Sunday May 27, 2012

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?

Poll ( 40 )

Login to vote

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

40 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    This is a question which borders somewhere between the "stupid" and the "insane". STUPID,because the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, or any other treaty for that matter, DOES NOT NEED TO BE AMENDED, to allow individuals to take legal actions against foreign governments. Anyone can do it right now. It's just that they'll get thrown out in any court of law in any country.
    INSANE for the simple reason that it would create a precedent for the entire global judicial system to be flooded and backlogged with personal claims for loss of life and property in every court in every major country in the world. It also negates the very purpose of bilateral and multilateral treaties between sovereign states concerning wars and conflicts, which is to avoid such personal actions against governments.

  • 0

    wibble

    You have to feel sorry for victims and their familes, however you also have to draw a line somewhere.

    I'm sure it isn't fair and maybe all this should have been resolved decades ago, but I don't believe it would now be 'fair' so go back and punish companies or countries retrospectively for something that was already agreed in treaty and where any of the decision makers are now beyond questioning.

    If anything maybe the individuals should sue their own respective countries for signing a treaty that wived their rights?

  • 0

    wibble

    er waived

  • 0

    LostinNagoya

    yeah, just for the simple reason that Japan would then be forced to admit its bloody, war crime past. And stop imagining being the victim, as we see in History books.

  • 0

    apecNetworks

    Let me say this, SCAP and Gen. MacArthur made no mistakes w/ the Treaty. Given the available info at the time, they made an astute decision. It may not look great now, but SCAP and Gen. MacArthur had no say in the decisions after this Treaty.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    No, there is no need for any amendment to the treaty. It dealt with the war and its aftermath as fairly as the times in which it was written allowed.

    I'm genuinely sorry for any servicemen or women, or their families, who were affected directly or otherwise by the Japanese military's inhumane treatment of POWs sixty-five years ago, but this seems like a money-grab to me, as if cold hard cash could somehow make everything okay. It won't. Any more than forcing retribution from the descendants of those who mistreated POWs will make the world a better place.

    If we learn nothing else from history, the folly of the Treaty of Versailles and its vengeful, seemingly infinite punative obsession against the German people in the form of endless indemnities that left the country teetering on the edge of complete and utter poverty for two decades after WWI is the best argument that exists against pursuing a purely vindictive agenda against modern day Japan. There comes a point when it's time to let it go. That time has come and gone already.

    And I know I'll catch flack from some here for this, but when you're military personnel made a prisoner of war, it shouldn't come as any surprise that the people you were only just trying to kill via bullets, bombs or flamethrowers might not feel too neighborly towards you once they have you in their hands, Geneva Convention or not. The speed with which the US government readily authorized torture and the fanciful creation of a new breed of soldier, the "enemy combatant," neither American, therefore unprotected by the Constitution, nor a traditional soldier, also left unprotected by a host of international treaties, in stark opposition to the values Americans claim to cherish, I must point out, is a shameful testament to the reality that no one is particularly nice to people who try to kill them. War really is hell.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    yeah, just for the simple reason that Japan would then be forced to >admit its bloody, war crime past.

    True, more of that should be made public. But it has nothing to do with the Treaty or personal legal actions.

    And stop imagining being the victim, as we see in History books.

    Incorrect. The Japanese civilians were indeed victims of allied bombing designed to target population centers, the same as with Germany. It's hardly imagination. I can scream Remember Pearl Harbor till my voice is hoarse but I have to admit it ws a military attack on a military target. I can not say the same for the A-bombs. And I happen to stand by their use. So let's not be stupid and insult victims of war in any country anywhere.

  • 0

    mlefler

    It should be amended only if there is no apologies. In this case there has been, let it go.

  • 0

    HonestDictator

    Agree with mlefler.

  • 0

    rajakumar

    While germany has done good job,making up for suffering caused in WW2. Japan should do as much as germany with regards to post world war 2 ties, with nations. Compensations should be more,to bring more good vibes to japan.

    Germany has done much better in making post WW2 ties better,Japan should follow german ways in regards to post WW2 compensations.

    Germany also has managed to close down berlin wall, unite Europe via EU/Euros. Same should worked out for Far east nations in trade.

  • 0

    amerijap

    This is the very reason why the JP government authority can justify their rhetoric of historical white-washing to the detriment of their understanding on international peace. The biggest problem is that JP did sign the treaty before they conducted civil-based trials of all suspected war criminals after WWII, allowing a bunch of war crime suspects and Tojo sympathizers to take a higher position in a political arena. It is often the case that the legal system goes against the popularity of public opinion. Legal actions over the historical dispute can be disturbing and ugly. Yet, we should keep in mind that ex-POWs had no choice but to serve as a subject of an imperial government, and thus had no means to reflect their voices of dissent in a wartime.

  • 0

    LFRAgain

    This is the very reason why the JP government authority can justify their rhetoric of historical white-washing

    The Japanese government does not have an official (or unofficial, for that matter) policy of historical whitewashing. Your post only clouds the issue with misinformation.

  • 0

    grafton

    If we start pulling apart past treaties then what hope have we of ever being able to write new ones? The whole point of a treaty is that it brings about a conclusion. No two counties would ever again be able to bring about the end of a war. How could they sign a peace treaty that might not be a peace treaty a few years down the line, where would be the point?

    Think about this too, pull this treaty apart & it does leave the door open for Japan (& Germany) to stop calling war criminals war criminals & maybe their families might a little compensation too, from the allies. That’s an extreme, but it is the can of worms that could be opened.

  • 0

    bonym

    The Japanese government has but one ethical responsibility... to convince those companies that benefitted from slave labor during WWII to compensate those individuals. Ya hear me Mitsubishi !!!

  • 0

    sangetsu

    Leave it be, I agree this is nothing but a legal maneuver for hungry lawyers looking to sue for millions. If they win, the plaintiffs will get the usual 3 or 4 cents on the dollar, while the rest is eaten up in fees. Does it make sense to sue a government for policies and acts committed by those who are long since dead? The ones most likely to answer yes to this question are the lawyers involved.

    My grandfather was a veteran of the war, and one of his brothers was a POW captured in the Philippines. Despite their experiences or treatment by the Japanese, they knew that such things were to be expected in war. Both were career soldiers who enlisted in the Army even before Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, and they served out of duty and love for their country, not the paltry $20 a month they earned in the Depression-era Cavalry. They and others would feel their duty, honor, and memory cheapened by this scam.

  • 0

    Seiharinokaze

    Wasn't the peace treaty a means to keep the Emperor's Golden Lily as booty and not to distribute it?

  • 0

    amerijap

    The Japanese government does not have an official (or unofficial, for that matter) policy of historical whitewashing. Your post only clouds the issue with misinformation.

    No government needs an official policy to justify its rhetoric of any political campaign that will undermine its national image as a consequence. That is exactly my point! Even the US remains reluctant to show their dirty hands to the public for an entire disclosure of their 'shady pasts' in history.(i.e., anti-immigration movements in 18th/19th century; colonization of native Americans; racial-segregations; the Vietnam War syndrome, etc.) Otherwise, it will be a huge problem for the government authorities.

    The problem is NOT with the treaty itself. It is with the JP government who often uses the treaty as a statute of exoneration from their involvement in war crimes that are under-represented in the history textbooks. Signing in with the treaty lifts a burden of political/legal accountability for their wartime misconduct that is overcast by nuclear holocausts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That allows the JP government to provide the tons of misinformation about their historical past in a political arena, educational institution, and even the national media. What I see so far with the JP government is that they often make bad choices for their accountability and political transparency that end up upsetting the JP public and other Asian countries. It's quite easy for us to say forget it and move on, but such rhetoric works only within Japan(and a small number of JP citizens, I think)-- not all the victims. As your point sugegsts, nothing is much more problematic than to employ the logic of cultural amnesia based on a Japanese cultural context to all victims-- especially to foreign victims. It does not only evade the critical issue, but it will also lead us to a racial bias and a despicable stigmatization of politically/culturally oppressed.

  • 0

    timorborder

    Amending this treaty would set an interesting international precedent where countries could revisiting multi-lateral agreements any time they wanted. This might not be a positive development.

    At the same time, however, Japan does need to own up to its wartime past. Even today, the current generation of Japanese school kids is getting a very sanitized view of what grandma and grandad were doing when they were young. Indeed, if Japan were to get its house in order, it might gain some understanding of why there are still some pockets of deep seated hatred regarding the country overseas.

  • 0

    amerijap

    Japan does need to own up to its wartime past.

    This is what the progressives and sympathizers of war victims in both Japan and foreign countries have hoped for a long time from the 1980s. There was a time when some JP politicians--mostly from non-LDP, made the statements suggesting Japan's serious involvement in war crimes, but it ended up stirring up the hornet's nests. So far, the Japanese government chooses its way to downplay its shady past by showing its unwillingness to listen to the unaccounted 'pains' of the victims. Their ambiguous attitude toward the war victims not only produces a static notion of historical reflection, but it also feeds in the neo-conservatives and hardliners who enchant the mantra of Japanese nationalism in both academic community and mainstream media. What we see in this age of capitalism nationwide is that layperson scholars, conservative commentators, and nationalistic politicians are joining in a conspiracy of practicing a totalitarian campaign of suppressing the discourse that depicts Japan as a victimizer. Such practice of cultural amnesia works in favor of right-wing politicians and nationalists, and because of this, it is getting much more difficult to expect a mutual understanding between the government authorities and the foreign victims of war crimes.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Signing in with the treaty lifts a burden of political/legal accountability for their wartime misconduct that is overcast by nuclear holocausts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    The signing of the treaty did not "lift a burden of political/legal accountability. It was in fact the opposite.

    The signage of the treaty forced Japan to relinquish all assets overseas, called for bi-lateral treaties to compensate for the damage vis-a-vis nation to nation, and enforced the war criminals to be prosecuted under the unilateral term (Allieds became the judge,jury, and the executioner) set forth within the various tribunals conducted throughout Asia.

  • 0

    TWCAviation

    My grandfather was a POW for four years, a US Marine Guard in what then Chungking China and was taken prisoner when the Japanese forces occupied China, and spent four years in captivity and suffered a bayonet wound to his thigh as he had attempted escape on several occasions.

    You may assume from the story above that my grandfather would have influenced my ideas on Japanese people and society. He was a gentle, hardworking man. I also think he would be against the idea of being paid for something that was so long ago. He came from a generation who built their fortunes through hard work of their own. I think he and his generation would find the idea repugnant.

    He passed away some years ago- as has my father. What I know is that we live in a world where we need to learn from the past, but we dont need to create a situation where reparations cause both sides to lose face. Everyone loses. The victims would remember what has long ago shaped them, and the Japanese society would lose because they would have to remember a darker moment in history. This serves no one.

  • 0

    amerijap

    The signage of the treaty forced Japan to relinquish all assets overseas, called for bi-lateral treaties to compensate for the damage vis-a-vis nation to nation, and enforced the war criminals to be prosecuted under the unilateral term (Allieds became the judge,jury, and the executioner) set forth within the various tribunals conducted throughout Asia.

    Yeah, that's right. However, most tribunals for the war crime suspects were conducted right after the end of WWII-- from 1945 to 1948. By the time Japan signed on the treaty in 1951, the Allied Powers were moving on to the next phase on their occupation policy-- which is how to treat the vast majorities of conservative intellectuals and the rest of suspected war criminals. The Applied Powers were not aware of the inadequacy of war crime tribunals so-called 'victor's justice.' A number of civil trials over the government's political misconducts and injustices upon Japanese citizens(e.g., death threat, harassment, gag orders) as well as foreign civilians(e.g., military sex slave, forced labor) were left out from the victor's justice, and eventually dropped out of the public's concern.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    '

    A number of civil trials over the government's political misconducts and injustices upon Japanese citizens(e.g., death threat, harassment, gag orders) as well as foreign civilians(e.g., military sex slave, forced labor) were left out from the victor's justice, and eventually dropped out of the public's concern.

    Are you kidding? 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.

    Maybe Japan should of advertised themselves better in regards to these efforts but the point here is that civil liabilities (individual and nations) stemming from WWII was mostly completed by the time even Germany was allowed membership to the United Nations.

    http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E3%81%AE%E6%88%A6%E5%BE%8C%E8%A3%9C%E5%84%9F%E6%9D%A1%E7%B4%84%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7

  • 0

    amerijap

    the Japanese society would lose because they would have to remember a darker moment in history.

    Well, to me, they are already losing face to some extent since Japan was bashed by the Asian countries so many times for covering up history due to the government's bad decisions in handling a culturally sensitive issue. Their ineptitude in managing the public opinion and regulate incendiary media to block off the tirades by neo-conservatives and right-wing scholars is also held responsible for giving the foreign countries a wrong impression on the nation.

  • 0

    usaexpat

    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.

  • 0

    amerijap

    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.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    "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??

  • 0

    amerijap

    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

  • 0

    iraqisurvival

    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.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    .

    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.

  • 0

    amerijap

    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.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    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).

  • 0

    USARonin

    No.

  • 0

    amerijap

    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.

  • 0

    Seiharinokaze

    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.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    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?

  • 0

    amerijap

    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.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    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.

  • 0

    amerijap

    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.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

Follow us

Facebook
Twitter

More in Poll

View all

View all