台灣民間對日索賠運動初探：「潘朵拉之箱」

The Postwar Compensation Movement inTaiwan: A 'Pandora's Box'

「戰後補償」有別於「戰後賠償」；「戰後賠償」一般指「政府與政府之間的賠償」，而「戰後補償」則係「政府對個人的補償」。「戰後補償」也有別於「戰爭補償」；「戰爭補償」係戰勝國就戰時所遭受的破壞對戰敗國提出賠償要求，在本質上相當於一種「戰利品」，而「戰後補償」則自人道立場著眼，強調賠償要落實到個人的層次，姑不論索賠的對象國在戰爭中的成敗。這種「戰後補償」的思考模式，亦即「對個人在戰出中身心兩面所遭受的傷害和損失加以補償」的求償方式，近年來在亞洲也逐漸盛行起來。

The postwar compensation movement in Taiwan is not an isolated case. The movement should be placed within the context of the broader Asian compensation movement, or to a certain extent, the worldwide compensation movement today. This sudden 'return to the past' simultaneously occurred in many countries. What indeed does the term 'postwar reparations' (sengo hosho; as opposed to sengso baisho, postwar repayments) mean? To what extent does Japan's current policy toward war victims reflect the government's acknowledgement of responsibility for initiating the war? Moreover, what is the nature of the Japanese government's historical understanding of these issues? The case of Taiwan poses a unique question regarding the issue of war compensation, precisely because it was outside the system of postwar compensation. In 1972, Japan normalized diplomatic ties with China, thus recognizing the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Meanwhile, it moved to unilaterally end the 1952 Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty with Taiwan. Accordingly, Taiwanese were denied their right to government-to-government 'dialogue.' Ironically, the cutting of official ties paved the way for civilian negotiations in Taiwan, which were no longer bound by Article Three of the 1952 peace treaty. The 1980s witnessed a resurgence of interest from Southeast and East Asia in Japan's war responsibilities. The key to this changed situation, symbolic of Asia's wariness toward Japan, lies in the issue of history textbook revision (kyokasho mondai) which emerged in August 1982. The issue of Japan's conduct during the war remains an open wound between Japan and its Asian neighbors. In particular, Japan's failure to follow Germany's example in admitting wartime guilt has long been a source of friction. For Asian people, the textbook issue served as a 'warning bell.' It was during the 1991 Gulf War, when Japan's international role was under close examination, that the issue of postwar compensation was reinvoked, which inevitably generated discourse over Japan's war responsibilities. Korea's invocation of the issue of 'military comfort women' (jugun ianfu), however, was the key to the postwar compensation campaign in Asia as a whole. The 'comfort women' lawsuit opened a Pandora's Box of demands to re-examine Japan's war responsibilities in the 1990s. Within the next two years, roughly twenty case were filed by Koreans seeking war compensation from Japan. The term, 'war compensation,' which had never fully entered into public consciousness during the postwar decades, now became a catch-word, appearing again and again in journals and newspapers throughout Korea and many parts of Asia. Legislative solutions were thus necessary. With the end of the Showa era (1926-1988), the flood of lawsuits for war compensation began. Given the politicizied nature of the movement, this paper will inevitable put forth more questions than answers and hopefully will suggest some areas for future research.