Abe’s latest comfort women comments are nothing new

  • Profiles of the Day
    • More at Japan Probe Friends...

    The English language media and the blogosphere are jumping all over a new story about Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s views on comfort women:

    Abe, who since taking office in September has promoted patriotism in Japan’s schools and a more assertive foreign policy, told reporters there was no proof the women were forced into prostitution.

    “The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion,” Abe said.

    His remarks contradicted evidence in Japanese documents unearthed in 1992 that historians said showed military authorities had a direct role in working with contractors to forcibly procure women for the brothels.

    The documents, which are backed up by accounts from soldiers and victims, said Japanese authorities set up the brothels in response to uncontrolled rape sprees by invading Japanese soldiers in East Asia.

    In 1993, then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono apologized to the victims of sex slavery, though the statement did not meet demands by former “comfort women” that it be approved by parliament.

    Every English language article I have read on Abe’s latest statement do not mention the fact that this is not something new, a fact I didn’t know until I read the FG Forums thread on this news story. Poster Mulboyne pointed out that the Executive Chair of the Japan Communist Party had questioned Abe about his views on the Kono statement in October of last year. Here is an excerpt from page 16 of their publically available transcript:

    Shii: I have here the minutes of the discussion at the second workshop of the House of Representatives Committee on Audit and Oversight of Administration on May 27, 1997 that includes Mr. Abe’s remarks. The minutes show that you stated that all seven textbooks submitted for screening contain descriptions of the so-called military comfort women and that this was problematic. You said that if military comfort women were there not as a result of coercion, there is no need for the textbooks to take up the theme, adding that there are no official documents that verify whether there was such coercion. In this statement, you meant to demand that the description of the “military comfort women” be deleted.

    What is more, you blame the “Kono Statement” for the inclusion of the military comfort women issue in the textbooks and said that the “Kono Statement” has become groundless. If you intend to “follow the ‘Kono Statement’,” why don’t you admit that you were wrong in making remarks attacking it?

    Abe: My understanding at that time was that the Kono statement was intended to admit that the Japanese government was involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the recruitment of comfort women, express apologies and remorse for that, and promise to study in what way the government should express its apology and remorse. At the time, I questioned whether a junior high school textbook should include descriptions of military comfort women. For example, I thought it was necessary to first take into account the state of children’s development. I also thought it important to ascertain whether there was coercion in the narrow sense of the word. I said that if there are differences of opinion regarding the facts, we may have to reconsider including the material in the textbook.

    I said that nothing substantiates the fact of coercion in the narrow sense of the word. When I discussed this issue, I pointed out that the name of YOSHIDA Seiji cited in textbooks as a person in charge of the recruitment of comfort women was later found to be a mistake. That was a question I raised in my statement.

    Shii: You have just said that the allegations about “coerciveness” in the narrow sense of the word are groundless. The “coerciveness in the narrow sense of the word,” I think, implies the coercion that was present in relation to the transfer of comfort women. However, the “Kono Statement” pointed out that there are many cases of women being recruited against their will. This is part of the government findings. Do you still deny everything including what you call cases of coercion in the narrow sense of the word? Isn’t it coercion if women were recruited against their will? Do you deny this fact cited in the “Kono Statement”?

    Abe: I meant that there could be coercion in the narrow sense of the word and coercion in the broad sense of the word. The question should be whether the women were taken out of their houses forcibly, or they wanted to choose to not go but they were in an environment that compelled them to go in the end. The latter can be regarded as a case of coercion in he broad sense of the word.

    Shii: You tried to argue about the narrow sense of the word and the broad sense of the word. But the minutes show that you did not argue about the difference. You flatly denied the fact of the use of coercive recruitment of women in general. That is why you called for change in the practice because the prerequisite of the argument has collapsed. I am saying that if you accept the “Kono Statement,” you need to look back on what you did and correct the mistake. What do you think? Again, the minutes contain no such phrases as “narrow sense of the word,” or “broader sense of the word.” It is an argument you have just begun come up with.

    Abe: What I said was whether it is appropriate to contain the issue in the junior high school textbook. As I have repeatedly said, my position as the prime minister is one of following the “Kono Statement.”

    In addition to this, Matt of Occidentalism has posted a clear and literal translation of Abe’s statement, which is somewhat different from the form seen in the articles found in the English press:

    “It is a fact there was no proof to support coercion as it was initially defined”

    “We must premise it [the kono statement about comfort women] on the thought that the definition of it [coercion] had been greatly changed from its [initial] definition”

    So, you see folks, Abe’s remarks on this matter are not exactly new, nor are they as direct as the foreign media has made them out to be. They’re just another way of stating his view that the initial definition of coercion that the South Korean government used [Japanese soldiers/officials directly kidnapping/tricking Korean women into prostitution] does not have supporting evidence. Regardless of the fact that he has merely restated his existing views, the “news” of Abe’s statements, which pretty much state that certain witness claims shouldn’t be considered evidence, is definately going to hurt him internationally.

    Related Posts with Thumbnails