October 2, 2012
Osaka City Mayor Hashimoto Toru keeps making negative remarks on the so-called “comfort women”. He asserts, “Japan maintains that there is no evidence to show that the Imperial Japanese military seized the women by force. If Koreans see it as a problem, show us the evidence.”
He also criticizes the 1993 statement made by then Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei, which admits the Japanese military involvement in the “comfort women” affairs and expresses apology, as “the largest culprit for complicating Japan-S.Korea relations”.
Omori Noriko, a legal team head in a lawsuit by the former “comfort women” of China, contributed counterarguments against Hashimoto to Akahata on October 2 as follows:
Hashimoto’s remarks reveal his ignorance of the basic facts concerning the “comfort women” and cannot be allowed as a public official.
‘Kono Statement’ recognized internationally
In principle, the Japanese government has maintained a stance in line with the Kono Statement, which was issued after fact-finding research conducted by the Japanese government in 1992 and 1993. Since then, both past prime ministers and the present PM Noda Yoshihiko have expressed at home and abroad that Japan will adhere to the Statement. In other words, the international community has officially recognized the statement as the official position of the Japanese government. Therefore, Hashimoto’s remark, “Japan maintains that there is no evidence to show that the Japanese military seized the women by force,” is false.
The very claim itself, “there is no proof to show that the Japanese military seized the women by force,” is wrong in the first place. Actually, some people, including former PM Abe Shinzo, are trying to sweep the “comfort women” issue under the carpet by stating that the biggest problem lies in whether or not the victimized women were carted off to “comfort stations” by the Japanese military or other authorities such as the police. In essence, there are saying that if the women were not taken by force by the Japanese authorities, they should be considered as prostitutes who voluntarily went there to work, so the Japanese government is not responsible for that at all.
However, in light of the actual conditions of their confinement and treatment in the “comfort stations”, how and when they were brought to the place would not be the point. The women, who were forced to become “comfort women”, had no freedom to flee from the “comfort stations” or refuse to be sex slaves for Japanese soldiers. Lying down in a small room (or in a partitioned space inside that small room), the women could not refuse to allow what the soldiers did to them. Dozens of soldiers were queuing for their turns in front of that small room. This is how the women there lived day after day.
The damage the victims experienced is very valuable as historical testimonies, which only those who had been there can give. Their testimonies have already been recorded in various forms. Looking straight at this fact of damages, these women’s situations at the time should be acknowledged as forced “sex slavery”, which the international community concluded in a shared understanding. I wonder if Hashimoto has ever read any of these testimonies. He himself is a lawyer. He must know that sworn testimonies have an important value as “evidence” in the fact-finding process in courts of law.
Know the facts before you speak!
As long as he speaks as a public official, he should know how the international community has dealt with the issue. Attaching importance to the “comfort women” issue as an issue of repeated violence against women, the world since 1992 has continued calling on the Japanese government to accept responsibility for having caused the aforementioned damages and sincerely apologize to and compensate the victims.
The Kono Statement has been treated as a response to the international community’s call. Japan has been required to give shape to the Statement in actual policies. So, removing this Statement will further undermine international trust in Japan.
If Hashimoto intends to enter national politics, he should study at the very least the basics of the abovementioned historical facts and the conclusion of the international community before making his offhand remarks on the “comfort women” issue.
He also criticizes the 1993 statement made by then Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei, which admits the Japanese military involvement in the “comfort women” affairs and expresses apology, as “the largest culprit for complicating Japan-S.Korea relations”.
Omori Noriko, a legal team head in a lawsuit by the former “comfort women” of China, contributed counterarguments against Hashimoto to Akahata on October 2 as follows:
Hashimoto’s remarks reveal his ignorance of the basic facts concerning the “comfort women” and cannot be allowed as a public official.
‘Kono Statement’ recognized internationally
In principle, the Japanese government has maintained a stance in line with the Kono Statement, which was issued after fact-finding research conducted by the Japanese government in 1992 and 1993. Since then, both past prime ministers and the present PM Noda Yoshihiko have expressed at home and abroad that Japan will adhere to the Statement. In other words, the international community has officially recognized the statement as the official position of the Japanese government. Therefore, Hashimoto’s remark, “Japan maintains that there is no evidence to show that the Japanese military seized the women by force,” is false.
The very claim itself, “there is no proof to show that the Japanese military seized the women by force,” is wrong in the first place. Actually, some people, including former PM Abe Shinzo, are trying to sweep the “comfort women” issue under the carpet by stating that the biggest problem lies in whether or not the victimized women were carted off to “comfort stations” by the Japanese military or other authorities such as the police. In essence, there are saying that if the women were not taken by force by the Japanese authorities, they should be considered as prostitutes who voluntarily went there to work, so the Japanese government is not responsible for that at all.
However, in light of the actual conditions of their confinement and treatment in the “comfort stations”, how and when they were brought to the place would not be the point. The women, who were forced to become “comfort women”, had no freedom to flee from the “comfort stations” or refuse to be sex slaves for Japanese soldiers. Lying down in a small room (or in a partitioned space inside that small room), the women could not refuse to allow what the soldiers did to them. Dozens of soldiers were queuing for their turns in front of that small room. This is how the women there lived day after day.
The damage the victims experienced is very valuable as historical testimonies, which only those who had been there can give. Their testimonies have already been recorded in various forms. Looking straight at this fact of damages, these women’s situations at the time should be acknowledged as forced “sex slavery”, which the international community concluded in a shared understanding. I wonder if Hashimoto has ever read any of these testimonies. He himself is a lawyer. He must know that sworn testimonies have an important value as “evidence” in the fact-finding process in courts of law.
Know the facts before you speak!
As long as he speaks as a public official, he should know how the international community has dealt with the issue. Attaching importance to the “comfort women” issue as an issue of repeated violence against women, the world since 1992 has continued calling on the Japanese government to accept responsibility for having caused the aforementioned damages and sincerely apologize to and compensate the victims.
The Kono Statement has been treated as a response to the international community’s call. Japan has been required to give shape to the Statement in actual policies. So, removing this Statement will further undermine international trust in Japan.
If Hashimoto intends to enter national politics, he should study at the very least the basics of the abovementioned historical facts and the conclusion of the international community before making his offhand remarks on the “comfort women” issue.
