Alan Matthews
4 Stone Cottages
Marchwiel.
Wrexham.
North-
LL13 OPP.
27-
Mr Gary P. Nicholls
North East & Pacific Dept
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
London.
SW1A -
Re: Compensation Claims Against Japan.
Dear Mr Nicholls ,
To begin with, many thanks for your letter of August 8, 1999. Though, and as already
mentioned in an earlier correspondence to Ceri Lewis of Labour North-
General comments:
From the onset, I must inform you that I do not accept that any British Government have ever shown real concern to their fellow countrymen who suffered at the hands of the Japanese during WW11, especially from a welfare / financial perspective. Words of gratitude come very easily; whereas positive actions in the midst of a documented clear injustice (failure to implement Article 26) would have been a far greater show of concern. Furthermore, and without going into too great a detail...every single Commonwealth serviceman involved in the forlorn defence of Singapore and Hong Kong, were faced with a totally untenable situation from the onset of hostilities. For further details on this matter I suggest you consult the 1939 & 1940 Chiefs of Staff Far Eastern Appreciations...along with Foreign Office documents (never released to the PRO) relating to the SS Automedon incident of November 1940.
On the matter of reconciliation between former WW11 combatants....I wish to remind
you that its not the ordinary people of any nations that start wars....in the case
of the Far Eastern conflict of WW2. I am sure you are aware that this was borne from
the pre-
I must add...it would be very easy to continue my response on a similar vein; however
to do so would make the compilation of a reply to this letter very much easier for
your department to undertake. Therefore, from this point on, I shall only respond
to the general contents of your correspondence; examining factual (or distinct lack
of such) evidence that allegedly supports the Governments stance in not implementing
Article 26, or even awarding ex-
The matter of compensation:
To begin with your 3rd paragraph clearly states the Japanese Govt have steadfastly refused to reconsider the issue of further compensation payments to former British POW's. If that is the case and as a UK resident, I request to be in receipt of all / any correspondences from any current or previous British Government in which they have specifically requested Japan to further honour their obligations under the 1951 San Francisco Agreement, in particular Article 26. In addition I also request subsequent replies from the then / present Japanese Governments depicting their refusal to comply with their obligations under Article 26. I shall call this request, Item 1.
In your same paragraph: I also require to be in receipt of a copy of the legal advice
offered to our present Government regarding the "strong legal advice" you make mention
of. Which apparently precludes them from re-
Your final sentence; first page. I must enquire as to why do the Foreign Office or Government of the day have difficulty in ascertaining, "whether and if so, to what extent other agreements signed by Japan conferred greater financial benefits on other foreign nationals (a prerequisite for invoking Article 26)". Particularly when much documented evidence of higher reparations to other foreign nationals is readily available and easy to assess?
To begin with:
The Swiss Treaty of January 1955, awarded compensation claims to each individual incarcerated by the Japanese (439 persons) to the tune of approximately £2,385 per person. Do you remember what financial compensation our former POW's received a couple of years earlier?
Furthermore, why do you state time is a crucial factor in invoking Article 26? As far as I am aware, there was no maximum time limit for implementation of further compensation claims within the document. Therefore, and baring in mind your final sentence on page 1 (to which I have already referred) the entire matter of seeking further compensation for our former POW's can be evaluated in the following way....
(a) There was no-
Or :
(b) If my above comment regarding the time lapse of Article 26, is incorrect; thus making it impossible to invoke further compensation claims against Japan. And (as you claim) our Government "have enormous sympathy for all those who suffered during their internment by the Japanese during WW11" . There is still one avenue open to them, of which I make mention at the end of my correspondence, concerning the recent actions of the Canadian Government.
However, returning to the issue of 'time'. I must inform you of a compensation claim
that was settled almost two decades after our countrymen received their derisory
payments. The very existence of this settlement appears to scupper all recent attempts
by the British Government to realistically claim that its impossible to re-
On April 18 1969, the USA & Japan, (under Article 4a of the 1951 Treaty) reached
agreement over compensation claims regarding Micronesia.... In which 10,976 individuals
received $3,129 each. I would appreciate your comments as to why this claim (made
17 years after our countrymen received their payments) and the Swiss claim of 1955,
do not constitute, both. (a) clear evidence of higher compensation settlements than
those made to former British POW's and (b) evidence that the time factor you mention,
is of no-
Moving on.....in 1955, Lord Reading stated we (I presume Britain) were unpopular with the Japanese and exerting further pressure (higher claims under Article 26) would cause the maximum of resentment for the minimum of advantage. Furthermore (as depicted below) the Foreign Office implied that to waive these rightful claims would assist the then, ailing Japanese economy.....As means of substantiation to this comment....I will quote verbatim from FO 371/115281....
"It would not seem desirable, however, that we should receive Ministerial confirmation that H.M.G. still adhere to their policy of waiving their just claims in the interest of the restoration of the Japanese economy".
This apparent act of support towards the Japanese, may appear in some ways reasonable, especially when considering the World had to dust itself down, and get on the road towards reconciliation. Nevertheless, it cannot be questioned that the only persons who suffered from this gesture were the very persons who endured unimaginable horrors at the hands of the Japanese nation during WW11. But, I accept it could have been perceived as a necessary evil to waive these claims, in a partial attempt at restoring the Japanese economy.
However, the following sentence to that already depicted within FO 371/115281, alludes to a completely different standpoint from the Foreign Office when claims against Japan considered material possessions lost by British interests, as a result of the war....
"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
in China prior to outbreak with Japan) use the argument that the Burmese
and Swiss agreements would legally entitle us to make further reparation
claims".
!!!! So much for the restoration of the Japanese economy !!!!
Evidence that this proposal was adopted by H.M.G. came to light within a FCO document
I recently obtained. This depicted in clear and precise terms the fact that just
five years after the Foreign Office suggested former POW's rightful claims should
be waived in an attempt to restore Japanese economic strength. The same nation was
instructed, under -
Please note, the following is only a small sample of what must have totalled a monumental combined claim. Particularly, when one recalls the number of British companies holding Far Eastern interests prior to outbreak of war.
Source: Anglo -
Case number AJ-
Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HKSB) the sum of US $61,988, 25.
Case number AJ-
Helm Brothers Limited. YEN 69,396,631.00.
Case number AJ-
All Saints Church Association of Hong Kong. Yen 24,889,068.
Case number AJ-
The Kin Hong Steamship Company. Yen 50, 501,500.00.
Case number AJ-
Mrs M. Struthers. Yen 69,000.
Case number AJ-
Brigadier J.O.E. Vandeleur. Yen 280,000.
Case number AJ-
Executors of the Estate of John Duncan Fraser. Yen 3,800,000.
Case number AJ-
Union Insurance Company of Canton. Yen 4,730,000.
In light of the above, I wish to be in receipt of a straightforward answer from the Foreign Office on the following issue. This being, in 1955, did the Foreign Office advise H.M.G. to waive individual compensation claims, solely as a means of assisting the Japanese economy. Whilst at the same time supporting, similar (and vastly greater) claims from companies and individuals within such companies. Who suffered, financial hardships, because of Japan's entry into WW11? I shall call this request Item 4.......
On a slightly different (though no-
I would like to evaluate....A Question Of Pensions:
On May 30, 1991 the Hong Kong Governor, who as we know was the Queens representative
in the Crown Colony, signed Ordinance 51/1991 which changed two Hong Kong pension
schemes from non-
Once again, I must mention that one of your arguments for not implementing Article 26, was the actual length of time that has passed since 1951. Yet forty years later, a British Government allowed one of their Crown Colony's to award pensions to its civilians...who suffered the exact same fate as many captured British service personnel during WW2. Though, by virtue of issues about to be disclosed the latter individuals do not qualify for these index linked (and tax free) payments. Do the Foreign Office or Government think that is a fair way to treat our fellow countrymen?
The payments themselves amounted to....
Single Adult -
Married couple -
With a special needs allowance per person of £1,242 p.a.
Subsequently, I wish to be in receipt of information depicting exactly how much financial funding was provided from mainland Britain to Hong Kong thus allowing this pension scheme to be implemented. I shall call the above request Item 5.
In addition, there is no-
1-
2-
3-
Perhaps the most pertinent of questions that must be asked is; why were British service personnel, many of whom fought in the bitter struggle for Hong Kong, excluded from these pensions? In addition, when was this decision taken by the British Government ? To this end, I wish to be provided with the relevant dates from Hansard depicting the decision to exclude former British service personnel, (who served in Hong Kong in WW11) from the pension scheme. Thereby proving this was a Parliamentary....not Foreign Office decision. I shall call this Item 6.
Eligible parties for the Hong Kong Pension are as follows.
1 Hong Kong Naval Volunteer Force.
2 The Hong Kong Royal Naval Reserve.
3 The Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps & Auxiliary and Affiliated Units thereof.
4 The Hong Kong Corps of Air Raid Wardens.
5 The Police Force, Hong Kong Police Reserve, and Special Constable established under the Peace Preservation Ordinance of 1886.
6 The Hong Kong Civil Defence Corps comprising -
a-
b-
c-
d-
e-
f-
g-
h-
i-
j-
7-
8 St John Ambulance Brigade
9 The Hong Kong Dockyard Defence Corps.
Returning to the main theme of your correspondence:
I must enquire as to why (as already quoted, in a different context) on May 25, 1955 did Foreign Office officials state within FO 371/115281 that it "would not seem desirable, however, that we should receive Ministerial confirmation that H.M.G. still adhere to their policy of waiving many of their just claims in the interest of the restoration of the Japanese economy".....Ending with ..."we should of course not give any publicity to this decision".
This document was compiled by civil servants...since when have such persons been allowed to formulate Government policy? It would appear this is a clear case of the tail wagging the dog? Or rather, did the F.O. choose to withhold information concerning Article 26, from Ministers and Member of Parliament?
In an attempt to ascertain what happened on this matter, I wish to be provided with dates from Hansard when (after 1955) the matter of closing or rather not invoking Article 26 of the San Francisco Agreement, was taken in Parliament. Thus proving the matter of not implementing Article 26, was taken by the ruling Government of the day ......not Foreign Office officials. I shall call this request Item 7.
Though whilst doing so, please be aware that in November 1954, the Government of the day announced that Japan had fulfilled her obligations under the San Francisco Agreement. Admittedly, in 1954 this may have been correct, as up until the time of the statement its possible no other countries citizens had received greater payments than former British POW's. Though as depicted, after that date, other foreign nationals did receive far greater compensation payments than their British counterparts. Subsequently, the levels of these payments should have signalled the 'green light' for Article 26, to have come into force.
The reason why this never occurred is open to much speculation, but it would appear
to have been borne from the duplicitous actions of successive post-
Therefore, I ask the Foreign Office why was Article 26 veiled in secrecy for all these years ? Was this a joint decision taken by successive British Governments and FCO officials to ensure the issue of further claims against Japan was effectively dead and buried (along with many of the eligible persons) long before the British public became aware of Japan's obligations under Article 26 of the Treaty of Peace? Or, as we are discussing a Foreign Office document, was the decision to effectively censure F/O 371/115281, taken solely by a department within the Foreign Office?
Furthermore, I wish to be informed of the reason why an Article of Peace (borne from
almost four years of bloody conflict) was effectively withheld from the British public
for 30-
To continue:
I accept that present day Japanese economic strength may make it impossible for the
British Government to exert effective pressure on Japan under Article 26, for parity
of compensation in respect of the thousands of British subjects who suffered at the
hands of the Japanese during WW2. Though whilst accepting this distinct possibility;
it would nevertheless appear that successive post war British Governments have chosen
to side-
I therefore wish to know why our present Government (elected on a mandate of open accountability) have not brought this entire issue into the public domain; by castigating the deplorable actions of all post war British Governments in what can only be perceived as an issue of human rights? You may not be able to answer this point. However, and as mentioned, once this correspondence is passed onto the Government of the day, I expect them to reply to this question. And shall call this request Item 9.
Furthermore, and as it now it appears that all aspects of our Governments (& Japan's) obligations under Article 26 of the Treaty of Peace have been flouted. Why have our Government not acted in the exact same manner as Canada ? Who, once news of Article 26 became public knowledge; accepted their own obligations to former Canadian POW's (in the main from Hong Kong) by swiftly paying compensation to the sum of approximately (Canadian) $22,000 per person or widow from their own countries funds. To substantiate this comment I have enclosed the press cutting from the 'Vancouver Sun' dated June 12, 1998 which makes mention of the discovery of Article 26 and F/O 371/115281. Admittedly, this question may also fall under the remit of the Government of the day, therefore, a reply can be incorporated within item 9.
I would also appreciate your departments comments on the enclosed copy correspondence from the Leader of the Opposition. Can you shed any light on the disclosure within paragraph three? What does he imply when stating...."It has come to light that Japan has made settlements with other States which were more advantageous than those provided by the 1951 Treaty"....etc...etc...? Have the Tory Party uncovered more evidence on this matter? I shall call this request Item 10.
In addition, I have recently (courtesy of my MP Martyn Jones) received a copy of
a letter sent to him from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Mr Peter Kilfoyle
MP. This deals with representations made by Mr Jones on my behalf, regarding ex-
Finally, and with reference to the eleven points I require clarifying. I must, once again inform you that I wish your response to only concern itself with official documentation regarding the issue of Article 26 and other matters mentioned in this correspondence. Therefore, (to reiterate) I expect such information to be gleaned from primary source documentation (unsubstantiated comments will not suffice). And whilst understanding your tremendous workload within the Foreign Office....I nevertheless have to inform you that I require to be in receipt of your response before the Parliamentary summer recess is over.
Yours sincerely
Alan Matthews.
Arthur Lane
THAT LETTER!
VJDAY
FORGETFUL DAY -