Japan and North Korea – Supporters of International Abduction

This article will describe similarities between the North Korean abductions of Japanese nationals to North Korea and the Japanese government’s support of the abduction of children from around the world to Japan.  Three areas of comparison are considered: manner in which the acts are carried out, governmental support, and governmental acknowledgement.

In the North Korean cases, regular Japanese citizens were snatched from their normal daily routines, secretly brought to submarines and then abducted to a country where they had no family or friends to work and function in the North Korean society as foreign language teachers.

These abductions were actively supported and facilitated by the government of North Korea by providing financing, transportation and governmental approval of their agent’s actions.

It was only since September of 2002 that these abducted Japanese nationals were even acknowledged by the North Korean government.  The North Korean government had completely denied all accusations since the first of these abductions the mid-1970’s.   In October of 2002 five people were allowed to visit Japan, their family and friends after being separated for over a quarter of a century.  In some cases the abducted persons had died while in North Korea thus denying family and friends in Japan the persons lifetime of memories. 

The similarities between North Korea’s actions and current Japanese governmental policy as regards to international and domestic abductions are astounding. 

In these cases children from around the world are parentally abducted from their homes, family and friends to live their lives in Japan.  These actions are without explicit consent and may even be done in an illicit manner no less heinous than the manner of North Korean operatives in Japan.

The Japanese government actively supports these abductions by creating a legal environment that discriminates against all other nationalities and disregards foreign judicial system decisions.  The consulates of Japan provide easy access to replacement passports and for ease of transportation, in cases where the foreign nation’s legal system have confiscated the Japanese passports, will provide for the travel arrangements to Japanese citizens even without passports with a one day special travel permit even though the consulate is fully aware of a foreign nation’s court order restricting the movement of the children.

Whereas the North Korean government has acknowledged that the abductions did take place and have provided for visitations of five of the abducted persons to their families, Japan has never acknowledged child abduction nor has Japan ever allow visitation custody to foreign parents. When confronted legally or publicly the Japanese government persistently denies any such occurrences or that the problem even exists thereby creating implicit approval of the abductions.    

By not being a member of the Hague conventions nor addressing the problem in even the most simple of terms, the problem has been allowed to grow to exponential proportions.  In the North Korean cases a total of 13 persons are confirmed to have abducted, whereas hundreds of children are parentally abducted to Japan every year from around the world.

Japan continues to complain very loudly to North Korea for the destruction of individual’s lives and family brought about by the abrupt abduction of individuals to a foreign nation.  Japan must fully acknowledge their complacent and accessory position on the abduction of children from around the world every year.  These abductions are perhaps even more traumatic and destructive not only to families but to the growth of the children involved.

In order to effectively address this problem Japan needs to confront the situation actively.  These include the requests from paragraphs 123, 124, 125 of the Coalition report to the UN.
1) Become a signature to the Hague Convention.  2) Cease accessory to abduction policy and procedures at foreign consulates and acknowledge and follow the court orders of foreign courts in situations of custody.  4) Remove discriminatory judicial practices that deny children’s access to their estranged families.