BCC.PERFIDY2

BETRAYAL-TREACHERY-DUPLICITY-DECEIT-

PERFIDY

1. Foreign Office Paper:

CLAIMS AGAINST JAPAN

Problem.

1. 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 advantages 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(l)(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)(l), 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 l and II 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 discussions 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 which 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 Peace Treaty and in Articles land II 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 the course of negotiation of our other claims against Japan (e.g. reparations for damage done to British interests th 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 Peace Treaty or in Articles I and II 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

The following was a Handwritten Comment: Mr Allen 25/5/55

Mr Speaight 26/15

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

:. Reply:

Treasury Chambers,

Great George Street

SW I

OF 63/208/010 19thSeptember 1955.

Dear Alien,

You wrote to me on 1st June to let us know the considered view of the Foreign Office that 11MG should not invoke Article 26 or the Peace Treaty with Japan in order to claim increased reparations and war compensation benefits equivalent to those provided in Treaties subsequently entered into by Japan with Burma and Switzerland.

We have considered this question and the Financial Secretary has accepted the conclusion you had reached on general grounds of foreign relations, despite the possibility or domestic political embarrassment in connection with Allied prisoners of war.

We also agree that we should maintain the same attitude in regard to any agreements which Japan may make with other countries, unless there is a material difference in the circumstances.

Finally, as you say, no publicity should be given to the decision, nor should anything be said to the Japanese, since we retain our freedom to use this legal entitlement to claim on Japan, though we are not asserting it, as a bargaining counter in negotiation or other claims against Japan.

II am sending copies of this letter to Levine, Anderson and Kennedy, and to Ludgate of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance who is concerned with the prisoners of war aspect.

Yours sincerely,

E R Coplestone

W. D. Allen, Esq.Foreign Office

Subsequently, on many occasions between 1955 and 1970 Prime Ministers, and various Ministers in office told Parliament and the British General Public that they could not do anything, statements which were little less than lies. When the Foreign Office knew that they could have by re-opening Article 26, which they are legally entitled still to do, and had deliberately chosen not too and to keep this fact secret from those that had suffered under the Japanese.

How many people of this country realize that when the Japanese invaded, they also destroyed. People, houses and buildings. And stole anything of value. In total the Japanese invaders and their government between them had thieved goods and property to the value of many millions of pounds. Many buildings became the property of Japanese nationals. Hundreds of British and Allied internees lost everything . This particular claim is just one of many instances where British service men and civilians have been betrayed by their government .The list of grievances is long and include the Nuclear test victims and The Gulf War victims. There is no doubt that there will be many more to come

Arthur Lane

Stay Alive!

In Anthony Eden’s own hand writing on the reverse is a message which read,

“I hope I am not around when this lot surfaces”