{"id":12631,"date":"2014-09-14T13:00:34","date_gmt":"2014-09-14T23:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.debito.org\/?p=12631"},"modified":"2014-09-27T15:11:15","modified_gmt":"2014-09-28T01:11:15","slug":"mofa-pamphlet-explaining-the-hague-treaty-2014-to-japanese-citizens-full-text-with-synopsis-including-child-beating-nj-father-on-cover-victimized-j-mothers-throughout","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/?p=12631","title":{"rendered":"2014 MOFA pamphlet explaining Hague Treaty on Child Abductions to J citizens (full text with synopsis, including child-beating NJ father on cover & victimized J mothers throughout) UPDATE: With link to MOFA pdf and official E translation"},"content":{"rendered":"

eBooks, Books, and more from ARUDOU, Debito (click on icon):
\n\"Guidebookcover.jpg\"<\/a>\"japaneseonlyebookcovertext\"<\/a>\"Handbook<\/a>\"\"<\/a>\"\u300c\u30b8\u30e3\u30d1\u30cb\u30fc\u30ba\u30fb\u30aa\u30f3\u30ea\u30fc\u3000\u5c0f\u6a3d\u5165\u6d74\u62d2\u5426\u554f\u984c\u3068\u4eba\u7a2e\u5dee\u5225\u300d\uff08\u660e\u77f3\u66f8\u5e97\uff09\"<\/a>\"sourstrawberriesavatar\"<\/a>\"debitopodcastthumb\"<\/a>\"FodorsJapan2014cover\"<\/a>
\nUPDATES ON TWITTER: arudoudebito
\nDEBITO.ORG PODCASTS on iTunes, subscribe free
\n“LIKE” US on Facebook at http:\/\/www.facebook.com\/debitoorg<\/a>
\nhttp:\/\/www.facebook.com\/handbookimmigrants<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/JapaneseOnlyTheBook<\/a>
\nhttps:\/\/www.facebook.com\/BookInAppropriate<\/a>
\nIf you like what you read and discuss on Debito.org, please consider helping us stop hackers and defray maintenance costs with a little donation via my webhoster:
\n\"Donate<\/a>
\nAll donations go towards website costs only. Thanks for your support!<\/i><\/p>\n

Hello Blog. \u00a0Japan, after years of pressure from overseas<\/a>, is now a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction<\/a>, where children of international marriages are to be protected against psychologically-damaging\u00a0abductions and severed contact with one parent after marriage dissolution and divorce. \u00a0Debito.org has covered this issue extensively in the past<\/a>. \u00a0What matters now is how Japan intends to enforce the treaty. \u00a0Debito.org has argued that we are not hopeful about\u00a0Japan following the spirit of the agreement in good faith<\/a>. \u00a0It has been reinterpreting sections with caveats to give the Japanese side undue advantages in negotiations<\/a>, indirectly portraying the Non Japanese (NJ)\u00a0party as the suspicious interloper<\/a>, redefining important issues such as domestic violence (DV) to include heated arguments and “silent stares” etc<\/a>., refusing to see abductions by the Japanese parent as much more than a natural\u00a0repatriation<\/a>, and not being self-aware\u00a0that in Japan, child abduction and severed contact with\u00a0one parent is quite normal<\/a> (due in part to the vagaries of the Family Registration System (koseki<\/em>)<\/a>), but not necessarily in the best interests of the child<\/a>. \u00a0Japan has been, in short, a haven for international child abductions<\/a>, and how the GOJ will interpret the Hague to its people is crucial\u00a0for change in public mindsets\u00a0and enforcement.<\/p>\n

To that end, Debito.org is fortunate to have received a copy from a concerned reader of a 2014\u00a0Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Gaimushou) pamphlet explaining the Hague to the Japanese public. \u00a0Scanned below in full, within its discourse\u00a0are troubling assumptions and presumptions that bear scrutiny and exposure, as they remain along the lines of the concerns expressed above. \u00a0If this is Japan’s official mindset towards international child abductions, then Debito.org remains pessimistic, if not cynical, about Japan’s intentions to enforce the Hague\u00a0in good faith. \u00a0Dr. ARUDOU, Debito<\/p>\n

UPDATE, courtesy of Debito.org Reader Oliver: \u00a0The pamphlet can be found on the MOFA website, so it is genuine. PDF is here:<\/strong><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.mofa.go.jp\/mofaj\/files\/000033409.pdf<\/a><\/strong>
\n(link from this page:\u00a0http:\/\/www.mofa.go.jp\/mofaj\/gaiko\/hague\/index.html<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

And there is even an English language version!<\/strong><\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.mofa.go.jp\/files\/000034153.pdf<\/a><\/strong>
\n(link from this page:\u00a0http:\/\/www.mofa.go.jp\/fp\/hr_ha\/page22e_000249.html<\/a>)<\/strong><\/p>\n

From the Japanese Consulate in Hong Kong, courtesy of XY.<\/em>
\n (click on any image to expand in browser)<\/em>
\n\"p1\"<\/a>
\nThis is the cover image, with a father about to explain the Hague to his curious son, and look what makes the first impressions: \u00a0The J mother sobbing as the NJ parent whisks their child from her grasp. \u00a0The child\u00a0being stared at and not fitting in with her\u00a0big-nosed NJ classmates (Japanese rarely have much of a nose in Japan’s international\u00a0illustrations; it’s a style, but it makes it seem as if NJ are never Asian; never mind). \u00a0The J father being nabbed by the police regarding his kid. \u00a0The J mother short of money when thinking of her daughter. \u00a0And, of course, the obligatory drawing of the physically-abusive NJ parent with the child longing for her J mother. \u00a0The point is, the J mother is in most\u00a0situations the one being victimized.<\/p>\n

\"p2\"<\/a>
\nThe first page already has\u00a0a case of the cutes (even though, since this book has no furigana\u00a0over the kanji, it’s a manual directed towards adults, not children), with a J father explaining to his son suddenly overwhelming him with questions (after complimenting him on his interest in the news) about how, as of April 1 2014, Japan has to follow the Hague regarding the “tsuresari” (“accompanying and disappearing”, not the more hot-button term “rachi” used for “abductions” when it’s Japanese being abducted to North Korea<\/a>) of children. \u00a0After making a deal with him to eat all his dinner before hearing more, we have a prototypical J=NJ union\u00a0couched as between a Japanese and a Gaijin (even though most international marriages in Japan are overwhelmingly between Japanese and Asians<\/a>): the NJ male makes off with the child, the child\u00a0has trouble fitting in overseas due to language and environmental difficulties, and the child is happily returned to the J mother’s arms thanks to the glad hands of the Hague Treaty thinking of the best interests of the child. \u00a0By the end of the page, the son is already shuddering to think\u00a0what it might be like to live in a foreign country, what with no friends in school and all that.<\/p>\n

\"p3\"<\/a>
\nNext page has more explanation about what will change under the Hague. \u00a0The first point is that Japan had no standing to have children returned if they were abducted. \u00a0The poor victimized J-mother had to find her\u00a0child\u00a0with no help (apparently by showing a photo\u00a0to taller Gaijin strangers giving her the cold shoulder), and even had to go to court to ask for custody (in a place with different laws and culture!). \u00a0How terrible, the child notes, for the parent to suddenly have to go to a big country and look for a little child. \u00a0Of course, then the converse is depicted to be true (but without the sobbing child pining for his NJ dad as the J mom takes her back to Japan — in fact, more alarm from the child that he can’t return to Japan), with consequent difficulties in seeing\u00a0their child (NB: \u00a0Nowhere mentioned is the fact that joint custody and visitation is guaranteed in some of these overseas places with the dreaded “different laws and cultures”, but not in Japan<\/a>.) \u00a0And what about the case where the divorce takes place overseas and the J-mother wants to take the child back to Japan? \u00a0The courts will deny the mother the ability to leave! \u00a0(“What, you can’t go home to your country of birth??” proclaims the ever more-startled son at the end. \u00a0Even though that exit denial didn’t happen, for example, in the Christopher Savoie Case, which is why the abduction of his children occurred<\/a>.) \u00a0Conclusion: \u00a0Already the issue is portrayed in a lopsided manner, with the J-mother being the more victimized party overseas.<\/p>\n

\"p4\"<\/a>
\nNext page succumbs to an\u00a0even more silly case of the cutes, not only with the katakana-accented NJ begging a J court for his child back, but also with an animated doll appearing as an interlocutor because Papa\u00a0happens to be an anime otaku fetishist (rather unbecoming of a serious issue in a serious pamphlet issued by a national government). \u00a0Carrying on… \u00a0This section talks about how signing the treaty makes it so that either side can have their child returned, meaning this will stop courts from hindering\u00a0parents from returning to their countries at will, because if problems arise, there is an apparatus where courts can return the child if necessary. \u00a0 (NB: \u00a0Not mentioned is that there has not been a single recorded case in Japanese court where a Japanese child has been returned to a NJ\u00a0parent’s habitual residence overseas, meaning there is no precedent\u00a0that the apparatus will work on the Japanese side.) \u00a0It also will probably act as a means to preempt abductions, says the pamphlet.<\/p>\n

\"p5\"<\/a>
\nThen the pamphlet turns to a case of one of Papa’s friends (a J mother married to a NJ father) who abducted their child to Japan. \u00a0It went before a Japanese court, with the child standing at the mercy of the gavel, fate uncertain. \u00a0But just to make sure there is a lingering scare, the son expresses doubt as to the justice of a child being repatriated to a physically-abusive (!!) NJ father (where did THAT presumption come from?).\u00a0Once again, the NJ father is being portrayed as potentially abusive, even though, naturally,\u00a0abusive J (mothers or fathers) exist in Japan<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"p6\"<\/a>
\nNext page allays the fears of injustice, with a list of reasons why a child would not be forcibly returned thanks\u00a0to the Hague (bonus image of the loving mother embracing a heart and saying that she will prioritize the protection of\u00a0the child). \u00a0But — horrors — at the suggestion by the child that Papa’s friend shouldn’t have abducted the child and should have perhaps gone to court in America, Papa immediately kiboshes\u00a0that by mentioning how American courts have a different culture, procedures, language barriers, and might even award custody of the child to a third party! (Again,\u00a0no mention of the possibility of joint custody or guaranteed visitation rights enforced overseas, neither of which are permitted\u00a0in Japan<\/a> due to the koseki<\/em> Family Registry system, aka\u00a0“different culture”). \u00a0The nuance of this section becomes “it’s oh so complicated, no wonder Papa’s friend abducted their child”. \u00a0Conclusion of this page: \u00a0It would be awful if one parent couldn’t see their child (which is disingenuous coming from the GOJ\u00a0because, as mentioned above in the introduction, child abductions without joint custody or visitation rights even between Japanese parents in Japan\u00a0are quite\u00a0normal<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"p7\"<\/a>
\nSuddenly, a sad fate befalls even this family, what with Papa being revealed as married to a French woman named Marie (who speaks normal Japanese; DV and broken Japanese seem to be the lot\u00a0of the Western NJ male) who has run off to France with their boy. \u00a0Fortunately, thanks to the Hague, the GOJ can intervene, contact the French government, ascertain where she and their child is, get the authorities over there to mediate, get Papa to abandon his anime fetish (good thing he’s not a physically-abusive man; it’s just a harmless fetish, so nothing to fault the J man overmuch for as any serious grounds for divorce, right?), and get them all to make up and fly into the sunset back to Japan for a happy life ever after.<\/p>\n

\"p8\"<\/a>
\nNext page outlines the Hague procedures in three basic steps. \u00a0Of course, it’s all NJ men and J women (three different couples). \u00a0Visually, note the nuance of the child once again being\u00a0more distressed to be leaving Japan with her father than going back to Japan with her mother.<\/p>\n

\"p9\"<\/a>
\nNext page lists the countries that are signatories to the Hague and the key points of it in bullet form.<\/p>\n

\"p10\"<\/a>
\nNext page gives the key points in Q&A format, first with what happened before Japan thankfully signed the Hague (abductions with impunity!), second with what to do if an abduction from Japan to a signatory country takes place, third with how long the Hague is in effect (until the child is aged 16), and fourth with a warning not to go abroad and reabduct your child back (you’ll be arrested; get a lawyer).<\/p>\n

\"p11\"<\/a>
\nThe penultimate page gives more Q&A, with the obligatory 5) what to do in cases of DV (paste in NJ dad child abuse\u00a0image again), or even the possibility of DV in the past<\/em> (ko ni aku’eikyou o ataeru you na bouryoku<\/em>), with a special section on page 5\u00a0above just in case you should want to use Japan’s increasingly grey and loose definitions of DV<\/a>\u00a0to get your child back; 6) getting J diplomats to help you out overseas; 7) getting a better understanding of the laws and Alternative Dispute Resolution using public resources.<\/p>\n

\"p12\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The pamphlet ends with the boy saying how he understands it all now, and the dad saying how nice it would be if more countries signed the Hague. \u00a0Quite. \u00a0But not the way it’s being interpreted here.<\/p>\n

ENDS<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Japan, after years of pressure from overseas, is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, where children of international marriages are to be protected against psychologically-damaging abductions and severed contact with one parent after marriage dissolution and divorce. Debito.org has covered this issue extensively in the past. What matters now is how Japan intends to enforce the treaty. Debito.org has argued that we are not hopeful about Japan following the spirit of the agreement in good faith. It has been reinterpreting sections with caveats to give the Japanese side undue advantages in negotiations, indirectly portraying the Non Japanese (NJ) party as the suspicious interloper, redefining important issues such as domestic violence (DV) to include heated arguments and “silent stares” etc., refusing to see abductions by the Japanese parent as much more than a natural repatriation, and not being self-aware that in Japan, child abduction and severed contact with one parent is quite normal (due in part to the vagaries of the Family Registration System (koseki)), but not necessarily in the best interests of the child. Japan has been, in short, a haven for international child abductions, and how the GOJ will interpret the Hague to its people is crucial for change in public mindsets and enforcement.<\/p>\n

To that end, Debito.org is fortunate to have received a copy from a concerned reader of a 2014 Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Gaimushou) pamphlet explaining the Hague to the Japanese public. Scanned below in full, within its discourse are troubling assumptions and presumptions that bear scrutiny and exposure, as they remain along the lines of the concerns expressed above. If this is Japan’s official mindset towards international child abductions, then Debito.org remains pessimistic, if not cynical, about Japan’s intentions to enforce the Hague in good faith.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[36,49,5,26,4,13,60,11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12631","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bad-social-science","category-child-abductions","category-human-rights","category-ironies-hypocrisies","category-japanese-government","category-media","category-nj-voices-ignored","category-problematic-foreign-treatment","category-8"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12631","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12631"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12631\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12631"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12631"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.debito.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12631"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}