§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)There were obviously many emotions sweeping the country during the VE day celebrations. Many people were thinking about their family members and friends who died during the second world war, and many more were thinking about their fallen comrades and reflecting upon the fact that they themselves survived. Despite that sombre note, it seemed to me that the overwhelming feeling was of joy not simply that a great battle had been won, but that there had been a degree of reconciliation between those who had fought on opposing sides.
The press carried a number of moving stories of how those who had fought on opposing sides had come together for the celebrations. We also heard about the sons of former Army commanders who had met and found, perhaps not surprisingly, that they had at least as many things in common as they had differences. Whatever the complex mix of sentiments expressed during the VE day commemorations, overwhelmingly the mood was one of joy and celebration.
However, there is one group of survivors from the last war for whom I suspect that the celebratory aspect was very muted indeed. They had undergone suffering which defies imagination. Even those of us who are of a generation who do not remember the war, who have perhaps been hardened by an unremitting diet of man's continuing inhumanity to man, and who have been brought up in a society where we see death and mutilation in our own homes whenever we turn on the television news, are chilled when we remember what those people-went through. I speak of those people who survived the prisoner-of-war camps of the Japanese.
I do not intend to use the debate to castigate the nation of Japan or to suggest that the Japanese of my generation bear a responsibility for what happened during the second world war. I do not suggest that for one moment. However, I think that it is essential that I remind the House and the former prisoners-of-war that we have not forgotten their trauma and their nightmarish experiences.
Many years after the war, Field Marshal Lord Slim, who led the 14th Army, recorded how he and the liberating armies had uncovered prisoner-of-war camps that were
little more than barbed wire enclosures in which wild beasts might have been herded together".He went on to describe the Japanese gaolersalmost without exception as being callously indifferent to suffering, or at the worst, bestially sadistic. The food was of a quality and a quantity barely enough to keep men alive, let alone fit them for the hard labour that most were driven to perform. It was horrifying to see them moving slowly about those sordid camps, all emaciated, many walking skeletons, numbers covered with suppurating sores and most naked apart from the ragged shorts that they had worn for years or loincloths of sacking. The most heart-moving of all were those who lay on wretched pallets, their strength ebbing faster than relief could be brought to them".The testimony did not end there. In his book "The Night of the New Moon", Laurents van der Post described his experiences in a POW camp on Java. He described how POWs were forced to watch Japanese soldiers having bayonet practice on live prisoners tied between bamboo posts, and how POWs were made to witness different types of executions—I shall omit the details he gives. Ernest Hiller wrote of his experiences in a similar camp in his book "The Way of a Boy". He described how the 706 military police—the Kempetai—tore out finger nails, burned the stomachs of pregnant women, locked POWs in bamboo cages for days without food or water, and much more besides.Of the thousands of prisoners-of-war who were forced to build the Burma-Siam railway, it is estimated that one person died for every sleeper laid. Some 50,000 British troops were taken into captivity, of which a stunning 25 per cent. died. That is a truly remarkable figure, which says something about the unique nature of their experiences.
It is hardly surprising that the suffering of the people who survived those experiences continues to this day. It is even more heart-rending to learn that it not only continues but increases. I shall quote from "A Study of the Post-Captivity Health of ex-Prisoners of War of the Japanese" by J. Watson, which I believe is the leading work in this area. It was published in July 1986.
Mr. Watson details the conditions from which ex-POWs suffer. He concludes:
It has for some time been recognised and accepted that ex-FEPOWs do suffer from a variety of psychiatric manifestations. These can include nightmares about their experiences, general irritability, anti-social behaviour, chronic anxiety and intermittent depression. It is also recognised and accepted that such features may not have manifested themselves until many years after the period of captivity had ceased and, indeed, the occurrence has sometimes been described as the late-onset ex-FEPOW syndrome'. It is therefore not surprising that 44.5 % of the sample had exhibited psychiatric manifestations at some time".He goes on to describe psychiatric manifestations as covering anything from nervous symptoms to full-blown psychosis. It is clear that those who survived the prisoner-of-war camps continue to undergo suffering that is every bit as real today as it was during the war.It must be said in passing that I do not decry in any way the experiences of those who suffered imprisonment at the hands of the Germans during the second world war. However, what was the exception under German captivity—to which the late Eric Williams drew attention—was the rule in the treatment of British and allied prisoners under the Japanese. It was an entirely different situation for prisoners of the Japanese. What was considered to be in breach of German military law was accepted as the norm and the appropriate way to treat Allied prisoners of war. That is what the POWs suffered in Japanese hands.
A treaty of peace with Japan was signed in 1951. Article 14(a) of the treaty provided:
Japan should pay reparations to the Allied Powers for the damage and suffering caused by it during the war".It went on to talk specifically about the "undue hardship"—an amazing euphemism—that prisoners had suffered at the hands of the Japanese. There has been much debate about the implications of the treaty.Article 14(a) stated that the
resources of Japan are not presently sufficient, if it is to maintain a viable economy, to make complete reparation for all such damage and suffering".As a result, compensation of £76 10s per prisoner was decided upon. Those who had served on the Burma railway received an extra £3 each. Times change, but even at today's value that is only £1,000 per prisoner.Many people would look at the terms of that treaty and assume that it was a payment on account. The treaty talked about the "present inability" of the Japanese nation 707 to be able to make sufficient reparation. That explanation may appeal to those people whose views are driven by common-sense and humanity, but it has been accepted that, although it may have appeared to be a payment on account, the treaty represented the final legal obligation on the part of the state of Japan.
That point has been made on a number of occasions, and I do not question it now. It was made finally by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd), when he was a junior Foreign Office Minister, in reply to a debate in 1991. He responded to a speech by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Braine of Wheatley, who has done so much to keep the matter in the public eye.
There is no doubt that the Japanese have met their legal obligations. However, there is a great deal more to life and death than legality; morality plays a part also. To his great credit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the matter directly with the Japanese Prime Minister in September 1993. That represented a departure from the way in which previous Governments of both main political parties had dealt with the issue.
In the relatively short time remaining, I do not think that it will be particularly useful to rehearse what has occurred since then. Suffice it to say that it was hoped that Japanese business men might take part in an initiative to provide compensation to POWs. However, that has finally fallen through. A number of former prisoners-of-war have filed suit in Japan for the sum of £14,000 each.
Ironically, that sum is based on the compensation paid to Japanese American internees for having been interned after Pearl harbour. However, the sufferings of being interned in America are light years away from what allied prisoners underwent. I cannot say, any more than can my hon. Friend the Minister of State, whether those legal moves will be successful.
I believe that the matter goes much further. The crux of the issue is that nobody who has been brought up in a Christian tradition could say for one moment that the present-day inhabitants of Japan must bear the guilt for what was done by their forefathers. However, if they do not bear the guilt, they do, at the very least, have a responsibility to face up to the consequences of what was done by their forebears. The charge that must be laid before the Japanese Government, representing, as do any Government, the people of their nation, is that they have not yet faced up to that responsibility.
To even talk about sums of money, be it £1,000, £14,000 or £14 million, seems a ludicrously inappropriate response to what has gone before, because one can never reverse what has happened. In my conversations and meetings with the Far East Ex-Prisoners of War Association in Torbay I have been told that what matters to them—God knows, they are the only ones who could know—is that there should be some tangible recognition by those who bear the responsibility for facing up to the consequences. If there was some recognition by the Japanese nation of what they had gone through, it would make their continued suffering in their twilight years much more bearable.
As I said, we have just celebrated—that is the right word—VE day. There is another day approaching on which I believe that the celebrations will be of a much more sombre tone, and that is VJ day—victory in Japan. 708 The first VJ day was on 15 August 1945. Given what we know about the psyche of the Japanese nation, I cannot imagine that in any shape or form the Japanese people will find the celebrations easy. After all, it represented Japan's destruction as a military power, its humiliation and loss of face, and the de-deification of their emperor. It was a shattering experience for them, and it cannot be a day to which they are looking forward.
There may be one way in which the Japanese nation could look forward to that anniversary. Japan has marvellous potential, and is a force for good in the world. It generates great wealth and contributes to culture, as well as having generated many jobs throughout the United Kingdom. All that means that, in a real sense, it has a right to say that it should belong to the community of nations in the fullest sense, subject to one caveat; it must finally atone in the way that I have described for what was done in the past.
Surely it could be a cause for celebration in Japan as well if, before or on that date, the Japanese Government admit, apologise and atone for what was done in their name. Atonement would then be complete.
The contribution of Her Majesty's Government is simple—it is not to argue the legal point before the Japanese courts, because that would be entirely inappropriate, and it is certainly not to question whether the treaty has been implemented legally because it clearly has. To his great credit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has taken a moral stand, and made representations to the Japanese Government.
I hope that what my hon. Friend the Minister of State will say today in his winding-up speech is that the Government have not forgotten the suffering of those who survive, and that they will continue to make and reinforce those moral points and representations until justice is done.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on his choice of subject for debate, and on his speech. As he said, we have spent the weekend commemorating the tumultuous events of 50 years ago in Europe. It has been a time to give thanks for the peace that we have enjoyed, and to remember the sacrifices of so many brave men and women who made that possible.
This anniversary has reminded us all that the conditions of peace and democracy that we now tend to take for granted in Britain were won only after a mighty struggle against tyranny and injustice. It has been a profoundly moving occasion, with important lessons for post-war generations.
My hon. Friend has reminded us that the victory and peace in Europe which we have been commemorating is only part of the story. The second world war did not end on 8 May 1945. It is true that Nazism and fascism had been decisively defeated in Europe, but the war against Japanese militarism was to continue for over three more cruel and hard-fought months. On 8 May, the Fourteenth Army had just recaptured Rangoon, after one of the most desperate and heroic campaigns of the war. There could by then be little doubt that the tide of the war in Asia and the Pacific was running towards victory over Japan, but no one knew how much longer it would continue, or with what cost.
709 The end of the war in the far east was devoutly desired by many, but by none can it have been so deeply yearned for as by those allied prisoners who were enduring captivity at the hands of the Japanese, and by their loved ones at home, whose personal agonies had, if anything, been made even worse by the end of the war in Europe. For the prisoners, it would mean the end to years of misery and maltreatment. The extracts from the work of the late Lord Slim and Laurents van der Post which were quoted by my hon. Friend gave us a small reminder of that suffering.
For many, the final liberation and release came too late. About a quarter of the allied prisoners in the far east died during the war, compared with 5 per cent. of those captured by the Germans. My hon. Friend has reminded us eloquently of the acts of wanton cruelty which were perpetrated on allied prisoners in the far east, for which hundreds of their gaolers were tried and executed after the war. This was not "victors' justice" as is sometimes claimed, but a natural remedy for acts of gross inhumanity.
I join my hon. Friend—and, I believe, all hon. Members—in expressing the most profound respect and sympathy for the former prisoners and their families. We shall have occasion to do so again more formally when we commemorate the 50th anniversary of VJ day—the true end of the war—on 19 and 20 August. I am glad that there will be a special service of remembrance in St. Paul's Cathedral for all the veterans of the far east war. It is right to remember today that, for the prisoners, for the men fighting in Burma and for many others in Asia and the Pacific, the war continued beyond 8 May, and so did their sufferings and sacrifices.
Most of us can picture the terrible conditions of captivity endured by the prisoners of war—the young soldiers, sailors and airmen—captured during the fall of Singapore or at other moments during the war. We can picture the forced labour on projects such as the Burma railway, as well as the random brutality that they endured. We have read the many heartrending written accounts of their appalling treatment or heard of it from their own lips.
We should not forget that whole families of civilians, including women and children, were interned when the Japanese overran east Asia. They were also held prisoner for the rest of the war. They suffered grievously, and I pay tribute to their courage and endurance.
My hon. Friend set out the case for the survivors to receive compensation as the 50th anniversary of the end of the war draws near. As my hon. Friend said, that is a cause long championed by my noble Friend Lord Braine, who is now president of the Japanese Labour Camp Survivors Association—the JLCSA. That association, together with the Association of British Civilian Internees—Far Eastern Region, has commenced legal action in the Tokyo courts against the Japanese Government.
As my hon. Friend said, they are seeking $22,000 in compensation for each former prisoner. Their first delegation visited Tokyo at the end of January, and our embassy was able to arrange a meeting for them with a representative of the Japanese Foreign Ministry, as well as providing an opportunity for them to take part in an act of remembrance for their former comrades at the Commonwealth war graves cemetery near Yokohama.
710 Those legal proceedings are now under way, and I am not in a position to intervene in them. For the British Government, the legal position is clear, and has been reaffirmed by successive Governments of both political complexions. The issue of compensation was legally settled by the peace treaty of San Francisco in 1951, and it is not open to us to raise the matter formally with the Japanese Government.
My hon. Friend stated that, under those arrangements, the amounts paid to former prisoners were small. He has alluded to the reasons for that at the time. Japan had been devastated by the war and the allies were determined not to repeat the mistakes—as they were then perceived—of the treaty of Versailles. An agreement was reached, and a treaty signed with Japan—today that remains the formal legal position. In that respect, the United Kingdom's position is no different from those of the other allied Governments, including the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, who also had prisoners in Japanese hands.
The legal position has not prevented British Governments from representing to the Japanese authorities the strong emotions that the issue has continued to arouse in this country. We have made representations at all levels, including the highest. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised the matters informally with successive Japanese Prime Ministers.
It is fair to claim that, under my right hon. Friend's leadership, we have had more intensive discussions of the situation of the former prisoners with the Japanese Government than have our counterparts in the Governments of the other western allies. Throughout those discussions, we have encouraged the Japanese Government to work with us to identify solutions in the spirit of the modern co-operative relationship between our two countries.
The visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Japan in September 1993 marked an important stage in that process. When he arrived, he found a new Japanese Government, with a greater will to address the issues than some of their predecessors. He was able to discuss the matter fully and constructively with his counterpart, Mr. Hosokawa. During those discussions, as was reported to the media, Mr. Hosokawa expressed
his deep remorse as well as apologies for the fact that Japanese past actions had inflicted deep wounds on many people including former prisoners of war".Both Prime Ministers confirmed the legal position which I have outlined. My right hon. Friend told Mr. Hosokawa that if, in future, the Japanese Government contemplated taking steps to redress the matter, it would be necessary for the position of those involved in Britain to be fully taken into account. He informed Mr. Hosokawa that we were also examining whether non-governmental measures would assist in solving the problem. Mr. Hosokawa agreed that that approach was worth examining.The two Prime Ministers recognised that immediate solutions were not possible, but agreed to keep closely in touch about the matter. Those discussions at prime ministerial level have provided the basis for the work on the issue that has been subsequently undertaken by the two Governments.
The British Government followed up the reference to "non-governmental measures" by bringing together a small group of people under the chairmanship of Sir Kit 711 McMahon, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, to explore the scope for a non-governmental charitable foundation. Our idea was that such a foundation might provide practical help to both former prisoners of war and civilian internees. We hoped that it might be possible to persuade Japanese companies and foundations to donate funds for that cause.
The basic medical and welfare needs of the former prisoners of war are already met by the national health service and the social security system, and, in particular, the war pensions scheme, but there is always room to do more. As my hon. Friend said, many of the survivors still suffer from medical problems deriving from the conditions of their captivity. It will surprise nobody when I say that the most prevalent are psychological problems relating to the horrors that they experienced.
I am aware that some former prisoners criticised the concept of a foundation, and said that they did not want what they called "Japanese charity". I believe that that was a misunderstanding. The Government were attempting to define an approach that might bring practical benefits to the former prisoners in a way that would recognise the special nature of their case.
Sir Kit McMahon, who undertook the work at the Government's request and received no personal benefit from it, handled the matter with great skill. In my judgment, nobody could have pursued it with a greater combination of determination and tact. I take this opportunity to thank him and the other members of his small committee for the time and effort they have devoted to the subject.
It was therefore a matter of regret that, when Sir Kit visited Japan last November, he found the reaction of the Japanese private sector uniformly negative. I should make it clear that the Japanese Government, while never formally committed to supporting our approach, were constructive and open throughout. But the message from Japanese companies and foundations could not have been clearer. Sir Kit concluded, and we accepted, that our approach was unlikely to succeed in those circumstances.
Meanwhile, with a new Prime Minister, Mr. Murayama, the Japanese Government had been giving more thought to the general issue of the nation's wartime responsibility. On 31 August last year, Mr. Murayama formally expressed remorse for Japan's wartime actions and announced a peace, friendship and exchange initiative. That will provide £650 million of Japanese Government money over 10 years. It will mainly be devoted to exchange visits and historical research.
The main focus of the programme will be on Japan's Asian neighbours, but the United Kingdom and other allied countries are specifically included, and we expect a substantial proportion of the funds to be spent in this country. The first year of the programme is to be the present financial year.
712 The programme does not meet the wishes of former British prisoners of war to receive compensation, but I do not believe that we should dismiss it out of hand. It provides evidence that the Japanese Government are sensitive to the need, as Mr. Murayama put it, to
face up to the facts of history",and to respond to the concerns felt in this country.Similar evidence is provided by the recent improvements in the way in which the events of the second world war are described in the textbooks used in Japanese schools. Only if the facts of history are honestly taught to later generations can we hope that lessons will be learned.
I have been privileged to meet many of those who suffered as prisoners of the Japanese. Many of us count former prisoners among our constituents and, indeed, our friends. It is impossible to hear them recount their experiences without being deeply moved. Some, even now, prefer not to speak about what happened to them 50 years ago. Others have said to me that they cannot expect anyone who was not there to understand what it was like and what they feel about it now.
Even if we can never grasp the depth of emotion felt by those men and women, the simple recital of the facts of what they endured and witnessed cannot fail to make the most profound impression on us all. Instinctively, we feel humbled by it. Instinctively, we respect the feelings of those who have experienced such things. Instinctively, we are drawn to help. In that respect, the members of her Majesty's Government feel no differently from any other hon. Members or members of the British nation. That is why the Government have taken the steps I have described to try to find a solution. Those efforts continue.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent two messages to his Japanese counterpart, Mr. Murayama, last autumn. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the matter with the Japanese Foreign Minister, who is also the deputy Prime Minister, both when they met last September in Japan and on 19 April this year when they met in New York. In addition, there has been a series of discussions between senior officials about what might be done to help.
There is no doubt in the mind of the Japanese Government about the seriousness of the issue, or the widespread public sympathy in this country for the former prisoners. Today's debate will have underlined both those points. At the same time, the disappointing reaction to the proposal for a foundation shows the sensitivity and difficulty of trying to identify possible remedies in present circumstances. That is no excuse not to keep on trying. We are continuing our discussions of all those matters with the Japanese Government.
I cannot yet report to the House that we have arrived at an outcome that will satisfy all parties, but I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we will continue those discussions and explore every possible avenue available to us for identifying further action in the non-governmental sector to enlarge upon the initiatives that have already been announced by the Japanese Government.