Japanese WWII Reparations: Are PR Politicians on LSD?
The Malaysian and Japanese governments inked a pact on the issue on Sept. 21, 1967, Malaysian Foreign Ministry parliamentary secretary Ahmad Shabery Cheek was quoted as saying by Malaysia’s national news agency Bernama. Under the deal, the Japanese agreed to pay “blood money” to the Malaysian government, he told the parliament here. The money was used to set up the Malaysia International Shipping Corporation, he said.
Pure Shiite
Looking substantively at the issue, first, Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty states, “It is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war.” This authorizes reparations by recognizing war responsibility. Other claims rights and settlement of property rights, return or compensation for Allied property, compensation for Japanese mistreatment of Allied prisoners of war, resolution of the claims rights of neutral nations, and debt return from the prewar period, etc., are minutely specified in Articles 15 to 18. This may differ slightly from the war responsibility being debated today, but Japan here indicated an attitude to deal sincerely with war responsibility and resolving the various problems arising from the war. Based on the peace treaty, Japan concluded reparations agreements with the Philippines and South Vietnam and concluded individual peace treaties and reparations agreements with Burma and Indonesia, which were not parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Cambodia and Laos were parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty but forfeited their right to claim indemnities, so Japan concluded grant capital aid cooperation agreements with these two countries in return. (This type of aid is classified as “quasi-reparations” in Japan, and in the domestic budget is included not in the general account but in the special reparations account.) With another non-participant in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, India, Japan concluded a peace treaty in June 1952, ending the state of war and confirming India’s renunciation of indemnities from Japan. 6 Japan recognized its war responsibility and agreed to pay indemnities in these various peace and reparations agreements.
In the reparations agreements with the Philippines and South Vietnam, there is no clear reference to war responsibility, but given that these treaties were based on Article 14 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, in which “it is recognized that Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war,” obviously there was no need to repeat these provisions. In the individually concluded peace treaty with Burma, Japan recognized its responsibility by stating that “Japan is prepared to pay reparations to the Union of Burma in order to compensate the damage and suffering caused by Japan during the war.” There is a similarly worded article in the peace treaty with Indonesia, based upon which a reparations agreement is concluded. Although not specifically reparations, Japan concluded so-called grant capital aid agreements in the 1960s and provided grant loans as a form of quasi-reparations to Malaysia and Singapore, whose ethnic Chinese communities strongly demanded redress for damage suffered from Japanese occupation. These agreements state, “Japan recognizes that the (early and total) resolution of problems arising from unfortunate incidents during World War II in Malaysia (Singapore) would contribute to promoting its friendly relations with Malaysia (Singapore).” They thus recognize Japan’s responsibility, and further state that the contracting parties “agree that all problems arising from unfortunate incidents during World War II are hereby totally and conclusively resolved.” –
