MoDem-Japon : Entretien avec M. Richard Delrieu, président de SOS Parents Japan

Vous voudrez bien trouver ci-dessous un entretien que m’a proposé très récemment le président du MoDem-Japon, Alexandre Joly, afin de faire le point sur la situation actuelle des parents français privés de leurs enfants au Japon, suite à un enlèvement parental.
Cet entretien vient de paraître sur le blog du MoDem Japon.
Je vous en souhaite bonne lecture.



Dans une précédente note datée du 22 juin, nous vous avions présenté les associations SOS PARENTS JAPAN, SOS PAPA international et Oyakonet. Nous vous avions informé de la campagne de pétitions alors en cours.
Plus d’un mois après la remise aux parlementaires japonais des listes de signataires, nous avons souhaité faire le point avec Monsieur Richard DELRIEU, président de l’association SOS PARENTS JAPAN, en revenant notamment sur son cas personnel.
Alexandre JOLY
Président de la section MoDem Japon

Pour lire la suite,  copiez ce lien dans votre navigateur :

MoDem-Japon : Entretien avec M. Richard Delrieu, président de SOS Parents Japan

Des sommets de la justice japonaise… (Asahi shinbun)

EDITORIAL: Review of top justices

Nine of the 15 Supreme Court justices are up for a people’s review when voters head to the polls for Sunday’s Lower House election. The occasion provides voters with their only opportunity to directly express their approval or disapproval of the current state of the judiciary.

Amid expectations for a regime change, debate is heating up over the government system. However, we should also think about the top court’s personnel system.

The Constitution stipulates that Supreme Court justices are to be « reviewed » by the public, but no one has been dismissed under this system so far. Justices are subject to a review at the time of the first Lower House election after their appointment. Their next review will be during the first Lower House election « after a lapse of 10 years. »

However, since many justices are older than 60 at the time of their appointment and their mandatory retirement age is 70, there is effectively no second review for anyone. Consequently, justices who come under the review are fairly new to the job.

Of the nine justices up for review this time, five, including Chief Justice Hironobu Takesaki, have never made a decision related to the Constitution, nor have they participated in a Grand Bench ruling that can reverse established precedents.

In short, these justices have too meager a track record, if any, on which the people can form their opinions.

But perhaps the more fundamental problem than the people’s review system, which serves no practical purpose, is that Supreme Court justices are appointed behind closed doors.

The chief justice is named by the Cabinet and appointed by the emperor. The remaining 14 justices are appointed by the Cabinet. In reality, however, the sitting chief justice picks his successor and recommends his choice to the prime minister, and the Cabinet respects the choice.

As for the other justices, the custom is that the Supreme Court picks candidates when a justice who is about to retire is a former judge, while the Cabinet puts together its shortlist of candidates when the retiring justice is a former bureaucrat. That is an accepted practice.

The public is kept completely in the dark about the screening process, and the Cabinet merely announces the result.

Including Takesaki, we have so far had nine consecutive chief justices who were former judges. The backgrounds of other members of the bench are rigidly predetermined, too, with fixed quotas in place for former judges, prosecutors, lawyers, bureaucrats and legal scholars. All these individuals are invariably preceded and succeeded by their peers in their respective professions.

The public is not informed of the professional histories of Supreme Court justices, nor why they were chosen. This is the fundamental factor that renders the people’s review system a mere formality.

Bringing transparency to the selection process is of critical importance if the will of the people is to be reflected in the Supreme Court, which is supposed to protect the Constitution and keep the Diet and the administration in check.

The Justice System Reform Council recommended in its 2001 report that studies be conducted to bring transparency and objectivity to the process of appointing Supreme Court justices.

A reform plan was once presented to the Diet, proposing an advisory panel of jurists, members of both houses of the Diet and academics, who would recommend several candidates for the Cabinet to consider.

Our elected representatives should be deeply committed to tangible reform. But political parties are apparently not particularly interested, which is most regrettable.

The citizen judge system was introduced in May to make the judiciary more open to the people. If the judiciary is to be supported by the public, full disclosure of the process of nominating and appointing the chief and other justices at the top court is now needed. That would give the people enough information on which to form their opinions of justices up for review.

–The Asahi Shimbun, Aug. 26(IHT/Asahi: August 27,2009)

Child Abduction in Japan: Shane Clarke Case

Friday, August 28, 2009

Child abduction in Japan and case of Shane Clarke


Letters from Tokyo
Child Abduction in Japan: Shane Clarke Case
Tokyo Correspondent Walker Interviews Shane Clarke

By Lee Jay Walker
Tokyo Correspondent

Child abduction in Japan and case of Shane Clarke

Shane Clarke is a British national who is being prevented from seeing his children because of the Japanese government and legal system which discriminates against all foreign nationals.

Japan is a nation which allows children of mixed blood to be kidnapped and to be alienated from the left-behind parent and other family members who care deeply.

Both Walter Benda and David Brian Thomas who founded The Children’s Rights Council of Japan ( state that “the best parent is both parents.” This organization is trying its best to fight against the injustices of the Japanese legal system and the political system which is allowing child abduction.

I urge all people to read the harrowing case of Shane Clarke and consider his responses deeply because he was challenged about many important issues.

I also hope that people will read about The Children’s Rights Council of Japan ( ) because collective pressure is needed in order to galvanize public attention.

This article also highlights the role of other governments, for example the British government; after all, surely Japan must be pressurized into changing the system and shamed for allowing child abduction.

Therefore, please read about Shane Clarke and other deeper issues. Why should he and tens of thousands of other nationals have to suffer?

Question: Can you please tell me briefly about how you met and how your wife responded to life in England?

Answer: We met on the internet and exchanged messages for a while before finally deciding to meet up. She was studying in London at the time, and I was in West Bromwich, just outside Birmingham. She seemed very at home here in the UK; very cosmopolitan. She gave the impression that she would feel comfortable anywhere. It was actually one of the things that attracted me to her. She was well-travelled, and had lived in Canada and Germany, so western society was nothing new to her. In fact, it would be fair to say she was quite westernised.

Question: Did your wife have cultural problems in England and what role did your parents and other family members have in the upbringing of your children?

Answer: On the whole, she didn’t really have any cultural problems. As I said before, she was well-travelled and had spent time in other western countries. Also, we adapted our lifestyle at home to come more into line with Japanese culture, such as taking off our shoes before we entered the house. The only member of my family that really had anything to do with the upbringing of the children was my mother. My wife didn’t really like my first daughter, Chelcie, to have any contact with the children. My wife had some mental health problems which mainly manifested themselves as anger management issues. She could be very fiery regarding the children. She wouldn’t allow me to have any say in how they were raised. She also got angry if the wrong thing was said, such as when I wanted to have them Christened. However, the most outstanding incident was when Mei, the older of our two children, developed childhood eczema. My wife was furious. She said it was my fault and that she was going to divorce me, saying that because of me, our baby was going to be ugly and probably scarred for life. As usual when she got angry, there was no talking to her, there was no reasoning with her. For about three days, she refused to talk to me, and stalked around the house like a monster, waiting to attack at the slightest prompt. Then she went to visit my mom, who managed to get through to her and told her how unreasonable she was being. My mom had a calming influence on my wife, and Ryoko (my wife) genuinely seemed to love her. When my mother died in January 2007, Ryoko cut her annual trip to Japan short to come back over to say goodbye to my mother in the funeral home and to attend the funeral. She seemed genuinely upset that my mother had died, which is why this thing is so confusing, because she seemed so fond of my mother, and she knew that my mother would never want her to cut off my contact with the children, yet she does it anyway.

Question: When your wife took both children to Japan were you suspicious that something was wrong?

Answer: Absolutely not. Less than two weeks before they went, we had taken a lovely holiday in the Lake District for Ryoko’s birthday. We had a great time. I was coming to the end of an MBA at one of the top business schools in the world. As far as I knew, we had a great future ahead of us.

Question: How did you feel when you realized that your wife had ulterior motives?

Answer: I was devastated, confused, hurt, frustrated. I ran the whole gamut of emotions. I felt betrayed by the person I trusted most in the world, and I wanted to know why. I had done everything I possibly could to try to make her happy. The only thing I couldn’t do was turn my back on my daughter, but it seems this one thing was too much for her.

Question: Since your wife took your children to Japan have you had any contact with her recently, either in person, by phone, by letter or by email?

Answer: I haven’t had any contact whatsoever with my wife or children since June last year. I don’t know if my children are okay. I don’t even know what they look like anymore.

Question: When did you last see your children? Also, how are you coping under this enormous stress and pain?

Answer: I last saw my children on that night in May last year when I had to say goodbye to them. I have to admit, the massive stress and pain is sometimes overwhelming, and I do find it hard to cope sometimes. It’s also affecting my physical health in that I am susceptible to any illness that goes around, I feel constantly drained, and I have now developed Neuropathy, which is a condition that affects the nervous system. My biggest support is my faith, knowing that I have someone holding my hand through this. I also have a fantastic support system around me in the form of my doctor and my legal team, who have been a lifeline for me since the disastrous trip to the Japanese court last year.

Question: Many people focus on the left-behind parent; however, it is also a nightmare for grandparents and other family members. Therefore, how are other family members coping?

Answer: Unfortunately, both of my parents are dead. However Ryoko was very close to my mother, and I know she knows that my mother would be heartbroken by what she’s doing. Chelcie, my oldest daughter, and the babies’ older sister, tends to play her cards close to her chest and keep her emotions in check, but it’s obvious that she’s worried sick, and terrified that she might never see her sisters again. Every now and then, she cries for them, and asks when I’m going to bring them home. This is one of those situations when a child’s unconditional faith in her daddy can be a double-edged sword, because she thinks that I will definately bring them home eventually, but there is always that chance that I will fail in this fight.

Question: Please tell me about what happened during your court hearings in Japan? Were you treated fairly?

Answer: The court hearing in Japan was a disgrace. The court tricked me into attending without an interpreter, then I was mocked, humiliated and toyed with in the court room by the judge, his assistants and the other side. I called the British Embassy three times from the court room, saying that there was no interpreter (the court had assured them they would provide one). The court clerk would then tell the Embassy that there was one there, and then when the phone was put down, they would laugh and talk together in Japanese. The judge’s assistant, a middle-aged woman who apparently was supposed to be the interpreter at one point said, « Okay, I’ll interpret for you if you pay me. »
« Okay, » I said. « How much? »
Then she turned on just about the most evil smile I have ever seen, and said, « Come back in two weeks and I’ll tell you then. »
I was somehow able to persuade the judge to let me come back for another hearing the next day. Unfortunately, however, I wasn’t able to provide an interpreter, so I had an audience with the judge in his chamber.
To my utter astonishment, this man who hadn’t spoken a word of English the day before now spoke perfectly good English. We talked for a couple of hours, discussing the case and the law. Eventually, I decided to put him on the spot and said, « So, under Japanese law, are you obliged to uphold my British court order? »
« Yes, » he replied.
« So, will you? »
« No. »
« With respect, » I said. « Why not? »
Then the games started, and I had such excuses as, « I don’t have the authority to make orders », « This is a Japanese court; if you want me to make an order you have to ask me in Japanese ». However, he finally settled on « It’s complicated ».
They also tried to get me to sign for a document written in Japanese that I didn’t understand a word of.

Question: Did the British Embassy provide you with adequate support during your ordeal in Japan?

Answer: The British Embassy hung me out to dry in Japan. It was they who assured me – in writing – that the Japanese court would provide me with an interpreter. They knew that this was my last throw of the dice at that time, that I was flat broke – I couldn’t even afford to eat in Japan; I lived off the complimentary biscuits on the coffee tray in the hotel room – and on the day of the so-called hearing, they knew that the Japanese were playing games, yet they did absolutely nothing. They refused to provide me with an interpreter, although they knew my position. The Vice-Consul faxed me at the hotel to say he would attend the hearing I arranged for the next day, then he failed to appear. The British Embassy did nothing to help me or my children on that trip.

Question: The British government raises the issue of North Korea abducting Japanese people. However, the same British government appears to remain silent towards mixed British children being abducted in Japan. How do you feel about this?

Answer: I am disgusted, especially since the British Government recently interfered in the judicial and cultural system of Syria to facilitate the return of a mixed British child. They also interfered in the judicial system of China during the Beijing Olympics to facilitate the release of a British protestor who was being held on a criminal charge. I find this particularly distasteful, since the British government’s mantra is « We cannot interefere in the judicial system of another country ». It would appear that there are advantages to being the second biggest economy in the world and a wealthy trading partner. I wonder if the government would have been so quick to interfere in Syria’s affairs if they were a wealthy trading partner, or Nissan was a Syrian company and they were dangling the carrot of a new car being built in the UK. Coincidentally, there were four main countries that attended the symposium in Japan in May to try to get them to sign the Hague Convention – The US, Canada, France and Britain. Since then, Japan has certainly greased a few wheels. They have offered venture capital and set up a joint venture to manufacture car parts in the US; Canada and France have joined Japan in a joint venture to produce uranium, and Nissan have agreed to build a new model in the UK. All of this investment shortly after pressure from these nations, and in the midst of a global recession. It is certainly food for thought.

Question: Japan refuses to sign the 1980 Hague Convention on civil aspects of child abduction; therefore, what is your opinion about the current situation in Japan?

Answer: The current situation in Japan is a joke, and a crime against the human rights of the children kidnapped by what is essentially a rogue state. Japan actually already has the laws to deal with this issue – both criminal and civil. This is a result of their ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child a number of years ago. Their Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a report last year making a song and dance of how they have altered their civil and criminal laws to come into line with the convention. The only trouble is, they refuse to enforce them for foreigners.

Question: The Children’s Rights Council of Japan ( has been working around the clock to highlight the terrible and devastating consequences of child abduction in Japan. Do you believe that politicians and the media are doing enough to highlight this crisis?

Answer: Politicians are doing nothing to highlight this crisis. They treat it like a child treats the monster in the closet, and hide their heads under the blankets, hoping it will go away. But this monster is actually growing – doubling in size in the past year. I think their attitude towards it is a disgrace, and highlights the corruption prevalent in the self-serving governments of the so-called civilised world.
As for the press, they are very slowly waking up to the seriousness of the problem. However, they are still extremely hesitant because of the legal implications that go hand in hand with this issue. So, rather than risk litigation, many media sources tend to shy away from giving this problem any real exposure.

Question: Walter Benda and David Brian Thomas who founded The Children’s Rights Council of Japan state that “the best parent is both parents.” Also, cultural and parental alienation is a serious problem; what do you think about this?

Answer: I absolutely agree that the best parent is both parents, especially in mixed race children, since they have two cultures and heritages, and it’s important that they learn about both. There is also the love and support that comes from having access to two parents. The cultural and parental alienation is more than a serious problem, it is an abuse of the basic human rights of the child. Putting aside the wishes of parents, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child establishes contact with both parents as a basic human right. As a signatory to this convention, Japan has a legal obligation to ensure this contact, yet they assist the abductors in denying it to the left behind parent. This raises the question – Why are the UN not stamping their feet about Japan failing to live up to its obligations under the convention? I have been in touch with the UN about this, but they say there is nothing they can do. So, why even bother having such conventions?

Question: I worry that if your case takes a long-time, that this will go against you because the courts in Japan will claim that the children are now settled in Japan. Do you worry about this?

Answer: Yes I do. However, if you think about it, it wouldn’t matter if the children had been there for a week or a year, the Japanese government would still protect the abductors and hide behind their false smiles and assurances that they are doing what is best for the child, while all the time abusing this child’s human rights.

Question: In Japan the courts have limited enforcement powers and often the courts believe that one parent is best because this brings stability. What do you think about this?

Answer: It’s utter rubbish. Stability comes from having two parents because it prevents the child feeling isolated. Also, what if that one parent is abusive, or more interested in socialising than taking care of the children, or has to work so long that the children are passed from pillar to post, having to get up at the crack of dawn to be transported to a sister’s while mom goes out to work, not getting home until late, so that the children don’t get home until late in the evening, when they go straight to bed. It’s utter rubbish, and I think the Japanese government know it; it’s just convenient for them to say it because they think it adds strength to their defence.
As for the courts’ limited enforcement powers – they don’t seem to be so limited when they arrest and charge a man from the Netherlands with parental child abduction – supposedly not a crime in Japan. Japan’s enforcement powers really are limited only by their own will.

Question: Even if Japan signs the 1980 Hague Convention on civil aspects of child abduction, many people still believe that the courts will do little. If so, are you optimistic about your current case and seeing your children in the near future?

Answer: Unfortunately, no. I have no doubt that Japan will treat the Hague Convention with the same contempt it treats the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which already provides the laws to deal with this issue. They will simply pay it lip service, and then refuse to enforce it for foreigners.

Question: The legal system is expensive and the same applies to traveling to Japan. Therefore, does the British government or British Embassy provide you with economic support?

Answer: The British Government does nothing to help people in this situation. As I already said, they even refused to provide me with an interpreter in an emergency situation in Japan. I can get no legal aid to help me with the overseas expenses. In fact, I have even been refused additional legal aid to return to court in the UK over this case.

Question: It is estimated that you have around 20,000 children of mixed blood in Japan who have been alienated from their other parent because of the legal system in Japan. How do you feel about this?

Answer: It’s a crime against humanity. It is a crime against the human rights of these children, and it disgusts me that the world turns a blind eye to it.

Question: The Courts of England and Wales also send children to non-Hague nations, including Japan; therefore, do you think that nations like Japan should be blacklisted?

Answer: Absolutely. One of the requirements for international judicial cooperation is comity, so why should the UK send children over there when they refuse to extend us the same cooperation? I think there should be sanctions against Japan until they come into line with the civilised world and realise that they are not above the rest of the world, and it’s not one rule for them and one for the rest of us.

Question: Japan wants to be a permanent member of the United Nations; however, Japan clearly tolerates child abduction and institutional racism. Therefore, do you believe that enough is being done to pressurize Japan?

Answer: There is NOTHING being done to pressurise Japan. The law of the greased palm is in operation here, and no government is going to do anything to jeopardise the Japanese gravy train they are riding. This is simply another case of wealth bringing certain benefits and exemptions. Japan will no doubt be incorporated as a permanent member of the United Nations, and they may even sign the Hague Convention, but that doesn’t mean anything is going to change. It’s all lip service designed to appease as the old boys network continues to make its own rules on right and wrong and common decency.

Question: Turning back to your situation. Then how are you coping with all your stress and pain?

Answer: My faith is very important to me. I pray every day, for the strength to carry on, for the safety of my children. I even pray for my wife, and that she will come to her senses and realise what she’s doing to our children. I bear no malice towards my wife, and I think that lack of hatred helps a little. I also have unbelievable people around me who have actually restored my faith in humanity. My doctor, my legal team, my friends – without them, I think I would have gone under a long time ago.

Question: Do you worry about parental alienation and the cultural alienation of your children in Japan?

Answer: Yes, I do. A child has a right to know its heritage and its culture. When I sent Easter Eggs to the girls this year I also enclosed a letter telling them about home, and myself and their older sister, telling them I loved them very much, and also about why we have Easter, and the significance of the eggs in relation to our Christian faith. I have no idea whether they were even given the eggs, or if the letter was read to them. I would like to think so.


Japan has no qualms about denying mixed race children access to their other cultural heritage. One wonders if they would have the same qualms if it was the Japanese heritage that was being denied. Would they still say the one parent arrangement brings stability if the one parent was not Japanese?

Japan hides behind false smiles and declarations of doing what’s best for the children. So, let us ask one simple question – why have they never ordered the return of a child to a foreign country? In more than fifty years, involving more than 20,000 children, they have never found a case where the best interests of the child would be served by returning it overseas? That is a phenomenal statistic. The Japanese must all be marvellous parents. There must be no child abuse whatsoever in Japan, no juvenile crime, no youth drug addiction, no teenage pregnancies, no blossoming porn industry focusing on the exploitation of young girls. How could there be, when they ALL have such fantastic parenting skills – so much better than the rest of the world.

Then there is the standard argument of spousal abuse that the Japanese raise in almost all cases, whether the victim is male or female. Again, a phenomenal statistic. You would think the Japanese would have learned by now not to get involved with us evil foreigners, since we’re all spousal and child abusers. Bearing in mind that mixed marriages involving Japanese nationals are actually dramatically increasing, this raises another question – are the Japanese fundamentally stupid or just pathological liars?

If you have any views visit the discussion board.

Related Articles
Islamic Ramadan Begins, Blood Keeps Flowing
Kosovo and Ongoing De-Christianization
USA Appeases Islam under President Obama
Somalia, UK, and Killing of Christians
Buddhists Fear to Walk in Southern Thailand
Pakistan Must Abolish the Blasphemy Law
Pakistan and Burning Alive of Christians
Nigeria Challenged by Radical Islamists
Somalia and Christian Martyrs Killed by Muslims
KOSOVO & Systematic Persecution by KLA
Japan Ignores Child Abduction because of Racism
Japan Allows International Child Abduction
Ethiopia Continues to Develop under EPRDF
Saudi Arabia and Why Child Marriage Is Allowed
China Faces a Fresh Bout of Ethnic Hatred
Islam and the Myths of Unity and Peace
IRAN Enters a Political Minefield alongside …
Islam Needs to Be Challenged by True Democracy
North Korea’s Point of View
Myanmar: Ethnic Minorities & Aung San Suu Kyi
Colombia and Extrajudicial Killings Scandal
IRAQ and the Destruction of the Mandaean …
Non-Arabs of the Middle East and Persecution
USA Is Worried about Events in Pakistan
USA, CIA Created Sunni Islamic Terrorism
Pakistan Faces Internal Threat
N. Korea Pulls Out of 6-Party Talks because of …
Japan under Ishihara Must Not Be Given the …
USA Is Looking at Plan Colombia in Order to …
MYANMAR – Karen Christians Face Joint …
Bolivia under Morales and the Indigenous Issue
Mexico — Drug Cartels and the American Market
Saudi Arabia Allowing 8 Year Old Girls to …
USA — Bail Outs Must Be Questioned after AIG …
Ethiopia under Prime Minister Meles Zenawi
Europe Is Facing a Real Economic and Social …
USA is Deeply Concerned about Pakistan and …
USA — Obama Is in Free Fall at the Moment
Japan Must Not Be Rewarded the 2016 Olympics …
China, Russia Rebuke America at World Economic …
PAKISTAN — Radical Sunni Islamists Are Now …
EU Is Alarmed by Gas Dispute between Russia …
USA — Obama Faces Major Internal and External …
Zimbabwe Now Faces Cholera Epidemic alongside …
Pakistan and the Persecution of Ahmadiyya …
USA — President Bush Is Trying to Contain …
India Becomes Yet Another Major Victim of …
Japan Needs to Create an Independent Foreign …
Mongolia and The Importance of This Nation to …
Islamic Radicals Support Stoning Women, …
Inflation Threatens to Engulf Vietnam and The …
Turkey and The Secular Card, Myth or Reality?
Ethiopian Ambassador to Japan and Third …
SOUTH AFRICA, Race Attacks and Underlying …
EGYPT — Coptic Christians Are Still …
Ethiopia Needs International Support to …
Armenia and Azerbaijan Are Still in Dispute …
Kosovo and the Crisis of Ignoring …
The UN Is Undemocratic and Manipulated, So …
America Is Seeking to Contain the Russian …
Iran Is a Stabilizing Power in Afghanistan and …
Venezuela — Chavez the Enigma, a Great or …
Lebanon Needs to Dismantle the Armed Forces of …
Iraq and Destruction of Christianity since …
Bolivia Is Facing Meltdown So Can a Solution …
Macedonia Could Become the Next Balkan …
Russia Faces Many Security Concerns
State Intervention Versus Globalization and …
Ethiopia and Its War against Radical Islam and …
PM Fukuda of Japan Resigns and This Nation Is …
Japan Needs Stability in a Time of Urgency
Russia Responds to America’s Intimidation
Russian Federation & Next Stage of Development …
Market Confidence Remains Extremely Mixed
Why China Needs to Modernize Her Armed Forces
MEXICO — President Calderon Is in a Flux …
Iran and America, Friends or Foe
Georgia Took a Huge Gamble in South Ossetia …
Japan and the Suicide Problem
Zimbabwe: Can Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur …

Lee Jay Walker serves as Tokyo Correspondent of The Seoul Times. He specializes in int’l relations and geopolitics. He is also involved in analyst work and research on business. After finishing BA degree in East European Studies at the University of London, he earned MA degree in Asia Pacific Studies at Nottingham Trent University. Website at where work is published.

Interview de Yukio Hatoyama, président du Parti Démocrate Japonais (DPJ)

Le 20 juillet dernier, Monsieur Yukio Hatoyama, président du Parti Démocrate Japonais (DPJ), et favori au poste de Premier ministre du Japon en cas de victoire de son parti aux élections de dimanche prochain (le 30 août), a accordé le 20 juillet dernier une interview publiée dans le Japan Time Herald. Il y affirme son soutien à la signature et à l’application de la Convention de la Haye (sur les Aspects Civils de l’Enlèvement International d’Enfants, 1980) et à la création d’un droit de visite dans la loi japonaise : « We support ratifying and enforcing the Hague Convention, and involved in this is a sweeping change to allow divorced fathers visitation of their children. »

Monsieur Hatoyama prend aussi acte des pressions effectuées sur le Japon par la France, les USA, le Royaume-Uni et le Canada dans ce domaine, et appelle à un changement qui ferait « entrer le  Japon dans le 21 siècle »:  « We have been condemned by the USA, Canada, the UK, and France over this and I firmly believe we need to change things as I mentioned. The effect will be Japan coming into this century. »

Nous vous laissons découvrir la partie de l’interview consacrée à ce problème. Vous pourrez la trouver dans son intégralité sous ce lien :

Japan Times Herald, Monday, July 20, 2009

Yukio Hatoyama – The Interview

JTH: On this topic, as you know Japan is the only G8 nation not to ratify the Hague Convention. There has been talk of doing so in 2010. Will the DPJ do so?
YH: Yes we will and we have pushed for this but have been fought back by the LDP continually on this topic. I understand the issue and we have been briefed on the many cases involving Japanese spouses violating other nation’s court orders and brining the child to Japan. So, yes we support this effort to ratify the Hague convention.
Daniel: I have some questions from the fathers affected, and photos of their children. Would you please look at them?
(Mr. Hatoyama reads the questions and looks at the photos)
YH: May I keep these?
Daniel: Please do.
YH: My heart goes out to the fathers, and mothers. There are cases of mothers as well. We support ratifying and enforcing the Hague Convention, and involved in this is a sweeping change to allow divorced fathers visitation of their children. That issue affects not just foreign national fathers, but Japanese fathers as well. I believe in this change.
We have been condemned by the USA, Canada, the UK, and France over this and I firmly believe we need to change things as I mentioned. The effect will be Japan coming into this century. We need to be clear though, these changes will take time. A very strong cultural change shifting from maternal primacy over the children is needed as well. I think we have already seen the beginning of this, but a change in laws is not the sole solution.
JTH: Does this include abiding by the court orders of other nations?
YH: It does, as long there is reciprocal agreement to recognize Japanese court orders.
JTH: As you know no child has been returned to a foreign parent even with a foreign jurisdiction awarding custody before the abduction, do you support efforts to change this?
YH: Again, as long as Japanese courts are reciprocated then yes. Again, I need to be clear that changes of this nature will take time. Do I support it? Yes, but the changes to the legal and cultural structures will take time. Will there be opposition? I am sure, but things need to change not just to improve Japan’s image, but for the sake of justice. That really is all I can say.


Enlèvement international d’enfants : une nouvelle démarche

Source :

A la suite du symposium du 21 mai dernier, les quatre missions diplomatiques les plus concernées par le nombre de différends parentaux au Japon – Canada, Etats-Unis, France, Grande Bretagne – ont effectué une nouvelle démarche conjointe le 23 juillet auprès du ministère de la Justice.

Cette démarche a été l’occasion de rappeler la très forte préoccupation des quatre Etats concernés vis-à-vis des enlèvements internationaux d’enfants au Japon, en augmentation constante depuis plusieurs années, et des dommages psychologiques considérables que cette situation provoque chez les enfants et les parents qui la subissent.

La démarche a eu également pour objet de marquer une nouvelle fois tout l’intérêt que représenterait l’adhésion du Japon à la convention de La Haye de 1980 sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement. Cet instrument juridique international constitue en effet à nos yeux la meilleure solution face à l’amplification du phénomène dans ce pays, liée au nombre croissant d’unions binationales entre Japonais et étrangers.

Enfin les quatre ambassades ont invité les autorités judiciaires japonaises à se doter de moyens permettant aux parents étrangers, séparés de fait de leur enfant, de maintenir avec lui des contacts réguliers et de pouvoir exercer un droit de visite considéré comme naturel et légitime.

- Symposium sur l’enlèvement international d’enfants au Japon (Tokyo, 21 mai 2009)

Symposium sur l’Enlèvement International d’Enfants au Japon

Source :

日本語 以下に

(JPEG) Symposium sur l’enlèvement international d’enfants (Tokyo , 21 mai 2009)

Remarques préliminaires de Christophe Penot, Ministre Conseiller, à la conférence de presse : « L’enlèvement international d’enfants est une inquiétude majeure pour la France et pourrait devenir un problème politique avec le Japon si aucun progrès n’avait lieu sur les dossiers en cours. Ce problème est de plus en plus traité par la presse française, et la population commence a réaliser les implications dramatiques qui en découlent.

Par principe, nous ne considérons pas acceptable qu’un parent (habituellement le père) soit totalement privé de ses droits de visite. Nous croyons que chaque parent a un rôle spécifique a jouer dans l’éducation d’un enfant et qu’exclure l’un d’entre eux ferait courir un grand risque a cette éducation. Il s’agit d’un problème humanitaire pour le parent privé de son enfant.

La France prend un rôle actif dans les efforts entrepris par les Etats-Unis, le Canada et les autres pays de l’Union Européenne, qui pressent le Japon de ratifier le convention de La Haye de, à ce jour le meilleur cadre légal multilatéral pour résoudre ces longues et douloureuses situations.

Nous nous sentons fortement encouragés par le fait que de plus en plus de personnes au Japon aient montré un vif intérêt pour ce problème d’enlèvement d’enfants. Nous croyons également que l’augmentation des mariages bi-nationaux, entre Japonais et ressortissants étrangers, intensifiera le problème des deux côtés. Il serait donc aussi dans l’intérêt du Japon que de trouver une solution pratique pour résoudre ces cas, et nous sommes d’ailleurs prêts à coopérer pleinement avec les autorités japonaises pour y parvenir. »

Enlèvement international d’enfants – Communiqué de presse conjoint des Ambassades du Canada, de France, du Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis d’Amérique – 21 Mai 2009, Tokyo, Japon


Source :


在日フランス大使館のクリストフ・プノ公使(左から3人目) © 在日米国大使館


会見には、ジェームス・ズムワルト駐日米国臨時代理大使、ミッシェル・ボンド米国国務次官補代理、クリストフ・プノ在日 フランス大使館公使、ドナルド・ボビアッシュ在日カナダ大使館公使、デーヴィッド・フィットン駐日英国大使館公使、マウラ・ハーティー児童失踪・児童虐待 国際センター政策部長の6名が参加しました。

「国際的な子の奪取の問題は、フランスにとって重要案件であり、既存の懸案事項において進展がなければ、日本とフランスの間で政治問題化しかねま せん。フランスのマスコミもこの問題を取り上げる機会が増えていますし、フランス国民の間でも問題の深刻さに対する意識が高まっています。

私たちは原則として、片方の親(一般的に父親)が子どもと面会する権利を全面的に奪われることは受け入れられません。父 親と母親は子どもの教育において、それぞれ固有の役割を演じていますし、故意に片方の親を排除することは、子どもの教育を危険な状態にさらすことになりま す。これは子どもと会う権利を奪われた親にとって、極めて深刻な人道上の問題でもあります。

フランスは米国、カナダ、他のヨーロッパ連合(EU)加盟国とともに、日本に対して、1980年の(国際的な子の奪取の 民事面に関する)ハーグ条約に調印するように積極的に働きかけを進めています。同条約は今日において、この長年の耐えがたい問題を解決するために最良の多 国間の法的枠組みです。

私たちは、日本でも国際的な子の奪取の問題に対して関心を見せる人が増えている事実に大いに力づけられています。私たち は、日本人と外国人との国際結婚数の増加に伴い、今後この問題が双方で深刻化するだろうとみています。それゆえに、これらの懸案事項に対する実際的な解決 を見出すことは、日本の利益でもありますし、私たちはその目的のために、日本当局に対して全面的に協力することを惜しみません」

- 国際的な親による子の奪取に関するシンポジウム後に、カナダ、フランス、英国、米国が発表した共同声明、2009年5月21日、東京(在日米国大使館ホームページ)