Kwame Nimako and Glenn Willemsen on the Rise of the European World Order and the Atlantic Slave Trade (Lecture Notes)
So how do we define the European World Order? According to Kwame Nimako and Glenn Willemsen Walter in The Dutch Atlantic: Slavery, Abolition and Emancipation the European World Order can be defined as “an international political-economic system that emerged between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries and laid the foundation for an international legal framework and system, including maritime and company law as we now know them, that came to be dominated by European states and people of European descent around the world.” (13) This definition is actually based on Immanuel Wallerstein’s first volume of his The Modern World-System’s books (the first volume was published in 1974). First, what’s important to understand about this definition is the priority of the political-economic over the juridical framework; in fact, what is being stated here is that the political-economic framework that was established throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth century led to a juridical framework that has since been dominant. Secondly, the argument is that this framework was established by European states (geographically located in Europe) and people of European descent (the United States).
In their chapter on the making of the European World Order, Kwame Nimako and Glenn Willemsen focus on the role of slavery in this world order. The question they (implicitly) ask, then, is twofold: how has slavery been instrumental in the creation of the European world order (both politically and economically), and how was that system accomodated (juridically) in such a way that it was possible for slavery to thrive and play the instrumental (economic and political) role in that system has the juridical framework that followed from that order? The three main claims that they advance are:
Political: “Chattel slavery went hand in hand with the process of European conquest of most of the world and the making of the European world order.” (13)
Juridical: “Some of the important treaties in the making of the European interstate systems also took Atlantic slavery into account.” (13)
Economic: “The development of the interstate system went hand in hand with the international division of labour in the transatlantic ‘slave’ trade and slavery (...): Europe was the location of ideas, design, planning and innovations; Africa was the source of captive Africans for enslavement; the Caribbean and the Americas were the sites of production, and Europe again of consumption of the goods produced by the enslaved.” (13)
Nimako and Willemsen divide up the emergent period of the European world order in which slavery played an instrumental role into three time periods: the age of banditry (1492-1648), the age of sovereignty and chattel slavery (1648-1789), and (more diffuse as far as time period is concerned and dealt with in a less historical manner) the period of emerging citizensip and 'free soil' ideology that fully meregd after the French revolution (1789).
The first period is one in which there is no established framework for enslavement and ‘slave’ trade, whereas the second period is all about the institutionalization and the society-wide consequences thereof.
The first time period they call ‘the age of banditry’ and runs from 1492 - the year in which Christopher Columbus ‘discovered’ the Americas - to 1648 -the year in which the Westphalian Peace Treaty ended the thirty year long religious wars in Europe, recognizing the Dutch Republic as an independent state and indirectly consolidating the Atlantic slave trade. “The essence of the ‘age of banditry’ was that those who were enslaving others could also be enslaved by others. There was no clear legal framework and regulatory mechanism of what later became known as the transatlantic slave trade and the practice of chattel slavery.” (15) By the end of this period, however, Europe had gained the upper hand and “the Peace of Westphalia set the parameters for competition and cooperation within European statecraft.” (14). Additionally, the “process of the transformation of Catholic and Protestant states went hand in hand with the institutionalization of the Atlantic ‘slave’ trade system and slavery.” (14) And just as the trade of ‘slaves’ itself came with great risks and was far from institutionalized, so too the territories that were captured for profit were relatively unstable during this period. Brazil, for example, was captured by the Dutch in 1630 after it had become clear that there was good profit to be made from the land and its (‘slave’ run) sugar plantations.
A good example of how territory was unstable during those initial years of banditry were the Caribbean islands like Sint Maarten, Saba and Curacao. Between 1631 and 1640 these changed hands several times and were the scenes of fierce battles of conquest between the Dutch and the Spaniards. As Nimako and Willemsen conclude: “Viewed in this context, Atlantic slavery was a constituent part of the Eighty Years’ War.” (17)
That there were no clear rules about how to deal with enslaved people around this time is aptly illustrated by the event that took place in Middelburg in November 1596. At that time, a Dutch captain sailed in the harbour of Middelburg with a ship of 130 baptized ‘slaves’ that he had captured from a Portuguese crew. The problem, however, was that in the Netherlands Christian souls could not be treated (i.e. sold) as slaves. Therefore the 130 ‘slaves’ were no longer ‘slaves’ at all. The Portuguese ship owner then went to court to claim back his ‘cargo’ back. The first time he was unsuccessful, the second time he was successful and the Dutch ship owner (Pieter van der Haegen) on whose ship the 130 African men and women were residing was ordered ‘to do as he pleases’. What this historical event demonstrates, Nimako and Willemsen argue, is that there were no clear rules about how to deal with ‘slaves’; the juridical framework was still being devised.
Finally, what is of crucial importance for the division of labour that would consolidate throughout the seventeenth century is that “whereas chattel slavery became regulated under European states, in Africa banditry continued, with forcible capture and abduction of Africans, their imprisonment in European dungeons in Africa, and their forced transportation to the Caribbean and the Americas.” (19)
For Nimako and Willemsen the Peace of Westphalia (1648) marks the beginning of a new period in slave trade. The Peace of Westphalia led to the recognition of the Dutch Republic as an independent state, and more widely to the mutual recognition of the sovereignty of the European states. The two main reason why this treaty is also crucial to the chattel ‘slave’ trade are: first, the legitimation of territorial sovereignty of the European states also implicitly confirmed that the sovereignty of territories outside of Europe was not recognized and as such it opened the way for an institutionalization of colonial conquest (“the non-recognition of the sovereignty of others.” - 20); and second, “one of the constituent components of sovereignty is the monopolization of violence by the state.” (20)
To understand these two great consequences and their relation to chattel slavery, Nimako and Willemsen argue, we need to understand the four ‘constituent components of sovereignty’:
Territorial Control - The Peace of Westphalia was certainly about territorial control. By recognizing each other’s territorial sovereignty, states were now able to exert control over their own territory. But as Nimako and Willemsen point pout, “in practice however territorial control required the recognition of the sovereignty of those involved (in Europe) and the non-recognition of the sovereignty of those not involved (in Africa, the Caribbean, the Americas and elsewhere).” (21) A second aspect that made territorial control of such great importance (next to the implicit non-recognition of other territories outside of Europe) was that it now became easier to control and mobilize natural and human resources within one’s own territory. According to Nimako and Willemsen the institutional framework that confirmed and further consolidate modern European state sovereignty also enhanced the institutional framework for slave trade. They focus their attention on two treaties: The Peace of Ryswick (1697) and the Peace of Utrecht (1713). Both strengthened mutual recognition of sovereignty within Europe. The Peace of Ryswick made an end to the Nine Years War (also known as the War of the League of Augsburg, in which a ‘grand alliance’ of England, Spain, the holy Roman Empire and the Dutch Republic warred against France). After that peace treaty, it turns out, the price of ‘slaves’ doubled. Similarly, or rather incrementally, European sovereignty was strengthened even further by the peace of Utrecht in 1713. This treaty “reduced the power of Spain over the Dutch and affirmed the latter’s sovereignty by emphasizing the balance of power” (22) Again, in the wake of this treaty “the involvement of the state in the ‘slave’ trade and slavery became important.” (22)
Nationalism - In spite of (or perhaps because of) mutual recognition of territorial control of the European states, a form of proto-nationalism also emerged around the same time. There was both cooperation and competition between the different European states. According to Nimako and Willemsen, between the seventeenth and the late eighteenth century we can witness “a process within Europe of mobilizing the ‘us’ within territories against the ‘them’ outside”and it is this process that “gave rise to what was later to be called nationalism and racial consciousness.” (24)
So what has racial consciousness has to do with this exactly? And how is this related to slavery? Nimako and Willemsen point us toward to element: internal rivalry within Europe and European international solidarity with regard to Europe’s position in the global order o the time. Internal rivalry: the Dutch certainly prided themselves on being more humane in their treatment of ‘slaves’ (Nimako and Willemsen cite the example of Willem Bosman. A slave trader whose diary is littered with these kinds of remarks) but despite this internal rivalry the Europeans considered themselves to be superior to people from Africa and they would help each other out on a regular basis whenever a European cargo ship was being threatened by a ‘slave’ mutiny. In short, “in fostering slavery outside Europe, race became the organizing principle and reinforced nationalism.” (25)
International relations - the Peace of Westphalia laid the groundwork for modern International Relations. But, Nimako and Willemsen argue, this led to a vision on international relations where territories outside of Europe were considered ‘up for grabs’ and an “extension or European territories” (26).
Emigration - “Sovereignty highlights emigration and immigration and delineates who belongs to a nation who does not. Sovereignty also regulates who comes and goes out of a country.” (26) The ‘slave’ trade had enormous implications for the emigration of Europeans, since Europeans had to go outside of the state territory to supervise the trade. “Conducting the ‘slave’ trade and slavery on foreign soils, especially Africa and the Americas, required European citizens to be on the spot. To this effect they went as seamen, soldiers, plantation owners and supervisors, doctors, researchers, and last but not least, as spouses and wives of men. It has been estimated that 50 million people emigrated from Europe to the Americas in less than a century, and the European population still registered an increase.” (27)
In the final section of their chapter on “The rise of the European world order and the transatlantic slave trade”, Nimako and Willemsen discuss the ideology of ‘free soil’. This ideology is closely related to the emergence of free citizenship that will be consolidated during the nineteenth century but had been in preparation in the century preceding it. According to Nimako and Willemsen, “European-led chattel slavery became a total institution with or through the maturity of citizenship.” (29) During the century and a half after the Peace of Westphalia most conflicts were among princes and kings, not among peoples of nations. This changed after 1789, i.e. after the French revolution. And once the European monarchs had settled their wars in Europe they turned their attention towards the colonies. (31) “As a trade-off, European citizens gained more freedom at the expense of other peoples, hence making Europe rhetorically a ‘free soil’.” (32) Interestingly, England, France and the Netherlands were the first states to develop a nascent concept of citizenship and free soil. This process can be seen in treaties, such as in the Netherlands, that no one in the Netherlands could be a slave.
