1

A/CUIMUN/24/NOC

Distr.: General

2- 4 November 2018

Original: English

Paris Peace Conference,

Versailles, January 1919

Historical Committee:

Paris Peace Conference

2

CUIMUN HISTORICAL PEACE CONFERENCE

Paris Peace Conference

Versailles, 18 January 1919

I. Welcome from the Directors p. 3

II. Introduction to the chairs p. 4

III. Introduction to the committee p. 5

IV. Introduction to the topic

a. The Great War p. 7

b. Timeline of the Great War p. 9

c. Economic and social issues p. 10

d. Military issues p. 11

e. Territorial issues p. 11

V. Issues at stake

a. Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points p. 17

b. Plans for international organisation p. 18

c. Minorities and racial equality p. 19

d. The American question p. 21

e. The Russian fear p. 22

VI. List of delegates p. 23

VII. Delegate positions p. 24

VIII. Further reading p. 36

IX. Source citations p. 37

CONTENTS

3

Dear delegates,

It is our greatest pleasure to welcome you to this CUIMUN XXIV 2018 simulation of the Paris Peace Conference. The impact of the Great War was immense and has left all participants desperate to ensure that it was not in vain nor will it ever happen again. While negotiating terms that suit different states and their interests will, undoubtedly, be tough, we fully believe in your ability to ensure that the Paris Peace Conference lives up to its name by delivering the thing all are yearning for: peace.

We would like you to keep in mind that the nature of the Historical Committee will take us back to January 1919. Each delegation should thus carefully study their state’s position at this time as well as the factors that may influence it: the types of regime in power, its economy, religion, or security concerns. While the committee will be taking place less than one hundred years ago, it is important to remember that states had never seen a war as devastating as the Great War, and thus lacked a precedent for how to approach the issue. Their regime-types differed, empires that they had known for so long were collapsing, and new states were emerging on the international scene. Leaders were far from certain what to expect, and the challenges were open ground.

We are approaching the centennial commemoration of the treaty with this committee and it is important to keep in mind that, while this conference did take place one hundred years ago, it only took place one hundred years ago. The Great War was a war that has, thus far, shaped human history, and certainly shaped the century in which it happened. Even today we are terrified of the destruction and chaos that resulted from the war and we still mourn the millions that died. The war changed how we fight wars and how we approach them, and the Paris Peace conference set the stage for how we would deal with the aftermaths of future wars.

We recommend that delegates begin by reading the introduction to the committee and the topic (Sections III and IV), followed by the brief introduction to their general position as a delegate (Section VII), before looking in depth through the issues at stake (Section V).

Lastly, although we are aware that the historical outcome of the Paris Peace Conference is very well known, this does not mean that this simulation needs to reproduce the same treaty. Our simulation starts with the opening of the congress on 18th January 1919 with all options and avenues still open. The states and the corresponding interests at stake have all been faithfully replicated. However, it is impossible to bring back the delegates that had initially filled these positions and this means that a new outcome is always possible. Not every state will be satisfied with what they have received by the end of this weekend, but we do hope that all the delegates will be satisfied with the amount they will have learned and the fun they will have had.

In building on CUIMUN’s uniquely strong and distinctive past traditions of historical congresses (including its multi-committee Congress of Westphalia at CUIMUN XIX) and historical Crisis, we are confident that this committee can assure the very best of diplomatic elegance and grandeur that Cambridge has to offer.

Best of luck on the battlefield of diplomacy,

Ann-Kristin, Elena, and Sarah,

Your Chairs for CUIMUN XXIV 2018

I. WELCOME FROM THE DIRECTORS

4

Ann-Kristin graduated with a double degree in Public Policy and Human

Development form the United Nations University (UNU-MERIT) and University Maastricht. A very active participant in Model United Nations, she founded a MUN conference in high school and became trainer of the UN’s MUN rules of procedure (UN4MUN). As chair and trainer she contributed to MUNs in places like New York, Seoul, Abu Dhabi, Oxford and London. She chaired numerous times – some of this in a crisis setting – and can’t wait return to MUNing for a final conference.

Elena Vollmer is a fourth-year double bachelor student at the Erasmus

University Rotterdam majoring in Economics and Mathematics. Since high school she is passionate about Model United Nations, participating in several international MUNs as a delegate including Oxford and Harvard, where she won awards in historical simulations with crisis elements. The Paris Peace Conference will be her first time chairing at an international conference.

Sara Fay is a third-year International Relations and Modern History

student at the University of St Andrews. Born and raised in San Francisco she received an international school experience beginning with French immersion from the age of five and culminating in the IB program. Having been active in MUN since her first year of High School, she has participated in conferences all over the world. This year she is on Secretariat for SaintMUN. She has extensive Crisis experience, both as a delegate and chairing and has also been known to participate in Security Council committees. Sara is very involved at St Andrews in activities ranging from the investment society to university photography to hosting an on-campus history radio show.

II. INTRODUCTION TO THE CHAIRS

5

The Paris Peace Conference was the one of the defining diplomatic conferences of the twentieth century –

which redrew the political map of Europe and the Middle East, laid the foundation for peace in Europe during the interwar era of 1919-39, and whose achievements and shortcomings can still be felt in the national borders, international system, and regional conflicts down to the present day.

Opening on 18th January 1919, the Conference comprised the meeting of the victorious Allied Powers in the Palace of Versailles at the end of the Great War of 1914-18, to set the peace terms for the defeated Central Powers.

The conference hosted more than 27 nations, including the ‘Big Four’ of Britain, France, Italy, and the United States, along with smaller nations and representatives each lobbying for recognition of their respective interests.

The conference was conducted by assigning delegates to 52 commissions to prepare reports and recommendations on topics ranging from prisoners of war to undersea cables, to international aviation, to responsibility for the war.

Five major peace treaties were prepared over the course of a year and a half, for each of Germany, Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire. These treaties were prepared unilaterally, as the affected powers were not present at the Conference.

Procedure and resolutions

To simulate the Conference at CUIMUN, we will open with a general plenary session of all delegates

represented, which shall be run according to the usual parliamentary procedures of moderated and unmoderated caucuses familiar from Model United Nations. This plenary session will have the power to draft and approve any number of treaties which affect its represented nations and the Central Powers.

In addition, the Conference shall have the power to appoint ad-hoc commissions of approximately 6-12 delegates to prepare reports on more specific issues, which shall convene in a separate room to the main session. This will allow the committee to discuss multiple issues simultaneously and to divide its work among affected delegates, before presenting its work to the plenary session for consideration or approval. Each commission may operate according to usual parliamentary procedures in moderated or unmoderated form, but shall be directed by a Chair. The appointment of a commission shall be proposed by a majority of the plenary session, and formed at the discretion of the Chairs of the plenary.

Procedural matters shall require a simple majority vote. Substantive matters shall also require a simple majority, unless otherwise indicated by the directors.

III. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE

6

Role within the Crisis

Our simulation of the Paris Peace Conference at CUIMUN will not happen within a time-frozen vacuum,

but will be fully integrated into the wider 1919 Historical Crisis simulation at CUIMUN. This means:

1. Events in the wider world outside the Conference may change as the Conference and the Crisis progress, which the members of the Conference may have to react to. We will be maintaining news updates from the Crisis, which it shall be the responsibility of the delegates to engage with where appropriate. These events will not be historically predetermined, but will be driven by the decisions of the delegates of the Crisis committees. The Chair may interrupt a session to bring particularly important items to attention.

2. Representatives to Conference may receive instructions from their respective Governments if their diplomatic policy on a given issue has changed.

3. Each session of the Conference (plenary or commission) shall have the right to invite an outside observer or representative, or to delegate an observer or representative to a particular Government if it sees fit.

Delegates may familiarise with wider Crisis by looking at the Crisis Study Guide, which will be distributed to delegates. However, the principal responsibility of the Conference shall be the issues laid out in this Study Guide.

7

“MANY ingenious lovely things are gone

That seemed sheer miracle to the multitude,

Protected from the circle of the moon

That pitches common things about. There stood

Amid the ornamental bronze and stone

An ancient image made of olive wood --

And gone are Phidias’ famous ivories

And all the golden grasshoppers and bees.”

– W.B. Yeats, ‘Nineteen Hundred and Nineteen’

The Great War

The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 set in motion the most

devastating conflict in Europe up until that point. What began as a war that was expected to be over by Christmas came to last four years until a negotiated armistice in November 1918, leaving some 9 million combatants and 7 million civilians dead and untold destruction across the continent. The Triple Entente of the French Republic, the Russian Empire, and the United Kingdom changed in composition with the exit of the Russian Empire (following the overthrow and execution of the Tsar and his family by the Soviets during the Russian Revolution of 1917-1918) and the addition of the Kingdom of Italy, the United States of America, and the Empire of Japan among more than a dozen Associated Allies and co-belligerents. Opposing them, the Triple Alliance of the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Italy (which stayed neutral before joining the Entente) expanded to include the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, forming the Central Powers.

By 1918, the balance of resources was in the Allies’ favour. In 1913 US dollars, the had Allies spent $58 billion on the war (including $21 billion by the United Kingdom and $17 billion by the United States) and the Central Powers only $25 billion (including $20 billion by Germany). With much of the conflict up to that point in stalemate, the Allies managed to secure a breakthrough during the Hundred Days Offensive in the summer of 1918. The disillusioned Central Powers were struck by domestic unrest and internal mutiny, and in the autumn of 1918 the German Empire moved toward an armistice and surrender. Prince Maximilian of Baden took charge of a new government as Chancellor of Germany to negotiate with the Allies; soon after, the 1918 November Revolution in Germany led to the abdication and exile of Kaiser Wilhelm and the formation of the Weimar Republic, while the advance of Italy into the Austro-Hungarian Empire led to the overthrow of the Habsburg Monarchy and the rapid disintegration of the empire. The capitulations came quickly: Bulgaria signed the Armistice of Salonica on 29 September, the Ottoman Empire signed the Armistice of Mudros on 30

IV. INTRODUCTION TO THE TOPIC

8

October, Austria and Hungary signed separate armistices on 3 November, and finally, Germany signed its armistice in a railroad carriage at Compiègne on 11 November, taking effect later that day. The Allied forces quickly occupied the Rhineland, but nonetheless did not cross the Western Front into Germany and allowed the German armies to withdraw. What to do with the aftermath of the Great War was left to a peace conference of the Allied Powers that was to convene in Versailles near Paris, on 18 January 1919.

The Great War left perhaps the greatest challenge to rebuild the international order since the time of Napoleon. The Allied Powers which convened at Versailles in January 1919 had to decide how to apportion responsibility for the war and to punish the Central Powers; how to divide up territories which had passed between nations in the last century or which were clamouring for their independence amidst the breakup of the great empires of Central Europe; how to rebuild the world economic system to ensure the recovered prosperity of Europe; and above all, how to regulate the new military technologies which had emerged from the conflict and to ensure a new international system to make future conflicts unlikely and make good on the Great War’s claim to be a “war to end all wars”. The terms of the peace and the future international system were to be driven by the competing claims of the Allied Powers present, many with widely competing objectives – some driven by a sense of justice or political grievance, some by pragmatism and self-interest, and some by higher yet untested idealism.

This kind of deadlier warfare which had led to so many more deaths than any other war also lead to intense feelings of anger and despair in the survivors. Before the war had really begun it had been viewed by the current literary generation as a noble pursuit, a thing of beauty that can only be achieved by the purity of the purpose of the fight. No nobler pursuit could be found than that one dying for one’s country. The romantic writers of the early twentieth century were eager for a fight. This idealism was quickly shattered and gave way to an understanding of the grim reality of warfare. This bitterness and disillusion can already be seen in the works of the poets Siegfried Sassoon and W.B. Yeats; it may also be seen as yet more privately in the Americans Ernest Hemingway and T.S. Eliot, the German Erich Maria Remarque, the Irishman James Joyce, and the Russian Boris Pasternak, though how much further it may go remains to be seen.

In popular sentiment, however, this anger is almost wholly directed at the only nation that still titters in existence: Germany. The anger, the bitterness, the feeling of having been robbed of not just time or lives but of innocence has fed a brutal desire within the Entente powers to punish the Germans and to ensure to their constituents that this kind of international bloodshed can never again take place. This guilt, this finding who to blame, may play a large part in determining how each power approaches the war-ending peace. Leaders’ idealism for a better world mixed with a vengeful streak and a desire to point fingers are the mindsets which open the Paris Peace Conference with, even to the point that neither Germany nor the other Central Powers have even been invited.

9

Timeline of the War1

1914

28 June Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated in Sarajevo.

5 July Kaiser William II promises German support for Austria against Serbia.

28 July Austria declares war on Serbia.

1 August Germany declares war on Russia.

3 August Germany declares war on France and invades Belgium; implements the Schlieffen Plan.

4 August Britain declares war on Germany.

1915

25 April Allied troops land in Gallipoli.

19 December Allied evacuation of Gallipoli begins.

1916

21 February Start of the Battle of Verdun.

1 July Start of the Battle of the Somme; large-scale use of tanks at the Somme by September.

7 December Lloyd George becomes British Prime Minister.

1917

1 February Germany begins its unrestricted submarine warfare campaign.

6 April United States declares war on Germany.

16 April France launches an unsuccessful offensive on the Western Front.

5 December Armistice between Germany and Russia signed.

1918

3 March The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is signed between Russia and Germany.

4 October Germany ask the Allies for an armistice.

29 October Germany’s navy mutinies.

30 October Turkey makes peace.

3 November Austria makes peace.

9 November Kaiser William II abdicates.

11 November Germany signs an armistice with the Allies – the official date of the end of the war.

1919

18 January Peace conference met at Paris.

10

Economic and Social Issues

As of 1919, the Great War has placed severe pressures on the European economy. Not only have

governments racked up impossibly high debts for funding the war that need to be repaid, but they also need to pay for the rebuilding of the many areas that have been left in ruins. For governments, the repayment of these debts must be achieved whether through taxation, the issuing of bonds, inflation, or borrowing. The destruction of landed and capital property, and the necessary reorientation of industrial production to a military footing during the war years, has also meant that production of consumer goods in different economic sectors and geographical areas have been side-lined. The breakdown of the international gold-standard system of monetary exchange, the depletion of government and consumer savings, and the economic reality of ‘too much money chasing too few goods’ in affected economies means the danger of inflation running rampant and currencies being irreversibly devalued, posing severe challenges for governments and their citizens alike. As a whole, territorial, economic, and industrial change all harbinger potentially vast repercussions for countries that have maintained a largely stable economic system for decades if not longer.

In domestic terms, the economic costs of the Great War can already be said to have brought about political change in many states. The most notable shift has been the emergence of socialism or communism in the former Russian Empire. Though a former ally to the Allied powers, the Russian war effort had, by 1917, become deeply unpopular domestically, with crippling food shortages leading to the looting of farms and urban riots. A harsh winter meant starvation and the empty coffers of the Russian government meant that no end was in sight.2 The offer of the Bolsheviks to have the government intervene and save the people was one that would prove popular and lead to the violent revolutions that saw the Russian Tsar ousted from power. The success of the revolution and the spectre of communism is one that now simmers under the surface in many European countries, as they too are forced to deal with the repercussions of a war that was only meant to have lasted until Christmas of 1914.

In international trade, before the start of the Great War, trade between states had been at a level unparalleled since the end of the Napoleonic Wars a century earlier.3 The bitterness and nationalist hostility which the war has engendered pose the risk that, even after the conclusion of the conflict, states would heighten tariffs, capital controls, and other intense protectionist policies. While driven perhaps by domestic necessity, the implications of these policies threaten to undermine the formerly integrated economy of Europe as a whole.

The war itself poses challenges but also new opportunities. Formerly dominant industries such as textiles and shipbuilding stand to be pushed to one side in the postwar order, though recovery may be driven by the introduction of newer industries. There will be constant demand for new tools and materials that could be used for rebuilding. Governments need to find ways to jumpstart their economies. For the parties at the Paris Peace Conference, facing these challenges requires consideration of one’s own domestic interest, as well as the future of the international economic system as a whole.

The Great War has had wider social repercussions beyond the economic. The domestic effects of war in terms of destruction of homes and property and the loss of family members across the entire population have been compounded by the risks of deadly postwar illness such as the ongoing Spanish Influenza epidemic of 1918. The Spanish Influenza is a respiratory virus that is both highly contagious and deadly. Quarantines have been imposed and masks encouraged, but nothing has yet seemed to contain it. The illness risks the deaths of millions on top of the estimated 13 million civilian casualties during the war as well as 37 million soldiers presumed dead.4

11

Military Issues

The Great War has seen three massive paradigm shifts in the style and technology of fighting: the move

from human or animal power to machine power, the introduction of the aircraft such as balloons, zeppelins and airplanes (moving fighting from two-dimensional to three-dimensional), and the creation of a depth to the fighting.5 The Industrial Revolution of the last century has allowed for the creation of machines such as the steam engine, railroads, the machine gun – all of which would allow humans to slowly transition their style of fighting away from cavalry or more up-close infantry fighting. War is no longer a competition of pure strength of numbers, with all sides in future conflicts having potential access to machines. Instead, war has become much more of a battle of wills and a battle of sciences, in which each side of a conflict must work either to outlast the other or to devise innovative methods to see that they do not need to. The use of the aircraft in the last war leant itself to more bombings, to a more intense method of naval engagement, and, combined with the submarine, a war on multiple levels. Where engagements could previously be carried out in solely infantry or naval terms, it now seems necessary to have command of ground, sea, and air forces alike. This increased depth of conflict is new to the world of warfare, and made the war more psychologically traumatic than others that had come before it. It is necessary to regulate the new technologies which have emerged, and also to ensure the

12

dismantling and demobilisation of the war machine – to varying degrees – on either side of the conflict as much as can be practised.

The Great War has left substantial military vehicles and equipment amassed from the defeated Central Powers, which the conference must decide how best to deal with. The German Imperial Navy’s High Seas Fleet, comprising some 72 vessels – including 16 capital ships, 8 cruisers, and 50 destroyers, manned by a skeleton crew under the command of German Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter – is currently interred at Scapa Flow in Scotland, under the watch of the UK Royal Navy’s 1st Battle Squadron and British Vice-Admiral Sydney Fremantle, until the parties of the peace conference decides how to divide, dismantle, or dispose of them. The German fleet of some 24 Zeppelin dirigible airships – those surviving from the total of 84 built during the war – are another important point: their infamous air-raids over the United Kingdom dropped some 5,806 bombs on that country alone and led to a loss of a full sixth of Britain’s normal output of munitions.

Beyond these new technologies, the war has left masses of troops (numbering in the millions) from both sides in the trenches and elsewhere in occupied regions, posing a significant challenge for demobilisation and reintegration into civilian society.

Territorial Issues

The question about peace of justice and peace of violence divides the Allied powers. On the one hand, any

peace settlement should do justice to local populations despite the crimes of their former imperial government; on the other, there is the need to satisfy the well-founded demands of Germany’s injured neighbours. The Prime Minister of France, Georges Clemenceau, wants Germany to suffer after it caused France enormous damage during the war. Furthermore, he also tries to prevent Germany from recovering its strength in fear of further threats or attacks on France. The President of the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, takes a more liberal stance towards Germany. The United States have only been involved in the war since 1917, and the damage in terms of economic cost and human life have been lower for America than for France or Great Britain. Great Britain falls somewhere between these two positions. While the breadth of public opinion in Great Britain demands a harsh peace treaty that punishes Germany severely, the British Prime Minister David Lloyd-George prefers Germany to be fairly punished since he believes that a harsh treaty would encourage Germany to seek revenge later.

The different motives and aims of France, Great Britain, and the United States – as just the three most prominent leaders of the Peace Conference, to say nothing of the other two dozen or so nations represented – make the question of territorial adjustment quite complex. To start the reorganisation of Europe, the participants of the Paris Peace Conference first should determine the frontiers of Germany to the north, east, and west. After this, delegates may turn to the borders of Austria-Hungary and consider the states which have broken away within the Balkans. Finally, the parties of the Conference should tackle the fate of Germany’s colonies and the question of the postwar settlement in the Ottoman Empire.

THE WESTERN FRONTIER

To the north, Germany’s border with Denmark in Schleswig appears to be one of the smaller problems to

tackle. This frontier was a dispute of many years but was seemingly settled in the Schleswig War of 1864 between Germany and Denmark, in which the German Empire annexed the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein

13

to Prussia. However, the treaty of 1866 also included a clause stating that ‘inhabitants of North Schleswig shall be again united with Denmark if they should express such desire by a vote freely given’, which raises the potential question of self-determination for the Conference.

Moving west along the former German border, the Peace Conference shall have to decide on the counties (Landkreise) of Eupen and Malmedy. In 1815, Prussia annexed this part of Belgium, and most recently it was used by Germany during the Great War to prepare the attack on Belgium’s neutrality, by building strategic railways through a sparsely inhabited region and by constructing a military base at Elsenborn, near the Belgian border. The majority of inhabitants continue to speak French, and the whole region is still closely connected with Belgium.

The border with Luxemburg is an economic as much as political issue. Luxembourg, ruled by a German dynasty for many years, is of great strategic importance within Europe, as it is situated between Germany and France. The German Empire used Luxembourg to build railways and profited of the German custom union. However, at the outbreak of the war Germany violated its neutrality and seized the railways in order to attack Belgium and France, even though the treaty explicitly stated that the railways could not been used for military purposes. During the war Luxembourg was swallowed up in Germany and cut off from the outside world.

Alsace-Lorraine is one of the most complicated territories to discuss at the Paris Peace Conference. The region, annexed from France by Prussia in 1871, has been an unsettled conflict for the past fifty years and became a burning issue as soon as the war broke out. Wilson stated in his Fourteen Points speech on 8 January 1918 that all French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored. Nonetheless, it is strongly in Germany’s interests to retain Alsace-Lorraine as an important strategic position and rich of iron ore supply, and the fate of the territory may be heavily contested in any postwar settlement.

14

Another important region that should be considered during the Paris Peace conference is the so-called Left Bank. The Left Bank of the Rhine commonly refers to the territory of the German Empire lying west of the river between Alsace-Lorraine and the Dutch frontier: in all, about 10,000 square miles with 5.5 million inhabitants. Prussia acquired most of the territory from France in 1815. The region is not only of industrial importance but also essential for military purposes, as it is rich in munition factories and strategic railways planned to support the German military to move westwards. Culturally, the inhabitants speak German and government and economic life are closely bound to Germany.

One corner of the territory of the Left Bank is a problem in itself: the Saar Valley, in the south-western part of Rhenish Prussia along the northern edge of Lorraine. The territory not only has rich opportunities in farmland and forestry but has also become a necessary military basis, through its proximity to Lorraine, its industrialisation, and the coal deposits in the region. Taken together, the Saar Valley alone is responsible for 8% of the coal output of Germany.

THE EASTERN FRONTIER AND BEYOND

The aftermath of the Great War raises not only the question of territorial adjustments and external boundary

realignments between great powers bordering Germany, but also the internal breakup of great powers and the independence of new states. One such case which has troubled empires for centuries is the so-called Polish Question. November 1918 saw the re-emergence of an independent Poland from both Russian and German control as the Second Polish Republic, with Italy being the first state to recognise the newly independent state. Already before the Peace Conference, President Wilson has declared on behalf of the United States that “an independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea.”6 On 3 June 1918, the leaders of Great Britain, France and Italy similarly affirmed that “the creation of a united and independent Polish state

15

with free access to the sea constitutes one of the conditions of a solid and just peace and of the rule of right in Europe.”7

The Polish Question nonetheless poses difficulties to the parties of the Peace Conference. Externally, the eastern frontiers of Poland cannot be settled without the reference to the Russian Soviet Government, while the western borders could not be fixed without a significant realignment of German territory. Symbolically, the fate of Poland holds significant meaning in Germany, as with it falls the position of Prussia as a great power and therefore that of an Empire.8 It is however difficult to know where to draw the map given the widespread overlapping of ethnic Poles and ethnic Germans within the historic boundaries of Poland and of Prussia. In East Prussia, there is a large Polish-speaking majority which has nonetheless never been under a Polish government; Upper Silesia has been separated from Poland for six hundred years; while the provinces of Posen and West Prussia have been a part of Prussia since the partition of Poland in the 18th century. Northern cities such Danzig and its surrounding hinterlands are dominated by ethnic Germans. The desire of such provinces to separate from Germany in favour of union with Poland thus varies enormously, and as such require a careful handling in any settlement.

Nonetheless, although all the major parties agreed before the Conference upon the idea of an independent Polish state, every state follows his own ideas and aims at the conference. The impression is that France displays a tendency to be extremely favourable to Poland, as a potential an ally against Germany and Russia beyond it, whereas, Great Britain is less favourably towards Poland, possibly because Lloyd George sees Poland more as a liability that must be secured between Germany and Russia, rather than an asset. The Italians and Japanese seem generally accept the Polish claims, while the Americans take a more pragmatic approach.

With the surrender of Germany the Allied Forces have to decide the fate of its colonies in Africa and the Pacific Ocean, which remain very much open questions.

16

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

The end of the war also saw the rapid collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire in autumn 1918, pulled apart ethnic nationalist and separatist powers setting up their own governments in the final weeks of the war. The Tyrol and Trieste were occupied by Italians; Prague was taken over by the new Czecho-Slovak Government, in Croatia, the Jugo-Slovak Government seized the reins of power; in Galicia the Poles negotiated with the new national government in Warsaw; and in Transylvania the Rumanians were greeted as liberators. Austria-Hungary as a political entity has crumbled and the members at the Peace Conference have been placed in the position to execute the Hapsburg estate. The States involved in the new division are Czecho-Slovakia, Poland, Rumania, Jugo-Slavia, as well as Austria and Hungary. The Conference in Paris, once committed in their opposition to a union of Germany and Austria, now must decide about the remnants of Austria-Hungary and how the frontiers should be drawn.

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Had the secret Treaty of London of April 1915, been made public, the world would have discovered sooner

that the objects of the war had completely changed. The great principle of the Allied forces was to augment and solidify the power opposed to Germany and her allies, and this could be done only by offering material advantages. Yet, Italy, Greece and Russia had to be paid for their services. It was clear for the Allied Forces that Germany would lose its colonies and the Ottoman Empire its subject territories; however, it remains to be discussed who should rule those from now on. Allied Forces themselves as well as the Associated Forces are interested in expanding their own territory. The Balkan countries offer ideal transit lands for a part of the Oriental trade, but also reveal importance due to their own economic resources and purchasing power of their people. Two broad groups of Slavic people developed, the Jugo-Slavs (‘southern Slavs’) and the Bulgarians. Whereas Bulgarians form a unit, the Jugo-Slavs are separated and their political stability means weakness. Thus, the war has completely changed the orientation of the Serbian state, a part of Jugo-Slavia, and hence the division of the Balkan states is more complicated as originally anticipated.

Another territory that should be considered as part of the Ottoman Empire is Palestine, occupied by British troops with Arab support in 1917. In the same year, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, promising a Jewish National Home in Palestine with assurances that the rights of the current non-Jewish inhabitants would not be violated. However, this Declaration conflicted with the Hussein-McMahon correspondence of 1916, which promised Arab independence in Arab lands. In addition, the secret Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 has already provided a division of the Ottoman Empire territories, meaning that competing plans and promises among the Allies must be balanced against each other by the parties at the conference.

17

V. ISSUES AT STAKE

Concepts for the Future

WOODROW WILSON’S FOURTEEN POINTS

On 8 January 1918, United States President Woodrow Wilson delivered a 14-point declaration to Congress

that proposed his vision on the war aims and peace terms of the U.S.A. and the Allies. The latter had rejected his earlier attempts to issue a joint declaration, so this address was a personal effort to position himself as mediator. While his Fourteen-Points were overall well-received, amongst others by the Germans, the Allied powers remained sceptical and criticised the overly idealistic tenor of the speech. The declaration was part of a series of statements including the “Four Principles” (11 February 1918), the “Four Ends” (4 July 1918) and the “Five Particulars” (27 September 1918), which provided further details to parts of the Fourteen-Points and followed a similarly idealistic approach.9 The Fourteen Points are the most important reference because they frame the American position at the peace negotiations in Paris. The speech reiterated Wilson’s earlier proposal for a “peace without victory”: that is, for a “peace between equals” to prevent enforcing peace upon the defeated states and inflicting humiliation that could lead to future retaliation (speech on 22 January 1917).10 Wilson’s Fourteen-Points can be summarized as:11

1. Open covenants of peace and the renunciation of secret diplomacy, 2. Freedom of navigation on the high seas in wartime as well as peace, 3. The maximum possible freedom of trade, 4. A guaranteed reduction of armaments, 5. An impartial colonial settlement accommodating not only the colonialist powers but also the peoples

of the colonies, 6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and respect for Russia’s right of self-determination, 7. The complete restoration of Belgium, 8. A complete German withdrawal from France and satisfaction for France about Alsace-Lorraine, 9. A readjustment of Italy’s frontiers on an ethnic basis, 10. An open prospect of autonomy for the peoples of Austria-Hungary, 11. The restoration of Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro, with free access to the sea for Serbia and

international guarantees of the Balkan states’ independence and integrity, 12. The prospect of autonomy for non-Turkish peoples of the Ottoman Empire and the unrestricted

opening of the Straits, but secure sovereignty for the Turks in their own areas, 13. An independent Poland with access to the sea and under international guarantee, and 14. “A general association of nations,” to guarantee the independence and integrity of all states, great and

small.

While the Great War was ongoing, these points appealed to the Germans, contributed to eroding their will to fight, and made the United States the initial partner to which they turned at the beginning of October to request an armistice and peace negotiations. The armistice of 11 November 1918 referred to the Fourteen-

18

Points and Wilson’s other declarations, only limited by reservations regarding the freedom of the seas (British reservation) and reparations for damages to civilian property (British and French reservation).12

PLANS FOR FUTURE INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION

In light of the destruction and great losses caused by the recent war, public opinion demands actions to be

taken to prevent similar suffering in the future. International organisations are discussed as an important factor to achieve this vision. A major reason is that the scale of destructions caused by modern warfare not only impacts the immediate enemy, but upon humanity as a whole.13 Currently sovereign states are unrestrained in their international actions, including the decision to wage war, increasing the public desire for an international politics to aim at preventing aggressive wars by reforming present diplomatic methods. Ideas of how to conduct international relations beyond purely advancing the national interests of sovereign states have been proposed by philosophers, moralists and politicians. Over the course of the war, movements in the United States, Great Britain, France and some other neutral countries discussed possible reforms of diplomacy and international relations.

In the years before the Great War, the Hague conferences proposed a new way of working in international relations. It began as a series of two international conferences in 1899 and 1907 that were meant to be followed by a third conference in 1915, which was prevented due to the outbreak of war. At these conferences a number of treaties were signed, and states discovered a series of international meetings as an efficient way to advance international relations in areas like creating rules for warfare or in discussing limits on armaments. First steps to introduce international arbitration were also taken at The Hague amongst others with the creation of a Permanent Court of Arbitration.14

To secure peace for the future and to improve international diplomacy, Wilson’s Fourteen Points have called for “a general association of nations… affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small States alike”.15 This association echoes the calls for a league of nations that have been voiced by intellectuals and politicians during the war. A more constant series of meetings as envisioned in case of an international organisation like a league of nations would require standing bodies such as a secretariat and a more structured approach to meetings for example in form of a recurring general assembly. Other bodies can be created as needed to organize specific practical areas of international relations or to govern more sensitive areas of diplomatic relations between member states. Determining membership and voting rights are essential features to shape the working of a future international organisation.

The core issues proposed to create a lasting peace include arbitration, economic and social cooperation, the reduction of armaments, open diplomacy and collective security. Lawyers have been advocating for an international court and an increased use of arbitration to settle international disputes: proposals which would offer states feasible alternates to seeking military force as a means of dispute settlement. Likewise, economic and social cooperation can contribute to peace by providing positive examples of international cooperation. These include primarily areas of mutual interest like postal services where the Universal Postal Union provides added value compared to the previous national systems. Additionally, during the war, joint Allied commissions successfully coordinated areas like trade and shipping. These practical examples do not extend to the political realm but illustrate the advantages of international cooperation. Arms races and secret diplomacy played a major role in escalating the recent war, as illustrated by the naval arms race between the United Kingdom and Germany. The compelling argument is that disarmament would limit the weapons available to each party and would reduce the threat posed by modern warfare. The fewer weapons and military capacity is maintained, the smaller the chances of another Great War become. A reduction of arms is most successful if it occurs mutually by as many parties involved as possible. At the same time most states will not be

19

willing to give up much of their national defence capacity given the uncertain times. An international organisation is seen as one way to solve this challenge.

Another important factor for peace is open diplomacy. Secret treaties spread the destructive force of war to more and more allies involved, without the public being able to consent to their state’s involvement, given the secret clauses that draw new parties into conflicts based on prior hidden diplomatic agreements. This poses an imminent threat to international peace. The alternative is open diplomacy in which treaties are published and internationally registered. Finally, collective security is a central concept that emerged from the experiences of the war. It implies that national states join an alliance like a league of nations to mutually guarantee their security. An attack on one member is seen as an attack on all members of the alliance, thus deterring potential attacks from the onset. This system can be efficient but requites a broad commitment of as many (powerful) states as possible, in order to increase the deterring effect of economic sanctions or further measures of collective defence. All in all, these ambitious building blocks for peace require close international cooperation. Therefore, establishing a more permanent international organisation is a key aim at the peace conference.

MINORITIES AND THE QUESTION OF RACIAL EQUALITY

The borders of states need to be redrawn after the war and large groups of people have been displaced across

countries and continents. It can be expected that nation states will not be inhabited by one nation alone but that minorities in terms of race, religion and language will need to be accommodated.a Especially in newly

a The concept of national minorities is politically highly sensitive and not supported by most major states of present times.

20

created democratic states where majority-voting systems are used to determine politics, the interests of minorities are in danger to be overheard if their rights are not recognized.

Religious minority rights have been recognized in major treaties like the Treaty of Westphalia (1648) that concluded the last major religious war in Europe, the Thirty Years War. From then on, it has been common that peace treaties included clauses that permitted people living in a region that had switched from being governed by one power to being ruled by another to maintain their religion.16 This mind-set follows the pattern to “balance the victory of one party with concessions to the defeated party and these concessions are expressed in terms of minority rights.”17 After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the concept of nationality and nation-states grew in importance, but what started as striving for national minority rights evolved into the aim of nations to acquire statehood.18

In addition to the idea to grant freedom of religion, further legal proposals are being discussed to offer equal rights for minorities. These discussions revolve around minority rights like the acquisition of citizenship as well as other basic rights. States also consider whether to demand integration efforts from minority groups to ensure a reciprocal process.

Wilson’s Fourteen Points have already shaped negotiations on how to treat minorities, especially with the ground-breaking concept of “self-determination” – even if its detailed meaning remains open to further definition.19 Point ten states that “the peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development”.20 In Wilson’s original thought of “self-determination”, the rights of minorities probably did not play a major role and it rather referred to the self-determination of existing states (or those that had already been created in the past).21 As mentioned earlier, Austria-Hungary fell apart in the new divisions Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, as well as Austria and Hungary. Drawing the borders of new states always touches on the fate of the people living in these areas. Even the smaller territories of the former Austria-Hungary are inhabited by different ethnic groups like the three different groups living together in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Ensuring minority rights can contribute to maintaining peace, but also places external demands on newly created governments.

Moreover, the future of colonies (especially the German ones) needs to be addressed. Wilson’s fifth point calls for a settlement of this question that considers not only the position of the colonial powers but also that of the people living in the respective colony. This progressive approach provides inhabitants of colonies with a chance to participate in determining their future – albeit limited by the continued exercise of influence by the colonial powers. These powers aim at increasing their territorial sphere of influence with minority rights largely as a secondary issue.

Accommodating the rights of minorities can be an important factor to prevent future conflict but requires balanced solutions to reflect the often-contradictory interests of the parties involved. The example of minorities in the Ottoman Empire is a case in point. Wilson proposes in his Fourteen-Points that the Turks under the Ottoman Empire “should be assured a secure sovereignty”, while at the same time non-Turks “should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development”.22

Another example is the Republic of Poland, which lays claim to former territory that has been divided across three states. Its potential territory is not only inhabited by Poles but also in part by other peoples: for example, by Germans who live in cities such as Danzig, the most likely port for an independent Poland. Additionally, states like Austria, Belgium, Greece, Hungary and Italy as well as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania include different groups in terms of race, religion and language.23 To rise to the challenge to realize both ambitions, an international organisation like a League of Nations could establish such rights and support their implementation.

21

Another central issue is the question of racial equality in the post-war context. Once the United States had entered the war, African-Americans for example demanded that Wilson’s call for democracy and citizenship for all people be also implemented at home. Some of them actively participated as soldiers while others decided not to fight in the US Army. Joining the army granted African-Americans access to basic health care and education; however, racial segregation and discrimination continued. At the end of the war, they hoped to receive greater political and social rights after having fought patriotically for the United States. This case stands as an example for minority experiences and positions in most major powers of the present time. The British army included for example soldiers from South African and the Caribbean, as well as from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India. Vietnamese, Moroccans, Algerians and Senegalese fought for the French army, while the German army included East Africans.24 These groups, too, demand recognition for their contributions to the war and their hope for an improvement of their political, social and economic rights.

The question of minority rights regarding non-white people has most strikingly been raised by Japan, one of the five great powers at the Paris Peace Conference.25 Britain and the United States had been sceptical regarding its expansionist policies during the war, but since the assumption of office by Prime Minister Hara in September 1918, Japan has aimed at a more pro-Western course. Calling for racial equality is an important part of Japan’s policy at Paris, in part also to appease domestic criticism of the government’s support for institutionalised international relations in the framework of the peace negotiations. Many European colonial powers object to calls for racial equality as to do so would render their colonies much more difficult to rule if their non-white inhabitants would all be considered equal. Thus, while minority rights have a tradition of being included in peace treaties, further progress in the area of racial equality remains for now not much more than an ambitious goal for the peace negotiations.

The American Question

At first the United States remained neutral as declared by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. Despite this,

national public opinion sided with the Allied Powers based on common historic relations and cultural similarities. While the US remained fairly neutral politically, it heavily supported Great Britain and France in economic terms. This included international trade in form of weapons and food as well as war bonds worth about $1.5 billion in 1915 and 1916. In February 1915, German submarine warfare caused American public opinion to morn the loss of about 100 Americans in the sinking of the luxury liner Lusitania. Submarine sinking increased, and in January 1917 the US intercepted and decoded the secret Zimmermann Telegram, disclosing that Germany planned to draw Mexico into the war on the side of the Central Powers. These events lead Wilson to ask Congress on 6 April 1917 to declare war on Germany. He redefined the war effort as “the world must be made safe for democracy” and committed to advance not just democracy but also self-determination.26

At the war’s conclusion, the main challenge for Wilson and for the American Commission to Negotiate Peace is to act as broker for peace between the Allied and Associated Powers, while also accommodating critical voices at home in order to pave the way for ratification of the peace treaty. Wilson’s agenda is ambitious and seen as over-idealistic by some factions at home. In the 1918 mid-term election shortly before the peace conference in Paris, the Republicans have won the majority in Congress and the Senate. Thus, ratification of any peace treaty and the decision to join a newly created international organisation like a League of Nations depends on their vote.

22

The Russian Fear

Economic and military losses during the war ended the rule of the tsar in Russia and cumulated in the

Russian Revolution of 1917. In two revolutions in March and October a new government of Bolshevik and Left Socialist Revolutionaries – including Vladimir Ilyich Lenin – ousted Nicholas II, a Romanov, and thereby ended imperial rule. The Allies did not recognize the Soviet Government so it entered into separate peace negotiations with the Central Powers, which led to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918.27 At home the Bolsheviks faced growing scepticism and hostilities, which were answered by the “Red Terror”, resulting in mass executions. A civil war ensued between the communist “Red” Army and several “White” armies, which were supported by the Allied Powers. The latter aimed to combat a threat to democracy and world peace by supporting internal forces to overthrow the communist regime. Great Britain played a major role in providing money and war material, while the U.S.A. and France also placed troops on Russian territory – at least until the Armistice of April 1918.

The revolutionary attempts spread to Germany at the end of October when sailors in Kiel, a northern city, refused to enter into a final battle, followed by further instances in other major industrial centres. The Hohenzollern monarchy ended and gave rise to a provisional government that established a republic in November 1918. Other states around Europe and beyond feared that labour unrest and “Bolshevik” ideas would also upset civil order in their countries 28.

At the beginning of 1919, the Allied Powers are sceptical if peace can be made with Russia under the Bolsheviks and they are concerned that Russia would only use the peace process to gain time for future expansionist attempts.29 Russia’s strength has faded but the Allies fear “the ideological challenge of communism, preaching of class war, world revolution, anti-colonialism and its [Russia’s] own version of self-determination”.30 Nonetheless, dealing with Russia is essential for the peace negotiations not least to determine territorial decisions; for example, regarding the Eastern borders of Poland.

23

VI. LIST OF DELEGATES

Parties to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference

The Paris Peace Conference will consist of some 27 nations and other representatives.

Africa and Asia:

Empire of Japan

Kingdom of Dai Nam (Vietnam)

Kingdom of Hejaz

Kingdom of Siam

Republic of China

Republic of Liberia

Europe and North America:

Czechoslovakia

Dominion of Canada

French Republic

Kingdom of Belgium

Kingdom of Greece

Kingdom of Italy

Kingdom of Romania

Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes

Kingdom of Montenegro

Most Serene Republic of San Marino

Republic of Lithuania

Republic of Poland

Republic of Portugal

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

United States of America (American Commission to Negotiate Peace)

Latin America:

Republic of Cuba

Republic of Guatemala

Republic of Haiti

Republic of Honduras

Republic of Nicaragua

Republic of Panama

Republic of the United States of Brazil

Unrecognised representatives:

Irish Republic

Zionist Organisation

24

VII. DELEGATE POSITIONS

Africa and Asia

Empire of Japan

At the end of the Great War, the Empire of Japan has risen to the status of a great power and thus participates as such in the Paris Peace Conference. International actions of the Japanese Government during the war have included its military occupation on behalf of the Allies of the German holdings in Asia and the Pacific (including the German colonies in the Pacific and the German Kiautschou Bay concession in Shandong in the Republic of China) in 1914-15, and its issuance of the internationally controversial 1915 Twenty-One Demands to the Republic of China. These past actions show the basis of its current diplomatic policy.

Japan’s goals for the peace conference are shaped by a background of nationalism, security interests, and the desire to expand its economy; it strives to manifest its place among the great powers and to assure its dominant position in East Asia and the Pacific, and to confirm the territorial acquisitions and demands made during the war. Japan is supported in its claims to Shandong by France, Italy and the United Kingdom, but is disputed in this claim by China while other of its activities (such as issuing the so-called Nishihara-loans to China) have alienated Japan from powers like the United States. A major interest in the peace negotiation is the recognition of minority rights through the other powers along with a racial equality statement covering non-white people in the peace treaty. The Empire of Japan is represented by the former Prime Minister Marquis Saionji Kinmochi, and former Foreign Minister Baron Makino Nobuaki, who act on behalf of Prime Minister Hara Takashi and Foreign Minister Uchida Yasuya, appointed to their positions in September 1918.

Kingdom of Dai Nam

As part of Indochina, Dai Nam is under French colonial rule with the Nguyen emperors serve as figureheads for the colonial power. Around 43,000 soldiers and 49,000 workers from Dai Nam voluntarily or involuntarily participated in the Great War in Europe, many of whom enlisted with hopes of gaining French citizenship or otherwise improving their position after the war. In contrast to the segregated colonial regime at home, they experienced the democratic and egalitarian society in France that was shaped by the French revolution. Dai Nam itself is divided between those trying to regain independence like Duy Tân, a boy emperor of the Nguyen Dynasty (r. 1907-1916) who was deposed and exiled by the French after an unsuccessful revolt against their rule. Over time, national and patriotic consciousness grew with Phan Chu Trinh and Phan Boi Chau as influential personalities. The latter founded the Vietnamese Restoration League inspired by the Chinese nationalist leader, Sun Yat-sen as well as by Soviet communism. Chau aims to end French colonial control, reunify Vietnam, abolish the monarchy, and he strives to establish a democratic republican system. Another important person for the quest to national independence is Nguyen Tat Thanh who is still largely unknown at this time and lives in Paris since 1917 where he also connected with Phan Chu Trinh. Nguyen is in

25

Paris during the peace conference and advocates for Vietnamese independence on the basis of US President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, while also favouring Soviet ideas.

Kingdom of Hejaz

The Kingdom of Hejaz is a state on the coast of the Arabian peninsula bordering the Red Sea, established in 1916 when the Hashemite Sharif and Emir of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, declared the Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire. With war preventing the important Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca and the Allied naval blockade preventing essential imports such as Egyptian grain, Hussein sought an alliance with Great Britain, declared himself “King of the Arabs”, and was recognised by the Allied powers as king of Hejaz. With British support he successfully revolted in 1917 with large territorial gains against the Ottomans (the Arab revolt). The challenge was to uphold the unity between the tribal clients, whose loyalty was largely bought with British guns, grain and gold in a form of traditional Arabian “chieftancy”. At the peace conference, the Hashemite King of Hejaz seeks recognition of as much of his claim over the Arab world as he and his family can be granted. Hussein’s main opponent politically, absent from the conference, is the Emir of Nejd and Hasa, Ibn Sa’ud, who relies on Wahhabi Islam as uniting force. Hussein aims at Arab independence and thus the independence of the Kingdom of Hejaz with himself as king. In the Hussein-McMahon exchanges with the British, much of this and more has been promised – albeit in vague terms.

Kingdom of Siam

As an absolute monarchy, the Kingdom of Siam has been ruled by Vajiravudh, King of Siam Rama VI, since 1910. Not a colony itself, the country is nonetheless surrounded by British India and France Indochina as well as restricted by unequal treaties with the great powers. The West serves as focal point for the ruling elite and its bureaucracy. Initially the country remained neutral but the ruling elite maintained sympathy for the British and the Allies, while some also favoured the German-side; King Vajiravudh decided to join the Allied Powers in mid-1917, following the United States’ entry into the war. As one of the smallest states to join the Great War, Siam made the bold decision to send troops to fight in Europe, deploying an aviation and motor corps of about 1000 men on the suggestion of France, thereby successfully reaffirming royal power and Siamese nationalism. Active participation in the war has provided the Kingdom with an advantage to claim equal treatment once the war has come to an end, providing Siam a very strong stand at the peace conference. Its aims are to elevate its international reputation and to end the limitations of imperial rule, and to secure economic gains made through the requisitioning of German companies, property and ships. Economic recovery is important as the economic situation is tense given allegations of economic mismanagement, a lack of capital, and a bad rice harvest (an important export crop). Following the war, Siam renounces it unequal treaty with Germany and seeks to fully regain its sovereignty by also ending the other unequal treaties that are still in force.

26

Republic of China

Though internally divided, China joins the peace conference with a delegation of five prestigious diplomats as a victorious power. The delegation consists of representatives from the two main, competing governments: the northern Beiyang government (in the lead) and Sun Yat-sen’s southern government. Initially China remained neutral in the war, and only the sinking of the Athos I on 17 February 1917 in the course of unrestricted German submarine warfare led China to declare war on Germany in August 1917. China thus joined the war comparably late and only after intense internal debates: the Nationalist Party in the National Assembly opposed the war declaration against Germany and chose Sun Yat-sen in August 1917 as leader of a military government in the southern Canton, thus illustrating the internal challenges by local warlords that the central government is facing.

China has signed unequal treaties with France, Britain, Germany, Japan and Russia, granting those powers control over parts of Chinas trade, industry, resources and infrastructure. In Shandong Province, Germany had built the “Gouvernment Kiautschou”, a model colony that developed into a central trading port but which fell to Japanese invasion (with British support) in 1914, constituting the only act of war on Chinese soil. From this loss results China’s main aim for the peace conference: to end the Japanese occupation and to regain its sovereign rights over Shandong. Chinese entry into the war was motivated by the ambition to regain full territorial sovereignty and become an equal player in the international system. During the war, China sent about 185,000 workers to the United Kingdom, France and Russia to assist the Allies through work in armament factories, but also planned for the men to contribute to China’s industrialisation and internationalisation upon their return. In 1919, revolutionary sentiments inspired by the Russian Revolution are mixing with a growing anti-imperialist nationalism. Chinese diplomatic interests oppose the European-Japanese powers and favours instead Soviet Russia, while parts of the public also appreciate Wilson’s ideas, hoping for a new and more equal international world order.

Republic of Liberia

In 1847, Liberia’s black settler population declared its independence, and the country is one of only two African states that had not been colonised by Europeans at the beginning of the Great War (together with the Empire of Ethiopia). Thus, it is represented at the Paris Peace Conference. Following the granting of permission to the French to operate a wireless station in Liberia, a German submarine blockade drastically reduced trade with France, Britain and the United States. Ties with the United States are very close and all Liberia’s neighbours are dominated by the Allied powers, leading Liberia to follow the United States into the Great War in 1917 and to deploy troops in France. Liberia’s main aims are to maintain its independence and territorial integrity and to strengthen an economy severely weakened by the war, not least as 75% of its foreign trade at the war’s beginning depended on Germany.

27

Europe and North America

Czechoslovakia

Czechoslovakia participates as partner rather than as a defeated nation in the peace negotiations, with considerable privilege as it has not yet been formally recognised as an independent state. Czech exile politicians Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and Edvard Beneš as well as Slovak Milan Štefánik, are the leaders of the Czechoslovak National Council, founded in Paris in 1916 and recognised by the Allied powers over the course of 1918 as representing the Czechs and Slovaks. Their principal contribution to the war was the concentration of troops in Prague to fight against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War and to secure territory, invoking the self-determination for Austro-Hungarian nations clause of Wilson’s Fourteen Points in support of full independence in October 1918.

The provisional government consists of Masaryk as president and Beneš as foreign minister, who have been invited to the Paris Peace Conference with the promise of unification of a Czech and Slovak state. Czechoslovakia aims for international recognition as a national state and for territorial expansion, while striving to secure its territory and to prevent future military attacks and interferences in its internal affairs especially from Hungary. As an industrialised country, Czechoslovakia is economically strong, including iron-steal and coal production, textiles and sugar production. The main issue of contestation between Czechoslovakia and Hungary is if Slovakia and Ruthenia belongs to Czechoslovakia or to Hungary. Additional challenges lie in its nature as a multi-ethnic country that needs to unite not only Czechs and Slovaks, but is also inhabited by German and Hungarian minorities.

Dominion of Canada

The Dominion of Canada attends the Peace Conference as one of the victors. As a self-governing dominion of the British Empire, Canada can decide its own internal policies while largely bound to the United Kingdom regarding its external policies. Thus, Canada entered the war with Britain but could decide on the degree of its involvement, preferring to maintain its own military while sending an expeditionary force to fight in Europe. It participated in the decisive battles of Somme, Vimy and Passchendaele, thereby also incurring the loss of lives.

Imperial sentiments among its population as well as rising nationalism exist alongside each other, though the divisions between British, French, and indigenous Canadians has become only more apparent because of pro-anglophone policies within Canada and the wider social impact of the Great War. Canada aims at greater post-war autonomy as result of its participation in the war at the side of the British, and seeks a more independent policy in its foreign relations. Canada’s participation in the war has been largely financed nationally instead of relying on foreign powers, which results in an economic advantage after the war.

28

French Republic

The French Republic is led by Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, who entered office in November 1917 and for whom security is an overriding issue, having seen two German invasions of France in his lifetime. The Western front of the Great War was situated in France under partial German occupation, while millions of French soldiers and civilians lost their lives or were displaced over the course of the war. As a colonial power, France relied on colonial troops during the war and employed colonial workers in its war economy. To prevent future attacks from its German neighbour, France aims at considerably weakening Germany. Possible measures included distributing former German territories to Poland and Denmark, to assign the Saar and Rhineland regions to France, or to place them under international protection. Restrictions on trade, the economy and areas like patents intended to weaken Germany economically. Additionally, France demands the severe weakening of Germany’s military along with reparations to prevent future German rearmament and to rebuild France.

To Clemenceau, the peace negotiations should follow the 1814-1815 approach and be guided by the old system of alliances that once underlay the Balance of Power. Thus, Clemenceau is eager to preserve the alliance with Britain and the United States, while also showing an interest in building new alliances in the East to limit the Russian sphere of influence. Closer ties to Luxembourg are also on the French agenda in order to limit the German sphere of influence. A new world order or league of nations such as that espoused by American President Wilson is therefore not particularly important to France, and only appears potentially useful in neutrally governing internationally contested areas like the Saar without allowing states like Germany to maintain its control over them based on the concept of self-determination. In short, France is sceptical of Wilson’s Fourteen Points as a basis of the peace negotiations, aiming instead at maintaining the Balance of Power and substantially weakening Germany politically, militarily and economically.

Kingdom of Belgium

Belgium participates with King Albert I in the Peace Conference. As the first country to be invaded by Germany in 1914, it was also this attack that brought the British into the war based on the Treaty of London which ensured British support in case of an attack on Belgium. Germany subsequently occupied Belgium until 1918 – only a small area around the Yser remained under Belgian control. Many civilians fled brutal German attacks to the neutral Netherlands, to France or Britain. During the war Flemish identity grew. Belgium aims to recover its economy using German reparations, playing on French desires to establish a buffer zone on the left bank of the Rhine to increase its security against future German attacks, and also has interest in claiming some Dutch territory in Zeeland and the German colonies in Africa. Troops from the Belgian Congo fought in the Cameroons and gained control of the western third of German East Africa that Belgium hopes to maintain. Additionally, recovery of the ties to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg are among its goals, as is the revision of the Treaty of London (1839) demanding Belgian neutrality. In 1916, Britain, France and Russia explicitly voiced their support for Belgian independence once the war’s end.

29

Kingdom of Greece

While at first hesitant to enter the Great War on account of internal divisions of pro-German and pro-Allied politicians, the Kingdom of Greece eventually entered on the winning side and participated in the occupation of the territories of the Ottoman Empire. Led by its Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos, Greece seeks a comprehensive recognition of the Megali Idea, and the extensive occupation of what it sees as the historically Greek territories of the Balkans and Anatolia as the former Ottoman Empire is carved up by the Allies.

Kingdom of Italy

Initially tied to the Central Powers but unprepared both militarily and economically to support the war effort, the Kingdom of Italy switched sides during the war in exchange for the promise of territories cut off from the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well as part of Germany’s African and Asian colonies. Over the course of the war, Italy would drive itself to bankruptcy as well as lose half of its civilian population to the deprivations of war and a bad harvest in 1918; nonetheless, the advance of its troops in the autumn of that year helped trigger the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as it occupied its southern territories. The Italian delegation seeks the deliverance of the territories of Germany and Austria-Hungary promised by its Allies in 1915, and to acquire reparations money for their tattered economy, while also pushing for Italian expansion into the Balkans and Anatolia.

Kingdom of Romania

After pursuing a careful policy of neutrality during the Great War, Romania entered the war on the side of the Allied Powers in 1916, agreed an armistice with the Central Powers in 1917, and re-entered the war on 10 November 1918 the day before the war concluded in Europe. Particularly humiliating was the harsh Treaty of Bucharest imposed by the Central Powers on Romania in May 1918, which surrendered various Romanian territories, requisitioned two million tons of grain from Romanian farmers, secured control of its oil fields on a 90-year lease, and granted Germany the power to veto the decisions of Romanian cabinet ministers and fire any civil servants it wished. Though ratified by Romania in July 1918, the king refused to promulgate the treaty and it was effectively nullified by the 1919 November Armistice. At the Paris Peace Conference, Romania seeks a full reversal of the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest, and additionally seeks the union of Transylvania (with some 3 million ethnic Romanians subject to the Austro-Hungarian Empire) with Romania instead of Hungary, as well as the territories of Banat, Crisana and Maramures.

30

Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia)

The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes – colloquially known as ‘Yugoslavia’, the land of the Southern Slavs – was the new kingdom proposed in the Corfu Declaration of 1917 and proclaimed in December 1918 by Alexander Karađorđević, Prince-Regent for his father, Peter I of Serbia. The new kingdom was made up of the formerly independent kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro and of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs that was formerly part of Austria–Hungary. The desire for pan-Slavic unity in the Balkans dated back to the wars with the Ottoman Empire earlier in the century, with the kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro serving as beacons for those ruled by the Ottomans or Hungarians. While many Slavs remained loyal to the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the war out of fear of conquest by Italy, the ultimate victory of the Italians and the collapse of the Empire have led to the Serbian royal family positioning themselves as the alternative to Italian rule. Led at the peace conference by the Dalmatian Croat politician Ante Trumbić, the kingdom seeks the international recognition of as much of the Balkan and Slavic territory as possible under its control, while trying to solidify the international standing of the royal house and its subject territory.

Kingdom of Montenegro

Declaring war on Austria-Hungary in 1914, the Kingdom of Montenegro entered the Great War politically and militarily exhausted by the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913. Though initially fighting successfully until January 1916, the kingdom was ultimately forced into surrender to the Central Powers following their invasion of the state. Though some Montenegrin soldiers fled to the mountains to continue guerrilla warfare, their King Nikolas I fled the country and proved unable to raise an army in exile. The Montenegrin Government-in-exile, now at Paris, comes to the conference seeking the restoration of the state’s independence, now at risk of being subsumed into the recently declared, Serbian-dominated Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (above).

Most Serene Republic of San Marino

The Most Serene Republic of San Marino is a micro-state surrounded entirely by the territory of the Kingdom of Italy. Proudly proclaiming itself the oldest state in Europe and the oldest Christian republic, San Marino remained neutral during the Great War, much to the anger of Italy which feared the tiny republic as a possible base for Austrian spies and consequently cut its telephone and communication lines. Though the New York Times reported the republic declaring war on Austria-Hungary in 1915 and some twenty Sammarinese volunteers joined the Italian front, leading Austria-Hungary to sever relations with San Marino, the republic remained neutral throughout the war.

31

Republic of Lithuania

Formerly part of the Russian Empire, Lithuania was occupied by Germany in 1915 and granted a Lithuanian congress in Vilnius in 1917 to establish it as a German satellite state. The Council of Lithuania first declared Lithuanian independence as a German protectorate in December 1917, followed by outright independence as a republic in February 1918; an invitation to the German Prince Wilhelm of Urach to reign as King Mindaugas II was withdrawn following the defeat of the Central Powers in November 1918. Instead, Lithuania formed its first government and constitution with Augustinas Voldemaras as Prime Minister. The German withdrawal has left the nascent Lithuanian Republic in a precarious position, however; in December 1918, the Soviet Russian Red army invaded Lithuania in the Lithuanian-Russian War and established a rival Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, with control over the capital of Vilnius and two thirds of the Lithuanian territory. At the Paris Peace Conference, the Republic of Lithuania seeks recognition, urgent defence against this Russian threat, and confirmation of its borders: notably disputing its claims to the historic Lithuanian capital of Vilnius with the neighbouring Republic of Poland, which also claims the city. A confederation between the republics of Lithuania and of Poland on the model of the much older Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth may be possible, but depends as much on the whims of politicians at home as at the peace conference to be successful.

Republic of Poland

After over a century of partitions between Austrian, German, and Russian imperial powers, Poland has reemerged as a republic as a result of the Great War, declaring its independence on 7 October 1918. Led by Józef Piłsudski as Chief of State and Commander in Chief of the Polish Armed Forces and swiftly recognised by Italy in 1918, Poland’s objectives are the recognition and confirmation of the historic and ethnic Polish territories formerly within the borders of the German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian Empires as part of the nascent state. Such unification additionally requires economic and cultural consolidation through the creation of a new currency, a single army, and clearly-defined borders for the new Republic, as well as security against potential invasion by the Russian Soviet Red Army currently overrunning Lithuania to the north. Poland additionally disputes the city of Vilnius, currently under Russian occupation, with the Republic of Vilnius. A confederation between the republics of Lithuania and of Poland on the model of the much older Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth may be possible, but depends as much on the whims of politicians at home as at the peace conference to be successful.

Republic of Portugal

Having been only established from the former Kingdom of Portugal in 1910, the Portuguese Republic is a relatively new player on the international stage. The Portuguese entrance into the war against Germany in 1916 was used by republicans in pursuit of unifying their home front, though in fact December 1917 would see the head of the War Party (Afonso Augusto Costa) overthrown in a coup orchestrated by Sidónio Bernardino Cardoso da Silva Pais, the former Portuguese minister in

32

Berlin, who was himself assassinated in December 1918. Having performed poorly on the battlefield and now rent by internal political turmoil, the Portuguese delegation of Costa seeks objectives to shore up support at home, chiefly demanding German reparations to pay for its military expenses and a share of the German colonies and battle fleet.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

Led by recently re-elected Prime Minister David Lloyd George, the United Kingdom is one of the Big Four at the peace conference. While not as physically devastated by the Great War as France or other states where the conflict had been more severe, the United Kingdom still expended great cost taking on at heavy debt to finance the war, demanding reparations money from the Central Powers to pay for this. The United Kingdom additionally sees the opportunity to expand the British Empire, already the world’s largest, in the soon-to-be carved-up territories; and furthermore, has to balance and follow through on promises made to other nations and supporters during the Great War.

Given the complexity of the issues laid before the negotiating table, the British representative additionally has to report directly to the members of Lloyd George’s Government, where diplomatic policy may change in response to ongoing domestic and international circumstances of the post-war Crisis in the United Kingdom and in Europe more broadly.

United States of America

The last of the Big Four to enter the Great War, the United States declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917. Form the outset, its President Woodrow Wilson pursued two main goals: a non-punitive peace settlement to end the conflict and a reformation of the world politics through an international peace-keeping organisation to prevent such wars in the future. In January 1918, Wilson presented his Fourteen Points Plan where he outlined his country’s aims: including freedom of the seas, the removal of the economic barriers, and a reduction of armaments; an end to secret treaties between countries, a settlement of the colonial claims, and respecting the rights of the indigenous people.

More specifically, Wilson has fought for a fair treatment of Russia, the evacuation of Belgium, the creation of Poland as an independent state with access to the sea, for France to regain Alsace-Lorraine, and Italy’s frontiers to be adjusted to take into account the nationalities of the people living in border areas. Moreover, points ten and twelve of his plan gave the people of Austria-Hungary and the non-Turkish people in the Ottoman Empire self-determination and argued for the independence of the Balkan states. The final and most important point stated a fundamental goal of President Wilson’s vision: the establishment of a league of nations to settle disputes between counties by peaceful means. As arguably the most idealist party at the conference, it remains to be seen how American ideals will balance with the interests and realities of the other parties to the conference.

33

Latin America

Republic of Cuba

Initially neutral in the Great War, Cuba changed its position with the entry of the United States in 1917. Cuba’s geographic position would not allow neutrality while the United States was at war against Germany, and the nation profited from exporting sugar (on which its economy was based) to the Allies. Cuba’s main goal at the conference is stability for trade and its economy, while always being closely aligned with the United States.

Republic of Guatemala

Before the war, Germany exercised significant control over the rich Guatemalan coffee land and almost 50% of the Guatemalan economy. The entrance of the United States into the war with Germany offered opportunity for Guatemala to liberate its economy from German control. In general, at the conference Guatemala aligns its interests with those of the United States and most other Central American and Caribbean countries.

Republic of Haiti

Perfectly positioned for access to most of the Caribbean and Central America, but collapsing due to unredeemable debts to French and German banks, Haiti was occupied by the United States in 1915. Between 1901 and 1914, the German Empire had sent warships to Haiti to force diplomatic claims several times, while German traders and companies controlled about 80% of the country’s trade, its utilities, and much of its local government. The US invasion sought to diminish German control in the region, and Haiti followed the US into the war against Germany in 1917 following the German submarine blockade and the death of several Haitians aboard the French steamship Montréal. At the peace conference, Haiti’s interests align with those of the United States.

Republic of Honduras

Before the Great War, Honduras’ main economic income came from the banana production, but a collapse in commodity prices led to intervention and financial support by the United States. During the Great War, Honduras broke its relations with the German Government and declared war. At the peace conference, Honduras’ interests align with those of the United States and members of the Latin American bloc.

34

Republic of Nicaragua

Nicaragua has been occupied by the United States since 1912 and accordingly was obliged to end diplomatic relations with Germany when the United States declared war in 1917. At the peace conference, Honduras’ interests align with those of the United States and members of the Latin American bloc.

Republic of Panama

Said to exist “for and because of the canal”, the Republic of Panama is home to the Panama Canal which connects the Atlantic and Pacific, thus serving as the single most important shipping lane between the eastern and western shores of North America. Built and sponsored by the United States government, and officially opened for transit in 1914, American interests in the canal also map onto its controlling influence in Panama. The Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903 grants American control to the Canal Zone itself, while Article 134 of the 1904 Constitution of Panama, drafted under American supervision, notably allows for American intervention in any part of Panama as soon as the country’s stability and the safe ty of the Canal seemed to be in danger. Thus, Panama followed the United States declaration of war on Germany in 1917 by severing all diplomatic relations with Germany and expelling German consuls from the country. Nonetheless, the canal itself has proved to be relatively minor to the war effort: despite being equipped with modern defensive fortifications, the canal has been plagued by a series of landslides in 1915-1917 and major workers’ strikes in 1916-1917, shutting it down. Potentially of greater importance now that the war has come to its conclusion, Panama’s interests generally align with those of the United States and members of the Latin American bloc, though a certain nationalist element rankles at the level of American interference allowed within Panama’s borders.

Republic of the United States of Brazil

Entering the war in 1917, Brazil had already suffered from the wartime restrictions in Europe on luxury goods such as coffee (Brazil’s main export) and oil (an important import) and by other disruptions to international trade. In 1916 and 1917 German submarines sank several Brazilian merchant ships, leading to a public outcry and declaration of war. In 1918, Brazil sent a small combat group and nearly a hundred paramedics to France, along with a naval division of eight ships, which only arrived in Gibraltar a day before the armistice having suffered from Spanish flu off the African coast. Brazil is the most important Latin American country present at Paris and has sent the largest South American delegation to the peace conference under prominent Senator Epitácio Pessoa. Pursuing an independent and confident diplomatic policy, Brazil’s main aims are to ensure economic stability and to guarantee the security of the coffee trade, and also to guarantee itself a leading position in any international organisations established as a result of the Great War.

35

Unrecognised representatives

Irish Republic

Not recognised by any party to the conference, the newly proclaimed Irish Republic of January 1919 has declared its intention to send a delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. Before the outbreak of the Great War, many Irish nationalists campaigned for Irish Home Rule – autonomous self-government in continued association with the United Kingdom. Although legislation for Home Rule was approved by the British Parliament at Westminster when the Third Home Rule Bill became the Third Home Rule Bill in September 1914, it was virulently opposed by armed and militant Irish unionists. The possibility of civil war between the rival parties of unionists and nationalists was however avoided by the temporary suspension of the Act by the outbreak of the Great War, in which both Irish unionists and nationalists enlisted: unionists fighting for king and country, and nationalists fighting for the ideals which saw the war being fought in defence of the freedom of small countries such as Belgium and Serbia.

However, the heavy-handed response of the British Government to a minority uprising in Dublin in Easter 1916 – including shelling the centre of Dublin and summarily executing the leaders of the rising – radicalised Irish public opinion against continued union with the United Kingdom. When the United Kingdom held its first postwar General Election on 28 December 1918, the radical Irish nationalist party Sinn Féin won 73 of 105 parliamentary seats in Ireland on a platform of total independence from the United Kingdom, and declared the result a clear indication of popular will for independence. Instead of taking the seats in Westminster to which they had been elected, the Sinn Féin MPs instead met at the Mansion House in Dublin in January 1919 and proclaimed Dáil Éireann the official parliament of the newly independent Ireland. This revolutionary parliament has deputed representatives to the conference, and seeks international recognition and support for Irish independence from the United Kingdom on the grounds of the principles of national self-determination and freedom for which the Great War was fought.

Zionist Organisation

The Zionist Organisation was founded in Basel in 1897 where the First Zionist Congress formulated a Zionist platform, known as the Basel program outlining all aims and goals of the Zionist Organisation. During the Great War, the Organisation convinced the Ottoman Empire to accelerate neutrality procedures of foreign Jews in Palestine to avoid deportation. The organisation has the following main aim for the Paris Peace Conference, albeit one which may come into conflict with the goals of the Kingdom of Hejaz: establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine. For this main goal the organisation considers the promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine necessary. In addition, the Zionist Organisation wants to create a federation of all Jews into local and general groups according to the laws of the various counties and strengthening the Jewish feeling and consciousness.

36

VIII. FURTHER READING

General works

1914-1918-online. International Encyclopedia of the First World War: https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/home.html

E. House and C. Seymour, What Really Happened at Paris (New York, 1921).

M. MacMillan, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (New York, 2002).

Woodrow Wilson, ‘President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points’, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp.

Credits

Writing by Ann-Kristin Matthe, Elena Vollmer, and Sara Fay, with additional writing and editing by the Crisis Team and Secretariat for CUIMUN XXIV 2018.

Based on a concept by Jesse Harrington in association with Felicity Garvey and Helen Kwong. Additional consulting provided by Gavin Lynch-Frahill and Joe Dale.

All images from wikimedia.commons.org except where otherwise stated.

37

IX. SOURCE CITATIONS

1 As found on: ‘Timeline of World War One.’ History Learning Site. Accessed July 27, 2018. https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/timeline-of-world-war-one/. 2 J. Smele, ‘History – World Wars: War and Revolution in Russia 1914 - 1921’, BBC, 10 March 2011. Accessed 16 July 2018. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/eastern_front_01.shtml. 3 This unprecedented level of trade would not again be reached until 1993 if viewed as a proportion of the global economy. See S. Forbes, ‘The Horrid Economic Consequences of World War I – We Still Suffer From Them’, Forbes, 6 August 2014. Accessed 27 July 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveforbes/2014/08/02/economic-consequences-of-the-great-war/ 4 J.G. Royde-Smith and D.E. Showalter, ‘World War I’, Encyclopædia Britannica, 21 July 2018. Accessed 27 July 2018. https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Killed-wounded-and-missing. 5 ‘Military Developments of World War I’, New Articles RSS. Accessed 27 July 2018. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/military_developments_of_world_war_i. 6 ‘President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points’, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. Accessed 27 July 2018: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp. 7 E. House and C. Seymour, What really happened at Paris (New York, 1921). 8 Ibid. 9 ‘World War I, Peace Moves, March 1917–September 1918’, Encyclopaedia Britannica. Accessed 27 July 2018: https://www.britannica.com/event/World-War-I/Air-warfare#ref512503. 10 ‘Address by President Woodrow Wilson to the Senate, 22 January 1917’, History Central. Accessed 27 July 2018: https://www.historycentral.com/documents/WilonSenate.html. 11 ‘President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points’, loc. cit. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 ‘Permanent Court of Arbitration, History’. Accessed 27 July 2018: https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/introduction/history/. 15 ‘President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points’, loc. cit. 16 A. Liebich, ‘Minority as Inferiority: Minority Rights in Historical Perspective’, Review of International Studies, 34.2 (Apr., 2008), p. 252. 17 Ibid, p. 263. 18 Ibid, 257. 19 M. MacMillan, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (New York, 2002). 20 ‘President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points’, loc. cit. 21 Liebich, ‘Minority as Inferiority’, p. 262. 22 ‘President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points’, loc. cit. 23 K.A. Khan, ‘The Protection of Minorities – Whether a Neglected Field?’, Athens Journal of Law (Jan. 2016). Accessed 27 July 2018. https://www.athensjournals.gr/law/2016-2-1-3-Khan.pdf. 24 M. MacMillan, Paris 1919; A. Bostanci, ‘How black soldiers in Great War shaped civil rights’, British Council, 1 October 2014. Accessed 27 July 2018: https://www.britishcouncil.org/voices-magazine/how-black-soldiers-in-first-world-war-shaped-civil-rights. 25 N. Shimazu, Japan, Race and Equality (Abingdon, 1998). 26 ‘African Americans and World War I: War, Democracy and Justice’, Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, The New York Public Library. Accessed 27 July 2018: http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/about.html. 27 ‘Treaty of Brest-Litovsk’, The Avalon Project, Yale Law School. Accessed 27 July 2018: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brest.asp. 28 African Americans and World War I, After the War, Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture, The New York Public Library. Accessed 27 July 2018: http://exhibitions.nypl.org/africanaage/about.html. 29 R.K. Debo, Survival and Consolidation. The Foreign Policy of Soviet Russia 1918-1921 (Montreal, 1992), p. 36. 30 Debo, Survival, pp. 34-54, 71-84; N.G. Levin, Woodrow Wilson and World Politics (New York, 1968).