TNAG-2016-FCO40-2871-Relations-between-Hong-Kong-and-Japan-1990 — Page 105

CODE

18-77

Reference

its nationals "in the course of the prosecution of the war".

5.

Of course, in answering letters concerning military currency from persons resident in the UK, we can then go on to refer to the fact that Articles 14 and 16 of the Treaty of Peace provided for reparations to be paid by Japan to the Allied Powers: I understand that the UK received £4,641,602. Under Article 14 Japan paid reparation to the Allies for the "damages and suffering caused by it during the war". Under Article 16 the Japanese government expressed its "desire to indemnify members of the armed forces of the Allied Powers who suffered undue hardships while Prisoners of War of Japan".

6.

I understand from FED that the money received by the UK was distributed to former British captives of the Japanese including former civilian internees, but only those civilian internees who had been resident in the UK before interment and who had returned to the UK after release qualified. FED conclude that Hong Kong residents would not have qualified for financial help from these funds, nor would they be able to make a claim on the small sum remaining undistributed. Assuming this is correct and no other provision was made for compensation to be paid to Hong Kong residents, this would seem to create a particular sensitivity in dealing with representations from Hong Kong associations on this matter.

1.

Two final points. First, the above relates primarily to wartime currency issued by the Japanese government.

The position might be different in relation to bank-notes issued by the Bank of Japan. In the reply to Austin Mitchell's letter referred to above it was stated that "The Bank of Japan whom we have consulted might agree to honour its own wartime bank-notes". I raise this point because I note the material from the Reparation Association refers to

Japanese currency and military bills" (emphasis added). Secondly, while there would appear to be no legal ground for HMG to pursue matters such as this on grounds of a right under international law, because of the provisions of the 1951 Treaty, I suppose it is possible that Japan might be shamed by some form of political pressure to do something about it. But this takes us firmly into the political rather than legal sphere.

"I

Прадала J

J J Rankin

Assistant Legal Adviser K 174 270-3055

12 September 1990

JR 4AAP

Page 105Page 106