Racial Equality Proposal
The Racial Equality Proposal (
Though it was broadly supported, the proposal did not become part of the treaty, largely because of opposition by the United States and the dominions of the British Empire Delegation, namely Australia, Canada and New Zealand.[2]
The principle of racial equality was revisited after the war and incorporated into the
Background
Japan attended the 1919
Japanese domestic politics
Prime Minister Hara Takashi had come into power in September 1918 and was determined for Japan to adopt a pro-western foreign policy (欧米協調主義, ōbei kyōchō shugi) at the peace conference.[4] That was largely in consequence of the World War I governments under Prime Ministers Ōkuma Shigenobu and Terauchi Masatake, whose expansionist policies had the effect of alienating Japan from both the United States and Britain.[4] Takashi was determined to support the creation of the League of Nations at the peace conference to steer Japan back to the West.[4] However, there was quite a bit of scepticism towards the League. Domestic opinion was divided into Japanese who supported the League and those who opposed it, the latter being more common in national opinion (国論, kokuron).[5] Hence, the proposal had the role of appeasing the opponents by allowing Japan's acceptance of the League to be conditional on having a Racial Equality Clause inserted into the covenant of the League.[5] Despite the proposal, Japan itself had racial discrimination policies, especially towards non-Yamato people.[6][7][8]
Proposal
After the end of seclusion in the 1850s, Japan signed unequal treaties, the so-called Ansei Treaties, but soon came to demand equal status with the Western powers. Correcting that inequality became the most urgent international issue of the Meiji government. In that context, the Japanese delegation to the Paris peace conference proposed the 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.
In a speech, the Japanese diplomat Makino Nobuaki stated that during the war men of different races had fought together on the Allied side, leading to say: "A common bond of sympathy and gratitude has been established to an extent never before experienced."[9] The Japanese delegation had not realized the full ramifications of their proposal since its adoption would have challenged aspects of the established norms of the day's Western-dominated international system, which involved the colonial rule over non-white people. The intention of the Japanese was to secure equality of their nationals and the equality for members of the League of Nations,[1] but a universalist meaning and implication of the proposal became attached to it within the delegation, which drove its contentiousness at the conference.[10]
After Makino's speech, Lord Cecil stated that the Japanese proposal was a very controversial one and he suggested that perhaps the matter was so controversial that it should not be discussed at all.[9] Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos also suggested that a clause banning religious discrimination should also be removed since that was also a very controversial matter.[9]
Cecil removed all references to clauses that forbade racial and religious discrimination from the text of the peace treaty, but the Japanese made it clear that they would seek to have the clause restored.[9] By then, the clause was beginning to draw widespread public attention. Demonstrations in Japan demanded the end of the "badge of shame" as policies to exclude Japanese immigration in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand received much attention in the Japanese media.[9]
In the United States, the clause received much negative media coverage on the West Coast.[9]
The Chinese delegation, which was otherwise in bitter enmity with the Japanese over the question of the former German colony of
Australian Prime Minister
Makino Nobuaki, the career diplomat who headed the Japanese delegation, then 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."[13] France declared its support for the proposal since the French position had always been that the French language and culture was a "civilizing" force open to all regardless of skin color.[12] British Prime Minister David Lloyd George found himself in an awkward situation since Britain had signed an alliance with Japan in 1902, but he also wanted to hold the British Empire's delegation together.[12] South African Prime Minister General Jan Smuts and Canadian Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden tried to work out a compromise by visiting Makino and Chinda Sutemi and Hughes, serving as mediators.[12] Borden and Smuts were able to arrange a meeting between Makino, Chinda, and Hughes, which ended badly. The Japanese diplomats wrote that Hughes was a vulgar "peasant" who was loud and obnoxious, and Hughes complained that the Japanese had been "beslobbering me with genuflexions and obsequious deference."[12] However, Borden and Smuts were able to persuade Hughes to accept the clause if it was declared that it did not affect immigration.[12] Makino and Chinda then rejected the compromise.[12]
Vote
On April 11, 1919, the commission held a final session.
The proposal received a majority vote on the day,[14] with 11 of the 17 delegates present voted in favor of its amendment to the charter, and no negative vote was taken:
- 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[19]
The chairman, Woodrow Wilson, overturned it by saying that although the proposal had been approved by a clear majority, the particular matter had strong opposition manifest itself (despite the lack of any actual votes against the proposal[19]) and that on this issue, a unanimous vote would be required.[20] French delegate Ferdinand Larnaude immediately stated that "a majority had voted for the amendment."[21] Meanwhile, the Japanese delegation wanted the transcript to show that a clear majority had been voted for the amendment.[21]
Though the proposal itself was compatible with the 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
...it is curious how all the foreigners 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.
Margaret Macmillan noted that some of the islands (most notably Truk, Tinian, and Saipan) that had been awarded to Japan in 1919 to be developed peacefully would become the scenes for famous battles in World War II.[25]Aftermath
Cecil felt that British support for the League of Nations was far more important than the clause. The Japanese media fully covered the progress of the conference, which led to the alienation of public opinion towards the US and would foreshadow later, broader conflicts.
In the US,
racial riots resulted from deliberate inaction.[26]The international mood had changed so dramatically by 1945, that the contentious point of racial equality would be incorporated into that year's
United Nations Charteras a fundamental principle of international justice.Some historians[
ties with Nationalist China.After the
Jewish refugees from China, Manchuria, and Japan[27][28] and advocated the political slogan Hakkō ichiu(literally "eight crown cords, one roof", or "all the world under one roof")See also
- Woodrow Wilson and race#Blocking the racial equality proposal
The Race Question, UNESCO 1950- Yellow Peril
Notes
- ^ a b c Shimazu 1998, p. 114.
ISBN 0375760520.- ^ a b Shimazu 1998, p. 1.
- ^ a b c Shimazu 1998, p. 38.
- ^ a b Shimazu 1998, p. 39.
- ^ Zohar, Ayelet (October 15, 2020). "Introduction: Race and Empire in Meiji Japan". The Asia-Pacific Journal. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
- ^ Rigg, Brian Mark (July 28, 2020). "Racial Purity and Domination in World War II". LinkedIn. Retrieved November 12, 2023.[unreliable source?]
- ^ Dubinsky, Stanley; Davies, William D. (January 2013). "Language Conflict and Language Rights: The Ainu, Ryūkyūans, and Koreans in Japan". Retrieved November 12, 2023.
- ^ a b c d e f g h MacMillan 2003, p. 318.
- ^ Shimazu 1998, p. 115.
- ^ Kajima, Diplomacy of Japan p. 405 as cited in Lauren (1988, p. 90)
- ^ a b c d e f g h i MacMillan 2003, p. 319.
- ^ Japan, Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, Documents Distributed to the Public, "Interview du Baron Makino, 2 April 1919," located at the Hoover Institution. "Japan May Bolt World League" San Francisco Chronicle, 3 April 1919. as cited in Lauren (1988, p. 90)
- ^ a b Lauren 1988, p. 90.
- ^ Lauren 1988, p. 91.
- ^ Lauren 1988, pp. 91–92.
- ^ Lauren 1988, p. 92.
- ^ Conférence de paix de Paris, 1919–1920, Recueil des actes de la Conférence, "Secret," Partie 4, pp. 175–176. as cited in Lauren (1988, p. 92)
- ^ a b Shimazu 1998, pp. 30–31.
- ^ Temperley 1924, p. 352.
- ^ a b Conférence de paix de Paris, 1919–1920, Recueil des actes de la Conférence, "Secret," Partie 4, p. 177. as cited in Lauren (1988, p. 93)
- ^ Diary, 4 February 1919, Add.51131, f.33, Cecil Papers, as cited in Shimazu (1998, p. 119)
- ^ a b MacMillan 2003, p. 321.
- ^ MacMillan 2003, pp. 315–316.
- ^ a b c MacMillan 2003, p. 316.
- ^ Lauren 1988, p. 99.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. Retrieved 2010-10-04.- ^ "猶太人対策要綱". Five ministers council. Japan Center for Asian Historical Record. 1938-12-06. pp. 36, 42. Archived from the original on 2011-07-26. Retrieved 2010-10-04.
References and further reading
- Dickinson, Frederick R. "More than a ‘moment’: Woodrow Wilson and the foundations of twentieth century Japan." Japanese Journal of Political Science 19.4 (2018): 587-599.
- Dikötter, Frank (2006). The construction of racial identities in China and Japan:historical and contemporary perspectives. Stanford University Press.
ISBN 0-8047-5408-X.
- Kiyoshi Kari Kawakami (1919). "The Race Problem and the World League". Japan and World Peace. New York: MacMillan. pp. 45–62 online, A Japanese perspective.
- Lauren, Paul Gordon (1988). Power And Prejudice: The Politics And Diplomacy Of Racial Discrimination. Westview Press.
ISBN 0-8133-0678-7.
- MacMillan, Margaret (2003). Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World. Random House.
ISBN 0-375-76052-0.- Nimmo, William F. (2001). Stars and Stripes Across the Pacific: The United States, Japan, and Asia/Pacific Region, 1895–1945. Greenwood Publishing Group.
ISBN 0-275-96453-1.
- Osborne, Sidney. " The Questions of Race Equality and Shantung" in Osborne, The New Japanese Peril (1921) pp 62-71. online
- Russell, John G. (2009). "Chapter 5: The other other". Japan's Minorities: The Illusion of Homogeneity. Taylor & Francis.
ISBN 978-0-415-77263-1.- Shimazu, Naoko (1998). Japan, Race and Equality. Routledge.
ISBN 0-415-17207-1.- Shin, Gi-Wook (1997). Ethnic nationalism in Korea: genealogy, politics, and legacy. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers.
ISBN 1-85065-353-4.
- Steeds, David. "Anglo-Japanese Relations, 1902–23: a Marriage of Convenience." The History of Anglo-Japanese Relations (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2000) pp. 197-223.
- Temperley, H.W.V. (1924). A History of the Peace Conference of Paris. Vol. 6. London: Henry Frowde and Hodder Stoughton.