Newsletter

The Difficulty of Writing about the History of Korea-Japan/Women/Common History

It was 20 years ago. In 2001, the Japanese right claimed to remove the description of the ‘comfort women’ in the Japanese middle school history textbook. In response, a committee was set up for the compilation of history textbooks jointly by Korean and Japanese women. In 2000, international women held an 'The Women's International War Crimes Tribunal 2000 for the Trial of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery'. They shared that the issue of ‘comfort women’ is a universal issue of women's human rights. The committee was set up the following year.

People who participated in the compilation committee of Korean and Japanese female activists and researchers discussed intensely at each meeting. In the planning stage, many opinions were exchanged over the meaning, identity, and contents of 'Korea-Japan', 'Women', 'Cooperation', 'History Textbook'. It was about the identity of Koreans and Japanese, such as Zainichi with Korean nationality or Joseon nationality, and whether the commonality of biological women constitutes the 'co-' character. They also discussed how to bring back the historical terms, which are commonly used in the view of nationalism and gender-blind, to the view of gender.

It was not easy to narrow the gap in the situation where the barriers of distance and language were added. Participants of the compilation committee began writing textbooks under the principle of sharing the viewpoint of gender and post-nationalism without solving many tasks. The process of making each manuscript a common history was not easy. The South Korean side asked a question. “Is the way to place the experience of Western women at the front and then write examples of Japan and Korea called post-nationalism?” It was argued that it was impossible to write a universal history of women without understanding the experiences of colonial women who had suffered the most various kinds of discrimination. On the other hand, the Japanese side said that highlighting the damage of colonial women is to downplay the transnational issue of oppression against women. And they criticized that it is a part of nationalism because it classifies the damage of women. It was to typicalize the damage of women approved in the context of nationalism, and to invisibly structure that oppressed women in multi-layered ways.

The experience of discussing 'different' I experienced at the time makes it impossible to write smoothly the history of 'comfort women'. The topic at this point is to write the history of 'comfort women' based on universal human rights issues as a transnational. Those who participated in the committee had already experienced conflicts over the South Korean claim that ‘we should deal with Japan's responsibility for colonialism in court’ while preparing for 'The Women's International War Crimes Tribunal 2000 for the Trial of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery'. Those who opposed it responded that it was first necessary to identify Japanese war crimes in universal principles. Is it an attitude that goes against the universal nature of the damage to think about crimes related to 'comfort women' from the standpoint of colonialism?

Thinking about the issue related to 'comfort women' as a universal human rights issue

The damage of the ‘comfort women’ is an example of a violation of women's rights during the war. This is an undeniable fact. The perception of 'comfort women' as a universal human rights issue has been steadily shared since the early 1990s, and the damage of 'comfort women' has already been proven in the international community. During World War II, the Japanese army used the "sex" of women as a reason to fight efficiently. The victims who were mobilized at Comfort Station suffered 'damage against their will'. Whether or not the process of mobilizing them is forced or voluntary does not affect the fact that they are sexual slavery and victims. These cases of sexual mobilization and sexual violence are continuing and repeating across time and space. Carol Gluck affirmed. “The story of ‘comfort women’ is the focus of the Politics of Memory in East Asia, which is the standard of international human rights and sexual violence against women. Comfort women became global victims in a transnational memoryscape.

However, the Historical Negationism centered on the Japanese right tries to overturn these facts. They try to make an issue of whether the Joseon ‘comfort women’ were voluntarily or forcibly mobilized. And they claim that ‘comfort women’ are neither sexual slavery nor victims. Like those who implemented the 'comfort women' system in the past, they value Japanese interests and dignity. Historical Negationism silences female victims to defend nationalism, and loathes her. And they want to bring the issue of 'comfort women' in the field of academic science and make 'damage or not' as 'area to be proved'. A paper by John Mark Ramseyer of 2021, designed according to their meticulous strategy, was a highlight of the offensive. But we reaffirmed that the issue of comfort women is already a universal human rights issue firmly established in the international community. Therefore, it is not a matter of proving the damage of 'comfort women' by being caught up in Historical Negationism. We faced the challenge of learning and recognizing more cases of damage that vary in pattern depending on the time, region, and local political nature.

There is no universal human rights issue that transcends the experience of Asia and colonies

Historical universality consists of the sum of its specificity. To understand the nature of the damage of the comfort women, it is necessary to understand sexual mobilization, sexual exploitation, and sexual violence system that differ in aspects and characteristics. What is important when understanding the history of 'comfort women' is gender perspective and colonialism. And another important thing is that the damage occurred in the Asia-Pacific region, which was a colony of Japanese and Western imperial states.

The emphasis on colonial perspective is also criticized as the starting point of Korean nationalism limited to Joseon victims. However, colonialism is linked to the question of how women who exist in the political and economic environment of the colonies were mobilized, transported and deployed by public power. For example, colonialism is needed to explain the damage of Japanese women mobilized from Joseon, Joseon and Japanese women mobilized from Taiwan, and women mobilized by the pro-Japanese regime in Asia. There will be no Western society that has experienced imperialism and is free from sexual violence against women in colonies or occupied territories.

Therefore, the history of 'comfort women' should be close to universal human rights issues as it is newly written according to the specificity of time and space. At this time, the damage of 'comfort women' varies according to the intentions of social and economic powers - various powers of the nation, class, and gender hierarchy - linked to public power while crossing each other. To speak of universal human rights issues, we must know about the various aspects and differences.

Discussions for solving the comfort women issue will only be possible at that time. When we reveal the way the crossed powers exercise their power, when we share the fact that the cause of power for the ‘national interest’ was for the politics of death against human rights, when we consider the point where we are involved in this crime. So, while renewing the meaning of memory and continuing to write the history of 'comfort women', we can be wary of the powers that use sex with various retorics. This will bring us closer to the purpose of solving the ‘comfort women’ problem, which eradicates a society that repeats the damage of women against their will.