A few days after the outbreak of the war in the Far East the Imperial Prisoners of War Committee held a special meeting in London to examine the position of prisoners taken during hostilities with Japan. The latter was bound by the Hague Convention of 1907, and had signed the Prisoners of War Convention of 1929 but had never ratified it.¹ The International Red Cross Committee had written immediately after the announcement of hostilities to Great Britain, the United States and Japan, inviting their de facto reciprocal observance of the Convention and requesting them to forward all information regarding prisoners of war to the Central Agency in Geneva. By 7 January 1942 a reply had been sent to the British Minister at Berne intimating that the British Government agreed in principle with the proposal of the Committee. At the same time a communication was sent to the Japanese Government through the Argentine Government,² informing the Japanese that the United page 185 Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were observing the provisions of the 1929 Convention and asking for an assurance that the Japanese would do the same. It was specifically mentioned in this communication that for reasons of practical convenience it was proposed that the application of Articles 11 and 12 relating to food and clothing should take into account the national and racial customs of both sides. To this request the Japanese Government replied that, while not bound by the Convention, they would ‘observe its terms mutatis mutandis¹ in respect of English, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and Indian prisoners of war’; they would moreover take account of national and racial customs (on a basis of reciprocity) when supplying prisoners of war with food and clothing. So far as civilians were concerned, Japan agreed to apply the provisions of the 1929 Prisoners of War Convention mutatis mutandis and not to subject them against their will to manual labour.

The same difficulties were encountered by the neutral agencies working on behalf of British prisoners of war and civilians in Japan or in Japanese-occupied territory. In Japan the International Red Cross Committee's delegate at Tokyo³ was approved in January 1942; but the Japanese distrust of all foreigners who were not nationals of a power allied to Japan made the work of page 186 this representative and that of the Protecting Power most difficult. In occupied territory the only delegates who were recognised were those at Shanghai and Hong Kong,¹ the former beginning work in April and the latter in June 1942. Disturbing news received in February from a civilian refugee about atrocities committed by Japanese troops in Hong Kong gave rise to increasing concern for the future of captives in their hands; and information from various sources indicated that most of the provisions of the Geneva Convention were being openly flouted by the Japanese military authorities. In April the British Government, which strictly observed the provisions of the Geneva Convention with regard to the Japanese prisoners and internees, was considering whether or not to take some measures of reciprocity, particularly in respect of the withholding of information and the refusal of visits of neutral inspectors; but only certain special privileges, such as permission to attend cinemas, were withdrawn. It was thought advisable to give the Japanese no pretext for making their treatment of British nationals any worse. By May Japan had agreed in principle to the establishment of a mail service, and there were indications that she might in future prove more tractable.