Chapter Six: Victims in China and Korea

[Index]

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.

[page top]

[Home][Forum] [Index]

Presented by RUR-55, Link free Contact /Last modified: 08/23/01