■年頭から NY タイムズが取り上げた慰安婦問題
今年の1月2日、ニューヨークタイムズ（電子版）は「日本の歴史を否定する新たな試み」という社説を出した。新年早々、アメリカとはほとんど関係のない日韓関係について NY タイムズがコメントするのも奇妙だが、そのトーンは次のように日本の新聞にも見られない強いものだ。
日本の新しい首相、安倍晋三は、日韓の緊張を高めて協力を困難にする間違いを犯そうとしているように見える。彼は第二次大戦についての日本の謝罪を修正しようと試みる兆しを見せているのだ。そこには韓国などの女性を性奴隷に使ったことも含まれる。（中略）
1993年に日本は、ようやく日本軍が数千人のアジアやヨーロッパの女性を強姦して奴隷にしたことを認め、そうした残虐行為を初めて正式に謝罪した。犯罪を否定したり謝罪を薄めたりするどんな試みも、太平洋戦争で日本の圧政下に置かれた韓国や中国やフィリピンの人々を怒らせるだろう。（中略）
安倍氏の恥ずべき衝動は、北朝鮮の核兵器についての東アジアの重要な協力を阻害する可能性がある。そうした歴史修正主義による過去の漂白は、長期的な経済低迷の脱却に専念すべき日本にとって邪魔になるだろう。
国内には、もう慰安婦の強制連行を問題にするメディアはほとんどない。この発端となった朝日新聞でさえ、社説でも1993年の（慰安婦問題について謝罪した）河野談話の見直しは「枝を見て幹を見ない態度だ」という表現で、強制連行が行なわれたという報道を事実上撤回している。
そんな中で、なぜかアメリカでは日本政府に謝罪を求める決議案がニューヨーク州議会に提出されるなど、慰安婦が執拗に取り上げられている。そのほとんどは「20世紀最大の人身売買」などという荒唐無稽なものだが、NY タイムズまで「軍が強姦して性奴隷にした」などというのは困ったものだ。
慰安婦問題については韓国人を説得することは不可能なので、アメリカが重要な役割を担っている。本来は彼らが日韓の橋渡しをしてくれればいいのだが、国務省は「今さらこの問題を蒸し返して河野談話を見直すと日韓問題がこじれる」という見解だ。NY タイムズの社説も、こういうアメリカ政府の方針を反映したものだろう。
これは政治的には妥当な判断かもしれない。この問題で韓国の誤解を解くことは不可能だと思うが、せめて欧米人には事実を理解してほしい。だから遠回りではあるが、欧米メディアの誤解している（というより根本的に知らない）事実関係をおさらいしておこう。
■「詐話師」の嘘から始まった慰安婦騒動
日本軍が「慰安婦」を従軍させていたという都市伝説は古くからあったが、1965年の日韓基本条約でも賠償の対象になっていない。「従軍慰安婦」という言葉も日本のルポライターの造語で、戦時中にそういう言葉が使われた事実もない。
ところが1983年に吉田清治という元陸軍兵士が『私の戦争犯罪』という本を出し、済州島で「慰安婦狩り」を行なって多数の女性を女子挺身隊として戦場に拉致した、と語った。これは「勇気ある証言」として多くのメディアに取り上げられたが、彼の話は場所や時間の記述が曖昧で、慰安婦狩りをどこで誰に行なったのかがはっきりしない。そこで済州島の地元紙が調査したところ、本の記述に該当する村はなく、日本軍が済州島に来たという事実さえ確認できなかった。
吉田以外にはこういう証言をした人物はいないため、これは彼の捏造ではないかとの疑惑が出て、歴史学者の秦郁彦氏などが彼を問いただしたところ、吉田は1996年に「フィクションだった」と認めた。常識的には、自分が犯罪を犯したと名乗り出る人がいるとは思えないが、戦争体験については誇大に「懺悔」することで注目を引き、本や講演で稼ごうとする「詐話師」がいるのだ。
本来なら話はこれで終わりだが、吉田の話が韓国のメディアにも取り上げられたため、1990年に韓国で「挺身隊問題対策協議会」という慰安婦について日本に賠償を求める組織ができた。これに呼応して高木健一氏や福島瑞穂氏などの弁護士が、日本政府に対する訴訟を起こそうとして原告を募集した。それに応募して出て来たのが、金学順だった。
彼女は1991年8月に来日し、訴訟の原告として裁判を起こすとともにメディアにも登場し、伝説の存在だった「慰安婦」が初めて名乗り出たケースとして話題になった。私は当時、NHK 大阪放送局で終戦記念番組を制作していたが、そこに金を売り込んできたのが福島氏だった。
金は「親に売られてキーセンになり、義父に連れられて日本軍の慰安所に行った」と証言し、軍票（軍の通貨）で支払われた給料が終戦で無価値になったので、日本政府に対してその損害賠償を求めたのだ。
われわれは強制連行の実態を取材しようと、2班にわかれて韓国ロケを行なった。私の班は男性で、もう一つの班が女性の慰安婦だった。現地で賠償運動をしている韓国人に案内してもらって、男女あわせて50人ほどに取材したが、意外なことに1人も「軍に引っ張られた」とか「強制的に働かされた」という人はいなかった。
当時の朝鮮半島は日本の植民地だったが、賃金は内地の半分ぐらいで貧しかったため、本土に出稼ぎに行く人が多かった。そこに朝鮮人の「口入れ屋」がやってきて、炭鉱などの職を斡旋して手数料を稼いでいたのだ。
その労働者を運ぶ船は、軍の船だった。慰安婦の場合も、慰安所の管理は軍がやっていることが多かった。だまされて「タコ部屋」から逃げられない事件も多かったが、監禁したのは業者である。もちろん好ましいことではないが、これは商行為であり、国家に責任はない。
どう調べても強制という実態がないため、番組はインパクトの弱いものになった。慰安婦が初めて実名で名乗り出て来たことは話題を呼んだが、それは当時は合法だった公娼（公的に管理された娼婦）の物語に過ぎない。NHK は、この話を深追いしなかった。
■慰安婦の「強制連行」は朝日新聞の大誤報
ところが朝日新聞は金学順が出て来たとき、「戦場に連行され、日本軍人相手に売春行為を強いられた『朝鮮人従軍慰安婦』のうち、一人がソウル市内に生存していることがわかった」という植村隆記者の「スクープ」を掲載した。
続いて朝日新聞は、1992年1月の「慰安所軍関与示す資料」という記事で日本軍の出した慰安所の管理についての通達を報じた。このとき慰安婦の説明として「女子挺身隊として軍に強制連行された」と書いたため、その直後に訪韓した宮沢喜一首相は韓国の盧泰愚大統領に謝罪した。
しかしこの通達は「慰安婦を誘拐するな」と業者に命じたものだ。軍が慰安婦を拉致した事実はなく、そういう軍命などの文書もないが、韓国政府が日本政府に賠償を求めたため、政府間の問題になった。
日本政府は1992年に「旧日本軍が慰安所の運営などに直接関与していたが、強制連行の裏づけとなる資料は見つからなかった」とする調査結果を発表したが、韓国の批判が収まらなかったため、1993年に河野談話を発表した。そこでは問題の部分は次のように書かれている。
慰安婦の募集については、軍の要請を受けた業者が主としてこれに当たったが、その場合も、甘言、強圧による等、本人たちの意思に反して集められた事例が数多くあり、更に、官憲等が直接これに加担したこともあったことが明らかになった。また、慰安所における生活は、強制的な状況の下での痛ましいものであった。
ここで「官憲等が直接これに加担した」という意味不明の言葉を挿入したことが、のちのち問題を残す原因になった。この問題については2007年に安倍内閣の答弁書が閣議決定され、ここでは「調査結果の発表までに政府が発見した資料の中には、軍や官憲によるいわゆる強制連行を直接示すような記述も見当たらなかったところである」と明記されている。
つまり政府としては「強制連行はなかった」というのが公式見解なのだが、この答弁書で「官房長官談話のとおり」と書いたため、「官憲が加担した」という河野談話を継承する結果になった。このとき NY タイムズ紙のノリミツ・オオニシ支局長が慰安婦問題を取り上げて「元慰安婦」の証言を報じ、安倍首相は訪米で謝罪するはめになった。
■誤解と行き違いが重なって問題が拡大した
同時進行で見てきた私の印象では、この問題はいろいろな行き違いが重なって思いがけず延焼が広がってしまったという感が強い。そもそも朝鮮半島の労働者を酷使したという意味なら、慰安婦よりも男性の労働者のほうがはるかに大規模で深刻な問題である。
たとえば第二次大戦の末期に秋田県の花岡鉱山で中国人労働者が過酷な労働環境に抗議して蜂起し、暴行や虐殺で400人以上が死亡した「花岡事件」のように、強制労働の実態はあった。ただ、この場合も遺族などが戦後補償訴訟を起こした相手は鹿島だったことでもわかるように、強制労働の責任者は民間企業だった。
60万人ともいわれる男性の強制労働に比べると、慰安婦の規模は数万人とはるかに小さく、賃金も二等兵の20倍以上もらっていたといわれる。その慰安婦だけが脚光を浴びたのは、吉田清治がこれを猟奇的な強姦事件として描いたためだ。彼は小遣い稼ぎのための作り話ぐらいのつもりだったようだが、それを利用して集団訴訟を行なおうとした日本の弁護士が問題を拡大した。
私が最初に金学順の話を聞いたときは「親に売られた」といい、訴状にもそう書かれていた。それが朝日新聞の報道のあとで「軍に連行された」という話にすり替わった経緯は今も不明だ。
植村記者の義母は日本政府に対する慰安婦訴訟の原告団長だったので、彼の記事は訴訟を有利にするための捏造だった疑いもあるが、「女子挺身隊」という吉田の嘘を踏襲しているところから考えると、単純に吉田証言を信じてその「裏が取れた」と思い込んだ可能性もある。
朝日新聞の取材に協力したのが、吉見義明氏（中央大学教授）である。彼の『従軍慰安婦』（岩波新書）は英訳されているため、海外ではこれが唯一の参考文献になっていることも誤解の原因である。
吉見氏がこの問題を調査し始めたのは、朝日新聞が強制連行を報じたあとなので、最初から強制連行の証拠をさがすというバイアスが入っていた。前述の通達も誘拐を禁じる文書なのに、吉見氏がそれを誘拐の命令と誤読したことが混乱の原因になった。
昨年、橋下徹大阪市長が「吉見氏も強制連行がないと認めた」と述べたのに対する吉見氏の抗議声明で「日本・朝鮮・台湾から女性たちを、略取・誘拐・人身売買により海外に連れて行くことは、当時においても犯罪でした。誘拐や人身売買も強制連行である、と私は述べています」と書いている。
つまり彼は韓国では軍が慰安婦を拉致した実態がないことを認めた上で、民間人による誘拐や人身売買を「強制連行」と呼んでいるのだ。このように定義すれば、強制連行があったことは明らかで、政府も最初から認めている。つまり吉見氏と朝日新聞は、国家の責任問題を女性の人権問題にすり替えたのである。
■拙劣な政府の対応が世界に誤解を拡大した
朝日新聞が火をつけた問題を決定的に大きくしたのが、政府の拙劣な対応だった。河野談話で「官憲等が直接これに加担したこともあった」と書いたのは、河野氏のブリーフィングによれば、インドネシアで起こった軍紀違反事件（スマラン事件）のことだ。これは末端の兵士が起こした強姦事件で、責任者は BC 級戦犯として処罰された。
ところが河野談話ではこの点を明記しなかったため、朝鮮半島でも官憲が強制連行したと解釈される結果になった。このように誤解を与える表現をとった原因を、石原信雄氏（当時の官房副長官）は、産経新聞の取材に答えて次のように明かしている。
当時、韓国側は談話に慰安婦募集の強制性を盛り込むよう執拗に働きかける一方、「慰安婦の名誉の問題であり、個人補償は要求しない」と非公式に打診してきた。日本側は強制性を認めれば、韓国側も矛を収めるのではないかとの期待感を抱き、強制性を認めることを談話の発表前に韓国側に伝えた。
強制を示す文書は出てこなかったのに、あたかも強制があったかのような曖昧な表現をとることで、外務省は韓国政府と政治決着しようとしたのだ。ところが結果的には、これが「日本は強制を認めた」と受け取られ、韓国メディアが騒いで収拾がつかなくなった。その後も国連人権委員会のクマラスワミ氏がまとめた報告書では、慰安婦を「性奴隷」と規定して日本政府に補償や関係者の処罰を迫ったが、その根拠が河野談話だった。
政府は財団法人「女性のためのアジア平和国民基金（アジア女性基金）」を設立して元慰安婦に「償い金」約13億円を渡し、歴代首相が「おわびの手紙」を送った。このように政府が「強制はなかったが悪かった」という態度表明を繰り返したため、世界に誤解が定着してしまったのだ。
海外メディアが関心をもつようになったのはこの時期だから、彼らはそもそも慰安婦が「軍の奴隷狩り」として問題になった経緯を知らない。彼らにとっては最初から慰安婦は女性の人権問題なので、「強制連行はなかった」というのは言い訳としか映らない。元慰安婦が「私は強制連行された」と弁護士に教えられた通り答えると、何も証拠がなくても信じてしまう。
私が NY タイムズ東京支局のタブチ・ヒロコ記者とこの件についてツイッターで会話したとき、私が「元慰安婦の話には証拠がない」というと、タブチ記者が「彼らが嘘つきだというんですか？」と反論したことが印象的だった。彼らにとっては慰安婦は被害者で日本軍は犯人なのだから、気の毒な被害者が嘘をつくはずがないのだ。
このように自分の先入観を確証する事実しか見なくなる心理的な傾向を確証バイアスと呼ぶ。海外メディアは最初に「日本軍が大規模な人身売買を行なった」という誤解から入ったため、公権力の行使があったのかどうかという問題の所在を取り違え、慰安婦＝人身売買＝強制連行という図式で報道してきたのだ。
■必要なのは批判ではなく治療
このように何を「慰安婦問題」と見るかによって、その答は違う。当初は軍が「慰安婦狩り」で誘拐したことが問題だった。たとえば第二次大戦末期のナチスには、親衛隊や強制収容所の看守のための国営売春施設があったといわれる。これは戦意昂揚のために親衛隊指導者のヒムラーが創設したもので、オーストリアのマウトハウゼン・グーゼン強制収容所をはじめ、12の強制収容所に売春施設があったとされる。
日本軍がこのような組織的な国営売春を行なって女性を連行・監禁したとすれば、たとえ法的な賠償責任がなくても、日本政府は韓国政府に謝罪すべきだ。朝日新聞が最初に報じたのは、これに近いイメージだったから大事件に発展したのだ。
ところが政府の調査でも、軍が連行したという証拠がまったく出てこない。単に文書がないというだけではなく、元慰安婦と自称する女性の（二転三転する）身の上話以外に、連行した兵士もそれを目撃した人も出てこないのだ。慰安婦の大部分は日本人だったが、その証言も出てこない。
最近では吉見氏も、日本の植民地だった朝鮮や台湾から軍が女性を誘拐して海外に連れて行った事実は確認できないことを認めている。彼は「中国や東南アジアでは強制連行があった」というが、その証拠はスマラン事件の裁判記録しかない。これは軍紀違反として処罰されたのだから、むしろ日本軍が強制連行を禁じていた証拠である。
このように少なくとも韓国については、日本軍が韓国から女性を連行した証拠はないというのは歴史家の合意であり、問題はこの事実をどう解釈するかである。吉見氏のように「民間業者による誘拐や人身売買も強制連行である」と定義すれば、それが一部で行なわれたことは事実だが、それは日本軍の責任ではない。
ところが NY タイムズは「日本軍がアジアやヨーロッパの女性を強姦して奴隷にした」と書き、日本軍が主語になっている。彼らの表現は曖昧だが、日本軍が韓国女性を強制的に「性奴隷」にしたと考えているようだ。
当初の吉田の話では、韓国女性を「奴隷狩り」したことになっていたのだが、それが嘘だとわかると、朝日新聞や吉見氏が「民間の人身売買も強制連行だ」と拡大解釈してごまかし、NY タイムズなど海外メディアがこれに追随したことが混乱の原因だ。アメリカ議会などの決議も、人身売買を非難しながら強制連行を問題にするのも矛盾している。日本軍が暴力で拉致したのなら、人身売買なんかする必要はない。
日本政府が責任の所在を明確にしないまま河野談話で謝罪したのは、取り返しのつかない失敗だった。今ごろ「狭義の強制と広義の強制」などと言っても、言い訳がましくなるだけで世界に通じるとは思えない。アメリカ国務省の「日本が弁明しても立場はよくならない」という情勢認識は残念ながら正しい。
こうした行き詰まりを打開する第一歩として、この問題が嘘と誤解と勘違いで生まれたことを海外メディアに理解してもらう必要がある。しかし彼らは「日本軍は凶悪な性犯罪者だ」という強迫観念にとりつかれた患者のようなものだから、「あなたの考えは間違っている」と批判しても効果はない。
必要なのは、彼らのバイアスを自覚させる治療である。慰安婦問題がどのように発生し、どこで誤解が生まれ、どういう行き違いでここまで大問題になったのかという経緯を説明して、彼らに刷り込まれた先入観を解除することが相互理解の第一歩だろう。
source : Translated by randomyoko (クリックで引用記事開閉)
An Introduction to the "Comfort Women Issue" for The New York Times
Original source by Nobuo Ikeda
Translated by randomyoko
■The Comfort Women Issue has been Taken Up By The New York Times Since The Beginning Of This Year
On January 2nd of this year, The New York Times digitally published an editorial article entitled, "Another Attempt to Deny Japan's History." It is odd that The New York Times has commented on this issue, as America has almost nothing to do with Japanese-Korean relations. The article itself is written in a tone so strong that you wouldn't even get to read it in Japanese newspapers.
"Japan's new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, seems inclined to start his tenure with a serious mistake that would inflame tensions with South Korea and make cooperation harder. He has signaled that he might seek to revise Japan窶冱 apologies for its World War II aggression, including one for using Koreans and other women as sex slaves.
In 1993, Japan finally acknowledged that the Japanese military had *raped and enslaved thousands of Asian and European women in army brothels*(emphasis added), and offered its first full apology for those atrocities...It is not clear how Mr. Abe, the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan, might modify the apologies, but he has previously made no secret of his desire to rewrite his country's wartime history. Any attempt to deny the crimes and dilute the apologies will outrage South Korea, as well as China and the Philippines, which suffered under Japan's brutal wartime rule.
Mr. Abe's shameful impulses could threaten critical cooperation in the region on issues like North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Such revisionism is an embarrassment to a country that should be focused on improving its long-stagnant economy, not whitewashing the past."
In Japan, nowadays, there are very few media outlets which insist on discussing the controversial issue of whether or not those women were forced to accompany Japanese soldiers. The Asahi Shimbun, which triggered this whole issue, even withdrew a previous editorial article in which they acknowledged the existence of forced company, expressing that modifying the Kono Statement announced in 1993, in which the government had apologized for the issue of comfort women, is equivalent to "seeing only a branch and not the whole stem."
In the mean time, the comfort women issue has persistently been taken up in the United States, with such examples as the New York State Legislature submitting a resolution which asks the Japanese government to apologize to former comfort women. Most of the language surrounding the issue features absurd expressions, describing the event as "the biggest instance of human trafficking in the 20th century." It is disappointing that even The New York Times has made claims that the Japanese military raped and enslaved those women.
It is impossible to convince most Koreans on this issue, and America plays a big role in that. It would be ideal if the United States were willing to be the bridge between Japan and Korea, but the Department of State has expressed their opinion that if Japan modified the Kono Statement, it would complicate problems between Japan and Korea. The editorial in The New York Times is most likely a reflection of American government policies like this.
Politically speaking, this might be a reasonable judgement. On this issue, it is impossible to correct Korea's misunderstanding. However, at least there is a desire on behalf of westerners to understand the issue of comfort women. This is why, even though it may take a long time, we must look back and confirm the facts of which western media is fundamentally unaware, or perhaps, has misinterpreted.
■The Comfort Women Disturbance All Started From A Con-man's Lies
Since long ago, there has been an urban legend which tells of the Japanese military having served "comfort women", however, even the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in 1965 doesn't claim any associated reparations. The expression, "military comfort women", was created by a Japanese reporter, and what's more is, there is no proof that such a phrase was ever used during the war.
However, in 1983, a former Japanese army soldier, Seiji Yoshida published a book entitled, "My War Crimes." In his book, Mr. Yoshida claims that he went to Jeju island, and that he went on a "comfort women hunt" to draft a lot of women into the women's volunteer corps and to take them to the battle fields. This was proclaimed by a lot of media outlets as a "courageous testimony," despite the fact that his statements about time and place were vague, and didn't declare who did the hunt and where. Because of this, the local newspaper publishing company of Jeju island went on an investigation and discovered that there was no such village which appeared in the book, nor proof that the Japanese army had ever come to that place.
Since there were no other persons who shared this kind of testimony, there arose suspicion that his statement had been fabricated and he was interrogated by Japanese historians like Ikuhiko Hata. He ended up confessing in 1996 that the story was fictional. Ordinarily, it might be hard to believe that someone would announce that they had committed crimes, but as for war experiences, there are some "con-men" that try to make money with their books and lectures, using an exaggerated account of "repentance" in order to get attention.
Usually, this would be the end of the story, but since the story of Yoshida was taken up by the Korean media was well, in 1990, "The Conference of Countermeasure Against the Volunteer Corps" was formed to ask that Japan pay reparations for the comfort women. In response to this movement, lawyers in Japan such as Kenichi Takagi and Mizuho Fukushima looked for an accuser with the intention of bringing a lawsuit against the Japanese government. The woman who turned up was Kim Hak-sun.
Coming to Japan in August, 1991, she got the attention of the media for being the first case in which one of the legendary "comfort women" brought herself into the public light, as well as for being the accuser in a lawsuit. I was working on a TV program about the anniversary of the end of the war at the NHK TV station in Osaka, but it was Ms. Fukushima who came there to sell Kim out.
Kim testified that she was sold by her parents and became a gi-saeng, and that her father-in-law took her to the comfort women brothel of the Japanese military. The military scrip with which she was paid lost its value as soon as the war had ended, and it was this event which prompted her to ask for compensation from the Japanese government for damages.
We decided to go on location to investigate the actual conditions, dividing into two groups. My team interviewed males and the other team was in charge of the comfort women. We were guided by a Korean who was involved in the reparations process, and we ended up interviewing around 50 people in total-both males and females altogether. However, to my surprise, not one person said, "I was captured by the Japanese military," or "I was forced to work."
In those days, it was during the period of Korea's annexation, but the pay was about half that of the interior, which kept the people there poor. Therefore, a lot of them would go to the mainland to work. The mainland is where Korean employment agencies would go to make money by mediating to get such people a job in a coal mine and so on, for its brokerage.
The ships that carried such laborers belonged to the military. As for comfort women, it was often the case that the military conducted hygiene management for the comfort women brothels. There were certainly affairs where comfort women had been deceived and couldn't escape from the business, but it was the traders that would imprison them. It is not a desirable thing, but those were commercial transactions made by traders, and the nation owes no responsibility for that.
No matter how much I investigated, there appeared to be no case of forced conditions, and so the TV program didn't have an impact. It did draw attention to the fact that a comfort woman had come forward for the first time, but it was little more than the story of a licensed prostitute. Afterward, NHK did not chase the story.
■The "Forced Company" Of Comfort Women Was A Huge False Report by Asahi Shimbun
Interestingly, when Kim Hak-sun came forward, Asahi Shimbun published an article of the "scoop" by Takashi Uemura, which reported, "It turns out that one of the 'Military Korean Comfort Women' who were forced to the battle field to engage in prostitution activities with the Japanese soldiers, lives in Seoul."
Following that, in January, 1992, the newspaper published an article that revealed a notification concerning the management of comfort women brothels submitted by the Japanese military, claiming, "The material shows the military's involvement." Since the Asahi explanation of comfort women at this time had claimed that those women were forced to accompany the military as a volunteer corps, the Prime Minister, Kiichi Miyazawa, apologized to the Korean president, Roh Tae-woom, when he visited Korea right after the article had been published.
However, in actuality, that notification was a message to traders: "Do not kidnap the comfort women". In fact, there is no hard evidence, nor any document, which suggests that the military had abducted those women. Though, because the Korean government had asked for reparations from the Japanese government, it became an issue between the two.
In 1992, the Japanese government announced the result of an investigation which revealed that the former Japanese military had been directly involved with hygiene management for the comfort women brothels, but that there were no materials to prove the theory that the comfort women were forced to accompany Japanese soldiers. However, Korea's criticism would not cease. For this reason, in 1993, the Japanese government announced the so-called Kono Statement. The issue is described as follows in the written statement.
"As for the recruitment of comfort women, the traders that received such requests for it were in charge, and in this situation also, there were many cases in which these women were gathered against their will via honeyed words, pressure and so forth. In addition to that, it turns out that *government officials had directly assisted in this at times as well*(emphasis added). Moreover, it was a painful way of living, to have been forced to be at the comfort women brothels."
It became the cause of later problems that, for no reason, such nonsense words as, "government officials had directly assisted in this", had been inserted. In regards to this issue, in 2007, Abe's Cabinet had made a cabinet decision over the written answer, which clearly states that among the materials which the government had found at the time of the investigation's announcement, *there is no written description to directly show that military or government officials had supposedly forced the women to accompany soldiers*(emphasis added).
Therefore, the government's dictum was that "there was no forced company." However, because the written answer said that the "Chief Cabinet Secretary Statement is right," the government ended up following the Kono Statement, which says that "government officials had directly assisted in this." At this time, the branch manager of The New York Times, Norimitsu Onishi, took up the comfort women issue and reported the testimony of "former comfort women." Due to this publication, Prime Minister Abe was forced into a situation that required him to apologize for Japan when he visited the United States.
■Misunderstanding And Confusion Piled Up And Expanded The Problem
As I witnessed the simultaneous process, I got a strong impression that misunderstanding had piled up and the flame spread unexpectedly. First of all, if it is the case that laborers from the Korean Peninsula were exploited, the issue of the male laborers is, by far, a much bigger, more serious problem than that of comfort women.
For example, towards the end of World War II, Chinese laborers had revolted against the severe labor environment of Hanaoka mine in Akita prefecture, which resulted in the death of over 400 people due to violence and slaughter. This case is a testament to the fact that there was forced labor. However, even in this case, as you can see from the family of the deceased asking Kashima for indemnification after the war, it was private-sector corporations that were in charge when it came to forced labor.
Compared to the supposed 600,000 forced male laborers, the tally of comfort women is said to be around tens of thousands of workers, being much smaller in scale. It is also said that they were receiving pay equal to more than twenty times that of private soldiers. The only reason why comfort women received so much attention was because Seiji Yoshida had written of these cases in a manner which presented them as bizarre rapes. It seems that he wrote about such events in order to make extra money, but because Japanese lawyers wanted to take advantage of it by making a class suit out of it, the issue escalated.
When I first heard the story of Kim Hak-sun, she was saying that she was "sold by her parents," and it was written so on the petition as well. Even today, no one knows the process of how her testimony was replaced to reflect that she had been "abducted by the military" after the report by Asahi Shimbun.
There is suspicion that the article of the reporter, Uemura, had been fabricated, as the leader of the plaintiff party was the mother-in-law of Uemura. On the other hand, considering that he had accepted the lies told by Yoshida, of the "women's volunteer corps," he might have simply believed Yoshida's testimony, convinced that he had "gathered the evidence."
It was Yoshiaki Yoshimi, a professor of Chuo University, who cooperated in the interview for Asahi Shimbun. His book, "Military Comfort Women"(Iwanami Shoten Publishers), has been published in English, and this is another cause for further misunderstanding, as it is the only source of reference for populations overseas.
It was only after the forced company report of Asahi Shimbun that Yoshiaki started to investigate this issue. Therefore, from the beginning, his input on the matter was biased in that it sought to find proof for forced company. Even though the previous notification was meant to prohibit abduction, Mr. Yoshimi had wrongly interpreted the message, reading it as if it had been an order to abduct. This caused more confusion.
Last year, the mayor of Osaka city, Hashimoto, stated that "Mr. Yoshimi has admitted that there was no forced company," and yet in his protest note, he wrote, "Even in those days, it was a crime to sack, abduct, and engage in human trafficking and take women from Japan, Korea and Taiwan. I have said that abduction and human trafficking also mean forced company."
This means that he has acknowledged the fact that in Korea, there were no cases in which the Japanese military had drafted women to be their comfort women, yet he is calling the acts of abduction and human trafficking by non-governmental people "forced company." If he defines such terms in this way, the obvious implication is that there had been forced company, and that the government has admitted to it from the beginning. In this way, Mr. Yoshimi and Asahi Shimbun replaced the issue of the nation's responsibility with women's rights.
■The Ill窶仁anaged Correspondence Of The Government Spread Misunderstanding Throughout The World
It was the ill-managed correspondence of the government that played a crucial role in making what Asahi Shimbun had started, worse. According to the briefing of Mr. Kono, the reason why he wrote in his statement that "government officials had directly assisted in this at times as well," was because of a matter involving violations of military discipline which happened in Indonesia (Pertempuran Lima Hari). This was the case of rape that private soldiers had participated in, and their leaders were executed as class-B and class-C war criminals.
However, there was no clear description of this in the Kono Statement, which resulted in the misunderstanding that government officials forced company even on the Korean Peninsula. Nobuo Ishihara, the Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary at that time, elaborated on the reasons as to why they had chosen to make such a misleading expression in the interview by Sankei Shimbun.
"At that time, while the Korean side was persistently appealing for the inclusion of comfort women recruitment and forced company in the statement, they were unofficially proposing that the "comfort women issue is a matter of their fame, and therefore, they won't request compensation at the personal level." The Japanese side had anticipated that if Japan admitted to acts of forced company, the Korean side might lay down their arms. It was this strategy which led the Japanese side to convey to the Korean side that they would admit to the acts forced company before their announcement."
There was no document which proved such enforcement, but by using the vague expression that there might have been some acts of forced company, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs attempted to bring forth a political settlement with the Korean government. As a result, however, this action was taken to mean that "Japan has admitted to the acts of forced company," and the Korean government made a big spectacle of it and spun the issue out of control.
Even after that, the report arranged by Ms. Coomaraswamy, a member of the UN Human Rights Commission, pressured the Japanese government for compensation and the execution of the people involved, defining comfort women as "sex slaves". Her report, however, was based on the Kono Statement.
The Japanese government established an incorporated foundation called, "The National Fund For A Peaceful Asia for Women (The Asian Women's Fund)," and paid about 1.3 billion yen as "indemnification" for former comfort women. Additionally, successive prime ministers sent out "a letter of apology". And thus, the government kept portraying an attitude that said, "There was no forced company, but we are sorry." This repeated message served to firmly establish misunderstanding about the issue all over the world.
This was around the time when the overseas media started to show an interest, but more importantly, it meant that they were not aware of the process by which the issue of comfort women had begun to be regarded as "slave hunting by the military." For them, the issue of comfort women became a issue of women's rights from the beginning, and therefore, the idea of "no forced company" appears to be merely an excuse. Despite there being no proof to support claims by former comfort women, that "I was forced to accompany soldiers," the overseas media continue to believe this statement, something Kim was told to say by her lawyer.
It was surprising that during a conversation I had with a reporter of the Tokyo branch of The New York Times, Hiroko Tabuchi, when I told her that "There is no proof to support the testimony of the former comfort women," she responded with, "So, do you think that they're liars?" For them, comfort women are the victims, and the Japanese military is the criminal, which only leaves them with the belief that such poor victims can't lie.
This type of psychological tendency that causes people to only see those facts which corroborate their prejudice, is called *confirmation bias*. It's because the overseas media started to treat this issue with the misunderstanding that "The Japanese military had participated in human trafficking on such a big scale," that they misinterpreted the issue of whether or not it was done by government officials as the issue of the "comfort women = human trafficking = forced company" equation. And so, they keptreporting it in this way.
■What's Needed Isn't Criticism, But Rather, A Cure.
Thus, depending on what perspective the "comfort women issue" is viewed from, the answer varies. At first, the focus of the issue was on the abductions carried out by the military, the so-called "comfort women hunts". Consider this example: in the last years of World War II, the Nazis are said to have had government managed prostitution facilities for the bodyguards and concentration camp guards. This is what the leader of the bodyguards, Hitler, had founded for the enhancement of a fighting spirit, and it is said that there were such facilities within twelve concentration camps, like Mauthausen Concentration Camp in Austria.
If Japan had had this type of systematic governmental prostitution, and forced those women to accompany soldiers and be imprisoned, the Japanese government would have to apologize to the Korean government regardless of any indemnity liability provided by law. Since what Asahi Shimbun had first reported was similar to the kind of image portrayed by the Nazis, the issue developed into a major problem.
However, even with the governmental investigation, proof of forced company by the military never seemed to come out. Not only are there no documents, but aside from the stories of the self-professed former comfort women—which have changed again and again-no soldiers that were alleged to have participated in the forcing of company, nor any witnesses of that, have ever surfaced.The majority of comfort women were Japanese, but even their testimony has not surfaced.
Recently, Mr. Yoshimi has admitted that he cannot factually confirm that women from Korea and Taiwan, under the control of Japan at the time, were abducted and taken overseas by the military. He says, "There was forced company in China and Eastern Asia," but the only proof of that is the judicial report of Pertempuran Lima Hari. That report was executed in response to a violation of military discipline, which means that this is rather proof of the Japanese military prohibiting forced company.
Thus, at least for Korea, historians have agreed that there is no proof of the Japanese military forcing women from Korea to accompany soldiers. The the problem now is resolving the facts. If you conclude that "the abduction or human trafficking by traders are also considered to be forced company," it is only recognition that such things happened. Yet, those matters are not the responsibility of the Japanese military.
However, in The New York times article, it says, "The Japanese military raped and enslaved thousands of Asian and European women in army brothels." The subject is the Japanese military, but the expressions used are not very clear, and seem to view the matter as the Japanese military having forced Korean women to become their "sex slaves."
At first, according to Yoshida's story, the claim was that there was a "slave hunt" for Korean women.Yet, as soon as this was revealed to be a lie, Asahi Shimbun, Mr. Yoshimi, and others, distorted the issue by reframing the argument with vagueness. This was accomplished by stretching the meaning of the issue by saying that "the human trafficking by the traders is also forced company". In turn, overseas media outlets such as The New York Times followed this movement; this is the source of all this confusion. There are contradictions within the resolutions of the American Congress, which highlight the problem of forced company while criticizing human trafficking. If the Japanese military had abducted women using violence, there would have been no need for human trafficking.
It is an irreparable mistake that the Japanese government has apologized for such events without clarifying where the responsibility lies. It sounds like nothing more than an excuse to say that this was all the "enforcement of narrow sense and broad sense" at this late point, and it's difficult to think that the world will take that explanation seriously. The recognition of the state of affairs by the State Department, in a statement saying, "Japan defending itself won't improve its position," is sad but true.
As a first step in finding a way out of this deadlock, it is essential to have the overseas media understand that this issue was born from lies and misunderstanding. However, if such entities are haunted by the obsessive idea that "the Japanese military is a vicious sex offender," it is no use to criticize by saying, "you're wrong."
What is needed now is a cure which helps the overseas media to become aware of their bias. The first step to a mutual understanding is to explain how the comfort women issue occurred, where the misunderstanding happened, and what kind of misinterpreting has expanded the problem, in order to remove the preconception that's been imprinted in their minds.
0 Comments :
View Comments :: Click!!
0 Comments :
Post a Comment :: Click!!
コメントを投稿