UW 最後のレポート 記念に。手伝ってもらったからできた。
Law and Political Power
in the Tokyo Tribunal for
War Criminals
Junya Murakami
June 7, 2008
Introduction
I decided to choose the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) as the theme for my paper because IMTFE is an important issue concerning Japan and its relationship to the rest of the world, and created new ideas concerning international law that consequently brought the idea of world justice. However, despite its importance in the development of these issues, there are still many disputes about this trial and Japan’s responsibility during World War II (WWII).
In Japan, it is taught that Japan did significantly bad things to the world during World War II and that the IMFTE saved Japan from severe punishment for its crimes in the war. It is because of this that Japanese were taught that their bad government, which caused so many atrocities during the war, had to be punished. However, many Japanese activists are against the self-consolation history that Japan has implemented in its education system and the obtrusive constitution forced upon Japan after the end of this trial. In addition, many Asian countries especially, Chinese and Korean activists are against this movement. These problems indicate that the legal jurisdiction used to judge Japan’s war responsibility of the court was insufficient.
To examine this trial, it is important to understand the limitations that past literature has had in analyzing the trial as this literature was based too much on whether this trial was succeeded or not. The negative side tends to focus on justifying Japan’s history and encouraging Japan’s nationalism, while the positive side on the other hand narrowly t criticizes the fascist authority constituted before pacific war. It should be recognized that to get larger perspective, the trial should be examined in terms of the influence of law and political power, and its results on society.
Theory
One thing that is clear from this trial is that international law is dominated by political power. How international law tries war criminals is based upon the winner’s interpretation of the events, which causes the courts’ judgment to become largely biased. According to Hobbes, law is an order, and the only legislator is a supreme ruler, thus he will not follow his own law (Hagiwara). Because of this, this paper will assume that the IMTFE’s decisions were driven by political power, even though they were under the jurisdiction of legal power. Because of the different agendas that the people on both sides have, international law is unable to have any real legitimacy. To demonstrate how this bias has emerged, this paper will describe the IMTFE, international law, the war crimes that were committed during WWII, the United States’ intervention in the trial using international law, and finally it result it had on the world after the WWII.
What was IMTEF?
International Military Tribunal for the Far East, otherwise known as the Tokyo War Trials, was an international trial that tried Japan’s war criminals in WWII. It was conducted by 11 different countries, all of which were on the Allied side during the war, and included the United States, Republic of China, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Netherlands, French Republic, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, British India, and Philippines, though it was mainly headed by the US. The criminals were categorized according to three different levels: level A, B and C. The different levels signified their different statuses; for example, people categorized in level A were top politicians or military officials during the war. In the trial, a total 5,436 people were arrested and judged, and within that amount of people 987 people were officially executed from Asia all together (Chazono p57). The most common crimes were the Crimes Against Humanity and the Crimes Against Peace. The trial began on April 28, 1946 and finished December 23, 1948. The chief judge of the trial, a man named Webb from Australia, insisted at the beginning of the trial that the purpose of this trial was only to judge Japanese war crimes, not the war crimes of any other countries. However, because this trial was controlled by the political power of the Allied powers and they wanted to make Japan contribute to security of the Allied powers, fundamental areas of international law were ignored. Even if the IMTEF looked like court, it did not act like a court; in addition to judging crimes unfairly, it often tried people without looking at the validity of evidence, or even any evidence at all. (Pal) In addition, the IMTEF did not allow Japanese to judge in the court. Japanese did not have right to join the court as a judges and could not judge their own people for their crimes, which ultimately lead to an ambiguous feeling of responsibility by Japanese after the war.
It is difficult to conclude whether or not the IMTFE succeeded or not by looking at past literature. However, it is clear that this trial had a certain level of bias since it was used only to accuse Japan of its war crimes, and not all countries of theirs. IMTEF is a quintessential example of my theory, as it shows what happens when political power is able to intervene in international law and its enactment. In short, the International Tribunal for the Far East was insufficient in fulfilling its purpose of trying people for their crimes because of bias held by the governments that won the war.
International Law and its Weakness
The first chapter in this paper will discuss how the trial judged criminals through international law and how the ideas of international law applied in the verdicts of the trial. My first point will be that not many countries believed in international law, but rather in the winner’s power. Second is whether or not international law is reasonable or not because of the use of retroactive law in the trial. Finally, this paper will explore the results of the IMTEF.
Crimes Against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity were common verdicts for Japan’s war criminals by the IMTEF. Crimes Against Peace is a term used to describe the crime of preparing or starting wars using methods that ignore international law standards. Crimes Against Humanity describes crimes that involve the massacring or abuse civilians or war prisoners. The definition of Crimes Against Humanity was developed after the World War I in the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land in Hague in 1907 and General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes in Geneva 1927, but was not legalized in international law at that time; both treaties prohibited the killing civilians, torture war prisoners, usage of chemical weapons and guerrilla warfare. However, Japan did not agree to be part of Clause 97 in the Geneva Treaty about treatment of war prisoners because the military government did not want to limit itself from that method of warfare, when they took account its effects on the Japanese military’s fighting sprit and efficiency. Therefore, in WWII, Japanese soldiers committed suicide when they thought they had the chance to be caught by enemies since they were afraid that they would be harsh on war prisoners.
It is hard to define what invasion is, what war is, and what torture is. Victory is the most important goal of any war. To win against enemies, each side wants to try to use the most effective and advanced weapons. For example, countries put large amounts of effort and money into research about inventing more effective weapons, such as nuclear and biochemical weapons even if they conflict with what is written within international law. However, this is not the only way that countries defy international law. Countries which lack resources and are trying to reduce their costs tend to have stricter war prisons and countries which do not have one sovereign government tend to use unofficial military forces such as guerrillas, another entity prohibited in international law. During WWII most countries did not believe that international law was an effective enough institution to bring justice to war, especially since the winner can force their own ideology to the loser. In addition, international law provides no insurance that the loser will be treated with justice. The treatment of Germany after WWI proved to many countries that international law and the League of Nations did not work, as the Allied powers were able to impose a strict punishment on Germany. This punishment which did not follow international law eventually became the source of disturbance to both winners and losers concerning international law. From this story, it is obvious that at the time of the Tokyo Trials, international law had not matured to the point that it can control individual countries’ actions during wars.
In most trials, courts are not allowed to try people by laws which were created after they committed the crimes since criminals are unable to distinguish between legal and illegal. This idea is called Principle of Legality, which can be described as the prohibition of retroactive law. The idea of Crimes Against Peace or Crimes Against Humanity did not exist before the IMTFE and during the war, and neither side had even an inkling that the winner of the conflict would be judged by loser through international law. That being said, however, it is impossible to predict what type of crimes people might commit and the Geneva Treaty is adamant about being able to make its own interpretations about international law. For example, law could not predict the Holocaust or the Nanking Massacre, and therefore could not make laws prohibiting the events. According to Dr. Pal, who was the only international law scholar who had any jurisdiction in the IMTEF, the actions of the IMTEF not only violate international law, but also undermine the fundamental principles of international law, which is based upon the assumption of the principle of legality (Pal). The point is that the no matter what judgment the IMTEF reached, retroactive law is illegal and if the winner exercises retroactive to further their own means, the legitimacy of the IMTEF’s judgment is uncertain.
The purpose and the result of the IMTEF were predetermined by the Allied Powers. It was a justice given by the winners, which can be likened more to revenge. Dr. Pal said that the IMTEF, as I stated before, is not a court but the Allied Powers’ attempt to give their revenge legitimacy (Pal). Because of this, even basic legal rules and process were ignored in IMTEF. The testimonies of the Allied powers were not questioned for their legitimacy at all, even though often the testimony or opinion of the defenders can show contradiction of winners. IMTEF also did not inquire at all if witnessed from the Allied side committed the crime of perjury (Sugawara p124). For example, when Blakeney, a defendant from the US, expressed his opinions on the injustice of exercise of retroactive law, chief judge Webb replied that he would turn down the any motions regarding the topic because he was not interesting the other side. Another example of perjury can be seen by the involvement of the chief judge from Australia and the judge from the Philippines, as both had actually participated the war. In the court, it is irresponsible and unfair, that the judges are actually involved in the incidents. My last example of this can be seen when the court interpreter stopped translating from English into Japanese and began to talk about the irresponsibility of the crimes from the perspective of state-action doctrine. This was because Japan did not have free speech during the US occupation since they were afraid that free speech could stimulate Japanese public’s opinion.
The purpose of IMTEF, from the Allied perspective, was only to be able to use Japan as a scapegoat. The Allied Powers also wanted to reduce the danger of Japan in order to mentally calm people. In reality, however, absolute justice and evil can not be established by war. In addition to that, IMTEF is not a type of court that can judge war crimes under international law, but rather a political instrument of the winners to discipline Japan and keep the country secure by establishing what they call absolute justice and evil (Pal). Also, since the IMTEF’s result was pre-determined before the court even started, no one tried to investigate anything which could threaten its legitimacy. In this next chapter, I will further discuss the violation of international law by Allied such as the war crimes of winners, and other ambiguous issues which were also violation of international law.
War Crimes from the Other Side
In this trial, Crimes Against Peace and Humanity did not apply to the winner: the US, even though the US dropped atomic bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which at least 270,000 people died because of fire during and radiation exposure after the bombings. Furthermore, the blanket bombing of cities such as Tokyo, which killed 100,000 people, can definitely be considered Crimes Against Humanity. Killing civilians and destroying civilian property is in obvious violation of Crimes Against Humanity and the Geneva treaty in 1927. However, the responsibility of the American politicians and generals regarding the massive civilian destruction inflicted on Japan was not questioned at anytime of the trial. These terms were coined only to try Japanese war crimes. Ironically, after the IMTEF, when nuclear technology that the US used against Japan spread around the world, the Allied felt increasingly threatened by other countries, and international law did not have much jurisdiction or legitimacy as a result of not prosecuting the US for using the technology. If international law had had the amount of legal process needed to officially prosecute the US for their use of nuclear bombs on Japan during the war, it might not spread to the world and created the tension that it is. However, international law was driven by political power of winners of war and it cannot have legitimacy to accuse their own war crimes.
When Japan invaded China in the invasion of China during World War II, Japan’s military faced off with Chinese guerrillas dressed like civilians, who were actually supported by the Allied. Because of this, Japan’s military was afraid of civilians and was more likely to attack and kill civilians. During the Vietnam War, a similar trend also was found: soldiers, who were in a battle all of the time, could not keep a normal and healthy mental state because they were unable to trust anybody. According to Cromie form Havard News Office, a new study finds that almost 19 percent of the more than three million U.S. troops who served in Vietnam returned with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It's a condition that left them with invasive memories, nightmares, loss of concentration, feelings of guilt, irritability and, in some cases, major depression (Cromie). However, to keep control of China and fight with Allied powers, fighting the guerrillas were a really large problem for Japan. Although I do not want to justify the invasion of Japan on China, at the time of the war there was no way to define, and consequently, judge the meaning of the words: invasion and war, and also no sufficient means available to deal with guerrilla warfare. At that time, the only laws regarding guerilla warfare was the Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land in Hague in 1907 which forbid the official attacking by guerrillas, though it did not have effect on WWII. In the IMTEF, whether guerrillas were right or wrong or not were not called into question. The Tokyo Trials also failed to define what guerrillas were, and could not prevent them by the international law because the Allied did not realize the importance of defining what guerrilla warfare is for future use. After the US had to face off with guerrillas itself during the Vietnam War, the difficult of dealing with guerillas showed the relative difficult with dealing with guerrillas. Currently, there is a new type of guerilla warfare being introduced in the world today, which the US has dubbed “terrorist,” and defined a person who is not subject to sovereignty, and is therefore outside of the spectrum of international law.
The Politics Behind IMTEF
During the Tokyo Trial, the Allied agenda defined the trial and consequently how international law was interpreted. The primary reason was that the United States wanted to be secure after WW2. The US was afraid that Japan would threaten its national security again. To preserve its national security, punishing emperor was not a beneficial option since it would create Japanese animosity against the US and give Japan a reason to want to pursue a closer relationship with the Soviet Union. Therefore, the emperor problem was ignored, and any problems involving him were not addressed in the trial. This is strange, because many of the countries who participated in the trial wanted to punish Japan more strictly, but were unable to because of the US influence. However, because of the US’ political influence the legitimacy of the emperor question in the eyes of many was quite skewed.
In Japan, the politicians, who did not want to declare war against the US, were released from jail, as a result of pressure from the military after war. Their primary interest was to help Japan recover from the disasters caused by war. They were willing to be integrated into American security policies and purge old top politicians in order to do this. Because of this, it can be said that the new Japanese government had a no choice but to follow US policy. However, the new Japanese government also cooperated with the US in IMTEF, even though it was not necessary, since there was some political interest within the trial as well. The new government did not believe that international law had any legitimacy and did not even try to pursue it since had no benefits. Consequently, the winner won everything, and the loser lost everything since it was impossible for loser to establish who was really at fault in the war, since international law had no power over anything beyond the loser.
The Successes and Failures of the IMTEF
As far as the influence of political power on international law, there is one particular famous case between Japan and the US. During Japan’s invasion of China, Japan’s government created the biochemical research group called Unit 731, which was notorious for experimenting on humans in order to develop biological weapons, such as bubonic plague, typhoid, anthrax and cholera (People’s diary). It is said that at least 3,000 people were brutally killed in these experiments. However, the people who were in charge of the Unit were not tried in the Tokyo Trials because of the amount of data that they received from performing these biochemical experiments. In exchange for giving the data to the United States, the people who were in the group were not tried in the trial for Crimes Against Humanity. The US, in fact, was glad to get the data as it was delayed in terms of biochemical weapons (Yamauchi). The data on anthrax that the United States received from Unit 731 contributed to the development of the first research facility, Fort Derrick in Maryland, for biochemical weapons in the United States (Ed Regis). For this issue, the Crimes Against Humanity and Peace jurisdictions were not applied to Unit 731, because of rivalry of the US against the Soviet Union was considered more important than the legitimacy of the trial. As can be seen through this example, many of the Japanese participated in war crimes, who should have been executed through international law, were spared by the United States, allowing only leaders, possibly only for example, to be punished for this crimes.
The IMTEF had a huge impact on rest of the world. Although they were not mentioned much in this paper, it even had it successes: many Japanese war crimes were exposed, even though the accuracy of many of the testimonies was questionable. In addition, Japan helped to contribute to the West’s side in the new world order. As a result, there are many US military facilities in Japan and Japan was able to contribute in the Korean War and Vietnam War as the US’ strong hold in the East Asia. Through its cooperation with the US government, Japan was also allowed jobs such as subcontracting American military projects and learning technology from the US. This allowed Japan to rapidly recover from disasters after war and established strong economic development with allowed Japan to become the second biggest economic power in the world.
On the other hand, IMTEF also had its negative side. First, it created a system that interrogated civilians even though they could not take part in the trial, and created a system that blamed all of the problems on the war criminals, even though sometimes they themselves were the victims of war crimes. Since the truth was not disclosed and respondents were not judged in a valid way, Japan and other Asian countries are still at odds. There are still many young people who do not agree with the jurisdictions of the IMTEF. Second, because the IMTEF ignored trying every country under international law by not trying the Allied Powers for their crimes such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Because of this the trials still lack legitimacy. Inconvenient truths like this were hidden under the cover of security after the war. They not only hid their own crimes, but also others as can be seen by the case of Unit 731. The lack of jurisdiction on these crimes made it difficult for them to show up in any legal court in the future. That is a part of reason why nuclear and biochemical threats are still huge problems.
What Effects on the Future Has IMTEF Had and What Has Changed?
Because the legitimacy of international law was not questioned or taken into consideration during the IMTEF, the IMTEF shows the superiority of political power over international law. IMTEF showed that the international law can be ignored. As a result, international law is often ignored by political power. When the Iraq War started in March 2003, the US violated international law by ignoring the decisions of the UN Security Council and launching the Iraq War. What the United States did in Iraq is considered a Crime Against Peace.
Secondly, the American military’s use of the depleted uranium bombs violates international law, since it can cause human beings long term pain if exposed to even broken pieces of bombs. According to Mackay from The Sunday Herald, British and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war in Iraq and are deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the ammunition as an illegal weapon of mass destruction. The article also said that DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies and civilians they target, and is also leading to birth defects in children (Mackay). Even if the US has disputes about the usage of this weapon, its use should be at least be phased out since it causes disease and radiation exposure. To cause enemies unnecessary pain and using those kinds of bombs against civilians is prohibited in international law as a Crime Against Humanity. Because the IMTEF did not establish a clear definition defining the meaning of war and did not try the US for its usage of nuclear weapons, it has allowed the US to continue to violate international law.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq was executed by the new government in Iraq. Hussein was Baath party and had been hostile Shiahs which wanted to create a new government. In the Iraqi court, he was judged by the Crimes Against Humanity for having killed 150 people in the village called Dojyaile in early in 1982(Nikkei). Hussein was executed just 4 days after an Iraqi judicial decision in December 30, 2004. Therefore, the responsibility that he had for other crimes such as killing 5,000 Kurds with chemical weapons in 1988, 150,000 people when oppressing a riot of Shiahs people in southern Iraq in 1991, and other deaths caused by his invasion in Kuwait were not judged because he was executed before they could be conducted. Hussein had a large meaning not only as a policymaker but also as the symbolic leader of Baath against Shiahs in the Iraq. His execution was thought to be carried out too abruptly by Iraq’s new government since they want to show a new policy and refresh the old Baath regime mentality (Kawakami). In this case, in order to establish the authority of a new political power, he was executed without judgment for his other crimes. International law could not unfortunately transcend national law and the will of a new government. The ability of international law to help judge events and make winners make more rash decisions has still not improved.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Allied Powers gained political leeway from being the victors of the war, and were as a result able to establish their own agendas over international law in the IMTEF. As a result, the IMTEF was not able to define key terms such as what a war crime was, or what nuclear warfare was, and consequently, became an international pushover. However, lately a new form of political power has developed a result from the international spectrum through the media, activists, and internet. Pressure from this level has increased because it has begun to connect to public opinion and has begun to put pressure on the government. After all, “legal outcomes are not determined solely by applying legal reasoning to objective rules, but are instead largely contingent upon the social and political values of the decision maker and the context of the process” (Whiteman). Although public opinion is becoming a form of political power and is being used to make different countries follow the legal process, however, it is still developing. It is therefore difficult to determine at this point, how much influence it has or will have over countries’ political power or international law.
Work Cites
Ed Regis. 1999. “The Biology of Doom. The History of Americas Secret Germ Warfare Project.” Henry Holt paperbacks.
Encyclopedia Britannica. April 2006. “Crime against peace and Crime against humanity.” 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Hideo Nakazawa. December 27, 2003. “How war ends?”
Hiroshi Sugawara. August, 2008. “The real identity of the Tokyo Trial.” International Ethic investigation group.
Kazuya Yamauchi. May, 2005. “Mortal Diseases shared with human being and Animals.”
Merlin Whiteman, Indiana University Scholar of Law, Indianapolis
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Neil Mackay. March 30, 2003. “US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is ‘Illegal’.” The Sunday Herald.
Nikkei Net. November 5, 2006. “Death penalty of Hussein.”
< http://www.nikkei.co.jp/sp2/nt19/20061105AS2M0500N05112006.html>
People’s diary. August 3, 2005. “Archives give up secrets of Japan's Unit 731.”
Research Group of Pacific War. December 2002. “The truth of Tokyo Trials.” PHP laboratory.
Research group of Tokyo trial. January, 1980. “Pal decision document.” Koudansya
The Tokyo trial handbook editors. July, 1989. “Hand book of the Tokyo trial.” Aoki syoten.
Yasunori Kawakami. January 9, 2007. “The meaning of death penalty of Hussein.”
< http://www.asahi.com/international/kawakami/TKY200701090200.html>
Yoshinobu Higurashi. November 12, 2002. “International relationship of International tribunal for the Far East.” Bokutakusha.
Yoshio Chazono. July 15, 2003. “The TokyoTrial.” Research Group of Pacific War.
William J. Cromie. August 17, 2006. “Mental casualties of Vietnam War persist
Lessons learned could be applied to Iraq.” Harvard News Office.
< http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/99-ptsd.html>
in the Tokyo Tribunal for
War Criminals
Junya Murakami
June 7, 2008
Introduction
I decided to choose the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) as the theme for my paper because IMTFE is an important issue concerning Japan and its relationship to the rest of the world, and created new ideas concerning international law that consequently brought the idea of world justice. However, despite its importance in the development of these issues, there are still many disputes about this trial and Japan’s responsibility during World War II (WWII).
In Japan, it is taught that Japan did significantly bad things to the world during World War II and that the IMFTE saved Japan from severe punishment for its crimes in the war. It is because of this that Japanese were taught that their bad government, which caused so many atrocities during the war, had to be punished. However, many Japanese activists are against the self-consolation history that Japan has implemented in its education system and the obtrusive constitution forced upon Japan after the end of this trial. In addition, many Asian countries especially, Chinese and Korean activists are against this movement. These problems indicate that the legal jurisdiction used to judge Japan’s war responsibility of the court was insufficient.
To examine this trial, it is important to understand the limitations that past literature has had in analyzing the trial as this literature was based too much on whether this trial was succeeded or not. The negative side tends to focus on justifying Japan’s history and encouraging Japan’s nationalism, while the positive side on the other hand narrowly t criticizes the fascist authority constituted before pacific war. It should be recognized that to get larger perspective, the trial should be examined in terms of the influence of law and political power, and its results on society.
Theory
One thing that is clear from this trial is that international law is dominated by political power. How international law tries war criminals is based upon the winner’s interpretation of the events, which causes the courts’ judgment to become largely biased. According to Hobbes, law is an order, and the only legislator is a supreme ruler, thus he will not follow his own law (Hagiwara). Because of this, this paper will assume that the IMTFE’s decisions were driven by political power, even though they were under the jurisdiction of legal power. Because of the different agendas that the people on both sides have, international law is unable to have any real legitimacy. To demonstrate how this bias has emerged, this paper will describe the IMTFE, international law, the war crimes that were committed during WWII, the United States’ intervention in the trial using international law, and finally it result it had on the world after the WWII.
What was IMTEF?
International Military Tribunal for the Far East, otherwise known as the Tokyo War Trials, was an international trial that tried Japan’s war criminals in WWII. It was conducted by 11 different countries, all of which were on the Allied side during the war, and included the United States, Republic of China, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, Netherlands, French Republic, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, British India, and Philippines, though it was mainly headed by the US. The criminals were categorized according to three different levels: level A, B and C. The different levels signified their different statuses; for example, people categorized in level A were top politicians or military officials during the war. In the trial, a total 5,436 people were arrested and judged, and within that amount of people 987 people were officially executed from Asia all together (Chazono p57). The most common crimes were the Crimes Against Humanity and the Crimes Against Peace. The trial began on April 28, 1946 and finished December 23, 1948. The chief judge of the trial, a man named Webb from Australia, insisted at the beginning of the trial that the purpose of this trial was only to judge Japanese war crimes, not the war crimes of any other countries. However, because this trial was controlled by the political power of the Allied powers and they wanted to make Japan contribute to security of the Allied powers, fundamental areas of international law were ignored. Even if the IMTEF looked like court, it did not act like a court; in addition to judging crimes unfairly, it often tried people without looking at the validity of evidence, or even any evidence at all. (Pal) In addition, the IMTEF did not allow Japanese to judge in the court. Japanese did not have right to join the court as a judges and could not judge their own people for their crimes, which ultimately lead to an ambiguous feeling of responsibility by Japanese after the war.
It is difficult to conclude whether or not the IMTFE succeeded or not by looking at past literature. However, it is clear that this trial had a certain level of bias since it was used only to accuse Japan of its war crimes, and not all countries of theirs. IMTEF is a quintessential example of my theory, as it shows what happens when political power is able to intervene in international law and its enactment. In short, the International Tribunal for the Far East was insufficient in fulfilling its purpose of trying people for their crimes because of bias held by the governments that won the war.
International Law and its Weakness
The first chapter in this paper will discuss how the trial judged criminals through international law and how the ideas of international law applied in the verdicts of the trial. My first point will be that not many countries believed in international law, but rather in the winner’s power. Second is whether or not international law is reasonable or not because of the use of retroactive law in the trial. Finally, this paper will explore the results of the IMTEF.
Crimes Against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity were common verdicts for Japan’s war criminals by the IMTEF. Crimes Against Peace is a term used to describe the crime of preparing or starting wars using methods that ignore international law standards. Crimes Against Humanity describes crimes that involve the massacring or abuse civilians or war prisoners. The definition of Crimes Against Humanity was developed after the World War I in the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land in Hague in 1907 and General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes in Geneva 1927, but was not legalized in international law at that time; both treaties prohibited the killing civilians, torture war prisoners, usage of chemical weapons and guerrilla warfare. However, Japan did not agree to be part of Clause 97 in the Geneva Treaty about treatment of war prisoners because the military government did not want to limit itself from that method of warfare, when they took account its effects on the Japanese military’s fighting sprit and efficiency. Therefore, in WWII, Japanese soldiers committed suicide when they thought they had the chance to be caught by enemies since they were afraid that they would be harsh on war prisoners.
It is hard to define what invasion is, what war is, and what torture is. Victory is the most important goal of any war. To win against enemies, each side wants to try to use the most effective and advanced weapons. For example, countries put large amounts of effort and money into research about inventing more effective weapons, such as nuclear and biochemical weapons even if they conflict with what is written within international law. However, this is not the only way that countries defy international law. Countries which lack resources and are trying to reduce their costs tend to have stricter war prisons and countries which do not have one sovereign government tend to use unofficial military forces such as guerrillas, another entity prohibited in international law. During WWII most countries did not believe that international law was an effective enough institution to bring justice to war, especially since the winner can force their own ideology to the loser. In addition, international law provides no insurance that the loser will be treated with justice. The treatment of Germany after WWI proved to many countries that international law and the League of Nations did not work, as the Allied powers were able to impose a strict punishment on Germany. This punishment which did not follow international law eventually became the source of disturbance to both winners and losers concerning international law. From this story, it is obvious that at the time of the Tokyo Trials, international law had not matured to the point that it can control individual countries’ actions during wars.
In most trials, courts are not allowed to try people by laws which were created after they committed the crimes since criminals are unable to distinguish between legal and illegal. This idea is called Principle of Legality, which can be described as the prohibition of retroactive law. The idea of Crimes Against Peace or Crimes Against Humanity did not exist before the IMTFE and during the war, and neither side had even an inkling that the winner of the conflict would be judged by loser through international law. That being said, however, it is impossible to predict what type of crimes people might commit and the Geneva Treaty is adamant about being able to make its own interpretations about international law. For example, law could not predict the Holocaust or the Nanking Massacre, and therefore could not make laws prohibiting the events. According to Dr. Pal, who was the only international law scholar who had any jurisdiction in the IMTEF, the actions of the IMTEF not only violate international law, but also undermine the fundamental principles of international law, which is based upon the assumption of the principle of legality (Pal). The point is that the no matter what judgment the IMTEF reached, retroactive law is illegal and if the winner exercises retroactive to further their own means, the legitimacy of the IMTEF’s judgment is uncertain.
The purpose and the result of the IMTEF were predetermined by the Allied Powers. It was a justice given by the winners, which can be likened more to revenge. Dr. Pal said that the IMTEF, as I stated before, is not a court but the Allied Powers’ attempt to give their revenge legitimacy (Pal). Because of this, even basic legal rules and process were ignored in IMTEF. The testimonies of the Allied powers were not questioned for their legitimacy at all, even though often the testimony or opinion of the defenders can show contradiction of winners. IMTEF also did not inquire at all if witnessed from the Allied side committed the crime of perjury (Sugawara p124). For example, when Blakeney, a defendant from the US, expressed his opinions on the injustice of exercise of retroactive law, chief judge Webb replied that he would turn down the any motions regarding the topic because he was not interesting the other side. Another example of perjury can be seen by the involvement of the chief judge from Australia and the judge from the Philippines, as both had actually participated the war. In the court, it is irresponsible and unfair, that the judges are actually involved in the incidents. My last example of this can be seen when the court interpreter stopped translating from English into Japanese and began to talk about the irresponsibility of the crimes from the perspective of state-action doctrine. This was because Japan did not have free speech during the US occupation since they were afraid that free speech could stimulate Japanese public’s opinion.
The purpose of IMTEF, from the Allied perspective, was only to be able to use Japan as a scapegoat. The Allied Powers also wanted to reduce the danger of Japan in order to mentally calm people. In reality, however, absolute justice and evil can not be established by war. In addition to that, IMTEF is not a type of court that can judge war crimes under international law, but rather a political instrument of the winners to discipline Japan and keep the country secure by establishing what they call absolute justice and evil (Pal). Also, since the IMTEF’s result was pre-determined before the court even started, no one tried to investigate anything which could threaten its legitimacy. In this next chapter, I will further discuss the violation of international law by Allied such as the war crimes of winners, and other ambiguous issues which were also violation of international law.
War Crimes from the Other Side
In this trial, Crimes Against Peace and Humanity did not apply to the winner: the US, even though the US dropped atomic bombs to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which at least 270,000 people died because of fire during and radiation exposure after the bombings. Furthermore, the blanket bombing of cities such as Tokyo, which killed 100,000 people, can definitely be considered Crimes Against Humanity. Killing civilians and destroying civilian property is in obvious violation of Crimes Against Humanity and the Geneva treaty in 1927. However, the responsibility of the American politicians and generals regarding the massive civilian destruction inflicted on Japan was not questioned at anytime of the trial. These terms were coined only to try Japanese war crimes. Ironically, after the IMTEF, when nuclear technology that the US used against Japan spread around the world, the Allied felt increasingly threatened by other countries, and international law did not have much jurisdiction or legitimacy as a result of not prosecuting the US for using the technology. If international law had had the amount of legal process needed to officially prosecute the US for their use of nuclear bombs on Japan during the war, it might not spread to the world and created the tension that it is. However, international law was driven by political power of winners of war and it cannot have legitimacy to accuse their own war crimes.
When Japan invaded China in the invasion of China during World War II, Japan’s military faced off with Chinese guerrillas dressed like civilians, who were actually supported by the Allied. Because of this, Japan’s military was afraid of civilians and was more likely to attack and kill civilians. During the Vietnam War, a similar trend also was found: soldiers, who were in a battle all of the time, could not keep a normal and healthy mental state because they were unable to trust anybody. According to Cromie form Havard News Office, a new study finds that almost 19 percent of the more than three million U.S. troops who served in Vietnam returned with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It's a condition that left them with invasive memories, nightmares, loss of concentration, feelings of guilt, irritability and, in some cases, major depression (Cromie). However, to keep control of China and fight with Allied powers, fighting the guerrillas were a really large problem for Japan. Although I do not want to justify the invasion of Japan on China, at the time of the war there was no way to define, and consequently, judge the meaning of the words: invasion and war, and also no sufficient means available to deal with guerrilla warfare. At that time, the only laws regarding guerilla warfare was the Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land in Hague in 1907 which forbid the official attacking by guerrillas, though it did not have effect on WWII. In the IMTEF, whether guerrillas were right or wrong or not were not called into question. The Tokyo Trials also failed to define what guerrillas were, and could not prevent them by the international law because the Allied did not realize the importance of defining what guerrilla warfare is for future use. After the US had to face off with guerrillas itself during the Vietnam War, the difficult of dealing with guerillas showed the relative difficult with dealing with guerrillas. Currently, there is a new type of guerilla warfare being introduced in the world today, which the US has dubbed “terrorist,” and defined a person who is not subject to sovereignty, and is therefore outside of the spectrum of international law.
The Politics Behind IMTEF
During the Tokyo Trial, the Allied agenda defined the trial and consequently how international law was interpreted. The primary reason was that the United States wanted to be secure after WW2. The US was afraid that Japan would threaten its national security again. To preserve its national security, punishing emperor was not a beneficial option since it would create Japanese animosity against the US and give Japan a reason to want to pursue a closer relationship with the Soviet Union. Therefore, the emperor problem was ignored, and any problems involving him were not addressed in the trial. This is strange, because many of the countries who participated in the trial wanted to punish Japan more strictly, but were unable to because of the US influence. However, because of the US’ political influence the legitimacy of the emperor question in the eyes of many was quite skewed.
In Japan, the politicians, who did not want to declare war against the US, were released from jail, as a result of pressure from the military after war. Their primary interest was to help Japan recover from the disasters caused by war. They were willing to be integrated into American security policies and purge old top politicians in order to do this. Because of this, it can be said that the new Japanese government had a no choice but to follow US policy. However, the new Japanese government also cooperated with the US in IMTEF, even though it was not necessary, since there was some political interest within the trial as well. The new government did not believe that international law had any legitimacy and did not even try to pursue it since had no benefits. Consequently, the winner won everything, and the loser lost everything since it was impossible for loser to establish who was really at fault in the war, since international law had no power over anything beyond the loser.
The Successes and Failures of the IMTEF
As far as the influence of political power on international law, there is one particular famous case between Japan and the US. During Japan’s invasion of China, Japan’s government created the biochemical research group called Unit 731, which was notorious for experimenting on humans in order to develop biological weapons, such as bubonic plague, typhoid, anthrax and cholera (People’s diary). It is said that at least 3,000 people were brutally killed in these experiments. However, the people who were in charge of the Unit were not tried in the Tokyo Trials because of the amount of data that they received from performing these biochemical experiments. In exchange for giving the data to the United States, the people who were in the group were not tried in the trial for Crimes Against Humanity. The US, in fact, was glad to get the data as it was delayed in terms of biochemical weapons (Yamauchi). The data on anthrax that the United States received from Unit 731 contributed to the development of the first research facility, Fort Derrick in Maryland, for biochemical weapons in the United States (Ed Regis). For this issue, the Crimes Against Humanity and Peace jurisdictions were not applied to Unit 731, because of rivalry of the US against the Soviet Union was considered more important than the legitimacy of the trial. As can be seen through this example, many of the Japanese participated in war crimes, who should have been executed through international law, were spared by the United States, allowing only leaders, possibly only for example, to be punished for this crimes.
The IMTEF had a huge impact on rest of the world. Although they were not mentioned much in this paper, it even had it successes: many Japanese war crimes were exposed, even though the accuracy of many of the testimonies was questionable. In addition, Japan helped to contribute to the West’s side in the new world order. As a result, there are many US military facilities in Japan and Japan was able to contribute in the Korean War and Vietnam War as the US’ strong hold in the East Asia. Through its cooperation with the US government, Japan was also allowed jobs such as subcontracting American military projects and learning technology from the US. This allowed Japan to rapidly recover from disasters after war and established strong economic development with allowed Japan to become the second biggest economic power in the world.
On the other hand, IMTEF also had its negative side. First, it created a system that interrogated civilians even though they could not take part in the trial, and created a system that blamed all of the problems on the war criminals, even though sometimes they themselves were the victims of war crimes. Since the truth was not disclosed and respondents were not judged in a valid way, Japan and other Asian countries are still at odds. There are still many young people who do not agree with the jurisdictions of the IMTEF. Second, because the IMTEF ignored trying every country under international law by not trying the Allied Powers for their crimes such as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Because of this the trials still lack legitimacy. Inconvenient truths like this were hidden under the cover of security after the war. They not only hid their own crimes, but also others as can be seen by the case of Unit 731. The lack of jurisdiction on these crimes made it difficult for them to show up in any legal court in the future. That is a part of reason why nuclear and biochemical threats are still huge problems.
What Effects on the Future Has IMTEF Had and What Has Changed?
Because the legitimacy of international law was not questioned or taken into consideration during the IMTEF, the IMTEF shows the superiority of political power over international law. IMTEF showed that the international law can be ignored. As a result, international law is often ignored by political power. When the Iraq War started in March 2003, the US violated international law by ignoring the decisions of the UN Security Council and launching the Iraq War. What the United States did in Iraq is considered a Crime Against Peace.
Secondly, the American military’s use of the depleted uranium bombs violates international law, since it can cause human beings long term pain if exposed to even broken pieces of bombs. According to Mackay from The Sunday Herald, British and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war in Iraq and are deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the ammunition as an illegal weapon of mass destruction. The article also said that DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies and civilians they target, and is also leading to birth defects in children (Mackay). Even if the US has disputes about the usage of this weapon, its use should be at least be phased out since it causes disease and radiation exposure. To cause enemies unnecessary pain and using those kinds of bombs against civilians is prohibited in international law as a Crime Against Humanity. Because the IMTEF did not establish a clear definition defining the meaning of war and did not try the US for its usage of nuclear weapons, it has allowed the US to continue to violate international law.
On the other hand, Saddam Hussein, the former president of Iraq was executed by the new government in Iraq. Hussein was Baath party and had been hostile Shiahs which wanted to create a new government. In the Iraqi court, he was judged by the Crimes Against Humanity for having killed 150 people in the village called Dojyaile in early in 1982(Nikkei). Hussein was executed just 4 days after an Iraqi judicial decision in December 30, 2004. Therefore, the responsibility that he had for other crimes such as killing 5,000 Kurds with chemical weapons in 1988, 150,000 people when oppressing a riot of Shiahs people in southern Iraq in 1991, and other deaths caused by his invasion in Kuwait were not judged because he was executed before they could be conducted. Hussein had a large meaning not only as a policymaker but also as the symbolic leader of Baath against Shiahs in the Iraq. His execution was thought to be carried out too abruptly by Iraq’s new government since they want to show a new policy and refresh the old Baath regime mentality (Kawakami). In this case, in order to establish the authority of a new political power, he was executed without judgment for his other crimes. International law could not unfortunately transcend national law and the will of a new government. The ability of international law to help judge events and make winners make more rash decisions has still not improved.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Allied Powers gained political leeway from being the victors of the war, and were as a result able to establish their own agendas over international law in the IMTEF. As a result, the IMTEF was not able to define key terms such as what a war crime was, or what nuclear warfare was, and consequently, became an international pushover. However, lately a new form of political power has developed a result from the international spectrum through the media, activists, and internet. Pressure from this level has increased because it has begun to connect to public opinion and has begun to put pressure on the government. After all, “legal outcomes are not determined solely by applying legal reasoning to objective rules, but are instead largely contingent upon the social and political values of the decision maker and the context of the process” (Whiteman). Although public opinion is becoming a form of political power and is being used to make different countries follow the legal process, however, it is still developing. It is therefore difficult to determine at this point, how much influence it has or will have over countries’ political power or international law.
Work Cites
Ed Regis. 1999. “The Biology of Doom. The History of Americas Secret Germ Warfare Project.” Henry Holt paperbacks.
Encyclopedia Britannica. April 2006. “Crime against peace and Crime against humanity.” 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Hideo Nakazawa. December 27, 2003. “How war ends?”
Hiroshi Sugawara. August, 2008. “The real identity of the Tokyo Trial.” International Ethic investigation group.
Kazuya Yamauchi. May, 2005. “Mortal Diseases shared with human being and Animals.”
Merlin Whiteman, Indiana University Scholar of Law, Indianapolis
Copyright 1990 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Neil Mackay. March 30, 2003. “US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is ‘Illegal’.” The Sunday Herald.
Nikkei Net. November 5, 2006. “Death penalty of Hussein.”
< http://www.nikkei.co.jp/sp2/nt19/20061105AS2M0500N05112006.html>
People’s diary. August 3, 2005. “Archives give up secrets of Japan's Unit 731.”
Research Group of Pacific War. December 2002. “The truth of Tokyo Trials.” PHP laboratory.
Research group of Tokyo trial. January, 1980. “Pal decision document.” Koudansya
The Tokyo trial handbook editors. July, 1989. “Hand book of the Tokyo trial.” Aoki syoten.
Yasunori Kawakami. January 9, 2007. “The meaning of death penalty of Hussein.”
< http://www.asahi.com/international/kawakami/TKY200701090200.html>
Yoshinobu Higurashi. November 12, 2002. “International relationship of International tribunal for the Far East.” Bokutakusha.
Yoshio Chazono. July 15, 2003. “The TokyoTrial.” Research Group of Pacific War.
William J. Cromie. August 17, 2006. “Mental casualties of Vietnam War persist
Lessons learned could be applied to Iraq.” Harvard News Office.
< http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/99-ptsd.html>
アメリカ留学八ヶ月
9月にアメリカに来てから、8ヶ月たった。いろんな事があった。日本で何をしていたか、何を考えていたか思い出せない。というより、アメリカに来た当初の事もすでに思い出せない。はじめは、いろんなところに顔を出して英語を練習しようと思った。嘘。授業や、生活がつまらなく、アメリカでもそんなもんだろうと思っていた。何かへのモチベーションを書き立てるために、いろんなところふらついていた。スポーツ大会に出たり、見知らぬ人と交流したり。冬休みは友達と旅行に行って楽しかったな。
ホストファミリーの家を出て、一人暮らしをしはじめてから、生活が安定してきた。学校に行って勉強をする、どこかに食べに行く、日本語の会話のサークルで、息抜きをする。たまに飲み会。後はずっと勉強という生活。といっても、人に自慢できるほど頑張っているとも言えないしミクロ経済学以外の結果は微妙だ。ま、ストレスを感じない程度に、継続してできる範囲でやっている。
何が一番変わったかといえば、授業や学校に対するモチベーションがあがった。やりたい事は不明確だけど、いろんな事に挑戦してみたい。とりあえず何か取り組んでみようという気が起きた。今学期、遅刻しまくってるものの、授業を一つも休んでないのは、それなりに学校にいって授業にでることが楽しいからだと思う。アメリカ人はいろいろクリティカルな発言するし、先生もやる気があっておもしろい。授業自体から得るものが日本と較べて凄く多いかどうかというと話は別かもしれないけど、授業は楽しい。
英語はどうだろう。ま、モチベーションないし。自然になれてけば良いと思って適当に放置しているからだろうか。未だに生徒の発言はよくわらんし、自分でまともに意見も言えない。ただ、なれてきた感じもする。言い回しになれてきたというか。そういえば読むほうでも、一回の授業で200p読んできてくださいといわれても無理と思って、日本では何もしなかったし、授業にさえいかなかった。もちろん２００は今でも、無理だけど、必要で重要な部分だけ、流し読みして何とか授業に向けて準備できるようにはなった気がする。
不満で今足りないと思ってるのは、こっちの文化や習慣に普通に溶け込めないことか。アメリカの映画みたり、音楽聴いたり、どっかでかけたり、派手な飲み会いったり、現地の人と交流する機会がいまいちだ。一人で勉強ばっかしてたらだめだな。ラジオ聞いたり、たまに映画を見たりしているのだけど、何か物足りない。ま今は地道に頑張って、今学期が終わったら色々と試してみよう。
8月に帰る予定。あと三ヶ月か。
日本に帰ったら何に取り組もうか。アパートはどうしよう。早稲田でゼミはどうしよう。来春就職活動はするべきなのか。試験を受けるべきか。サークルに顔を出そうか。そろそろそんな事も考え始めている。
ホストファミリーの家を出て、一人暮らしをしはじめてから、生活が安定してきた。学校に行って勉強をする、どこかに食べに行く、日本語の会話のサークルで、息抜きをする。たまに飲み会。後はずっと勉強という生活。といっても、人に自慢できるほど頑張っているとも言えないしミクロ経済学以外の結果は微妙だ。ま、ストレスを感じない程度に、継続してできる範囲でやっている。
何が一番変わったかといえば、授業や学校に対するモチベーションがあがった。やりたい事は不明確だけど、いろんな事に挑戦してみたい。とりあえず何か取り組んでみようという気が起きた。今学期、遅刻しまくってるものの、授業を一つも休んでないのは、それなりに学校にいって授業にでることが楽しいからだと思う。アメリカ人はいろいろクリティカルな発言するし、先生もやる気があっておもしろい。授業自体から得るものが日本と較べて凄く多いかどうかというと話は別かもしれないけど、授業は楽しい。
英語はどうだろう。ま、モチベーションないし。自然になれてけば良いと思って適当に放置しているからだろうか。未だに生徒の発言はよくわらんし、自分でまともに意見も言えない。ただ、なれてきた感じもする。言い回しになれてきたというか。そういえば読むほうでも、一回の授業で200p読んできてくださいといわれても無理と思って、日本では何もしなかったし、授業にさえいかなかった。もちろん２００は今でも、無理だけど、必要で重要な部分だけ、流し読みして何とか授業に向けて準備できるようにはなった気がする。
不満で今足りないと思ってるのは、こっちの文化や習慣に普通に溶け込めないことか。アメリカの映画みたり、音楽聴いたり、どっかでかけたり、派手な飲み会いったり、現地の人と交流する機会がいまいちだ。一人で勉強ばっかしてたらだめだな。ラジオ聞いたり、たまに映画を見たりしているのだけど、何か物足りない。ま今は地道に頑張って、今学期が終わったら色々と試してみよう。
8月に帰る予定。あと三ヶ月か。
日本に帰ったら何に取り組もうか。アパートはどうしよう。早稲田でゼミはどうしよう。来春就職活動はするべきなのか。試験を受けるべきか。サークルに顔を出そうか。そろそろそんな事も考え始めている。
雪国カナダでｽﾉﾎﾞ
カナダのwhistlerにｽﾉﾎﾞにいった。もちろん初めて。スキーは中学生のときにいっかいだけ。Winter sportsなんて知らん。せっかくシアトルにいるし何か新しい事やってみようとおもってやることにした。カナダのスキー場はかなりでかかった。2100メートルの山が二つ。2010年（？）にはオリンピックがどうやらこうやら。
http://www.hellobc.jp/destination/whistler/whistler1.html
ツアーに一人で申し込んで、最初は誰もいなくて不安だったけど、すぐに友達ができ楽しかった。最初の集合場所がわからずに３０分間遅刻して、バスがもういってしまったのではないかとおもって泣きそうになった。でも雨に打たれながら４０分さまよい最終的にバスに乗る事ができた。
一日目はレッスン、日本人の先生を見つけたのだけど、メンバーがばらばらだったから英語でレッスンいまいち、何を言ってるかわからなくて、おたおたしてるうちにおいてかれてしまった。自己流で、テニスの要領でいろいろ体重移動してみたけど、うまくいかなかった。もちろん数え切れないくらいひっくり返った。
夜は韓国人と友達そして、ロシア系の黒人、知り合った日本人の女の子の集団というわけのわからない集団で飲み会をした。韓国人の友達のゲームのバリエーションが無限でかなり盛り上がった。プールにもいって、負けた奴はスキー場の雪に裸で突っ込むという、ひどすぎるバツゲームつきのゲームをした。途中でアメリカ人の家族も加わり超面白かった。
二日目は、台湾人の女友だちと、隣のブラックマウンテンに行く事になった。はじめて山の頂上付近から、くだることになった。細くて平坦な道ばかりで、左右にフラフラすべる事しかできないから、まったくスピードに乗れず何度も止まった。手で雪を押したり、片足縫いで地面蹴ったり、全部はずして歩いたり、ぴょンぴょンはねたりかなり疲れた。
午後はwhistlerに移動した。こちらの山はかなり道が広くて、斜面も平坦な部分がなくかなり滑りやすかった。
最後、台湾人の女の子が疲れてしまい。一人でwhistlerを下る事になった。このとき問題が発生した。自分のコースが元の山のふもとに戻らず、まったく違う方角にいってしまうみたいだ。このままじゃバスに間に合わない。どうしようどうしようと思っていたら、ブラックのダイヤモンドのマークが着いた看板のコースを発見した。その道を行けば元の道に帰れるらしい。迷わずそちらに向かうとものすごい斜面。まわりに誰もいない。ときどきものすごい勢いで雪を撒き散らしながら、人が通りすぎていく。リフトもないし、今更、歩いて引きかえすわけにもいかず、ブレーキも利かない斜面を転がり落ちるように下っていった。もちろん四方八方にこけまくった。
結局、バランスが取れず、谷に背を向けてすべる事が一度もできず、ターンも習得できなかった。これで滑れるとは到底いえないが、とりあえず下山する術は身に着けたのような気がする。とりあえずｽﾉﾎﾞは爽快！ 次もまたどっかで練習しよっと。
http://www.hellobc.jp/destination/whistler/whistler1.html
ツアーに一人で申し込んで、最初は誰もいなくて不安だったけど、すぐに友達ができ楽しかった。最初の集合場所がわからずに３０分間遅刻して、バスがもういってしまったのではないかとおもって泣きそうになった。でも雨に打たれながら４０分さまよい最終的にバスに乗る事ができた。
一日目はレッスン、日本人の先生を見つけたのだけど、メンバーがばらばらだったから英語でレッスンいまいち、何を言ってるかわからなくて、おたおたしてるうちにおいてかれてしまった。自己流で、テニスの要領でいろいろ体重移動してみたけど、うまくいかなかった。もちろん数え切れないくらいひっくり返った。
夜は韓国人と友達そして、ロシア系の黒人、知り合った日本人の女の子の集団というわけのわからない集団で飲み会をした。韓国人の友達のゲームのバリエーションが無限でかなり盛り上がった。プールにもいって、負けた奴はスキー場の雪に裸で突っ込むという、ひどすぎるバツゲームつきのゲームをした。途中でアメリカ人の家族も加わり超面白かった。
二日目は、台湾人の女友だちと、隣のブラックマウンテンに行く事になった。はじめて山の頂上付近から、くだることになった。細くて平坦な道ばかりで、左右にフラフラすべる事しかできないから、まったくスピードに乗れず何度も止まった。手で雪を押したり、片足縫いで地面蹴ったり、全部はずして歩いたり、ぴょンぴょンはねたりかなり疲れた。
午後はwhistlerに移動した。こちらの山はかなり道が広くて、斜面も平坦な部分がなくかなり滑りやすかった。
最後、台湾人の女の子が疲れてしまい。一人でwhistlerを下る事になった。このとき問題が発生した。自分のコースが元の山のふもとに戻らず、まったく違う方角にいってしまうみたいだ。このままじゃバスに間に合わない。どうしようどうしようと思っていたら、ブラックのダイヤモンドのマークが着いた看板のコースを発見した。その道を行けば元の道に帰れるらしい。迷わずそちらに向かうとものすごい斜面。まわりに誰もいない。ときどきものすごい勢いで雪を撒き散らしながら、人が通りすぎていく。リフトもないし、今更、歩いて引きかえすわけにもいかず、ブレーキも利かない斜面を転がり落ちるように下っていった。もちろん四方八方にこけまくった。
結局、バランスが取れず、谷に背を向けてすべる事が一度もできず、ターンも習得できなかった。これで滑れるとは到底いえないが、とりあえず下山する術は身に着けたのような気がする。とりあえずｽﾉﾎﾞは爽快！ 次もまたどっかで練習しよっと。
