Justice prevails after war redress paid

The Shanghai Maritime Court released a Japanese ship on Thursday after its owner paid 2.9 billion Japanese yen ($28.5 million) in delayed rent and losses to a Chinese firm. This latest development may draw a conclusion to a civil lawsuit filed by a Chinese company some 26 years ago against a Japanese company's misdeeds dating back to World War II.

But it would not be surprising if the hard-won result boosts the morale of victims in both China and South Korea seeking compensation for Japan's wartime crimes. By all standards, the encouraging result in the MOL case would have far-reaching repercussions on the difficult endeavor of seeking wartime compensation from Japan both in China and in other Asian countries.

On Saturday, BAOSTEEL EMOTION, a ship owned by Japanese shipping firm Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL), was seized at a port in east China's Zhejiang province, reviving public attention on a marathon lawsuit filed by a Chinese firm against the Japanese shipping company. The lawsuit was over alleged delays in rent payments for two ships and economic losses dating back to the 1930s.

China's seizure of the Japanese ship was solely for delayed rent and losses owed to the Chinese firm, as MOL refused to fulfill its legal obligations after the Shanghai Maritime Court ruled in 2007 that MOL compensate the Chinese firm. The Shanghai Municipal Higher People's Court made a final verdict in 2010, defending the 2007 judgment.

The seizure aroused some buzzwords from Japan: Japan's chief government spokesman Yoshihide Suga said the seizure undermined the 1972 joint communique that normalized ties between Japan and China, in which Beijing agreed to renounce "its demand for war reparation from Japan".

The remarks are hardly worth refuting as China has no intention to change its stance on the 1972 joint communique. Neither has it backed away from its persistent position in demanding that Japan take a responsible attitude and properly handle the issues left over from history.

It is the legitimate right of individual Chinese citizens to ask for war reparations from Japan. In fact, in recent years, dozens of wartime compensation suits have been filed in Japan by Chinese and South Korean citizens, but almost all have been rejected by Japanese courts. The litigation process against MOL took three generations of the Chinese Chen family more than 60 years.

The difficulty in getting justice delivered has fueled public sympathy with the victims as well as anti-Japan sentiments in both China and South Korea.

The message of the latest lawsuit shows there are still chances for victims of Japan's wartime crimes, both in China and South Korea, to safeguard their legitimate rights through legal means. Past experience shows they could not reply on Japanese courts to uphold justice. But filing a lawsuit back at home could be a different story as long as the plaintiffs have irrefutable evidence that they were victimized by Japanese aggression in WWII.

In this regard, the fear harbored by some Japanese over the rise of similar lawsuits against Japan in the wake of MOL's forced compensation might be a solid one. To some extent, the MOL case is groundbreaking as it has solved the difficulty of law enforcement.

Considering the chilly political atmosphere between China and Japan at the moment, it would be only natural as well as justified if more people in China and other Asian countries now choose to resort to legal means again in seeking war reparations from Japan.