South Weekend:
Original 2010-06-23
Over the past ten years, in the movement of Japanese laborers’ claims against Japan, various parties and factions have never stopped fighting for the right to speak and for political and economic interests.
Southern Weekend Reporter Qin Xuan
Editor: Li Liang Guo Li Ma Changbo Information Chen Bin intern Lei Lei
Editor’s Note: Recently, a settlement was reached between the Japanese laborers and the Japanese company Nishimatsu Construction, in which Nishimatsu Construction apologized and paid compensation. However, on the same day, some other laborers declared their firm opposition to the settlement, saying that the settlement agreement was “humiliating to the country”. Both are victims, why are they at loggerheads?
It is not the intention of this newspaper to deny all the sincere efforts of people from all walks of life who have been campaigning for the interests of the old laborers. At the same time, however, in the movement of Japanese laborers’ claims against Japan for more than a decade, various parties and factions have never ceased to fight for the right to speak and for political and economic interests.
For the first time in his life, Zhang Zuoling, a farmer from Hebei Province, was at the center of the issue of “national integrity” and “Sino-Japanese friendship”.
Sixty-six years ago, Zhang Zuoling’s father, Zhang Xiaogeng, was taken to Japan to work as a laborer. On April 26th of this year, Zhang Zuoling and 4 other survivors of the victims, as representatives of 57 laborers of the “Chinese Captive Laborers Association Shinano River Laborers Branch”, reached a settlement with the Japanese company Nishimatsu Construction: Nishimatsu Construction apologized for the crime, and Zhang Zuoling and the other 56 veteran laborers or survivors were given a 3-page “statement” and compensation of about 50,000 RMB per person. Zhang Zuoling and 56 other old laborers or their survivors received a three-page “statement” and compensation of about 50,000 RMB each.
However, there was a sudden change in the situation. On the very day of the signing of the settlement, five other labor representatives held a press conference stating that only they could represent the Shinano River victims and that they were strongly opposed to the settlement because what Nishimatsu was offering was not compensation, but “reimbursement” in the nature of relief, which was “insulting” and “not in the nature of a settlement”. “.
At one time, Zhang Zao collar signed the three pages of paper became another example of “loss of power and humiliation of the country”, “betrayal” of national dignity, only in exchange for a little “charity”.
Both are victims, why are they so incompatible? Behind the incompatibility, what are the unknown stakes?
As a matter of fact, over the past decade or so, four settlements have been reached in the civil claims for Chinese laborers abducted from Japan, theoretically securing a small amount of compensation for less than 3,000 victims and their surviving family members, but leaving behind more strife and divisions, such as a rivers and lakes. Japanese lawyers and peace movement associations, Chinese lawyers, scholars and semi-official organizations, all are defending their pure purpose of acting as an umbrella for the laborers, and all are avoiding their own interests.
It is likely that this situation will continue until all the laborers of that year have passed away and are thus considered a page in the history books.
Polemics, “persuasion” and “kidnapping”
The Japanese lawyer said, “As a victim of the Chinese side, it’s a very embarrassing thing to not be able to clearly make a unified voice.”
The five laborers who opposed the settlement are “old revolutionaries” who have been suing Nishimatsu Construction since the late 1990s. Kang has been the attorney leading their case.
The majority of the survivors of laborers who participated in the reconciliation joined the “revolutionary team” only after hearing about the reconciliation last summer. However, as they were in the majority, they were considered to be “more representative of the views of the majority of laborers and labor survivors.”
The polemic is on.
Opponents of the settlement, such as the head of the Canadian Shiwei Association, Mr. Lui Kwok-yuen, and the Hong Kong Wyoming Foundation, even offered 350,000 yuan in financial support to the five plaintiffs who refused to settle.
Supporters of the settlement issued an open letter accusing Kang’s lawyers of “stirring up national sentiments” and “with the rise in popularity and the emergence of corporate donations, the attitude of attempting to override the victimized laborers as a group and to dominate everything by themselves has become more and more obvious.”
In fact, when the parties first began discussing settlement ideas earlier this year, the Japanese lawyers suggested that the laborers on both sides meet behind closed doors to discuss them, but were rejected. Lawyer Kang Jian told Southern Weekend that the decision not to meet was unanimous among the five plaintiffs. And He Tianyi, a consultant for the Labor Union, which supports the settlement, told the Southern Weekend reporter that “Kang Jian did not allow the plaintiffs and laborers to meet.”
The “unanimous decision” not to hold a meeting was actually signaled at the end of last year.
Han Yinglin is one of the five laborers who oppose the settlement. His son went to Shijiazhuang at the end of last year to meet He Tianyi, an adviser to the labor union. “At that time, I was afraid of a misunderstanding and called lawyer Kang Jian.” He Tianyi said. But immediately after the meeting, Kang sent a letter of protest to the labor union, protesting that it had “induced the plaintiffs” and “slandered” her.
Zhang Zaoling told the Southern Weekend reporter that there were plaintiffs who called him and said that they also wanted to settle, “but lawyer Kang Jian led them for many years, and it was not appropriate not to listen to lawyer Kang Jian.”
For this reason, when Kang Jian expressed the view that the settlement of the 40-odd workers with the Japanese company in the name of all the workers was a “kidnapping” of the five plaintiffs’ workers, the labor representatives in support of the settlement responded angrily, “Who is kidnapping the Shinano River plaintiffs?”
Taizo Morita, the Japanese lawyer in charge of the Shinano Kawasaki settlement, told the newspaper, “It’s very embarrassing to not be able to clearly make a unified voice as a victim of the Chinese side.”
The dispute over the model
“You are shameless! You are traitors! Betraying the Chinese laborers!”
In 2000, the surviving families of the victims of the Hanaoka Labor Tragedy were reconciled with Japanese companies. However, at that time, the Japanese company did not apologize in writing, and each victim received only a few thousand yuan in compensation.
The first split occurred within the Civil Claims Movement for Japanese Laborers over whether to accept the settlement.
As a matter of fact, until last October when the Anno laborers reconciled, Kang Jian and the Shinano Kawasaki Labor Fellowship still stood in the same trench, criticizing together the Anno laborers who reconciled with the Japanese companies.
At last year’s “Anno Reconciliation Briefing”, Shao Yicheng, president of the Anno Laborers’ Association, and Lee Liangjie, president of the Shinano Kawasaki Laborers’ Association, had a heated argument.
Li Liangjie counted his grievances against the “Anno Settlement”, Shao Yicheng stood up and said to Li Liangjie: “If you have the ability to also go to ah! If you can do it, go get one too, and get the money too!”
Li Liangjie burst into a rage and cursed, “You guys are shameless! You are traitors! Betraying Chinese laborers!”
However, two months after the Yasuno settlement was realized, 57 laborers and surviving family members unanimously agreed to the settlement at the inaugural meeting of the Shinano Kawasaki branch of the Laborers’ Fellowship Association on December 29 last year.
“The laborers want to settle, they can’t stop it.” Attorney Fu Qiang, legal adviser to the Labor Fellowship, said.
The history of the rights struggle for more than 10 years, with a total of four settlements, each of which caused a dispute. Supporters say that they have not violated the principle and have worked hard for what they have done. Opponents said they had lost the bottom line and betrayed the laborers and the nation.
Even the headlines of the tit-for-tat polemical articles in the press remained highly consistent for several settlement polemics, such as the unanimous opposition of such-and-such plaintiffs to settlement, the embarrassment of such-and-such settlement, and so on.
The Difference Between Portals
“I’m the one who did the thing, so if we join together, who gets the credit in the end?”
On May 20, the Association of Chinese Captive Laborers to Japan issued a statement entitled “The Splitting of the Captive Labor Force Must Be Stopped”.
Yet the gateway distinction has been a fundamental ecology of the labor movement for more than a decade.
Scholar Liu Baochen was involved in the study of Japanese labor captivity in the 1980s. He introduced to this reporter, in Japan, there are two major civil society organizations to support China’s claims against Japan. One is the scholar Professor Tanaka Hong, lawyer Xin Meilong (deceased), overseas Chinese Lin Boyao as the representative of the “captive Chinese thinking”; the other is the lawyer Onodera Toshitaka, Takahashi Rong as the representative of the “Chinese forced labor incident defense group”.
“Onodera Toshitaka and the others are actually behind the Japanese Communist Party, but they won’t say so themselves. Lin Boyao, Tanaka Hiroshi, on the other hand, they have the backing of the Japanese Social Democratic Party.” Liu Baochen said. Although both parties are left-wing, their social bases and political views are different.
Last year, Nishimatsu Construction approached lawyers from both factions. According to our reporter, at that time, Onodera Toshitaka’s group of lawyers had approached Uchida Amin and other lawyers in the hope of jointly negotiating with the Japanese company, but it was rejected. According to the Japanese captive labor claims movement participants Zhu Chunli introduction, Chinese workers have also raised the hope that the two factions in Japan can be joint, but has not been realized.
“I did the thing, and if we join together, who gets the credit in the end?” Zhu Chunli said, “There is cliquism at work here.”
Since they are not authorized by the civil affairs department, all the associations of Japanese laborers in China have no name and have to add the word “(筹)” to their names. A similar problem exists in the case of organizations that defend the rights of bacteriological warfare, gas bombs and comfort women.
“Laborers have been struggling for more than a decade, but they can’t legally defend their rights in a dignified manner.” A scholar who has long been concerned about the labor movement told reporters. It is also for this reason that the movement of Japanese laborers’ claims against Japan can only be carried out in Japan, and has to rely entirely on the funding and commitment of the Japanese side.
Japanese overseas Chinese Lin Bo-yao and lawyer Uchida Yamin said that in order to put pressure on Nishimatsu Construction, they paid for millions of yen of Nishimatsu Construction’s shares themselves in order to get a chance to speak at the shareholders’ meeting in protest. Lawyer Toshitaka Onodera also sent 70,000 yen in financial support to the Labor Fellowship. Japanese lawyers did their best to claim for the Japanese labor captives, but objectively, their split inevitably affected the domestic claims movement.
“Chinese labor organizations must unite, must unite, must unify.” He Tianyi, Chief Advisor Scholar, in his speech at the General Assembly of the Captive Labor Fellowship in 2008.
The Benefits of the Fund
For a theoretically huge $400 million settlement, the Laborers’ Union broke with Wellness.
According to materials provided by the China Foundation for the Development of Human Rights, there have been four settlements in the history of labor claims since 2000, with a total of nearly 900 million yen (about 63 million yuan) in compensation paid by Japanese companies, which were administered and distributed by the Red Cross Society of China, the Beijing Fang Yuan Law Firm, where Kang is a lawyer, the Japan Association for Liberal Rights, and the China Foundation for the Development of Human Rights, respectively.
After one of the “Daejangsan settlements,” there were rumors that Kang’s attorneys took 40% of the settlement as litigation expenses.
In his article “The Embarrassment of Chinese War Victims’ Claims Against Japan”, writer Li Min revealed that each of the six plaintiffs in the Daejangsan lawsuit was awarded 3.5 million yen, and after deducting the 1.4 million yen used for litigation costs, the plaintiffs actually received 2.1 million yen. Litigation costs accounted for exactly 40% of the compensation.
So, on May 20 of this year the Labor Fellowship explicitly questioned Kang Jian, “Did she, a Chinese lawyer who was not a litigator, take any money in the Dajiangshan settlement? How much was taken?” “There is still a plaintiff in the Dajiangshan settlement who refuses to disclose the amount of compensation received. He is worried that the local government will ask him for money.” Facing our reporter, Kang Jian answered the question of litigation fees this way.
In a way, it was real money that led to the break between the labor union and Wellness.
In 2007, after a series of unsuccessful lawsuits for claims against Japan, the option of a political settlement was put on the agenda.
On the eve of Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda’s visit to China, the Japanese Laborers’ Association and Japanese lawyers put forward a “proposal for a comprehensive settlement of the issue of Japanese labor captivity”, seeking to have the Japanese Government and the relevant victimized enterprises make financial contributions to apologize for and compensate the 40,000 captive Japanese laborers.
According to German precedent for Jews, compensation for one Chinese laborer was set at $20,000, for a total of $400 million.
A disagreement ensued between Kang and the Labor Fellowship over the theoretically large fund.
According to Kang’s idea, the main body of the compensation is the Chinese laborers and their survivors who were abducted to Japan, and the All-China Lawyers’ Association, the China Legal Aid Foundation, and other Chinese parties will be the administrators of the fund, with a management committee consisting of the Chinese laborers and their survivors as well as Chinese and Japanese lawyers and other relevant parties to carry out the specific implementation.
“Kang Jian wants to control the money, and the so-called management committee is a subordinate body under her control.” He Tianyi told Southern Weekend, pointing to the article.
And Kang said that the Law Society, which stepped in to accept the fund at the time, was a meeting of all parties together to come up with the idea, and far from talking about the benefits.
The Labor Fellowship ultimately decided to bypass Wellness and go public with a proposal that did not specify the future administrator of the fund, and the two parties have since parted ways.
And in this year’s Shinano Kawasaki settlement, the China Human Rights Development Fund was responsible for managing the disbursement of 128 million yen. “Anyway, the money finally got to China this time.” Deng Jianguo, an aid lawyer for the Labor Fellowship, told Southern Weekend.
The Human Rights Development Foundation has an official background, and labor representatives and Japanese lawyers see its management as an indication of the Chinese government’s supportive attitude.
“We will manage this fund with 3 principles: firstly, it is beneficial to laborers, secondly, it is beneficial to solving the historical legacy issues between China and Japan, and thirdly, it is beneficial to peace and friendship between China and Japan.” Liu Wei, deputy secretary-general of the Human Rights Development Foundation, told the newspaper.
“You can’t make things difficult for the elderly like this.”
“Money given to the elderly is an explanation.” Zhang Zuoliang said.
“Those who do not receive the money can not say that those who receive the money are spineless, can not be so difficult for these old people.” Wang Liuzhu, director of the Chinese Society for the History of Resistance and War and adviser to the Labor Fellowship of Captive Japan, told this reporter, “The people who have the most to say on the issue of reconciliation are those involved, and other people should not talk about it.”
However, the most vocal 40,000 captive Japanese laborers, in more than a decade of claims movement against Japan, really come forward, only a few hundred people, to obtain compensation, but also just over 3,000 people. “Money to the elderly is an explanation.” Zhang Zao collar said. His father, Japanese laborer Zhang Xiaogang, who suffers from cancer, made it to last year’s settlement talks, but not to the conclusion of the settlement.
Han Yinglin, a laborer of the Shinano River plaintiffs who opposes the settlement, is 93 years old. His son, Han Zhanquan, said, “The other side does not give any room for negotiation at all, and the amount of money given to my father is too little after he has suffered so much.”
In 1972, the Chinese and Japanese governments signed a joint declaration. This statement, which contained a rejection of hegemony, also read: The Chinese government declares that, for the sake of the friendship between the peoples of China and Japan, it renounces its claim for war reparations against the State of Japan. For many years afterward, China became the destination country for the largest amount of Japanese overseas aid. The money was used to develop the economy, but it did not benefit all the Japanese laborers.
“Even compensation of 50,000 yuan was important to some laborers.” Liu Huanxin, the son of Hwagang laborer Liu Lianren, said, “In southwestern Lu, some laborers were so poor that they had never seen a 100-yuan ticket.”
Sixty-six years on, most of the 40,000 laborers seem destined to die in silence. If it were not for the oral history materials that have been salvaged by a few scholars over the past decade or so, they would not even have a chance to become footnotes in history.
Fifteen years have also passed since the laborers filed their claims against Japan, and those elites who have helped and are helping the laborers have painted the laborers’ claims with their own understandings, but they have also prevented the laborers from being seen for what they are.
From the April 26th settlement to the present, instead of continuing to search for labor victims and surviving family members of the Shinano River, the Japanese Labor Abductors’ Fellowship has focused its efforts on its next target, Mitsubishi Corporation.
Lu Tanglock, president of the association, told the newspaper that he also received a letter from a Japanese student saying that laborers in the country should be united, just like when the Communist Party fought against Japan. “But the Communist Party’s fight against Japan is over, and there was a three-year civil war.” Lutang Lock smiled bitterly.
On the desk of Deng Jianguo, the legal adviser of the Labor Fellowship, sits the bylaws of the Labor Fellowship, which were drawn up in 2003. Deng said he wanted to amend the constitution in order to fight for the union of all Japanese laborers. Lawyer Kang Jian revealed that he has decided to join the plaintiffs to form a new rights organization.
コメント