Japan's demand for racial equality (1919)

[Joe McCarthy]

And how the British and Woodrow Wilson blocked it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_...Proposal,_1919

The Racial Equality Proposal was a Japanese proposal for racial equality in Paris Peace Conference.

The proposal

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.

The Japanese delegation did not realize the full ramifications of their proposal, since its adoption would have challenged the established norms of the (Western dominated) international system of the day, which involved 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]

Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes clarified his opposition and announced at a meeting.

ninety-five out of one hundred Australians rejected the very idea of equality.[2]

Then Nobuaki 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.[3]

The proposal was also problematic for U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who knew he was dependent on pro-segregation Southern Democrats if he was to have any hope of getting the two thirds majority needed to ratify the final treaty in the United States Senate. The presence of such strong opposition from the British Empire delegations was undoubtedly a relief to Wilson as it gave him a pretext to scupper the proposal.

[edit] April 11On April 11, 1919, the commission held a final session.[4] Makino stated the Japanese plea for human rights and racial equality.[5] British representative Robert Cecil spoke for the British Empire and addressed opposition to the proposal.[6] Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando spoke in favor of the statement on Human rights.[7] French Senator Léon Bourgeois urged adoption and stated that it would be impossible to reject this proposal that embodied "an indisputable principle of justice".[8]

The proposal received a majority vote on the day.[4] 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
Republic of 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[9]
The chairman, President 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.[10] French Delegate Ferdinand Larnaude immediately stated "A majority had voted for the amendment".[11] Japanese delegation wanted the transcript of a clear majority had been voted for the record.[11]

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 then Prime Minister of Australia 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 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.[12]

[edit] ReactionIn the end, Cecil 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. In the United States, racial riots occurred by the American deliberate inaction.[13] Although the exclusion of the racial equality proposal allowed Wilson to keep Southern Democratic allies on his side, this proved insufficient to get the treaty ratified by the United States Senate. The U.S. never joined the League of Nations.

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 to be an important factor in turning Japan away from cooperation with the West and toward nationalistic policies.[14] In 1923, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance expired, which gradually resulted in a closer relationship of Japan and Italy to Germany. Despite this tie to Germany, which in the years following promulgated anti-semitism after the Nazis gained power, Japan decided to prohibit the expulsion of the Jews out of Japan, Manchuria, and China in accordance with the spirit of the racial equality[15][16] and advocated the political slogan Hakkō ichiu.

The scale of the later changes in the mood of the international system are indicative that this contentious point of racial equality would be incorporated into the United Nations Charter in 1945 as the fundamental principle of international justice. The Civil Rights Act was enforced in 1964, while Apartheid was abolished in 1994.

[Wulfhere]

It's ironic really because today the Japanese are the only alien race we could potentially consider as equals - equal but different, of course.

[Joe McCarthy]

It's ironic really because today the Japanese are the only alien race we could potentially consider as equals - equal but different, of course.

The acceptance of Japan's demand would have enshrined it in international law that racial discrimination for the purposes of immigration, for example, would be illegal. The US could not have legally enacted the Asian Exclusion Act five years later which prohibited entry of East Asians and Asian Indians into the US.

[Joe McCarthy]

I want to note how some other Western states, most notably France, backed this dangerous Japanese proposal.

Figures.

[The Lawspeaker]

First China, now Japan, Joe ? You come up with whatever lies of half-truths that are convenient enough to further incriminate and discredit European nationalism.

[Joe McCarthy]

First China, now Japan, Joe ? You come up with whatever lies of half-truths that are convenient enough to further incriminate European nationalism.

Erm, what are you talking about? I'm only pointing out that it was the Anglo-Saxons that stopped this proposal. The French, Italians, Serbs, Czechs, etc., sided with the friggin nips.

[Wadjet Horus]

Japan did not know better about not to cooperate with the colonists, they were just fledging birds coming out of the shell, they would become a monster none of the europeans would be able to handle.