-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, on February 2, I called on Japanese Prime Minister Kishida to transfer U.S. Navy Lt. Ridge Alkonis back to U.S. custody no later than midnight on February 28. I was explicit that a very public discussion about the U.S.-Japan relationship--and, in particular, the U.S.-Japan Status of Forces Agreement--would ensue if Lieutenant Alkonis were not back in U.S. custody by that date.
It is now March 1, 2023, and it is about 6:20 p.m. And Ridge Alkonis is not only not back in U.S. custody, he is not only not on U.S. soil, he is still languishing in a Japanese prison.
So let's have a frank discussion about our Status of Forces Agreement with Japan because we have waited long enough. Ridge Alkonis has waited long enough. And his wife Brittney Alkonis has waited long enough. Their children have waited long enough, all three of them. We are done waiting.
The Japanese Government has unjustly incarcerated Lieutenant Alkonis for too long. I traveled to Tokyo in August to meet with Japanese Foreign Minister Hayashi, where he made an unequivocal commitment to expedite the Council of Europe prisoner transfer once the U.S. paperwork was completed. And it was understood at the time that that would be in a matter of days or weeks, not months or years.
Lieutenant Alkonis felt comfortable signing off on the transfer paperwork because of Foreign Minister Hayashi's commitment. With this understanding, the U.S. Department of Justice completed the necessary paperwork in less than 2 weeks. Japan has been sitting on that request ever since then, for months and months and months.
However, the Japanese Government tried to renege on its promise by having a junior member of the Japanese Embassy staff in Washington reach out to a member of my staff to deny that Foreign Minister Hayashi had ever made such a commitment. Allow me, not a member of my staff, to correct the record. Foreign Minister Hayashi, you did make that commitment to me. I have not forgotten it, and I know you haven't either.
This isn't too much to ask of any country, let alone one on which we spend billions of dollars--billions of dollars--a year to defend. A Council of Europe transfer is not an extraordinary request. On the contrary, these kinds of requests are routine. Situations like this one are the very reason why we have a prisoner of transfer process in the first place. The stated purpose for the Council of Europe Treaty is to facilitate the rehabilitation of the transferred offenders and to relieve some of the administration and diplomatic issues that arise with the incarceration of foreign nationals.
Now, look, to be very clear, we are not even asking for Ridge to be released from custody, for him to just be told that his sentence is no longer intact. We are simply asking that he be transferred to U.S. custody to serve out the remainder of his sentence.
These transfers happen all the time. It makes little sense that we would allow those tasked with defending the Constitution and its enshrined principles to be treated so poorly by an allied nation, to be subjected to laws so draconian that they are unrecognizable to the principles of justice our servicemembers swear to defend.
When we swear to defend the Constitution of the United States, it represents an enduring commitment to individual liberty--a spirit that says no matter who we are or where we came from or what religion, if any, we practice, we enjoy liberty that is self-evident because it is God-given.
Our Armed Forces stand ready to protect not only the safety and sovereignty of the United States but the safety and sovereignty of our friends, like Japan, which enjoyed over $20 billion in U.S. military aid over the last 5 years. And yet, they can't keep their promise to facilitate a routine prisoner transfer? I cannot and will not accept that--not now, not ever.
I don't think the American people can accept that either. In fact, I know they can't, nor should they. I don't think they would be OK knowing that we spend billions of dollars to defend a country when our Status of Forces Agreement with that country is so unfavorable to our troops. I don't think they would be OK sending 55,000 of their sons and daughters to support an allied country where they won't have the most basic legal right.
I am certainly not. Japan isn't either.
To illustrate, under the terms of the Japan-Djibouti Status of Forces Agreement--Djibouti, by the way, is the only country in which Japan has a foreign base--Japanese servicemembers are immune from criminal prosecution. They are completely immune. Why should Japan be allowed to treat U.S. forces any less favorably than Japanese forces are treated by Djibouti?
Look, I want to be very clear here. Japan has a good thing going. It doesn't get much better than the deal they have got going. I don't know why they would want to jeopardize that.
But patience in Washington has grown thin. And the Japanese Government has vastly underestimated the intensity of bipartisan support for Lieutenant Alkonis in Congress at every level of government, including a commitment from President Biden--a recent commitment from President Biden himself--to Brittney Alkonis, saying: ``I promise you, we're not giving up, OK?''
President Biden is right. He said that with good reason. And he said that not only as President of the United States but also as a red- blooded American who cares about this country--himself a father of a decorated, respected U.S. military officer. We are not giving up. This isn't going away. We are not just going to keep quiet. And the longer Ridge remains in Japanese custody, the louder we will get.
If the Japanese Government can't respect our servicemembers, and we can't trust them to uphold their commitments, then we are long overdue for a renegotiation of the Status of Forces Agreement between our two nations. We must do so to protect our servicemembers, especially if they are stationed in a country with a justice system as draconian as Japan's.
In Japanese criminal justice, interrogation is the primary means police and prosecutors use to obtain confessions. These are no ordinary interrogations--not by our standards, not by a long shot. In a typical criminal case, the average Japanese interrogation lasts more than 20 hours. In bribery interrogations, they average 130 hours.
The night that Lieutenant Alkonis was involved in that tragic accident, rather than being taken to a hospital, he was placed in solitary confinement for 26 days. During that time, he was denied access to legal counsel, denied access to an adequate translator, denied proper medical care--despite the fact he had just been in a serious accident--and was subjected to intense interrogation tactics at all hours of the night. He was subjected to bright lights, causing sleep deprivation, and coerced into signing complex legal documents written in Japanese, with no interpreter available, just to have a chance at getting bail.
It was later discovered that Japanese authorities manipulated Lieutenant Alkonis's forced statement. It is not uncommon in Japan where 26 percent of prosecutors there have admitted in an anonymous survey to falsifying suspects' statements. He was told not to contest the falsified documents as the Japanese court would perceive this as a lack of remorse. Given the unfair treatment of one of our best and brightest, we as a Congress should take every precaution to ensure that our servicemembers are never ever treated this way again.
I am not exaggerating. The U.N. Human Rights Council and other legal and human rights organizations have long criticized Japan's justice system for unnecessarily long pre-indictment detention periods, denial of lawyers during interrogations, and questionable interrogation tactics, to put it mildly. Often, these practices lead to false confessions and have resulted in Japan's legal system being known as ``hostage justice''--appropriately so.
Don't believe me? The criminal conviction rate in Japan is 99 percent.
We have status of forces agreements to establish frameworks under which U.S. military personnel operate in foreign countries and how domestic laws of foreign jurisdictions apply to U.S. military personnel in those countries. At a minimum, any agreement between the United States and a foreign country should provide adequate legal protections for American servicemembers. This means access to legal counsel, and it means access to a competent interpreter, and it means access to medical treatment throughout the legal process. These are basic rights afforded in modern and fair justice systems, but not in Japan.
It is not too much to ask for a renegotiation of our SOFA with Japan. Many similar concerns once existed in the Republic of Korea. However, we successfully implemented much needed improvements to the U.S.-Korea SOFA to include a U.S. Government representative to be present during any interview or interrogation; a lawyer to be present at any time at the request if a servicemember so requires it, or a dependent, including during the interviews and interrogations, as well as, of course, a competent interpreter. We need these same changes to be made in the U.S.-Japan SOFA.
Look, I am sure--in fact, I am certain--there are many who wish I weren't giving this speech. I have been told that it just isn't worth risking the relationship we have with the strategic partner over a single American. They are wrong. The Latin term ``Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno'' means ``one for all, all for one.'' The concept is depicted multiple times in the Bible. It can be found in the works of Shakespeare and was made popular by Alexander Dumas in his 1844 novel ``The Three Musketeers.''
Our military personnel and their families sacrifice their blood, sweat, and treasure so that all of us might enjoy the blessings of liberty that generations of Americans fought and died to protect. They truly embody ``all for one and one for all.'' But what does it say about us if we are collectively unwilling to stand up for the rights of the one? We cannot expect people to stand up for their country if their country does not stand up for them.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source