Newsletter

As we celebrate the meaningful centennial of the March 1st Movement and the establishment of the Provisional Government, we come to reconsider the challenges that stem from historical events and that have been handed to us today. This should begin with sincerely wiping the tears of victims of anti-humanitarian crimes mobilized forcibly during the aggressive war under Japan’s colonial rule, the effects of which are still today in the 21st century. In this respect, it is notable that our government proclaimed the restoration of the dignity and honor of sexual slavery victims of Japanese soldiers as a national task by remembering April 14, the day when Kim Hak-sun, a former comfort woman, testified to her victimization for the first time, just before the 73rd anniversary of the National Liberation Day in 2018. It was within same context of the victim-centered principle stipulated under the “Basic Principles and Guidelines on Victims’ Rights” adopted unanimously in the United Nations General Assembly in 2005.

Restoring the Dignity and Honor of Victims is the Key to Historical Justice

Today, the issue surrounding “comfort women” has become a task of historical justice that needs sincere resolution, as the most serious historical conflict in Northeast Asia and the biggest human rights issue in the international community. However, the Japanese government has avoided its responsibility for the comfort women issue by framing the “legitimate theory of 1910 colonization” and the “completion theory of the 1965 Korea-Japan treaty” at both of the historical events of the centenary of Japan’s Annexation of the Korean Empire in August 2010 and the 50-year anniversary of the Korea-Japan treaty in 2015.

The use of comfort women by Japanese soldiers was a grave abuse of human rights, as well as a war crime, committed against women in the colony by imperial Japan. In the process of exploring the task of historical justice, namely relieving the harm done to the comfort women, there was response from Korea’s Constitutional Court in 2011, and then from Korea’s Supreme Court in 2012. These responses contained verdicts based on the historical truth, that had been rejected by Japan, and justice, based on international human rights law. The two judiciary units held Japan fully accountable for its colonial rule by asserting that “the state’s intentions and obligations to restore the damaged dignity and value of comfort women abused during Japan’s colonial rule are constitutional duties,” and that “claims for damages caused by illegal acts directly related to the colonial rule including anti-humanitarian offenses involving Japan’s state power were not included in the ‘Korea-Japan Claims Agreement.’” They went a step further to make the ruling beneficial for historical justice by pursuing positive peace through the assurance of human rights as a universal value of mankind.

This book is the first study to shed light on the issue surrounding comfort women as the task of historical justice from an interdisciplinary perspective. Under the umbrella topics of the issue surrounding comfort women and Japan’s historical revisionism, Part 1 deals with the “Essence of the Issue Surrounding Comfort Women and Japan’s Policy,” while Part 2 deals with “Japan’s Revisionism of Historical Policies and International Response.”

Part 1 contains four pieces written under the theme of the essence of the comfort women issue and Japan’s policy. In chapter 1, entitled “Historical Realities of the Comfort Women Issue and Colonization,” Jeong Jin-seong, emeritus professor at Seoul National University, raises the issue of colonization as a historical characteristic particular to the issue surrounding comfort women. He discusses that this issue has become a symbolic theme of the violation of human rights of women in the international community, at the present day, 30 years after Kim Hak-sun’s public testimony in August 1991.

Chapter 2, entitled “Perpetrators of Anti-Humanitarian Illegal Acts Associated with the Comfort Women Issue,” was written by Zao Wije, a researcher from Danganguan, Jilin Province, China. Zao Wije explains that the Japanese government perpetrated the coercive mobilization of comfort women for Japanese troops, which is and was an illegal act against humanity, through the use of data related to Japanese army and victims of sexual slavery.

In chapter 3, entitled “Conditions of Brothels for Japanese Soldiers and Damage Done to Korean Comfort Women,” Park Jung Ae, researcher at the Foundation’s Research Center on Japanese Military Comfort Women, analyzes the damage that was reported to the South Korean government after the 1990’s, damage catalogued in books of testimonies published in South and North Korea, and damage revealed through the press in relation to 97 women forcibly mobilized from Joseon colony to Manchuria, China’s northeastern region.

Chapter 4 entitled “Japan’s Policy on Comfort Women from the Perspective of International Human Rights Law,” Doh See-hwan, head of the Foundation’s Research Center on Japanese Military Comfort Women, reviews the “apology through the Kono statement.” At the regular meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council in June 2008, in the face of the international community’s urging to settle the issue surrounding comfort women, the most favorable policy argument to the council was the “apology through the Kono statement,” “compensation via Asian Women’s Fund,” and the “resolution of legal issues through treaties.” Doh See-hwan will analyze this from the perspective of international human rights law.

Revisionism of Historical Policies to Avoid Responsibility for Damage

Part 2 contains four pieces under the topic of the Japanese government’s revisionism of historical policies and international response.

In chapter 5, entitled “The Comfort Women Issue and New Historical Revisionism,” Professor Kim Bu-ja of Tokyo University of Foreign Studies points out the prominent emergence of “revisionists” in Japan starting in the late 1990’s. These “revisionists” are cited as “those trying to belittle the Nazi holocaust of World War II and change Nazi’s image completely” in “Auschwitz Lies” authored by Till Bastian. 

In chapter 6, entitled “A Critical Review of Revisionist Theory of the Kono Statement,” Nam Sang Gu, head of the Foundation’s Institute on Korea-Japan Historical Issues, critically reviews the actions taken to revise the statement issued by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono on August 4, 1993, on the basis of research results and awareness of the international community. 

In chapter 7, entitled “The Comfort Women Issue and Korea-Japan Relations in the 1990’s,” Cho, Youn-soo, researcher at the Foundation’s Research Center on Japanese Military Comfort Women, analyzes the actions taken by Korea and Japan surrounding comfort women in the 1990’s, noting that the two neighbors tried to conclude the comfort women issue finally and irreversibly through the “2015 Korea-Japan treaty,” but to no avail. 

In chapter 8, entitled “Japan’s Responsibility for the Comfort Women System Used by Japanese Troops,” Professor Xu Zuryang of Shanghai Normal University analyzes evidence related to Japan’s comfort women system, using data kept in Danganguan, Jilin Province. The professor suggests that the Japanese army executed the system across the board, with brothels being operated by Japanese army itself, and backing this claim with data from military police in Kwantung, Huajung, and Huabei. Professor Xu Zuryang goes onto explain that the women who were taken forcibly as comfort women were pretty much the same as sex slaves.

Creation of a Peaceful Community through Human Rights and Historical Justice

This book urges Japan to perform the sincere task of granting Korea historical justice by exploring the resolution of the issue surrounding the use of comfort women. It urges Japan to do such based on the victim-centered principle that is sought by victims and the international community to move towards a community that recognizes human rights, justice, and peace, and shies away from the historical revisionism designed to avoid responsibility on the basis of the “legitimate theory of 1910 colonization” and the “completion theory of the 1965 Korea-Japan treaty.” We expect the publication of this book to contribute to laying the foundation for such actions.