Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD

The Holy Prophet Muhammad’s address at the time of his final Hajj in the early seventh century about racial equality among other subjects is written in golden words in the Muslim history and is more cherished among the Muslims than the Gettysburg Address among the Americans.  I have covered it in many of my articles.  I link two here:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Islam!

An invitation to other religions: demonstrating human rights and Universal Brotherhood from your scriptures

Contrast this with how President Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924) thwarted efforts for racial equality in Paris Peace Conference in 1919, as League of Nations was being formed after World War I.  Even though majority of the countries were in favor of racial equality, President Wilson, who was chairing the meeting, demanded consensus vote and failing which he maintained lack of racial equality in the world.

When all is said and done, with passing time, as history is rewritten to suit the victors, everyone becomes the champion of human rights and more, but, it was indeed the Prophet of Islam, who initiated and maintained human equality, centuries before anyone in Europe or the West woke up to these realities.

President Woodrow Wilson

The Paris Peace Conference was the meeting of the Allied victors following the end of World War I to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers following the armistices of 1918. It took place in Paris in 1919 and involved diplomats from more than 32 countries and nationalities. They met, discussed various options and developed a series of treaties (“Paris Peace Treaties”) for the post-war world. These treaties reshaped the map of Europe with new borders and countries, and imposed war guilt and stiff financial penalties on Germany. The defeated Central Powers’ colonial empires in Africa, southwest Asia, and the Pacific, would be parceled between and mandated to the victorious colonial empires, based on the different levels of previous development and the creation of the League of Nations.

At the center of the proceedings were the leaders of the four “Great Powers”: President Woodrow Wilson of the United States, Prime Minister David Lloyd George of Great Britain, George Clemenceau of France, and, of least importance, Italian Prime Minister Vittorio Orlando; Orlando eventually had pulled out of the conference and did not play a role in constructing the final draft of the Treaty of Versailles. Germany and Communist Russia were not invited to attend, but numerous other nations did send delegations, each with a different agenda. Kings, prime ministers and foreign ministers with their crowds of advisers rubbed shoulders with journalists and lobbyists for a hundred causes, ranging from independence for the countries of the South Caucasus to racial equality.

For six months Paris was effectively the center of a world government, as the peacemakers wound up bankrupt empires and created new countries. The most contentious results included a punitive peace treaty that declared Germany guilty, weakened its military, and required it to pay all the costs of the war to the winners. This was known as the war-guilt clause that was included in the final Treaty of Versailles. The Austro-Hungarian Empire had ceased to exist as its disparate peoples created new states. Unsatisfied with these results and conflicted with their Constitution, the United States never ratified the Treaty of Versailles, never joined the League of Nations, and signed separate peace treaties with the three countries it had declared war against. Historians debate whether or not the terms imposed on Germany helped the rise of Nazi Germany and were thus a cause of World War II, and whether the terms were the best that could be expected, given the mood of the victors.

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. The Japanese delegation believed it was asking that only the League of Nations should 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.

April 11

On 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 of the 17 delegates present voted in favor of 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] The Japanese delegation wanted the transcript to show that a clear majority had been voted for the amendment to the Charter.^[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, then Prime Minister of Australia Billy Hughes and Joseph Cook vigorously opposed the proposal behind the scenes, 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]

Reaction

In 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 United States never joined the League of Nations. The mood of the international system changed dramatically by 1945, so 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.

As such, some historians consider that this point could be listed among the many causes of conflict and which led to Japan actions later on. They argue that the rejection of the racial equality clause proved 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 to Germany and Italy. However Prussian militarism was already entrenched in the Imperial Japanese Army, many members of the Army had expected Germany to win the war and Germany had approached Japan for a separate peace in 1916. The rapprochement towards Germany did not occur until the mid 1930’s, a time when Germany had greater ties with Nationalist China.

More to follow …