Newsletter

How will the situation caused by Professor John Mark Ramseyer’s paper, which is heating up the international community in early 2021, come to an end? There are people who intervene in writing the history of sexual slave victims for the Japanese imperial army to eradicate the war crimes, racism and violence that the sexual slave victims have suffered. They are fighting for the future against a move to deny the damage. I ask about the historical perspective to share when rejecting 'fake history' and recording the memories of the victim, and the truthfulness of learning.

Ramseyer's paper, which was released on the website of 「International Review of Law and Economics」. 

An 'Expression of Concert' is shown to inform that there is a question raised about historical evidence. 

The Journal said it had given Ramseyer a chance to vindicate by the end of March. 

However, scholars criticized the journal for using tricks to delay a withdrawal of his paper.

The denial of damage suffered as 'Sexual slave victims' is repeated again

The scandal caused by Harvard professor J. Mark Ramseyer's paper "Contracting for Sex in the Pacific War" has been continuing for more than a month. Let's recount the situation. The paper was first reported by the Sankei Shimbun, Japan's leading right-wing journal, on January 28, 2021. Here's what the comments are about. “The renowned corporate law scholar and master of Japanese research, Ramseyer published an academic paper; it was evaluated by a professional researcher. This is significant in that it has developed discussions with opposition to the idea that so-called 'comfort women' are sexual slave.” In addition, Sankei summarized the contents of the paper under the title "The problem is the recruitment of Joseon". The paper was to be included in the 65th volume of 「International Review of Law and Economics」, published in March 2021. This was approved for publication on November 28, 2020, and is available online from December 1.

The situation began on February 1, when the Korean media reported that a professor at Harvard Law School published a claim in a journal that the so-called 'comfort women' are prostitutes and not sexual slaves based on game theory of economics. The report said Ramseyer's professorship was financed by war criminal company Mitsubishi Japan, and he was awarded the Japanese government's medal.

The fact that the researcher was sponsored by a company or received a medal from a particular country is not to blame. However, research should be supported by a sincere review of previous studies and sufficient evidence. In particular, the papers published in the journals have academic authority because they are examined whether the papers have complied with the principles of research through rigorous evaluation of their colleagues. Therefore, it is only a matter of evaluation of the paper with only external elements. Unfortunately, however, Ramseyer's paper betrayed common sense. This paper explains Prewar Japan's Licensed Prostitution System. And during the war, he argues, Korean women voluntarily became 'comfort women' by signing contracts based on trustworthy promises. He makes contradictory claims. A Korean woman engaged in unlicensed prostitution under the Licensed Prostitution System in Colonial Joseon and abroad. And he also said, "They had been tricked by duplicitous recruiters." If they were deceived by the recruiters' sweet talk and became a 'comfort women', can we call it a contract based on 'trustworthy promises'? If the tricks of the recruiters were an open problem of Colonial Joseon, would the Japanese government or the Japanese army at the time of permitting Korean women to become 'comfort women' have no responsibility? Why does 「International Review of Law and Economics」 insult itself by deciding to publish this paper, which is inconsistent with logic leaps?

This is a testimonial written after Machiko Morikawa interviewed the sexual slavery victim for the Japanese imperial army, Moon Ok-ju. 

Ramseyer cited Moon Ok-ju's testimony in his paper, 

based not on the testimonial but on a ghost blog that seemed to have been created by the right-wing side of Korea. 

Not only that, he arbitrarily reconstructed Moon Ok-ju's testimony, as he intended.

Japanese Right-wing History War on the American Stage, and Ramseyer

Over the past month, I have been constantly looking at the paper in question for 'analysis', and I have had to fight some sense of discomfort. It was a trick to 'academic papers' to achieve unjust political purposes, and I had to look at it academically. Ramseyer’s writings were similar to the Historical negationism of Korea and Japan, which deny the damage caused by the comfort women. The purpose of paper was not to reveal the reality of the 'contract' between 'comfort women' and the recruiters, and to prove the spontaneity of being 'comfort women' as 'game theory'. It was focused on denying the claim that 'the Korean woman became a comfort woman against her will'. Ramseyer wrote in the Japan Forward(English version of the Sankei Shimbun) on January 12 with an article entitled ‘Recovering the Truth about the Comfort Women’.: “The claims about enslaved Korean comfort women are historically untrue… The claims to the contrary are simply-factually-false.” This is two weeks before the Sankei newspaper reported.

The Japanese right wing, which does not reflect on Japan's imperialist invasion, has tried to seal past history by using power. As the issue of ‘comfort women’ spread internationally, they made the United States the main battleground. And they have put their energy into the history war to deny the damage. If the United States sided with the Historical Negationism, they thought that they could escape from the historical responsibility for the damage caused by the 'comfort women'. Miki Dezaki said in the documentary film "The Main Battleground of the Comfort Women Issue", remembering a woman who was ‘comfort women’ means fighting racism, sexism and fascism.

However, the history war of the Japanese right wing on the stage of the United States is not over. We can see that all the events are united, including Ramseyer submitting the paper and its publication was decided, and its online release, the newspaper article titled ‘Korean comfort women are not sexual slavery’, the Sankei newspaper report, the Harvard President and the editor of 『International Review of Law and Economics』 defending Ramseyer. According to the media, Ramseyer's paper, which is sympathetic to the Japanese right, has been written seven times in the last two years. Is it reasonable to think that his status as a Mitsubishi Professor of Japan Legal Studies at Harvard University Law School which was appointed in 1998, and the Order of the Rising Sun(Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon), the National Medal of the Japanese Government awarded in 2018, lead to the current situation?

In August 1944, the United States discovered 20 Korean 'sexual slaves' in Michina, Burma and wrote an interrogation report. 

The report noted that these women had come to Burma without getting accurate information 

about ‘comfort behavior’ and should have stayed at ‘comfort station’ without debt. 

However, Ramseyer claimed that women voluntarily came to Burma based on the report, 

and were able to leave after the contract was over.

Fake Information in the Mask of Academic Authority

This case has many new meanings. First of all, the way to deny the damage suffered as a ‘comfort women’ is different from the historical negationism of the past. Ramseyer wrote his arguments in the form of academic papers, and published them in the excellent social science international journal(Social Sciences Citation Index) through peer evaluation. He used his position as a Harvard law school professor familiar with Japanese law to get people to listen to his claims. He also attracted the attention of researchers by introducing the game theory of economics and analyzing the history of 'comfort women'. The irony is that I have never seen a document proving the contractual relationship between the Japanese government, the Japanese military, the recruiter, and the ‘comfort women’, even though I majored in the history of ‘comfort women’.

I heard an “advise” that I couldn’t talk about Ramseyer’s paper without understanding the game theory. There was also an “advise” that I understood was not a contract in economics, so I should not say it. There was also an “advise” to read a study of human trafficking led by parents or recruiters. I have mentioned the human trafficking mechanism under the Japanese colonial system several times in my papers and academic conferences, but they told me so.

I also thought that this paper would make people's perceptions tilt to historical negationism. At that time, researchers in Korean history, East Asian history, and Japanese history began to point out and refute the errors in the paper. They criticized the paper for claiming a ‘trustworthy contract’ between Recruiter and the ‘comfort women’, the spontaneity of the ‘comfort women’, but not a single contract document which is evidence. They also pointed out that the serious inaccuracy of distortion, false statements, misreading of data, and missing evidence does not end in simple errors, but undermines the paper's claims and destroys its validity. Above all, choosing and citing the victim's statement to claim the spontaneity of the ‘comfort women’ is a serious violation of research ethics and harms academic integrity. And they said: “Even if it’s a controversial or politically uncomfortable topic, studies based on solid evidence are the subject of sound debate. However, Ramseyer's paper is not such a case, so the 『International Review of Law and Economics』 must withdraw its decision to publish his paper.”

In addition, more than 3,000 economists signed a document criticizing Ramseyer's paper. They said that game theory and law and economics could not be tools to legalize historical atrocities, and that historical explanations should be supported by evidence. Ramseyer's paper also criticized the fact that the word contract in history was abused to cover up coercion and exploitation. And they argued that he ignored the rules that Japanese civil law in the past made it impossible for under 20 to sign contracts on their own will.

Until this situation occurred, wars surrounding the denial of the damage of 'comfort women' tended to disappear from the outside of the academic space. And if we forget, it comes back to the issue and similar offense and defense have been repeated. However, this situation caused by Ramseyer's paper took place within the academic space, where scholars responded with the ethics of research and the integrity of the discipline. His paper was aimed at denying the damage of the ‘comfort women’. He therefore undermined the basic principles of research that shared strict research ethics and took social responsibility for the production of knowledge.

Now the focus of the problem has shifted from the paper itself to the journal's responsible response. 『International Review of Law and Economics』 is responsible for explaining why and how this paper was published in the journal. This is because it failed to apply the game theory of economics and failed to provide historical explanations that should be supported as evidence. In other words, this situation is shifting to a perspective that should be prepared for historical debate and a ‘Ramseyer phenomenon’ that asks what research ethics is. This is because researchers and citizens actively intervened, criticized, and pointed out the 'situation'.

The Peace Monument cleansing ceremony

On the morning of February 25, students at Gyesung High School are cleaning 

The Peace Monument before a protest condemning 

Ramseyer's absurdity in the fountain yard in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul. ⓒ Yonhap News

We are fighting for the future

Historian Tessa Morris Suzuki strongly criticized Ramseyer's paper in an article entitled “The ‘Comfort Women’ Issue, Freedom of Speech, and Academic Integrity”. She said Freedom of Speech should be guaranteed, but it should be able to argue on the Academic Integrity. Otherwise, she said, “We could then very easily end up spending much of the rest of our lives debating conspiracy theories or fake news which have no intellectual foundation whatever.”

So what is the issue of the Sexual slavery victims for the Japanese imperial army, and why do we try to solve it? It is to learn in history how violence dominates women's lives when women are placed in political and economic environments and social norms that they have to choose against their will. And to learn that sexual instrumentation of women in the extreme violence of war can be embellished in the deceptive term 'comfort'. So, like the wish that the victim showed us while telling their stories, we should not repeat the era of violence. The future that the journals and other advocates of Ramseyer's paper want to keep is on the other side of us. Because of this we fight for future.