Student participants on the 1009th Wednesday Demonstration in Seoul, South Korea, February 15, 2012. JoonYoung Kim/Flickr. Some rights reserved.
On Wednesday 6th
January 2016, the 24th year anniversary of the weekly rally in
front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul by the Korean victim-survivors of
Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery, solidarity actions were held at various
locations in Canada, Germany, Japan, South Korea, UK and the USA. This was in
response to a call from the Korean Council for Women Drafted for Military
Sexual Slavery by Japan, which has organised and supported these rallies for
many years. The solidarity protests were coordinated as a gesture of
disapproval towards the
Korea-Japan Agreement on the issue of Japan’s military sexual slavery (‘comfort
women’) that was announced on 28th December 2015. In London,
a dozen people turned up to join the protest in front of the Embassy of the
Republic of Korea lead by the Korean community in London asking the Korean government
to review the agreement and to actively support the women seeking for justice.
The agreement was
widely reported as ‘landmark’ and ‘breakthrough’ and was (initially) welcomed
by many around the world who have been waiting for this long-lasting dispute
between Japan and South Korea (as well as other Asian countries) to be finally
and successfully resolved. However, as soon as the agreement was announced,
survivor-activists and activist organisations in South Korea and Japan raised
concerns and expressed frustration that this agreement is not only far from
being a ‘breakthrough’, but in fact actually ignores all the 25 year efforts of
the redress movement seeking justice for these women. The Korean Council issued
a statement on 28th December claiming that this agreement is merely ‘a
diplomatic collusion which betrays the demands from all’. The Japan
Nationwide Action for Resolution of the Japan’s Military ‘Comfort Women’ Issue,
an umbrella organisation of diverse groups and individuals that support
victim-survivors of ‘comfort women’ system, also published its comments on the
following day stating that ‘an “agreement” without the victim is no “solution”. The Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace in Tokyo also circulated a
similar statement on 31st December. The
initial media coverage of the agreement, presenting this as a landmark, indeed often
contained inaccuracies and misinformation, and fell short of appropriately identifying
its drawbacks. This clearly demonstrates how, despite all feminist efforts,
both political negotiations and the analysis and reporting of them still fail
to pay enough attention to gender perspectives. At the same time, it also clearly
illuminated how the ‘comfort women’ issue and its complexity is not widely
understood beyond feminist and other citizen groups and individuals that have
been interested in the redress movement.
Former comfort woman Yong Soo Lee testifies in support of the Comfort Women Memorial. Credit: Steve Rhodes/Demotix. All rights reserved.
As I argued in my
recently published book Unfolding
the ‘Comfort Women’ Debates: Modernity, Violence, Women’s Voices, the
development of this very system and the historical and political recognition of
it (and the lack of it) has been heavily influenced by politics in East Asia
during the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries,
namely that of orientalism, colonialism, post-colonialism, cold war and the US
dominance in the region. While gender has, in fact, played a pivotal role in
these politics, the suffering of women in general has long been ignored and/or has
simply been used as a political tool in diplomatic negotiations without substantial
engagement with the victims themselves. This is why many victims of this horrific
sexual exploitation and violence during the Second World War could only come
forward in the 1990s and also why the debates surrounding this issue have become
so complex and entwined. The Korea-Japan Agreement has undeniably materialised
within this very geo-political climate. The agreement was made under pressure
from the United States whose prime concern was not for the human rights of
victim-survivors, but rather for the security and the political stability in
East Asia, which illuminates how the US power is still dominant in East Asia, as
the Japan Nationwide Action
precisely pointed out.
Since Kim Hak-sun
gave her testimony about her ordeal in August 1991 and became the first
publicly known ‘comfort woman’ in South Korea, many women from countries
including South and North Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Holland, Malaysia,
China, Indonesia, and East Timor have come forward as the victims of this
system. The Japanese government’s
unwillingness to engage with the ‘comfort women’ issue and a strong presence of
ultranationalist/revisionist voices in Japan that deny the active role played
by the Japanese authorities in organising and maintaining the ‘comfort women’
system is well acknowledged. Nevertheless, it is a sweeping generalisation to
claim that this has always been the dominant social and political attitude in
Japan. In the late 1990s, all seven history textbooks approved by the then
Ministry of Education to be used in junior high schools, made a reference to
‘comfort women’. Feminist and citizen groups in Japan have worked tirelessly with
victim-survivors both living in Japan and other countries and collaborated transnationally,
supporting their fight for justice and promoting
research into the ‘comfort women’ system. Meanwhile, although the Japanese
government has never fully recognised its legal responsibilities, in 1993, the
Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei admitted the Japanese authorities’
involvement (albeit limited) in the operation of the ‘comfort women’ system and
acknowledged that some level of coercion was used in recruiting women and in comfort
stations. Under the Murayama government, in 1994, as part of the governmental
plan of war reparations, a charity fund was proposed to support
victim-survivors. The Asian Peace and Friendship Fund for Women (the Asian
Women’s Fund) was established the following year as a
public-private initiative, but subsequently caused a huge controversy and a
divide within the redress movement; it tried to provide and did actually
provide ‘atonement money (provisional compensation)’ to victim-survivors, not
from the governmental budget but from private contributions and donations. Many
women in South Korea refused to accept the money not seeing this as representing
an official apology and compensation. During this period, however, a certain
political commitment by the Japanese government was present, acknowledging its responsibility
towards these victim-survivors of the ‘comfort women’ system. Therefore, Prime Minister Abe’s statement announced as
part of the agreement was not an entirely new move.
Women protest at the 'Comfort Women Protest' in Seoul, South Korea, September 8, 2009. Jennifer Yin/Flickr. Some rights reserved.Nevertheless, feminist
and citizen groups at least see that it is an achievement of survivor-victims and their
continuing struggle that Abe Shinzo who at one point attempted to withdraw
the 1993 Kono Statement has now clearly stated the Japanese government’s responsibilities
(not
merely as a humanitarian gesture as often reported) and expressed his
sincere apologies and remorse as Prime Minister of Japan. What they are
extremely dissatisfied with, however, is that victim-survivors were neither consulted
nor present in the negotiations. Therefore, for example, recommendations
for the Japanese government to genuinely resolve this issue, that were proposed
by victim-survivors and their supporters who participated in the 12th
Asian Solidarity Conference on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery in June 2014, have
hardly been taken into account in this agreement. In this proposal,
victim-survivors demanded that the Japanese government: recognise the active
role it played in organising the ‘comfort women’ system and that the system was
a grave violation of human rights; and take various measures for legal reparation
including apologising to individual victims, accounting of the truth and
developing preventative measures against future re-occurrence. While the
establishment of a public fund to support victim-survivors was announced in the
agreement, the measures suggested by the Japanese government to engage with
this issue are, thus, falling a long way short of meeting what the
victim-survivors have been demanding and this has disappointed and enraged victim-survivors
and other activists.
President Ma attends opening of 11th Solidarity Conference for the Issue of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, December 9, 2012. 總統府/Flickr. Some rights reserved.However, what
was possibly more shocking to them was the Korean government’s attitude to the agreement.
The Korean government provided financial support to the women in 1997 so that
the women could choose not to receive the ‘atonement money’ from the Asian
Women’s Fund and to seek further justice from Japan, but they along with the
Japanese government have long held a position that the 1965 Agreement between them
resolved all wartime claims. However, after the ruling of the South Korean
Constitutional Court in August 2011 that the failure of the Korean government
to pursue an avenue for Japan to compensate ‘comfort women’ victims was
unconstitutional, activists expected that the Korean government would be more
supportive to victims in their seeking compensation from the Japanese
government. Therefore, they were furious when it was revealed that not only had
the Japanese government failed to address clearly how they would develop preventative
initiatives against future re-occurrence such as implementing commemorative
activities, but also the Korean had still accepted this and agreed to work
towards settling the ‘dispute’ over the Peace Monument in front of the Japanese
Embassy in Seoul following the removal request from the Japanese government. This
statue of a girl in gold sitting next to an empty chair, erected in 2011, has
been considered as the symbol of the struggle of victim-survivors, which is the
property of civil society and the spirit of the victims. Survivors and other
activists felt that the Korean government betrayed them by yielding to the
Japanese government’s request, when they do not even have any authority over
the statue.
Images of victim-survivors shown at the Women's Active Museum on War and Peace, Tokyo, Japan. WAM. All rights reserved.
The US (together
with Korean and Japanese governments) may have its focus on the security of the
region. However, the true security and the stability of the region will only
arrive when the issue of meeting women’s demands in the recommendations
proposed by the participants of the 12th Asian Solidarity Conference
is resolved. A diplomatic agreement without the women’s presence could only serve
to escalate the tension between people in South Korea and Japan and more widely
in the region.