ANALYSIS / Nerea Álvarez

Relations between Japan and Korea are not easy. The Japanese annexation of the peninsula in 1910 is still very much present in the Korean report . For its part, Japan has a distorted sense of history, the result of having assumed its guilt in the war in a forced way, forced by the punishment suffered in World War II and the US occupation, and not as a consequence of a process of voluntary assumption of responsibility. All this has led Japan to resist revising its history, especially that of its imperialist era.

One element core topic that hinders a sincere reconciliation between Japan and the neighboring countries that were invaded by the Japanese in the first half of the 20th century are the comfort women. This group of women, coming from China, the Philippines, Myanmar, Taiwan, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and South Korea (about 80% came from the latter country), are a consequence of Japan's expansion beginning in 1910. During this period, Japanese soldiers took approximately 70,000 to 200,000 women to comfort stations where they were sexually abused. These stations continued to operate in Japan until the late 1940s. According to the testimonies of surviving women, Japanese soldiers took them away in various ways: kidnapping, deception and extortion are just a few examples.

According to the testimony of Kim Bok-Dong, one of the surviving women, the Japanese soldiers claimed they had to take her to work in a uniform factory because they did not have enough staff. She was 14 years old at the time. The soldiers promised her mother to return her when she was old enough to marry, and threatened the whole family with exile if her parents did not allow her to leave. She was transported by ferry from Busan to Shimonoseki (Yamaguchi Prefecture, Japan), along with thirty other women. They then took another boat to Taiwan and then to Guangdong province. There they were met by officials, who escorted them into a building where doctors were waiting for them. They examined their bodies and escorted them to their rooms. The women were repeatedly assaulted and raped. After several weeks, many were contemplating suicide: "We were much better off dead" (Kim Bok-Dong, 2018). Many died due to the conditions they were subjected to, from disease, killed by Japanese soldiers in the last years of the war, or, if they had the opportunity, by committing suicide. It is estimated that about a quarter to a third of the women survived.

Long process

After the war and despite the facts being known, this dramatic past was relegated to history, without the necessary attention being paid to it. South Korea was not prepared to help these women (and North Korea had gone into absolute isolation). During the 1960s, relations between the ROK and Japan worsened due to the anti-Japanese policies of South Korean political leaders. In 1965, Tokyo and Seoul signed the Normalization Treaty, but it became clear that economic issues were the priority. Bridges of cooperation were built between the two countries, but the emotional conflict prevented and continues to prevent further relations in fields other than economics. Japan continues to claim that the Treaty of Normalization contains the arguments to rule out that these women have the right of standing before international tribunals, even though the text does not mention them.

Things began to change in the 1970s, when the Asian Women's association was formed in Japan, which began to shed light on this aspect of recent history. At first, even the Korean government ignored the problem. The main reason was the lack of evidence that the events had occurred, as the Japanese government had ordered the destruction of the compromising documents in 1945. In addition, Japan prevented the South Korean government from claiming additional reparations for damages incurred during the colonial period based on the 1965 treaty.

Southeast Asian culture played an important role in concealing the events that took place. The value of keeping up appearances in the oriental culture took precedence over denouncing situations such as those experienced by these women, who had to remain silent for decades in order not to be repudiated by their families.

When the Republic of Korea became democratic in 1987, the South Korean government began to attach importance to this issue. In 1990, President Roh Tae Woo asked the Japanese government for a list of the women's names, but the response from Tokyo was that the information did not exist because the documents had been destroyed. Socialist leader Motooka Shoji, a member of the Upper House of Japan's per diem expenses , called for an investigation, but Parliament claimed that the problem had already been resolved by the 1965 Normalization Treaty. In 1991, Kim Hak-Sun, one of the women who survived sexual exploitation, filed the first lawsuit and became the first victim to speak out about her experience. This marked the beginning of the struggle of a group of more than fifty Korean women who demanded recognition of the facts and an official apology from the Japanese government. Since January 8, 1992, "every Wednesday at 12 noon, the victims together with members of committee Korean and other social groups march in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. The march consists of raising posters demanding justice and forgiveness and expressing their grievances in public".

The Tokyo government denied any involvement in the establishment, recruitment and structuring of the comfort women system from the beginning. However, an apology had to be issued in 1992 from the Cabinet's administrative office , although it was vague and too generic, addressed to all women for acts committed during the war. It was not until that year that the Japanese Government acknowledged its involvement in the administration and supervision of these stations. The UNHRC then determined that the Japanese government's actions represented a crime against humanity that violated the human rights of Asian women.

In 1993, Japan admitted to having coercively recruited Korean women. Coercion was the word core topic to disprove previous statements that these women were engaged in prostitution voluntarily. Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono stated that "the Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of comfort stations, and the transfer of comfort women .... who, in many cases, were recruited against their own will." The Government of Japan offered its apology, regretting what had happened, but there was no compensation to the victims. In 1994, the International Commission of Jurists recommended that Japan pay $40,000 to each survivor. The Government wanted to structure a plan to pay the women with non-governmental funds, but the Korean committee for women abducted by Japan as sexual slaves, founded in 1990 and composed of 37 institutions, did not allow it.

In 1995, Prime Minister Murayama Tomiichi set up the instructions of the Asian Women's Fund, which would serve to protect women's rights in Japan and around the world. In international eyes, this organization was seen as an excuse to escape the required legal responsibilities, since public money was raised, making the government's involvement almost imperceptible. In addition, a growing minority opinion of citizens sympathetic to the Japanese right-wing began to make itself heard, calling comfort women 'prostitutes', who did not need to be compensated in any way.

However, monetary compensation is one of the issues that has mattered least to this group of women. Their priority first and foremost is to restore their dignity. That the Japanese government has not become directly involved and does not silence opinions such as those of the right-wing minority is probably what affects them most. Above all, these women are fighting for Tokyo to publicly acknowledge the facts and offer an official apology for what happened.

The UN has continued to take on the role of mediator over the years. We find in several documents belonging to the UNHRC statements urging Japan to resolve the problem. In a document reviewing the organization' s first complaint (February 2, 1996) at committee on Human Rights, we find Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto's response: "the issue of reparations was settled by peace treaties and the Government will never pay compensation to the victims".

In the document in question, comfort stations are classified as military slavery. Japan responded by denying any subject legal liability, given the inability to retroactively apply international law at the time, the vagueness of the definition of comfort stations, the non-existence of anti-slavery laws during World War II, and the failure of international law to prohibit violations in situations of international conflict. In addition, he argued that the laws existing during the war could only apply to conduct committed by the Japanese military against citizens of a belligerent state, but not against citizens of Korea, since Korea was annexed and was part of Japanese territory.

In 1998, U.S. attorney Gay J. McDougall submitted to the UNHRC a document concluding that the actions taken by the Japanese Armed Forces were crimes against humanity. Later that year, the UN adopted the text and changed the previous definition to rape stations.

Understanding that does not come

Over the years, the problem has only grown and Japanese policy has moved away from a possible path of improving diplomatic relations with its neighbors. This problem of revising history is the basis of the political movements we have seen in Japan since 1945. The reforms imposed by the U.S. occupation and the Tokyo courts played a major role, as did the San Francisco Treaty, signed in 1948. All this has established in the Japanese population a passive acceptance of past history and its responsibilities.

Having been judged in the 1948 courts, the responsibility and guilt that the Japanese bore was believed to have been absolved. On the other hand, the US occupation of the archipelago, taking military control, affected the pride of the citizens. The transformation of the Economics, politics, defense and, above all, the Education also had its repercussions. Since Japan's democratic beginnings, policy has focused on passive defense, an anti-nationalist Education and foreign relations aligned with the interests of American power.

However, following the election of Shinzo Abe, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), as Prime Minister in 2012, numerous changes have been introduced in the country's foreign and domestic policy, with reforms in fields ranging from Economics to Education and defense. Regarding the latter, Abe has focused largely on reintroducing military force in Japan through an amendment to article 9 of the 1945 Constitution. This shift is due to the party's own ideology, which wants to give Japan a greater weight in international politics. One of the points core topic in his government is precisely the position towards the controversial topic of comfort women.

In 2015, Shinzo Abe and the President of the Republic of Korea, Park Geun-hye, signed a treaty setting out three goals to be achieved: Japan's official apology, the donation of one billion yen to a South Korean foundation for the benefit of these women, and the removal of the statue in memory of the comfort women erected in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul. This treaty was the greatest achievement in the long process of the conflict, and was received as the solution to so many years of dispute. The first two objectives were achieved, but the controversial statue was not removed from its place. The arrival of President Moon Jae-in in 2017 complicated the full implementation of agreement. That year, Moon openly criticized the treaty as sidelining the victims and the Korean people in general. His presidency has varied certain of South Korea's strategic approaches and it is unknown exactly what he wants to achieve with Japan.

agreement pending

What can be concluded is that delaying the solution is not beneficial to either side. Leaving the problem open-ended is frustrating all countries involved, especially Japan. A case in point is the recent breakdown of brotherhood between the cities of San Francisco and Osaka in 2018 due to a statue in the U.S. town depicting victims of this conflict. It features three girls, a Chinese girl, a Korean girl and a Filipino girl, holding hands. Osaka Mayor Hirofumi Yoshimura and his predecessor, Toru Hashimoto, had written letters to their twin city since the resolution to build the memorial was drafted. Also, within the LDP itself, Yoshitaka Sakurada, called this group of women 'prostitutes' in 2016; shortly after establishing the 2015 treaty on this topic. That has provoked a negative response to the treaty, as it is believed that Japan does not actually seek reconciliation, but to forget the topic without accepting the responsibility that comes with it. 

The problem lies in how these countries deal with the dispute. The Republic of Korea, under President Moon, seeks to heal past wounds with new agreements, but Japan only aims to close the issue as soon as possible. Renegotiating a treaty is not the best option for Japan: even if it seeks the best solution for both sides, it would lose out. Should President Moon succeed in reaching a new agreement with Prime Minister Abe to solve the problems of the previous treaty, it would prove that the previous negotiations and the measures taken by Japan in 2015 have failed.

No matter how many apologies the Government of Japan has issued over the years, it has never accepted legal responsibility for its actions regarding comfort women. Until this happens, future scenarios where the discussion is settled cannot be projected. President Moon will renegotiate the treaty with Japan, but the chances of it working out are slim. All indications are that Japan has no intention of renegotiating the treaty or becoming position legally. If they do not reach a solution, relations between the two countries may deteriorate due to the emotional burden of the issue.

The root of the tensions lies in the historical past and its acceptance. Both Moon Jae-in and Shinzo Abe must reevaluate the status with critical eyes in relation to their own countries. Japan must begin to engage with past actions and the ROK must maintain a steady position and decide what its priorities are regarding comfort women. Only this can enable them to move forward in the search for the best treaty for both.