GA Home > SFPT 50th Anniversary > An Unjust Treaty

http://www.abcifer.com/1955.htm

 

Extract from FO 371/115281
CONFIDENTIAL

CLAIMS AGAINST JAPAN

Problem

Article 26 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan states that, should Japan make a peace settlement or war claims settlement with any State granting that state greater advantage than those provided by the San Francisco Treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the San Francisco Treaty.

2. Japan has recently signed a Peace Treaty with Burma, Article v(1)(a) of which gives Burma greater advantages in respect of reparations than those enjoyed by the parties to the San Francisco Treaty under Article 14(a)(1), since the latter only gives a right to the services of the Japanese people to compensate occupied territories, while the Burmese are entitled, in addition to such services, to products of Japan together to the value of $20,000,000 per annum over ten years by way of reparations as well as services and products to the value of $5,000,000 per annum over ten years to facilitate economic co-operation by investment in joint enterprises.

3. Japan has also recently signed a War Claims Agreement with Switzerland which provides in Articles 1 and 11 a measure of compensation for maltreatment, personal injury and loss arising from acts illegal under the rules of war. The mere fact of providing compensation for these illegal acts generally (quite apart from the higher level of the compensation provided) constitutes a greater advantage than those provided by the San Francisco Treaty. In view of the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on this subject at the time of the signature of the Peace Treaty and of the activity of the British Legion and Far Eastern prisoners-of-war associations, it is possible that the provisions of the Japan-Swiss War Claims Agreement may have repercussions in this country, although there have been none so far.

Discussion

4. Those states that are parties to the San Francisco Treaty are thus entitled to claim from Japan benefits similar to those stipulated in Article V of the Burma-Japan Treaty and in Articles 1 and 11 of the Swiss-Japanese War Claims Agreement. The Japanese realised the risk of this happening when they were negotiating the agreement with Switzerland. It is, of course, extremely difficult to determine precisely to what further benefits on this argument Article 26 now entitles us and even harder to determine what they would be worth in terms of money.

5. In agreeing to the San Francisco Treaty, Her Majesty's Government waived a very large proportion of their just claims against Japan in order to avoid ruining the Japanese economy. The reasons which led HMG to agree to this waiver then are no less valid now and it would appear out of the question that we should now make claims on the Japanese which we never intended to make in the first place simply in order to achieve parity of treatment with the Burmese and Swiss. It would seem desirable, however, that we should receive Ministerial confirmation that HMG still adhere to their policy of waiving many of their just claims in the interests of the restoration of the Japanese economy. This is not to say that we might not in due course of negotiation of our other claims against Japan (e.g reparations for damage done to British interests in China prior to the outbreak of war with Japan) use the argument that the Burmese and Swiss Agreement would legally entitle us to make further reparation claims.

Recommendation

6 It is recommended that we should not invoke Article 26 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan in order to claim benefits the same or similar to those stipulated in Article V of the Burmese-Japanese Treaty or Articles 1 and 11 of the Swiss Japanese War Claims Agreement. Nor should we do so in regard to any similar Article of any Peace Treaty or reparations agreement which Japan may conclude with another country in the future unless there is a material change in circumstances. We should not of course give any publicity to this decision.

7. This submission has been agreed with the Legal Advisers and Claims Department

CT Crowe
May 25, 1955

Mr. Allen 25/5
Mr. Speaight 26/5

Lord Reading: I agree. We are at present unpopular enough with the Japanese without trying to exert further pressure which would be likely to cause the maximum of resentment for the minimum of advantage. 26/5

The Follow-Up Letter (http://www.abcifer.com/1955a.htm)

 


GA Home > SFPT 50th Anniversary > An Unjust Treaty