|
Qs & As February 6, 2009
Question No. 22
Reply No. 171-22 Questions Regarding the Use of Allied POW Labor During WWII In November and December last year, I asked during the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, the House of Councilors, about the Japanese government’s stance on the use of Allied POW labor during WWII. As not everything had been made clear, I submit the following questions. It is deeply regrettable that, after 64 years since the end of WWII, no reconciliation has been achieved between Japan and aged former POWs, their families, and bereaved families and that Japan has long been dragging its feet on this issue in its diplomatic relations between the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands, making this issue a persistent irritant. The POW issue was recognized as such a serious case of war crimes committed by Japan that it was incorporated in the Article 10 of the Potsdam Declaration that Japan accepted. Not only was it dealt with by the War Crimes Tribunal, it has been an important diplomatic issue as stipulated by Article 16 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty that has required response by the post-war Japanese government. This year being the “International Year for Reconciliation” adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and supported by Japan, I strongly urge a sincerer response from the Japanese government so that we will rid ourselves of this “thorn” in the post-war foreign relations of our country. I. On the condition of preservation of records related to POWs held during WWII How did the Japanese government handle records related to POWs held during WWII and related documents after the war, and where are they kept now? Explain in detail how those documents were handed over between different agencies. The Prisoner of War Information Bureau, established within the old Department of Army in December of 1941, was responsible for such tasks as detaining POWs, keeping track of their transportation, making inscription cards for each POW, and repairing. The Bureau continued to perform those tasks under the First Repatriation Bureau (Daiichi Fukuin Sho) and the General Administrative Agency of the Cabinet (Souri-fu) until it was closed in 1957. Documents that had been held by the Bureau were handed over to the then Ministry of Health and are now kept by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Meanwhile, prewar documents in diplomatic records that had been kept by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were handed over to the Diplomatic Record Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when it opened in April 1971. These diplomatic records, which have been kept by this Office and are available for the public, contain the information and materials related to wartime POWs that you asked. II. On the government agency that is responsible for the POW issue and the person who is in charge Which agency within the Japanese government is in charge of dealing with various problems related to POWs held during WWII, and making policies on them? Who is responsible for that task? Because “Dealing with various problems related to POWs of WWII and making policies on them” encompasses many issues, each government agency that is charged with each issue deals with it. III. On recognition of the POW issue The issue surrounding the treatment of Allied POWs has always been a very sensitive one in the postwar diplomacy of Japan with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Netherlands. I hear that former POWs and internees still hold monthly demonstrations in front of the Japanese Embassy in The Hague, The Netherlands and that the Japanese ambassadors have met them, receiving and replying to their written requests. 1. Why does the Japanese Embassy in Australia not offer a sincere response as its counterpart in the Netherlands does, trying to listen to the voices of those concerned? The Japanese Embassy in Australia has responded properly to former Australian POWs by sending replies to their requests. 2. What recognition does the Japanese government give to the issues of Allied POWs? Does it not recognize them as problems that need to be dealt with? 3. What messages does the Japanese government try to send to those concerned? Reply to questions 2 and 3 Making POWs work, by itself, was permitted under the international law of that time. Meanwhile, accepting with a spirit of humility the facts of history that Japan through its colonial rule and aggression caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of former Allied nations and other nations including former POWs, our country has expressed the feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology on various occasions. IV. On the pleas from former Australian POWs and their families Ever since the current Prime Minister Aso became Minister of Foreign Affairs in 2005, appeals for resolution of the POW issue have been made by the former Australian POWs who were made to work at Aso Mining and their families. Their pleas have been reported repeatedly by Australian newspapers and broadcasts. 1. The Japanese Embassy and Consulates in Australia must have received this information. But have they sent that information to their home ministry and the Prime Minister’s office in Tokyo? The Japanese Embassy and Consulates in Australia have diligently reported to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on media reports on related issues. 2. Has the Japanese government ever received any letters or e-mails sent by former POWs and their families? If it has, how did it respond to their requests and questions? The government has responded sincerely when it received letters from former POWs in Australia by meeting with them or sending replies to their letters. V. On confirming the information on the use of POWs at Aso Mining 1. At the press conference for the foreign press on July 4, 2006, International Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made remarks refuting the facts of Aso Mining’s use of Allied POW. On what sources was the denial based? Having checked the record of the press conference for the foreign press on July 4, 2006, we could not confirm the comment you had pointed out. 2. During the meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, the House of Councilors, on November 13 and December 18 last year, Minister of Foreign Affairs Nakasone stated regarding the International Herald Tribune article dated on November 15, 2006, “A necessary confirmation procedure was carried out by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at that time.” What confirmation procedure was taken specifically? The International Press Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made inquiries to other relevant bureaus and divisions to confirm if there was any document pertinent to the content of the article kept within the Ministry. 3. During the Budget Committee, the House of Representatives, on January 9, Prime Minister Aso stated, “Through my office, we made inquiries to the people at the old Aso Mining, but could not find such information at that time.” When were these inquiries made and to whom were they made? How were these inquiries made and what replies were obtained? Upon learning about the article published in the International Herald Tribune on November 15, 2006, the office of Mr. Taro Aso made inquiries to Aso Company where the information regarding the old Aso Mining were possibly kept. We understand that the company replied to the office of Mr. Aso Taro that it could not confirm information on labor by Allied POWs. 4. Did the Japanese government not closely examine the materials related to the old Aso Mining? The International Press Office of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made inquiries to other relevant bureaus and divisions to confirm if there was any document pertinent to the content of the article kept within the Ministry. VI. On descriptions in A Hundred-Year History of Aso and the actual condition This book, which was published by Prime Minister Aso, the then-president of the company, contains some descriptions of Korean labor. 1. Regarding the situation under which the Koreans were used at Aso Mining at that time, does the Prime Minister recognize that it was “forced labor”? It is difficult to answer because we do not know the exact nature of labor performed by the Korean laborers at Aso Mining at that time. 2. On the other hand, no description is found regarding Allied POWs. Was an inquiry not made to the personnel concerned and research not carried out on related literature and records? We understand that the said book had been published by Prime Minister Taro Aso as a private citizen before he became Prime Minister and the government is not in a position to reply to your question. VII. On the rebuttal to the International Herald Tribune article on the website of the Japanese Consulate in New York 1. What is the precise duration of time during which the rebuttal was posted on the website? The rebuttal was posted on January 5, 2007 (New York time). 2. Who was responsible for suggesting and instructing the posting of the rebuttal? The task of posting and removing rebuttals is the responsibility of Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. What was the date it was removed? It was removed on December 17, 2008 (New York time). 4. Who was responsible for suggesting and instructing the removal? The task of posting and removing rebuttals is the responsibility of Press Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 5. Did Prime Minister Aso receive the report on the removal? Prime Minister Taro Aso did receive the report on the removal. 6. During the plenary session of the House of Representatives on January 6 and Budget Committee of the House of Representatives on January 9, Prime Minister Aso and Minister of Foreign Affairs Nakasone stated, “because the International Herald Tribune article included various misunderstandings of the facts.” Please point out all the facts that were misunderstood, in addition to the fact of POWs being used by Aso Mining. Explain also how they were misunderstood. As for the misunderstandings of facts in the said article other than the reference to the POW labor at Aso Mining, it was stated in the rebuttal posted on the website of the Consulate General in New York at that time. VIII. On the Payment of the wages One of the reasons why former POWs cannot overcome their mistrust of the Japanese government is because there has been no clear apology for them and no wages paid at the time of their labor. This makes them feel that they were forced into hard labor. The Japanese government claims that through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Japan paid 14 countries approximately 5,900,000,000 yen by liquidating its overseas assets.
1. Please produce documents
that certify that Japan made that payment. I believe that an explanation should be offered to
people concerned overseas so that they will be able to understand. What would be
the government’s position on this? 2. Has the Japanese Government been informed on how the money paid through the ICRC was distributed in each country? 3. Has the Japanese government submitted requests for such a report and information? 4. It does not seem that any money was paid to the United States. Why? Has any explanation ever been offered to the former American POWs why no money has been paid to the United States?
Reply to questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 The United States declined to receive a distribution from the ICRC based on the said Article. That decision was made by the United States and the Japanese government is not in a position to reply to your question. 5. Where are the documents such as individual work records kept now? They can serve as basis for payment of wages. As stated in the reply to question VIII 1-4, the payment by our nation was not wages for labor but was the action our nation took in accordance with Article 16 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty as an expression of its desire to indemnify Allied POWs who suffered undue hardships while prisoners of war of Japan. IX. Toward Solution of the POW Issue 1. What policy does the Japanese government have now for the resolution of these wartime POW issues and reconciliation with the people concerned and their families? 2. What are the projects for former POWs and their families, in the budget plan for 2009? Please state the specifics of the allocated budget on such plans. Reply to questions 1 and 2 The government has been promoting understanding of Japan and mutual understanding between Japan and the United Kingdom and Japan and the Netherlands by inviting former POWs and former civilian internees as well as other people from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Budget allocation for 2009 is 9,126,000 yen (approximately $100,000) for the Japan-United Kingdom Peace and Exchange program and 23, 254,000 yen (approximately $250,000) for the Japan-Netherlands Peace and Exchange program.
|