition” because of their aversion to secret diplomacy and large military spending. 1 Of course, Root admitted, a democratically controlled foreign policy had its own pitfalls: “The peoples who govern themselves frequently misunderstand their international rights, and ignore their international duties. They are often swayed by prejudice, and blinded by passion. They are swift to decide in their own favor the most difficult questions upon which they are totally ignorant.” Here, Root stayed true to his conservative convictions and his patrician suspicion of popular participation in government. But he also claimed that the defects of a democratic foreign policy could be cured “by reason, by appeal to better instincts, by public discussion, by the ascertainment and dissemination of the true facts”, which were all practices that were honed in democratically governed polities. 2 Root’s address represented an attempt to spell out the conditions for a modern foreign policy fit for an age of mass democracy. Like many other liberal theorists of 1 Elihu Root, “The Effect of Democracy on International Law”, International Conciliation 4, no. 117 (1917/18): 160, 163; U.S. presidents have also embraced the democratic peace theory. Joan Hoff, A Faustian Foreign Policy From Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush: Dreams of Perfectibility (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 143. 2 Root, “Effect of Democracy”: 161, 162, 163. 7 international relations, Root assumed that a well-thought-out framework for the conduct of the foreign relations of democratic states would lead to harmonious international relations and the absence of conflict. Democracy alone was not enough. Certain processes had to underpin the making of foreign policy, certain institutions had to be in place to “reason” and ascertain “the true facts”. Root did not spell out the exact shape of these processes and institutions but implied that a democracy needed to have a forum in which international relations could be rationally discussed. A successful Wall Street lawyer, Elihu Root was not just the president of the American Society of International Law but shuttled between his private practice in New York City and high political offices in Washington D.C. which included Secretary of War, Secretary of State and United States Senator. But next to his corporate and his public duties, Root also made space in his life for a third kind of career, that of philanthropic leader. As the first president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Root presided over just the kind of organisation