# data[].attributes.body
During the 1919 peacemaking conference in Paris, France, Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States proposed the idea of national self-determination in place of former multinational empires in Eastern Europe.[1] Woodrow never provided one specific definition of the theory of self-determination, and instead, he presented his concept through 14 main points that would allow people to understand the American aims in the peace conference and become the basis of the creation of the League of Nations.[2] Woodrow hoped that applying these aspects to the post-war World would create peace and prevent another war from unraveling.[3]

Self-determination has developed to be understood as a notion in which groups of selected people should be given the right to freely determine their own destiny, particularly their own political status, economic, cultural, and social development.[4] Although admirable in its principle, self-determination has proved hard to put into practice. Major problems include the problem of applicability; which groups of people are allowed to form their own states? What about groups within groups? and the problem of implementation; self-determination relies on the idea that groups of people live homogeneously in specifically defined areas. However, due to migration, intermarriage, and other factors of large people movement, the proven reality is far from this.[5] As a result of Wilson's introduction of self-determination at the peace conference in Paris, different groups and individuals eventually adopted parts of the self-determination ideas and adapted them to their varying circumstances.[6]

Image from: https://www.azquotes.com/quote/1148008, accessed 22 May 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
The racial equality clause was developed by the Japanese, as one of two of their demands during the Paris Peace Conference. The first was territorial, and the second was that a racial equality clause was to be included in the formation of the League of Nations.[7] The Japanese had been asked to assist the British during World War I, which they did so by successfully fighting against Germany in Australasia.[8] The ongoing battle to gain equality amongst Western powers had seemingly, finally been achieved. However, Japanese officials were still worried about their place in the League of Nations due to the unresolved issue with race, particularly in America.[9]

During the Peace Conference, the Japanese proposed the insertion of a racial equality clause three times.[10] Ultimately, all three attempts failed due to a multitude of debatable reasons. Some include (1) a lack of negotiating power between the plenipotentiaries for Japan in Paris, Makino, and Chinda, and the Japanese government back in Tokyo, Japan; (2) Britain’s support for its Dominions opposition towards the racial equality proposal, particularly Australia; (3) the many changes and compromises to the clause throughout the three proposals to the Committee; and (4) The League of Nation’s inability to come to a unanimous decision on the clause.[11] The Japanese government also placed fault on the Japanese plenipotentiaries in Paris for straying from the government’s instructions of how to put forward the proposal, eventually presenting an ineffective proposition to the Commission.[12]

'The Japanese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference 1919'
Image from: https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/1919/japan, accessed 21 May 2021.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the issues that the Japanese dealt with in debating racial equality at the Paris peace conference was the opposition from British Dominions, especially Australia. After their initial loss, the Japanese government in Tokyo wanted Makino and Chinda to negotiate directly with the British government.[13] However, Makino and Chinda being in Paris, understood the significance of discussing with the Dominions directly. This was especially prominent after speaking with Britain who explained that they were not in the position to give any responses on the behalf of the Dominions.[14] Thus, Makino and Chinda met with Australia's prime minister, Billy Hughes, who was concerned the Japanese were using their racial equality clause to allow unrestricted immigration.[15] Upon learning this, the Japanese revised their proposal and made such drastic modifications that it could not be mistaken for any underlying immigration policies. Originally, the Dominions as a whole were against the proposal. Though, with the new proposal, many of them could not fault it and were happy to accept an amended proposal.[16] Nevertheless, Hughes remained stubbornly against the Japanese notions despite his fellow Dominion premier’s attempts in swaying him.[17] Hughes understood that the Australian public was against the racial equality clause, hoping for an ideal White Australia. Thus, Hughes’ persistent attitude against the proposition has been argued as a political statement for his domestic spectators, considering the elections were coming up back home.[18]

Hughes still felt that although the proposal had been adjusted so drastically, it still carried the same idea.[19] Yet with the pressure of his fellow British Dominions, Hughes was open to agreeing to a formula in which immigration and naturalisation laws remained domestic matters that foreign governments would remain from interfering in.[20] He proposed one necessary condition, which was that the racial equality clause “would not confer any rights to enter Australia… except as and to the extent that its government might determine”.[21] The Japanese public did not believe that merely the Australian opposition would be fair and just to stop the passing of the racial equality clause and chose to decline Australia's proposition, arguing that they had been pushed to their limits.[22] Unsurprisingly, this extended Australia’s belief that Japan had ulterior purposes, further pushing their opposition to the proposal. Unfortunately for Japan, Hughes and Australia prevailed with Britain and America taking their side, and the Japanese advocacy for a racial equality clause was ultimately unsuccessful.[23]

'The Australian Plenipotentiaries, Prime Minister Billy Hughes, Sir Joseph Cook, and staff at the Peace Conference in Paris 1919'

Image from: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C581?image=1, accessed 25 May 2021.