The Ghosts of Nanking
Part two of a Special Multi-part series
about the Forgotten Holocaust of WWII
Part Four:
Shadows of retrobution
By Jesse Horn
12/30/09
Continued Exclusives with Yasuhisa
Kawamura, Deputy Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan, and Dr. Peter Stanek, President of the Global
Alliance for Preserving the History of WW II in Asia.
In recognition of the 72 anniversary of the
horrors that befell the Chinese city of Nanking, beginning in
December of 1937, we have been discussing the atrocities and
what has come as a result. This has been a dark stain on the
history of humanity, and during the course of this six-part
series, we have attempted to not only show how long these
individuals had to endure these atrocities, but also show the
complexities of how to deal with what took place, even today.
There are many who look to the Japanese Government as being
evasive and unapologetic for what took place, and even in
recent years and attempts to move in a direction towards
reconciliation there have been those even within the Japanese
Government that have countered these attempts. To find a clear
understanding as to where the Government of Japan stands on
these issues, as well as where global authorities feel, we
spoke to Yasuhisa Kawamura, Deputy Press Secretary of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, and Dr. Peter Stanek,
President of the Global Alliance for Preserving the History of
WWII in Asia.
"In legal terms, the Government of
Japan has sincerely settled issues of reparations,”
explained Mr. Kawamura, “assets, and claims arising out
of the War by means of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952,
other bilateral peace treaties including the 1972 Japan-China
Treaty with the Joint Declaration, and other international
instruments. Japan accepted such burdens as payment of
reparation and forfeiture of its foreign assets and
claims.” According to Article 1 of the Joint Declaration
between Japan and the People’s Republic of China in 1972,
‘The anomalous relations between Japan and the
People’s Republic of China shall be ended on the day of
the issuance of this declaration.’ Then Article 5 states
that the ‘Government of Peoples’ Republic of China
declares that in the interest of the friendship between the
Chinese and the Japanese peoples, it renounces its demand for
war reparation from Japan.’
“As you may recognize,”
continued Mr. Kawamura, “those claims are legally
interpreted to include every claim arising out of the war.
Japan settled the war time claims with the relevant
governments. Some governments, including China,
generously declined to demand reparations from Japan. But
Japan responded by making substantial contributions of economic
assistance to heighten the standard of living in those
countries.”
“The record shows something quite
different,” explained Dr. Stanek. “Documents cited
by Mr. Kawamura, and his reading of them, neither waived nor
extinguished individual rights to claims against Japanese
citizens, corporations, or governments. And Japan has
never accepted the "burdens" of reparations, but
resisted them vigorously through the courts.”
Dr. Stanek explained that, as an example,
TPT cannot be used as a legal basis for the abandonment of
Chinese victims’ right to a claim. TPT itself was
void after the signing of the Joint Communique of the
Government of Japan and the Government of the People’s
Republic of China in 1972.
“So the Joint Communique of 1972, or
JC, is now effective. In JC, the Chinese government did
not abandon the right to a claim of Chinese citizens on their
behalf or of the right of Chinese citizens to a right to a
claim themselves. Former slaves of the Nishimtsu
Corporation and their bereaved families began suing the
Corporation in the 1990s for unpaid wages. Allied POWs
who became slaves to corporations in Japan during the war have
similarly brought lawsuits in Japan and elsewhere and waged a
steady campaign for public opinion. Nishimatsu, and other
Japanese corporations pocketed huge profits during the war from
the blood and lives of Chinese slaves. These same
corporations have steadfastly maintained they owe
nothing.”
But with the understanding in JC, the first
and second instance rulings by District Courts or High Courts
in Tokyo, Fukuoka, Niigata, and Hiroshima in Nishimatsu did not
support the Japanese government’s position of "the
abandonment of the Chinese victims’ right to a
claim." (The only exception was the ruling of the
Tokyo High Court on March 18, 2005, which supported for the
first time the Japanese government’s position of
"abandonment of Chinese victims’ right to
claim" in the so-called "comfort women" cases.
This verdict itself by the Tokyo High Court violated
legal precedent and was a provocative aberration, which led to
widespread public protest and demonstrations.)
“In the Chinese view,”
continued Dr. Stanek “JC did not give up the Chinese
nationals’ individual rights to a claim for compensation
from Japan. A speech by the Chinese Foreign Minister Qian
Qichen in 1995, clearly stated, "The Joint Communique
abandoned the right to claim of the state, but the right to
claim of the individual has not been abandoned.” Again,
please take special notice, that in 1972, when China and Japan
restored diplomatic relations, a precondition was that the
Japanese government agreed there was only one China. Only under
this precondition were diplomatic relations of the two
countries restored and JC signed.”
Article 2 of the Joint Communique of
1972 states, "The Government of Japan recognizes the
Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only
legitimate Government of China."
“Using TPT as an argument in any
issue of claim by Chinese citizens, or indeed any individual
seeking redress, violates Japan's own position defined in JC.
Mr. Kawamura failed to note that waffling
about the slave labor issue and lying about its history
ultimately destroyed the government of Taro Aso (scion of the
Aso family and their extensive mining operations supported by
slave laborer during the war) and of the LDP.”
Mr. Kawamura stated there were actions
other than legal that the Government of Japan took.
"In addition to the above-mentioned
legal resolutions,” Mr. Kawamura explained,
“Japan has also taken humanitarian approaches to
particular issues. On the issue of wartime comfort women
for example, the Japanese Government expressed its sincere
apologies and remorse, and also established the Asian
Women’s Fund to help compensate these victims. On the
issue of the former US POWs, the Japanese Government recognizes
that the so-called Visit Japan initiative would contribute to
further understanding and reconciliation between Japan and the
United States. By keeping this in mind, the Japanese
Government is currently examining how practically this
initiative be realized."
“Once again,” Dr. Stanek
stated, “Mr. Kawamura is completely wrong.”
Dr. Stanek went on to explain that in 2007, Rep. Michael Honda,
a Japanese-American representing a district in Northern
California, introduced HR 121 that demanded an apology from the
Japanese government for the forced sex slavery of Korean,
Chinese, Filipino, and Indonesian girls and young women.
After much debate, the measure was passed by the US House
of Representatives.
“The government of Japan lobbied
vigorously against HR 121, in a hopeless attempt to justify sex
slavery and stifle debate on human rights. In this way
did the Japanese government express remorse?”
The Passage of HR 121 prompted
a global motion that was swiftly followed by similar
legislation demanding an apology and compensation from the
government of Japan: the Canadian Parliament Motion 291 of
2007, the European Parliament Motion of 2007, the Philippine
House Resolution 124 of 2007, the South Korean National
Assembly Resolution of 2008, the Taiwan National Assembly
Resolution of 2008,
and other similar legislation. In 2008, the
United Nations Human Rights Commission commented once again
stating in its "International covenant on civil and
political rights" CPR/C/JPN/CO/5, 30 October 2008, that in
regards to Japan,
“The Committee notes with concern
that the state party has still not accepted its responsibility
for the “comfort women” system during World War II,
that perpetrators have not been prosecuted, that the
compensation provided to victims is financed by private
donations rather than public funds and is insufficient, that
few history textbooks contain references to the “comfort
women” issue, and that some politicians and mass media
continue to defame victims or to deny the events. (arts. 7 and
8)”
It continued stating that "The State
party should accept legal responsibility and apologize
unreservedly for the “comfort women” system in a
way that is acceptable to the majority of victims and restores
their dignity, prosecute perpetrators who are still alive, take
immediate and effective legislative and administrative measures
to adequately compensate all survivors as a matter of right,
educate students and the general public about the issue, and to
refute and sanction any attempts to defame victims or to deny
the events."
“Since the war ended,” Dr.
Stanek continued, “the Japanese government continues to
ignore or deny efforts by American former POWs to obtain
compensation or even a simple apology. Japanese companies
have sought to suppress historical documentation of forced POW
labor. In 2005, one of Japan’s most prominent
magazines, Bungei Shunju, published an article arguing not only
that the Bataan Death March was less severe than reported but
probably never happened. Remarkably, members of
Japan’s Parliament plan to introduce a bill having to do
with prisoners of World War II — not to compensate former
POWs, but meant to provide back pay and pensions for Korean and
other non-Japanese camp guards who had been convicted as war
criminals for abusing Allied POWs.”
With there being what appears to be a
disconnect with the Japanese Government what can be done now...
“For all the Japanese obfuscation and
foot-dragging, for all the cowardly hiding behind obscure
references, for all the hesitancy to simply and forthrightly
acknowledge the grotesque savagery of the Japanese Imperial
Armed Forces during the Pacific War, we have yet to have an
clear act of contrition from the Japanese government,”
stated Dr. Stanek. “I propose a solution, which I share
with you. In 1971, Willy Brandt, Chancellor of West
Germany, visited Poland. He went to the Warsaw Ghetto, a
symbolic center of the Nazi Holocaust. Brandt sank to his
knees and publicly begged the Jewish people for forgiveness.
I look forward to the day when Prime Minister Hatoyama
and Emperor Akihito visit Nanjing, kneel before the Nanjing
Memorial Museum, and loudly beg the Chinese people for
forgiveness. Perhaps then we can have peace and
reconciliation.” In next weeks part five we turn to
examining not only why reconciliation between two different
cultures and generations is challenging, but also how it is
achievable in our exclusive conversation with renowned
psychotherapist Armand Volkas, whose groundbreaking work
Healing the Wounds of History has focused on helping groups who
share a common legacy of historical trauma traverse the
emotional terrain to reconciliation. It is important to note
that from the marking of our first part in this series, which
also serves as a clock signifying the time frame Nanking was
under siege, those who had to live through this horror would be
entering their fourth week. At this point thousands have died
senseless, cruel, and horrific deaths, and family’s lives
would be devastated for generations to come.
| ||