Should the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco be amended to allow surviving ex-POWs and their kin to take legal action for compensation against the Japanese government?

Monday 01st June, 03:00 AM JST

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 39 Total Comments Show All

usaexpat at 05:35 AM JST - 4th June

An absolutely terrible idea, should we also demand compensation from all the other imperial powers for their misdeeds. Must we keep playing this broken record over and over again? The war ended 64 years ago in a huge ball of fire. The guilty parties and the victims are mostly dead now, do the ancestors then get the compensation? The Japan of today is not the one the made the bloody march across the Pacific back then.
amerijap at 05:39 AM JST - 4th June

From 1952~1977, the Japanese government worked and signed bi lateral compensation agreements with at least 25 nations pursuant to the spirt of the 1951 Treaty.

You're talking about the agreements within the guideline of the treaty. Not about whether the 'unrepresented' trials were conducted after 1951.
Perhaps you should check out the articles or scholarly materials--written by accredited scholars studying Asian studies or equivalent(English would be better)-- to look into the Allied Powers' politics on Japan from 1945 to 1952. Information on Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate in terms of source credibility.
nigelboy at 05:58 AM JST - 4th June

"You're talking about the agreements within the guideline of the treaty. Not about whether the 'unrepresented' trials were conducted after 1951. Perhaps you should check out the articles or scholarly materials--written by accredited scholars studying Asian studies or equivalent(English would be better)-- to look into the Allied Powers' politics on Japan from 1945 to 1952. Information on Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate in terms of source credibility."

What does Allied Powers politics from 1945-1952 has to do with what we're discussing here? After the 1951 signed treaty, Japan was again an independent soverign nation which was now responsible for settling war time damages with other nations to which they did. Wikipedia happens to list them in a chronological order.

And what is this "unrepresented" trials you keep writing about? Are you talking about those "unrepresented" trials that props out 60 or so years after the fact where none of them dare to question why they did not bring up their case during the 50's, 60's, 70's or even the 80's??
amerijap at 08:17 AM JST - 4th June

Sounds like you have no idea about the limitations on victor's justice at all. What Japan did by signing on the treaty was to make their long-term commitment to the war reparations for victimized nations. What was left out, however, are the several cases that should have been exercised before Japan signed on the treaty in 1951. The tribunals by the Applied Powers are the trials based on their political strategies- not on the civilian trials or in other words people's trials that do not involve political elites. Here are a couple of the examples I refer to "unrepresented" cases that should have been conducted as a civil trial.

a. JP government's political misconducts upon Japanese civilians during wartime(such as gag orders to chant Japanese nationalism and demonize the West, death threats by refusing to join in the Japanese army, harassments by 'hikokumin' name-calling('unpatriotic' citizens). As far as I know, NOWHERE did victor's trial cover JP government's responsibility for mistreating its citizens during WWII(Yes, their ill-treatment of obedient Japanese citizens in a wartime emergency! Absolutely unjustifiable!!). The JP government and the imperial family, did NEVER admit their responsibility for the ill-treatment of Japanese citizens during wartime. They did not even make any apology to Japanese citizens for this matter. I urge you to look scholarly works by accredited historians or scholars(NOT laypersons). If you still don't get it, you should ask Japanese or foreign inidviduals who are very familiar with Asian intellectual history.

b. military sex slaves(or comfort women). Japan's war crimes against Asian women in WWII have not been recognized by the local media until 1991. Since then, JP government has been dealing with the number of individual lawsuits by offering the former victims the private funds (called Asian Women Funds). Still, the JP government's policy is not persuasive enough to reconcile the issue with other Asian countries. A perfect example is VAWW-NET Japan's establishment of Women's International War Crimes Tribunal in 2000. It clearly represents the case which the JP government did not reflect as the responsibilities for war crimes.

http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/

http://www1.jca.apc.org/vaww-net-japan/english/index.html
iraqisurvival at 10:24 AM JST - 4th June

Most nations have historic crimes and misconduct toward their own citizens or foreign citizens, and most countries gave no compensation, and every government won't concede easily, as it involves a lot of money, and it opens the door for too many claims. I think it is better to look forward and focus on understanding the lesson. the US didn't compensate former slaves, or African-American suffering before the supreme court ruling. Neither the American citizens that were put in internment camps.

So I think Japanese government should compensate the victims but through private means not international treaties. to serve justice , but not hurt national interests which can benefit other Asian countries and globally as well.
nigelboy at 10:54 PM JST - 4th June

.

military sex slaves(or comfort women). Japan's war crimes against Asian women in WWII have not been recognized by the local media until 1991.

Interesting. This is an example of what I cited in "did not bring up their case during the 50's, 60's, 70's or even the 80's" and of course, I predicted that you would bring up the comfort women issue.

Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation of 1965 stipulates that

"The Contracting parties confirm that [the] problem concerning property, rights and interests of the two contracting parties and their nationals … is settled completely and finally"

What's worth noting that this along with Normalization agreement between Japan and S.Korea took over 15 years of negotiation with nearly 100K pages of correspondence and NOT a single page touches on the subject of comfort women. Now, why was this not brought up during the negotiations?

What Japan did by signing on the treaty was to make their long-term commitment to the war reparations for victimized nations.

Yes. That's the point. The victimized nation in turn was responsible for compensating their own people to which some did while the others have not. It wasn't left out as you claim but it was simply ignored by the victimized nation who most chose economic development of her own country that to compensate the individuals.
amerijap at 12:16 AM JST - 5th June

Now, why was this not brought up during the negotiations?

Because comfort women issue is solely couched on gender politic that is mostly overlooked by a national sovereignty. Japan and S. Korea are not the only ones for doing this. The US, England, France, Germany, Yugoslavia also have the problems with gender politic regarding women and military. Moreover, S Korea was still at a nascent stage as a democratic nation when comfort women issue emerged in the JP and S Korean public in 1991. The nation was governed by a military regime until 1987. This may explain the challenge of bringing up a gender and cultural issue as a political agenda while the country was militarized. S Korean government was also criticized when the news report on comfort women became public.

The victimized nation in turn was responsible for compensating their own people to which some did while the others have not.

Exactly my point! This is the reason why Japan cannot be innocent for their failure to meet the commitment to Japanese citizens. I said 'left out,' because JP government made their choice to impose moral responsibility for the consequence of carnage on all citizens after WWII. They shifted the blame on the citizens for country's losing war as a strategic means of fulfilling 'war responsibility'-- rather than reflecting how their autocratic politics harmed the JP citizens in a wartime.
nigelboy at 03:11 AM JST - 5th June

Because comfort women issue is solely couched on gender politic that is mostly overlooked by a national sovereignty.

You got that right. It wasn't brought up because the system of military brothels continued long after WWII, continued by Korean officials who recruited them for U.N. forces, and is practiced all around the world even today.

Exactly my point! This is the reason why Japan cannot be innocent for their failure to meet the commitment to Japanese citizens. I said 'left out,' because JP government made their choice to impose moral responsibility for the consequence of carnage on all citizens after WWII.

I have no idea what our talking about. As far as post war compensation is concerned, the Japanese government are paying compensation for Atomic bomb sufferes as well as immediate relatives of the war dead. As far as human rights violation among Japanese citizens are concerned, shouldn't that be up to the individuals to file a suit?

It bears repeating but I'll say it again in a different manner. As stated in the link I provided above, Japan has concluding bi-lateral treaties with nations victimized by Japan, whereby compensation was paid to those nations directly in the spirit of the Treaty of Peace. The victimized nations in turn were responsible for compensating their own people but some nations chose not to do so but instead pocketed the money for their own interests (economic development and whatnot).
USARonin at 03:18 AM JST - 5th June

No.
amerijap at 05:36 AM JST - 5th June

Compensations for Atomic bomb suffers are just a part of JP government's responsibilities to make. There are still hundreds and thousands of Japanese civilians who lost their lives by the nationwide air-raids, and non-Japanese who were forced to be taken to Japan as a slave labor or join in the military. There have been several lawsuits by foreign individuals and Japanese citizens against the JP government in terms of human injustices, but most of them are dismissed due to the legal constraint in terms of historical period that is overdue.

Let me make this point clear. I don't see any problem with the treaty itself. Nor it is Japan's choice. The very problem lies in the Military Tribunals in the Far East and the timing when Japan made its choice for signing on the treaty. The Military Tribunal were conducted by the Allied Powers based on their political strategy-- not on a civilian perspective. Japanese governments' responsibilities for harming its citizens in a wartime and its ill-treatment of comfort women(I describe in my previous post) are the cases that FALL into the cracks between the Military Tribunals and the treaty. It doesn't make any difference whether you call "leave out" or "ignore," because the Military Tribunals led by the Allied Powers reflect the ideology of political elites. As I stated in my previous post, Japan did sign the treaty by letting the Allied Powers conduct the tribunals for the sake of westerners’ political gains. It went without investigating into its own (military regime's) political misconducts as a crime against humanity. While JP government has successfully deflected the public from pursuing its affiliated political/legal responsibilities for harming its citizens in WWII by pulling off the rhetoric of cultural amnesia until today-- which is to urge Japanese people to forget about the past and move on, they are still struggling to deal with the lawsuits from foreign individuals.

From the JP government's standpoint, I don't see any reason why they need to secede from the treaty, because it has saved them from the swamp of individual and national lawsuits from both domestic and victimized countries. However, I see JP government's attitude upon foreign victims of war crimes very problematic due to their ill political choices and decisions. The JP government not only shows their reluctance(or unwillingness) to share the perspectives of war victims, but also feeds in neo-conservatives and right-wing politicians who make an excessive tirade against the victims in an attempt to suppress their voices, and hopefully delete the memories of war aggression from national history.

Personally, I don't like an idea of amending the treaty, because it will open the Pandora’s box in the end. Yet, if it is the government's best choice to keep showing reluctance in its politics to listen to the voices of foreign victims carefully to iron out its historical misunderstanding, there should be some exceptions for the treaty. Otherwise, the amendment will be the last resort.

some nations chose not to do so but instead pocketed the money for their own interests (economic development and whatnot).

I don't know which countries you are referring to. Even if it’s true, that can’t be an excuse for JP government’s political attitude upon the foreign victims of war crimes.
Seiharinokaze at 02:18 PM JST - 5th June

The key note of the peace treaty was to let the world "recognize" that Japan at the time was not able to pay war reparation so that the Allied nations should basically waive war reparation claims including those of their nationals against Japan. (Article 14) This may be an unamendable historical fact, or you may call it victor's fact.

But anyway if the Military Tribunal were to be conducted on civilian perspective, the Allied powers would not be unliable to war crimes either. And most probably Japanese nationals would demand the amendment of Article 19 which stipulates that Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the Allied powers including the Soviets.
nigelboy at 11:01 PM JST - 5th June

There have been several lawsuits by foreign individuals and Japanese citizens against the JP government in terms of human injustices, but most of them are dismissed due to the legal constraint in terms of historical period that is overdue.

And yet you still have no addressed why these were not filed before the statute of limitations when the evidence was there, memories were fresh, and the witnesses were alive.

Rarely do you see a country in ruins compensating their own citizens when they have not received such money from the opposing nation that caused such damage.

I don't know which countries you are referring to. Even if it’s true, that can’t be an excuse for JP government’s political attitude upon the foreign victims of war crimes.

Wait a second. You criticize Japanese government for not compensating their own civilians and yet when the foreign government does the same thing, it's excused even though they had received the compensation from Japan. What's worse is that you then shift the blame on the Japanese government for the failure of addressing foreign victims when you specifically stated that "(nation) cannot be innocent for their failure to meet the commitment to her citizens."

Is this another double standard argument which only applies to Japan because it's Japan?
amerijap at 05:55 AM JST - 6th June

And yet you still have no addressed why these were not filed before the statute of limitations when the evidence was there, memories were fresh, and the witnesses were alive.

Are you reading carefully what I am writing in my postings? I made it very clearly that the Japanese government let the Applied Powers conduct the Military Tribunals for the sake of their own political gains before Japan signed on the treaty in 1951. Japan did NOT investigate into the previous military regime's misconducts upon the Japanese citizens in a wartime. THIS DOES NOT LIMIT TO THE TRAGIC MEMORIES OF NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST IN HIROSHIMA & NAGASAKI IN AUGUST. It encompasses the whole period of wartime including OKINAWA, AIR-BOMBINGS IN TOKYO/OSAKA/NAGOYA. How did the dictatorial powers of the Japanese military regime oppress citizens' lives in WWII? What crimes and human injustices upon Japanese citizens led by the military regime's dictatorship were neglected when Japan was in the scourge of war?

I don't see any point in your asking an absence of individual lawsuits, because it apparently goes off the topic relating to the treaty. I already gave you the answer. That is the political strategies of Allied Powers after WWII. Their Military Tribunals do not reflect the JP government's war crimes upon JP citizens because they were solely based on the ideologies of the political elite. They were NOT based on civil trials. Japanese citizens traditionally did have NO POWER to challenge the government--especially since the Meiji Era, regarded as the subject of the nation(just like Thomas Hobbes' idea on the relation between nation and people in 'Leviathan').

Rarely do you see a country in ruins compensating their own citizens when they have not received such money from the opposing nation that caused such damage.

Here is the problem with your assumption. You're trying to persuade me by assuming that compensation(money) is the best solution for reconciling a historical dispute in general. NOPE. Compensation is the means to ends, NOT the ends itself. I wouldn't say money doesn't work at all. But it's not everything. Money may defuse the tension between the nations or nation-to-individual to some extent, but CANNOT resolve the entire conflicts, because historical dispute is deeply rooted in vernacular culture and gender. Just in case, google the "Asian Women Funds." It's a private fund proposed by the Japanese government for the victims of comfort women. Check some of the articles and see how the private fund faced the problems regarding the issue of resolving the conflict through the means of compensation. If you don't feel anything about it, it means you certainly have no ideas about culture and identity in general.

You criticize Japanese government for not compensating their own civilians and yet when the foreign government does the same thing, it's excused even though they had received the compensation from Japan.

Again, you're applying a utilitarian perspective(money-as-quick-fix-solution) while overlooking the critical points in my previous posts that I elaborate on JP government's relation with its citizens. Apparently you're NOT paying attention to my perspective. Do you want me to say it again? It's a civilian perspective! Citizen's identities and interests. You're simply talking about nation-to-nation relation by elaborating on the treaty, and completely ignoring the humanitarian point I illustrate on the issues. JP governments' political misconducts upon its citizens and comfort women are the issues that are left out from political negotiations on a nation-to-nation basis, because they are the sensitive issues that require us to look into the relation between nation and citizen. To me, using the treaty as the statute of exoneration from any responsibility for these issues doesn't hold water, because the treaty focuses on the bilateral relation between nation-to-nation. As I said before, IT IS NOT THE TREATY'S SYSTEMATIC PROBLEM, NOR JAPAN'S CHOICE TO SIGN ON THE TREATY. IT IS THE WAY JAPAN USES THE TREATY WHEN THEY COPE SUCH ISSUES INVOLVING CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Their failure to look into the relation between nation and citizen in exercising pre-war regime's war crimes upon the citizens, well explains why Japanese government has troubles handling the lawsuits by foreign individuals and Japanese citizens.

What's worse is that you then shift the blame on the Japanese government for the failure of addressing foreign victims when you specifically stated that "(nation) cannot be innocent for their failure to meet the commitment to her citizens."

Why do you think it's worse? Read my posts once again. Nowhere did I say "the failure of addressing foreign victims". Although I mentioned their reluctance(or unwillingness) to share the perspectives of war victims, that doesn't mean the government did not address Japan's war aggression involving the foreign victims. The Japanese government is well aware of the nation's dark history involving the foreign victims. My blame is cast solely on how they treat the foreign victims and Japanese citizens when they're reflecting on its wartime as national/international politics.

Is this another double standard argument which only applies to Japan because it's Japan?

Hahaha, you bust me up. If you think I'm one of those foreigners who are making cynicism on Japan, you're completely wrong. I don't understand what your meaning of "because it's Japan." The topic focuses our discussions on the issues in relation to JAPAN or JAPANESE history and public culture, not about foreign governments. It doesn’t matter what US, UK, France, or China is doing similarly or not. I’m already seeing exactly similar problems in other countries regarding its wartime, and find their politics problematic. We cannot bring most or all of them right here, because it goes off the topic. Get a clue. Your statement doesn't provide anything but an idiocy.
nigelboy at 08:40 AM JST - 6th June

Are you reading carefully what I am writing in my postings?

I'm wondering if actually understand what you put down because you failed to grasp a notion that when you refer to "Japan", it's basically a collection of "civilians" of post war Japan who were all directly effected. Of course, you may argue that Japanese government and the civilians are not the same but the government operates on tax money from civilians and as far as how it should be spent depends on what the majority of the public desires. Atomic Bomb suffers were able to get their money because there was enough support among the public for the cause of Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations. The same applies for Support to the War wounded Beareved Families law because the majority of the public supported the Nihon Izoku Kai. These are as you say, "Citizen's identities and interests" at work. Sure it would be nice that the government addressed everybody but at what price? Should the Japanese government earmaked every tax money to those individuals who were effected instead of re-building the country? Where do you draw the line? How does your government handle ex post facto lawsuits like slavery?

And as Seiharinokaze stated, the treaty does prevent Japanese nationals from claiming other nations. Now just imagine such clause was never in place and that Japanese nationals not only can claim for other nations wrong doings but can reclaim their reqlinquished assets, do you think Japan will have these bi-lateral ties with other nations like they have today? I highly doubt it. There too much emphasis on "reflecting the past" when so much have been already gained by burying the hatchet and moving on to the future. That's what this treaty did.
amerijap at 10:34 AM JST - 6th June

Sure it would be nice that the government addressed everybody but at what price? Should the Japanese government earmaked every tax money to those individuals who were effected instead of re-building the country? Where do you draw the line? How does your government handle ex post facto lawsuits like slavery?

You know what? You're making the matter much more complicated by brining up the issues above. "Civilian" perspectives are what most nations tend to overlook in terms of re-building the country. Japan is not alone in doing this. Yeah, you're right. The country I'm staying now(Yes, the US!!!) has so many problems with these issues that I certainly have no ideas. It's quite ugly, nasty, and despicable. Are you satisfied? I'm not gonna waste my time discussing this any further.

And "your government" sounds so funny, because you assume I'm a guy somewhere from a foreign country. Actually, I'm a citizen from the country we are talking about. Born and raised out there, and have dealt with so many things about my country's problems which most people in this post will never ever understand the fabrics of cultural constraints that Japanese people have in general.

Finally, I don't know why you bring up the principle of the treaty once again. Didn't you get it? I don't have any issue with the treaty itself. I didn't say the treaty is systematically flawed or something like that. I made it very clearly that there is nothing wrong with the treaty itself. I even mentioned that "it(signing on the treaty) has saved them(Japan) from the swamp of individual and national lawsuits from both domestic and victimized countries." And I'm not in favor of amending the treaty, because it will lead the nation to the swamp of libel lawsuits, and eventually undermine the meaning of historical disputes as a consequence. Period. So sick and tired of this.