Contact /Last modified: 08/23/01
1.
Forced Relocation of Chinese and the Hanaoka Incident
Forced Relocation
No one would question that China suffered the most from Japanese invasion.
Symbolic of the suffering were the Rape of Nanjing and the relocation of
Chinese. What follows is the appeal of one man.
"I have been searching for my father's remains and have taken pains
for years to seek a solution to problems left after the war.
"My father traveled to Tianjing to sell food and to meet with five
fellows from our village and a neighboring village on December 6, 1944
of the lunar calender. On their way, around 6 o'clock in the morning December
8th, a group of Japanese soldiers suddenly broke into the hotel where my
father was staying. They took all six men of my father's party to the Japanese
military police station without giving any reasons. My father and his fellow
villagers were kept there for over 20 days and interrogated many times.
The military police could not find anything as there was no reason for
their arrest from the beginning. Nevertheless, the six men were handcuffed
and taken to a port in Tanggu. 'Although you all deserve to be executed,'
one translator told them, 'we will give you freedom instead and send you
to Japan as laborers. After working three years, you can come back with
some wages.' Without consent, my father and his fellow villagers were forced
to board a ship on January 15, 1945 of the lunar calender."
His father was sent to the Miike mine of Mitsubishi Corporation to do forced
labor. He was put into a small, shabby room and provided only 100 grams
of food a day, which was not enough to sustain the demands of hard labor.
Everyday, countless numbers of laborers were beaten by the field director.
They had no other choice but to escape or wait to die. To prevent the flight
of workers, the company collected their clothes after work and banned workers
from going out except to the mines and restaurant -- keeping them in virtual
imprisonment.
"My father could not stand such torture and was enraged by the mental
repression. He expressed his anger through action and was thereby, as punishment,
beaten to the point of injury by the field director. In agony from such
inhuman violence, my father developed schizophrenia. However, far from
receiving any treatment for his mental illness, he was further required
to work as hard as others. The sick man then could do nothing but resist.
The more he resisted, the more severely they oppressed him. They tied my
father's hands and feet to the bed, but still he resisted. So, they put
heavy boards on his body and left him without food or drink for many days.
Defenseless against these creatures worse than beasts, and under their
brutal violence, my father suffered in agony every second until his death.
What crime did he commit to deserve this? Why did he have to be put into
forced labor? Why did he develop schizophrenia while working? He was not
treated for his schizophrenia but was instead treated even worse and died
a horrible death. ...as a result, our home life was also destroyed, having
been deprived of its bread winner. Our destitution was such that family
land had to be sold and, in coldness and hunger, the older children worked
at odd jobs and as babysitters to eke out a living, while the younger children
stopped going to school and even considered begging. Our father's death
has severely traumatized our family; every time the family gets together,
we remember the murder of our father and shed tears.
"Mother died in 1981. According to Chinese custom, she should have
been buried alongside my father, but where are his remains? There was nothing
we could do but carve my father's name on a brick and bury it with my mother
instead.
"Everyone has a father and mother, and anyone would be grateful to
their parents for having been brought up by them. Nevertheless, I had to
send my parents' souls off to heaven in this manner. How can my father's
soul find peace after he was killed even though he was innocent? How about
my mother's soul? How can we, who still live, find peace of mind? My entire
family cried loudly. About 50 members of the family gathered and swore
that we would never forget the war. They indiscriminately attacked and
killed citizens and put citizens into occupied areas as slave labor. They
should pay not only compensation for having started the war but also compensation
for all civilian damage they inflicted. Now is the time to resolve this
problem (Wang Qi-zhen, in his speech at the 1991 International Forum on
War Reparations for the Asia-Pacific Region)."
As shown by this account, the suffering and wounds of Chinese people caused
by the war of Japanese aggression have mostly yet to be healed .
Undoubtedly, the forced relocation of Chinese was conducted as part of
Japan's war of aggression against China. On November 27, 1942, when the
war situation became critical, the Tojo Cabinet decided on the "Relocation
of Chinese laborers to mainland Japan" because, "Given increasingly
tighter labor supply conditions on the mainland --especially serious for
hard labor-- (it is necessary) to import Chinese laborers to help in establishing
the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere." Based on this, the government
drew up detailed policies in the vice-ministers' meeting on February 28,
1944 and carried them out.
The Japanese military, in the name of a "hunt for labor" operation,
surrounded villages in occupied areas and captured physically fit males
from 15 to 40 years of age, regardless of whether they were the bread winners
of their families, to be sent to detention camps.
In this way, about 40,000 Chinese men were brought to Japan and then distributed
to 135 enterprises across the country. These enterprises included major
companies such as Mitsui Mining, Sumitomo Mining, Hokkaido Coal Mines and
Shipping, Furukawa Mining, Ube Industries, Dowa Mining Co., Nittetsu Mining,
Nihon Yakin Koyo, Kajima Corp., Taisei Corp., Hazama, Asuka Gumi., Kumagai
Gumi and Nishimatsu.
The relocated Chinese were subjected to conditions in which "many
were scarcely clothed, covering themselves with hemp sacks or rice straw
bags" and "were so meagerly fed that rice bran was a staple and
a one-third mixture of wheat would be a luxury, and their socks were so
thin that they had bind them with ropes to stand the coldness" and
"no cover was provided even in snowstorms and when they were pushing
coal trolleys." These men were mainly used as coal miners, port laborers,
tunnel diggers and other kinds of construction workers, and were forced
to perform heavy labor for 10 to 14 hours a day, enduring constant shouts
and beatings with clubs. For those suffering extreme fatigue due to malnutrition,
just falling down could prove fatal. Exposed to these abuses and cruelties,
about 6,800 men perished.
The Hanaoka Incident
On June 30, 1945, just before the defeat of Japan, 800 Chinese forcibly
relocated to Kajima Corporation's Hanaoka Mine Office (Akita Prefecture)
all revolted in a backlash against conditions of hunger and abuse. This
uprising was known as the Hanaoka Incident. After killing four Japanese
directors and a spy, they all left the camp to hide in nearby mountains.
There they fought back with stones and work tools against thousands of
civilian and military police. Many Chinese were killed and those who survived
were tortured by being forced to remain kneeling with a triangular bar
placed behind their knees for three days and nights. Without water or food
and severely beaten, half of them died miserably. Leaders of the revolt
were sentenced to life imprisonment.
After the war, the incident was uncovered by the US occupying force stationed
in Akita. Geng Zhun and other leaders of the revolt were released from
prison, and in their place the chief of the Kajima Hanaoka Office and five
others concerned were prosecuted as war criminals for the abuse of POWs.
The Yokohama Court for Class-B and -C War Criminals sentenced three men
to death by hanging, life imprisonment for one and limited time in prison
for the remaining two (Later, the five men were given amnesty and released.)
Although inadequately, in 1949 local Japanese workers and Chinese residents
of Japan exhumed the remains of these Chinese victims of the Hanaoka Incident.
The Executive Committee for the Memorial of Chinese POW Victims was formed
by the Japan-China Friendship Association, the Sohyo (General Council of
Trade Unions of Japan) and Buddhist organizations on February 17, 1953.
The organization continued its efforts in national investigation, and exhumation,
collection and repatriation of the remains of Chinese victims.
In the summer of 1987, the leader of the Hanaoka riot, Geng Zhun, was invited
to Japan to attend a memorial service for victims in Hanaoka, Akita. After
returning home, Geng Zhun set up an association of Hanaoka victims to promote
cooperation between survivors and the families of the victims of the Hanaoka
Incident. The association published an "Open Letter to Kajima Corporation"
in Beijing in December 1989. In the letter, Geng Zhun and other members
demanded that the company 1) apologize to the victims officially, 2) build
a memorial house in Akita as a resource for future education, and 3) pay
compensation of 5 million yen to each victim.
In June 1990, six survivors and the bereaved, including Geng Zhun, visited
Japan to negotiate for the first time directly with Kajima Corporation,
with Diet members in attendance. In the joint announcement after the meeting,
Kajima Corporation did "express its profound apology" with an
"acknowledgment of corporate responsibility," but the issue of
actual compensation was left to future discussions.
The legal basis of this compensation claim lies in the violation of domestic
laws of Japan and consequent responsibility for reparation of the damages
related to forced labor and abuse inflicted upon Chinese workers in the
Kajima Hanaoka Mine. However, this is not to say that this compensation
claim against a corporation would absolve the Japanese state of any responsiblity
of the incident.
Some people argue that issues of responsibility for unlawful acts committed
during the war were settled through the 1973 Japan-China Joint Declaration.
Is it true? Certainly, Article Five of the Joint Declaration states that
the Chinese government abandoned its claim for war reparations against
Japan. However, it was the Chinese government that abandoned its right
and nothing is mentioned about claims by individuals. It is clear by international
law that claim rights of individuals and states are totally separate and
the Japanese government itself has constantly taken that position. Therefore,
the right of individual war victims to make compensation claims against
the Japanese government and corporations for damages inflicted upon them
during the war still remains intact irrespective of the Japan-China Joint
Declaration.
In June 1994, Chinese survivors and the families of the victims of the
Hanaoka Incident visited Japan for one last chance to press Kajima Corporation
for a realization of compensation. However, the corporation firmly refused
their demands for individual compensation and insisted that only if the
government and other corporations responded to their compensation claims,
would it make an appropriate contribution toward the entire payment. Disappointment
and rage among the victims ran deep, and I was made to realize a want of
ability on the part of Japanese society to make any ethical statement on
this point.
2. Former Japanese
Soldiers in Taiwan (*nb: Names for Taiwanese here are spelled in the Wade
system)
Kominka: Assimilation Policy
Taiwan (Formosa) was the first colony of Japan. In 1874, in the aftermath
of the Meiji Revolution, islanders of Miyakoima, Japan drifted to the southern
part of Formosa Island and were killed by mistake. Taking advantage of
the incident, the Meiji government dispatched troops to the island with
the excuse of having the "duty to protect the population." Japan
cleverly used the dispatch in its diplomatic relations with China to obtain
substantial reparation, as well as to make China concede that Ryuku (Okinawa)
was a Japanese territory.
Following this, Japan won the Sino-Japanese War fought between August 1884
and March 1885 over its interests in Korea. As a result, Taiwan was ceded
from China to Japan and so Japan made its first step into imperialism.
Upon acquiring Taiwan, the Meiji government set up the Governor-General's
Office of Taiwan to begin colonial rule over the island under military
government. In 1898, Japan sent Gentaro Kodama as the fourth Governor-General
and Shinpei Goto as Welfare Bureau Chief (later to become Director General)
to enforce a "carrot and stick" policy in the colony. For the
"carrot," they, for example, propagated a policy of respecting
old customs, even organizing a ceremony of reverence for senior citizens,
and granted collaborators special privileges such as operating salt and
tobacco sales, while on the "stick" side, they announced the
Ordinance of Punishment for Traitors in November 1989 to severely suppress
any opposition as traitors.
At that time, the island was populated by about three million Chinese and
less than 200,000 indigenous Formosans (Takasago, etc.).
The government conducted an extensive Land Survey Project from 1898 to
1905 to find hidden rice paddies to tax, and carried out a certain amount
of modernization to establish a base of development for the colonial economy.
These actions were followed by the Forest Survey Project (1910-1914) ,
a means by which the native population was deprived of its vast forestlands
by the state.
Also, the state imposed a system of strict Japanese language education
upon about 600,000 Taiwanese children to enforce its policy of assimilation.
With many opposed to these policies of colonization, there were continual
demonstrations of anti-Japanese unrest such as the Lo Fu-hsin Incident
in October 1913 and the Hsi Lai An Incident in August 1915. In particular,
the Wu Sh* Incident on October 27, 1930 was a tremendous shock to the rulers
back in Japan.
The outbreak of the war against China triggered an all-out implementation
of the assimilation policy. From April 1, 1937, Taiwanese were restricted
in the use of their mother tongues and columns in Chinese in the newspapers
were abolished. Ethnic plays and music were banned, and traditional religious
events and ceremonies were restricted. In their place, the use of Japanese
language and worship of the Japanese Emperor were mandated, and from February
11, 1940 a government-sponsored movement to encourage the adaptation of
Japanese names was aggressively promoted.
With the start of the Pacific War, Japan established Taiwan as the base
for its southward expansion (a cabinet decision on "The Placement
of Taiwan within the Southern Policy," 1941).
The Imperial Subject Service Association (Kominhokokai) was set up in April
1941, followed by a cabinet decision in June to introduce a voluntary military
enlistment system in Taiwan. The "Takasago Militia Brigade" was
made up mainly of indigenous Formosan youth, who were then sent to the
southern front.
Former Imperial Soldiers from Taiwan
Following the defeat of Japan, Taiwan was returned to China, where the
Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) were fighting each
other. Taiwan eventually came under control of the KMT, which fled there
after losing the mainland.
"My name at that time was Kenji Nishida, as a born 'Japanese.' I served
as an interpretator for the Staff Officer at the General Headquarters of
the Southern Troops in the Japanese Army for five years. I served in several
fronts including Singapore and the Truk Islands, and took part in the Imphal
Operation, before I was demobilized to return to Taiwan in September 1946.
I still keep photos of those days, which show that I served as a Japanese.
"I returned home one year after the end of war. There I saw people
cleaning up demolished shinto shrines that used to be seen everywhere.
I heard a lot of stories of various people killed in the war as Japanese
soldiers. I was informed by authorities in Japan that my younger brother
had died in the war in New Guinea.
"When I returned, our living conditions were below the poverty level.
The precious money my father had saved diminished in value due to terrible
exchange rates. We became really poor -- we lost our homestead and found
it difficult even to feed ourselves.
"How about the people in the mountains? Those native Formosans had
also been drafted to the southern fronts including New Guinea and the Philippines,
and rendered distinguished service as shock troops. Nevertheless, they
are now living in plight. This too is an urgent problem.
"Taiwan has been kept under the marshal law for over forty years since
the end of the war and our freedoms have been very limited. It is a situation
perhaps beyond your imagination. Under the slogan "counteroffensive
against Mainland China," we have been heavily taxed to support defense
spending, which once accounted for 70% of the national budget. So, we have
continued to be forced to make sacrifices even after exploitation by Japan
in the name of "Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.
"I still feel affection for the Japanese people. All Native Formosans
still use Japanese and sing Japanese songs. We served the Japanese with
faith for such a long time. However, our earnings from these services were
frozen in the military postal savings, and haven't been paid back yet after
more than 40 years. I want you to think with us about what can be done
about our compensation.
"We are already quite old at around 70 years of age. What we want
is swift compensation and repayment of military postal savings to former
soldiers and gunzoku through intergovernmental agreements."
The above appeal was from Lee XX, Chairman of the "Union of Former
Japanese Soldiers and Gunzoku and Their Families in Taiwan," at the
International Forum on War Reparation about the Asia-Pacific Region in
August 1993.
Before the war, in Japan soldiers were covered by a military pension plan
based on the Pension Law and those who were injured or the survivors of
those killed in the war were eligible for an annuity or a lump-sum allowance.
Higher ranking gunzoku were also covered as civil officers by a pension
scheme designed for general civil servants. However, lower ranking (below
koin) gunzoku were excluded from the Pension Law, and they were covered
instead by specific legislation such as the Ordinance for Aid to Koin in
the event of death or injury in the war. Even for kouin, the lowest rank
among gunzoku, there were some measures providing meager compensation such
as the provision of the Mutual Aid Association in the Army and Navy, although
those who were working overseas on the front lines were not eligible for
membership in the Association.
After the war, the Military Pension Scheme was abolished in light of war
responsibility but was reinstated in 1953.
However, the current plan does not cover Taiwanese soldiers. The law requires
Japanese citizenship as a prerequisite to eligibility for a pension, yet
Taiwanese automatically lost their Japanese nationality upon the conclusion
of the Japan-Republic of China Peace Treaty in 1951.
Additionally, the Ordinance for Aid to Koin and provisions of the Mutual
Aid Association of the Army and Navy were superseded by the pension scheme
provided by the Mutual Aid Association for State Workers. For kouin working
overseas on the front lines, who were previously uncovered, the Aid Law
of 1952 provides compensation for death or injury in the war.
Properly speaking, the Aid Law should include those Taiwanese gunzoku killed
or injured in the war. In reality, however, Article Two in the appendix
provides, "For the time being, the law will not be applied to those
who are excluded from the Family Registry Law," which effectively
eliminates those who are not Japanese by birth even before the question
of nationality can be considered. With this provision, the government has
neglected the compensation of Taiwanese and Korean war victims, who were
Japanese subjects at the time of the war.
Trials on Compensation Claims
Over 20 years after the war, in 1974, Teruo Nakamura, a former Imperial
soldier and native of Formosa, was found and rescued on Morotai Island.
The incident led to the formation of the "Association for Consideration
of Compensation for Former Japanese Soldiers from Taiwan "(ACCFJST)(Managing
Representative: Shigeki Miyazaki, professor at Meiji University). The association,
together with war veterans associations and others, began actions to demand
that the Japanese government provide compensation, but met with little
success.
Helped by the ACCFJST, on August 13, 1977, 13 survivors and the families
of those former Japanese soldiers and gunzoku who were injured or killed
in the war filed suit. The case was filed in Tokyo District Court by a
team of lawyers (led by Hideo Akimoto) organized by the Freedom and Human
Rights Association, a human rights defense organization, in response to
a request from the ACCFJST. The trial attracted wide public attention and
brought to the fore an important social issue which would, together with
the Trial for Claims for Repatriation of Koreans Left in Sakhalin, become
legal antecedents to the movements for postwar compensation.
The ruling for the first trial of the Taiwanese case was concluded on February
26, 1982.
The court rejected the claims on the grounds that "such an issue (compensation
for Taiwanese injured or killed in the war) should be, by nature, left
to diplomatic disposal or the legislative policies of the state" and
"as these (e.g., the Pension Law) are matters relying upon the tax
burden of the Japanese people, it makes sense to limit the recipients to
the Japanese nationals that comprise this country." The coldheartedness
of the decision sparked public outrage, and resulted in the government's
being pressured to find a solution.
The second trial in Tokyo High Court was concluded on August 26, 1985.
The court rejected the claims in the text of the ruling but added at the
end that the government should provide legal relief for the victims. "It
is obvious that the plaintiffs have experienced significant disadvantages
compared to those Japanese in similar situations........(the court) expects
those concerned with state politics to eliminate these disadvantages promptly
by overcoming any expected diplomatic, financial and technical difficulties."
The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
During the course of the trial, the Diet, on September 18, 1987, passed
a bill "Concerning Consolation Money for the Bereaved Families of
War Dead in Taiwan" that had been introduced by House members across
party lines. The law mandated the Japanese government "to take necessary
financial measures with maximum swiftness from fiscal year 1988" to
provide obituary/consolation money for deaths and injuries of Taiwanese
who were former Imperial soldiers. Actual amounts and methods of payment,
left to future legislators, were finally determined at 2 million yen per
death. Payments started in 1988 and about 28,000 surviving victims and
families of those who died have thus far received the money.
For the realization of this compensation, the nonpartisian "Roundtable
Meeting of MPs Over the Issue of Taiwanese War Dead" (chaired by Motoharu
Arima) made a significant contribution.
Still, 43 years had passed after the war when the compensation was finally
provided-- too little and too late. During these years, many, including
T刃g Sh刃g and other two plaintiffs; the chief attorney Akimoto; and Wang
Y*-t*, the chief secretary of the ACCFJST, died without seeing its realization.
Also, the victims have reached their 70s and 80s and may pass away at any
time. Moreover, there are many problems still unresolved.
The Supreme Court decision on the aforementioned case was given on April
28, 1992. The conclusion was the same as that of the District and High
Courts: "The issue of compensation is a matter of inter-governmental
"special arrangements" and as for a such special territory as
Taiwan, it is not unconstitutional even if a special arrangement is impossible
to conclude. Given such realities, it should be left to legislative policies
of the state as to what measures should be taken on the issue." Once
again, the judicial branch abandoned its role of checking the legislative
branch.
Out of the over 200,000 Taiwanese soldiers and gunzoku, more than 30,000
were killed in the Second World War, according to the Ministry of Health
and Welfare statistics; however, the actual figure for the death toll is
believed to be greater. About 10,000 people are still unable to apply as
victims because, for instance, of some problems with documentation or perceived
ineligibility on the part of the bereaved. Also, the problems of frozen
deposits in the Military Postal Saving System and unpaid salaries during
the war remain untouched. About 310 million yen, including 29 million yen
in the Military Postal Savings System and 82 million yen in unpaid salaries
have yet to be disbursed. Taking into account the price increases during
the 45 years following the war, the above figures are estimated to have
reached at least 90 billion yen in current value. In claiming compensation
for these losses, a new movement has been developed.
3. Gunpyo in Hong
Kong
In December 1990, "News Station," a news program by TV Asahi,
broadcast a picture of individuals demanding that the Japanese government
give them compensation for their well-preserved gunpyo --a military currency
issued during Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. What is the issue of gunpyo?
The following episode is illustrative.
"Suddenly, the taxi driver turned his head to me and startled us with
the words thrown at us, 'Shall I tell you how my family was tormented by
the Japanese?' The driver, who appeared to be in late middle age, burst
into a torrent of words.
'When the Japanese military occupied Hong Kong, I was only seventeen years
old but was already working in an adult capacity for my father's business.
Soon after the occupation, the Japanese military announced that we should
exchange our HK dollars for their gunpyo at a rate of two to one. We were
unconvinced and reluctant to do so. However, while we were hesitating the
rate became four to one, which made us anxious about future rates and so
eventually we had to convert all our money into gunpyo. Thereafter, during
the nearly four years of Japanese occupation, my father and I worked hard
and saved 30,000 yen in gunpyo. When Japan lost the war, we were forced
to change our gunpyo into HK dollars again. However, the exchange rate
was outrageous --only seven dollars for 10,000 yen! This made my father
furious. What a nonsense! If the 30,000 yen we saved through more than
three years of hard labor could only be converted to 21 dollars, it was
better not to exchange. We would keep the 30,000 yen in gunpyo as evidence
showing how badly we were made fools of by the Japanese. We would keep
the money to pass on our grievances to future generations. Having said
this, to the end my father never exchanged the money for HK dollars. The
gunpyo are still stored in my house, and following my father's wishes,
I have often shown the gunpyo to my children, explaining the story behind
them. When I have grandchildren I will certainly do the same with them.'
Telling this all in one sustained outburst, the driver asked us with piercing
eyes, 'Compared with those who lost their families or had their houses
burned, it was just a matter of money. But don't you think it's reasonable
for my father and I to have gotten so angry?'" ("What Did We
Do in Hong Kong?," Kosuke Wakuda, in the Iwanami Booklet series).
On December 8, 1941, Japan declared war against Britain and America, attacking
Peal Harbor at the same time. By December 24th, its military had occupied
Hong Kong, a British territory. On January 20th of the next year, Japan
set up the Governor-General's Office in the territory and the military
government began enforcing a policy of dispersing the population following
the "Guideline on Implementation of Population Dispersal in the Port
Nine District." It also confiscated stored rice and started collecting
HK dollars.
Citizens of Hong Kong were forced to exchange their HK dollars accumulated
through hard effort for gunpyo issued by the Japanese military. Initially
the exchange rate was two HK dollars to one gunpyo, which deteriorated
to four to one after July 24th. After May 10, 1943, the military, based
on martial law, strictly banned the use of HK dollars with severe punishment
for violators. The severity of enforcement was such that one could be struck
dead with a sword on the spot when found possessing HK dollars or for refusing
to receive gunpyo.
Gunpyo, an abbreviation of gunyoshuhyo, was temporary currency issued by
the government of the Great Japanese Empire for purchasing necessary materials
for military operations or the management of occupied areas. It had also
been used extensively during the Russo-Japanese War, then referred to as
a "military ticket." The extensive use of gunpyo by the Japanese
military to carry out wars largely derived from its traditional policy
of "local procurement" in occupied areas. However, as gunpyo
were randomly issued in huge numbers without economic backing, the currency
became practically worthless.
During its occupation of Hong Kong, the Japanese military announced that
Gunpyo were backed by huge reserves and the money was valid for both the
purchase and payment of anything. Also, on the back side of a gunpyo note
was written that they were directly convertible to Japanese yen at any
time.
Japan surrendered on August 15, 1945. In Hong Kong, where gunpyo were used
until the end of the war, the British military government prohibited the
circulation of gunpyo in early September. However, conversion into HK dollars
was incomplete and many gunpyo were left unchanged. Unlike other areas
where some measures were taken to compensate the losses -- gold in the
central China, a full exchange for new currencies after the war in Southeast
Asia, and the Special Treatment for Yen in Thailand -- no measures have
been taken in Hong Kong based on the position that everything was settled
through the San Francisco Peace Treaty.
The damage caused by Japan in its war of aggression was boundless, ranging
from murder and rape to looting. Japan also turned money, which is second
in importance only to life, into worthless pieces of paper.
After the war, calling for compensation for these property losses, the
Hong Kong Association to Seek Compensation (with a membership of 20,000
households ) was formed in 1968. The association has repeated its appeals
to the Japanese government every time a new Prime Minister comes to office.
However, the government maintains its position that "the issue has
been settled, as Britain abandoned its reparation claims in article 14
of the San Francisco Peace Treaty." Having no bright outlook, membership
in the association gradually fell to 2,590 (with members holding a total
of 540 million yuan in gunpyo) as of 1991.
On May 20, 1991, the association sent its representatives to Japan to negotiate
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but the Japanese government continued
to ignore their appeals.
As a result, the association selected 16 members as plaintiffs for trial.
They filed suit in Tokyo District Court against the Japanese government
on August 15, 1993. A Japanese support group led by Kiyoshi Ohkubo was
also formed. The team of attorneys has been fighting in court, arguing
that the Japanese government has clear responsibility as the imposition
of gunpyo was a violation of asset rights which in turn violated the Hague
Treaty, as based on Article 3 of the same.
| Presented by RUR-55, Link free Contact /Last modified: 08/23/01 |
|