Mr. MURPHY. We have several witneses and I will first recognize the Congressman from Hawaii, Congressman Matsunaga.

STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I certainly appreciate this privilege of presenting my views on House Joint Resolution 251. My resolution is identical to that recommended to the Congress by the Secretary of the Army, as was noted by the chairman, in the letter to the Speaker of January 8, 1965.

The Secretary and his associates will later explain these proposals in detail, and they are, of course, the right people to do this because the claims of the Okinawan people were reviewed fully by a joint committee on which the Department of the Army was represented. The result of this review was to scale down the claims from $53 million, as originally submitted, to approximately $22 million.

This includes claims for personal injury and death, for land rentals for the years 1947-50, for restoration of lands released to their owners in damaged condition, for appropriation of water rights, and for damage to buildings and growing crops and trees. Land-use claims are not included for the year 1946, because this was a period of postwar adjustment, in which owners had generally not yet returned to their lands and produced crops. No interest is included, although the claims have gone uncompensated for 13 years and more.

This resolution will rectify a serious omission in the U.S. administration of the Ryukyu Islands and do justice to hundreds of thousands of the inhabitants whose relatives were killed, or who were injured, or who suffered deprivation of property through the acts of our Armed Forces during the period following the termination of hostilities and prior to the Treaty of Peace with Japan. The United States exercised direct and exclusive governmental authority at that time, and we had substantial forces in Okinawa in the strategic interest of the United States, not only as a consequence of the war against Japan.

As a matter of law, it is unquestioned that the people of Okinawa are entitled to be compensated for these various acts on the part of the U.S. forces. In the main islands, this was done by the Japanese Government under the supervision of the supreme commander for the Allied Powers. In the Ryukyu Islands, there was no financially responsible local government that was able to do this, and the Japanese Government was cut off from all participation. The people of Okinawa have repeatedly presented their claims to the U.S. Government, as the administering authority. Since the United States exercised direct and exclusive control during the entire period, there can be no doubt of U.S. responsibility to assure that compensation is effected.

Action on the part of the U.S. Government was delayed by a question with respect to U.S. responsibility in international law to pay the claims, in view of the fact that in the Japanese Peace Treaty, Japan waived all claims of Japanese nationals against the United States arising from the war and the occupation of Japanese territory.

The executive branch has recommended that, without accepting legal responsibility, compensation nevertheless be made by the United States in the recognition of the facts that the individual claimants were, through no fault of their own, left uncompensated during the 7 years of the occupation, contrary to the practice followed in other occupied areas; that the United States, as the administering authority for the Ryukyus is concerned with the well-being of the people; that such payment would promote the security interests of the United States; and that it would foster respect for the spirit of fairplay and equity of the U.S. Government.

I completely concur with this view, but I would personally go further. I suggest that, in view of our complete responsibility for what occurred in the Ryukyu Islands since 1945, we have an obligation to the Okinawan people to see that effective compensation is made for what was done during the pretreaty period. I stress this, because there may be some misunderstanding of the fact that the resolution proposes ex gratia payments.

As an attorney, I understand the motives of the Department of the Army in placing the request upon this basis. The peculiar history of the Ryukyu Islands in international law makes it prudent that we not establish a precedent of accepting legal responsibility to the inhabitants of a land that we governed as an occupying military power. However, the fact that any international legal responsibility of the United States to the Japanese Government, regarded as sovereign over the Ryukyus, has been extinguished by the Japanese Peace Treaty, does not absolve us of the responsibility to deal justly with the people over whom we have exercised exclusive powers of sovereignty since 1945. In dealing with the petitions of the Okinawans for compensation, we are simply exercising our direct governmental responsibility, and the question of preexisting legal liability does not arise. The situation is essentially similar to domestic U.S. legislation providing help for people injured by Government servants or acts of God. If we did not already have legislation to provide compensation in the United States for acts of our Armed Forces, it would be our responsibility as legislators of the United States to provide it. It is essentially the same kind of legislative responsibility that we are belatedly discharging here.

As I have said, the representatives of the Department of the Army have fully reviewed these claims and can best explain them. However, prior to coming before this committee, I have felt that I had a responsibility to understand and know for myself what kind of matters are involved. The statistics and the analysis are already before you. I want to provide you with the details of some illustrations of just a few of the 82,000 separate claims.

Masakatsu Nakamura lives in Ginowan where he owns about 3.7 thousand tsubo, of which two-thirds is still under use by the U.S. forces. Translated into more familiar units of measurement, one tsubo equals 36 square feet, and 1,210 tsubo equals 1 acre. He has a wife and two children, one working for the local government and one a student. Their house is on rented land. The total family income from farming, from the son's work as a policeman, and from land rentals from the United States, comes to less than $2,000, which does not permit them to acquire a house at all equal in quality to their pre

war house. This family stands to receive $917.44 for pretreaty land rentals. They will use the money, along with their modest savings, to build a permanent house.

Shunko Nakamura also lives in Ginowan. His claim is $702.82. There are eight members of the family: one daughter is working with the U.S. military and five younger children are in school. Their present income is about $2,000; some $1,200 from the operation of a grocery store, $417 as rental for their lands still occupied by the U.S. forces, and $480 as the pay of the employed daughter. They are living in a rented house that is so old and decrepit that it is likely to collapse in the next typhoon season. They will use the moneys received to help repair the house. This family, with an income of $2,000, is spending $700 a year for the education of their children. It could be said that the compensation will help to do this, but the people of Okinawa regard education as having a priority, and the necessary sums will be spent before they repair their house.

Saburo Nagamine lives in Koza on 1,899 tsubo, all of which was occupied by U.S. forces before the treaty and two-thirds of which was released in June 1952. The land had been used for the site of a barracks, and the surface was covered with concrete and rubble. He has restored it as best he can but needs a bulldozer to do the job right. He is entitled to $960 as restoration compensation and $593 for rentals. He plans to use the money to put his land back in good agricultural condition.

Ushi Tamanaha owns 1,461 tsubo and is supposed to receive compensation of $564.62. All of his property is still being used by the United States. They receive annual rentals. They have one child. The husband is working for the U.S. forces, for which he gets $60 a month. Total income is about $1,200. They make a poor living and went into debt in order to build an adequate house on rented land. They will use the money to pay some of their debts.

Genichiro Koja, who lives in Kadena, owns 1,290 tsubo and is scheduled to receive $557.36 in rentals and restoration compensation of $202. All of their land was used by the U.S. forces, and 289 tsubo was returned in 1961 in unusable condition. It had been used for excavation of material for airfields, and was destroyed for all practical purposes by inroads of the sea. They cannot live on their own land and have to pay rent for land on which to live. The compensation that he will receive will not be sufficient to allow him to buy substitute land for agriculture but will help in that direction.

These are five typical cases of families that will receive enough to make a real difference to them. Since the average claim of a family is $275, there obviously are many smaller claims, where the money, while useful, will not greatly affect their lives. The knowledge, however, that their distant ruler has cared enough to see that just claims are met, will make a considerable difference in their feelings.

Okinawa will have a legislative election in November of this year. There is a growing fear among responsible pro-American segments of the Okinawan people that the pretreaty claims issue must be resolved, and resolved quickly and in favor of the claimants, if the United States is to continue its occupation of Okinawa without political upheavals. These same sources fear that the long delay in acting upon these claims on the part of the U.S. Government may be turned

into a major political issue and become a source of disaffection among the population of this important U.S. base.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, these are some of the underlying considerations in the joint resolution now before this subcommittee. They provide a sound basis, at law and in equity, for compensation of our Okinawan friends. I urge a favorable report on the joint resolution.

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Congressman. The Chair will now recognize the Secretary of the Army, the Honorable Stanley R. Resor. STATEMENT OF HON. STANLEY R. RESOR, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

Mr. RESOR. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity of appearing in support of House Joint Resolution 251. This is an administration proposal; it is part of the program of the President, and it is supported by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. Since the Department of the Army has been designated as the executive agency of the Department of Defense for the civil administration of the Ryukyu Islands, I am representing the Department of Defense at this hearing. The joint resolution before you would authorize the payment of approximately 130,000 claims, submitted by the inhabitants of Okinawa for damages arising from acts or omissions of the U.S. Armed Forces, during the 7-year period following the armistice and prior to the Treaty of Peace with Japan. This is not a war-claims bill.

It does not involve payment for damages which occurred during the war nor for the postwar rehabilitation of war damaged areas. On the contrary, these claims fall into two familiar peacetime categories: First, claims for torts committed by U.S. military personnel, resulting in injury to or the death of Okinawans or damage to their private property. Second, claims for the requisitioning of their property-mostly agricultural land-for use by the military.

Normally, under international law and practice, just compensation in such circumstances would be required, by or on behalf of the occupation forces. Surprising though it may seem, not a single cent of compensation (other than a few rental payments made by us at the end of the occupation, and a relatively small Japanese gratuitous payment made in 1957) has been received by any of the approximately 80,000 Okinawans who suffered injury or death or whose property was, in effect, confiscated by U.S. Armed Forces during the occupation of Okinawa. The failure of the United States to pay these claims stems from the fact that all such claims were waived in the Japanese Peace Treaty of 1952. In the administration's judgment, however, the equitable and moral obligation of the United States continues unsatisfied. The purpose of the bill before you is to correct this injustice.

Certain background information will place this matter in proper focus. The Ryukyu Islands extend southwesterly from Japan to Taiwan. Okinawa is the largest of these islands. It has about 85 percent of the total Ryukyuan population of almost a million persons. All the claims covered by the proposed resolution relate to Okinawa.

The U.S. forces seized Okinawa in the last battle of World War II. Following up the policy first expressed in the Cairo Declaration, on July 26, 1945, the Potsdam Declaration announced that Japan would be stripped of its former imperial holdings, and that its sovereignty limited to the four main islands of the Japanese mainland, including such minor offshore islands as the Allied Powers should determine. The Ryukyus were not among these islands. They were therefore administered by the United States-separately from Japan itself. Although consideration was given, during the late forties, to retaining U.S. bases in the Ryukyus, the future status of these islands remained in limbo until January 1950. At that time Secretary of State Acheson stated that the United States would continue to hold important defense positions in the Ryukyus, as part of the defense perimeter running along the Aleutians to Japan and thence to the Ryukyus. The outbreak of the Korean war in June 1950 underscored the importance of our Ryukyuan base for the defense of the free world, and confirmed our determination that Okinawa should be retained under U.S. control for an indefinite period. The value of this base has been vindicated by the important role which it played in the Korean war and is now playing in support of the free world's commitments in southeast Asia.

Because of such strategic considerations, the Treaty of Peace with Japan provided that the United States would retain full jurisdiction over the Ryukyu Islands, for an indefinite period. The Government of Japan has stated its desire for the reversion of administrative control over Okinawa and the U.S. Government has repeatedly stated that it looks forward to the day when the security interests of the free world in the Far East will permit their restoration to full Japanese sovereignty. Meanwhile, however, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson have all given public notice that, in order to protect the security of the free world, the political status of this area will remain unchanged, as long as conditions of threat and tension continue to exist in the Far East.

Thus, for the last 20 years, the United States has held and exercised all and any powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction over the territory and inhabitants of these islands. Our announced policy is that the United States intends to continue to retain these powers as long as our military bases are needed there.

I turn now to the specific matter covered by the joint resolution which is before your committee. The surrender of all Japanese forces and the resultant general armistice took place on August 14, 1945, and the military occupation period encompassed by this joint resolution starts from that date. Certain damages were caused to residents of the Ryukyu Islands during the almost 7 years between the armistice and the Peace Treaty of 1952, by various acts and omissions of the U.S. forces. These damages ranged from the uncompensated use of real and personal property (taken over for occupation requirements) to tortious acts committed by members of the U.S. forces.

It is a generally recognized principle of international law, particularly as reflected in the provisions of Hague Convention No. IV of 1907 (which has been ratified by both Japan and the United States), that individuals or municipalities whose property is used or taken by occupation forces should be fairly compensated for such use.