United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-10/L.22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
UN General Assembly
Resolution ES‑10/L.22
United Nations General Assembly resolution A ES 10 L 22 vote.png

  Voted in favor
  Voted against
  Abstained
  Not present
Date 21 December 2017
Meeting no. 10th Emergency Special Session (continuation)
Code A/RES/ES‑10/L.22 (Document)
Subject Status of Jerusalem
Voting summary
128 voted for
9 voted against
35 abstained
21 absent
Result Recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void”

United Nations General Assembly resolution ES‑10/L.22 is a emergency session resolution declaring the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void.”.[1] It was adopted by the 37th Plenary meeting of the tenth emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly[2] during the tenure of the seventy-second session of the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 2017. The draft resolution was drafted by Yemen and Turkey.[3]Though strongly contested by the United States, it passed by 128 votes to nine against with 21 absentees and 35 abstentions.

Background[edit]

On 6 December 2017, US President Donald Trump said that he would recognise the status of Jerusalem as being Israel’s sovereign capital[4] in a departure from previous UNGA resolutions as well prevailing international norms where no state either recognises Jerusalem as a national capital nor has an embassy there. The move prompted protests from states and communities in many parts of the world.[5]

Following the failure of an United Nations Security Council resolution three days earlier, after an U.S. veto, to rescind the recognition by any states of Jerusalem as a national capital, Palestinian UN Ambassador Riyad Mansour said that the General Assembly would vote on a draft resolution calling for Trump’s declaration to be withdrawn. He sought to invoke Resolution 377, known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, to circumvent a veto. The resolution states that the General Assembly can call an Emergency Special Session to consider a matter “with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures” if the Security Council fails to act.[6]

Campaign[edit]

On 20 December, US President Donald Trump threatened to cut US aid to countries voting against the US’ side.[7] The day before the vote, he said: “Let them vote against us…We don’t care…this isn’t like it used to be where they could vote against you and then you pay them hundreds of millions of dollars. We’re not going to be taken advantage of any longer.”[8]Ambassador Nikki Haley warned her country would remember and “take names” of every country that voted in favour of the resolution.[9][10][11][12] The governments of Turkey and Iran denounced USA’s threats as “anti-democratic” and “blackmail“.[13][14] She had sent to a letter to dozens of member states that warned Trump had asked her to “report back on those countries who voted against us.”[15] Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned Trump that “he cannot buy Turkey’s democratic will with petty dollars” and “that opposition of other countries will teach the United States a good lesson”.[16][17]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel rejects this vote before it passes and called the UN “house of lies”.[18]

Canada’s, which was seeking re-negotiations of the NAFTA, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland‘s spokesman confirmed its intention to abstain from the vote and that the resolution should not have come to the General Assembly.[19]

Content[edit]

The text of the resolution includes the following key statements:[20]

The General Assembly,

  • Bearing in mind the specific status of the Holy City of Jerusalem and, in particular, the need for the protection and preservation of the unique spiritual, religious and cultural dimensions of the City, as foreseen in the relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Stressing that Jerusalem is a final status issue to be resolved through negotiations in line with relevant United Nations resolutions,
  • Expressing in this regard its deep regret at recent decisions concerning the status of Jerusalem,
  • Affirms that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council, and in this regard, calls upon all States to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem, pursuant to resolution 478 (1980) of the Security Council;
  • Demands that all States comply with Security Council resolutions regarding the Holy City of Jerusalem, and not to recognize any actions or measures contrary to those resolutions;
  • Reiterates its call for the reversal of the negative trends on the ground that are imperiling the two-State solution and for the intensification and acceleration of international and regional efforts and support aimed at achieving, without delay, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Roadmap and an end to the Israeli occupation that began in 1967.

It concluded in reading that “any decisions and actions, which purport to have altered the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”[21]

Motion[edit]

The motion was proposed by Yemen and Turkey.[22]

Debate[edit]

In introducing the resolution as Chair of the Arab Group, Yemen’s Amabassador said the US decision was a “blatant violation of the rights of the Palestinian people, as well as those of all Christians and Muslims.” He emphasized that it constituted a “dangerous breach of the Charter of the United Nations and a serious threat to international peace and security, while also undermining the chances for a two‑State solution and fuelling the fires of violence and extremism.”[23]

Turkey, who was the co-sponsor of the draft resolution, also spoke as current Chair of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation(OIC).[23] Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said that Trump’s decision was an outrageous assault to all universal values. “The Palestinians have the right to their own state based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is the main parameter and only hope for a just and lasting peace in the region. However, the recent decision of a UN Member State to recognise Jerusalem, or Al-Quds, as the capital of Israel, violates international law, including all relevant UN resolutions.”[22]

The General Assembly heard from Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Al‑Malki, who said that the meeting was “not because of any animosity to the United States of America” but instead the sessions was “called to make the voice of the vast majority of the international community — and that of people around the world — heard on the question of Jerusalem/Al‑Quds Al‑Sharif.” He called the US decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to move its embassy there “an aggressive and dangerous move” which could inflame tensions and lead to a religious war that “has no boundaries.” He added that though the decision would have no impact on the city’s status, it would nevertheless compromise the role of the United States in the Middle East peace process.[23] He urged member states to reject “blackmail and intimidation.”[5]

US Ambassador Nikki Haley then said that her country was “singled out for attack” because of its recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. She added that: “The United States will remember this day in which it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation,” Haley said. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the world’s largest contribution to the United Nations, and so many countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence for their benefit.”[15] She added that: “America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do, and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on that…this vote will make a difference in how Americans view the UN.”[22]

Israel’s Ambassador Danny Danon then told the assembly that the vowed that “no General Assembly resolution will ever drive us from Jerusalem.”[4]

Venezuela’s Ambassador, speaking for the Non‑Aligned Movement (NAM), expressed “grave concern about Israel’s ongoing violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including attempts to alter the character, status and demographic composition of the City of Jerusalem. [It was] slso concerned about the decision to relocate the United States embassy [and] warned that such provocative actions would further heighten tensions, with potentially far‑reaching repercussions given the extremely volatile backdrop.[23]

Other speakers included, Pakistan, Indonesia, Maldives, Syria, Bangladesh, Cuba, Iran and China.[23]

Malaysia’s Ambassador Datuk Seri Mohammed Shahrul Ikram Yaakob said that, as a member of the OIC and NAM, “Malaysia joins the international community in expressing our deep concern and rejects the decision by the United States to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It is also an infringement of the Palestinian people’s rights and their right to self determination.” He called for a peaceful two-state solution and that Malaysia is concerned the situation will only feed into the agenda of extremists.”[2]

Other speakers included, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and South Africa. The Permanent Observer for the Holy See, Tomasz Grysa, emphasised that Jerusalem was most sacred to the Abrahamic faiths and a symbol for millions of believers around the world who considered it their “spiritual capital.” Its significance went “beyond the question of borders, a reality that should be considered a priority in every negotiation for a political solution.” The Holy See, he said, called for a “peaceful resolution that would ensure respect for the sacred nature of Jerusalem and its universal value…reiterating that only international guarantee could preserve its unique character and status and provide assurance of dialogue and reconciliation for peace in the region.”[23]

After the motion was passed, more speeches continued with Estonia, who also spoke on behalf of other states. Australia’s Ambassador then explained her country’s government did “not support unilateral action that undermined the peace process [and] it did not believe today’s text would help to bring the parties back to the negotiating table.”[23]

Other speakers included, Paraguay, whose Ambassador said that the country would abstain because “the question of Jerusalem was a matter for the Security Council, as the primary body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.”[23] This was followed by El Salvador, Argentina and Romania.[23]

Canada’s Ambassador Marc-Andre Blanchard called the proposal “one-sided”[23] and said: “We are disappointed that this resolution is one sided and does not advance prospects for peace to which we aspire, which is why we have abstained on today’s vote.” He, however, added that Canada wanted to emphasise Jerusalem’s special significance to the Abrahamic religions of Jews, Muslims and Christians. “Denying the connection between Jerusalem and the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths undermines the integrity of the site for all. We also reiterate the need to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s Holy sites.[19]

Nicaragua’s explained its support of the resolution, as it “rebuffed recent unilateral attempts to modify the character and status of Jerusalem. Such unilateral actions were in blatant violation of resolution 2234 (2016) and others…unilateral actions jeopardised peace and stability in the Middle East and drew the international community further away from a solution.”[23]

Mexico’s Ambassador then explained the abstention and emphasised that convening an emergency session was a disproportionate response. “The United States must become part of the solution, not a stumbling block that would hamper progress…the international community was further than ever from agreement.”[23]

The Czech Republic then said that while it supported the European Union position, it had abstained because it “did not believe the draft resolution would contribute to the peace process.”[23]

Armenia said that is position “remained unchanged. The situation should be resolved through negotiations paving the way for lasting peace and security.”[23]

Hungary echoed Armenia’s stance and said it would not comment on the foreign relations of the United States.[23]

Latvia then spoke, before Estonia re-took the floor to say it had also spoken on behalf of Albania, Lithuania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.[23]

Result[edit]

Vote[24] Quantity States
Approve 128 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cape Verde, Cambodia, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Republic of the Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Ivory Coast, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Macedonia, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen, Zimbabwe.
Reject 9 Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Togo, United States.
Abstain 35 Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Benin, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Haiti, Hungary, Jamaica, Kiribati, Latvia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu.
Absent 21 Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, El Salvador, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Mongolia, Myanmar, Moldova, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Swaziland, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Zambia.

Reactions[edit]

States

Israel – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the result shortly after it was announced in call it “preposterous,” while he also thanked the states that supported “the truth” by not participating in “the theatre of the absurd.” He added that: “Jerusalem is our capital. Always was, always will be…But I do appreciate the fact that a growing number of countries refused to participate in this theatre of the absurd. So I appreciate that, and especially I want to again express our thanks to [US] President (Donald) Trump and Ambassador [Nikki] Haley, for their stalwart defence of Israel and their stalwart defence of the truth.” Defence Minister Avigdor Liberman, reminded Israelis of the longstanding Israeli disdain for such votes. “Let us just remember that this is the same UN about which our first ambassador to the organisation, Abba Eban, once said: ‘If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions’. There is nothing new in what just happened at the UN.” He also praised the US as “the moral beacon shining out of the darkness.” Minister of Strategic Affairs and Public Security Gilad Erdan said: “The historic connection between Israel and Jerusalem is stronger than any vote by the ‘United Nations’ — nations who are united only by their fear and their refusal to recognise the simple truth that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and the Jewish people.”

    • However, opposition Joint List Chairman and MK Ayman Odeh called the vote a wake-up call for Israel: “In the international arena, there still exists a large and definitive majority that believes that the Palestinian people, like all other nations, deserve a place in this world and the right to self-determination. This evening’s vote by the majority of the world’s nations against Trump’s announcement, in spite of the pressure and threats, flies in the face of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s diplomatic policy and is a clear statement by the international community in support of peace and the right of the Palestinians to an independent state, whose capital is East Jerusalem,”[8]
Media

Haaretz‘s Noa Landau, wrote, in citing unnamed diplomatic sourced, that Israel was particularly disappointed with countries like India that have enhanced bilateral relations with it recently. “The main disappointment in Israel was with the countries that have enhanced bilateral relations in recent years, especially those that share a particularly conservative worldview with the Netanyahu government. For example, India – whose Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, visited Israel in July, a tour that was memorable mainly for the pastoral photographs of him and Netanyahu embracing and wading in the waves – voted for the resolution against Israel and the United States.”[8]

Others

At a “Solidarity to Save Jerusalem” rally organised by the Barisan National government in Malaysia, one of the attendees Association of NextGen Christians of Malaysia President Joshua Hong said at the Putra Mosque: “We are here because we feel that the decision made by President Trump on announcing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is merely a political decision. He added that the decision also hurts Christian and Arabic churches in Palestine and not just the Muslims. “To us as Christians, Jerusalem is a city of peace and after that announcement, we feel there is no more peace.I think it is not right and unjust. We believe we should continue pursuing the sustainable peace solution for Palestine and Israel, rather than just a single nation declaring it just like that.” He claimed that about 50 members of the group turned up in a show of support for the Palestinian people..[2]

Badminton at the 2016 Summer Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Badminton
at the Games of the XXXI Olympiad
Badminton, Rio 2016.png
Venue Riocentro – Pavilion 4
Dates 11–20 August
Competitors 172
«2012 2020»

The badminton tournaments at the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro took place from 11 to 20 August at the fourth pavilion ofRiocentro. A total of 172 athletes competed in five events: men’s singles,men’s doubles, women’s singles, women’s doubles, and mixed doubles.[1]

Similar to 2012 format, a combination of group play and knockout stages had been maintained at these Games. In all the doubles tournaments, theBadminton World Federation instituted several changes to the competition rules after the match fixing scandal from the previous Olympics, as all pairs finishing second in their groups would be placed into another draw to determine who they face in the next round, while the top pair in each group must have a fixed position matched to its designated seed in the knockout phase.[2]

The Games made use of about 8,400 shuttlecocks.[3]

Qualification[edit]

The Olympic qualification period took place between May 4, 2015 and May 1, 2016, and the Badminton World Federationrankings list, scheduled to publish on May 5, 2016, was used to allocate spots.[4] Unlike the previous Games, nations could only enter a maximum of two players each in the men’s and women’s singles, if both were ranked in the world’s top 16; otherwise, one quota place until the roster of thirty-eight players had been completed. Similar regulations in the singles tournaments also applied to the players competing in the doubles, as the NOCs could only enter a maximum of two pairs if both were ranked in the top eight, while the remaining NOCs were entitled to one until the quota of 16 highest-ranked pairs was filled.[5]

For each player who had qualified in more than one discipline, an additional quota place in each of the singles tournaments would have became free. If no player from one continent had qualify, the best ranked player from a respective continent would have got a quota place.[4]

Schedule[edit]

P Preliminaries R Round of 16 ¼ Quarterfinals ½ Semifinals F Final
Date → Thu 11 Fri 12 Sat 13 Sun 14 Mon 15 Tues 16 Wed 17 Thu 18 Fri 19 Sat 20
Event ↓ M A E M A E M A E M A E M E M E M E M E M E M E
Men’s singles P R ¼ ½ F
Men’s doubles P ¼ ½ F F
Women’s singles P R ¼ ½ F
Women’s doubles P ¼ ½ F
Mixed doubles P ¼ ½ F

M = Morning session, A = Afternoon session, E = Evening session

Participation[edit]

Participating nations[edit]

List of badminton players at the 2016 Summer Olympics

NOC Name Age Event and World Ranking (21 July 2016)
MS WS MD WD XD
 Australia Matthew Chau 9 November 1994 (age 23) 36
 Australia Robin Middleton 8 February 1985 (age 33) 28
 Australia Sawan Serasinghe 21 February 1994 (age 23) 36
 Australia Chen Hsuan-yu 1 June 1993 (age 24) 72
 Australia Leanne Choo 5 June 1991 (age 26) 28
 Austria David Obernosterer 30 May 1989 (age 28) 69
 Austria Elisabeth Baldauf 3 August 1990 (age 27) 75
 Belgium Yuhan Tan 21 April 1987 (age 30) 51
 Belgium Lianne Tan 20 November 1990 (age 27) 62
 Brazil Ygor Coelho de Oliveira 24 November 1996 (age 21) 64
 Brazil Lohaynny Vicente 2 May 1996 (age 21) 66
 Brunei Jaspar Yu Woon 14 November 1988 (age 29) 413
 Bulgaria Gabriela Stoeva 15 July 1994 (age 23) 16
 Bulgaria Stefani Stoeva 23 September 1995 (age 22) 16
 Bulgaria Linda Zechiri 27 July 1987 (age 30) 31
 Canada Martin Giuffre 5 October 1990 (age 27) 76
 Canada Michelle Li 3 November 1991 (age 26) 19
 China Chai Biao 10 October 1990 (age 27) 5
 China Chen Long 18 January 1989 (age 29) 2
 China Fu Haifeng 2 January 1984 (age 34) 4
 China Hong Wei 4 October 1989 (age 28) 5
 China Lin Dan 14 October 1983 (age 34) 3
 China Xu Chen 29 November 1984 (age 33) 6
 China Zhang Nan 1 March 1990 (age 27) 4 1
 China Li Xuerui 24 January 1991 (age 27) 3
 China Luo Ying 11 January 1991 (age 27) 7
 China Luo Yu 11 January 1991 (age 27) 7
 China Ma Jin 7 May 1988 (age 29) 6
 China Tang Yuanting 2 August 1994 (age 23) 2
 China Wang Yihan 18 January 1988 (age 30) 2
 China Yu Yang 7 April 1986 (age 31) 2
 China Zhao Yunlei 25 August 1986 (age 31) 1
 Chinese Taipei Chou Tien-chen 8 January 1990 (age 28) 7
 Chinese Taipei Lee Sheng-mu 3 October 1986 (age 31) 20
 Chinese Taipei Tsai Chia-hsin 25 July 1982 (age 35) 20
 Chinese Taipei Tai Tzu-ying 20 June 1994 (age 23) 8
 Cuba Osleni Guerrero 18 October 1989 (age 28) 60
 Czech Republic Petr Koukal 14 December 1985 (age 32) 83
 Czech Republic Kristína Gavnholt 12 September 1988 (age 29) 36
 Denmark Viktor Axelsen 4 June 1994 (age 23) 4
 Denmark Mathias Boe 11 July 1980 (age 37) 6
 Denmark Joachim Fischer Nielsen 23 November 1978 (age 39) 4
 Denmark Jan Østergaard Jørgensen 31 December 1987 (age 30) 5
 Denmark Carsten Mogensen 24 July 1983 (age 34) 6
 Denmark Line Kjærsfeldt 20 April 1994 (age 23) 24
 Denmark Christinna Pedersen 12 May 1986 (age 31) 6 4
 Denmark Kamilla Rytter Juhl 23 November 1983 (age 34) 6
 Estonia Raul Must 9 November 1987 (age 30) 40
 Estonia Kati Tolmoff 3 December 1983 (age 34) 71
 Finland Nanna Vainio 29 May 1991 (age 26) 63
 France Brice Leverdez 9 April 1986 (age 31) 39
 France Delphine Lansac 18 July 1995 (age 22) 51
 Great Britain Chris Adcock 27 April 1989 (age 28) 7
 Great Britain Marcus Ellis 14 September 1989 (age 28) 22
 Great Britain Chris Langridge 2 May 1985 (age 32) 22
 Great Britain Rajiv Ouseph 30 August 1986 (age 31) 15
 Great Britain Gabrielle Adcock 30 September 1990 (age 27) 7
 Great Britain Kirsty Gilmour 21 September 1993 (age 24) 15
 Great Britain Heather Olver 15 March 1986 (age 31) 25
 Great Britain Lauren Smith 26 September 1991 (age 26) 25
 Germany Michael Fuchs 22 April 1982 (age 35) 27 18
 Germany Johannes Schöttler 27 August 1984 (age 33) 27
 Germany Marc Zwiebler 13 March 1984 (age 33) 14
 Germany Johanna Goliszewski 9 May 1986 (age 31) 24
 Germany Birgit Michels 28 September 1984 (age 33) 18
 Germany Carla Nelte 21 September 1990 (age 27) 24
 Germany Karin Schnaase 14 February 1985 (age 33) 28
 Guatemala Kevin Cordón 28 November 1986 (age 31) 44
 Hong Kong Hu Yun 31 August 1981 (age 36) 12
 Hong Kong Lee Chun Hei 25 January 1994 (age 24) 16
 Hong Kong Ng Ka Long
24 June 1994 (age 23) 13
 Hong Kong Chau Hoi Wah 5 June 1986 (age 31) 16
 Hong Kong Poon Lok Yan 22 August 1991 (age 26) 31
 Hong Kong Tse Ying Suet 9 November 1991 (age 26) 31
 Hong Kong Yip Pui Yin 6 August 1987 (age 30) 34
 Hungary Laura Sárosi 11 November 1992 (age 25) 68
 India Manu Attri 31 December 1992 (age 25) 21
 India Srikanth Kidambi 7 February 1993 (age 25) 11
 India B. Sumeeth Reddy 26 September 1991 (age 26) 21
 India Jwala Gutta 7 September 1983 (age 34) 21
 India Saina Nehwal 17 March 1990 (age 27) 5
 India Ponnappa, AshwiniAshwini Ponnappa 18 September 1989 (age 28) 21
 India Sindhu, PusarlaPusarla Sindhu 5 July 1995 (age 22) 10
 Indonesia Ahmad, TontowiTontowi Ahmad 18 July 1987 (age 30) 3
 Indonesia Ahsan, MohammadMohammad Ahsan 7 September 1987 (age 30) 2
 Indonesia Jordan, PraveenPraveen Jordan 26 April 1993 (age 24) 5
 Indonesia Setiawan, HendraHendra Setiawan 25 August 1984 (age 33) 2
 Indonesia Sugiarto, TommyTommy Sugiarto 31 May 1988 (age 29) 8
 Indonesia Fanetri, LindaweniLindaweni Fanetri 18 January 1990 (age 28) 25
 Indonesia Maheswari, Nitya KrishindaNitya Krishinda Maheswari 16 December 1988 (age 29) 4
 Indonesia Natsir, LilyanaLilyana Natsir 9 September 1985 (age 32) 3
 Indonesia Polii, GreysiaGreysia Polii 11 August 1987 (age 30) 4
 Indonesia Susanto, DebbyDebby Susanto 3 May 1989 (age 28) 5
 Ireland Evans, ScottScott Evans 26 September 1987 (age 30) 74
 Ireland Magee, ChloeChloe Magee 29 November 1988 (age 29) 58
 Israel Zilberman, MishaMisha Zilberman 30 January 1989 (age 29) 52
 Italy Cicognini, JeanineJeanine Cicognini 14 November 1986 (age 31) 61
 Japan Endo, HiroyukiHiroyuki Endo 16 December 1986 (age 31) 8
 Japan Hayakawa, KenichiKenichi Hayakawa 5 April 1986 (age 31) 8
 Japan Kazuno, KentaKenta Kazuno 25 November 1985 (age 32) 15
 Japan Sasaki, ShoSho Sasaki 30 June 1982 (age 35) 25
 Japan Kurihara, AyaneAyane Kurihara 27 September 1989 (age 28) 15
 Japan Matsutomo, MisakiMisaki Matsutomo 8 February 1992 (age 26) 1
 Japan Okuhara, NozomiNozomi Okuhara 13 March 1995 (age 22) 6
 Japan Takahashi, AyakaAyaka Takahashi 19 April 1990 (age 27) 1
 Japan Yamaguchi, AkaneAkane Yamaguchi 6 June 1997 (age 20) 12
 Malaysia Peng Soon, ChanChan Peng Soon 27 April 1988 (age 29) 10
 Malaysia V Shem, GohGoh V Shem 20 May 1989 (age 28) 12
 Malaysia Chong Wei, LeeLee Chong Wei 21 October 1982 (age 35) 1
 Malaysia Wee Kiong, TanTan Wee Kiong 21 May 1989 (age 28) 12
 Malaysia Liu Ying, GohGoh Liu Ying 30 May 1989 (age 28) 10
 Malaysia Hoo Kah Mun, VivianVivian Hoo Kah Mun 19 March 1990 (age 27) 15
 Malaysia Jing Yi, TeeTee Jing Yi 8 February 1991 (age 27) 29
 Malaysia Khe Wei, WoonWoon Khe Wei 18 March 1989 (age 28) 15
 Mexico Muñoz, LinoLino Muñoz 8 February 1991 (age 27) 73
 Mauritius Foo Kune, KateKate Foo Kune 29 March 1993 (age 24) 69
 Netherlands Arends, JaccoJacco Arends 28 January 1991 (age 27) 17
 Netherlands Muskens, EefjeEefje Muskens 17 June 1989 (age 28) 11
 Netherlands Piek, SelenaSelena Piek 30 September 1991 (age 26) 11 17
 Poland Cwalina, AdamAdam Cwalina 26 January 1985 (age 33) 25
 Poland Dziółko, AdrianAdrian Dziółko 22 February 1990 (age 27) 53
 Poland Mateusiak, RobertRobert Mateusiak 13 January 1976 (age 42) 13
 Poland Wacha, PrzemysławPrzemysław Wacha 31 January 1981 (age 37) 25
 Poland Zięba, NadieżdaNadieżda Zięba 21 May 1984 (age 33) 13
 Portugal Martins, PedroPedro Martins 14 February 1990 (age 28) 63
 Portugal Santos, TelmaTelma Santos 1 August 1983 (age 34) 67
 South Africa Maliekal, JacobJacob Maliekal 1 January 1991 (age 27) 78
 Russia Ivanov, VladimirVladimir Ivanov 3 July 1987 (age 30) 13
 Russia Malkov, VladimirVladimir Malkov 9 April 1986 (age 31) 61
 Russia Sozonov, IvanIvan Sozonov 6 July 1989 (age 28) 13
 Russia Perminova, NataliaNatalia Perminova 14 November 1991 (age 26) 55
 Singapore Wong Zi Liang, DerekDerek Wong Zi Liang 13 January 1989 (age 29) 57
 Singapore Xiaoyu, LiangLiang Xiaoyu 11 January 1996 (age 22) 30
 South Korea Gi-jung, KimKim Gi-jung 14 August 1990 (age 27) 3
 South Korea Sa-rang, KimKim Sa-rang 22 August 1989 (age 28) 3
 South Korea Sung-hyun, KoKo Sung-hyun 21 May 1987 (age 30) 2
 South Korea Dong-keun, LeeLee Dong-keun 20 November 1990 (age 27) 16
 South Korea Yong-dae, LeeLee Yong-dae 11 September 1988 (age 29) 1
 South Korea Wan-ho, SonSon Wan-ho 17 May 1988 (age 29) 9
 South Korea Yeon-seong, YooYoo Yeon-seong 19 August 1986 (age 31) 1
 South Korea Yeon-ju, BaeBae Yeon-ju 26 October 1990 (age 27) 17
 South Korea Ye-na, ChangChang Ye-na 13 December 1989 (age 28) 9
 South Korea Kyung-eun, JungJung Kyung-eun 20 March 1990 (age 27) 5
 South Korea Ha-na, KimKim Ha-na 27 December 1989 (age 28) 2
 South Korea So-hee, LeeLee So-hee 14 June 1994 (age 23) 9
 South Korea Seung-chan, ShinShin Seung-chan 6 December 1994 (age 23) 5
 South Korea Ji-hyun, SungSung Ji-hyun 29 July 1991 (age 26) 7
 Spain Abian, PabloPablo Abian 12 June 1985 (age 32) 43
 Spain Marin, CarolinaCarolina Marin 15 June 1993 (age 24) 1
 Sri Lanka Karunaratne, NilukaNiluka Karunaratne 13 February 1985 (age 33) 95
 Switzerland Jaquet, SabrinaSabrina Jaquet 21 June 1987 (age 30) 82
 Suriname Opti, SorenSoren Opti 16 May 1997 (age 20) 326
 Sweden Hurskainen, HenriHenri Hurskainen 13 September 1986 (age 31) 50
 Thailand Issara, BodinBodin Issara 12 December 1990 (age 27) 14
 Thailand Ponsana, BoonsakBoonsak Ponsana 22 February 1982 (age 35) 32
 Thailand Amitrapai, SavitreeSavitree Amitrapai 19 November 1988 (age 29) 14
 Thailand Buranaprasertsuk, PorntipPorntip Buranaprasertsuk 24 October 1991 (age 26) 16
 Thailand Intanon, RatchanokRatchanok Intanon 5 February 1995 (age 23) 4
 Thailand Supajirakul, PuttitaPuttita Supajirakul 29 March 1996 (age 21) 17
 Thailand Taerattanachai, SapsireeSapsiree Taerattanachai 18 April 1992 (age 25) 17
 Turkey Bayrak, ÖzgeÖzge Bayrak 14 February 1992 (age 26) 52
 Ukraine Pochtarev, ArtemArtem Pochtarev 24 July 1993 (age 24) 75
 Ukraine Ulitina, MarijaMarija Ulitina 5 November 1991 (age 26) 64
 United States Chew, PhillipPhillip Chew 16 May 1994 (age 23) 35 27
 United States Pongnairat, SattawatSattawat Pongnairat 8 May 1990 (age 27) 35
 United States Shu, HowardHoward Shu 28 November 1990 (age 27) 62
 United States Lee, EvaEva Lee 7 August 1986 (age 31) 26
 United States Obanana, Paula LynnPaula Lynn Obanana 19 March 1985 (age 32) 26
 United States Subandhi, JamieJamie Subandhi 15 February 1989 (age 29) 27
 United States Wang, IrisIris Wang 2 September 1994 (age 23) 35
 Vietnam Tiến Minh, NguyễnNguyễn Tiến Minh 12 February 1983 (age 35) 33
 Vietnam Thị Trang, VũVũ Thị Trang 19 May 1992 (age 25) 44

This is the list of the Badminton players who participated at the 2016 Summer Olympicsin Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 11–20 August 2016.

Medal summary

Medal table[edit]

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1 China 2 0 1 3
2 Indonesia 1 0 0 1
Japan 1 0 1 2
Spain 1 0 0 1
5 Malaysia 0 3 0 3
6 Denmark 0 1 1 2
7 India 0 1 0 1
8 Great Britain 0 0 1 1
South Korea 0 0 1 1
Total 5 5 5 15

Medalists[edit]

Event Gold Silver Bronze
Men’s singles
details
Chen Long
 China
Lee Chong Wei
 Malaysia
Viktor Axelsen
 Denmark
Men’s doubles
details
 China (CHN)
Fu Haifeng
Zhang Nan
 Malaysia (MAS)
Goh V Shem
Tan Wee Kiong
 Great Britain (GBR)
Chris Langridge
Marcus Ellis
Women’s singles
details
Carolina Marin
 Spain
P.V. Sindhu
 India
Nozomi Okuhara
 Japan
Women’s doubles
details
 Japan (JPN)
Misaki Matsutomo
Ayaka Takahashi
 Denmark (DEN)
Christinna Pedersen
Kamilla Rytter Juhl
 South Korea (KOR)
Jung Kyung-eun
Shin Seung-chan
Mixed doubles
details
 Indonesia (INA)
Tontowi Ahmad
Liliyana Natsir
 Malaysia (MAS)
Chan Peng Soon
Goh Liu Ying
 China (CHN)
Zhang Nan
Zhao Yunlei

Results[edit]

Men’s singles[edit]

Quarterfinals Semifinals Finals
A1   Lee Chong Wei (MAS) 21 21
C1   Chou Tien-chen (TPE) 9 15
A1   Lee Chong Wei (MAS) 15 21 22
E1   Lin Dan (CHN) 21 11 20
E1   Lin Dan (CHN) 21 11 21
H1   Srikanth Kidambi (IND) 6 21 18
A1   Lee Chong Wei (MAS) 18 18
P1   Chen Long (CHN) 21 21
I1   Rajiv Ouseph (GBR) 12 16
L1   Viktor Axelsen (DEN) 21 21
L1   Viktor Axelsen (DEN) 14 15
P1   Chen Long (CHN) 21 21 Bronze Medal Match
N1   Son Wan-ho (KOR) 11 21 11
P1   Chen Long (CHN) 21 18 21 E1   Lin Dan (CHN) 21 10 17
L1   Viktor Axelsen (DEN) 15 21 21

Women’s singles[edit]

Quarterfinals Semifinals Finals
A1   Carolina Marín (ESP) 21 21
C1   Sung Ji-hyun (KOR) 12 16
A1   Carolina Marín (ESP) 21 21
E1   Li Xuerui (CHN) 14 16
E1   Li Xuerui (CHN) 21 21
H1   Porntip Buranaprasertsuk (THA) 12 17
A1   Carolina Marín (ESP) 19 21 21
M1   P. V. Sindhu (IND) 21 12 15
J1   Nozomi Okuhara (JPN) 11 21 21
K1   Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) 21 17 10
J1   Nozomi Okuhara (JPN) 19 10
M1   P. V. Sindhu (IND) 21 21 Bronze Medal Match
M1   P. V. Sindhu (IND) 22 21
P1   Wang Yihan (CHN) 20 19 E1   Li Xuerui (CHN) w / o
J1   Nozomi Okuhara (JPN)

Men’s doubles[edit]

Quarterfinals Semifinals Finals
A1   Vladimir Ivanov (RUS)
 Ivan Sozonov (RUS)
13 21 16
D2   Chai Biao (CHN)
 Hong Wei (CHN)
21 16 21
D2   Chai Biao (CHN)
 Hong Wei (CHN)
18 21 17
B1   Goh V Shem (MAS)
 Tan Wee Kiong (MAS)
21 12 21
B1   Goh V Shem (MAS)
 Tan Wee Kiong (MAS)
17 21 21
A2   Lee Yong-dae (KOR)
 Yoo Yeon-seong (KOR)
21 18 19
B1   Goh V Shem (MAS)
 Tan Wee Kiong (MAS)
21 11 21
B2   Fu Haifeng (CHN)
 Zhang Nan (CHN)
16 21 23
B2   Fu Haifeng (CHN)
 Zhang Nan (CHN)
11 21 24
C1   Kim Gi-jung (KOR)
 Kim Sa-rang (KOR)
21 18 22
B2   Fu Haifeng (CHN)
 Zhang Nan (CHN)
21 21
C2   Marcus Ellis (GBR)
 Chris Langridge (GBR)
14 18 Bronze Medal Match
C2   Marcus Ellis (GBR)
 Chris Langridge (GBR)
21 21
D1   Hiroyuki Endo (JPN)
 Kenichi Hayakawa (JPN)
19 17 D2   Chai Biao (CHN)
 Hong Wei (CHN)
18 21 10
C2   Chris Langridge (GBR)
 Marcus Ellis (GBR)
21 19 21

Women’s doubles[edit]

Quarterfinals Semifinals Finals
A1   Misaki Matsutomo (JPN)
 Ayaka Takahashi (JPN)
21 18 21
C2   Vivian Hoo Kah Mun (MAS)
 Woon Khe Wei (MAS)
16 21 9
A1   Misaki Matsutomo (JPN)
 Ayaka Takahashi (JPN)
21 21
B1   Jung Kyung-eun (KOR)
 Shin Seung-chan (KOR)
16 15
B1   Jung Kyung-eun (KOR)
 Shin Seung-chan (KOR)
21 20 21
A2   Eefje Muskens (NED)
 Selena Piek (NED)
13 22 14
A1   Misaki Matsutomo (JPN)
 Ayaka Takahashi (JPN)
18 21 21
B2   Christinna Pedersen (DEN)
 Kamilla Rytter Juhl (DEN)
21 9 19
D2   Tang Yuanting (CHN)
 Yu Yang (CHN)
21 21
C1   Nitya Krishinda Maheswari (INA)
 Greysia Polii (INA)
11 14
D2   Tang Yuanting (CHN)
 Yu Yang (CHN)
16 21 19
B2   Christinna Pedersen (DEN)
 Kamilla Rytter Juhl (DEN)
21 14 21 Bronze Medal Match
B2   Christinna Pedersen (DEN)
 Kamilla Rytter Juhl (DEN)
28 18 21
D1   Chang Ye-na (KOR)
 Lee So-hee (KOR)
26 21 15 B1   Jung Kyung-eun (KOR)
 Shin Seung-chan (KOR)
21 21
D2   Tang Yuanting (CHN)
 Yu Yang (CHN)
8 17

Mixed doubles[edit]

Quarterfinals Semifinals Finals
A1   Zhang Nan (CHN)
 Zhao Yunlei (CHN)
21 21
D2   Kenta Kazuno (JPN)
 Ayane Kurihara (JPN)
14 12
A1   Zhang Nan (CHN)
 Zhao Yunlei (CHN)
16 15
C1   Tontowi Ahmad (INA)
 Liliyana Natsir (INA)
21 21
C1   Tontowi Ahmad (INA)
 Liliyana Natsir (INA)
21 21
A2   Praveen Jordan (INA)
 Debby Susanto (INA)
16 11
C1   Tontowi Ahmad (INA)
 Liliyana Natsir (INA)
21 21
C2   Chan Peng Soon (MAS)
 Goh Liu Ying (MAS)
14 12
C2   Chan Peng Soon (MAS)
 Goh Liu Ying (MAS)
21 21
B1   Robert Mateusiak (POL)
 Nadiezda Zieba (POL)
17 10
C2   Chan Peng Soon (MAS)
 Goh Liu Ying (MAS)
21 21
B2   Xu Chen (CHN)
 Ma Jin (CHN)
12 19 Bronze Medal Match
B2   Xu Chen (CHN)
 Ma Jin (CHN)
21 21
D1   Ko Sung-hyun (KOR)
 Kim Ha-na (KOR)
17 18 A1   Zhang Nan (CHN)
 Zhao Yunlei (CHN)
21 21
B2   Xu Chen (CHN)
 Ma Jin (CHN)
7 11

Unit 731

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Unit 731
Unit 731 - Complex.jpg

The Unit 731 complex
Location Pingfang, China
Coordinates 45.6°N 126.63°ECoordinates: 45.6°N 126.63°E
Date 1935–1945
Attack type
Human experimentation
Biological warfare
Chemical warfare
Weapons Biological weapons
Chemical weapons
Explosives
Deaths Over 3,000 from inside experiments and tens of thousands from field experiments
Perpetrators General Shirō Ishii
Lt. General Masaji Kitano
Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department

Unit 731 (Japanese: 731部隊 Hepburn: Nana-san-ichi Butai?) was a covert biological and chemical warfare research and development unit of the Imperial Japanese Army that undertook lethal human experimentation during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) of World War II. It was responsible for some of the most notorious war crimes carried out by Japan. Unit 731 was based at the Pingfang district of Harbin, the largest city in the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo (now Northeast China).

It was officially known as the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関東軍防疫給水部本部 Kantōgun Bōeki Kyūsuibu Honbu?). Originally set up under the Kempeitai military police of the Empire of Japan, Unit 731 was taken over and commanded until the end of the war by General Shiro Ishii, an officer in the Kwantung Army. The facility itself was built between 1934 and 1939 and officially adopted the name “Unit 731” in 1941.

Between 3,000 and 250,000[1] men, women, and children[2][3]—from which around 600 every year were provided by the Kempeitai[4]—died during the human experimentation conducted by Unit 731 at the camp based in Pingfang alone, which does not include victims from other medical experimentation sites, such as Unit 100.[5]

Unit 731 veterans of Japan attest that most of the victims they experimented on were Chinese, Koreans and Mongolians.[6] Almost 70% of the victims who died in the Pingfang camp were Chinese, including both civilian and military.[7] Close to 30% of the victims were Russian.[8] Some others were South East Asians and Pacific Islanders, at the time colonies of the Empire of Japan, and a small number of Allied prisoners of war.[9] The unit received generous support from the Japanese government up to the end of the war in 1945. The Nazis and Japanese conspired in their experimental efforts.[10]

Instead of being tried for war crimes, the researchers involved in Unit 731 were given immunity by the U.S. in exchange for their data on human experimentation.[11] Some were arrested by Soviet forces and tried at the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials in 1949. Americans did not try the researchers so that the information and experience gained in bio-weapons could be co-opted into the U.S. biological warfare program.[12] On 6 May 1947, Douglas MacArthur, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, wrote to Washington that “additional data, possibly some statements from Ishii probably can be obtained by informing Japanese involved that information will be retained in intelligence channels and will not be employed as ‘War Crimes’ evidence.”[11] Victim accounts were then largely ignored or dismissed in the West as Communist propaganda.[13]

Building on the site of the Harbin bioweapon facility of Unit 731

Formation[edit]

Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731

In 1932, General Shirō Ishii (石井四郎 Ishii Shirō), chief medical officer of the Japanese Army and protégé of Army Minister Sadao Araki was placed in command of the Army Epidemic Prevention Research Laboratory. Ishii organized a secret research group, the “Tōgō Unit”, for various chemical and biological experimentation in Manchuria. Ishii had proposed the creation of a Japanese biological and chemical research unit in 1930, after a two-year study trip abroad, on the grounds that Western powers were developing their own programs. One of Ishii’s main supporters inside the army was Colonel Chikahiko Koizumi, who later became Japan’s Health Minister from 1941 to 1945. Koizumi had joined a secret poison gas research committee in 1915, during World War I, when he and other Japanese army officers were impressed by the successful German use of chlorine gas at the second battle of Ypres, where the Allies suffered 15,000 casualties as a result of the chemical attack.[14]

Unit Tōgō was implemented in the Zhongma Fortress, a prison/experimentation camp in Beiyinhe, a village 100 km (62 mi) south of Harbin on theSouth Manchurian Railway. A jailbreak in autumn 1934 and later explosion (believed to be an attack) in 1935 led Ishii to shut down Zhongma Fortress. He received the authorization to move to Pingfang, approximately 24 km (15 mi) south of Harbin, to set up a new and much larger facility.[15]

In 1936, Hirohito authorized, by imperial decree, the expansion of this unit and its integration into the Kwantung Army as the Epidemic Prevention Department.[16] It was divided at the same time into the “Ishii Unit” and “Wakamatsu Unit” with a base in Hsinking. From August 1940, all these units were known collectively as the “Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department of the Kwantung Army (関東軍防疫給水部本部)”[17]or “Unit 731” (満州第731部隊) for short.

Activities[edit]

A special project code-named Maruta used human beings for experiments. Test subjects were gathered from the surrounding population and were sometimes referred to euphemistically as “logs” (丸太 maruta?), used in such contexts as “How many logs fell?”. This term originated as a joke on the part of the staff because the official cover story for the facility given to the local authorities was that it was a lumber mill. However, in an account by a man who worked as a “junior uniformed civilian employee” of the Japanese Army in Unit 731, the project was internally called “Holzklotz”, which is the German word for maruta.[18]

The ruins of a boiler building

The test subjects were selected to give a wide cross-section of the population and included common criminals, captured bandits and anti-Japanese partisans, political prisoners, and also people rounded up by the Kempeitai for alleged “suspicious activities”. They included infants, the elderly, and pregnant women.

Vivisection[edit]

Prisoners, including one known POW,[19] were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia.[20] Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Researchers performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results.[21] The infected and vivisected prisoners included men, women, children, and infants, including pregnant women and their infants impregnated by Japanese surgeons.[22]

Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss. Those limbs that were removed were sometimes re-attached to the opposite sides of the body. Some prisoners’ limbs were frozen and amputated, while others had limbs frozen, then thawed to study the effects of the resultant untreated gangrene and rotting.

Some prisoners had their stomachs surgically removed and the esophagus reattached to the intestines. Parts of the brain, lungs, liver, etc. were removed from some prisoners.[20]

Japanese army surgeon Ken Yuasa suggests that the practice of vivisection on human subjects (mostly Chinese Communists) was widespread even outside Unit 731,[6] estimating that at least 1,000 people were involved in the practice in mainland China.[23]

Germ warfare attacks[edit]

Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects. To study the effects of untreated venereal diseases, male and female prisoners were deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhea, then studied. Prisoners were also repeatedly subject to rape by guards.[24]

Plague fleas, infected clothing, and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resultingcholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed around and possibly more than 400,000 Chinese civilians.[25]Tularemia was tested on Chinese civilians.[26]

Unit 731 and its affiliated units (Unit 1644 and Unit 100 among others) were involved in research, development, and experimental deployment of epidemic-creating biowarfare weapons in assaults against the Chinese populace (both civilian and military) throughout World War II. Plague-infested fleas, bred in the laboratories of Unit 731 and Unit 1644, were spread by low-flying airplanes upon Chinese cities, coastalNingbo in 1940, and Changde, Hunan Province, in 1941. This military aerial spraying killed thousands of people with bubonic plague epidemics.[27]

Frostbite testing[edit]

Some Japanese justify their experiments with “a discovery of a new treatment methodology for frostbite,” made possible by the human experimentation conducted in Unit 731. Japan intended to prepare to battle the looming threat of the Soviet Union, which “meant that the Japanese military had to be ready to treat large numbers of its soldiers for frostbite”. So physiologist Yoshimura Hisato conducted experiments by taking captives outside, dipping various appendages into water, and allowing the limb to freeze. Once frozen, which testimony from a Japanese officer said “was determined after the ‘frozen arms, when struck with a short stick, emitted a sound resembling that which a board gives when it is struck'”,[28] ice was chipped away and the area doused in water. The effects of different water temperatures were tested by bludgeoning the victim to determine if any areas were still frozen. Variations of these tests in more gruesome forms were performed. However, the best way to treat frostbite, which is used today, was established to be by immersing the affected area in water with a temperature between 100–122 °F (38–50 °C). This method differed substantially from previous treatment of rubbing afflicted areas. The aim and breadth of this research was in response to the historical flaws of other colonial powers’ attempts to invade Russia.[29]

Rape, syphilis and forced pregnancy[edit]

Women were used in specific experiments in Unit 731. In order to respond to the growing threat of syphilis among Japanese troops, “among whom the prevalence of syphilis was high due to the systematic rape of women and the widespread use of sex slaves,” women at Unit 731 were either raped or infected with a serum containing virulent strains of syphilis.[30] In documentation of these experiments, doctors remarked that syphilitic infection of the women was the result of self-perpetuated prostitution, rather than the serum that had been administered to them. External reactions—change in skin and organ appearance—as well as internal changes were studied. In the case of the body’s internal reaction to infection, patients were vivisected or killed with autopsies being conducted immediately afterward. Forced pregnancy was also used to determine the effects of vertical transmission of the disease.

Weapons testing[edit]

Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions. Flame throwers were tested on humans. Humans were tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons, and explosive bombs.[31][32]

Other experiments[edit]

In other tests, subjects were deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death; placed into high-pressure chambers until death; experimented upon to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival; placed into centrifuges and spun until death; injected with animal blood; exposed to lethal doses ofx-rays; subjected to various chemical weapons inside gas chambers; injected with sea water to determine if it could be a substitute for saline solution; and burned or buried alive.[33]

Biological warfare[edit]

An unidentified victim of Unit 731 human experimentation.

Japanese researchers performed tests on prisoners with Bubonic plague, cholera, smallpox, botulism, and other diseases.[34] This research led to the development of the defoliation bacilli bomb and the flea bomb used to spread bubonic plague.[35] Some of these bombs were designed with ceramic (porcelain) shells, an idea proposed by Ishii in 1938.

These bombs enabled Japanese soldiers to launch biological attacks, infecting agriculture, reservoirs, wells, and other areas with anthrax, plague-carrier fleas, typhoid, dysentery, cholera, and other deadly pathogens. During biological bomb experiments, researchers dressed in protective suits would examine the dying victims. Infected food supplies and clothing were dropped by airplane into areas of China not occupied by Japanese forces. In addition, poisoned food and candies were given out to unsuspecting victims, and the results examined.

In 2002, Changde, China, site of the flea spraying attack, held an “International Symposium on the Crimes of Bacteriological Warfare” which estimated that at least 580,000 people died as a result of the attack.[36] The historian Sheldon Harris claims that 200,000 died.[37] In addition to Chinese casualties, 1,700 Japanese in Chekiang were killed by their own biological weapons while attempting to unleash the biological agent, which indicates serious issues with distribution.[2]

During the final months of World War II, Japan planned to use plague as a biological weapon against San Diego, California. The plan was scheduled to launch on September 22, 1945, but Japan surrendered five weeks earlier.[38][39][40][41]

Known unit members[edit]

Divisions[edit]

Unit 731 was divided into eight divisions:

  • Division 1: Research on bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax, typhoid and tuberculosis using live human subjects. For this purpose, a prison was constructed to contain around three to four hundred people.
  • Division 2: Research for biological weapons used in the field, in particular the production of devices to spread germs and parasites.
  • Division 3: Production of shells containing biological agents. Stationed in Harbin.
  • Division 4: Production of other miscellaneous agents.
  • Division 5: Training of personnel.
  • Divisions 6–8: Equipment, medical and administrative units.

Facilities[edit]

One of the buildings is open to visitors

The Unit 731 complex covered six square kilometers and consisted of more than 150 buildings. The design of the facilities made them hard to destroy by bombing. The complex contained various factories. It had around 4,500 containers to be used to raisefleas, six cauldrons to produce various chemicals, and around 1,800 containers to produce biological agents. Approximately 30 kg of bubonic plague bacteria could be produced in several days.

Some of Unit 731’s satellite facilities are in use by various Chinese industrial concerns. A portion has been preserved and is open to visitors as a War Crimes Museum.

Tokyo[edit]

A medical school and research facility belonging to Unit 731 operated in the Shinjuku District of Tokyo during World War II. In 2006, Toyo Ishii—a nurse who worked at the school during the war—revealed that she had helped bury bodies and pieces of bodies on the school’s grounds shortly after Japan’s surrender in 1945. In response, in February 2011 the Ministry of Health began to excavate the site.[42]

China requested DNA samples from any human remains discovered at the site. The Japanese government—which has never officially acknowledged the atrocities committed by Unit 731—rejected the request.[43]

Guangzhou[edit]

The related Unit 8604 was operated by the Japanese Southern China Area Army and stationed at Guangzhou (Canton). This installation conducted human experimentation in food and water deprivation as well as water-borne typhus. According to postwar testimony, this facility served as the main rat breeding farm for the medical units to provide them with bubonic plague vectors for experiments.[44]

Related units[edit]

Unit 731 was part of the Epidemic Prevention and Water Purification Department which dealt with contagious disease and water supply generally.

Surrender and immunity[edit]

Information sign at the site today.

Operations and experiments continued until the end of the war. Ishii had wanted to use biological weapons in the Pacific War since May 1944, but his attempts were repeatedly snubbed.

Destruction of evidence[edit]

With the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo and Mengjiang in August 1945, the unit had to abandon their work in haste. The members and their families fled to Japan.

Ishii ordered every member of the group “to take the secret to the grave”, threatening to find them if they failed, and prohibiting any of them from going into public work back in Japan. Potassium cyanide vials were issued for use in the event that the remaining personnel were captured.

Skeleton crews of Ishii’s Japanese troops blew up the compound in the final days of the war to destroy evidence of their activities, but most were so well constructed that they survived somewhat intact.

American grant of immunity[edit]

Among the individuals in Japan after their 1945 surrender was Lieutenant Colonel Murray Sanders, who arrived in Yokohama via the American ship Sturgess in September 1945. Sanders was a highly regarded microbiologist and a member of America’s military center for biological weapons. Sanders’ duty was to investigate Japanese biological warfare activity. At the time of his arrival in Japan he had no knowledge of what Unit 731 was.[45] Until Sanders finally threatened the Japanese with bringing communism into the picture, little information about biological warfare was being shared with the Americans. The Japanese wanted to avoid the Soviet legal system so the next morning after the threat Sanders received a manuscript describing Japan’s involvement in biological warfare.[46] Sanders took this information to General Douglas MacArthur, who was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers responsible for rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupations. MacArthur struck a deal with Japanese informants[47]—he secretly grantedimmunity to the physicians of Unit 731, including their leader, in exchange for providing America, but not the other wartime allies, with their research on biological warfare and data from human experimentation.[11] American occupation authorities monitored the activities of former unit members, including reading and censoring their mail.[48] The U.S. believed that the research data was valuable. The U.S. did not want other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, to acquire data on biological weapons.[49]

The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal heard only one reference to Japanese experiments with “poisonous serums” on Chinese civilians. This took place in August 1946 and was instigated by David Sutton, assistant to the Chinese prosecutor. The Japanese defense counsel argued that the claim was vague and uncorroborated and it was dismissed by the tribunal president, Sir William Webb, for lack of evidence. The subject was not pursued further by Sutton, who was probably unaware of Unit 731’s activities. His reference to it at the trial is believed to have been accidental.

Separate Soviet trials[edit]

Although publicly silent on the issue at the Tokyo Trials, the Soviet Union pursued the case and prosecuted twelve top military leaders and scientists from Unit 731 and its affiliated biological-war prisons Unit 1644 in Nanjing, and Unit 100 in Changchun, in the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. Included among those prosecuted for war crimes, including germ warfare, was General Otozō Yamada, the commander-in-chief of the million-man Kwantung Army occupying Manchuria.

The trial of those captured Japanese perpetrators was held in Khabarovsk in December 1949. A lengthy partial transcript of the trial proceedings was published in different languages the following year by a Moscow foreign languages press, including an English language edition.[50] The lead prosecuting attorney at the Khabarovsk trial was Lev Smirnov, who had been one of the top Soviet prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials. The Japanese doctors and army commanders who had perpetrated the Unit 731 experiments received sentences from the Khabarovsk court ranging from two to 25 years in a Siberian labor camp. The U.S. refused to acknowledge the trials, branding them communist propaganda.[51]

After World War II, the Soviet Union built a biological weapons facility in Sverdlovsk using documentation captured from Unit 731 in Manchuria.[52]

After World War II[edit]

Official silence under Occupation[edit]

As above, under the American occupation the members of Unit 731 and other experimental units were allowed to go free. One graduate of Unit 1644, Masami Kitaoka, continued to do experiments on unwilling Japanese subjects from 1947 to 1956 while working for Japan’s National Institute of Health Sciences. He infected prisoners with rickettsia and mental health patients with typhus.[53]

Post-Occupation Japanese media coverage and debate[edit]

Japanese discussions of Unit 731’s activity began in the 1950s, after the end of the American occupation of Japan. In 1952, human experiments carried out in Nagoya City Pediatric Hospital, which resulted in one death, were publicly tied to former members of Unit 731.[54] Later in that decade, journalists suspected that the murders attributed by the government to Sadamichi Hirasawa were actually carried out by members of Unit 731. In 1958, Japanese author Shusaku Endo published the book The Sea and Poison about human experimentation, which is thought to have been based on a real incident.

The author Morimura Seiichi published The Devil’s Gluttony (悪魔の飽食) in 1981, followed by The Devil’s Gluttony: A Sequel in 1983. These books purported to reveal the “true” operations of Unit 731, but actually confused them with that of Unit 100, and falsely used unrelated photos attributing them to Unit 731, which raised questions about its accuracy.[55][56] Also in 1981 appeared the first direct testimony of human vivisection in China, by Ken Yuasa. Since then many more in-depth testimonies have appeared in Japanese. The 2001 documentary Japanese Devils was composed largely of interviews with 14 members of Unit 731 who had been taken as prisoners by China and later released.[57]

Official government response in Japan[edit]

Since the end of the Allied occupation, the Japanese government has repeatedly apologized for its pre-war behavior in general, but specific apologies and indemnities are determined on the basis of bilateral determination that crimes occurred, which requires a high standard of evidence. Unit 731 presents a special problem, since unlike Nazi human experimentation which the U.S. publicly condemned, the activities of Unit 731 are known to the general public only from the testimonies of willing former unit members, and testimony cannot be employed to determine indemnity in this way. The American retrieval of the highly documented experimentations of Unit 731 is covert and not something either the U.S. or Japan are willing to admit has happened in the first place. The Nazis and Japanese collaborated in their experiments.[58]

Japanese history textbooks usually contain references to Unit 731, but do not go into detail about allegations, in accordance with this principle.[59][60] Saburo Ienaga‘s New History of Japan included a detailed description, based on officers’ testimony. The Ministry for Education attempted to remove this passage from his textbook before it was taught in public schools, on the basis that the testimony was insufficient. The Supreme Court of Japan ruled in 1997 that the testimony was indeed sufficient and that requiring it to be removed was an illegal violation of freedom of speech.[61]

In 1997, the international lawyer Kōnen Tsuchiya filed a class action suit against the Japanese government, demanding reparations for the actions of Unit 731, using evidence filed by Professor Makoto Ueda of Rikkyo University. All Japanese court levels found that the suit was baseless. No findings of fact were made about the existence of human experimentation, but the decision of the court was that reparations are determined by international treaties and not by national court cases.

In October 2003, a member of the House of Representatives of Japan filed an inquiry. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi responded that the Japanese government did not then possess any records related to Unit 731, but the government recognized the gravity of the matter and would publicize any records that were located in the future.[62]

Abroad[edit]

Books[edit]

  • Forest sea (pol. Leśne morze) (1960) a novel by a Polish writer and educator Igor Newerly. The first book outside Asia which refers to atrocities committed in the Unit.

Films[edit]

There have been several films about the atrocities of Unit 731.

Music[edit]

  • “The Breeding House” (1994), Bruce Dickinson. Segment of the CD-single Tears of the Dragon, describing the atrocities committed by Unit 731 and the immunity granted by the Americans to the physicians of the Unit.
  • “Unit 731” (2009), American thrash metal band Slayer. Song on the album World Painted Blood, describing the events and atrocities that occurred at Unit 731.

Television[edit]

  • The X-Files episode “731” (1995). Former members of Unit 731 secretly continue their experiments on humans under control of a covert U.S. government agency.
  • ReGenesis episode “Let it burn” (2007). Outbreaks of anthrax and glanders are traced to World War II Japan.
  • Warehouse 13” episode “The 40th Floor” (2011). General Shoro Ishii’s Medal from Unit 731 simulated drowning when applied to a victim’s skin.

See also[edit]

Pacific War (World War II)[edit]

Other human experimentation[edit]

CHRISTIANS ONLY PLEASE! European Union Commission livid that several Central & Eastern European countries don’t want Syrian refugees who are Muslims

The governments of Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria are firmly against the mandatory relocation of 40,000 mainly Muslim Syrians from Italy and Greece, one of the reasons the plan failed last month. Syrian Christians are under threat of extinction and deserving of asylum in majority Christian countries of the West.

maxresdefault2-e1418543216155

DPA  The governments in Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga and Prague are displaying a rare show of unity in rejecting quotas for refugees as the EU tries to redistribute the immigrants. It wants to take pressure off Italy and Greece, where tens of thousands of immigrants have arrived by boat from North Africa and the Middle East this year.

Recent government declarations about the number of refugees they are willing to take in lag considerably behind the European Commission’s suggestions to relocate 40,000 people, nearly all Muslims.

d9161a991af5d16ec17c4afed02dbd276b40eb25

If the governments in Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltic region have their say, they will be taking in Christian refugees. “After all, we are a country belonging to Christian culture,” Margus Tsahkna, the conservative minister of social affairs in Estonia, said recently.

In SLOVAKIA, Prime Minister Robert Fico argued Christian arrivals were less likely to stir fears among the local population. Terrorists might try to mingle among Muslim refugees, he added. slovakia-will-take-in-200-syrian-refugees-but-they-have-to-be-christian

syrian-christians

Slovakia is one of the countries with the lowest acceptance of asylum seekers. Fourteen people were given formal refugee status in the past year after 331 applied to be recognized as refugees. Far right and nationalist groups have also demonstrated there in recent weeks “against the Islamization of Europe.”

“In Slovakia, we don’t have mosques,” an Interior Ministry spokesman explained, arguing that Muslim migrants wouldn’t feel at home in the Central European country because of its tiny Muslim population. So, he said, “we only want to choose the Christians.”

Slovakia-Protests-Twitter-1200

In the neighboring CZECH REPUBLIC, a group calling itself the Bloc Against Islam managed to collect 145,000 signatures on a petition against Muslim immigrants. Czech President Milos Zeman repeatedly has spoke out against taking in refugees from North African countries like Libya.

Czech Republic’s president Milos Zeman stated that no African nor Middle Eastern asylum tourists should be taken in. Cultural distance and differences simply too large. Poland thinks similarly.

CZECH REPUBLIC says no to African Muslim refugees

“Refugees from a completely different cultural background would not be in a good position in the Czech Republic,” he was quoted as saying by a spokesman. Immigrants who are “culturally close,” on the other hand, are Eastern European Slavs and Christians from Syria, according to the president.

The centre-left Czech government has agreed to accept 1,500 refugees after opposing the EU’s mandatory relocation scheme. The government wants to be “in control of the whole process,” Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said. The new arrivals, therefore, have to pass security background checks and will have to live in off-limits centres, some of them in isolated areas like the foothills of the Beskid Mountains.

britanchildren

POLAND, with a population more than three times larger than the Czech Republic, will probably receive about 2,000 refugees – but many Poles consider even this number too much.

In Poland it is a common sense, that Polish society benefits only from certain refugees. Keeping in mind the imminent meltdown in Sweden, where third world criminals were and still are imported at record numbers, one can only agree. As “welt.de” reported, Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz recently announced to grant asylum to 60 Syrian Christian families. In the long term, up to 150 Christian families from Syria are planned to get shelter in Poland.

syria-christians-pray

Kopacz explained this step by saying: “Christians who are persecuted in the most barbaric way, deserve that a Christian country like Poland will help them.”

In a poll published in the conservative Polish daily Rzeczpospolita Monday, more than 70 per cent of the respondents said they were against Muslim refugees from Africa or the Middle East coming to Poland. In a similar poll held in Latvia, 55 per cent spoke out against Muslim refugees in the Baltic country.

Poland learned its lessons from the Swedish, French, Belgian and German horros, which came by exerting too much tolerance towards ever-demanding Muslims.

HUNGARY – which has had a sudden influx of Kosovars – announced last month that it would erect a 109-mile-long wall along its southern border with Serbia. Their applications for asylum surpassed those of Syrians in the first quarter of the year, according to the statistical agency Eurostat. Almost all of them were lodged in Germany and Hungary.

bulgaria-to-build-wall-with-turkeys-border-to-keep-out-illegal-immigration_4891_720_400

BULGARIA Prime Minister Boyko Borissov has warned that more Muslim immigrants in Bulgaria could change the country’s ethnic balance.

Bulgaria is a country where a substantial proportion of the population is Muslim (ethnic Turks, Islamised Bulgarians and a significant proportion of the Roma minority). According to the CIA Factbook, 59.6% of the population of Bulgaria is Orthodox Christian, and 7.8% are Muslims.

Muslims attack Bulgarian police

Speaking to journalists at the 23 April EU summit, Borissov said: “We have nothing against Muslims. But if other Muslims come from abroad, that radically changes the country’s demography.”

Borissov said that the country’s secret services told him that “between one and two million migrants wait on the other side”. “If one hundred thousand arrive in Bulgaria, we are finished,” he said.

BULGARIA builds fence to keep out surge of Muslim illegal alien invaders from the Middle East and North Africa

Less than two decades after the painstaking removal of a massive border fence designed to keep people in, Bulgarian authorities are just as painstakingly building a new fence along the rugged Turkish border, this time to keep people out…specifically Muslims.

bulgaria-to-build-wall-with-turkeys-border-to-keep-out-illegal-immigration_4891_720_400

NY Times  Faced with a surge of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa — and the risk that they include jihadis intent on terrorist attacks — Europe is bolstering its defenses on many fronts, including this formerly Communist country, which little more than a quarter-century ago was more concerned with stanching the outbound flow of its own citizens to freedom.

For the past 16 months, Bulgaria has been carrying out a plan that would sound familiar to anyone along the United States-Mexico frontier: more border officers, new surveillance equipment and the first 20-mile section of its border fence, which was finished in September.

rtr3z1ml

The hardening of the Bulgaria-Turkey border is one very visible manifestation of the agitation across the continent about the economic, social and political ramifications of the surge in immigration.

Bulgaria is being flooded with Syrian Muslim illegals

With warmer weather fast approaching and more refugees likely to be on the move, nations along Europe’s southern tier are beefing up border staffing, adding sensors and other technical barriers, expanding refugee facilities, and building walls.

More than 200,000 refugees are known to have penetrated Europe’s land and sea borders last year, not including those who were able to sneak through undetected.

Muslims clash with Bulgarian nationalists in front of a mosque in Sofia

Anti-immigrant sentiment is increasing in Britain, France, Hungary, the Czech Republic and elsewhere across the continent. Parties espousing ethnic nationalism are seeing their support rise, some to the point where they threaten the dominance of more traditional parties.

“The rise of the right wing in Europe is a reaction to this refugee flow,” said Boris B. Cheshirkov, chief spokesman in Bulgaria for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Muslims are behind most of the tensions and hostilities in Bulgaria

And with much of Europe still struggling to recover from the 2008 financial crisis, the higher costs of caring for this flood of refugees — especially in countries like Bulgaria, the poorest member of the European Union — are straining national budgets.

At the same time, episodes like the January attack on the Paris offices of the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo are raising worries that both homegrown jihadists and foreign fighters will cloak themselves in this refugee flood.

Bulgarians come out in masse to protest Muslim infiltration and mosques

Slavcho Velkov, a Bulgarian security expert and university lecturer, said he believed there was more jihadist movement through Bulgaria than the authorities acknowledged.

RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:

gotta-love-the-way-the-bulgarian-people-deal-with-their-muslim-problem

bulgaria-african-muslim-asylum-seekers-chant-racists-racists-to-police-who-have-kicked-them-out-of-refugee-center-for-staying-there-illegally

bulgarians-step-up-attacks-on-mosque-in-plovdiv-city-with-stones-smoke-and-stun-grenades-in-protest-against-muslim-infiltrators-demanding-to-be-given-old-unused-mosque-properties

bulgaria-huge-crowds-in-plovdiv-turn-out-to-protest-against-muslim-court-claims-on-property

bulgaria-one-country-that-isnt-rolling-over-to-muslim-demands

bulgaria-puts-up-fence-to-keep-out-the-muslim-invaders

feel-good-story-bulgarians-turn-an-ugly-old-mosque-into-a-bar-muslim-head-explosions-reported

excellent-bulgarians-sick-of-tolerating-the-most-intolerant-people-on-earth-muslims

bulgaria-muslims-whining-that-political-candidates-dont-respond-to-their-demands

bulgaria-muslims-try-to-take-over-the-streets-and-get-the-crap-kicked-out-of-them

bulgarians-continue-their-courageous-fight-against-the-islamization-of-their-country

bulgaria-left-wing-slimy-politicians-bow-to-muslim-invaders

bulgaria-hey-muslims-two-can-play-the-same-game

bulgaria-another-country-having-to-fight-the-islamic-invaders-from-within

bulgaria-another-target-of-islamic-infestation-in-the-balkans

Share