Racial Equality Proposal
 | This article needs to be divided into sections. (February 2010) |
The Racial Equality Proposal was a Japanese proposal for racial equality in Paris Peace Conference.
After the end of seclusion, Japan suffered unequal treaties and demanded equal status with the Powers. In this context, the Japanese delegation to the Paris peace conference proposed the "racial equality clause" in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The first draft was presented to the League of Nations Commission on 13 February as an amendment to Article 21:
The equality of nations being a basic principle of the League of Nations, the High Contracting Parties agree to accord as soon as possible to all alien nationals of states, members of the League, equal and just treatment in every respect making no distinction, either in law or in fact, on account of their race or nationality.
It should be noted that the Japanese delegation did not realize the full ramifications of their proposal, and the challenge its adoption would have put to the established norms of the (Western dominated) international system of the day, involving as it did the colonial subjugation of non-white peoples. In the impression of the Japanese delegation, they were only asking for League of Nations to accept the equality of Japanese nationals; however, a universalist meaning and implication of the proposal became attached to it within the delegation, which drove its contentiousness at the conference.[1]
Makino announced at a press conference
We are not too proud to fight but we are too proud to accept a place of admitted inferiority in dealing with one or more of the associated nations. We want nothing but simple justice.[2]
On April 11, 1919, the commission hold a final session.[3] Makino stated Japanese plea for human rights and racial equality.[4] British representative Robert Cecil spoke for the British Empire and addressed opposition to the proposal.[5] Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando spoke in favor of the statement on human right.[6] French Senator Léon Bourgeois urged adoption and stated that it would be impossible to reject this proposal that embodied "an indisputable principle of justice".[7]
The proposal received a majority vote on the day.[3] 11 out of the 17 delegates present voted in favor to its amendment to the charter, and no negative vote was taken. The votes for the amendment tallied thus:
- Japan (2) Yes
- France (2) Yes
- Italy (2) Yes
- Brazil (1) Yes
- China (1) Yes
- Greece (1) Yes
- Serbia (1) Yes
- Czechoslovakia (1) Yes
Total: 11 Yes
- British Empire (2) - Not Registered
- United States (2) - Not Registered
- Portugal (1) - Not Registered
- Romania (1) - Not Registered
- Belgium (2) - absent[8]
The chairman, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, overturned it saying that although the proposal had been approved by a clear majority, that in this particular matter, strong opposition had manifested itself, and that on this issue a unanimous vote would be required. This strong opposition came from the British delegation.[9] Though the proposal itself was compatible with British stance of equality for all subjects as a principle for maintaining imperial unity, there were significant deviations in the stated interests of its Dominions, notably Australia. As it risked undermining the White Australia Policy, behind the scenes Billy Hughes and Joseph Cook vigorously opposed the proposal, and so advocated against it through the British delegation. Without the support of its Dominions, the British delegation could not take such a stand on principle. According to Cecil, the delegate representing the British Empire at the Conference, in his diary
...it is curious how all the foreigners[sic] perpetually harp on principle and right and other abstractions, whereas the Americans and still more the British are only considering what will give the best chance to the League of working properly.[10]
In the end he felt that British support for the League of Nations was a more crucial goal. The Japanese media fully covered the progress of the conference, leading to an alienation of Japanese public opinion towards the United States of America, leading to broader conflicts later on.
As such, this point could be listed among the many causes of conflict which lead to World War II, which were left unaddressed at the close of World War I. The rejection of the racial equality clause provoked important factor in turning Japan away from cooperation with West and toward nationalistic policies.[11] It is both ironic, and indicative of the scale of the later changes in the mood of the international system, that this contentious point of racial equality would later be incorporated into the United Nations Charter in 1945 as the fundamental principle of international justice.
Notes
- ^ Naoko Shimazu, Japan, Race, and Equality (Routledge, 1998), p. 115.
- ^ Japan, Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, Documents Distributed to the Public, "Interview du Baron Makino, 2 avril 1919", located at the Hoover Institution. "Japan May Bolt World League" San Francisco Chronicle, 3 April 1919. as cited in Paul Gordon Lauren (1988), Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination Westview Press ISBN 0813306787 p.90
- ^ a b Paul Gordon Lauren (1988), Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination Westview Press ISBN 0813306787 p.90
- ^ Paul Gordon Lauren (1988), Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination Westview Press ISBN 0813306787 p.91
- ^ Paul Gordon Lauren (1988), Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination Westview Press ISBN 0813306787 pp.91-92
- ^ Paul Gordon Lauren (1988), Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination Westview Press ISBN 0813306787 p.92
- ^ Conférence de paix de Paris, 1919-1920, Recueil des actes de la Conférence, "Secret," Partie 4, pp. 175-176. as cited in Paul Gordon Lauren (1988), Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination Westview Press ISBN 0813306787 p.92
- ^ Shimazu (1998), p. 30-31.
- ^ H.V.W.Temperley (ed.), A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, vol.6, London: Henry Frowde and Hodder Stoughton, 1924, p.352
- ^ Diary, 4 February 1919, Add.51131, f.33, Cecil Papers, as cited in Shimazu (1998), p.119
- ^ MacMillan, Margaret (2003). Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World. Random House. p. 321. ISBN 0375760520.
References
- Margaret MacMillan (2003), Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, Random House, ISBN 0375760520
- Naoko Shimazu (1998), Japan, Race and Equality, Routledge, ISBN 0-415-17207-1
- Paul Gordon Lauren (1988), Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination, Westview Press, ISBN 0813306787
- H.W.V. Temperley (1924), A History of the Peace Conference of Paris vol.6, London: Henry Frowde and Hodder Stoughton