『大東亜戦争への道』（展転社）
中村 粲
その２３ 第七章 国際協調の幻想 第１節 排日の軌跡
ワシントン会議は第一次大戦後の平和主義や国際協調をつくったものと見られていますが、その２年後の１９２４年にアメリカで排日移民法が成立したという事実は、その見方が幻想に過ぎないことを明白に示しています。
移民問題に対しては、日本は日米紳士協定によって、労働移民を禁止して対応してきました。ところが、１９１３年カリフォルニア州議会は、日本人の土地所有権を禁止し、且つ借地権を３か年に制限する法案を可決しました。１９２０年にはカリフォルニア土地法が成立し、「帰化不能外国人」には土地所有権のみならず３年間の借地権も禁止されることになりました。１９２１年には米国大審院が日本人は帰化による市民権獲得の資格なし（帰化不能）と最終判決を下しました。翌年これは全ての東洋人に適用されることになりました。
第一次大戦後、欧州、東欧、南欧諸国よりの移民が激増するに及び、１９２１年アメリカ議会は如何なる国民たるを問わず、１か年の入国者数を１９１０年に米国に居住していた外国生まれの各国民の３％に制限する法律を制定しました。１９２３年にアルバート・ジョンソン議員は、その比率を２％にするとともに、帰化不能外国人移民は再渡航者、布教使、大学教授又は学術的職業に従事する者並びにその妻子及び学生を除くの他、入国を禁止するという法案を提出したのです。
この明らかな日本人排斥法案を阻止するために、埴原正直大使はヒューズ国務長官と会談し、これは日米通商条約及び日米紳士協定と矛盾する条項を含んでいること、日本国民の自尊心を傷つけるものであり、文明諸国間の友誼的国交の基調に関わるものであることを訴えました。ヒューズ国務長官もジョンソン議員あての書簡で「①帰化不能外国人の入国を禁止することは、日本商人の入国を不可能ならしめるもので、日米通商条約に違反する、②帰化不能外国人に対する規定は単に日本人のみを目的とするものではないと弁明するのは、無益である。なぜなら支那人排斥も、他のアジア人に適用すべき移民法の規定もすでに存在しているので、帰化不能外国人の入国禁止条項は実際上、日本人のみの排斥を目標とすることになる。」とその不当性を述べています。しかし、下院も上院もこの「排日移民法」を賛成多数で可決したのでした。
日本で起こった反米世論の高まりはすさまじいものでした。東京所在の新聞１５社は排日法案の不正不義を断じ、共同声明を発表しました。憤った４０歳前後の男（身元確認できず）はアメリカ大使館近くで、「米国民に訴える」「日本国民同胞に与譜」との遺書を残し、割腹自殺を遂げたのでした。
１９２４年は、対日作戦計画であるオレンジ計画が確定された年でもありました。ワシントン会議によって軍備強化を凍結された西太平洋における対日作戦計画「陸海軍統合作戦計画―オレンジ」が作成されたのは、１９２４年だったのです。
ワシントン会議で日本が国際協調に協力した結果はこのような結果となったわけです。
・その２３，第７章１節 日本語原文： https://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Road23.pdf
・ 〃 第７章１節 英訳文： https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road23E.pdf
令和６年１月１９日
「史実を世界に発信する会」 会長 茂木弘道
協力者代表：神奈川大学教授 小山和伸
＊拡散大歓迎
THE ROAD TO THE GREATER EAST ASIAN WAR
Nakamura Akira, Dokkyo University Professor Emeritus
(English Translation: Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact)
Part 3, Chapter 7: The Illusion of International Cooperation – 1
The Washington Naval Conference is generally perceived as a symbol of the tendency toward pacifism and international cooperation that followed the First World War. However, one conspicuous manifestation of the disintegration of the spirit of international cooperation as preached at the Washington Conference was the enactment of an anti-Japanese immigration law two years afterward, in 1924.
To help resolve the immigration problem, Japan complied with the Gentlemen’s Agreement, prohibiting laborers from entering the US. However, in 1913 the California State Legislature passed the California Alien Land Law, which prevented Japanese from owning land, and limited the period for which they could lease land to three years. In 1920, the California Alien Land Law became more draconian, not only preventing foreigners ineligible for US citizenship from owning land, but also from leasing land for any period of time. On November 13, 1922 the US Supreme Court reached a unanimous judgement to the effect that Japanese were ineligible for naturalization (obtaining US citizenship). The following year, this ruling was applied to all Asians.
After World War I ended, Europe suffered a recession, which brought about a sudden increase in immigrants from eastern and southern Europe seeking entry into the US. The US Congress enacted the Emergency Quota Act in 1921. This statute limited the number of immigrants admitted from any country annually to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of such nationality resident in the US according to the 1910 census. In December 1923, Rep. Albert Johnson, of Washington submitted a bill to the House of Representatives, whereby aliens “ineligible to citizenship” would be prohibited from entering the US.
To block the proposed bill, manifestly anti-Japanese in intent, Ambassador Hanihara Masanao, representing the Japanese government, conferred with Secretary of State Charles Hughes. Hanihara brought to Hughes’ attention the fact that Johnson’s bill contained language that contradicted the 1911 Japan-US Treaty of Commerce and Navigation. Then Foreign Minister Ijūin Hikokichi instructed Hanihara to confer with Hughes to discuss the following points:
(1) The anti-Japanese immigration bill contradicts the Japan-US Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, signed in 1911.
(2) Claims have been made to the effect that restrictions on immigration are applied equally to other Asians. However, within existing immigration statutes, limitations on the immigration of Asians have been imposed. Therefore, the new immigration legislation is intended specifically to discriminate against the Japanese.
(3) The discriminatory provisions in the new bill have, in an instant, destroyed policies that the Japanese government has self-sacrificingly implemented for many years by revising treaties, adhering scrupulously to the Gentlemen’s Agreement.
(4) Normally, suitability to become a citizen of a particular nation should be determined on a particular individual’s merits, not on the individual’s race. Deciding arbitrarily that Japanese are to be classified as aliens ineligible for citizenship is a huge blow to our pride.
(5) As Japanese residing on the Pacific coast have been deemed ineligible for citizenship, they have been divested of their rights. Consequently, they have lost their livelihood and are on the verge of poverty. The constitutional amendment proposal goes one step further. It will deprive Japanese immigrants’ innocent children of their public and private rights, leaving them without hope and causing their morale to plummet, relegating them to the unenviable status of a wretched minority in the United States.
(6) Since this same constitutional amendment proposal risks provoking antipathy among the Japanese public, and negatively affecting the amicable relationship between our countries, the Imperial government feels compelled to ask the United States government to give careful consideration to this matter.
Secretary Hughes strongly objected to the proposal and sent a letter to Rep. Albert Johnson, which stated emphatically that the restrictions in Johnson’s bill, besides being in conflict with the 1911 Japan-US Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, would offend the Japanese and fail to benefit the US. But on May 5, 1924 the House of Representatives passed the immigration bill on a vote of 308 to 58, the Senate followed suit with a vote of 69 to 9.
Anti-American sentiment reached a boiling point in Japan. Tokyo’s 15 newspapers, having concluded that the anti-Japanese statute was unjust and immoral, issued a joint protest. On May 31, a man in his forties, infuriated at the US, committed seppuku, leaving behind suicide notes urging Americans to reconsider and his compatriots to rise up against injustice.
1924 was also the year when War Plan Orange, a strategy intended for use during a war with Japan, took shape. In spite of the fact that the naval arms race had been curtailed by the Washington Conference, the US formulated an anti-Japanese war plan only two years thereafter. The Japanese had opted for a policy of cooperation at the Washington Conference, but the events of 1924 proved that their expectations were illusory.
URL: https://www.sdh-fact.com/book-article/2157/
PDF: https://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/Road23E.pdf
MOTEKI Hiromichi, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact