# data[].attributes.body
The self-determination movement during this time, mostly propelled by the United States, Wilson, and Russians Lenin, promised independence, recognition and respect for and by all. However, it should be noted that this movement to oppose the struggle of empire was bought to action and significance by powers that had essentially already obtained this status. Lake and Reynolds (2008) detail the efforts of Japans Makino and Chinda in Paris as a struggle to attain recognition of the East, specifically the inclusion of racial equality within the treaty. They write so under the premise that while recognition was one of great importance to countries striving for self-determination, it was only permitted during that time largely through the acquisition of racial equality. While Australia, the United States and other British nations saw to ensure the Germans paid for their actions and that land rights and existing cultural empires were 'fairly' allotted, Eastern nations faced the challenge of merely gaining respect and recognition internationally. Self-determination was seldom in the minds of the Asian and African cultures which carried the burden of even gaining the respect to be considered an entity of 'self'. Such an issue seen as mere insignificance, if not a burden, to the Allied Western countries whose path of self-determination was dependent on their ability to maintain power and importance.

# data[].attributes.body
The influence of racial inequality is seen no more clearly than through Manela's writing of the accounts of the Indian and Chinese national organisations to appeal to the United States President Woodrow Wilson during the drawing up of the Paris Peace agreement in 1919. In that his principles and notions of progressive nationalism were key to their nation's success, viewing him as the driver of a pioneering country through which emerged from the imperial grasp. Despite striving for equal freedoms and indifference to Western Allied nations, Eastern countries sought to obtain racial equality through the portal of a man of whom never address these countries specifically, nor did he, as highlighted again by Menela, 'articulate precisely how that principle would apply to them beyond [the western world]'.

It's hard to say why the West maintained such false promises to Eastern countries (or if in a time of peril they manufactured these hopes) in culmination to, and during, the Paris Peace Conference, specifically that of the United States, Wilson, whose promise of modern freedom amassed him much attention and admiration from outer-European countries such as India and China. Other than to garner the support of foreign parties further influencing his political sway during a global time of need and stability, Wilson position the US as a non-threatening party with all intended purposes to promote security, structure and inclusivity, for these emerging nationalist countries during the construction of the treaty. Certain though, were the views of the Australian and other British empire members, through which had no such virtue as to entertain the negotiations of the Japanese or other countries during the drawing of the treaty as noted by Lake and Reynolds in Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men's Countries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality.

# data[].attributes.body
On reflection, what cannot be overlooked is that self-determination at the time was only wholly award, or at least permitted to, Allied nation-states. Leaving other countries, primarily Eastern, striving to attain venture far more elemental than division of land, rather hoping for the 'equalisation of races' as put forward by the Japanese prior to the Paris convention. To say this is to recognise the part by which emerging nationalist countries viewed equality and their attempts to signify the importance of such during the commencements of the Paris agreement and how that would introduce them into the self-determination movement.

While Woodrow Wilson promised such things as racial equality, it's perceived that he’d only do so to pave a clearer path toward self-determination. A path that wasn’t questioned by other parties as they too believed that what he was aiming to attain while in Paris was a destination for all involved not just white Allied leader countries. Though, unlike the emergent nationalist countries, the Allies had all but attained sovereignty, on both a domestic and international front. Such was communicated by Prince Konoe Fumimaro of Japan of whom noted that while his countries statesmen and those of the Asia pacific saw self-determination as a movement toward anticolonial status, racial equality, so to portrayed by Wilson, it was merely a position of the self-interest of countries through which self-determination was almost a given.

As too can a comparative view of the use of the phrase, self-determination, executed by Manela, drawing a depiction of the intentions of the United States and other European-centric nations whilst in Paris. Manela, analysing the linguistic notions utilised by Russian Bolsheviks leader, Lenin's, permits an inclusive viewpoint of ‘national self-determination’ by way of noting it’s a position of nationwide achievement. Woodrow Wilson however, loaning the term ‘self-determination’ from the Russians, spares the inclusion of 'nation'. This phrasing can again contextualise the exclusivity Wilson views succession as, further self-determination as a status allowed only to those privileged, its relevance only to those of European territories. Further emulating this notion did China's Li Dazhao in that Lenin's 'national self-determination' was that of worldwide revolution comparatively so to Wilson's 'self-determination' alluding to the term in a more internalised, privileged manner.