Fundamental questions linger in Japan over the international
tribunal 61 years after the country surrendered on August 15,
1945.
Two Japanese politicians tried to clear their country's Class-A
war criminals of the crimes they committed during World War II.
At a session of the Lower House's Budget Committee on February
14, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso and Chief Cabinet Secretary
Shinzo Abe claimed that Class-A war criminals are not criminals
under Japanese law.
Aso said the definition of war crime was the opinion given by
the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, also known as
the Tokyo Tribunal. In jurisdiction of Japanese law, these people
were not criminals, he said.
Abe echoed the foreign minister's argument, adding his country
did not give verdicts on these people. The government should not
judge history.
Aso and Abe disputed the validity of the tribunal, which
convicted 25 wartime Japanese leaders. They were convicted of
offences that included conspiring to wage a "war of aggression" and
committing "crimes against peace."
The tribunal defined three categories of war crimes and
criminals. "Class A" charges of "crimes against peace" were brought
against Japan's top leaders who had planned and directed the war.
The war criminals of this class were tried at the tribunal in
Tokyo.
Class B and C charges, which were leveled at Japanese of any
rank, covered "conventional war crimes" and "crimes against
humanity," respectively. Criminals of the two categories were
convicted in the areas where the crimes had been committed.
On November 4, 1948, the Tokyo Tribunal announced that all of
the 25 defendants had been found guilty. Seven were sentenced to
death, 16 to life terms and two to lesser terms.
They were all Japanese political and military figures of high
rank, headed by Hideki Tojo, prime minister of Japan through most
the war.
The defendants were accused of conspiring between 1928 and 1941
to wage "aggressive war," in order to gain "domination and control
of East Asia." Japan stood by the outcome of the tribunal.
However, some of the criminals had their lost honor restored by
becoming cabinet members.
Unlike Germany, which employed intensive de-Nazification
procedures to prevent former Nazis entering parliament and the
bureaucracy, Japanese war criminals were allowed to enter
parliament and find employment in the government bureaucracy.
A striking example of this different approach between Japan and
Germany is the case of convicted war criminal Nobusuke Kishi, who
was able to rise to the office of prime minister of Japan in
1957.
Shigemitsu Mamoru, who was sentenced to seven years'
imprisonment as a Class-A war criminal, became a deputy prime
minister and foreign minister under the administration of then
prime minister Ichiro Hatoyama in 1954.
Kaya Okinori, who was given a life term as a Class-A war
criminal, served as justice minister under the administration of
prime minister Ikeda Hayato. A criminal became a guardian of the
Japanese law.
?
Fourteen Class-A war criminals were enshrined in 1978 at Yasukuni
Shrine, which Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited
every year in his office term.
This is the way Japanese politicians have addressed their
country's war atrocities. The open defence from Aso and Abe for the
Class-A war criminals is the continuing refusal by the country to
acknowledge it.
(China Daily February 20, 2006)
