HUMAN RIGHTS FEATURES

(Voice of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Network)

(A joint initiative of SAHRDC and HRDC)

B-6/6 Safdarjung Enclave Extension, New Delhi 110 029, India

Tel: +91-11-619 2717, 619 2706, 619 1120; Fax: 619 1120

E-mail: hrdc_online@hotmail.com

Home Page: http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/

HRF/39/001

Embargoed for 18 June 2001

Caste, Ethnicity and Nationality:

Japan Finds Plenty of Space for Discrimination

A key issue emerging in the run-up to the 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) is the refusal of some States – particularly in the Asia-Pacific region – to acknowledge the persistence of racial discrimination in their own backyards even as many of them point an accusing finger at other States. Japan is one State where an increase in Gross Domestic Product has not led to a corresponding rise in measures to tackle the scourge of discrimination. If the WCAR is to succeed, States such as Japan need to take a critical look at policies that have served to reinforce historical prejudices within their own societies as well as those abroad.

Japan has five major minority groups: Burakumin (a caste-based group); Okinawans (an indigenous group); Ainu (an indigenous group); Japanese-born Koreans; and migrant workers from other countries. Discrimination against many of these groups has its origins in the imperialist and feudal periods in Japan’s history. In the eighth century, the Japanese expanded their territory into the lands of the Ainu and Okinawans, two indigenous groups whose lands have now been annexed into modern day Japan. Discrimination from Japan's feudal society also exists against the “outcasts” called the Buraku. Up to this point, there have been no Burakus and only one Ainu in the Diet, Japan’s national parliament. For 35 years, Korea was under Japanese control. During World War II, Japanese soldiers forced many Korean women into sexual slavery. Migrant workers have arrived in Japan in search of a better life, but instead have faced a great deal of discrimination from Japanese employers, the government and Japanese nationals. Doka seisaku, a policy in which a nation endeavours to make the lifestyles and ideologies of the people in its colonies conform to its own, has affected many of these minority groups. Japan has also followed a peculiarly dual policy with regard to minority groups: forcing assimilation into the cultural mainstream on the one hand and developing measures to segregate them on the other.

One of the first peoples to be assimilated – but not accepted as equals –were the Ainu. Traditionally hunter-gatherers, the Ainu were the first inhabitants of some outlying islands. They are currently concentrated in the northernmost island of Hokkaido. Thought to be of Caucasian origin, they make up less than 0.05 percent of Japan's population. Until the eighteenth century, Japanese relations with the Ainu – following failed attempts to conquer them – were restricted to trade and, later, intermarriage. It was only in the eighteenth century that the Japanese established their authority over the Ainu islands, then known as Ezo. The island of Ezo was turned into a Japanese vassal state and was renamed Hokkaido. This was followed by a concerted effort to integrate the Ainu into Japanese culture – including making proficiency in Japanese mandatory – which continued well into the nineteenth century. Under the Hokkaido Kyu-Dojin Protection Act of 1899, all schools were segregated with Ainu being taught Japanese history by Japanese teachers who had no consideration for Ainu culture and values. After about forty years, the educational system in that form collapsed because Ainu children slowly stopped attending school, placing them at a great disadvantage in Japanese society. Today, most Ainu fall on the lower end of the economic ladder and often perform cleaning and other menial chores for much wealthier Japanese. A segregated school system still exists in Japan, but a small shift in educational policies allows those Ainu students who are interested to continue their education.

The twentieth century saw a number of efforts by the Japanese government to revive Ainu culture, including an acknowledgement of the Ainu as an indigenous group with its own culture and language. Currently, only a small number of Ainu are active in the preservation of their culture, and the majority of the Ainu people cannot afford to devote themselves to preservation activities.

The treatment of the culturally distinct Okinawans is another significant concern. Together, the 160 islands of the Okinawan Perfecture in the East China Sea, of which 48 are inhabited, are called the Ryukyu Islands. Today, Okinawa houses approximately 1.3 million people who have a distinct culture and language from mainstream Japanese. Their slightly darker skin colour and Chinese cultural influences have been prejudicially used to distinguish and discriminate against them.

Despite previous efforts by the Okinawans themselves, including adapting to Japanese names and even hairstyles, they continue to face significant discrimination. Japanese atrocities against the loyal Okinawans during the Pacific War convinced the islanders that they were merely expendable assets for the mainland Japanese. Now, the desire to assimilate into Japanese society has been replaced by a new pride in their culture and traditions. Okinawans perceive themselves as a separate people who simply live in Japan. American entrance into Okinawa was the catalyst for a re-evaluation of their attitudes toward mainland Japan. Okinawans generally harbour more animosity toward mainland Japan than toward the American military which has been stationed since the end of WW II and occupies 20 percent of the island. Okinawans feel that the rest of Japan should share in the burden of providing land for the American military. American military presence in Okinawa has also led to intermarriage between Okinawan women and American men. Children of mixed blood have faced even greater discrimination than their Okinawan relatives. According to Japanese law, children of mixed Okinawan and American blood do not qualify for citizenship; they have consequently remained stateless.

Japanese traditions that distinguished between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" occupations remain the core element of conflict between the majority and the numerically largest and physically least visible minority group called Burakumin or Buraku. During the Tokugawa era, Japan's population was ranked in four tiers based on neo-Confucian ideology. Modern day Buraku people descended from the two lowest groups – comprising beggars, itinerant entertainers, fugitives, and those performing tasks such as animal slaughter and disposing of the dead. They have accordingly inherited the prejudice inherent in the rigid caste system. Ethnically, linguistically, culturally and religiously, the Burakumin, who make up about two percent of the population, are indistinguishable. Unfortunately, this social context has both stigmatised the Buraku and forced many to attempt “passing” for mainstream Japanese. Burakumin who are caught trying to “pass” are severely punished. The punishment is often in the form of social ostracism experienced in the workplace and through discriminatory graffiti in public places.

The Burakumin continue to be disadvantaged. Although advances have been made, Japanese society, in general, still views Burakumin as being destined to live an unsavoury life. The workplace, educational and governmental institutions continue to perpetuate these biases, placing the Burakumin at a disadvantaged position in society. Employers in all sectors continue to refuse hiring a person if he or she is Buraku. Discrimination has not been confined to employment, but affects all aspects of the Burakumin’s lives, including social services, housing, and social relations. As one indicator of societal prejudice, wedding engagements are often broken off because either the bride or groom is discovered to be Buraku. The Buraku are segregated into ghettos pre-dominantly located in the Awaji district. Despite government efforts to address the situation, poor supervision of project implementation has prevented any significant improvement in their living condition. Educational and environmental standards are lower in these ghettos. The rate of high school dropouts is significantly higher among Burakumin.

A labour shortage in 1989 forced Japan to open the door to foreigners. Foreign labour – mainly from China, Iran, Malaysia, Peru, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand – comprises about 1.5 percent of the workforce. Wages of undocumented workers in Japan are low compared to those of average Japanese workers. According to the Immigration Bureau of the Justice Ministry, which issues annual statistics in a report entitled "Regarding Cases of the Violation of the Immigration Control Act", 80 percent of undocumented workers receive less than 10,000 yen a day. Contrasting this with the statistics of the Labour Ministry on Japanese workers, who receive on average 16,000 yen per day, it is easy to see that migrant workers are being used as cheap labour by Japanese companies. The Minimum Wage Law and Social Insurance apply to foreigners who work in Japan. However, Japanese companies generally neglect to pay social insurance that foreign workers are entitled to have. Workers who remain in Japan undocumented after their visas expire run an even greater risk because companies can easily find loopholes that enable them to avoid paying such illegally overstaying foreign workers. These undocumented workers are often reluctant to protest, as it would result in their deportation.

Foreign workers, even if they are not permanent residents, are also legally entitled to workman's compensation for accidents. Both the Labour Standard Law and the Workers Accident Compensation Insurance Law are applicable to migrant workers, but workers rarely receive compensation for job-related accidents. According to the Japan Civil Liberties Union, less than 10 percent of undocumented workers who experienced a work-related injury received compensation.

In 1910, Japan invaded Korea and began its 35-year-long colonisation. Many Koreans were kidnapped from their homeland, taken to Japan and used as slave labour. Japan’s colonisation is the historical root of the discrimination against Koreans that followed. From 1920 to 1934, Japanese authorities initiated a project in Korea to increase rice production. However, a major proportion of the rice produced was exported to Japan, resulting in famine and a devastated economy. Many Koreans, therefore, voluntarily migrated to Japan in search of employment.

Today, even third- and fourth-generation Koreans who are born in Japan are considered Korean nationals and foreigners. Long-time residents can now apply for Japanese citizenship and be naturalised under the 1950 Nationality Act, but they must first show "proof of assimilation". The government's assimilation policy was directed towards the elimination of Korean ethnic consciousness. Japanese was the only language allowed to be spoken in public. Koreans were forced to give up their names and adopt Japanese ones. Most Korean youths today go through some sort of identity crisis. The post-war Japanese government moreover negated both Koreans’ rights as Japanese citizens and as foreigners at the time of the San Francisco Treaty in 1952. Discrimination by the Japanese kept alive the Koreans' wish to return to Korea. Korean parents in the meantime built schools for their children that taught Korean history, language and customs in preparation for their future return to Korea. However, Japanese authorities clamped down, claiming there was no need to be educated as “foreigners” if the Korean children were Japanese citizens. While shutting down Korean schools on the one hand the government stripped Koreans' right to vote in 1945 and in 1947.

The Alien Registration Law requires fingerprinting of foreigners and an obligation to carry their Alien Registration Certificate at all times. Even permanent residents are obliged to follow the Alien Registration Law. Violators may be imprisoned with hard labour for up to one year or fined 200,000 yen. By early September 1983, 28 foreign residents, 24 of whom were Korean, refused to be fingerprinted. The Japanese Ministry of Justice responded to the Korean students’ defiance by refusing to issue them re-entry permits and arresting them.

Japan has yet to provide adequate reparations for the abuses committed against Korean “comfort women.” During World War II, approximately 200,000 women, most of whom were Korean, were forced to service Japanese soldiers in army brothels as so-called comfort women. The Japanese government has established the Asian Women's Fund to compensate the victims, but this has been criticised by international non-governmental organisations. Post-war Japan has both a moral and a legal responsibility as a state to apologise publicly and to compensate the victims. A resolution passed by the UN Sub-Commission reiterates that "states must respect their international obligations to prosecute perpetrators and compensate all victims of human rights violations" the remedy for which cannot, according to international law, be extinguished by peace treaties, agreements, amnesty or similar means.

Societal attitudes, which lie at the root of discrimination, need to be altered, while domestic and international legal provisions need to be implemented if racial discrimination is to be eliminated in Japan. While changing societal attitudes takes more time, the government can begin with short-term measures such as ratifying and implementing international conventions. Japan ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) in 1995, but with a reservation to Article 4 (a) & (b). Japan is yet to ratify: (1) the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families; or (2) the First and Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In March 2001, Japan completed its state periodic report before the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In its concluding observations, the Committee criticised Japan’s conspicuous lack of domestic legislation to implement its obligations under ICERD:

The Committee is concerned that the only provision in the legislation of the State party relevant to the Convention is article 14 of the Constitution. Taking into account the fact that the Convention is not self-executory, the Committee believes it necessary to adopt specific legislation to outlaw racial discrimination, in particular in conformity with the provisions of articles 4 and 5 of the Convention.

With its commitment to pacifism and its contribution to development-related issues, Japan is perhaps best placed among Asian nations to lead the struggle against racism. It can do so only by first changing itself.

-Human Rights Features

Top / About SAHRDC / Action Alerts / Online Resource Centre / Publications / Home