The Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts was established in 1990 primarily to look after the interests of the Dutch from former Dutch-Indies, who suffered so badly from the Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies during the Second World War. The Foundations initiative stemmed from the American decision to pay those Americans of Japanese decent $ 20.000 compensation per person for their internment by the Americans during World War Two. It was felt that Japan should do likewise for the Dutch who were interned by the Japanese Imperial Army during the war. I do not propose to discuss the details of Japanese brutality. It is sufficient to say that the crimes committed are documented in detail outside Japan, and are appalling.

In 1991 the Dutch government asked a commission of international law specialists to study the prospects of submitting a claim to the Japanese government for compensation payment to the individual victims of the Japanese occupation, in particular those who were interned, but not excluding those who were left outside the camps. According to that commission, who did not consider the human rights aspects of the situation, the Dutch government had already reached a settlement on compensation under the 1951 San Fransisco Peace Treaty. The commission concluded however that those individual victims could and should make their own further claim direct to the Japanese authorities. The Foundation’s strategy was and is still focused on this.

In our opinion the Japanese government and the Dutch government both have the moral and social responsibility to rectify the wrong doings of the Japanese Imperial Army, and go further than settlements made in the 1951 treaty and the Yosida-Stikker agreement later, which were inadequate.

One must take into account the effects the Japanese occupation had on the Dutch and in particular the physical and material losses resulting from this occupation. But also the way both governments have avoided the moral issues in this matter.

In 1994 some members associated with the Foundation as individuals started legal proceedings in Tokyo, Japan. The claim was based on the The Hague Convention of 1907. We heard it many times:

The Convention states: A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said Regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

During the legal proceedings the victims and many experts and witnesses were called by the courts. Of great importance during the proceedings was the expert opinion of prof. Van Kalshoven that highlighted “the self executing power of the The Hague convention” confirming that individual victims should be able to claim directly. The expert opinion of Dr. Hermans on the aftereffects of internment and in particular the brutal treatment by Japanese soldiers was also of great importance.

The Tokyo court concluded that members of the Imperial Army had indeed violated the The Hague Convention and Japan is liable to pay compensation in accordance with article 3 of The Hague Convention of 1907. Japan as a state was thus liable to pay compensation and was responsible for the terrible inhumane acts of the Imperial Army. Unfortunately the 1907 Convention does not address individual rights. Despite the expert witness of prof. De Waardt, the Court followed the conclusion of an earlier Californian court that all claims were settled with the Peace treaty of 1951 and dismissed the members claim. In view of the Stikker-Yoshida agreement which was concluded after the signing of the 1951 Peace Treaty, this conclusion was incorrect, but the Japanese High Court concluded that claims were dealt with in that Peace Treaty and so dismissed the case. The Supreme Court dismissed the subsequent appeal.

For the members of the Foundation this was a great disappointment and many considered that it was time to stop the fight and dissolve the Foundation. However it was the Dutch government who signed the Peace Treaty and waived the ground rights of its Dutch East Indies citizens. So can we prove that the Dutch government has in fact taken over the Japanese liability? In addition, do the moral and social issues involved in the verdict that “Japan’s Imperial Army violated the The Hague Convention of 1907” give sufficient ground to continue the fight for justice and recognition? In modern times in modern democracies it is common practice to consider not only the legal sides of a conflict but also the moral issues. Considering the moral issues is evidence of a reliable nation in the international world of the United Nations that can play an active role in the international bodies.

Japan says that they, the second economic power of the world, want to play an important role in the international bodies and are advocating permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations. It should therefore consider very careful the moral aspects of it’s past and in particular the brutal way in which the Imperial Army conducted the war. Contrary to Germany, Japan has adopted a policy of a strictly legal approach, avoiding any moral responsibility.

The legality of its approach may be questioned also, as Japan’s Imperial Army’s acts against humanity still stands as proven war crimes which can not be overruled or absolved by an independent Peace Treaty. The moral issue is also to be considered as the Peace Treaty was forced upon the Allied Powers by the United States for geo-political reasons.

Despite the disappointing result of the court case in Japan, but because of the unsolved moral and social issues involved, the board of the Foundation decided that they should continue the fight for recognition and justice for their members.

This decision carries a heavy responsibility and puts the board of the Foundation in a difficult position. The members overwhelmingly supported the board’s decision to continue during the annual meeting and encouraged the board to use all means necessary to continue the fight for justice and acknowledgement.

Our strategy is based on the assumption that both the Japanese and Dutch governments ultimately will acknowledge that they have a moral duty towards the Dutch from Dutch East-Indies. That the Japanese and Dutch government want to be recognized as nations fighting for peace and justice, who take their responsibilities in the international bodies seriously, playing significant roles in human rights, conflict mediation and peace keeping forces. In doing we believe that they must consider their past and rectify their wrong doings.

The Foundation opened a dialogue with the Japanese government arguing our views and making suggestions how we may be able to bridge the gap between the Japanese culture of apology and the Dutch request for acknowledgment and reparation. Each second Tuesday of the month the Foundation members demonstrate at the Japanese Embassy in The Hague. During which demonstration the Board hands over a petition, 166 in number, addressed to the Prime Minister of Japan requesting acknowledgment of the plight of the Dutch from former Dutch-East Indies and acceptance of the moral obligation of the Japanese people to redress Japan’s past. Depending on the Prime Minister in office and the position of the Ambassador our message is send to Tokyo, and we hope heard. We have not been successful in entering a true dialogue as the Japanese authorities continue to refer to their legal position without acknowledging the moral issue.

Nevertheless we have the feeling that Japan’s youth are increasingly questioning the position of their government and politically the conservative powers are feeling the pressure for change. The fact that Prime Ministers in Japan are being replaced frequently shows that changes are in the air.

The Foundation is clear in their requests: Acknowledgment. Reparation. And a fair historic representation of the facts approved by the Japanese Diet.

In the Netherlands the Foundation has been active in its own right, but we are also active as member of the so called Indisch Platform promoting the position of the Dutch from Dutch East Indies. We have been engaged in various campaigns attracting attention from the media and thus the Dutch people and politicians. We participate in remembrance ceremonies and issue every 4^th month a News Magazine. The purpose is that the Dutch government acknowledges that justice needs to been done and the people from Dutch-Indies are compensated for loss of income and health as a result of the Japanese occupation of Dutch East Indies.

Many studies show that the Dutch government has taken a view that they could not afford to help their countrymen from overseas and that they have done enough in accepting their return home. We are in discussion with the Dutch government that they too have a social and moral responsibility to redress the past and come to a final acknowledgment in paying the socalled Back Pay to civil servants and military and the war damage resulting from political decisions made by the Dutch Government in London.

Considering the history of the Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts one must conclude that we continue the fight for justice and redress on moral and social grounds. The legal issues are important and in particular as one consider the future. This symposium was organized by the Foundation in order to pay attention to the individual plight in getting compensation from belligerent parties and that those compensations can not be waived by special treaties and local interpretations by judges. This is an investment for the future, which we hope both Japan and the Netherlands take at heart.

On behalf of the board of the Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts,

J.F. van Wagtendonk

President.