<論説>「嘘」と公文書 --在外財産補償問題を事例として-- (特集 : 嘘)

Abstract

「密約」問題を典型例として、しばしば日本政府の「嘘」が暴かれる状況が生じており、「嘘」をめぐる問題は、公文書の隠蔽や改竄といった官僚制の秘密主義と公文書管理の問題として捉えることができる。本稿は、在外財産補償問題の政策決定過程について公文書を中心に検証することで、この問題への日本政府の対応とその裏に潜む「嘘」について明らかにする。この問題に対して日本政府は一貫して法的補償義務はないとの立場をとり、政策的措置として引揚者への給付金や特別交付金の支給を行った。その過程において、実際には法的義務の可能性をはらんだ問題が生じていたが、政府はそれを公表しないことで乗り切る方針をとった。本稿の事例は、政府による多くの「嘘」が見過ごされている可能性を示唆するものであるが、他方で、そうした事例が公文書によって歴史的に検証されたことは、適切な公文書管理の重要性が示されたことを意味しているともいえよう。史林 一〇八巻一号 二〇二五年一月

The “secret agreements” between Japan and the United States at the time of the revision of the Japan-US Security Treaty and the return of Okinawa to Japan, as well as other cases, have revealed the “lies” of the Japanese Government. The problem of “lies” made by the government, which involves the concealment and falsification of public records, can be seen as a problem of bureaucratic secrecy and the management of public records. This paper examines the policy-making process for the issue of compensation for Japanese overseas properties that has not been sufficiently clarified in previous studies. By analyzing relevant historical sources, including official government documents, it aims to elucidate the Japanese government's response to this issue and uncover the “falsehoods” concealed in its approach. As a result of Japan's defeat in the Asia-Pacific War, Japanese nationals residing overseas were compelled to repatriate to the Japanese mainland, leaving behind their private property in foreign countries. These overseas properties owned by Japanese nationals were confiscated by the Allied Powers. The repatriates, who lacked a stable livelihood base in Japan, demanded compensation from the Japanese government for their overseas property. However, during the occupation period, this issue remained unresolved due to policies such as those implemented by the General Headquarters (GHQ). Subsequently, during negotiations concerning the peace treaty, the obligation to compensate for the loss of Japanese nationals' overseas properties, were handled as part of reparations. It was decided that this not be explicitly stated in the treaty text at the request of the Japanese government. Thus, after the enactment of the peace treaty, this issue was dealt with as an internal matter of Japan. Repatriate organizations demanded compensation from the Japanese government based on the the Japanese Constitution which guarantees respect for private property. However, the government consistently maintained the position that there was no legal obligation for compensation. At the same time, it took policy measures to provide financial benefits and special grants to repatriates. In the policy-making process, an issue had arisen that in fact carried the potential for the emergence of a legal obligation for compensation. This issue was related to the implementation of Article 16 of the peace treaty. Article 16 of the treaty stipulates that Japan was to transfer the property of nationals from neutral countries and former enemy states to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which would then distribute it to Allied military prisoners of war and their families. During the negotiations surrounding the implementation of Article 16, the views of the British and American governments and the Japanese government were persistently in conflict regarding the property transferred to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) by the Thai government. However, the Japanese government, concerned that this issue would stimulate the domestic debate over compensation for overseas properties, adopted a policy of handling the matter by not publicizing the issues surrounding the property in Thailand. In this way, the Japanese government successfully avoided the issue of its legal obligation regarding compensation for overseas properties without the public becoming aware of the issue itself. This stance of the government can be regarded as having led to the development of the so-called “doctrine of enduring wartime damage” followed in subsequent years. The cases dealt with in this paper suggest that many government “falsehoods” may have been overlooked. On the other hand, the fact that these cases were verified historically through public records demonstrates the importance of proper public records management.