Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

News & Supplemental  

Memorial Day Weekend Broadcast: Sunday, May 26th and Monday, May 27th

Dave Emory’s entire life­time of work is available on a flash drive that can be obtained HERE. The new drive is a 32-gigabyte drive that is current as of the programs and articles posted by the fall of 2017. The new drive (available for a tax-deductible contribution of $65.00 or more.)

WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.

You can subscribe to e-mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

Please consider supporting THE WORK DAVE EMORY DOES.

On Sunday 5/26/2019 from 11 a.m. (Pacific Time) until 7pm, and on Monday, 5/27/2019 from 10am until 7pm,  KFJC-FM will feature hours of programming documenting the profound connections of U.S. industry and finance to the fascist powers of World War II.

On Sunday, we will highlight the American-German industrial axis and its various manifestations. On Monday, we will explore the American-Japanese industrial axis.

In the decades since the end of the Second World War, much has been written about the war and fascism, the driving force behind the aggression that precipitated that conflict. Unfortunately, much of what has been said and written has failed to identify and analyze the causes, nature and methodology of fascism—German National Socialism or “Nazism” in particular. A deeper, more accurate analysis was presented in published literature, particularly volumes published during, or in the immediate aftermath of, the Second World War.

. . . . Fascism (Nazism in particular) was an outgrowth of globalization and the construction of international monopolies (cartels). Key to understanding this phenomenon is analysis of the Webb-Pomerene act, legislated near the end of the First World War. A loophole in the Anti-trust legislation of 1914, it effectively legalized the formation of cartels—international monopolies—for firms that were barred from domestic monopolistic practices.

Decrying what they viewed as excessive and restrictive “regulation” here in the United States, U.S.-based transnational corporations invested their profits from the industrial boom of the 1920’s abroad, primarily in Japan and Germany. This process might well be viewed as the real beginning of what is now known as “globalization.” This reinvestment of the profits of the American industrial boom of the 1920’s in Japanese and German strategic heavy industry was the capital that drove the engines of conquest that subdued both Europe and Asia during World War II.

On Sunday, we will highlight the American-German industrial axis and its various manifestations. Beginning with FTR #511, we will explore the fundamentals of American corporate investment in Nazi Germany; attempts by those U.S. power brokers to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FTR #602); the coalescence and prevalence of the remarkable and deadly Bormann organization (FTR #305); the creation of the Christian West–a Hitler-less Third Reich fused with the power of the Western Allies in an anti-Soviet alliance (FTR #’s 1058, 1059, 1060); and the deal between Allen Dulles and Martin Bormann to facilitate the escape of Adolf Hitler from Europe as part of the coalescence of The Christian West (FTR #’s 914, 915.)

On Monday, we will explore the American-Japanese industrial axis, beginning with (FTR #905). Continuing to analysis of the Golden Lily project, we present: FTR #’s 428, 446, 451, 501, 509, 688, 689.

Highlights of the discussion of Golden Lily include:

  1. The combining of Japanese Golden Lily loot with gold looted by the Third Reich.
  2. The complicity of the Vatican in the Golden Lily bullion hoarding and laundering.
  3. The unsuccessful attempts by former U.S. POW’s to receive compensation for their slave labor while they were Japanese prisoners.
  4. The complicity of U.S. officials in covering-up the POW’s efforts at receiving compensation and those officials’ links to corporate Japan and the beneficiaries of Golden Lily wealth. ” . . . . The real issue is conflict of interest. During the Clinton Administration, U.S. Ambassador to Japan Thomas Foley was adamant in rejecting compensation for POW’s and other slave laborers, insisting that ‘The peace treaty put aside all claims against Japan.’ His Deputy Chief of Mission, Christopher J. LaFleur, echoed this dogma at every opportunity. It was a matter of some interest to victims that Foley’s wife was a well-paid consultant to Sumitomo, one of Japan’s biggest zaibatsu conglomerates, heavily involved in wartime slave labor and a target of the lawsuits. The moment Foley ended his tenure as ambassador and returned to America, he signed on as a paid advisor and lobbyist to another huge conglomerate-Mitsubishi-one of the biggest wartime users of slave labor. Of greater significance, perhaps, is that Lafleur is married to the daughter of former prime minister and finance minister Miyazawa, one of the three Japanese who secretly negotiated the 1951 treaty with John Foster Dulles. (Miyazawa also is considered by professor Lausier and others to be the financial overseer of the M-Fund.) Conflict of interest does not seem to be an obstacle in diplomatic appointments to Tokyo.) . . . .”
  5. The use of Golden Lily wealth to finance U.S. covert operations.
  6. The profound link of Golden Lily to the re-institutionalization of Japanese fascism after World War II.
  7. Then Vice-President Richard Nixon’s return of control of the consummately important “M Fund” to Japan, under the stewardship of Prime Minister Nobosuke Kishi, a Japanese war criminal and the grandfather of current PM Shinzo Abe.
  8. The destruction of former Assistant Attorney General Norbert Schlei for his attempts at redeeming a “57” bond.
  9. The suspicious death of writer Iris Chang, who chronicled the Rape of Nanking and was a collaborator with Peggy and Sterling Seagrave on their book.
  10. The byzantine cover-up of the enormous amounts of gold in U.S. financial institutions and the violent retribution received by many who attempted to penetrate the cover-up.

We conclude with a presentation of the re-emergence of fascism in present-day Japan, accelerated under the reign of Shinzo Abe, the grandson of Nobosuke Kishi in FTR #969.

Discussion

3 comments for “Memorial Day Weekend Broadcast: Sunday, May 26th and Monday, May 27th”

  1. Here’s a pair of articles about a long running dispute between Japan and South Korea that could end up becoming a kind of international dispute because Japan wants to take it to the UN’s International Court of Justice. It also echoes the issue of the US federal government blocking lawsuits by US prisoners of war who tried to sue the government of Japan in the 90’s which is an important context for this story, especially because this dispute could end up getting resolved at the UN:

    In 2005, four South Koreans sued Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation over the forced labor they endured during the Japanese occupation of Korea. The suit was filed in South Korean courts after the plaintiffs lost a lawsuit filed in Japan. In October of 2018, a South Korean court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

    This set off an uproar in Japan. As the following article notes, Japan is accusing South Korea of trying to trying to shift South Korea’s responsibility over forced labor. How is Japan making that particular argument? Well, this is where it gets interesting an rather grim and might involved the international criminal court. Japan is arguing that it resolved all liabilities it had over WWII human rights abuses in South Korea with the treaty the two countries signed in 1965 that established a basic diplomatic relationship between the two countries following WWII. Japan argues the treaty addressed its obligations to compensate Korea for the colonial period starting in 1910 when Japan occupied the country. In the treaty, Japan paid $300 million (about $2.3 billion today) and loaned an additional $500 million to South Korea to settle those claims. Therefore, according to Japan, it’s obligations over that wartime period have been resolved according to international law.

    South Koreans have a very different take on the matter. For starters, in 1965 South Korea was run by the dictator Park Chung-hee who has just come into power two years earlier in a coup. He was also a former imperial Japanese military officer. The treaty of 1965 was negotiated in private and martial law had to be declared following the protests after it was signed. So, on the surface, the treaty of 1965 had very troubling origins.

    Plus, it’s not clear the 1965 treaty waive private claims from individuals. In addition, in the negotiating documents for the treaty that were only made public in 2005, Japan refused to acknowledge the illegitimacy of its colonization of Korea.

    But there’s a more fundamental principle at stake here: Jus cogens, or peremptory norm. That’s the principle well-established in international law that provides that a state cannot sign away its people’s human rights through a treaty. As the article notes, if it wasn’t for that international principle, a country could theoretically legally sell part of its population into slavery.

    So those are the contours of this legal dispute and as we’re going to see in the second article Japan has already called for an arbitration panel to be set up per the terms of the 1965 treaty. This arbitration panel would include a member from a third-party country, so the question of which country that person would be chosen from would obviously be potentially contentious. But if South Korea doesn’t agree to an arbitration panel to settle the dispute Japan’s foreign ministry is talking about taking its case to the U.N.’s International Court of Justice. South Korea has 30 days to respond to the request for an arbitration panel which was made last week. So in a few weeks Japan might be pushing for take this to the U.N. And as one legal observer notes, it’s likely that the International Criminal Court will have sympathy for Japan’s arguments.

    So a case involving the principle of Jus cogens is potentially going to be ruled on by the International Court of Justice, but only if South Korea doesn’t agree to an arbitration panel involving a yet-to-be-decided third-party country. And that’s all why this case is not just about resolving an old dispute and might end up impacting the interpretations of international laws on human rights and be decided by the U.N.:

    Foreign Policy

    Tokyo Keeps Defending World War II Atrocities
    Japan’s legal excuses over slave labor are weak at best.

    BY S. NATHAN PARK
    MAY 29, 2019, 12:35 PM

    Imperial Japan annexed the Empire of Korea in 1910 as a critical step in the colonial project that would eventually lead to its alliance with Nazi Germany and fascist Italy. Over a million Koreans would be conscripted as slave labor for Japan’s war effort—not counting the hundreds of thousands of women forced into sexual slavery for the Japanese army. Lee Chun-sik, now in his nineties, was one of the many who were forced into slave labor. Lee did grueling and dangerous work at a steel mill in Japan, receiving no pay, little food, and regular beatings. In 2005, Lee and three other former forced laborers sued Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation, the successor of the wartime steel mill, in the South Korean courts after losing an earlier lawsuit they filed in Japan. In October 2018, after a long legal battle, Lee prevailed in the Supreme Court of Korea. After 13 years of litigation, Lee is the only one of the plaintiffs still alive.

    The suffering of Lee and many others is historical fact. But if you went by the Japanese government’s hysterical reaction—accusing its neighbor of “trying to shift South Korea’s responsibility” over the wartime forced labor—you might think it was Korea that was the villain of this story. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Tokyo has threatened to recall its ambassador to South Korea, levy sanctions against South Korean exports to Japan, seize South Korean government property in Japan, and reintroduce visa requirements for visiting Korean tourists. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono even demanded South Korean President Moon Jae-in intervene with the Supreme Court’s decision—a ridiculous request to make against a constitutional democracy that mandates separation of powers.

    Japan claims its self-righteousness stems from respect for international law, and that South Korea has violated the treaties into which the two countries entered in 1965. The treaty established a basic diplomatic relationship between the two countries in the aftermath of imperial Japan’s defeat in World War II and Korea’s independence. Japan has long argued that the 1965 treaties put an end to any obligation for Japan to compensate Korea for its colonialism and war crimes, as Japan paid $300 million (the equivalent of about $2.28 billion today) and loaned an additional $500 million to South Korea to settle Korea’s claims.

    The South Korean public has little patience for this argument. After all, it was the dictator Park Chung-hee—a former jmperial Japanese military officer who came to power by rolling tanks into Seoul to overthrow the democratically elected government—who negotiated the treaties, away from the public view. Immediately after the 1965 deal was concluded, Park had to declare martial law over Korea to quell protests against the terms of the treaties.

    But even accepting the legitimacy of the 1965 treaties, Japan’s legal theory is more tendentious than it lets on. To begin with, it’s far from clear whether the 1965 treaties actually waived private claims held by individual Koreans who were victimized by imperial Japan. The diplomatic documents related to the negotiation process of the 1965 treaties (which were not made public until 2005) show that Japan consistently refused to acknowledge it had any liability to Korea arising from its colonial rule, as Japan refused to acknowledge the illegitimacy of its colonization of Korea.

    Accordingly, the 1965 treaties make no reference to whether Japan’s colonial rule over Korea had any legitimacy. If Japan’s negotiators for the 1965 treaties, representing the administration led by Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, truly believed that Japan owed nothing to Korea, and if the treaty’s text makes no reference to whether imperial Japan committed any wrong to Korea for which compensation is required, it follows that whatever money Japan paid to Korea pursuant to the treaties settled nothing. Indeed, while answering questions about the treaties to Japan’s legislature in 1965, Foreign Minister Etsusaburo Shiina characterized the payment not as reparations for a wrong, but as a congratulatory gesture for Korea’s independence. A state cannot bargain in a treaty for something it never admitted to in the first place.

    Even if South Korea and Japan did intend to make such a bargain, such agreement would be void based on well-established principles of international law. Jus cogens, or peremptory norm, provides that a state cannot sign away its people’s human rights through a treaty. If it were otherwise, for example, a country would be able to legally sell a portion of its population into slavery. Accordingly, Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states: “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.”

    The mandate of peremptory norm is so paramount that, according to Article 64 of the Vienna Convention, the emergence of a new peremptory norm voids all existing treaties that conflict with the new norm. (Both Japan and South Korea are signatories to the Vienna Convention, although a peremptory norm applies throughout the world without reference to whether a country signed any specific treaty.)

    It is beyond dispute that wartime slavery violates such norms. In fact, prohibition of slavery is one of the earliest peremptory norms to be recognized in modern international law, along with prohibitions against torture and massacre of civilians. Although a peremptory norm’s validity does not depend on the perpetuators’ understanding of it as a violation at the time, it is also absolutely clear that imperial Japan recognized prohibition of slavery as an international peremptory norm, as it was a signatory to treaties prohibiting slavery as early as 1925. Even if the South Korean dictatorship intended to waive individual Koreans’ claims arising from imperial Japan’s conscription for slave labor, such attempts would have no effect.

    These legal arguments are not anything new. They are based on long-standing principles of law that have been constantly reaffirmed, including in the specific context of Japan’s colonial rule over Korea and the 1965 treaties. For example, it has been more than two decades since the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women found that Japan had the legal obligation to compensate former military sex slaves. In the 1996 report for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the special rapporteur rejected the Japanese government’s position that the 1965 treaties extinguished the claims of the former “comfort women” based on the same principles as above: Claims based on violation of fundamental human rights cannot be waived via treaty, and at any rate Japan did not bargain for the waiver of these claims in the 1965 treaties.

    ———–

    “Tokyo Keeps Defending World War II Atrocities” by S. NATHAN PARK; Foreign Policy; 05/29/2019

    “The suffering of Lee and many others is historical fact. But if you went by the Japanese government’s hysterical reaction—accusing its neighbor of “trying to shift South Korea’s responsibility” over the wartime forced labor—you might think it was Korea that was the villain of this story. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Tokyo has threatened to recall its ambassador to South Korea, levy sanctions against South Korean exports to Japan, seize South Korean government property in Japan, and reintroduce visa requirements for visiting Korean tourists. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono even demanded South Korean President Moon Jae-in intervene with the Supreme Court’s decision—a ridiculous request to make against a constitutional democracy that mandates separation of powers.”

    Respect for international law. That’s how the Japanese government is framing its argument. An argument that is problematic for a number of reasons, including the fact that the 1965 treaty didn’t even characterize the payments to South Korea as reparations but instead as “congratulatory” gesture for South Korea’s new independence. The fact that this treaty was signed by a dictator who had just seized power two years earlier and was a former officer of Imperial Japan doesn’t help:


    Japan claims its self-righteousness stems from respect for international law, and that South Korea has violated the treaties into which the two countries entered in 1965. The treaty established a basic diplomatic relationship between the two countries in the aftermath of imperial Japan’s defeat in World War II and Korea’s independence. Japan has long argued that the 1965 treaties put an end to any obligation for Japan to compensate Korea for its colonialism and war crimes, as Japan paid $300 million (the equivalent of about $2.28 billion today) and loaned an additional $500 million to South Korea to settle Korea’s claims.

    The South Korean public has little patience for this argument. After all, it was the dictator Park Chung-hee—a former jmperial Japanese military officer who came to power by rolling tanks into Seoul to overthrow the democratically elected government—who negotiated the treaties, away from the public view. Immediately after the 1965 deal was concluded, Park had to declare martial law over Korea to quell protests against the terms of the treaties.

    But even accepting the legitimacy of the 1965 treaties, Japan’s legal theory is more tendentious than it lets on. To begin with, it’s far from clear whether the 1965 treaties actually waived private claims held by individual Koreans who were victimized by imperial Japan. The diplomatic documents related to the negotiation process of the 1965 treaties (which were not made public until 2005) show that Japan consistently refused to acknowledge it had any liability to Korea arising from its colonial rule, as Japan refused to acknowledge the illegitimacy of its colonization of Korea.

    Accordingly, the 1965 treaties make no reference to whether Japan’s colonial rule over Korea had any legitimacy. If Japan’s negotiators for the 1965 treaties, representing the administration led by Prime Minister Hayato Ikeda, truly believed that Japan owed nothing to Korea, and if the treaty’s text makes no reference to whether imperial Japan committed any wrong to Korea for which compensation is required, it follows that whatever money Japan paid to Korea pursuant to the treaties settled nothing. Indeed, while answering questions about the treaties to Japan’s legislature in 1965, Foreign Minister Etsusaburo Shiina characterized the payment not as reparations for a wrong, but as a congratulatory gesture for Korea’s independence. A state cannot bargain in a treaty for something it never admitted to in the first place.

    But more fundamentally, a treaty that absolved Japan of obligations over its wartime human rights violations would fundamentally violate international law by violating the principle of peremptory norm that provides that a state cannot sign away its people’s human rights through a treaty. That’s part of what’s being debated in this case:


    Even if South Korea and Japan did intend to make such a bargain, such agreement would be void based on well-established principles of international law. Jus cogens, or peremptory norm, provides that a state cannot sign away its people’s human rights through a treaty. If it were otherwise, for example, a country would be able to legally sell a portion of its population into slavery. Accordingly, Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states: “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.”

    The mandate of peremptory norm is so paramount that, according to Article 64 of the Vienna Convention, the emergence of a new peremptory norm voids all existing treaties that conflict with the new norm. (Both Japan and South Korea are signatories to the Vienna Convention, although a peremptory norm applies throughout the world without reference to whether a country signed any specific treaty.)

    Beyond that, when this same argument was made by Japan over compensation for the “comfort women” sex slaves, the special rapporteur of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights ruled in 1996 that such an argument violates the principle of peremptory norm:


    These legal arguments are not anything new. They are based on long-standing principles of law that have been constantly reaffirmed, including in the specific context of Japan’s colonial rule over Korea and the 1965 treaties. For example, it has been more than two decades since the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women found that Japan had the legal obligation to compensate former military sex slaves. In the 1996 report for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, the special rapporteur rejected the Japanese government’s position that the 1965 treaties extinguished the claims of the former “comfort women” based on the same principles as above: Claims based on violation of fundamental human rights cannot be waived via treaty, and at any rate Japan did not bargain for the waiver of these claims in the 1965 treaties.

    So the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has already basically ruled on this issue, or at least a very similar issue, and ruled in the favor of the victims of human rights violations. But this time Japan is pushing for an arbitration panel, as per the 1965 treaty. And if South Korea doesn’t agree, Japan is planning on taking it to the UN’s International Court of Justice, and according to Stephen Nagy, a senior associate professor of international relations at Tokyo’s International Christian University, that court is probably going to have sympathy for Japan’s position:

    South China Morning Post

    Japan looking to escalate South Korean wartime labour dispute to UN court

    * Seoul and Tokyo have been at loggerheads for months over compensation, stemming from a series of South Korean court decisions last year
    * Japan has now formally requested arbitration on the issue, but observers say that South Korea is unlikely to take part

    Julian Ryall
    Published: 5:41pm, 22 May, 2019
    Updated: 5:41pm, 22 May, 2019

    Japan is preparing to escalate a dispute with South Korea over compensation for wartime labour to the International Court of Justice if Seoul does not agree to arbitration on the matter, observers say.

    On Monday, Tokyo formally requested that an arbitration panel be set up, including a member from a third country, citing the terms of a 1965 treaty to normalise relations between the pair after the end of the second world war.

    South Korea’s foreign ministry confirmed that it received Japan’s official letter and said it will “carefully” review the request “considering related elements”.

    But Yoichi Shimada, a professor of international relations at Fukui Prefectural University, said that Seoul was unlikely to agree to arbitration.

    “They have already rejected the previous step spelled out in the 1965 agreement, for bilateral talks, on the grounds that the government cannot interfere in judicial decisions,” he said. “So they will find it difficult to justify reversing that position as it will appear to the Korean public that their leaders have given in to Japanese pressure.”

    South Korea has declined to attend bilateral talks on the matter, according to Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, who said the Japanese government had “determined that it is impossible to solve this issue through negotiations”.

    Based on the 1965 treaty, “the South Korean government is obliged to agree to arbitration,” he said.

    The treaty states that disputes should be settled through diplomatic channels and matters for which a settlement cannot be reached should go to arbitration. It spells out terms for the two countries to select a third-party arbitrator on their own, or have appointments made if they cannot decide. Under its terms, South Korea has to respond to Japan’s request within 30 days of receiving an official letter.

    If Seoul does not respond, Tokyo looks likely to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice, according to Shimada of Fukui Prefectural University.

    “That is a course of action that officials of the Foreign Ministry are now openly advocating because they are very reluctant to start imposing sanctions on another nation, which would be Japan’s only other possible course of action,” he said.

    Stephen Nagy, a senior associate professor of international relations at Tokyo’s International Christian University, predicted that the international court would have “sympathy for Japan” and be “far less politicised”.

    “Japan has offered bilateral talks and [it is] offering an arbitration process, but the Koreans are refusing to engage,” he said.

    “The 1965 treaty stated clearly that there would be no more reparations, but now Korea is walking that agreement back.”

    Nagy said Moon was “falling back on pursuing issues that are popular with Koreans to earn political points”, amid a slowing economy, his own flagging popularity and his administration’s stalled policy of engagement with Pyongyang.

    South Korea’s Supreme Court ruled in November that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries must pay between 100 million won and 150 million won (US$84,000 to US$126,000) to each of five plaintiffs who were forced to work in a military factory, a month after finding Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation liable in a similar case. The country’s courts have ordered the seizure of assets in South Korea of entities associated with the Japanese firms, such as stocks in joint ventures.

    There are more than a dozen other lawsuits in the pipeline, affecting about 70 Japanese companies, according to Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Japan says all claims relating to the colonial period were settled under the 1965 treaty, which was accompanied by a payment of US$300 million, and that South Korea should be responsible for any compensation. South Korean President Moon Jae-in has said the treaty doesn’t prevent Koreans from suing Japanese firms and that the decisions of the courts should be respected.

    ———-

    “Japan looking to escalate South Korean wartime labour dispute to UN court” by Julian Ryall; South China Morning Post; 05/22/2019

    “On Monday, Tokyo formally requested that an arbitration panel be set up, including a member from a third country, citing the terms of a 1965 treaty to normalise relations between the pair after the end of the second world war.

    Will South Korea agree to the terms of the 1965 treaty’s calls for an arbitration panel when its already rejecting the validity of the treaty in so many ways? It doesn’t seem likely, but South Korea has 30 days to respond and after that it’s looking like Japan is going to be taking this to the UN because the only other option is sanctions. At the same time, if Stephen Nagy prediction is correct and the International Court of Justice is likely to rule in Japan’s favor, perhaps South Korea will be more likely to accept the arbitration. We’ll see:


    Based on the 1965 treaty, “the South Korean government is obliged to agree to arbitration,” he said.

    The treaty states that disputes should be settled through diplomatic channels and matters for which a settlement cannot be reached should go to arbitration. It spells out terms for the two countries to select a third-party arbitrator on their own, or have appointments made if they cannot decide. Under its terms, South Korea has to respond to Japan’s request within 30 days of receiving an official letter.

    If Seoul does not respond, Tokyo looks likely to file a complaint with the International Court of Justice, according to Shimada of Fukui Prefectural University.

    That is a course of action that officials of the Foreign Ministry are now openly advocating because they are very reluctant to start imposing sanctions on another nation, which would be Japan’s only other possible course of action,” he said.

    Stephen Nagy, a senior associate professor of international relations at Tokyo’s International Christian University, predicted that the international court would have “sympathy for Japan” and be “far less politicised”.

    But with more than a dozen other lawsuits already in play involving around 70 Japanese companies, this case is going to be a very big deal to both countries. Especially since South Korean courts have already ordered the seizure of assets of Japanese firms:


    South Korea’s Supreme Court ruled in November that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries must pay between 100 million won and 150 million won (US$84,000 to US$126,000) to each of five plaintiffs who were forced to work in a military factory, a month after finding Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation liable in a similar case. The country’s courts have ordered the seizure of assets in South Korea of entities associated with the Japanese firms, such as stocks in joint ventures.

    There are more than a dozen other lawsuits in the pipeline, affecting about 70 Japanese companies, according to Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    So we’re going to find out soon if this ends up going to arbitration or heading off to the International Court of Justice. Either way, the question of how some basic principles of international law and human rights can be resolved is going to be answered one way or another and that’s why this case is much more than a dispute between two countries over war crime reparations.

    Posted by Pterrafractyl | May 30, 2019, 11:11 am
  2. Will (is) the weekend recorded and saved for viewing/listening somewhere? A You Tube page would be great…until it got flagged down… *sigh ????

    Posted by Ken Lee | May 31, 2019, 1:25 pm
  3. @Ken Lee–

    EVERY program in this special is on permanent file with this website/blog, along with long, detailed written descriptions.

    Just follow the links in each of the shows.

    Best,

    Dave

    Posted by Dave Emory | May 31, 2019, 3:14 pm

Post a comment