Fifteenth meeting

April 11th was indeed a day of battle! It broke when Baron Makino (Japan) made the following statement: a renewal of the plea first made on February 13th:

“I have already had occasion to bring up this subject before the Committee, but it was in another form and with a different meaning. The subject is a matter of such great moment and concern for a considerable part of mankind, and especially to the nation I represent, that I deem it my duty to present it again for your consideration. My reasons, having already been set forth, I shall now be as brief as possible.

“This League is intended to be a world instrument for enforcing righteousness and defeating force. It is to be the highest Court of Justice. It will, besides providing for social reforms, also look after the welfare and interests of the less-advanced peoples by entrusting their government to mandatory states. It is an attempt to regulate the conduct of nations and peoples toward one another, according to a higher moral standard than has obtained in the past, and to administer justice more fairly throughout the world. These ideas have touched the inmost human soul and have quickened the common feelings of different peoples scattered over the five continents. It has given birth to hopes and aspirations, and strengthened the sense of legitimate claims they consider as their due.

The sentiment of nationality, one of the strongest human feelings, has been aroused by the present world-wide moral renaissance, and is at present receiving just recognition in adjusting international affairs. In close connection with the grievances of the oppressed nationalities there exist the wrongs of racial discrimination which were, and are, the subject of deep resentment on the part of a large portion of the human race. The feeling of being slighted has long been a standing grievance with certain peoples. And the announcement of the principle of justice for peoples and nationalities as the basis of the future international relationship has so heightened their legitimate aspirations, that they consider it their right and their duty to see that this wrong should be redressed.

“It must be admitted that it has been possible to bring our work to this advanced stage only because the prevailing world opinion has backed the different governments in working it out, and that the enduring success of this undertaking will depend much more on the adherence to (and espousal of) the noble ideals, set forth in the Preamble, by the various peoples concerned than on the support or acts of respective governments that may change from time to time. The peoples constituting the states members of the league must be the future trustees of this work, and their close harmony and mutual confidence are necessary for insuring such success.

“Believing these conditions to be indispensable, I think it only reasonable that the principle of the equality of nations and the just treatment of their nationals should be laid down as a fundamental basis of future relations in this world organization. If this reasonable and just claim is now denied, it will, in the eyes of those peoples who with reason are vitally interested, have the significance of a reflection on their racial quality and status. Their faith in the justice and righteousness of the Pact which is to be their guiding spirit may be shaken.

“Such a frame of mind may, it is to be feared, lead to their unwillingness and reluctance to carry out obligations, such as military contributions, which certain emergencies, foreseen in different Articles, may require. A most deplorable situation’may thus be created, now that the world is to move on a higher plane of international political life. It will not be easy for people to reconcile themselves to the idea of submitting to a call for heavy and serious obligations, perchance in defense of those at whose hands they are refused just treatment. Such a contingency must be borne in mind, for pride is one of the most forceful and at times an uncontrollable cause of human action.

“I state in all seriousness that although at this particular juncture of political life the practical bearing of such a dangerous development of the question may not be fully realized, I, for one, entertain much anxiety about the possible future outcome of this question.

“My amendment to the Preamble is simply to lay down a general principle as regards the relations between at least the nationalities forming the League, just as it prescribes the rules of conduct to be observed between the governments of the member states.

“It is not intended that the amendment should encroach on the internal affairs of any nation. It simply sets forth a guiding principle for future international intercourse. The work of carrying out this principle comes within the indisputable competence of the proper authorities. This amendment does not fully meet our wishes, but it is an attempt to conciliate the viewpoints of different peoples, and it was arrived at after a most thorough and mature consideration of various aspects and the plain, unavoidable realities of present international relations.”

Baron Makino concluded by formally asking that after the words “relations between Nations” in the Preamble, the following clause should be inserted: “By the endorsement of the principle of the equality of Nations and the just treatment of their nationals.”

Lord Robert Cecil regretted that he was not in a position to vote for this amendment although he was personally entirely in accord with the idea advanced by the Japanese delegation. The British Government realized the importance of the racial question, but its solution could not be attempted by the Commission without encroaching upon the sovereignty of states members of the League. One of two things must be true: either the points which the Japanese delegation proposed to add to the Preamble were vague and ineffective, or else they were of practical significance. In the latter case, they opened the door to serious controversy and to interference in the domestic affairs of states members of the League. There were a great many things which the states themselves ought to do, but these were not included in the Preamble. For example, it had been found impossible to include in the text matters so unquestionably right as those of religious liberty, the claims of the International Council of ^Vomen, and a great many other principles of this sort because they would result in infringements of the sovereignty of states. Furthermore, Japan would be permanently represented on the Executive Council, and this fact would place her in a situation of complete equality with the other Great Powers. This being so, it would always be possible for her to raise the question of equality of races and of nations before the Council itself.

Viscount Chinda, the second Japanese delegate, replied to the objections raised by Lord Robert Cecil. He pointed out that the Japanese delegate had not broached the question of race or of immigration. He asked for nothing more than a formal recognition of the principle of equality of nations and the just treatment of their nationals. These words might have a broad significance, but they certainly meant that all the members of the League should be treated with equality and justice. He thought it quite as important to introduce this principle into the Covenant as it was to introduce such other questions as the supervision of labor conditions, public health, traffic in arms, etc. Acceptance of the Japanese amendment would mean nothing except that the League of Nations was to be founded upon justice. Japanese public opinion was so strongly behind this amendment that he asked the Commission to put it to the vote. If the amendment were rejected, it would be an indication to Japan that the equality of members of the League was not recognized and, as a consequence, the new organization would be most unpopular. The formula which he proposed was of great importance, and the national aspirations of Japan were depending upon its adoption. Public opinion in Japan was very much concerned over this question, and certain people had even gone so far as to say that Japan should not become a member of the League of Nations unless she were satisfied on this point.

Mr. Orlando supported the Japanese amendment. He said: “Originally the Commission had been inclined to adopt an Article proclaiming the most important of all liberties, that of religion.” He himself would have been glad if this Article had been retained in a Covenant which was intended to bind together nations of a democratic character. The equality of nations was a question which perhaps ought not to have been raised; but once having been raised, there was no other solution except that of adopting the amendment. Lord Robert Cecil had spoken of the practical reasons why its application would be difficult. Such an argument would carry weight if the Commission were considering the addition of an Article in the Covenant which put the members of the League under a definite obligation. All that was now asked, however, was the statement of a principle in the Preamble. If this principle were rejected, it would give rise to feelings which were hardly in harmony with the purpose of the new organization.

M. Bourgeois agreed with Mr. Orlando. He felt that it was impossible to vote for the rejection of an amendment which embodied an indisputable principle of justice.

M. Larnaude remarked that the Japanese amendment had now reappeared in an entirely different form and that it would be difficult not to adopt the principle of equality of nations as now proposed. Moreover, it was intended that this declaration should appear in the Preamble, and preambles ordinarily laid down broad declarations of principle which did not impose obligations so strict as those of subsequent articles. For these two reasons, he thought that the Commission could not avoid voting for the amendment.

Mr. Venizelos (Greece) reminded the Commission that he had been largely responsible for the disappearance of the religious-liberty clause from the Covenant. He had thought and hoped that if this clause were cut out the difficulty relative to the racial question would likewise be eliminated. Today, however, the question had appeared in a different light and Japan had taken her stand upon another ground; they were talking not of the equality of races, but of the equality of nations themselves and of just treatment of their nationals. It would be very difficult to reject such a proposal especially since Baron Makino had carefully pointed out that his proposal did not involve any state in the obligation to pass any measures whatever with respect to immigration. If the Japanese amendment were accepted and were written into the Preamble, a clause relative to religious liberty might also be introduced.

Mr. Kramar (Czechoslovakia) could not see how any danger could arise out of the Japanese amendment. He himself was pretty well acquainted with a state where a certain Article provided for the equality of nations and where these nations had been cruelly oppressed over a long period of time. He thought that the words of the Japanese amendment were entirely in harmony with the rest of the Preamble and particularly with the expression “open, just, and honorable relations.” M. Dmowski (Poland) expressed himself as in entire sympathy with the Japanese delegates, but he did not see how a general declaration could be included in the Preamble when it was not to be enforced by particular provisions in subsequent Articles.

Mr. Koo (China) read the following statement:

“I believe that the principle contained in the Japanese amendment involves a number of questions to which time alone can give a universally satisfactory solution. Nevertheless, I should be very glad indeed to see the principle itself given recognition in the Covenant, and I hope that the Commission will not find serious difficulties in the way of its acceptance. I should like to have my statement appear in the Minutes.”

President Wilson felt that the greatest difficulty by which they were confronted lay in controversies which would be bound to take place outside the Commission over the Japanese proposal, and that in order to avoid these discussions, it would perhaps be wise not to insert such a provision in the Preamble. The equality of nations was a fundamental principle of the League of Nations. It was the spirit of the Covenant to make a faithful and loyal attempt to place all nations upon a footing of equality, in the hope that the greater nations might aid the lesser in advantageous ways. Not only did the Covenant recognize the equality of states, but it laid down provisions for defending this equality in case it should be threatened.

Baron Makino said that he did not wish to continue an unprofitable discussion, but in these matters he was representing the unqualified opinion of the Government of Japan. Therefore, he could not avoid the necessity of asking the Commission to make a definite decision in this matter, and he had the honor of asking his fellow members to vote upon the question of the insertion of his amendment in the Preamble.

A vote was taken, and eleven votes out of seventeen were recorded in favor of the amendment.

President Wilson declared that the amendment was not adopted inasmuch as it had not received the unanimous approval of the Commission.

M. Larnaude called attention to the fact that a majority had voted in its favor.

President Wilson admitted that a majority had so voted, but stated that decisions of the Commission were not valid unless unanimous, and the Japanese amendment had not received unanimous support. There was only one case where a decision of the majority had prevailed, and that was in the case of determining the seat of the League. In that case, it had been necessary to accept the opinion of the majority inasmuch as no other procedure was possible if the question was to be decided at all. In the present instance there was, certainly, a majority, but strong opposition had manifested itself against the amendment and under these circumstances the resolution could not be considered as adopted.

Mr. Vesnitch said that he had voted for the amendment because it laid down a principle of international law, that of the equality of nations. As for the question of “just treatment of their nationals” one could depend upon the honor of self-respecting nations to respect the citizens of other states. No one could deny these principles, and the vote taken by the Commission must have given satisfaction on this point to Baron Makino and to Japanese opinion at large.

Lord Robert Cecil thought it better that the Covenant should be silent on these questions of right. Silence would avoid much discussion.

President Wilson said that no one could dream of interpreting the vote which had just been taken as condemnation of the principle proposed by the Japanese delegation.

Baron Makino said that he was sorry to insist upon the point, but asked that the number of votes which had been cast in favor of the Japanese amendment should appear in the Minutes. He would take the question up again on the first appropriate occasion.