Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

February 1st, 2008

Tags

, , ,

Comments

4 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Paying for war

While reading Ken Pyle’s Japan Rising: The Resurgence of Japanese Power And Purpose I came across some interesting info about the second world war reparations for Taiwan and China that I had not heard before.

First of all, after the war under the terms of the Treaty of San Francisco Japan paid a number of South Asian countries their reparations (totalling ¥380b) during the 1950s. They were also required to paid out a hefty sum to the Red Cross to indemnify allied POWs. Japan agreed to settle the reparations claims with other Asian nations through bilateral treaties. This guy’s site is a little dodgy, but some more indepth country by country figures for reparations can be found here.

Issues regarding reparations on the Korean peninsula are still unsettled. Relations with South Korea were normalized in 1965 and payment of reparations ($500m) was made due to US pressure. When Korea became democratic the issue of apologies was brought up again, in addition to calls for more money. Payments have yet to be made to North Korea pending the normalization of relations, which Japan has linked to the abductions issue.

The interesting case to me is that of Taiwan and China. According to Pyle (pp. 324) Taiwan “explicitly renounced the right to demand reparations.” Japan was in such economic turmoil and vulnerable to the Communists that Chiang Kai-shek reasoned any move Taiwan made to “enfeeble Japan would be counterproductive.” Ah, good old cold war strategic thinking.

Then in 1972, relations with People’s Republic of China were normalized and the Japanese argued that since Taiwan, which represented China at the time, had renounced the right to reparations the PRC had no legal right to reparations either (ouch!). In the end better relations with Japan and America took priority and Mao agreed to waive the right for reparations.

Of course both Taiwan and China claimed the assets of Imperial Japan within their own countries which was quite a bundle. Additionally China has received about $30b in official development aid, two-thirds of which are grants. Some Japanese politicians consider this enough. Still, the original Lawyer Ball tactics hasn’t made Sino-Japanese relations that much easier politically.

POSTSCRIPT: I apologize for the lack of posting recently. I have been deeply immersed in my masters thesis which is due for submission in two weeks. After a lengthy extension and then having to change supervisors last November (which basically meant a rewrite) I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Comments to this entry

chriswaugh_bj
February 2, 2008
6:16 am
"The interesting case to me is that of Taiwan and China."
Surely you mean the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China? I don't want to get into any cross-straits bullshit, but Chiang Kai-Shek was not acting for any independent Taiwan. Chiang Kai-Shek was the president of the Republic of China and was acting on all China's (including Mongolia's) behalf when he renounced the right to reparations. That's how Japan got to use his renunciation to get out of paying reparations to the PRC. Taiwan did not represent China in 1972; Chiang was legally president of all China.
ashigaru
February 2, 2008
8:58 pm
Those reparations to south asian countries were relatively kept small under the American pressure.They didn't want to harm Japan economical rebuliding, and also some of the reparations were attached with Japanese industries' contracts.
In Korean cases, the military dictatorship didn't use money in a way so that the damaged from war will benefit from it, but rather invest them in infrastructures and boost the economy. The recent disputes over reparations are based on the facts that those payments were under the nation to nation relationship, so that the individuals have their own rights to persuit reparations on each "war crimes"(such as comfort women issue).
Phil (Pacific Empire)
February 4, 2008
1:58 am
Best of luck with the thesis, Younghusband!
Two Cents
March 3, 2008
2:50 pm
The $500m passed from Japan to the Republic of Korea covered reparitions for North Korea as well. The logic presented by the South Korean government was that its northern terriotory was only being controlled for the time being by insurgents and not a separate country and so it alone was the rightful government of the Korean peninsula. So ,if North Korea does demand reparitions from Japan, then Japan should ask South Korea to give them their rightful share of what they took in the name of N. Korea. There were strong opposition in Japan at the time for paying S. Korea reparitions, since it was a colony and not the enemy. Asian nations had to pay their former colonizers for the infrastructure left behind, and some claimed that Korea should be asked to do the same. As for private property, both Japan and S. Korea renounced the rights of its citizens to demand compensation to the other government, and instead stipulated that all such demands regarding compensation shall be directed towards the respective government. Meaning, if WWII Koreans war veterans want their pension, they had to sue the South Korean government and not Japan. The South Korean government agreed to this since it realized that demand for compensation from the Japanese for private property left behind in the Korean peninsula would be far greater than any that could be made by Koreans of the Japanese government.