FOCUS

Focus
Asia-PacificNewsletter of the Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center (HURIGHTS OSAKA)

December 2015 Vol. 82

Contents

Editorial

New Boat People: The Rohingyas
This article discusses the current situation of
Rohingyas who left Burma/Myanmar byboat and are now in temporary shelters inother countries in Southeast Asia.
- HURIGHTS OSAKA
Page 2

New Boat People

Vietnamese Boat People: 40 Years Later
This is a report on the situation of theVietnamese boat people who resettled inJapan since late 1970s, and of theirdescendants who were born and raised inJapan.
- HURIGHTS OSAKA
Page 5
Pilot Refugee Resettlement Program: Japan
Experience
This is an analysis of the implementation of
the pilot resettlement program for Burmese
refugees that faced a number of problems,
affecting those who agreed to resettle inJapan.
- Saburo Takizawa
Page 7
Nishiyodogawa: Community Struggle on
Right to HealthThis article presents the experience of thepollution victims in Nishiyodogawa ward in
Osaka city in fighting to stop the pollution
in its area and in asserting their right tohealth.
- AOZORA Foundation
Page 10
Human Rights Education and Japan: An
Overview
This is an update on the recent
developments in the education sector inJapan that affect the teaching of humanrights in the school system.
- Mariko Akuzawa
Page 13

Asia witnessed the “boat people” phenomenon forty years ago.
Photos of haggard women, children and old people crowding
small, rickety boats while crossing the South China Sea sent a
wave of sympathy from many countries that eventually
recognized them as refugees.
Four decades later, Rohingya women, children and men also fledon boats and crossed the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea toseek safety. This time there were human traffickers and smugglers
involved, there were governments that pushed their boats(abandoned by traffickers and smugglers) out to the sea insteadof allowing them to land, and some ended up as slaves and diedin slave camps. These people escaped conflict and violence only
to end in worst situation.
The traffickers and smugglers must be held responsible for theircrime.
Similar to the boat people of the 1970s, these fleeing Rohingyas
deserve safety in other countries pursuant to international
humanitarian law, as well as protection of their human rights.
The future may have such boat people again, but will the pastand present experiences teach lessons on avoiding suffering forpeople seeking safety?

1

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFCDECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82

New Boat People: The Rohingyas
HURIGHTS OSAKA

M

ore than ninety thousand
Rohingyas
andBangladeshis are believed tohave left the Bay of Bengal andAndaman Sea on boats
operated by smugglers since2014. As of August 2015, morethan a thousand of them aredeemed to have died.

boats directly to Malaysia.
According to [one] NGO[non-governmentalorganization], The Arakan
Project, currently several
thousand people could beheld – and dozens could
have already died – in these'offshore camps'."

The United Nations HighCommission for Refugees(UNHCR) has reported that1

There were reports of Rohingyas
and Bangladeshis not receiving
help from governments incountries where they werebrought or where their boats
landed, and even towing theirboats [abandoned bysmugglers] out to the sea.2 But
subsequent reports in the latterpart of 2015 show many of theRohingyas and Bangladeshis
being allowed to land insouthern Thailand, Malaysia
and Indonesia (Aceh and North
Sumatra provinces) with help
being provided. There wereBangladeshis found in boats inthe waters of Myanmar who
were repatriated to Bangladesh
by the Myanmarese
government.

the most commonlydescribed route has boat
passengers disembarking in
the Ranong area of southern
Thailand, followed by a daylong road trip to smugglers'camps towards the borderwith Malaysia.
Conditions in the smugglers
camp are horrific. People areheld and abused until theirrelatives pay for their release.
More than half the survivors
interviewed by UNHCR
since October reported thatsomeone died in thesmuggler's camp where they
were held. Beatings arecommon and there arereports of rapes. Those who
try to escape, risk being shot.

But some smugglers
since last October [2014],[…] have abandoned
onshore camps in Thailand infavour of holding passengers
for ransom at sea. Once
payment is made, people aretaken by fishing or speed

Among the Rohingyas who havebeen trafficked or smuggled byboat, there were children (someunaccompanied), women andmen.
Intergovernmental Response
The discovery of mass graves insmugglers’ camps in the ThaiMalaysian border in May 2015
prompted inter-governmental
response. The Thai government

2organized the Special Meetingon Irregular Migration in the
Indian Ocean on 29 May 2015
in Bangkok to address the issue.
The affected countries agreed
on the immediate measures totake such as3
1. I n t e n s i fi c a t i o n o f t h e“search and rescue
operations to ensure safetyof the irregular migrants atsea;” and2. Exploration of “further
means for identifying
predictable disembarkation
options and proper andharmonized reception
arrangements for those
rescued.”
They also agreed to
1. I d e n t i f y “ t h o s e w i t hprotection needs througheffective screening
processes, paying particularattention to the protectionof the vulnerable groups,
including women, children,and unaccompanied
minors, who are often mostaffected;”
2. Strengthen “informationand intelligence sharing
mechanism to provide
accurate data on
whereabouts of migrants
and vessels stranded at sea,
and ensure timely response
in terms of search andrescue operations;”
3. Establish a “mechanism or
joint task force toadminister and ensure

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
necessary support,
including resources as well
as resettlement andrepatriation options fromthe international
community to countries
that provide humanitarianassistance to the irregularmigrants.”
The situation has improved tosome extent since the meeting
was held, with less boats being
seen at sea with the Rohingyas
and Bangladeshis, but the
problem has remained and“more needs to be done tos o l ve [ i t ] e f f e c t ive l y a n dpermanently.”4 This was how
the Thai government saw thesituation that led it to invite key
countries and international
agencies for a second meeting.
The Thai government organized
the International Conference on
Irregular Migration in the Indian
Ocean on 4 December 2015 in
Bangkok with the expectation to
discuss, among other issues,
the protection of migrants
on-board, the establishmentof an informal mechanism on
law enforcement to address
the problem of irregularmigration and to dismantle
smuggling and trafficking
networks,
theimplementation of a joint
information campaign along
the migration path to convey
real risks of irregularmigration and to deter
smuggling and trafficking
syndicates with theseriousness of countries in
the region to combat anderadicate this horrific crime.
Also, measures to address theroot causes of migration,
including socio-economic

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
development of at-risk
communities...”5

Representatives of the fiveaffected countries, namely,
Bangladesh, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Myanmar andThailand met a day before theconference. Due to lack of
information, there is no clarity
on whether or not they
discussed the root causes of the
problem.6
New Wave of Boat People:
Causes
While the affected countries
and their partner countries andinstitutions agreed on a numberof measures to address the“irregular migration” of theRohingyas and Bangladeshis,
they have no agreement on theroot causes of this issue.
The United Nations agencies
saw the boat people
phenomenon in Southeast Asia
as similar to the problems facedby vulnerable people all over
the world:7
Grave events in the Bay of
Bengal and Andaman Sea inrecent days involving
migrants and refugees –Rohingya and others – from
Bangladesh and Myanmar
confirm that vulnerable
people around the world are
moving in search of safety
a n d d i g n i t y , fl e e i n gpersecution, abject poverty,
deprivation, discrimination,
and abuse.

Th e U N H C R “ h a s l o n g
advocated for and stands readyto support concerted efforts tostabilize the situation [inSoutheast Asia] throughreconciliation, the realization of

3

rights for all, socio-economic
equality and addressing issues
related to citizenship.”8
The Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN) acted
also on the problem but focusedon its link to transnational
crime, which is an importantcomponent of the problem. The
Emergency ASEAN Ministerial
Meeting on Transnational Crime(EAMMTC) concerning Irregular
M o v e m e n t o f Pe r s o n s i n
Southeast Asia, held less twomonths after the Bangkok
meeting agreed to9[C]onduct analysis andstudies on the irregularmovement of persons in theSoutheast Asia and its
connection with trafficking inpersons and people
smuggling as well as otherforms of transnational crimewith a view to assist ASEAN
Member States in their efforts
to address the long-term
impact of this issue.

This stance was reiterated in the
Joint Communique of the 48th
A S E A N Fo r e i g n M i n i s t e r s
Meeting in Kuala Lumpur on 4
August 2015.10
The Thai government correctlystated that “[A]ffected countries
in the region and relevant
partners must work together toaddress the root causes as well
as all the contributing factors
along the way, in the spirit ofinternational solidarity andshared responsibility.” 11 The
participating countries andinstitutions could agree on the
more general issues of poverty
but did not seem ready to
discuss the very concrete issueof legal status of the Rohingyas
in Myanmar and the existingFOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
conflict between them and theBuddhist residents of Rakhine
state.
The UNHCR states that there
are 138,000 internallydisplaced people (IDPs) in
Rakhine state as of August
2015. The IDPs in Rakhine stateinclude those who are “alsopeople without citizenship.”12
Return or Resettle?
The International Office forMigration (IOM) has started an
Assisted Voluntary Return
Programme for Bangladeshi
migrants. It has helped thereturn to Bangladesh of morethan six hundred Bangladeshi
migrants under this program. It
estimates almost a thousand
Bangladeshi migrants inIndonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar
and Thailand who may be
eligible for assisted voluntary
return (AVR) support.13
IOM also supported theresettlement of approximately ahundred Rohingyas to theUnited States since 2013
through health assessments
prior to travel and referral ofparticularly vulnerable cases.
New Boat People
The Rohingyas constitute thenew boat people because they
are fleeing from violence andconflict. This situation is forcing
their women and children toleave Myanmar despite risks ofdeath in riding the boats of thet r a f fi c k e r s a n d h u m a n
smugglers.
Th e a f f e c t e d c o u n t r i e s ’recognition of protection needsof “vulnerable groups, including
women, children, andu n a c c o m p a n i e d m i n o r s ”14

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
should lead to a recognition ofwhat the fleeing Rohingyas
want to do to gain safety andsecurity.
Finally, the fleeing Rohingyas
need countries that are willingto accept them as refugees whoseek security, shelter, andpossibly permanent
resettlement.

4

For further information, pleasecontact HURIGHTS OSAKA.

Endnotes
1 “Some 25,000 risk sea
crossings in Bay of Bengal
over first quarter, almost
double from year earlier,”
News Stories, UNHCR, 8
May 2015, www.unhcr.org/
554c9fae9.html.
2 See “Timeline of Events,
South-East Asia Mixed
Maritime Movements, April June 2015 - Highlights,”
UNHCR Regional Office forSouth-East
Asia,
w w w. u n h c r. o r g /554c6a746.html. See also “A
c o m p r e h e n s iv e p e o p l e oriented approach to theirregular movement of
migrants and refugees inSouth East Asia” - Joint
Statement by UNHCR,OHCHR, IOM and SRSG for
Migration and Development:
Search and rescue at sea,disembarkation, andprotection of the humanrights of refugees andmigrants now imperative tosave lives in the Bay of
Bengal and Andaman Sea.
(Press Releases, 19 May
2015), available atw w w. u n h c r. o r g /555aee739.html.
3 “Press Releases: Summary Special Meeting on Irregular
Migration in the Indian

4

5
6

7

8
9

Ocean 29 May 2015,
Bangkok, Thailand,” Ministryof Foreign Affairs of theK i n g d o m o f Th a i l a n d ,www.mfa.go.th/main /en/
media-center/14/56880Summary-Special-Meetingo n - I r r e g u l a r- M i g r a t i o n in.html.
“Press Releases: Thailand tohost the Second Meeting on
Irregular Migration in the
Indian Ocean,” Ministry of
Fo r e i g n A f f a i r s o f t h e
K i n g d o m o f Th a i l a n d ,www.mfa.go.th/main /en/
media-center/14/62560Thailand-to-host-the-SecondMeeting-on-Irregular-M.html.
Ibid.
“Result of the 2nd Special
Meeting on Irregular
Migration in the Indian
Ocean,” Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Kingdom ofThailand, www.mfa.go.th/
main/en/media-center/
28/62757-Result-of-the-2ndSpecial-Meeting-on-IrregularMig.html.
S e e Jo i n t S t a t e m e n t by
UNHCR, OHCHR, IOM and
SRSG for Migration andDevelopment, op. cit.
News Stories, UNHCR, 8
May 2015, op. cit.
C h a i r m a n ’s S t a t e m e n t ,Emergency ASEAN
Ministerial Meeting On
Tr a n s n a t i o n a l C r i m e
Concerning Irregular
Movement Of Persons In
Southeast Asia, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia, 2 July2 0 1 5 , w w w. a s e a n . o r g /images/2015/July/
chairman_statement/
ADOPTED%20Chairmans%20Statement%20of% 2 0 E A M M T C%20Concerning%20Irregular%20Movement%20of%20Persons%20in%20the(Continued on page 15)

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFCDECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82

Vietnamese Boat People: 40 Years Later
HURIGHTS OSAKAT

he arrival of the so-called“boat people” in the late1970s in Japan was a historic
episode in the country’s refugee
policy. It was the first time thatJapan accepted a significant
number of refugees either toallow them to resettle in thec o u n t r y o r t o h ave t h e mprocessed for resettlement in athird
c o u n t r y.
Theaccommodation of the “boatpeople” in late 1970s has been
so far the only time that Japan
opened its doors wide open forrefugees.
The First Camp1
8 6 - y e a r o l d Fr. H a r r y
Quaadvliet of the Congregatio
Immaculati Cordis Mariae/
Congregation of the Immaculate
Heart of Mary (CICM) recalledthat in 1979 the first refugee
camp in Japan was establishedby CARITAS Japan in an oldchurch in Himeiji, Hyogo
prefecture. Thirty-fourVietnamese from Akita
prefecture came to this camp.
This started the Center for
Promoting Permanent
Residence for Refugees to help
those fleeing Vietnam. The
camp was subsequently
transferred to Nibuno district in
Himeji where the CICM hadbuilt its house and where the St.
Mary Hospital run by the
Hospital Sisters of St. Francis
was located. He also said thato f fi c i a l s o f t h e J a p a n e s e
Ministries of Justice and Foreign
Affairs came to the place for theestablishment of a refugee
center. Since then, Fr. Harry has
been involved with theVietnamese refugees. He has
been known as the "father ofVietnamese refugees" for his
lifelong service to them.2 Those
who wanted to be resettled
went to different countries sucha s U S , C a n a d a , Fra n c e ,Belgium, Australia and Norway.
The Center closed in 1996.

others were Buddhists whowent to a Buddhist temple in thearea. The Buddhist temple had aVietnamese monk who
administered to the refugees.
The temple offered a religious
program for the children of the
refugees. While the children of
the Catholic refugees availed ofthe programs in the church’s
Koryu Sentaa (Cultural Exchange
Center).

Fr. Harry cited the case of about
thirty people who travelled on aboat for more than forty days.
Only a little over twenty people
survived and were rescued; they
were brought to Fukushima
pre fe ct u re . M o s t o f t h e mdecided to stay in Japan.

He noted that many of theVietnamese refugees were notable to integrate into theJapanese society. Many of themwere men who married fellow
Vietnamese; a few married
Japanese women. Later on,some were able to return toVietnam to visit relatives, dobusiness and also to findspouses to marry (for theVietnamese men).

He noted that about fourthousand Vietnamese refugees
stayed in Hyogo prefecture (twothousand in Himeiji and anothertwo thousand in Kobe). Some of
the refugees in Nibuno district
were Christians (Catholics) who
went to the nearby church, while

Their children knew of theirrefugee background but they
did not understand what it
meant. They could not tellMemorial marker on the former site of the Vietnamese refugee camp (Nibuno district, Himeiji city, Hyogo prefecture)

5

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
whether they were Japanese or
Vi e t n a m e s e . Th e y o n l y
understood the Vietnamese
language and did not speak it;
they spoke the Japanese
language. They also did notknow the Vietnam War, or thecommunism in the country.
They were educated in Japanand some of them had Japanesespouse. Some became Japanesecitizens and assumed Japanesenames. While many refugeeparents could not integrate into
the Japanese society, theirchildren were able to do so. At
present, three generations of
Catholic Vietnamese in Nibuno
attend mass in the church
together, and served by aVietnamese priest and two
Vietnamese Sisters.
Some of the refugees transferredfrom Nibuno district to Yao city
in Osaka prefecture and Kobecity due to availability of work.
They come together to celebrate
every August 15th (MoonFestival) and December 31st
(Lunar New Year) of each year.
Higashi Elementary School in
Himeiji3
Ms. Kayuki Kanagawa is ateacher in the Higashi
Elementary School in Himeiji.
She has been doing work since
mid-1990s with Vietnamesechildren, whose grandparents
were refugees in the late 1970s.
As of November 2015, twentyone foreign students study inthe school, including
Vi e t n a m e s e , C h i n e s e a n dJapanese-Filipino children. Ms.
Kanagawa teaches thesestudents in a room devoted toactivities for these children.

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
Ms. Kanagawa
started this special
class
for
Vietnamesedescent children
in 1995. But she
became evenmore motivated tocontinue with thespecial class after
learning about thesuicide of a former
Vietnamesestudent who could
n o t a d j u s t t o Paper lion for Vietnamese studentsʼ cultural festival
school life andchildren, they learn thestarted working without
Vietnamese language andfinishing his schooling toculture. They make traditional
support his family. The school
Vietnamese crafts used inprincipal dubbed Ms.
Vietnamese festivals such as
Kanagawa as the “mother oflanterns, and do traditional
Vietnamese children.”dance (such as the lion dance).
The Vietnamese parents want
They are also provided tutoring
their children to use Japaneseinside the room regarding theirnames in school instead of theirregular school subjects.
real Vietnamese names. These
In another school, Joto
parents believe that using
Elementary School, Vietnamese
Japanese names would: 1)girls wear ao dai for theprevent their children from
graduation ceremony.
suffering the discrimination theyexperienced during their
However, after graduating fromchildhood; and 2) help theirprimary school, somechildren in becoming
Vietnamese-descent students
naturalized Japanese citizens
use Japanese names. They seem
later on.
to think that it is moreconvenient to hide their identity
Ms. Kanagawa tells theand use Japanese names when
Vietnamese parents that there isthey grow up. There are also
no discrimination in the school
companies they work for thatagainst foreign children. She
ask them to use Japanese names
as ks th e m t o a l l ow t h e i r
for convenience.
children to use their real
Vietnamese names. With theirreal names, Ms. Kanagawa
Some Reflections
believes that the children learn
Ms. Kanagawa sees the need forto value their identity as
the Vietnamese students to get
Vietnamese.
more support to enable them toIn the special room in the
be on equal footing with theirschool (called World Room),
fellow students. She thinks that
foreign students learn their own
language. For the Vietnamese(Continued on page 15)

6

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFCDECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82

Pilot Refugee Resettlement Program:
Japan Experience
Saburo Takizawa

In the summer of 2009, theJapanese government
requested the United Nations
High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) to
recommend ninety Karen
refugees in Mae Lae camp in
Thailand for resettlement inJapan. The government asked
UNHCR to take into accountthe Japanese selection criteria:
Karen refugee families (parents
and dependent children, or
nuclear families) in Mae La
camp with capacity to adapt to
the Japanese society and to get
employed. The Mae La camp
was chosen because it was thelargest refugee camp in
Thailand. The Karens
constituted the majority of theresidents in Mae La campwhose livelihood depended on
a g r i c u l t u r e . Th e Ja p a n e s egovernment thought they would
be able to adapt to the Japaneseculture and customs without
much difficulty. The family
criterion was applied because,
compared to single people,
families were assumed to haveless difficulty in adapting toJapanese society.
Three-year Pilot ProgramThis was the start of a three-year
pilot program on theresettlement of refugees fromthe refugee camps in Thailand.
It set an initial quota of ninety
refugees; thirty refugees wereplanned to be brought to Japaneach year, for three years.
However, when the resettlement
program was announced in
Mae La camp, there was notmuch interest from the refugees
and the planned thirty refugees
for the first batch was not met
after a round of interview ofrefugees. After a second roundof interview was held, five
families (consisting of twentyseven adults and children) were
eventually selected as the firstgroup that would be resettled inJapan. The first group arrived inJapan on 28 September 2010.
The resettlement of the second
group of refugees started in
2011. There was similar weakinterest on the part of the
refugees to resettle in Japan.
They also heard about thedifficulties in Japan faced by the
first group of refugees. After two
rounds of interview, six families
were selected. But after being
informed that the high cost ofliving in Japan required bothhusband and wife to work, twofamilies decided not to join thesecond group just before
departing for Japan in
September 2011. Two women,
one had a baby while anotherwas pregnant, became uneasy
about resettling in Japan. Only
four families, consisting ofeighteen people, arrived at
Narita airport and were met bya smaller number of reporters

7

and non-governmentalorganization (NGO) workers
than in 2010. Despiteknowledge of their arrival, none
from the Burmese ethnic
community was present towelcome the second group. Thissuggested the existence ofdifference of opinion on the
program among the Burmese
ethnic community in Japan.
The final group of refugees to beresettled in Japan was meant to
a r r i v e i n 2 0 1 2 . Fa m i l i e s(consisting of sixteen people)
from two other refugee camps
were selected but eventually
withdrew. As a result, no
refugees were resettled in Japan
in 2012. The pilot resettlement
program ended with only fortyfive refugees involved as against
the planned ninety refugees.
Support for the Refugee
Resettlement Program
The government officials knew
the value of a resettlement
program in improving Japan’s
image and identity. It was meant
to be a concrete form ofinternational responsibility/
burden sharing and in line with
the notion of human security, amajor principle of the Japanese
official development assistance(ODA). The program could
dispel the long-held image ofJapan as having an excessively
restrictive refugee policy causedby stringent refugee status

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
determination (RSD)
procedures. Under the
resettlement program, thegovernment (through the
Ministry of Justice or MOJ)
could choose the refugees who
were deemed better fit forresettlement in Japan and thusincrease the number of refugees
in the country without going
through the complex andlengthy RSD process, including
litigation. As for MOJ’s concern
for security risks, the UNHCR
would recommend forresettlement only those whohave no security risks. Thus the
MOJ would have nothing tolose by starting a resettlementp r o g ra m . Th e M i n i s t r y o f
Internal Affairs andCommunications (MIC), whichis responsible for economic andsocial activities including local
administration and related tax
systems, was opposed to theidea. The National Police
Agency (NPA) was also notsupportive as it was concerned
about criminal activities byforeigners. There was, however,no hard proof that foreigners,
including refugees, commit
more crimes than Japanesenationals in relative terms. It
was likely that the NPA stancereflected the government’s
policy of reducing the numberof foreigners without regularresidence status.1 The Cabinet
Secretariat, which chaired theInter-Ministerial Working Groupon Refugees Issues (IMWG),
eventually managed thedivergent views and interests,
and succeeded in bringing acompromise agreement to starta small three-year pilot
resettlement program.
Also, a shared view andconsensus emerged among key
decision-makers (political party

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
leaders) and opinion leadersthat it was high time for Japanto accept more refugees than
before.
The editorials and reports in themainstream media were very
supportive of the resettlement
idea with the proviso that the
government had to provide
resettled refugees with sufficient
skills and language training aswell as social integration
support so that they could
become members of theJapanese society as soon as
possible, avoiding the repetitionof the difficulties experienced
by Indochinese refugees. Suchurging encouraged government
officials and parliamentarians,
who considered media reports
and editorials as reflective of
popular thinking, to support theresettlement idea.
Causes of Program Problems
Th e p r i m a r y c o n c e r n o f
improving the image andidentity of Japan in theinternational society throughthe refugee resettlement
program led to the failure to
take into serious account the
refugees’ motivation forresettlement, and theinadequate assessment of theirneeds and capacities. The
historical and political relations
between Japan and Burma havealso negatively affected therefugees’ selection of Japan as
country of resettlement.
Remembrance of the World War
II experiences and Japan’s
official development aid to the
Burmese government that has
oppressed them lessened theenthusiasm of the refugees on
the program.

8

The refugees saw the criteria set
by Japan as too restrictive andinflexible. The criteria werequestionable compared tointernational standards. The
criteria included the capacity toadapt to Japanese society andcapacity to get employed toearn a living. These are not inline with the UNHCR policythat resettlement should not be
determined on the basis of“integration potential” or othernon-protection criteria. The
UNHCR promotes resettlement
for humanitarian reasons for
those who need special
protection when no othersolutions are available. The
criteria’s stress on culturala d a p t a b i l i t y r e fl e c t s t h eJapanese government’s wish tominimize social costs throughrapid assimilation rather thanintegration. The employability
c r i t e r i o n r e fl e c t s t h egovernment’s wish to minimize
cost.
The other criterion on nuclear
families has problems.
It
ignored the reality that refugees
have extended families in the
refugee camps. The criterion
also restricts family
reunification for those left
behind in the refugee camps.
And the resettlement of nuclear
families does not necessarilymean less expensive thanresettlement of individuals as it
excludes young, single,
ambitious and talented refugees
who could adapt to Japan faster.
Most of the families selected fort h e p r o g r a m h av e y o u n gchildren who would not be able
to earn income until after five or
ten years. The additional cost of
supporting for them has to beprovided instead by NGOs,
local governments and the local
communities.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFC
The program does not have amid- and long-term integration
perspective. The six-monthi n t e n s ive o r i e n t a t i o n a n dsettlement assistance programin Tokyo, for example, cannot
address the refugees’ concern
for stable employment, medical
insurance, education ofchildren, old age pension andpermanent residency or
naturalization that are necessary
to make a life plan. The
previous integration programwith the Indochinese refugees
in the 1970s was repeated
without much improvement;
and thus was used without
considering the problems it
brought to the Indochinese who
resettled in Japan.
To minimize the integrationp r o b l e m , t h e g ove r n m e n tshould listen to the voices of the
refugees, both in the camps andin Japan, to understand theirinterests, expectations andconcerns and social norms andshould encourage them toparticipate in designing the
integration support system.
On the whole, the Japanese
program was biased towards
material assistance (jobs,
housing, cash assistance, etc.)
while the psychologicaldimension was ignored until the
problems started to emerge.
Finally, the government failed toprovide support to the local
governments that hosted therefugees especially for longterm integration program thatcost them (local governments)s i g n i fi c a n t l y. M o s t l o c a lgovernments could not afford toprovide additional services tor e f u g e e s wh e n t h e i r ow n
citizens were suffering from
economic difficulties.

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
Conclusion
The Japanese government’s
decision to start a pilot
resettlement program was asurprise to the humanitariancommunity. It was made by asmall number of policy elites
who realized that by responding
to a call from the UNHCR, thecriticism that Japan is a freerider on the Global Refugee
Regime could be addressed andits national interest in terms of
reputational value would bepromoted. However, domestic
implementation of the program
was much more difficult thanmany expected. Territorial
protection of refugees in theform of resettlement does notnecessarily offer human security
for refugees unless a robust
domestic integration support
system is established. Such asystem is a “national public
product” to be co-produced by
the government, local
municipalities, civil society andthe general public.
Unfortunately, such a systemdoes not yet exist in Japan asshown by the problems thatform structural barriers. Due tothe poor communication andinformation strategy adopted by
the government, there are noshared interests among the
supporters and the public at the
local level. Rather than focusing
on the technical “fixes” likeselection criteria, thegovernment should look at the
big picture and address the
problems.
The refusal by the three refugee
families to come to Japan, or“Japan passing,” was a shock
and a turning point for the pilot
program that forced allconcerned parties to reconsider
the past approaches and re-9examine hitherto untested
assumptions and mindsets.
However, there are also signs ofhope. No doubt there are many
individuals who have goodwill
to help displaced refugees.
Refugees and civil society are
becoming more active than
before.
Th e Ja p a n e s egovernment has also changed
its approach and increasedtransparency
andcommunications with the civilsociety. If these genuine efforts
continue, the pilot program hasa chance to overcome the “birthpain” and one can even hopethat the resettlement program
will become one of the keys to“open the doors of Japan to theglobal society,” as Minister
Nakagawa proudly mentionedon World Refugee Day, 20 June2012.
Saburo Takizawa is a professor
at the Toyo Eiwa University anda lecturer at the Graduate
School of the International
Christian University.
For more information, pleasecontact: Saburo Takizawa, e-mail:saburo.takizawa@gmail.com.

Endnote1 Th e M i n i s t r y o f Ju s t i c e ,National Police Agency andthe city of Tokyo have been
conducting a joint campaign
to reduce the number ofi r r e g u l a r s t ay e r s , w h i c hreduced their number fromsome 300,000 in 1993 to
78,000 in early 2012. In thecourse of the campaign, alarge number of asylum(Continued on page 15)

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFICDECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82

Nishiyodogawa: Community Struggle on Right to Health
AOZORA FoundationBy mid-1930s, Nishiyodogawa
ward had seven hundred
factories, sixty thousand
employees, and four hundred
sixty of these factories had ten or
more employees. This madeNishiyodogawa ward the heartof Osaka’s industrial area.1
In the 1930s, Osaka city wasnamed the “City of Factories”2
but also as “Smoke Capital” ofJapan due to its industrialization
history dating back to the1870s. In a school textbook,O s a k a c i t y ’s i n d u s t r i a ldevelopment was symbolizedby smokes coming fromnumerous factory smokestacks.
The strong demand of foreign
trade as well as the militaryindustry in the 1930s caused
the fast industrial developmentof Nishiyodogawa ward; it
resumed after World War II. In
the 1960s, residents
experienced brown-coloredhaze that enveloped the area allday. Residents believed that all
types of chemical pollution
existed in Nishiyodogawa ward,
particularly sulfur oxides. Cars
and trains had their lights
turned on during the day due topoor visibility.
Th e N i s h i yo d o g awa wa r dsituation reflected the impact on
people of increased heavy
pollution due to rapid
economic growth from the
1950s in the major industrial
zones of Japan (linked under the
Pacific Industrial Belt plan) andin other parts of the country.
People in these areas began tosuffer from respiratory ailments
such as bronchitis, emphysema,
and asthmatic bronchitis.
Protests (including law suits)against widespread pollution in
the country led to theenactment of the Basic Law forEnvironmental Pollution Control
in 1967, the Law on Special
Measures Concerning Redressfor Pollution-related Health
Damage in 1969, and theAbsolute Liability Law in 1972
and the Pollution-related Health
Damage Compensation Law in1973. The 1969 law designatedparts of several cities including
Yokkaichi, Osaka (including
Nishiyodogawa ward) and
Kawasaki cities as polluted
areas. Under this law, people
who were certified as sufferingfrom pollution-induced healthproblems were qualified toreceive medical care benefits.
Under the 1972 Absolute
Liability Law, lack of intent topollute does not exempt
companies from escaping their
responsibility for the pollution
caused.
Nishiyodogawa Residents’Protest3
Residents of Nishiyodogawa
ward started to complain in the
1970s about the healthp r o b l e m s s u f f e r e d . Th e
residents’ protest was supportedby the work of Mr. Kimio
Moriwaki in early 1970s. He

10started calling on pollution
victims to come out to avail ofthe law on pollution.4 While theorganizing work was very
difficult, four hundred victims
and other residents came to ameeting in a school auditorium
and formed the Nishiyodogawa
A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Po l l u t i o n
Patients and Their Families.
The Nishiyodogawa Medical
Association established the
Medical Care Center for
Pollution-Caused Illnesses in a
hospital (Semboku Byoin) tocare for pollution patients’
health. Many of the residents
with respiratory problems wereold people and children
because they hardly left theirhomes. Mr. Moriwaki worked asa receptionist in the Center thatallowed him to invite them tojoin the Nishiyodogawa
A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Po l l u t i o n
Patients and Their Families.5
In
mid-1970s,
theNishiyodogawa Association for
Pollution Patients and Their
Families contacted lawyermembers of the Osaka Bar
A s s o c i a t i o n t o s t u dy t h e
Nishiyodogawa problem. The
difficulty of finding the sourcesof air pollution led the lawyers
to do a three-year study on what
legal action to take. In April
1978, the patients filed a casebefore the District Court in
Osaka against ten companies
believed to be sources of air
pollution.6 More than twenty
lawyers were involved in the

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
filing of the complaint in court,
but lawyers from different partsof Japan later joined the legal
team that increased the numberof lawyers to one hundred andfifty.
The tort liability complaint
asked the court, among several
demands, to stop the operationsof the companies and to orderthe companies to pay
compensation to the pollution
victims. The lawyers of the
Nishiyodogawa residents wereyoung and idealistic who
volunteered their time and effort
in pursuing the complaint. They
faced experienced lawyers of
the companies. The young
lawyers learned a lot during thelong period of litigation on thisc o m p l a i n t . Th e y r e c e ive dsupport from scientists from theacademe (Kyoto University)
regarding the technical issues of
the complaint.
The Nishiyodogawa residents
received a lot of support fromthe general public in pursuing
the complaint.
While proving which
companies were the sources of
specific types and amounts ofpollutants was technicallydifficult, proving the unusuallyhigh rate of health problems(compared to the national
average) among the
N i s h i yo d o g awa r e s i d e n t s ,especially the young and old,
was not. And the court
considered the health issue data
in favor of the complainants.
After seventeen years of
litigation, the companies sought
to settle the complaint. Bothsides subsequently agreed on afour billion Yen compensation
package. The District Court
accepted the settlement

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
agreement in a decision issued
in March 1995.7
Th e i n c r e a s e d a m o u n t o fcompensation was meant tosupport the welfare of thepollution victims and the
Nishiyodogawa ward on a longt e r m b a s i s . Pa r t o f t h ecompensation money under thesettlement agreement wasmeant for the establishment of afoundation that would assist the
Nishiyodogawa residents inimproving their community.
Public Campaigns
To support the judicial recourse,
the Nishiyodogawa residents
organized persistent publiccampaigns under the slogan “A
Blue Sky for Our Children.”
These campaigns received
broad cooperation from groupsof pollution victims in otherparts of the country who also
filed their own complaints incourt both against companies
and the government. They
campaigned for support for
medical costs and also forlosses sustained in terms of lost
income, livelihood andproperty.
Ye a r s b e f o r e t h e l aw s u i t ,medical professionals in
different parts of the country
organized support groups tohelp pollution victims. These
support groups held study
sessions and seminars on themechanisms that produced
pollution and the legal andsocial institutions that could
support the pollution victims.
Th e y a l s o h e l d i n f o r m a lmeetings with local
governments and submitted
written petitions to them. In
1973, groups of pollution
victims and the support groups

11

formed the National Liaison
Council for Pollution Victims
Organizations. This network ofpollution victims’ organizations
facilitated the circulation of
relevant information and madejoint requests to government
agencies on issues that member
organizations could not solve
locally.8
Aozora Foundation
The Nishiyodogawa pollution
victims established in 1996 theCenter for the Redevelopmentof Pollution-damaged Areas inJapan (Aozora Foundation). The
A o z o ra Fo u n d a t i o n wa s
established as a nonprofit
organization (NPO) working forthe redevelopment of pollutiondamaged areas using part of thesettlement package given by thecompanies under the 1995
court settlement agreement.
Before the District Court
decision came out, theNishiyodogawa Association for
Pollution Patients and Their
Families released in March
1991 the “Nishiyodogawa
Redevelopment Plan” aimed athaving a pollution-freecommunity development inNishiyodogawa ward. The plangained prominence as anunprecedented communityd e ve l o p m e n t p r o p o s a l bypollution victims, and has foundaudience in venues such as theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) meeting and hearingsof the Central Council for
Environment Pollution Control.
The Association brought forth aseries of proposals, including
one directed at defendantcompanies
andonreconstruction after
earthquakes.9

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
Aozora Foundation adopted alogo with three blue lines at the
top to represent the blue sky
supported by three elements:
partnership of citizens,government administration, andbusiness. There is a green
horizontal line at the bottom torepresent the green-enshrouded
land.
It organizes studies andpractical activities that are
creatively carried out from thestandpoint of pollution victims
and community members, andaimed at rejuvenating local
areas and environments.
It also holds public lectures,symposiums and other eventswith the participation of theresidents, gathers documents
and source materials, provides
information, hosts observationt o u r s a n d t ra i n e e s , l e n d s
support for school classes,
conducts international
exchanges, and more.
Redeveloping polluted areas
does not merely involve
rejuvenating, recreating, andpreserving the naturalenvironment. In the Aozora
Foundation way of thinking
such redevelopment depends
on recovering and improving
the health of local citizens;recovering and fosteringcommunity functions lost on
account of economics-firstdevelopment; rebuilding
relationships of trust andcooperation
among
government, business, andcitizens; and other such efforts.
Th i s n e c e s s i t a t e s b a s i n g
initiatives on the idea of“participation” as proposed in
the Basic Environment Plan10
and, from a citizens’ standpoint,
obtaining the cooperation of

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
local authorities, businesses,
and all other social entities.11
In view of the serious pollution
problems in Asia and aroundthe world, Aozora Foundation
aims to provide information on
Japan’s pollution experienceand the lessons learned from it.
It aims to provide information,
beyond technical matters, on
the practical actions consistingof the struggles and labors ofcitizens and pollution victims,
as well as industry and thevariety of other social entities,
in implementing measures toachieve redevelopment. In thisway, it hopes to arrest thepollution around the world by
p r ov i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n o nJapan’s pollution experience,and by building an international
cooperation network ofgrassroots initiatives on
redeveloping pollutiondebilitated areas.12
For further information, pleasecontact: Aozora Foundation, 4F,
Aozora Building, 1-1-1
Chibune, Nishiyodogawa-ku,
Osaka, 555-0013; ph (816)6475-885; fax (816)6478-5885;
e-mail:webmaster@aozora.or.jp; www.
aozora.or.jp.
Endnotes
1 “A City of Factories Appears,"
Osaka Asahi Shimbun, 16
November 1936, an English
version of the article is found in
http://aozora.or.jp/lang/english/
nishiyodogawa-field-museum/citizens-struggle.
2 Japan’s Air Pollution from the
Perspective of Pollution Victims,
Center for the Redevelopmentof Pollution-damaged Areas inJapan (The Aozora Foundation),
page 9.

12

3 Part of the discussion in this andother sections is based on thei n t e r v i e w o f M r. K i m i oMoriwaki, Mr. Toshiyuki Ueda,
Mr. Yanqing Wang, and Ms.
To m o k o K u r i m o t o b y
HURIGHTS OSAKA staff(Jefferson R. Plantilla and Emika
Tokunaga) on 15 September
2015, and from Kimio
Moriwaki, “The Experience ofOrganizing Pollution Victims in
Nishiyodogawa,” The Aozora
Foundation, http://aozora.or.jp/
lang/english/papers-fromoverseas-workshops/theexperience-of-organizingpollution-victims-innishiyodogawa.
4 “About 7,000 pollution patientswere certified under the law in
Nishiyodogawa Ward,” seeYoriko Yariyama, "The Pollution
Experience Can Be the Engine
of Community Renewal-The
A o z o r a Fo u n d a t i o n ’s
Environmental Education
Initiative," www.aozora.jpn.org/
pdf/071025_ws_eng.pdf
5 Moriwaki, op. cit.
6 Three more complaints were
subsequently filed by thepatients in court including those
filed against the government
about the air pollution (nitrogenoxides) from vehicle exhaustfrom public roads.
7 Along with the other cases filedin court, the Nishiyodogawa
cases ended after twenty years
lapsed from1978.
8 See Japan’s Air Pollution fromthe Perspective of Pollution
Victims, op. cit.
9 See website of Aozora
Foundation, http://aozora.or.jp/
lang/english/nishiyodogawafield-museum/regenerationbegins.
10 See Basic Environment Law and
Basic Environment Plan,www.env.go.jp/en/aboutus/
pamph/html/00pan250.html forbasic information on the Plan.
11 “Our mission,” The Aozora
Foundation, http://aozora.or.jp/
lang/english/our-mission.
12 Ibid.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFCDECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82

Human Rights Education in Japan: Overview
Mariko Akuzawa

Japan responded well to theUnited Nations Decade for
Human Rights Education(1995-2004) [UN Decade]. It
adopted a national plan ofaction for the UN Decade in1997, while more than five
hundred prefectures andmunicipalities adopted local
action plans.
The local enthusiasm for the
UN Decade stemmed from theneed for a new law that would
continue government support
for human rights education. The
history of human rights
education in Japan dates backto the beginning of antidiscrimination education(known as DOWA education) in
the post-war period. Special
laws and policies on fiscal
measures for anti-discrimination(DOWA) projects since the late1960s helped support thegrowth of DOWA education.
With the ending of the special
fiscal measures law in March
2002, the UN Decade becamea new vehicle to continue andfurther promote human rights
education in Japan.
Human Rights Education Law
The enactment of the Law on
the Promotion of Human Rights
Education and Human Rights
Awareness-Raising (LPHREA) in
2000 ironically led to lessreference by both national andlocal governments to theinternational framework on
human rights education

specifically the UN initiatives.
Unlike the UN Decade, theadoption by the UN of theWorld Programme for Human
Rights Education (WPHRE) in2005 did not lead to adoptionof national and local plans ofaction in support of the new
UN initiative.
Nevertheless, the enactment of
LPHREA was progress. In
implementing this law, theJapanese government adopted a
National Basic Plan in 2002
and started issuing the annual
White Paper on Human Rights
Education and AwarenessRaising from the same year.
Many local governments again
followed the national initiative.
A 2012 survey of the Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT)
revealed that forty-two
prefectures (approximately 89
percent of all the prefectures)and 841 municipalities(approximately 47 percent of allmunicipalities) had alreadyadopted local plans based on
LPHREA.
It is noteworthy that many local
governments regularly revised
their plans to meet the changing
needs of local communities. In
revising the plans, many local
governments conducted surveys
to know the extent of thecitizens’ human rights
awareness, as well as toevaluate the impact of their

13

human rights education
programs.
People’s Attitude
Recently, unexpected changes
in the citizens’ attitude havebeen observed based on the
results of these local
g o v e r n m e n t s u r v e y s . Fo r
instance, in two separate
surveys conducted in Himejicity (2011) and Tanba city
(2012), both in Hyogo
prefecture in the western part ofJapan, the majority of
respondents did not believe that
institutional measures, such as
laws or administrative systems,
were effective in solving social
problems. Instead, they
believed that individual effort
was more important. In the freeanswer column, some
respondents even expressed
anxiety that institutional
measures made people too
dependent on the governmentand spoiled individual effort.
Respondents seem to trust
personal solutions more rather
than the democratic
mechanisms of society.
Do these survey results reflect
neo-liberal policy adaptation in
Japanese society? Consideringthat human rights education
facilitates participation indemocratic decision-making
processes, the results werediscouraging if not alarming forhuman rights educators.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
School System
Regarding human rights
education in the school system,
MEXT, as provided for in the
National Basic Plan, undertookr e s e a rch a n d i n f o r m a t i o ngathering activities on effective
teaching practices and materials
in order to improve humanrights teaching in schools.
MEXT organized a Panel ofExperts for the Research on
Approaches to Human Rights
Education in 2003, and incooperation with the Panel,
conducted surveys in 2008 and2012 to find out how local
boards of education andschools implemented humanrights education. The 2012
MEXT survey discussed earlier
also showed that about 75
percent of the schools had
human rights education plan.
Based on the discussions of the
Panel of Experts, MEXT issued athird report in 2008 entitled
Approaches to Teaching Human
Rights Education, which
promoted the integration ofknowledge, skills, attitudes andvalues in teaching human rights
in order to capacitate children
to take action to protect theirown rights as well as those ofothers.
However, the future of humanrights education does notwarrant optimism. The change
in the ruling party (Liberal
Democratic Party) at the end of2012 led to less serious
government support for humanrights education. In March
2015, MEXT revised the courseof study to introduce moral
education as an official subject
at primary school level in 2018
and at the lower secondary
school level in 2019. For

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
instance, the revised course of
study for 1st and 2nd year
primary students would belearning nineteen keywords
such as honesty and sincerity,
moderation, hope and courage,
kindness, gratitude, politeness,friendship and trust, observanceof rules, public-mindedness,fairness and justice, respect for
culture and tradition, love for
one’s home and country, and soon. Stronger emphasis on values
rather than rights, and on
personal attitude formation
rather than democratic
participation may change thevery basis of human rights
education in Japan.
Moral education has beentaught only as an informal
subject in Japanese schools in
the post-war period due to thecriticism that it instilled thepatriotism and militarism that
led Japan to war. Consequently,
moral education, given its wide
latitude as an informal subject,became a good vehicle tointegrate DOWA and humanrights education. Many local
boards of education issued
unique supplementary
textbooks for DOWA andhuman rights education that
introduced the history of local
human rights movements, andstories and voices of minorities.
However, upgrading moral
education to a formal subject
requires the use of authorized
textbooks and grading. As aconsequence, the space forteaching human rights based on
the rich local resources will bestrictly limited.
In this context, the relationshipbetween moral education andhuman rights education needs
serious discussion. And there isa need to remind the Japanese

14

government that it has the“primary responsibility topromote and ensure humanrights education and training,developed and implemented ina spirit of participation,
inclusion and responsibility(Article 7.1, UN Declaration on
Human Rights Education andTraining [2011]).
Mariko Akuzawa is a professorof Graduate School for Creative
Cities, Osaka City University.
For further information, pleasecontact: Mariko Akuzawa,
Graduate School for Creative
Cities, Osaka City University; email: akuzawa@gscc.osakacu.ac.jp.

FOCUS ASIA-PACIFIC
N e w B o a t Pe o p l e : Th e
Rohingyas(Continued from page 4)%20Southeast%20Asia%20Region%20as%20of%202%20July%202015.pdf.
10 Paragraph 36 under the“Non-Traditional Security
Issues” heading of the Joint
Communique, 48th ASEAN
Foreign Ministers Meeting,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 4thAugust 2015, page 6. Fulldocument available atVietnamese Boat People: 40
Years Later(Continued from page 6)
the past educational policy ofJapan was wrong in notrecognizing the contribution offoreign children in the
education of all children. She,however, cites some changesb e i n g m a d e . Th e H y o g oprefectural government is
adopting from 2016 school year
a special admission quota forforeign students who came to
Japan in the past three years.
But this policy would not cover
the foreign students of Ms.
Kanagawa.

DECEMBER 2015 VOLUME 82
www.asean.org/images/2015/
Au g u s t / 4 8 t h _ a m m / J O I N T%20COMMUNIQUE%20OF%20THE%2048TH%20AMM-FINAL.pdf.
11 “Press Releases: Thailand tohost the Second Meeting on
Irregular Migration in the
Indian Ocean,” op. cit.
12 “ M y a n m a r F a c t s h e e t , ”
UNHCR, August 2015,
www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/v t x / h o m e /opendocPDFViewer.html?
docid=50001cf99&query=Rakhine%202015.

Vietnamese community despite
her inability to speak
Vietnamese. But she hopes that
the Vietnamese community
would develop its own systemof supporting its members.
She learned a lot in helping
Vietnamese children during thepast twenty years. She remains
their strong supporter. She
realizes that a country wherechildren cannot laugh is abroken society.
For further information, pleasecontact HURIGHTS OSAKA.

She hopes to have a good
Vietnamese role model and agood Vietnamese community.
She plays a role in the

Pilot Refugee Resettlement
Program: Japan Experience(Continued from page 9)
seekers (possibly refugees)
who did not have regular visa

status were arrested. This is
one of the reasons for the
recent surge in the number ofasylum claims in Japan. On
crimes by foreigners see
Okada, K. Gaikokujin to
H a n z a i [ Fo r e i g n e r s a n d

15

13 Bay of Bengal and Andaman
Sea, IOM Humanitarian
Compendium, http://
humanitariancompendium.io
m.int/bangladesh-indonesiamalaysia-myanmar-thailand/
2015.
14 “Press Releases: Summary Special Meeting on Irregular
Migration in the Indian
Ocean 29 May 2015,
Bangkok, Thailand,” op. cit.

Endnotes
1 Unless indicated otherwise,
the discussion in this section
is based on interview of Fr.
Harry Quaadvliet held on 29
October 2015 in the CICM
house in Nibuno district, Himeiji, Hyogo prefecture byJefferson R. Plantilla, Emika
Tokunaga and Chika Kajita.
2 “More than 25 years on, the‘father of Vietnamese refugees,’" Asia News,
www.asianews.it/news-en/Mo
re-than-25-years-on,-the-father-of-Vietnamese-refugees-reca
lls-the-difficult-integration-78
48.html.
3 The discussion in this section
is based on interview of Ms.
Kanagawa in Higashi Elementary School on 29 October
2015 by Jefferson R. Plantilla,
Emika Tokunaga and Chika
Kajita.

Crime], Reference, National
Diet Library, 2007.

HURIGHTS OSAKA Calendar

DE
AU
OSAKA

ST
PO

BUR
E

HURIGHTS OSAKA is finalizing the Northeast Asia contextualized training manual on business andhuman rights. Printing is expected in the first quarter of 2016.

JAPON

TAXE PERCUEPRINTED MATTERAIR MAIL

May be opened for inspection by the postal service.

HURIGHTS OSAKA, inspired by the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formally opened in December 1994. lt has the following goals: 1) to promote human rights
in the Asia- Pacific region; 2) to convey Asia-Pacific perspectives on human rights to the international
community; 3) to ensure inclusion of human rights principles in Japanese international cooperative activities; and 4) to raise human rights awareness among the people in Japan in meeting its growing internationalization. In order to achieve these goals, HURIGHTS OSAKA has activities such as Information Handling, Research and Study, Education and Training, Publications, and Consultancy Services.
FOCUS Asia-Pacific is designed to highlight significant issues and activities relating to human rights in
the Asia-Pacific. Relevant information and articles can be sent to HURIGHTS OSAKA for inclusion in thenext editions of the newsletter.

Sender: HURIGHTS OSAKA(Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center)
8F, CE Nishihonmachi Bldg., 1-7-7 Nishihonmachi, Nishi-ku, Osaka 550-0005
Japan
Phone: (816) 6543-7002
Fax: (816) 6543-7004
E-mail: webmail@hurights.or.jp Website: www.hurights.or.jp

HURIGHTS OSAKA