History Issues Q&A (2024)

Regarding the recognition of the history by the Government of Japan, the so-called “Murayama Statement” was issued on the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, and the so-called “Koizumi Statement” was issued on the 60th anniversary. In addition to these statements, a cabinet decision was made to issue a statement by the Prime Minister of Japan on 14 August, 2015 on the 70th anniversary of the end of the war. Please see the following links for their contents:

• (Reference1) Statement by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (14 August, 2015)
• (Reference2) Statement by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (15 August, 2005)
• (Reference3) Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama (15 August, 1995)

1. The feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for the actions during the war have been upheld consistently by the post-war Cabinets. Such feelings were expressed in the form of the Murayama Statement on the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, and those feelings of remorse and apology were also carried forth via the Koizumi Statement issued to commemorate the 60th anniversary.
2. Such feelings of remorse and apology articulated by previous Cabinets will be upheld as unshakable, which was made clear in the Statement by the Prime Minister issued on 14 August, 2015.
3. On the other hand, we must not let the future generations, who have nothing to do with that war, be predestined to apologize. This is the responsibility of the current generation that is alive at this moment.

1. At the end of the Second World War, Japan dealt collectively with the issue of reparations, property and claims with the countries concerned. That was the method that was generally accepted by the international community at the time.
2. Specifically, Japan concluded the San Francisco Peace Treaty, bilateral peace treaties, agreements and instruments with countries concerned, and in accordance with them carried out payment of reparations and other items in good faith. In this way, issues of claims concerning the War have been legally settled with the countries of the parties to these treaties, agreements and instruments.

(Reference 1)
Examples of war reparations made pursuant to the San Francisco Peace Treaty

• Reparations amounting to US$550 million (198 billion yen) were made to the Philippines, and US$39 million (14.04 billion yen) to Viet Nam.
• Payment to the International Committee of the Red Cross to compensate prisoners of war (POW) of 4.5 million pounds sterling (approximately 4.54109 billion yen) was made.
• Japan relinquished all overseas assets (approximately US$23.681 billion: approximately 379.499 billion yen)

(Reference 2)
Examples of war reparations made pursuant to individual peace treaties and other treaties

• Reparations amounting to US$200 million (72 billion yen) were made to Burma, and US$223.08 million (80.3088 billion yen) to Indonesia.
• Japan-Soviet Union Joint Declaration (1956)
  The Soviet Union waived its rights to reparations from Japan, and both Japan and the Soviet Union waived all reparations claims arising from war.

(Reference 3) Relevant articles of the San Francisco Peace Treaty

(Reference 4) Specifics of Japan's postwar settlement (issue of reparations, assets, and claims)

1. At the end of the Second World War, Japan dealt collectively with the issue of reparations, properties and claims with the countries concerned, simultaneously dealing with personal claims at that time. For example, under the terms of the San Francisco Peace Treaty, all claims of nationals of the Allied Powers and Japan to related countries and their nationals were waived.
2. In this way, issues of claims by individuals have been legally settled with the parties to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, bilateral treaties, agreements and instruments.

(Reference) San Francisco Peace Treaty

Article 14 (b) (Excerpt)

"Except as otherwise provided in the present Treaty, the Allied Powers waive all reparations claims of the Allied Powers, other claims of the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of any actions taken by Japan and its nationals in the course of the prosecution of the war, and claims of the Allied Powers for direct military costs of occupation."

Article 19 (a)

"Japan waives all claims of Japan and its nationals against the Allied Powers and their nationals arising out of the war or out of actions taken because of the existence of a state of war, and waives all claims arising from the presence, operations or actions of forces or authorities of any of the Allied Powers in Japanese territory prior to the coming into force of the present Treaty."

1. The issue of comfort women between Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK)

• (1)As the issue of comfort women has been a major diplomatic issue in Japan-ROK relations since the 1990s, Japan has sincerely dealt with it. The issue concerning property and claims between Japan and the ROK was settled completely and finally in 1965 through the Agreement on the Settlement of Problems Concerning Property and Claims and on the Economic Cooperation between Japan and the ROK. However, from the perspective of facilitating feasible remedies for the former comfort women, the people and the Government of Japan cooperated to establish “Asian Women’s Fund” in 1995, through which they carried out medical and welfare projects and provided “atonement money” to each former comfort woman in Asian and other countries, including the ROK. In addition, successive Prime Ministers have sent letters expressing their “apology and remorse” to former comfort women. The Government of Japan has made every effort as mentioned above.
• (2)Furthermore, as a result of great diplomatic efforts, the Governments of Japan and the ROK confirmed that the issue of comfort women was “resolved finally and irreversibly” with the agreement reached at the Japan-ROK Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in December 2015. The Japanese and ROK leaders also confirmed that they would take responsibility as leaders to implement this agreement, and that they would deal with various issues based on the spirit of this agreement. This agreement was welcomed by the international community, including then Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon and the U.S. Government.
  In accordance with this agreement, in August 2016, the Government of Japan contributed 1 billion yen to “the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation” established by the Government of the ROK. The Foundation provided financial support to 35 out of the 47 former comfort women who were alive at the time of the agreement, and to the bereaved families of 64 out of the 199 former comfort women who were deceased at the time. The agreement has been received positively by many former comfort women.
• (3)However, in December 2016, a comfort woman statue1 was installed on the sidewalk facing the Consulate-General of Japan in Busan by a civic group in the ROK. Subsequently, the Moon Jae-in administration was newly inaugurated in May 2017. Based on the results of the assessment made by the Taskforce to Review the Agreement on Comfort Women Issue under the direct supervision of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the ROK, Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha announced the position of the Government of the ROK on January 9, 2018 as follows: i) it will not ask for a renegotiation with Japan; and ii) the 2015 agreement, which fails to properly reflect the wishes of the victims, does not constitute a true resolution of the issue. In July 2018, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family of the ROK announced that it would arrange a reserve budget to “appropriate the full amount” of the 1 billion yen contributed by the Government of Japan and contribute this amount to “the Gender Equality Fund”. In November, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family announced that it would proceed with its dissolution of “the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation”.
• (4)Moreover, on January 8, 2021, in the lawsuit filed by former comfort women and others against the Government of Japan, the Seoul Central District Court of the ROK rendered a judgment which ordered the Government of Japan, inter alia, to pay compensation to the plaintiff, denying the application of the principle of State immunity under international law. On January 23, 2021, the judgment was confirmed. Japan has repeatedly expressed its position that this lawsuit must be dismissed because it is not acceptable for the Government of Japan to be subject to the jurisdiction of the ROK in accordance with this principle of State immunity in international law. As mentioned above, the issue concerning property and claims between Japan and the ROK, including the issue of comfort women, was “settled completely and finally” with the Agreement on the Settlement of Problem concerning Property and Claims and on the Economic Co-operation between Japan and the ROK of 1965. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the issue of comfort women was "resolved finally and irreversibly" with the agreement between Japan and the ROK in 2015. Therefore, this judgment is extremely regrettable and absolutely unacceptable, as it is clearly contrary to international law and agreements between the two countries. It is Japan’s policy that it once again strongly urges the ROK to immediately take appropriate measures to remedy the status of its breaches of international law on its own responsibility as a country.
• (5)The Japan-ROK agreement is an agreement between two countries, and it must be implemented responsibly regardless of the change of government. The ROK has a responsibility to steadily implement the agreement not only to Japan but also to the international community. As stated above, the Government of Japan has implemented all measures it committed to under the Japan-ROK agreement. The Government of the ROK itself, including President Moon Jae-in, also acknowledges that this agreement is an official agreement between the two governments and the international community is closely following the ROK’s implementation of the agreement. The Government of Japan will continue to strongly urge the ROK to steadily implement the Japan-ROK agreement.

2. The comfort women issue in the international community

• (1)The Government of Japan has sincerely dealt with issues of reparations, property, and claims pertaining to the Second World War, including the comfort women issue, under the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which the Government of Japan concluded with 45 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, and through other bilateral treaties, agreements, and instruments. These issues including those of claims of individuals have already been legally settled with the parties to these treaties, agreements, and instruments.
• (2)On this basis, the Government of Japan has actively taken measures to recover the honor of former comfort women and to provide remedies for them. In 1995, the AWF was established with the cooperation of the people and the Government of Japan for the purpose of carrying out atonement and remedy projects for former comfort women. The Government of Japan provided a total of 4.8 billion yen. Approximately 600 million yen was donated to the AWF by the people of Japan. The Government of Japan extended maximum cooperation to the AWF, which implemented medical and welfare support projects and provided "atonement money," to offer realistic relief to former comfort women. As part of the AWF’s projects, “atonement money” (2 million yen per person), which was funded by donations from Japanese people, was provided to 285 former comfort women (211 for the Philippines, 61 in the Republic of Korea, 13 in Taiwan). Moreover, the AWF provided funds in those countries/areas for medical and welfare support funded with contributions by the Government of Japan. (3 million yen per person in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 1.2 million yen for the Philippines) (for a total of 5 million yen per person in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 3.2 million yen per person in the Philippines). Furthermore, using funds contributed by the Government of Japan, the AWF extended support for projects to promote social welfare services for elderly people in Indonesia as well as projects to help improve the living conditions of former comfort women in the Netherlands.
• (3)When the “atonement money” as well as the medical and welfare support were provided to individual former comfort women, then-Prime Ministers (namely, PM Ryutaro Hashimoto, PM Keizo Obuchi, PM Yoshiro Mori and PM Junichiro Koizumi) sent signed letters expressing apologies and remorse directly to each former comfort woman.
• (4)As stated in the Statement by the Prime Minister issued in 2015, Japan will engrave in its heart the past, when the dignity and honour of many women were severely injured during wars in the 20th century. Japan will lead the world in making the 21st century an era in which women’s human rights are not infringed upon.
• (5)Despite such sincere efforts by the Government of Japan, there are claims that can hardly be said to be based on historical facts, such as the allegations of “forceful taking away” of comfort women and “sex slaves” as well as the figures “200,000 persons” or “several hundred thousands” for the total number of comfort women.

The Government of Japan’s position regarding these claims is as follows;

• “Forceful taking away”
  “Forceful taking away” of comfort women by the Japanese military and government authorities could not be confirmed in any of the documents that the Government of Japan was able to identify. (This position is stated, for example, in a written answer approved by the Cabinet on December 16, 1997 to the question by a member of the House of Representatives.)
• “Sex slaves”
  The expression “sex slaves” contradicts the facts so that it should not be used. This point was confirmed with the ROK at the occasion of the Japan-ROK Agreement in December 2015 and the expression “sex slaves” is not used in the agreement.
• Figures such as “200,000 persons” for the total number of comfort women
  The figure “200,000 persons” lacks concrete evidence. As stated in the report of the Government study’s result of August 4, 1993, it is virtually impossible to determine the total number of comfort women as no documents have been found which either indicate the total number or give sufficient ground to establish an estimate.

• (6)The Government of Japan has been making efforts to provide clear explanations regarding its sincere efforts and official position in international fora. Specifically, at the UN, the Government of Japan has explained its position at a number of opportunities such as during the examination of the Seventh and Eighth Periodic Reports by the Government of Japan on the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in February 2016. In February 2017, the Government of Japan also submitted its amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court for the trial concerning a comfort woman statue installed in Glendale in the suburbs of Los Angeles, United States.

(Reference 1) Japan's Efforts on the Issue of Comfort Women

(Reference 2) Other documents on the Issue of Comfort Women

1. The Government of Japan believes that it cannot be denied that following the entrance of the Japanese Army into Nanjing in 1937, the killing of noncombatants, looting and other acts occurred. However, there are numerous theories as to the actual number of victims, and the Government of Japan believes it is difficult to determine which the correct number is.
2. The feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology for the actions during the war have been upheld consistently by the post-war Cabinets. Such feelings were expressed in the form of the Murayama Statement on the 50th anniversary of the end of the war, and those feelings of remorse and apology were also carried forth via the Koizumi Statement issued to commemorate the 60th anniversary.
3. Such feelings of remorse and apology articulated by previous Cabinets will be upheld as unshakable, which was made clear in the Statement by the Prime Minister issued on 14 August, 2015.

1. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) (also known as the Tokyo Trial) was a trial established by the Allied Powers after the Second World War to try Japanese Class A war criminals, where 28 people were prosecuted for charges, including crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. Of these, 25 were convicted, while the rest died of illness or were dismissed.
2. The Government of Japan acknowledges that there are various arguments regarding this judgment. However, Japan has accepted the judgment of the IMTFE under Article 11 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. Therefore, in state to state relationship, the Government of Japan believes that it is in no position to raise any objections regarding this judgment.

(Reference1) Article 11 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty

Japan accepts the judgments of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and of other Allied War Crimes Courts both within and outside Japan, and will carry out the sentences imposed thereby upon Japanese nationals imprisoned in Japan. The power to grant clemency, to reduce sentences and to parole with respect to such prisoners may not be exercised except on the decision of the Government or Governments which imposed the sentence in each instance, and on recommendation of Japan. In the case of persons sentenced by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, such power may not be exercised except on the decision of a majority of the Governments represented on the Tribunal, and on the recommendation of Japan.

(Reference2) International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) (also known as the Tokyo Trial)

1. Japan and Germany have both dealt with their "history issues" in good faith.
2. At the same time, the historical backgrounds of Germany and Japan differ completely, in terms of what happened during the Second World War and under what kind of postwar situation they engaged in postwar settlement. For example, Japan dealt collectively with the issue of reparations with the countries concerned in a manner that was generally accepted by the international community at the time, pursuant to the San Francisco Peace Treaty, treaties and instruments. On the other hand, the Government of Japan is aware that Germany took the approach of personal compensation as it could not deal collectively with countries concerning various issues including reparations as Japan did, since Germany was divided into East and West following the war.
3. In this way, Japan and Germany have dealt with postwar settlement by different approaches. Therefore, it is not appropriate to make a simple comparison and evaluation of the measures taken by the two countries.