The Tokyo trials

Chaya Podeur Lucien ScPo III                                                    Sovereignty in international relations

The Tokyo Trials.

        The International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE)^[1], also known by the name of “Tokyo trials” was a military trial. Its objectives were to try and sentence the leaders of the Empire of Japan for different motives such as joint conspiracy to start and wage war, conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity, but it also implemented a great deal of international legislation regarding the criminalization of war. Whereas today the Nuremberg trials are remembered as the major trials that punished the perpetrators guilty of having committed crimes against humanity during World War II, the Tokyo trials are often forgotten or diminished. The Nuremberg trials are part of the European collective subconscious the same way Tokyo ones are for the Asian collective subconscious. This amnesia can also be partly explained by the fact that throughout the decades the Jewish Holocaust became the principal historical memory of the events that occurred during World War II. The trials took place from the third of May 1946 and ended in November twelve of 1948. These trials put an end to the series of postwar trials of heads of state. The group of defendants was meant to be an accurate representation of the Japanese government that was in charge during the wartime. The choice was purely political, therefore four prime ministers, a number of senior ministers and a few military commanders composed the group of 28 defendants that were put on trial during the Tokyo trials. The head of state, Emperor Hirohito, was not put on trial. The American authorities judged that if such an action was taken, the American army would need one million more men in order to ensure control over the Japanese territory. By doing so, the American authorities chose to spare the Emperor from prosecution solely for political reasons. It is also valuable to mention that not all the Japanese defendants were put on trial under the jurisdiction of the IMTFE, hundreds of them were judged under the ordinary laws of war.

        The Americans were deeply involved in these trials, as they were the major adversary of Japan during the conflict. America needed to obtain justice from Japan about the events of Pearl Harbor, and we can safely assume that the sentence of death of Hideki Tojo, prime minister during the attack was once again largely politic, as it was widely advertised. The whole Tokyo trials were in fact political. The trials were the occasion for the Allied to obtain vengeance over Japan. As these trials involved resentment from the countries that provided the judges, it cannot be seen as a fair trial. Judges came from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, India, France, the Netherlands, China, the Soviet Union, Britain, the United States and the Philippines. Even though judges came from eleven different countrie only one prosecution team existed, led by an American. All those countries were chosen for the very reason that they were enemies of Japan during World War II. The justice that occurred during the Tokyo trials was merciless, no acquittals were pronounced. The Nuremberg trials convicted 8 defendants from a total of 22 for conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, whereas 26 from a total of 28 were sentenced for the same reason during the Tokyo trials. Only judge Pal^[2] had experience with international law exercise, the other judges were military men or political men of power. This Indian judge was also the only one to point that the verdict could not be impartial given the fact that the judges were also the victims.^[3] 

        These trials present similarities to the Versailles Treaty of World War I, that completely eluded the amnesty principle and which was based on the accusation of aggression among the Kaiser. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East is inherently unfair, and interferes deeply within Japanese political system. The interference does not take into account Japanese sovereignty and violates the non intervention principles declared by the American President Woodrow Wilson in his famous 14 points. This sweet irony eludes common good and lets occidental revenge emerge. These political trials allowed Occidental interference within the Japanese governance. The Tokyo trials would not have been so partial had the International Criminal Court existed or at least the judges were not only coming from countries that were formerly enemies with Japan during the conflict. The United States provided the funds and staff necessary for the IMTFE to function and also held the position of Chief Prosecutor. The requirement for impartiality was clearly not fulfilled, thus meaning that Japan’s sovereignty was directly violated during the Tokyo trials. The trials are today considered by many as a parody of justice, whereas during the trials only judge Pal and his dissenting opinion emitted some doubts regarding the verdict. He was the only one to argue for the acquittal of all the defendants, using the legal fact that wage an aggressive war was not illegal in 1937, date of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. Such crimes were not even mentioned in the international law at that time.  The charges against the accused, and in particular the charge of "crime against peace", would therefore be governed by ex post facto legislation. The real harm of Japan, Judge Pal concluded, would have been not in war crimes but in attacking the colonies of Western powers. Some facts were kept away from public knowledge during the trials, including the use of inhumane medical experimentation concerning the Unit 731^[4]. These facts were kept secret because General MacArthur negotiated a deal with the camp commander that granted him total amnesty. Jon W. Powell, one of the Judges during the Tokyo trials, regretted that fact years later saying that “As one of the judges in the International Military Tribunal, it is a bitter experience for me to be informed now that centrally ordered Japanese war criminality of the most disgusting kind was kept secret from the Court by the U.S. government”.^[5] The prosecution was concentrated on aggression rather than war crimes, for the simple fact that the Allies were guilty of atrocious war crimes themselves. The United States provoked at least 300 000 deaths during the burning of Tokyo using Napalm and the dropping of Little Boy and Fat Man over Hiroshima and Nagasaki respectively. All these information indicate that these trials were conducted by an Occidental power led by the United States in order to serve their best interest in the region, thus using justice as a way to bypass international sovereignty. These assumptions are also supported by the fact the Soviet Union was never charged for having committed the same crime of aggression towards Japan. The 8 of August 1945, the USSR declared war upon Japan even though there existed a non-aggression act between the two parties. Japanese leaders were largely convicted based on that count of indictment, but the USSR leaders were never bothered in the slightest way.

...