May 11, 2007
Reparations for the Chamorros
My post on Congress voting to pay reparations for Japanese war crimes drew this comment:
Of course I could be wrong, but I think the reason the US is paying this is that our peace treaty with Japan (the one that ended the occupation, not the Unconditional Surrender) cut off such claims against the Japanese. It is either the US or no one who pays.
This is kind of similar to the situation regarding the claims in Europe against the Nazis.
That, of course, does not answer the question if whether the Guamanians should be compensated in the first place.
If the choice is, as stated, "It is either the US or no one who pays," I'll take the latter.
To the extent that there's an argument the Chamorro people should be compensated, let them petition the Japanese for reparations. That there is a sixty-year-old treaty releasing the Japanese from legal responsibility doesn't also free them from the moral burden of their conduct.
The Japanese are free to pay reparations -- even though not legally obligated to do so -- should they so desire.
And if the Chamorros can make a compelling argument, don't you think the Japanese would compensate them, if for no other reason than to shut them up?
But whether or not the Japanese choose to pay for their crimes, you and I are under no obligation to pay their victims for their misdeeds.
War is a nasty, brutal affair; that's why it's called "war" and not "beer and pretzels" or "tailgate party."
It's a shame that the Chamorros were brutalized by the Japanese. But it isn't our fault. And it's not our place to beg forgiveness -- or to soothe their wounds with our greenbacks.
And, by the way, Congress passed the bill, which now goes to the Senate. What the hell, it's only $126,000,000.
Posted by Mike Lief at May 11, 2007 10:44 AM
| TrackBack
Comments
Sounds like the same guy who came to my blog and tried to tell me that the United States has an obligation to pay the people of Guam because we agreed to incur all debt from WWII.
I had to scratch my head on that one for a while.
Posted by: Trickish Knave at May 11, 2007 11:28 AM
TK-
No, it wasn't the same guy, I've never been to your blog. I agree, that one is a headscratcher.
Don't think that I am defending this kind of pay-out - I just don't think it is quit as outlandish as it might first sound.
What I DO find totally outlandish is paying "the surviving spouses and children" of the people who suffered.
Huh?
So terrible things happened to your ancestors, and we will pay you.
Posted by: andrewdb at May 11, 2007 01:31 PM