BETRAYAL-
PERFIDY
The manner in which thousands of British patriots have been betrayed and let down by former British Governments. This year will be the 62nd anniversary of the release from captivity of many such people. Yet we are still trying to obtain some form of justice on their behalf. The freedom of information has opened the doors to all the lies and procrastinations. Can the British Government still deny the betrayal committed by their forebears.
Yours Sincerely
Arthur Lane
BETRAYAL-
PERFIDY
These are just some of the words used when describing the actions of the British Government in its dealings with the Japanese on behalf of British citizens after World War two, Every trick in the book was used in order to curry favour with the American Government and our wartime enemy. As well as ordering a halt to the capture of well known war criminals at the behest of the American Government. They were also expressly asked not to make any excessive claims for war damage, except in the instance of Church and Bank buildings.
All claims by British civilian internees should be delayed for as long as possible claims for compensation by service men and individuals should be treated in like manner
The Association of British Civilian Internees Far East Region
And
The National Ex Services Association
Have joined together in a final effort to obtain due compensation from the Japanese
Government It is evident from the latest letters to emanate from the MoD that they
have forgotten the reason why Prime Minister Tony Blair authorised the “ ex gratia”
in the first place. The MoD are apparently obsessed with the fact that the High Court
in a “judicial review “ ruled that their changing the rules was “Unjust but Not unlawful”,
and thus the matter in their eyes is closed. They have completely lost the plot as
to the rationale behind the “ex-
He apparently did, only to have his minions redefine his intentions. Mr Blair rapidly realised after being presented with the evidence that HMG had indeed let down those British who had been interned by Japan that unless he did something things could get ugly for HMG
In negotiating the Peace Treaty in 1951 HMG represented all those British, who were not represented by their own Commonwealth Governments, and then through expediency chose to ignore their best interests. The Prime Minister on being given the evidence recognised the injustice and forced through the “ex gratia” scheme, against the advice of officials. It was not direct compensation, money would be insufficient, but as recognition that those that the British Government represented had been wronged by Japan and further wronged by the Foreign Office not being diligent in pursuing their interests. The MoD wish to still selectively inflict a wrong on a third of those survivors all of whom HMG had represented in the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty.
EVIDENCE OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT BETRAYAL.
In the then Public Records Office at Kew., both Ron Bridge and Keith Martin spending days searching through the documents some six/seven years ago. In March 1998, Keith Martin looking in the files of the Foreign Office’s 1955 correspondence. Two documents were found, published again here. They prove that the Foreign Office knew that Japan had made War Claims settlements with the Swiss ‘more advantageous than the 1951 Treaty with the Allies. The Foreign Office Minister decided not to reopen the treaty, which they were entitled to do under Article 26, either in that instance or for future more advantageous settlements, in the interests of restoring the Japanese economy( although UK Ambassador in Tokyo at the time said Japan economy was starting to boom) and not to publicize the decision. A Treasury note referred to this ‘legal entitlement” by Britons. Regular statements on the compensation issue, made to Parliament and in replies to MPs letters, since then, have said that the compensation issue was legally closed.( Economical truth) As a matter of interest, the average payment in the 439 Swiss cases was £2,384, in 1955, equivalent today to £36,000.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office did nothing, it failed in it’s duty to British subjects on whose behalf it had negotiated the 1951 Treaty, the present Prime Minister sought to rectify this wrong but his Minister of Defence has decided to discriminate against some of those that the FCO betrayed.
Japan subsequently concluded Treaties with a number of other countries between 1956 and into the 1970s involving over US $1 billion to be disbursed over 10 years
The 1951 Peace Treaty was with the following countries: UK, USA, Mexico, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia , Canada, Pakistan, France, Ceylon, Brazil, Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Peru, Netherlands, Vietnam, Norway, Venezuela, Laos.
The UK agreed to accept £4,816, 491 from the sale of Japanese assets seized in UK
and from Japanese assets in neutral or enemy countries. The Government was persuaded
to divide it amongst the surviving POW’s and civilian internees who were living in
the UK between 1952 and 1956, stressing that it was not compensation but an ex-
Jap subsequently concluded further Treaties with the following countries, agreeing and giving actual reparations that were more than each British subject had received.
Netherlands 130355 Philippines 9 Spain 8.01.57
Indochina 27.0357 Sweden 20.09.57 Indonesia 20.0
Vietnam 1 Denmark 25.05.59 Korea 22.06.63
Greece 20.0966 Singapore 21.09.67
Copies of these documents were given to the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in April 199 brought to the notice in writing to the Prime Minister on 28th May 1998 and referred to at the meeting with the the Prime Minister in June 1998 This is the background to the Prime Minister Tony Blair
Authorising the ex-
_______
In 1999 when this letter was written, Manchester United won the European cup.
Today, nearly a decade later United fans are waiting to see if their team (on circa £50K per week each) can repeat that glorious hour.
Former prisoners of the Japanese are still waiting for a reply to