Japanese delegates Marquis Saionji, Viscount Chinda and Baron Makino lead the delegation determined to end the racial prejudice that their people had been experiencing since the dawn of globalisation.[1] The Japanese request was that an agreement of joining the League of Nations accepted the basic principle that aliens in another country’s territory, shall be free of discrimination in law or fact, based upon their race or nationality.[2] Wilson along with Australia and Britain rejected this proposition and accepted a feebly revised statement. Wilson’s top priority was to ratify the League of Nations and accepting the original proposal worried the thought of alienating the British.[3]

Wilson’s concept of self-determination was tailorized towards European affairs, where French and British colonies were ruled with an iron fist that was coated in foreign ideologies and political beliefs to that of its inhabitants. The self-determination idea was the principle under which nationalities would have their own states, states that shared racial or ethnic homogeneity.[2] The fall of the Ottoman, Russian and other empires, triggered the self-determination concept in hope that it was reduce or end violence between different nationalities through the creation of new borders. Wilson’s fourteen points that were based around self-determination sought to remove any such triggers that could start a second great war. 

The resolution of self-determination was comprised mainly for the interests of the Allied powers. As demands for self-determination of representatives outside Europe emerged, especially cases from China, Korea, Egypt, Tunisia, India, Indochina and Indochina, the interests of the greater forces stood compromised if the demands were met.[2] Wilson wanted an idealistic world where nations governed themselves, free of international influence. However, Wilson’s view of self-determination was fixated on the neighbouring conflicts that had resided within Europe. 

The differing views to Wilson’s stance are probably best highlighted from the Chinese and Indian perspectives. Their views of self-determination stem from the greater fight against imperialism and their desires to improve international standing.[3] 

India had been under British Imperial rule since the nineteenth century, autocratically ruled by differing overseas values. Indian self-determination voiced the principles that Britain would have to govern Indian in accordance with their values and demands, and if they refused, then Wilson would compel them to do so.[4] It is difficult to find evidence of Wilson’s response, but it is clear that he deemed it impossible, or undesirable given the lack of progress that transpired at the conclusion of the treaty. [5]

China, though independent, were hamstrung by unequal treaties with more powerful states. China’s delegates Gu Weijun and Wang Zhengting entered discussions with the desire to bring China into the ‘family of nations’ and fully recognise its sovereignty. [6]

The basic premises of self-determination should have linked the views of Wilson’s with his Asian counterparts. However, given the two-fold motivation of the concept coupled with the maintaining allies with European nations, the similar but differing views never conjoined. The ‘Wilsonisation’ of self-determination differed from the foundation of the concept, where he isolated its implementation to specified regions, rejecting initial hope for impactful change for Indian and Chinese lead campaigns.