Survey
of the Japanese Movement Against Wartime Sexual Violence
Peace
Studies Bulletin,
No.20, June 200
(Peace Studies Association of Japan)
HAYASHI
Hirofumi
Introduction
The Issue
of Japanese Military Comfort Women
Investigation and Demands for Compensation
Fruits of Research and the Rightwing Reaction
International Movements against Wartime Sexual Violence
Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal 2000
Conclusion
Introduction
The
20th century has been a period of war and violence. No other century has brought
such an unprecedented level of destruction and genocide. Above all, vast numbers
of women have been made victims of sexual violence. Even now, we are witness to
numerous cases of sexual violence taking place in wars between nations and in
internal armed conflicts around the world. In order to end the cycle of impunity
that accompanies wartime sexual violence against women, it is generally accepted
that the system of Japanese military comfort women, which was in fact sexual
slavery, is an issue that must be faced. The purpose of this article is to
outline research on the subject of wartime sexual violence, in particular the
comfort women, and associated popular movements.
It
should be noted that the term ‘comfort women’ has been severely criticized
because it does not indicate the actual conditions the women had to suffer.
Indeed, the term ‘sexual slave’ or ‘sexual slavery’ is often used
instead. I am of the opinion that the system of Japanese military comfort women
was indeed sexual slavery. In this article, however, I use the historical term
‘comfort women’.
The Issue of
Japanese Military Comfort Women
Until
the 1980s, little attention was paid to the issue of Japan’s war
responsibility and/or Japan’s aggression and the atrocities it committed
against Asians and people from member nations of the UN in Japan itself. Though
a large number of books had already been published about the war, most dealt
with Japanese suffering, such as Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the U.S. air raids
against Japanese cities. But in the 1980s, the Japanese people came to recognize
that Japan was an aggressor rather than a victim. The history textbook dispute
of 1982 had a considerable impact on Japan because fierce criticism came from
other Asian countries. Moreover, Japan had not only become a major economic
power, but was also trying to become an important military power. Many veterans
who until then would not give voice to their inhumane conduct began to speak out
against this push for military strength. Thereafter, a large number of studies
on war crimes such as the Nanjing atrocity were carried out and have led to
significant progress, but the issue of the comfort women was still ignored.
It was in August 1991
that a Korean former comfort woman, Ms. Kim Hak Sun, broke nearly half a century
of silence and made her story public. She was followed by several more women,
not only in South Korea, but also other parts of Asia. Their bravery in stepping
forward encouraged the Japanese, especially women, to organize support groups.
In South Korea, the “Korean Council for Women Drafted for Military Sexual
Slavery by Japan” (the Korean Council) was set up in November 1990 and
demanded among other things that the Japanese government reveal the truth, make
a formal apology, and pay reparations. With the support of NGOs, lawyers and
researchers, the surviving victims began to file lawsuits against the Japanese
government. The first of these was filed by Kim Hak Sun and other Koreans in
December 1991.
Despite this, the
Japanese government denied any involvement by the Japanese military in the
organization of comfort women and refused to conduct an investigation of any
kind. However, the Japanese government was unable to sustain its false position,
particularly when in January 1992 Professor YOSHIMI Yoshiaki, a Japanese
historian, unearthed certain official documents concerning the establishment and
control of “comfort stations” that had been preserved in the Defense
Agency’s National Institute of Defense Studies. As a result, Prime Minister
MIYAZAWA Kiichi publicly admitted that the Japanese military was involved and
apologized over the comfort women issue for the first time.
Although most of the
post-war generation had remained unaware of the existence of comfort women until
that time, the issue came into the popular consciousness not only in Japan but
also around Asia and the world. Research on the issue began and popular
movements demanding a formal state apology and reparation to victims appeared.
Investigation
and Demands for Compensation
The
Japanese government began in some measure to collect materials relating to the
comfort women, and announced the results of surveys in July 1992 and August
1993. In the second announcement, the government was obliged to admit that the
conscription and use of comfort women had been carried out forcibly.
However, the
government concluded its efforts with important materials still undisclosed and
unexplored. Furthermore, the government failed to admit that the Japanese
government and military were the main actors in setting up and operating the
system of military comfort women, and that the comfort-woman system was a
violation of international laws prohibiting war crimes and crimes against
humanity. Further, the government still continued to refuse reparation for the
victims.
Against this
background, a group of historians, legal experts, and others established an
organization called ‘The Center for Research and Documentation on Japan’s
War Responsibility” (JWRC) in April 1993 as the first-ever non-governmental
organization dedicated to research on issues related to the war-related
victimization of Asians by Japan. The JWRC immediately began to investigate
documents relating to Japanese war crimes, and in particular the comfort women.
Some of its findings were announced in August 1993 and numerous important
official documents were made public. The JWRC also began publishing a quarterly
journal, Senso
Sekinin Kenkyu [Report on Japan’s War
Responsibility] in September 1993 (The latest issue is No.31, March 2001). The
investigations and documents revealed in this journal have had a great influence
on the movement.
Various other
organizations have also come into being to provide support to victims in their
legal struggle against the Japanese government. Women are the main actors in
these groups.
In the Philippines,
former comfort woman Maria Rosa Henson came out in September 1992 and filed a
lawsuit against the Japanese government in April 1993.
The comfort-woman issue was first raised at the
United Nations Commission on Human Rights in February 1992. Then in August 1992,
the first Asian Solidarity Conference sponsored by the Korean Council was held
in Seoul. Representatives from four countries (South Korea, the Philippines,
Taiwan, and Japan) agreed that the comfort women were an example of how the
patriarchal system, militarism, and war come together to violate women and
eliminate humanity. Further, they determined that resolving this issue would be
a crucial step toward preventing the recurrence of war crimes and building a
peaceful world. Since this gathering, there has been cooperation among
organizations in the areas victimized and those in Japan.
Recent moves toward democracy in South Korea,
the Philippines, and Taiwan have made it possible for these groups to organize.
And as women have brought a gender-specific viewpoint to the issue, the
nationalist view has met with criticism and solidarity between various countries
has become possible.
Fruits of
Research and the Rightwing Reaction
Historical
research into the Japanese military comfort women has achieved remarkable
results. First, it has been demonstrated that the Japanese government and
military were fully and systematically involved in planning, establishing, and
operating the system of comfort women. Japanese military “comfort stations”
were set up in almost all areas occupied by the Japanese, and local women were
forced to join those from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan at the comfort stations. The
system could not have operated without assistance from the Home Ministry,
including prefectural governors and the police at all ranks, the Foreign
Ministry and its consulates in occupied areas, and the Governor-Generals of
Korea and Taiwan.
Secondly, research has
shown that the military comfort women system was nothing less than sexual
slavery by the military. It constituted sexual, racial, ethnic, and economic
discrimination. The racial or ethnic dimension is seen in the fact that the
military protected Japanese women to a certain extent, while completely ignoring
international laws in the case of other Asian women. Most of those rounded up as
comfort women were economically impoverished women with little education. This
was true for the Japanese as well.
Thirdly, although one
of the reasons given by the Japanese military for introducing the comfort women
system was to prevent the rape of local women by soldiers, it did not eliminate
rape. While soldiers in areas secured by the military, such as major cities,
were ordered to leave women alone in order to garner local support, soldiers
were encouraged to kill, loot, burn, and even rape in hostile areas where
anti-Japanese guerrillas were active and the people were regarded as the enemy.
Thus, despite the comfort women system, rape was rampant.
Fourthly, it has been
proven that the system of Japanese military comfort women was in violation of
international laws. There is no doubt that it constituted a war crime and a
crime against humanity.
Finally, the suffering of the women involved did not end with liberation.
Many of the comfort women were unable to return home. Some still remain where
they were abandoned, as can be seen in the case of Korean women still living in
Wuhan, China. Further, former comfort women have suffered the aftereffects of
diseases, injury, psychological trauma, and post-traumatic stress disorder, as
well as social discrimination on account of having been made comfort women. As
former comfort women began to come out, we all began to realize at last that
their suffering had been lasting and that it would continue until the Japanese
government definitely acknowledges its responsibility, apologizes, pays
compensation, and restores the honor of its victims.
These historical
findings necessarily led to proposals for compensation and apology. Among the
several proposals put forward, I summarize here the one made by Professor
Yoshimi, deputy director of the JWRC, as based on a JWRC proposal of 1994
(Yoshimi (2000), pp. 207-208).
1) All official documents in government
possession relating to military comfort women must be made public.
2) Acknowledgment of and apologies for all
violations of international law and war crimes committed by the Japanese
government must be made.
3) Acknowledgment of responsibility for not
having punished those responsible for these acts must be made.
4) Rehabilitation of the victims must be
carried out.
5) Victims’ dignity must be restored and
individual compensation paid.
6) Educational programs about history and
human rights; monuments to mourn the victims; a research center to establish the
historical facts; memorial museums that preserve this history; and steps to
prevent the repetition of these mistakes.
As
a result of these efforts, the Japanese public began to take note of the comfort
women issue and began to understand Japan’s responsibility. The issue is now
being taught to students at high school and junior high school. More and more
people have come to accept that Japan pursued a war of aggression and was
responsible for numerous atrocities, including the comfort women system.
However, a systematic
counterattack was launched by the right wing beginning in the mid-1990s.
Campaigns have been undertaken by Liberal Democratic Party MPs, as well as
members of other parties, scholars, journalists, veterans, religious
organizations, and other right-wingers. First, they attack textbooks that deal
with Japan’s various atrocities, including the comfort women, and demand that
such material be deleted in order to recover Japanese national pride. They also
claim that Japan’s wars were just, that Japan liberated Asia from the tyranny
of Western colonialism, that the rape of Nanjing was a fabrication, and that
comfort women were rather protected and well treated by the Japanese military
and authorities. Against a background of economic depression and a degree of
prejudice against other Asians, Chinese and Koreans in particular, a
considerable number of people have been influenced by these campaigns.
Various victims of
Japan’s atrocities, including comfort women and those forced into slave labour,
have filed lawsuits against the Japanese government (a total of 58 cases by
September of 2000). However, in almost all cases the courts have dismissed their
suits. Support groups are preparing parliamentary bills for individual
compensation or for investigation of the historical facts. These have so far
gained the support of more than 160 MPs, including some members of the Liberal
Democratic Party. However, the
majority of MPs are still against or indifferent to such proposals. (There are a
total of 480 MPs in the House of Representatives.)
Of late, research into
the comfort women issue has been facing difficulties because the Japanese
government still prevents access to a lot of documents. To make matters worse,
documents that have up to now been available are being closed again on the
pretext of protecting privacy.
International
Movements against Wartime Sexual Violence
As
mentioned before, the comfort women issue first came before the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights in 1992. Thereafter, it was repeatedly taken up by
the Commission in spite of objections by the Japanese government — which
claimed that the UN has no jurisdiction over events that took place before it
came into being. As a result of international efforts, the Commission accepted a
report by Special Rapporteur Rhadika Coomaraswamy in January 1996, which made
six recommendations to the Japanese government. These included acknowledgement
of legal responsibility, payment of compensation to individual victims, the
making of a public apology, and the identification and punishment of
perpetrators as far as possible.
The UN Sub-commission
on Human Rights welcomed a final report by Special Rapporteur Gay J. McDougall
in August 1998: “Systematic Rape, Sexual
Slavery and Slavery-like Practices During Armed Conflict.” The appendix of
this report was entitled “An Analysis of the Legal Liability of the Government
of Japan for ‘Comfort Women Stations’ Established During the Second World
War.” One of the major aims of this report is to end the cycle of impunity for
slavery, including sexual slavery, and for sexual violence including rape. The
report says, “One significant impetus for the Sub-commission’s decision to
commission this study was the increasing international recognition of the true
scope and character of the harms perpetrated against the more than 200,000 women
enslaved by the Japanese military in ‘comfort stations’ during the Second
World War.” In conclusion, it states that, “Sadly, this failure to address
crimes of a sexual nature committed on a massive scale during the Second World
War has added to the level of impunity with which similar crimes are committed
today.” Thus, solving the comfort women issue is one item on the agenda of
international movements against sexual violence and slavery which take place
during contemporary armed conflicts.
In addition to
recommendations for individual compensation and the like, the report was
purposeful in recommending that government and military personnel must be
prosecuted for their culpability in establishing and maintaining the rape
centers. It also stressed the need
for mechanisms to ensure criminal prosecution and provide legal compensation.
Thus, the comfort
women issue can be regarded not only as an issue of war crimes and war
responsibility, but also as one aspect of sexual violence and discrimination
during wartime and peace in male-dominated societies. In other words, settling
the comfort women issue is one essential move toward redressing our present-day
societies characterized by sexual violence and discrimination. The international
solidarity achieved among women in victimized countries and Japan is an
important step forward.
To
take the case of South Korea, the comfort women issue has traditionally been
dealt with from a viewpoint of male-dominated nationalism, not from that of a
woman’s human rights. While blaming Japan, most Koreans ignored the suffering
of the victims themselves. Indeed, the victims were regarded as a shameful
disgrace. Thus the women involved
were not only victimized by the Japanese during the war, but have also suffered
from social prejudice and discrimination in their own societies since the war
ended. Supporters of the former comfort women vehemently criticize the response
of such male-dominated societies. The Korean Council has recently been dealing
not only with Japan’s behavior, but also South Korean sexual violence against
Vietnamese women during the Vietnam War and sexual violence against Korean women
by U.S. soldiers stationed in South Korea. This type of broadening of scope is
also taking place in Japan and other countries.
Women’s
International War Crimes Tribunal 2000
In
spite of pressure from various international movements, the Japanese government
continues to deny any legal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against
humanity committed against women before and during the Second World War. It also
refuses to pay any individual compensation. Further, the Japanese courts have
regularly rejected claims filed by former comfort women from various countries.
A majority in the National Diet still supports this policy.
The
Japanese government did establish the Asian Women’s Fund in July 1995 “to
protect women’s human rights in Japan and around the world.” According to
the official description of the Fund, it promotes “the desire to convey to
these [comfort] women the sincere apologies and remorse of the Japanese
people” through an ‘atonement’ fund raised through direct donations from
the Japanese public. Note that this ‘atonement’ fund is not paid for by the
government but by public subscription, and that it is not compensation but a
form of charity. It demonstrates the Japanese government‘s refusal to take any
legal responsibility. As a result, the fund has been condemned by most former
comfort women and their support groups in various countries. Currently it is
deadlocked.
It
is under these circumstances that the issue of Japan’s failure to fulfill its
obligations to punish war criminals has been raised, and the McDougall report is
part of this consciousness-raising. In contrast with the German government, the
Japanese government has never prosecuted a Japanese war criminal or a person
responsible for military sexual slavery. There are close parallels between this
situation and the International War Crimes Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda, which are prosecuting sexual violence as a crime against humanity
for the first time. The establishment of the International Criminal Court is
also of great significance.
After a 1997
international conference on violence against women in war and armed conflict
situations in Tokyo, VAWW-NET Japan (Violence Against Women in War Network,
Japan) was organized in January 1998. VAWW-NET Japan proposed to other related
organisations that a war crimes tribunal be held, and the International
Organizing Committee (IOC) was set up jointly by the Korean Council, the Asian
Center for Women’s Human Rights (ASCENT)-Philippines, VAWW-NET Japan, and
other groups. Ultimately, the IOC was composed of representatives from seven
countries: North and South Korea, China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and
Japan. Three other countries took part in the resulting tribunal: The
Netherlands, Malaysia, and East Timor.
The objectives of the IOC in setting up the Women’s International War
Crimes Tribunal were as follows:
1) To collect from each country evidence
highlighting the grave nature of the crimes committed against the comfort women
and to clarify
the consequent responsibility of the Japanese Government and its
military.
2) To carry out a clear analysis of the
gender nature of the crimes and to establish a gender-sensitive approach to the
issues of war crimes
against humanity and genocide.
3) To involve the international community in
shedding light on the nature of the crimes committed against the comfort women
of Asia and
to identify steps to be taken by the Japanese Government.
4) To encourage an international movement in
support of issues related to violence against women in war and armed conflict
situations.
5) To end the impunity with which wartime
sexual violence is carried out against women and to prevent such crimes from
happening in the
future.
Although the Tribunal would have no legal power to punish those responsible, the
hope was to clearly establish that the system of military sexual slavery
implemented by the Japanese military and government constituted a war crime
against women and a crime against humanity.
According
to the charter of the Tribunal, it was to have jurisdiction over both
individuals and states, and would identify those responsible for crimes with an
emphasis on perpetrators in top military and government positions with command
responsibility, including the Emperor. In preparing for the Tribunal, victims,
legal experts, historical scholars, and other participants from each country
cooperated to prepare evidence and testimony. The five tribunal judges were
selected from among internationally renowned persons and experts on
international law, including a former head of the International War Crimes
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, who was chosen to preside over the Tribunal.
The IOC planned to run the tribunal as closely as possible to the workings of an
actual court. The Japanese government was asked to attend, but no reply was
received. During the Tribunal, nobody was aware of what the judgment would be
until the verdict was given by the president of the judges. Even the three
co-representatives of the IOC were left wondering to the very end whether the
Emperor would be found guilty or not.
The Tribunal ran from December 8 to 12, 2000, with the judgment being
given on the final day. More than a thousand people, including over 60 former
comfort women from various countries, attended each day. Several hundred
volunteers helped to run the Tribunal. The Tribunal found Emperor Hirohito
guilty of responsibility for rape and sexual slavery, a crime against humanity,
and determined that the government of Japan was responsible for establishing and
maintaining the comfort women system. Verdicts on other twenty-some accused will
be presented in the final judgment in April or May, 2001.
This is the first time that the Emperor has been found guilty of war
crimes. And since the impunity enjoyed by the Emperor has led to impunity for
the Japanese government and high-ranking government officials, this finding is
really significant. In a sense, it is the culmination of ten years of work, as
the Tribunal made full use of the historical research of the past decade.
Needless to say, the judgment was received with excitement by attendees, in
particular the victims of sexual violence by the Japanese. Indeed, we may say
that the Tribunal goes some way toward meeting the demand for justice that
victims have been seeking. However, the issue will not be finally settled until
the Japanese government accepts its full legal responsibility. It is significant
that certain parts of the mass media completely ignored the tribunal or made fun
of it, and in contrast with the foreign media, few journalists dealt with the
Emperor’s guilt. The issue of the Emperor still appears to be taboo in Japan.
Conclusion
Research
into the issue of the Japanese military comfort women and wartime sexual slavery
has achieved remarkable results during the 1990s. A considerable number of
scholars have contributed to this success.
One
question that remains to be answered is, “What role has the Peace Studies
Association of Japan (PSAJ) played in all of this?” It can be said in all
honesty that the PSAJ has contributed nothing. It was at the PSAJ conference in
autumn of 2000 that the issue of wartime sexual violence, including comfort
women, was tabled for the first time. Even in the annual PSAJ journal, Peace Studies, little attention has focused on this issue. As an
editor of Peace Studies from 1999 to
2000, I attempted to deal with the issue, but I found that few researchers or
activists were members. In other words, those involved in this issue work
outside the auspices of the PSAJ.
The efforts by some members ensured that we were able
to hold a session on “War and Sexual Violence” at the PSAJ’s Autumn 2000
conference. At another session of the conference, I (as a commentator)
criticized the PSAJ for barely dealing with the issue of Japan’s war crimes
and war responsibility, including military comfort women. The majority of the
PSAJ seems to have a tendency to avoid such difficult issues. However, the PSAJ
has begun a process of reform, and I conclude this article by expressing the
hope that the PSAJ will deal honestly with the issue of Japan’s war
responsibility and wartime sexual violence around the world.
References
1.
Asian Center for Women’s Human Rights. 2000.
From the Depths of Silence: Voice
of Women Survivors of War (Quezon City: Asian Center for Women’s Human
Rights (ASCENT)).
2.
International Commission of Jurists. 1994.
Comfort Women: An unfinished
Ordeal: Report of a Mission (Geneva: International Commission of Jurists).
3.
McDougall, Gay J. 1998. Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-like Practices During Armed
Conflict. Final report submitted by Ms. Gay J. McDougall, Special Rapporteur
to Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13.
4.
Sajor, Indai Lourdes. 1998. Common Grounds: Violence Against Women in War and Armed Conflict
Situations (Quezon City: Asian Center for Women’s Human Rights).
5.
Yoshimi, Yoshiaki. 2000. Comfort Women: Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military during World War Ⅱ
(New York: Columbia University Press).
6.
Yoshimi, Yoshiaki and Hayashi, Hirofumi (eds.). 1995.
Nihongun Ianfu [Japanese
Military Comfort Women] (Tokyo: Otsuki Shoten).
7.
Hayashi, Hirofumi. 1998. “Japanese
Comfort Women in Southeast Asia”, Japan
Forum, Vol.10, No.2, pp. 211-219.
8. The
Center for Research and Documentation on Japan’s War Responsibility, Web Site
(Japanese and English):
http://www.jca.ax.apc.org/JWRC/
