2015-02-22
【日韓】日本共産党の志位委員長「慰安婦問題で賠償必要、村山談話否定は世界秩序の否定、河野談話否定は日本外交の終えん」 - YouTube
【日韓】日本共産党の志位委員長「慰安婦問題で賠償必要、村山談話否定は世界秩序の否定、河野談話否定は日本外交の終えん」 - YouTube: "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8FHmSg9G7E"
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
2015-02-11
2015-02-06
Never mind the facts — logic alone demolishes 'comfort women' deniers' case | The Japan Times
Never mind the facts — logic alone demolishes 'comfort women' deniers' case | The Japan Times
Never mind the facts — logic alone demolishes ‘comfort women’ deniers’ case
BY COLIN P.A. JONES
JAN 7, 2015
Having decided early that I was likely to eat better as a lawyer than a historian, I had planned on sitting out the latest incarnation of the “comfort women” debate. Yet some of the arguments made by deniers of Japanese military involvement in wartime sexual slavery are so ridiculous that I thought they merited a slightly belated column, in part because they are relevant to how things sometimes still work in Japan today.
Comfort women were rounded up from Korea and elsewhere and put to work as sex slaves for the Japanese military. Deniers accept that serving the sexual needs of Emperor Hirohito’s soldiers was a serious logistic issue, and rightly point out that this was the case for other combatant nations as well. However, describing the women as having been coerced is to them a terrible calumny upon Japan’s honor, as is referring to them as “sex slaves.” In their version of events, comfort women responded to advertisements and worked as prostitutes at a time when the practice was perfectly legal. They did the job willingly and were paid for their efforts.
Rather than rehash old ground, let us ignore the numerous first-person accounts of women claiming to have actually been comfort women, as well as the findings of a number of historical researchers. Nor need we bother to mention an entire subset of war-crime tribunals arising from the sexual enslavement of female Dutch civilians interned when Japan conquered what is now Indonesia.
You don’t need anything more than the central Denier argument — that comfort women were just willing prostitutes earning an honest wage exchanging services for payment — to appreciate how contextually ridiculous it is. Why? Because it hangs on the premise that these women were among an apparently privileged minority of people in Japan’s Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere who weren’t being forced to do things against their will as part of the war effort.
The list of people not so favored would be long indeed. It would start with the war-weary soldiers the comfort women serviced, most of whom were conscripts. Next would be Imperial subjects (including schoolchildren) in Japan and its colonial possessions put on a total war footing by the National Mobilization Act of 1938 and subject to compulsory labor under the National Service Draft Ordinance. Then would come the Korean men forcibly brought to Japan as laborers, not to mention the countless other people in the parts of Asia occupied by the Japanese military forced to provide work and materials to assist the war effort.
As for the comfort women being paid, even if that was true in every single instance (a giant if!), so what? Japanese conscripts were paid too, but it didn’t make their participation in the war and the suffering they endured any more “voluntary.” Even allied POWs forced to work in brutal conditions at gunpoint were theoretically being paid for their labors — that was a requirement of the 1929 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which Japan did not ratify but made a “qualified promise” to follow. Payment doesn’t make it any less accurate to characterize them as having been used as “slave labor” or subjected to “torture” comprising war crimes.
Oh, and under the Geneva Convention, POWs who were officers did not have to perform manual labor unless they volunteered. Guess what: A lot “volunteered,” though beatings and bayonets may have encouraged them to do so in many instances.
You see, the Denier argument involves an almost willful blindness to how much scope there is for coercion in a wartime environment dominated by stressed-out men carrying lethal weapons who have devoted themselves to the task of killing other people.
It also demonstrates an impressive degree of ignorance as to how human trafficking — and thus a lot of prostitution — works even in peacetime, with either some form of coercion or, at the very least, calculated deceit being used to get women on trains, planes or boats “voluntarily” to wherever the brothel is located. According to a 2007 U.S. Congressional Research Report, “the evidence points to deception as a common practice of military and military contractor procurers.”
Insistence by Deniers that comfort women all willingly submitted to their roles deserves attention because the fiction of consent still looms large in the shadows of Japan’s famous social order and supposed love of harmony. I like not fighting with my neighbors and gunshot-free school zones as much as the next guy, but if you have spent any time in Japan, you have likely become accustomed to hearing explanations like “It has been decided” or “That’s how things work.” In other words, you and everyone else are supposed to voluntarily follow a rule without understanding who made it or why.
The same dynamic exists in more formal situations as well. Oxymoronically, mandatory “agreements” are the basis for how NHK fees are collected. Coerced consent also features in the criminal justice system: You “voluntarily” accompany a cop to the station where you stay “voluntarily” until you “voluntarily” make a confession that is the basis for arresting you and detaining you further until you “voluntarily” sign a more detailed confession suitable for convicting you in court. By the time you get before the judge, the burden is on you to prove your innocence — i.e., that your confession was coerced.
Fictional consent is the oil that keeps the wheels of justice moving smoothly. The civil and family justice systems feature a more subtle version of coerced consent, with judges sometimes encouraging settlement by threatening to rule against parties or write unfavorable findings of facts, regardless of the merits of their claims.
Japanese family law, too, assumes that most marriages and adoptive relationships are formed through the free will of the parties, but lacks significant procedures for confirming that the consent of both parties is real, or protections for parties with unequal bargaining power. In fact, Japan may be one of the minority of countries where you can discover that you have married or adopted someone without even knowing it through the magic of fraudulent family-registry filings.
Then there is the term shinjū or “joint suicide,” which assumes that lovers or family members found dead all died of their own free will rather than some of them having been murdered (sometimes the oxymoronic muri shinjū, or “forced joint suicide,” is used).
Phony assent also features in the Japanese economy in practices such assābisu zangyō, the supposedly voluntary unpaid overtime that Japan’s salarymen are famous for enduring, not to mention gyōsei shidō(administrative guidance), by which industries “willingly” submit to mandates from governmental authorities that have no basis in law and have occasionally bordered on criminal solicitation. The ridiculous fiction that borrowers “voluntarily” paid interest above statutory usury caps enabled loan sharks to enjoy massive profits until the Supreme Court put a stop to the farce a decade ago.
Even the seemingly innocuous use of hanko (seals) to execute documents allows government agencies and businesses to assume the person whose seal has been affixed is agreeing to the transaction without bothering to confirm the reality of the consent or even the identity of the person wielding it. Until international money-laundering regulations forced Japanese financial institutions to confirm the identity of those conducting banking transactions, they were pretty much free to rely on possession of a bank book and seal as evidence of the account holder’s consent to whatever happened to the money.
While convenient, these systems of fictional or assumed consent also make it easier for the strong to prey on the weak. More importantly, however, they absolve the authorities who operate them of responsibility for the results.
This brings us to another Denier claim: that Japanese military or civil authorities were not directly involved in whatever “systems” were developed for sexually satisfying Japanese troops. While we might be tempted to refer again to the Congressional Research Service findings that “the evidence describes the involvement of the Japanese military at all stages in the operation of the system,” we can address this argument at face value too because it is simply vacuous. When it comes to government, the difference between having a system and not is irrelevant to the people who suffer as a result.
Furthermore, “nongovernmental system” systems are an obvious part of daily life in Japan. The Japanese government has no system for regulating slot machine gambling or prostitution because both are illegal. Yet the nation has plenty of slot machines and sex workers and heavy police involvement in the existence (or if you prefer, “nonexistence”) of both. It would also be true to say that there is no system for coercing confessions because, well, that would be unconstitutional. Nonetheless, it sure seems to happen with disturbing frequency.
Returning to our historical context, it would also be technically correct to say that Japanese soldiers never systematically used Chinese POWs for bayonet practice because there were no such things as Chinese prisoner of “war,” at least not until Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government formally declared war on Japan on Dec. 9, 1941 — four years after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident served as a pretext for armed intervention on the Chinese mainland. The conflict not being a “war” in legal terms, the Japanese military never put in place systems for looking after Chinese prisoners, leaving them as burdensome “enemy combatants” to be dealt with by the combat units that captured them in the first place.
Whether there were “systems” in place is irrelevant to whether unarmed Chinese prisoners died violent premature deaths or helpless women were forcibly penetrated by Japanese soldiers. These were all intentional acts that caused harm for which people can be held responsible because they were part of a larger tragedy: Japanese military aggression and all that sprang from it. Here is where the Denier arguments are at their most facile, because they seem to assume that Japan’s war was some sort of natural disaster for which nobody was responsible. Yet identifiable responsibility is arguably one of the most important features of civil society, particularly the responsibility of people who govern and wield the power to harm.
For the reflexively-defensive-of-Japan, I will close by noting that with my own country of birth having just disclosed how it “tortured some folks” a shameful six decades after war-crimes tribunals convicted Japanese military men for torturing POWs and murdering civilians, there may well be no moral high ground left to squabble over (if there ever was any in the first place). Perhaps honest debate may be the only thing left for any of us to aspire to in the post-Obama age.
Colin P.A. Jones is a professor at Doshisha Law School in Kyoto. Law of the Land appears in print on the second Thursday Community Page of every month.
I feel very sorry for those women.
25
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto • a month ago
I have to disagree with the first two posters.
Johnniewhite: All your post amounts to is name-calling. If you're so convinced of the wrongness of the claims in this piece, you should debate content not just launch an ad hominem attack.
Ahojanen: Japan has not been cleared of these charges. Specifically the governments of Japan, the USA and the Netherlands have concluded wrongdoing of Japan in this case.
Of course other countries have acted despicably at times. The US had already been mentioned and what happened after the war in the Dutch East Indies was also morally wrong. This does not have any bearing on the case however.
31
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Hiruto • a month ago
>>Ahojanen: Japan has not been cleared of these charges.
Evidence? Not circumstantial one. Don't know the presumed innocence-principle?
The comfort women case has long been messed up due mostly to ignorance and confusion between criminality and morality. Here I am only trying to make it clearer paving the way for a better discussion and understanding. Criminality dismissed/unproved. Morality to be further discussed, much better put into a perspective with other comparable cases.
I never claim that Japan exempts from its moral responsibility. Yet on political front the case was settled in 1995 with the Kono Statement and Asian Women's Fund. ROK plus some others's demand is unreasonable and politically driven. It is even breach of diplomatic protocols and post-war reconciliation efforts.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto Ahojanen • a month ago
There is plenty of evidence in those government reports. The debate is (at least in my mind) much more about morality than criminal culpability. For that debate to have any meaning you have to agree on certain facts though, and as for that it seems we're walking backwards.
24
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Hiruto • a month ago
There is also plenty of COUNTER-evidence, some official ones stored at US archives, telling otherwise. No single document has so far proved forced recruitment by Japanese military officials under an official command.
Well, I stay attentive and open-minded to any new "discovery" if surface :) I am not a historian, feel like leaving fact-finding part of enquries to experts.
Politically the case was, or could have been, settled in 1995 with the Kono statement. It is ROK, not Japan, who makes things more complicated (even against former comfort women's will and sense of closure).
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
KenjiAd Ahojanen • a month ago
I think you do have a point, but probably misunderstood (or perhaps ignored?) what "Hiruto" said, particularly this one. He said,
The debate is (at least in my mind) much more about morality than criminal culpability
America used to have have a slavery system. It was completely legal. Yet the vast majority of Americans think it was wrong to use other human beings for that purpose.
Do you agree with them?
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen KenjiAd • a month ago
If you attempt to bring moral debate to the comfort women case, that's fine. Yet notice it's another story at another level. What South Korea is seeking (in vain) is to prove criminality and liability. I simply claim it lacks evidence, never goes beyond reasonable doubts. Oddly, Koreans have not even taken the burden of proof. Moral debate on the comfort women is more recent phenomenon, though such is confusing and misleading quite many people.
In fact, Japan is not really ignorant of moral issues on comfort women. The Asian Women's Fund, established in 1995, aimed to compensate former comfort women for their wartime hardship. This is an initiative on moral ground. Unfortunately this reparation programme was however rejected by the South Korea side, and some women who agreed on the settlement were even threatened.
I wonder if the US government has ever paid reparations to descendants of slaves on moral ground. Mind own business at the backyard first.
Overall, you could say there's still some "room" for improvement on Japan's side (which I highly doubt it would be successful, though). But you can never argue that Japan has done nothing on the comfort women issue.
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Oliver Mackie Hiruto • a month ago
"This does not have any bearing on the case however."
If you think that then you really don't understand the debate here in Japan at all. The Debate is ALL about holding some countries to certain standards (and 'convicting' them as 'war criminals') and not holding certain others (who were in fact those who "concluded wrongdoing") to those standards.
Yes, I know "two wrongs don't make a right" but you can't expect one group of wrongdoers to admit they were wrong whilst others do not: it's basic human nature. And no, there's no validity in the argument that at that certain point in history 'international standards had changed' especially when some of the countries in question had not ratified certain 'international agreements.'
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto Oliver Mackie • a month ago
I get what you're saying, I really do. The reaction to the recent torture report in the US, basically sweeping under the rug the kind of behaviour that Japanese were convicted for after WWII, shows the hypocrisy of some.
On the other hand I can't ignore how different things played out in Germany. After WWII they were truly apologetic without hemming or hawing and taking back of apologies. I think Japan would have been better served with a more similar approach. Now the whole discussion is just a rallying cry for nationalists on all sides.
23
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Oliver Mackie Hiruto • a month ago
I certainly agree that it might very well have been better on many fronts (international business, for example) to have simply 'swallowed the bullet' a la Germany. But there are a couple of interesting and relevant points:
Firstly, there is the undenability that the Holocaust was a pre-conceived plan way from the very top. The debate about, for example, 'comfort women' is very much about how much this was certain elements who had taken things into their own hands and how much it was a governmental or military official policy.
Second, I have given strong data elsewhere that whilst Germany may have a much better international image over such matters, it actually has 10 times as many right-wing radicals/neo-nazis per capita currently. If one looks solely at this factor (though it might of course simply be correlation rather than causation) you could make an argument that rubbing the populace's noses in the deeds of those in the past is not conducive to a more civilized society.
As I have just recommended to another poster in a different thread with similar overtones,
if you're interested in a highly relevant read, I today received my copy of John H. Mearsheimer's "Why Leaders Lie" It's a very dry analysis of the topic as it relates to both domestic and intl politics, and deliberately sticks to 'utilitarian' analysis, but nevertheless is a fascinating read regarding whitewashing history, justifying pre-emptive wars, and the establishment/nurturing/revival of nationalistic feeling. Once you have absorbed his categorizations of lying, I imagine you will have your head zooming around with examples you recognize from history.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto Oliver Mackie • a month ago
Granted, the situations are different on a number of points. The war-time actions for one, the relations with the neighbouring countries for another.
Although right-wing extremism is a problem, I don't know if that factor of 10 is a realistic number. Japan also has its share of unsavoury characters. Also don't forget that Germany has perhaps 10 times the relative amount of immigrants, and that seems to be a motivation for nationalist parties in many European countries. Anyway, much of this is beside the point. Thanks for the recommendation.
8
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Oliver Mackie Hiruto • a month ago
The numbers are very reliable, please check my posts on Disqus elsewhere if you wish to see them. But as you point out, it may well be due to other factors, such as the number of immigrants etc.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Hiruto • a month ago
FYI, Japan officially apologised for its mistreatment of US POWs in 2009. Please don't stay ignorant of or play down Japan's postwar reconciliation efforts.
Germans have not apologised some of their war crimes. All their apologies is aimed for the Holocaust which is NOT a war crime. Persecutions against Jews or "non-Aryan" races already took place during peacetime, prior to WWII.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto Ahojanen • a month ago
Yes there have been apologies, but there have also been qualifications on past apologies, political shows of going to Yasukuni shrine, plans for 'more positive' retelling of national history in textbooks etc. I would say a majority of Japanese people and politicians have actually been apologetic, but a significant part of the establishment has seemed to want to reverse this stance.
As for your second point, I hope you are not serious when you say genocide is not a war crime or the Holocaust does not amount to genocide. That is both factually incorrect and morally reprehensible. Mistreatment of minority groups did also take place before the official start of war, but that does not mean that those crimes committed during war are not war crimes
17
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Hiruto • a month ago
I don't think further apology is necessary. Let's stick to the article story though I have my thoughts on Yasukuni and textbook issues.
Only on the second point, quickly. You should not be confused between war crimes and crimes against humanity (including genocides). The two are different by nature although they often concur especially at a conflicting moment.
I also never downgrade crimes against humanity. On the contrary. Another good example would be A-bombings devastating civilian and non military targets. It is more than a war crime, thus I prefer to call it Atomic Holocaust. It is the US who should follow German suit, no?
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
KenjiAd Ahojanen • a month ago
I also never downgrade crimes against humanity. On the contrary. Another
good example would be A-bombings devastating civilian and non military
targets. It is more than a war crime, thus I prefer to call it Atomic
Holocaust.
For your information, use of "holocaust" (with or without capital "H") to describe other human atrocities tends to offend the actual Holocaust survivors and most historians.
Holocaust stands alone, not just in its sheer scale, but for the fact that it was a governmental policy to exterminate human beings merely based on the victim's race.
Other atrocities, including Nanking Massacre and strategic bombing campaigns, including A-bomb, carried out by both Allied and Axis powers, are not "holocaust."
6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen KenjiAd • a month ago
Got it, though I don't see Nazi's programme something special and incomparable to any other historic genocidal cases by objective criteria.
What do you say about the "Ground Zero"? It originally means the A-bomb drop point of the Hiroshima city. This special word is "stolen," now often referred to the former WTC-site under 911 attack. Agreed with careful word use, but let's be fair.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Simon Ahojanen • a month ago
"Germans have not apologized some of their war crimes." How can you say that! Go to Berlin and many other places in Germany and you see how they are miles ahead in terms of making up their past comparing to Japan! You've no idea.
I often miss the awareness of the wrongdoings, a kind of humbleness concerning the past - very different from the Germans. In Germany it is common sense that just idiots defend the Holocaust, nobody takes them serious.
Holocaust not a war crime? What else is a war crime if not the Holocaust? Absurd!
12
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Simon • a month ago
Check my post above, as you also seem mistaken and confused between war crimes and crimes against humanity (including Holocaust).
I've been oftentimes visiting Germany as living nearby. I know much better than you regarding its postwar-reconciliation. Germans (were allowed to) focus on the case of Holocast while exempting from a number of war crimes. Do you know the German military also held comfort women? They forced women into sex service (and unlike the Japanese case, there are proven records). Germany has yet to apologise for it.
Postwar Germans are also lagerly "saved" thanks to active forgiveness of neighbouring European countries namely France (and Soviet for East Germany). Why not ROK following France if Japan are to follow Germany?
All in all German wartime history is different from Japanese one. You cannot apply the German model of apology to other cases without taking into account contexts.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
KenjiAd Ahojanen • a month ago
Check my post above, as you also seem mistaken and confused between war crimes and crimes against humanity (including Holocaust).
You are splitting a hair here. In fact you are technically correct in stating that Holocaust is not a war crime as envisioned in the Hague/Geneva Conventions. Simply put, no one had envisioned such a crime.
As you probably are aware, one of the criticisms of Nuremberg trials is that the Nazi defendants were punished for the crimes (crimes against humanity) that didn't exist when those crimes were taking place.
But I hope you would agree that justice is more important than legal technicality. If those Nazis had been set free, just because technically they weren't breaking any German or international laws by exterminating Jews, justice would not have been served.
So think about that when you are talking about "Comfort women" issue.
6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen KenjiAd • a month ago
Are you suggesting that the comfort women case be tried and punished retroactively? I don't really oppose to it, but please know the risk of being too judgmental on historical events. We tend to go dumb by assessing history in our present-day values.
If you are to stress morality or justice, put other historic "unmoral" cases together into perspective for a better understanding. And it is crucial to separate history enquiry and debate from ongoing politics. I only agree to understand, not take advantage of history for political purpose.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
−
Bruce Chatwin Ahojanen • a month ago
Fujisaki's apology was probably the most sincere Japanese apology to date. He actually had the courage and sincerity to meet some of the surviving US POWs face to face and offer an apology. Fujisaki's actions are laudable. (Note though that Fujisaki is apparently not a member of the revisionist Nippon Kaigi.) However, the apology was not endorsed by the Japanese Diet. I'm not sure if any war apologies have been backed by the Diet. I do know that in 1995 when then PM Murayama tried to pass a resolution for a war apology through the Diet, his govt almost fell because the LDP members in his coalition argued the war was Japan's heroic effort to free Asia from the shackles of European colonialism. The final resolution did not include an apology and trivialized Japan's actions by placing them in the context of colonial rule and other acts of aggression in the modern world.
For more, see "Nation States as Schizophrenics: Germany and Japan as Post-Cold War Actors" by R. N. Haar
Regarding the Holocaust, Telford Taylor observes that "the laws of war do not cover, in time of either war or peace, a government's actions against its own nationals, such as Nazi Germany's persecution of German Jews." Note that reservation is only for its OWN nationals. So, for example, the murders of French, Hungarian, or Polish Jews by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust (1939-1945) were war crimes.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
johnniewhite Hiruto • a month ago
If you follow all my post in JT or Disquis, then you must surely know all my evidence and supporting argument I gave in the past. I don't want to repeat myself.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
A.J. Sutter • a month ago
As a lawyer myself and with absolutely no stake in the comfort women argument, I think this article is unsuccessful.
Never mind the facts — logic alone demolishes ‘comfort women’ deniers’ case
BY COLIN P.A. JONES
JAN 7, 2015
Having decided early that I was likely to eat better as a lawyer than a historian, I had planned on sitting out the latest incarnation of the “comfort women” debate. Yet some of the arguments made by deniers of Japanese military involvement in wartime sexual slavery are so ridiculous that I thought they merited a slightly belated column, in part because they are relevant to how things sometimes still work in Japan today.
Comfort women were rounded up from Korea and elsewhere and put to work as sex slaves for the Japanese military. Deniers accept that serving the sexual needs of Emperor Hirohito’s soldiers was a serious logistic issue, and rightly point out that this was the case for other combatant nations as well. However, describing the women as having been coerced is to them a terrible calumny upon Japan’s honor, as is referring to them as “sex slaves.” In their version of events, comfort women responded to advertisements and worked as prostitutes at a time when the practice was perfectly legal. They did the job willingly and were paid for their efforts.
Rather than rehash old ground, let us ignore the numerous first-person accounts of women claiming to have actually been comfort women, as well as the findings of a number of historical researchers. Nor need we bother to mention an entire subset of war-crime tribunals arising from the sexual enslavement of female Dutch civilians interned when Japan conquered what is now Indonesia.
Finally, we must resist the urge to cite past admissions of culpability by Japan’s own postwar government, including involvement in the establishment of a compensation fund and apologies by past Japanese prime ministers.
According to the Deniers, these are all the result of a terrible misunderstanding caused by the shoddy yet inexplicably influential journalism of one reporter at the Asahi Shimbun.
You don’t need anything more than the central Denier argument — that comfort women were just willing prostitutes earning an honest wage exchanging services for payment — to appreciate how contextually ridiculous it is. Why? Because it hangs on the premise that these women were among an apparently privileged minority of people in Japan’s Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere who weren’t being forced to do things against their will as part of the war effort.
The list of people not so favored would be long indeed. It would start with the war-weary soldiers the comfort women serviced, most of whom were conscripts. Next would be Imperial subjects (including schoolchildren) in Japan and its colonial possessions put on a total war footing by the National Mobilization Act of 1938 and subject to compulsory labor under the National Service Draft Ordinance. Then would come the Korean men forcibly brought to Japan as laborers, not to mention the countless other people in the parts of Asia occupied by the Japanese military forced to provide work and materials to assist the war effort.
As for the comfort women being paid, even if that was true in every single instance (a giant if!), so what? Japanese conscripts were paid too, but it didn’t make their participation in the war and the suffering they endured any more “voluntary.” Even allied POWs forced to work in brutal conditions at gunpoint were theoretically being paid for their labors — that was a requirement of the 1929 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which Japan did not ratify but made a “qualified promise” to follow. Payment doesn’t make it any less accurate to characterize them as having been used as “slave labor” or subjected to “torture” comprising war crimes.
Oh, and under the Geneva Convention, POWs who were officers did not have to perform manual labor unless they volunteered. Guess what: A lot “volunteered,” though beatings and bayonets may have encouraged them to do so in many instances.
You see, the Denier argument involves an almost willful blindness to how much scope there is for coercion in a wartime environment dominated by stressed-out men carrying lethal weapons who have devoted themselves to the task of killing other people.
It also demonstrates an impressive degree of ignorance as to how human trafficking — and thus a lot of prostitution — works even in peacetime, with either some form of coercion or, at the very least, calculated deceit being used to get women on trains, planes or boats “voluntarily” to wherever the brothel is located. According to a 2007 U.S. Congressional Research Report, “the evidence points to deception as a common practice of military and military contractor procurers.”
Insistence by Deniers that comfort women all willingly submitted to their roles deserves attention because the fiction of consent still looms large in the shadows of Japan’s famous social order and supposed love of harmony. I like not fighting with my neighbors and gunshot-free school zones as much as the next guy, but if you have spent any time in Japan, you have likely become accustomed to hearing explanations like “It has been decided” or “That’s how things work.” In other words, you and everyone else are supposed to voluntarily follow a rule without understanding who made it or why.
The same dynamic exists in more formal situations as well. Oxymoronically, mandatory “agreements” are the basis for how NHK fees are collected. Coerced consent also features in the criminal justice system: You “voluntarily” accompany a cop to the station where you stay “voluntarily” until you “voluntarily” make a confession that is the basis for arresting you and detaining you further until you “voluntarily” sign a more detailed confession suitable for convicting you in court. By the time you get before the judge, the burden is on you to prove your innocence — i.e., that your confession was coerced.
Fictional consent is the oil that keeps the wheels of justice moving smoothly. The civil and family justice systems feature a more subtle version of coerced consent, with judges sometimes encouraging settlement by threatening to rule against parties or write unfavorable findings of facts, regardless of the merits of their claims.
Japanese family law, too, assumes that most marriages and adoptive relationships are formed through the free will of the parties, but lacks significant procedures for confirming that the consent of both parties is real, or protections for parties with unequal bargaining power. In fact, Japan may be one of the minority of countries where you can discover that you have married or adopted someone without even knowing it through the magic of fraudulent family-registry filings.
Then there is the term shinjū or “joint suicide,” which assumes that lovers or family members found dead all died of their own free will rather than some of them having been murdered (sometimes the oxymoronic muri shinjū, or “forced joint suicide,” is used).
Phony assent also features in the Japanese economy in practices such assābisu zangyō, the supposedly voluntary unpaid overtime that Japan’s salarymen are famous for enduring, not to mention gyōsei shidō(administrative guidance), by which industries “willingly” submit to mandates from governmental authorities that have no basis in law and have occasionally bordered on criminal solicitation. The ridiculous fiction that borrowers “voluntarily” paid interest above statutory usury caps enabled loan sharks to enjoy massive profits until the Supreme Court put a stop to the farce a decade ago.
Even the seemingly innocuous use of hanko (seals) to execute documents allows government agencies and businesses to assume the person whose seal has been affixed is agreeing to the transaction without bothering to confirm the reality of the consent or even the identity of the person wielding it. Until international money-laundering regulations forced Japanese financial institutions to confirm the identity of those conducting banking transactions, they were pretty much free to rely on possession of a bank book and seal as evidence of the account holder’s consent to whatever happened to the money.
While convenient, these systems of fictional or assumed consent also make it easier for the strong to prey on the weak. More importantly, however, they absolve the authorities who operate them of responsibility for the results.
This brings us to another Denier claim: that Japanese military or civil authorities were not directly involved in whatever “systems” were developed for sexually satisfying Japanese troops. While we might be tempted to refer again to the Congressional Research Service findings that “the evidence describes the involvement of the Japanese military at all stages in the operation of the system,” we can address this argument at face value too because it is simply vacuous. When it comes to government, the difference between having a system and not is irrelevant to the people who suffer as a result.
Furthermore, “nongovernmental system” systems are an obvious part of daily life in Japan. The Japanese government has no system for regulating slot machine gambling or prostitution because both are illegal. Yet the nation has plenty of slot machines and sex workers and heavy police involvement in the existence (or if you prefer, “nonexistence”) of both. It would also be true to say that there is no system for coercing confessions because, well, that would be unconstitutional. Nonetheless, it sure seems to happen with disturbing frequency.
Returning to our historical context, it would also be technically correct to say that Japanese soldiers never systematically used Chinese POWs for bayonet practice because there were no such things as Chinese prisoner of “war,” at least not until Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government formally declared war on Japan on Dec. 9, 1941 — four years after the Marco Polo Bridge Incident served as a pretext for armed intervention on the Chinese mainland. The conflict not being a “war” in legal terms, the Japanese military never put in place systems for looking after Chinese prisoners, leaving them as burdensome “enemy combatants” to be dealt with by the combat units that captured them in the first place.
Whether there were “systems” in place is irrelevant to whether unarmed Chinese prisoners died violent premature deaths or helpless women were forcibly penetrated by Japanese soldiers. These were all intentional acts that caused harm for which people can be held responsible because they were part of a larger tragedy: Japanese military aggression and all that sprang from it. Here is where the Denier arguments are at their most facile, because they seem to assume that Japan’s war was some sort of natural disaster for which nobody was responsible. Yet identifiable responsibility is arguably one of the most important features of civil society, particularly the responsibility of people who govern and wield the power to harm.
For the reflexively-defensive-of-Japan, I will close by noting that with my own country of birth having just disclosed how it “tortured some folks” a shameful six decades after war-crimes tribunals convicted Japanese military men for torturing POWs and murdering civilians, there may well be no moral high ground left to squabble over (if there ever was any in the first place). Perhaps honest debate may be the only thing left for any of us to aspire to in the post-Obama age.
Colin P.A. Jones is a professor at Doshisha Law School in Kyoto. Law of the Land appears in print on the second Thursday Community Page of every month.
Comments: community@japantimes.co.jp
34 Comments
The Japan Times Online
KenjiAd • a month ago
I've been meaning to say this for a long time, but I've suppressed it because I'm Japanese and feel much affection to the culture I grew up with. But now I just want to say it and see where it sticks.
When it comes to the issue of Comfort women, I notice that there's something very wrong with thinking of many Japanese people - i.e., almost total lack of empathy toward those women.
The lack of empathy just amazes me and makes me angry at the same time, because, setting aside the legal technicality, there is no question these women suffered a lot. If you are talking about the suffering of other people, there are certain things that you would never say - such as "Criminality dismissed/unproved."
At the same time, people who say those insensitive things are invariably ultra-sensitive when their own culture and nation are criticized. In other words, their empathy or sensitivity is spent only on their own group.
That's disturbing.
Do Japanese people have a tendency to not feel much empathy to the suffering of non-Japanese, when this suffering was caused by their own action?
34 Comments
The Japan Times Online
KenjiAd • a month ago
I've been meaning to say this for a long time, but I've suppressed it because I'm Japanese and feel much affection to the culture I grew up with. But now I just want to say it and see where it sticks.
When it comes to the issue of Comfort women, I notice that there's something very wrong with thinking of many Japanese people - i.e., almost total lack of empathy toward those women.
The lack of empathy just amazes me and makes me angry at the same time, because, setting aside the legal technicality, there is no question these women suffered a lot. If you are talking about the suffering of other people, there are certain things that you would never say - such as "Criminality dismissed/unproved."
At the same time, people who say those insensitive things are invariably ultra-sensitive when their own culture and nation are criticized. In other words, their empathy or sensitivity is spent only on their own group.
That's disturbing.
Do Japanese people have a tendency to not feel much empathy to the suffering of non-Japanese, when this suffering was caused by their own action?
I feel very sorry for those women.
25
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto • a month ago
I have to disagree with the first two posters.
Johnniewhite: All your post amounts to is name-calling. If you're so convinced of the wrongness of the claims in this piece, you should debate content not just launch an ad hominem attack.
Ahojanen: Japan has not been cleared of these charges. Specifically the governments of Japan, the USA and the Netherlands have concluded wrongdoing of Japan in this case.
Of course other countries have acted despicably at times. The US had already been mentioned and what happened after the war in the Dutch East Indies was also morally wrong. This does not have any bearing on the case however.
31
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Hiruto • a month ago
>>Ahojanen: Japan has not been cleared of these charges.
Evidence? Not circumstantial one. Don't know the presumed innocence-principle?
The comfort women case has long been messed up due mostly to ignorance and confusion between criminality and morality. Here I am only trying to make it clearer paving the way for a better discussion and understanding. Criminality dismissed/unproved. Morality to be further discussed, much better put into a perspective with other comparable cases.
I never claim that Japan exempts from its moral responsibility. Yet on political front the case was settled in 1995 with the Kono Statement and Asian Women's Fund. ROK plus some others's demand is unreasonable and politically driven. It is even breach of diplomatic protocols and post-war reconciliation efforts.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto Ahojanen • a month ago
There is plenty of evidence in those government reports. The debate is (at least in my mind) much more about morality than criminal culpability. For that debate to have any meaning you have to agree on certain facts though, and as for that it seems we're walking backwards.
24
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Hiruto • a month ago
There is also plenty of COUNTER-evidence, some official ones stored at US archives, telling otherwise. No single document has so far proved forced recruitment by Japanese military officials under an official command.
Well, I stay attentive and open-minded to any new "discovery" if surface :) I am not a historian, feel like leaving fact-finding part of enquries to experts.
Politically the case was, or could have been, settled in 1995 with the Kono statement. It is ROK, not Japan, who makes things more complicated (even against former comfort women's will and sense of closure).
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
KenjiAd Ahojanen • a month ago
I think you do have a point, but probably misunderstood (or perhaps ignored?) what "Hiruto" said, particularly this one. He said,
The debate is (at least in my mind) much more about morality than criminal culpability
America used to have have a slavery system. It was completely legal. Yet the vast majority of Americans think it was wrong to use other human beings for that purpose.
Do you agree with them?
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen KenjiAd • a month ago
If you attempt to bring moral debate to the comfort women case, that's fine. Yet notice it's another story at another level. What South Korea is seeking (in vain) is to prove criminality and liability. I simply claim it lacks evidence, never goes beyond reasonable doubts. Oddly, Koreans have not even taken the burden of proof. Moral debate on the comfort women is more recent phenomenon, though such is confusing and misleading quite many people.
In fact, Japan is not really ignorant of moral issues on comfort women. The Asian Women's Fund, established in 1995, aimed to compensate former comfort women for their wartime hardship. This is an initiative on moral ground. Unfortunately this reparation programme was however rejected by the South Korea side, and some women who agreed on the settlement were even threatened.
I wonder if the US government has ever paid reparations to descendants of slaves on moral ground. Mind own business at the backyard first.
Overall, you could say there's still some "room" for improvement on Japan's side (which I highly doubt it would be successful, though). But you can never argue that Japan has done nothing on the comfort women issue.
2
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Oliver Mackie Hiruto • a month ago
"This does not have any bearing on the case however."
If you think that then you really don't understand the debate here in Japan at all. The Debate is ALL about holding some countries to certain standards (and 'convicting' them as 'war criminals') and not holding certain others (who were in fact those who "concluded wrongdoing") to those standards.
Yes, I know "two wrongs don't make a right" but you can't expect one group of wrongdoers to admit they were wrong whilst others do not: it's basic human nature. And no, there's no validity in the argument that at that certain point in history 'international standards had changed' especially when some of the countries in question had not ratified certain 'international agreements.'
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto Oliver Mackie • a month ago
I get what you're saying, I really do. The reaction to the recent torture report in the US, basically sweeping under the rug the kind of behaviour that Japanese were convicted for after WWII, shows the hypocrisy of some.
On the other hand I can't ignore how different things played out in Germany. After WWII they were truly apologetic without hemming or hawing and taking back of apologies. I think Japan would have been better served with a more similar approach. Now the whole discussion is just a rallying cry for nationalists on all sides.
23
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Oliver Mackie Hiruto • a month ago
I certainly agree that it might very well have been better on many fronts (international business, for example) to have simply 'swallowed the bullet' a la Germany. But there are a couple of interesting and relevant points:
Firstly, there is the undenability that the Holocaust was a pre-conceived plan way from the very top. The debate about, for example, 'comfort women' is very much about how much this was certain elements who had taken things into their own hands and how much it was a governmental or military official policy.
Second, I have given strong data elsewhere that whilst Germany may have a much better international image over such matters, it actually has 10 times as many right-wing radicals/neo-nazis per capita currently. If one looks solely at this factor (though it might of course simply be correlation rather than causation) you could make an argument that rubbing the populace's noses in the deeds of those in the past is not conducive to a more civilized society.
As I have just recommended to another poster in a different thread with similar overtones,
if you're interested in a highly relevant read, I today received my copy of John H. Mearsheimer's "Why Leaders Lie" It's a very dry analysis of the topic as it relates to both domestic and intl politics, and deliberately sticks to 'utilitarian' analysis, but nevertheless is a fascinating read regarding whitewashing history, justifying pre-emptive wars, and the establishment/nurturing/revival of nationalistic feeling. Once you have absorbed his categorizations of lying, I imagine you will have your head zooming around with examples you recognize from history.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto Oliver Mackie • a month ago
Granted, the situations are different on a number of points. The war-time actions for one, the relations with the neighbouring countries for another.
Although right-wing extremism is a problem, I don't know if that factor of 10 is a realistic number. Japan also has its share of unsavoury characters. Also don't forget that Germany has perhaps 10 times the relative amount of immigrants, and that seems to be a motivation for nationalist parties in many European countries. Anyway, much of this is beside the point. Thanks for the recommendation.
8
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Oliver Mackie Hiruto • a month ago
The numbers are very reliable, please check my posts on Disqus elsewhere if you wish to see them. But as you point out, it may well be due to other factors, such as the number of immigrants etc.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Hiruto • a month ago
FYI, Japan officially apologised for its mistreatment of US POWs in 2009. Please don't stay ignorant of or play down Japan's postwar reconciliation efforts.
Germans have not apologised some of their war crimes. All their apologies is aimed for the Holocaust which is NOT a war crime. Persecutions against Jews or "non-Aryan" races already took place during peacetime, prior to WWII.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto Ahojanen • a month ago
Yes there have been apologies, but there have also been qualifications on past apologies, political shows of going to Yasukuni shrine, plans for 'more positive' retelling of national history in textbooks etc. I would say a majority of Japanese people and politicians have actually been apologetic, but a significant part of the establishment has seemed to want to reverse this stance.
As for your second point, I hope you are not serious when you say genocide is not a war crime or the Holocaust does not amount to genocide. That is both factually incorrect and morally reprehensible. Mistreatment of minority groups did also take place before the official start of war, but that does not mean that those crimes committed during war are not war crimes
17
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Hiruto • a month ago
I don't think further apology is necessary. Let's stick to the article story though I have my thoughts on Yasukuni and textbook issues.
Only on the second point, quickly. You should not be confused between war crimes and crimes against humanity (including genocides). The two are different by nature although they often concur especially at a conflicting moment.
I also never downgrade crimes against humanity. On the contrary. Another good example would be A-bombings devastating civilian and non military targets. It is more than a war crime, thus I prefer to call it Atomic Holocaust. It is the US who should follow German suit, no?
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
KenjiAd Ahojanen • a month ago
I also never downgrade crimes against humanity. On the contrary. Another
good example would be A-bombings devastating civilian and non military
targets. It is more than a war crime, thus I prefer to call it Atomic
Holocaust.
For your information, use of "holocaust" (with or without capital "H") to describe other human atrocities tends to offend the actual Holocaust survivors and most historians.
Holocaust stands alone, not just in its sheer scale, but for the fact that it was a governmental policy to exterminate human beings merely based on the victim's race.
Other atrocities, including Nanking Massacre and strategic bombing campaigns, including A-bomb, carried out by both Allied and Axis powers, are not "holocaust."
6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen KenjiAd • a month ago
Got it, though I don't see Nazi's programme something special and incomparable to any other historic genocidal cases by objective criteria.
What do you say about the "Ground Zero"? It originally means the A-bomb drop point of the Hiroshima city. This special word is "stolen," now often referred to the former WTC-site under 911 attack. Agreed with careful word use, but let's be fair.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Simon Ahojanen • a month ago
"Germans have not apologized some of their war crimes." How can you say that! Go to Berlin and many other places in Germany and you see how they are miles ahead in terms of making up their past comparing to Japan! You've no idea.
I often miss the awareness of the wrongdoings, a kind of humbleness concerning the past - very different from the Germans. In Germany it is common sense that just idiots defend the Holocaust, nobody takes them serious.
Holocaust not a war crime? What else is a war crime if not the Holocaust? Absurd!
12
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen Simon • a month ago
Check my post above, as you also seem mistaken and confused between war crimes and crimes against humanity (including Holocaust).
I've been oftentimes visiting Germany as living nearby. I know much better than you regarding its postwar-reconciliation. Germans (were allowed to) focus on the case of Holocast while exempting from a number of war crimes. Do you know the German military also held comfort women? They forced women into sex service (and unlike the Japanese case, there are proven records). Germany has yet to apologise for it.
Postwar Germans are also lagerly "saved" thanks to active forgiveness of neighbouring European countries namely France (and Soviet for East Germany). Why not ROK following France if Japan are to follow Germany?
All in all German wartime history is different from Japanese one. You cannot apply the German model of apology to other cases without taking into account contexts.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
KenjiAd Ahojanen • a month ago
Check my post above, as you also seem mistaken and confused between war crimes and crimes against humanity (including Holocaust).
You are splitting a hair here. In fact you are technically correct in stating that Holocaust is not a war crime as envisioned in the Hague/Geneva Conventions. Simply put, no one had envisioned such a crime.
As you probably are aware, one of the criticisms of Nuremberg trials is that the Nazi defendants were punished for the crimes (crimes against humanity) that didn't exist when those crimes were taking place.
But I hope you would agree that justice is more important than legal technicality. If those Nazis had been set free, just because technically they weren't breaking any German or international laws by exterminating Jews, justice would not have been served.
So think about that when you are talking about "Comfort women" issue.
6
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen KenjiAd • a month ago
Are you suggesting that the comfort women case be tried and punished retroactively? I don't really oppose to it, but please know the risk of being too judgmental on historical events. We tend to go dumb by assessing history in our present-day values.
If you are to stress morality or justice, put other historic "unmoral" cases together into perspective for a better understanding. And it is crucial to separate history enquiry and debate from ongoing politics. I only agree to understand, not take advantage of history for political purpose.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
−
Bruce Chatwin Ahojanen • a month ago
Fujisaki's apology was probably the most sincere Japanese apology to date. He actually had the courage and sincerity to meet some of the surviving US POWs face to face and offer an apology. Fujisaki's actions are laudable. (Note though that Fujisaki is apparently not a member of the revisionist Nippon Kaigi.) However, the apology was not endorsed by the Japanese Diet. I'm not sure if any war apologies have been backed by the Diet. I do know that in 1995 when then PM Murayama tried to pass a resolution for a war apology through the Diet, his govt almost fell because the LDP members in his coalition argued the war was Japan's heroic effort to free Asia from the shackles of European colonialism. The final resolution did not include an apology and trivialized Japan's actions by placing them in the context of colonial rule and other acts of aggression in the modern world.
For more, see "Nation States as Schizophrenics: Germany and Japan as Post-Cold War Actors" by R. N. Haar
Regarding the Holocaust, Telford Taylor observes that "the laws of war do not cover, in time of either war or peace, a government's actions against its own nationals, such as Nazi Germany's persecution of German Jews." Note that reservation is only for its OWN nationals. So, for example, the murders of French, Hungarian, or Polish Jews by the Nazi regime during the Holocaust (1939-1945) were war crimes.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
johnniewhite Hiruto • a month ago
If you follow all my post in JT or Disquis, then you must surely know all my evidence and supporting argument I gave in the past. I don't want to repeat myself.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
A.J. Sutter • a month ago
As a lawyer myself and with absolutely no stake in the comfort women argument, I think this article is unsuccessful.
Better to have stuck with the more direct evidence mentioned in the third paragraph, which Prof. Jones didn't want to "rehash." The very lawyerly attempt to argue from analogy, which takes up most of the piece, heads off into distant and speculative territory, such as talking about the use of hanko. That's not at all persuasive.
Despite the claims that it's relying on "logic," the piece could have made more fruitful use of logical quantifiers -- especially, the fact that "some" doesn’t logically imply "all." That fact cuts both ways. That some women may have been in effect enslaved doesn't imply that all were; nor would evidence that some women were working voluntarily imply that all or even a majority were. My wife's family has some wartime letters sent by friends of a relative, an Imperial Army officer who apparently was assassinated by his own men out of jealousy over female attention, which suggest that at least in that particular theatre of the war, some Japanese women were working voluntarily and for compensation that they were able to set aside and save. Nothing in the letters, though, suggests that those circumstances were common, much less universal; nor, conversely, that they were exceptional.
Of course, if even some women were enslaved (and the evidence Prof. Jones explicitly sets aside does seem to suggest this), that would have been a bad thing, and its badness should be acknowledged. I won’t address here the question of whether Japanese politicians have done that adequately up to now. My point is simply that this debate — assuming it to be a sincere and rational one, and not an international shouting match conducted cynically for supposed political advantage —- would benefit from both sides’ paying more attention to nuance, not less. “Never mind the facts,” even in the rhetorical context proposed here, isn’t exactly a step in the right direction.
10
•
Reply
•
Share ›
KenjiAd A.J. Sutter • a month ago
Actually I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think this article started out with a wrong premise that lumps together all the "Comfort women deniers" into one basket, and he kept hitting that basket of straw men.
Note, for example, what "Ahojapan" is saying in this thread. Although I strongly disagree with his line of thinking, I admit that "Ahojapan" is at least not "denying" that whatever happened was bad. He seems to be just making excuses for it and probably feels it unfair to single out Japan.
As a lawyer, Jones could have shown us what the Japanese laws on prostitution were in 30's-40's. Were the laws applicable to occupied territories?
As far as I understand, prostitutes in pre-war Japan were nothing but sex slaves - although the law allowed them to quit their "job" at free will, in fact they couldn't because most of them were bound by the debt they or their parents owed. Perhaps Prof Jones could have enlightened us on that.
Also I wanted to know something about international laws on human trafficking, as most of "Comfort women" were moved to the areas outside of their own countries. Was Japan violating any human-trafficking laws? In other words, was it legal to move under-aged girls from one country to another? Prof Jones could have addressed this issue.
5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto KenjiAd • a month ago
As for the laws regarding prostitution in pre-war Japan, professor Mark Ramseyer has written an insightful account in 'Odd markets in Japanese history: Law and economic growth'. According to him the indenture contracts were legal and the women entered by their own volition (if often forced by severe economic circumstances). These contracts did not give employers the right to force people to work. If a prostitute refused to work, legally the employer could only ask for a repayment of the debt. Quote:
"Although prostitution was harsh work, most brothel owners were not able to manipulate indenture contracts to keep prostitutes at work indefinitely, and most prostitutes did not become slaves. Instead, licensed prostitutes generally enlisted under six-year indenture contracts. They earned (what were for them) very high incomes. Many repaid their debts in three or four years and quit early. Most of the rest quit when their contracts expired."
Extra-legally brothel-owners might of course have have used other methods to ensure the prostitutes did as promised in their contract.
This would mean that, according to the legal situation in Japan proper, forcing women to do this work was definitely illegal.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen KenjiAd • a month ago
Correction: x Ahojapan, o Ahojanen :)
My understanding of the comfort women is neither sex slavery nor prostitution in a commercial, adult-entertaining sense. Truth may lie somewhere in between.
All published accounts are subject to interpretation & scrutiny. And we better stop rushing to generalize a single episode or a few into the whole picture of comfort women life per se. Don't you even know the large majority of comfort women were actually Japanese, not ethnic Koreans (well technically they were "Japanese" under the colonial rule) or other foreigners? Better first get yourself familiar with the basic background before addressing your thoughts if not compulsory here.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
tiger • a month ago
in war, people do horrible things, japanese or not.
but the lack of remorse should not be your pride.
7
•
Reply
•
Share ›
MM333 • a month ago
A very interesting article. It's too bad some of you might have missed the point and instead decided to jump right back into the cesspool.
The simple point being made is that IF the comfort woman were in fact volunteers, it would be an absolutely extraordinary aberration from how Japanese society was ordered and is still ordered up to the present day. Without explaining why Japanese norms supposedly didn't apply to these women, any theory that they were volunteers seems to crumble like a house of cards.
As of yet, none of the comments here seem to directly address the very precise and modest argument Colin Jones is putting forward.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Tim Groves MM333 • 23 days ago
"The simple point being made is that IF the comfort woman were in fact volunteers, it would be an absolutely extraordinary aberration from how Japanese society was ordered and is still ordered up to the present day."
The above insinuation implies that ALL prostitutes working in Japan today are doing so under coercion, which is ridiculous. As with much of Prof. Jones's article above, the rhetoric of this comment looks plausible until the reader starts to parse it, whereupon it crumbles like a layer of fresh snow in response to the pressure of the footsteps made through it. Anybody who wants to take a shot at debating history needs to do much better than this.
I have no way of knowing how many of "the comfort women" were volunteers and how many if any were coerced, enslaved, or started out as volunteers and were later coerced and enslaved, or who volunteered on weekdays but were coerced on the weekends. And I have no way of knowing if the Japanese military authorities were involved. Moreover, I have no way of knowing how many of the former "comfort women" who have testified are telling the truth and how many are telling lies. I have no way of establishing the relevant facts. Experience, literature and common sense tells me that many soldiers of many armies in time of war have resorted to rape, prostitution or illicit sexual activity and that authorities have played a roll in EITHER organizing this, facilitating this, OR turning a blind eye to this, including the Japanese.
I don't defend the Japanese on this and I don't need to. Any large group who claim they are victims of injustice and have the backing of governments and powerful organizations should be able to come up with enough evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt without attempting to appeal to the the world's collective emotions and without getting into racist accusations about collective guilt and national character assassination.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Tim Groves • a month ago
Professor Jones's article is a model of how not to write a persuasive opinion peace. It's far too obviously one-sided and written in a snide and vitriolic vein that discourages all but the most partisan readers from engaging with it. It sets up the straw-man of cartoonish "deniers" to give the impression that this character is representative of Japanese attitudes to the comfort women issue. I don't know where he finds such people - surely not among the teaching staff at his university? Not even the rightist writers at Will Magazine are quite so unsubtle in their views.
Also, in the middle of the piece he goes off topic to give a personal laundry list of things about Japan and the Japanese that irritate him. He makes no attempt to analyze any of this, but just rants on like a neurotic with an overwhelming urge to vent. This may have been an attempt at sarcasm, or the result of overdosing on "The Enigma of Japanese Power", but reading through it, I find it hard to resist quoting Bob Dylan: "Why don't you just shove off if it bothers you so much?"
A serious article about a serious issue doesn't include serial references to people whose views the author disagrees with as "deniers". Using the word "denier" in this context implies that the issue is settled and the author's own arguments are infallible. A serious article about a serious issue doesn't include the phrase "never mind the facts" in the title. The opinions of those of us speculating on what happened in the past are irrelevant to what actually happened in the past. What we need in order to understand the past are the relevant facts. It is the task of historians to assemble and interpret these facts impartially from the information that can be gathered. This article isn't interested in the relevant facts. It isn't a serious attempt to analyze anything. It's a propaganda piece dressed up in tones of moral indignation.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Bruce Chatwin Tim Groves • a month ago
Wikipedia category: Japanese war crime deniers
2013 Japan Times article: Resisting the historical deniers
2013 Japan Focus article : Abe Shinzo: Japan's New Prime Minister a Far-Right Denier
2012 Foreign Policy magazine article: Japanese comfort- women
deniers force White House response
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Toolonggone Tim Groves • 23 days ago
Fact #1: Deniers are feeding many young people and those to instigate confrontation and hatred through using local language SNS(e.g., mixi, YouTube Sakura channel, 2-channel).
Fact #2: Conservatives are making arguments based on ideology of national/cultural superiority to claim historical righteousness. This is historically proven by many countries--including but not limited to Japan, China, SK, US, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Cambodia, Israel, Pakistan, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. In Japan's case, deniers are considered to be selective, but they are supported by the conservative activists and Abe's supporters on a daily basis. These people really don't care about the presence of physical evidence. They demand the evidence for forceful taking of victims on one hand, and admit the history of military threat, violence, abuse on the other. They are not limited to male politicians(Hashimoto, the late Nakagawa, Takeo Hiranuma). Deniers also include female activist and politicians like Yumiko Yamamoto, Yoshiko Matsuura, and Tomoko Tsujimura.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
johnniewhite • a month ago
I see that the moderator has decided to remove those comments that are critical with the stance held by this writer whose view is heavily biased towards one direction. The Japan Times's stance is understood --- it's not only worthless but also harmful.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Despite the claims that it's relying on "logic," the piece could have made more fruitful use of logical quantifiers -- especially, the fact that "some" doesn’t logically imply "all." That fact cuts both ways. That some women may have been in effect enslaved doesn't imply that all were; nor would evidence that some women were working voluntarily imply that all or even a majority were. My wife's family has some wartime letters sent by friends of a relative, an Imperial Army officer who apparently was assassinated by his own men out of jealousy over female attention, which suggest that at least in that particular theatre of the war, some Japanese women were working voluntarily and for compensation that they were able to set aside and save. Nothing in the letters, though, suggests that those circumstances were common, much less universal; nor, conversely, that they were exceptional.
Of course, if even some women were enslaved (and the evidence Prof. Jones explicitly sets aside does seem to suggest this), that would have been a bad thing, and its badness should be acknowledged. I won’t address here the question of whether Japanese politicians have done that adequately up to now. My point is simply that this debate — assuming it to be a sincere and rational one, and not an international shouting match conducted cynically for supposed political advantage —- would benefit from both sides’ paying more attention to nuance, not less. “Never mind the facts,” even in the rhetorical context proposed here, isn’t exactly a step in the right direction.
10
•
Reply
•
Share ›
KenjiAd A.J. Sutter • a month ago
Actually I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think this article started out with a wrong premise that lumps together all the "Comfort women deniers" into one basket, and he kept hitting that basket of straw men.
Note, for example, what "Ahojapan" is saying in this thread. Although I strongly disagree with his line of thinking, I admit that "Ahojapan" is at least not "denying" that whatever happened was bad. He seems to be just making excuses for it and probably feels it unfair to single out Japan.
As a lawyer, Jones could have shown us what the Japanese laws on prostitution were in 30's-40's. Were the laws applicable to occupied territories?
As far as I understand, prostitutes in pre-war Japan were nothing but sex slaves - although the law allowed them to quit their "job" at free will, in fact they couldn't because most of them were bound by the debt they or their parents owed. Perhaps Prof Jones could have enlightened us on that.
Also I wanted to know something about international laws on human trafficking, as most of "Comfort women" were moved to the areas outside of their own countries. Was Japan violating any human-trafficking laws? In other words, was it legal to move under-aged girls from one country to another? Prof Jones could have addressed this issue.
5
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Hiruto KenjiAd • a month ago
As for the laws regarding prostitution in pre-war Japan, professor Mark Ramseyer has written an insightful account in 'Odd markets in Japanese history: Law and economic growth'. According to him the indenture contracts were legal and the women entered by their own volition (if often forced by severe economic circumstances). These contracts did not give employers the right to force people to work. If a prostitute refused to work, legally the employer could only ask for a repayment of the debt. Quote:
"Although prostitution was harsh work, most brothel owners were not able to manipulate indenture contracts to keep prostitutes at work indefinitely, and most prostitutes did not become slaves. Instead, licensed prostitutes generally enlisted under six-year indenture contracts. They earned (what were for them) very high incomes. Many repaid their debts in three or four years and quit early. Most of the rest quit when their contracts expired."
Extra-legally brothel-owners might of course have have used other methods to ensure the prostitutes did as promised in their contract.
This would mean that, according to the legal situation in Japan proper, forcing women to do this work was definitely illegal.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Ahojanen KenjiAd • a month ago
Correction: x Ahojapan, o Ahojanen :)
My understanding of the comfort women is neither sex slavery nor prostitution in a commercial, adult-entertaining sense. Truth may lie somewhere in between.
All published accounts are subject to interpretation & scrutiny. And we better stop rushing to generalize a single episode or a few into the whole picture of comfort women life per se. Don't you even know the large majority of comfort women were actually Japanese, not ethnic Koreans (well technically they were "Japanese" under the colonial rule) or other foreigners? Better first get yourself familiar with the basic background before addressing your thoughts if not compulsory here.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
tiger • a month ago
in war, people do horrible things, japanese or not.
but the lack of remorse should not be your pride.
7
•
Reply
•
Share ›
MM333 • a month ago
A very interesting article. It's too bad some of you might have missed the point and instead decided to jump right back into the cesspool.
The simple point being made is that IF the comfort woman were in fact volunteers, it would be an absolutely extraordinary aberration from how Japanese society was ordered and is still ordered up to the present day. Without explaining why Japanese norms supposedly didn't apply to these women, any theory that they were volunteers seems to crumble like a house of cards.
As of yet, none of the comments here seem to directly address the very precise and modest argument Colin Jones is putting forward.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Tim Groves MM333 • 23 days ago
"The simple point being made is that IF the comfort woman were in fact volunteers, it would be an absolutely extraordinary aberration from how Japanese society was ordered and is still ordered up to the present day."
The above insinuation implies that ALL prostitutes working in Japan today are doing so under coercion, which is ridiculous. As with much of Prof. Jones's article above, the rhetoric of this comment looks plausible until the reader starts to parse it, whereupon it crumbles like a layer of fresh snow in response to the pressure of the footsteps made through it. Anybody who wants to take a shot at debating history needs to do much better than this.
I have no way of knowing how many of "the comfort women" were volunteers and how many if any were coerced, enslaved, or started out as volunteers and were later coerced and enslaved, or who volunteered on weekdays but were coerced on the weekends. And I have no way of knowing if the Japanese military authorities were involved. Moreover, I have no way of knowing how many of the former "comfort women" who have testified are telling the truth and how many are telling lies. I have no way of establishing the relevant facts. Experience, literature and common sense tells me that many soldiers of many armies in time of war have resorted to rape, prostitution or illicit sexual activity and that authorities have played a roll in EITHER organizing this, facilitating this, OR turning a blind eye to this, including the Japanese.
I don't defend the Japanese on this and I don't need to. Any large group who claim they are victims of injustice and have the backing of governments and powerful organizations should be able to come up with enough evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt without attempting to appeal to the the world's collective emotions and without getting into racist accusations about collective guilt and national character assassination.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Tim Groves • a month ago
Professor Jones's article is a model of how not to write a persuasive opinion peace. It's far too obviously one-sided and written in a snide and vitriolic vein that discourages all but the most partisan readers from engaging with it. It sets up the straw-man of cartoonish "deniers" to give the impression that this character is representative of Japanese attitudes to the comfort women issue. I don't know where he finds such people - surely not among the teaching staff at his university? Not even the rightist writers at Will Magazine are quite so unsubtle in their views.
Also, in the middle of the piece he goes off topic to give a personal laundry list of things about Japan and the Japanese that irritate him. He makes no attempt to analyze any of this, but just rants on like a neurotic with an overwhelming urge to vent. This may have been an attempt at sarcasm, or the result of overdosing on "The Enigma of Japanese Power", but reading through it, I find it hard to resist quoting Bob Dylan: "Why don't you just shove off if it bothers you so much?"
A serious article about a serious issue doesn't include serial references to people whose views the author disagrees with as "deniers". Using the word "denier" in this context implies that the issue is settled and the author's own arguments are infallible. A serious article about a serious issue doesn't include the phrase "never mind the facts" in the title. The opinions of those of us speculating on what happened in the past are irrelevant to what actually happened in the past. What we need in order to understand the past are the relevant facts. It is the task of historians to assemble and interpret these facts impartially from the information that can be gathered. This article isn't interested in the relevant facts. It isn't a serious attempt to analyze anything. It's a propaganda piece dressed up in tones of moral indignation.
4
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Bruce Chatwin Tim Groves • a month ago
Wikipedia category: Japanese war crime deniers
2013 Japan Times article: Resisting the historical deniers
2013 Japan Focus article : Abe Shinzo: Japan's New Prime Minister a Far-Right Denier
2012 Foreign Policy magazine article: Japanese comfort- women
deniers force White House response
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Toolonggone Tim Groves • 23 days ago
Fact #1: Deniers are feeding many young people and those to instigate confrontation and hatred through using local language SNS(e.g., mixi, YouTube Sakura channel, 2-channel).
Fact #2: Conservatives are making arguments based on ideology of national/cultural superiority to claim historical righteousness. This is historically proven by many countries--including but not limited to Japan, China, SK, US, UK, Germany, France, Spain, Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Cambodia, Israel, Pakistan, Cuba, Venezuela, etc. In Japan's case, deniers are considered to be selective, but they are supported by the conservative activists and Abe's supporters on a daily basis. These people really don't care about the presence of physical evidence. They demand the evidence for forceful taking of victims on one hand, and admit the history of military threat, violence, abuse on the other. They are not limited to male politicians(Hashimoto, the late Nakagawa, Takeo Hiranuma). Deniers also include female activist and politicians like Yumiko Yamamoto, Yoshiko Matsuura, and Tomoko Tsujimura.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
johnniewhite • a month ago
I see that the moderator has decided to remove those comments that are critical with the stance held by this writer whose view is heavily biased towards one direction. The Japan Times's stance is understood --- it's not only worthless but also harmful.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Never mind the facts — logic alone demolishes 'comfort women' deniers' case | The Japan Times
Never mind the facts — logic alone demolishes 'comfort women' deniers' case | The Japan Times
제3심포지엄: 남북한, 평화의 길을 찾아서
인촌기념회-동아일보-채널A-고려대 공동주최
‘통일리더십’ 보수-진보 머리 맞댔다
《 한반도가 ‘안정적인 평화’로 가기 위해 ‘새로운 통일리더십’을 발휘해야 한다는 제언이 쏟아졌다. 인촌기념회와 동아일보, 채널A, 고려대가 3일 서울 성북구 고려대에서 공동 주최한 ‘선진사회로 가는 대한민국의 과제’ 세 번째 심포지엄은 북한을 변화시켜 핵을 포기하고 통일로 가는 길을 열기 위해 보수와 진보가 머리를 맞댄 자리였다. 》
3일 서울 성북구 고려대에서 ‘남북한, 평화의 길을 찾아서’라는 주제로 열린 ‘선진사회로 가는 대한민국의 과제’ 심포지엄 참석자들이 오후 토론이 열리기 전 기념촬영을 하고 있다. 왼쪽부터 방형남 동아일보 논설위원, 김흥광 NK지식인연대 대표, 김흥규 아주대 교수, 전재성 서울대 교수, 김근식 경남대 교수, 최강 아산정책연구원 부원장, 최대석 이화여대 교수, 신각수 국립외교원 국제법센터장, 송민순 경남대 석좌교수, 이용훈 인촌기념회 이사장, 현인택 고려대 교수, 윤덕민 국립외교원장, 엄종식 전 통일부 차관, 엄구호 한양대 교수, 이상현 세종연구소 안보전략연구실장, 유호열 고려대 교수, 김영수 서강대 교수. 장승윤 기자 tomato99@donga.com
석학들의 5대 제언
① “통일은 美中日러도 대박” 모두가 끄덕일 청사진 만들자
인촌기념회와 동아일보, 채널A, 고려대가 3일 공동 주최한 ‘선진사회로 가는 대한민국의 과제’ 심포지엄에서 북한 핵문제 해결, 남북 분단 극복, 바람직한 통일 리더십을 놓고 뜨거운 토론이 벌어졌다. 특히 북핵 해법과 남북관계 개선 방안에 대해 보수와 진보 간 공방이 치열했다. 동아일보는 남북한이 평화로운 통일의 초석을 마련하기 위한 5대 제언을 정리해 향후 남북관계 개선의 지표로 삼기로 했다.
심포지엄에서는 미국 중국 일본 러시아 등 주변국에 통일의 이익을 설득하는 통일리더십을 갖추지 못하면 “통일은 대박이 아니라 쪽박이 될 수 있다”(윤덕민 국립외교원장)는 제언이 공감대를 얻었다.
윤 원장은 “주변국들이 ‘이런 통일이라면 지지해도 좋다’고 생각하도록 한반도 통일에 대한 청사진을 잘 마련하고 통일이 국제법, 역사, 민족자결의 측면에서 누구도 도전할 수 없는 가치임을 국제사회에 기정사실화해야 한다”고 강조했다. 이상현 세종연구소 안보전략연구실장은 “통일대박론을 국제적으로 확산해 업그레이드하자”며 “한반도 통일로 동북아에 평화 안정 번영이 확대될 수 있음을 확신시켜야 한다”고 주장했다.
김흥규 아주대 교수는 “어느 일방(미국)에 편향돼 통일을 추구하는 전략은 실현 가능성이 없다”며 “연미화중(聯美和中·미국과 동맹 유지하면서 중국과 화합)을 넘어 연미협중(聯美協中·미국과 동맹 유지하면서 중국과 협력)을 통해 통일 및 북한 비핵화에 대해 중국과 공동 목표를 추구하고 이를 과감히 행동에 옮기는 전략적 노력이 필요하다”고 제안했다.
주일 대사를 지낸 신각수 국립외교원 국제법센터장은 “특정 국가(일본)의 지향을 반(反)통일적으로 만들어서는 안 된다”며 “일본이 통일에 스포일러(방해꾼) 역할을 하지 않는 협력자로 만들기 위해 한일관계를 안정화시켜야 한다”고 말했다. 엄구호 한양대 교수는 “통일외교를 위해서는 균형외교가 필요하며 러시아와 자원 중심의 경제동맹을 구축해야 균형외교가 가능하다”고 강조했다.
② 북핵문제, 남북대화 메뉴에 함께 올려야
좀처럼 실마리를 찾지 못하고 있는 북핵 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 남북의 다른 현안을 대화의 테이블로 끌고 들어와 함께 다루는 노력이 필요하다고 전문가들이 입을 모았다. 북핵 해결의 창구인 6자회담은 2008년 이후 8년째 중단된 상태다. 전재성 서울대 교수는 “북한은 2013년 3월 핵과 경제발전의 병진정책을 발표하면서 비핵화 불가론을 명확히 했다”고 말했다. 북한 스스로 양보할 수 없는 레드라인을 설정한 셈이다. 그렇다고 방치할 수도 없다. 북핵 문제를 다른 나라의 손에 맡겨 두기보다는 남북문제와 병행해 푸는 정공법이 필요하다는 지적이다.
북한을 효과적으로 설득해 핵 문제를 풀려면 기초부터 새로 다져야 한다는 의견도 나왔다. 최강 아산정책연구원 부원장은 “남북대화는 ‘우리가 북한을 얼마나 알고 있는가’에서 시작해야 한다”며 “그러나 과거보다 현 정부의 대북 정보가 부족하다는 생각이 든다. 북한 정권에 대한 정보와 연구가 절실하다”고 강조했다.
신각수 국립외교원 국제법센터장은 “대화를 하되 시간 계획을 정해놓고 진전이 없으면 제재로 넘어가는 체계적인 틀이 필요하다”고 제안했다. 김흥광 NK지식인연대 대표는 “대통령 직속으로 북핵폐기위원회(가칭) 같은 기구를 만들어 북핵 해결을 위한 구체적인 로드맵을 만들자”고 제안했다.
③ 中과 전략적 협력… 기초는 한미동맹
통일의 기회를 포착하기 위해선 동북아시아에서 주요 2개국(G2)인 미국과 중국 간 힘의 균형 변화에 능동적으로 대응하는 통일 정책을 마련해야 한다는 제언이 많았다.
신각수 국립외교원 국제법센터장은 “세력 전이(轉移) 후에 나타날 새로운 동북아 질서에 대한 비전을 제시하고 이를 적극적으로 알리며 미중의 전략적 안정을 위해 우리가 할 일을 찾아야 한다”고 말했다.
윤덕민 국립외교원장은 “한국의 정책은 결코 두 개의 태양 가운데 하나를 선택하는 일이 아니다”라며 “굳건한 한미동맹을 바탕으로 중국 일본 러시아 등 지역 국가들과 동반자 관계를 구축해야 한다”고 강조했다. 윤 원장은 “중국이 미국을 추월한다는 일각의 지적에 동의하지 않는다. 과거 미국은 제조업 분야에서 독일과 일본에 밀리자 금융으로 패러다임을 바꿨고 또 정보기술(IT)이라는 새로운 패러다임을 가져왔다”고 덧붙였다. 새로운 규칙으로 지도력을 발휘하는 미국을 무시하는 잘못을 범하지 말아야 한다는 지적이다.
김흥규 아주대 교수는 “중국 군 내부에서도 한국 중심의 통일이 중국 국익에 더 부합할 수 있다는 판단을 하는 등 북한에 대한 한중 간 인식 차가 좁혀졌다”며 “이런 변화를 신속히 읽고 전략적으로 활용해야 한다”고 제안했다.
④ “北이 변해야 5·24해제” 명확한 신호를
2010년 천안함 폭침 도발에 대한 징벌적 제재인 5·24 조치를 북한이 진정성 있는 대화 의지를 보이지 않는 상황에서 해제하는 것은 시기상조라는 의견이 지배적이었다. 반면 남북대화의 물꼬를 트기 위해선 정부가 5·24 조치를 넘어 남북관계를 질적으로 진전시키려는 의지와 해법을 마련해야 한다는 지적도 나왔다.
유호열 고려대 교수는 “북한이 노리는 도발-대화-보상-도발의 악순환을 반복하게 한다는 점에서 (북한의 책임 있는 조치 없는) 5·24 조치의 전면 해제는 어려울 것 같다”고 말했다. 그러면서도 유 교수는 “국민 여론의 추이를 보면 조치를 해제함으로써 다른 방식의 (남북)관계 변화를 기대하고 촉구하는 방향으로 의식이 변하고 있다. 정부가 대북정책에서 고민해야 할 중요한 잣대”라고 분석했다.
엄종식 전 통일부 차관은 “남북관계를 새로 진전시키려면 5·24 조치에 대한 논의를 시작해야 한다. 이 문제를 우회해서는 남북관계의 방향을 새롭게 할 수 없다”고 지적했다. 그는 5·24 조치를 취할 당시 차관을 지냈다.
금강산관광 재개는 5·24 조치 해제보다 더 어려운 문제라는 인식이 많았다. 관광객 신변안전 보장, 한국 정부와 민간기업의 재산을 일방적으로 몰수한 북한의 책임 등을 해결하지 않고 관광을 재개하는 것은 무책임한 것으로 판단했다.
⑤ 정권 바뀌어도 지속될 대북정책 틀 짜자
정권에 따라 바뀌는 대북·통일정책도 이제는 국가적 공감대에 바탕을 둔 지속가능한 정책으로 발전시켜야 한다는 주문이 이어졌다. 엄종식 전 통일부 차관은 “지도자는 사회 각 요소를 통합하는 능력을 발휘해야 한다. 특히 자유민주주의 시장경제에 기반을 둔 통일국가 미래상을 확고히 보여줄 수 있어야 한다”고 말했다.
방형남 동아일보 논설위원은 “전 정부의 대북정책이라는 이유로 장단점을 가리지도 않고 배척하는 것은 반성해야 할 문제”라며 “대북 통일정책을 다룬 전·현직 핵심 당국자들 중심으로 통일정책수렴위원회(가칭)를 구성해 정권을 초월한 대북정책을 만들면 남남갈등이나 정책 단절 문제를 극복할 수 있을 것”이라고 제안했다. 송민순 경남대 석좌교수는 “독일의 헬무트 콜 총리가 1982년 정권교체로 총리가 됐을 때 연정 파트너 정당의 반대에도 불구하고 전 정권의 동방정책을 그대로 계승한 것이 독일 통일의 밑거름이 됐다”고 말했다. 방 위원은 “통일정책이 실행 가능해지려면 대통령이 국민적 공감대를 바탕으로 삼되 북한의 움직임과 국제적 상황 변화에 유연하게 대응하는 열린 리더십을 추구해야 한다”고 강조했다.
최대석 이화여대 교수는 남북관계의 현 상황을 “불확실한 평화의 시대”로 규정하며 “억지가 작동하지만 충분치 않기 때문에 이를 넘어서 안정적인 평화로 가는 길을 찾아야 한다”고 강조했다.
윤완준 zeitung@donga.com
·정성택·박희창 기자
“통일은 美中日러도 대박” 모두가 끄덕일 청사진 만들자
박희창기자 , 윤완준기자 , 정성택기자
폰트 뉴스듣기
입력 2015-02-05 03:00:00 수정 2015-02-05 04:18:02
[‘선진사회로 가는 대한민국의 과제’] 제3심포지엄: 남북한, 평화의 길을 찾아서
인촌기념회-동아일보-채널A-고려대 공동주최
‘통일리더십’ 보수-진보 머리 맞댔다
《 한반도가 ‘안정적인 평화’로 가기 위해 ‘새로운 통일리더십’을 발휘해야 한다는 제언이 쏟아졌다. 인촌기념회와 동아일보, 채널A, 고려대가 3일 서울 성북구 고려대에서 공동 주최한 ‘선진사회로 가는 대한민국의 과제’ 세 번째 심포지엄은 북한을 변화시켜 핵을 포기하고 통일로 가는 길을 열기 위해 보수와 진보가 머리를 맞댄 자리였다. 》
3일 서울 성북구 고려대에서 ‘남북한, 평화의 길을 찾아서’라는 주제로 열린 ‘선진사회로 가는 대한민국의 과제’ 심포지엄 참석자들이 오후 토론이 열리기 전 기념촬영을 하고 있다. 왼쪽부터 방형남 동아일보 논설위원, 김흥광 NK지식인연대 대표, 김흥규 아주대 교수, 전재성 서울대 교수, 김근식 경남대 교수, 최강 아산정책연구원 부원장, 최대석 이화여대 교수, 신각수 국립외교원 국제법센터장, 송민순 경남대 석좌교수, 이용훈 인촌기념회 이사장, 현인택 고려대 교수, 윤덕민 국립외교원장, 엄종식 전 통일부 차관, 엄구호 한양대 교수, 이상현 세종연구소 안보전략연구실장, 유호열 고려대 교수, 김영수 서강대 교수. 장승윤 기자 tomato99@donga.com① “통일은 美中日러도 대박” 모두가 끄덕일 청사진 만들자
인촌기념회와 동아일보, 채널A, 고려대가 3일 공동 주최한 ‘선진사회로 가는 대한민국의 과제’ 심포지엄에서 북한 핵문제 해결, 남북 분단 극복, 바람직한 통일 리더십을 놓고 뜨거운 토론이 벌어졌다. 특히 북핵 해법과 남북관계 개선 방안에 대해 보수와 진보 간 공방이 치열했다. 동아일보는 남북한이 평화로운 통일의 초석을 마련하기 위한 5대 제언을 정리해 향후 남북관계 개선의 지표로 삼기로 했다.
심포지엄에서는 미국 중국 일본 러시아 등 주변국에 통일의 이익을 설득하는 통일리더십을 갖추지 못하면 “통일은 대박이 아니라 쪽박이 될 수 있다”(윤덕민 국립외교원장)는 제언이 공감대를 얻었다.
김흥규 아주대 교수는 “어느 일방(미국)에 편향돼 통일을 추구하는 전략은 실현 가능성이 없다”며 “연미화중(聯美和中·미국과 동맹 유지하면서 중국과 화합)을 넘어 연미협중(聯美協中·미국과 동맹 유지하면서 중국과 협력)을 통해 통일 및 북한 비핵화에 대해 중국과 공동 목표를 추구하고 이를 과감히 행동에 옮기는 전략적 노력이 필요하다”고 제안했다.
주일 대사를 지낸 신각수 국립외교원 국제법센터장은 “특정 국가(일본)의 지향을 반(反)통일적으로 만들어서는 안 된다”며 “일본이 통일에 스포일러(방해꾼) 역할을 하지 않는 협력자로 만들기 위해 한일관계를 안정화시켜야 한다”고 말했다. 엄구호 한양대 교수는 “통일외교를 위해서는 균형외교가 필요하며 러시아와 자원 중심의 경제동맹을 구축해야 균형외교가 가능하다”고 강조했다.
② 북핵문제, 남북대화 메뉴에 함께 올려야
좀처럼 실마리를 찾지 못하고 있는 북핵 문제를 해결하기 위해서는 남북의 다른 현안을 대화의 테이블로 끌고 들어와 함께 다루는 노력이 필요하다고 전문가들이 입을 모았다. 북핵 해결의 창구인 6자회담은 2008년 이후 8년째 중단된 상태다. 전재성 서울대 교수는 “북한은 2013년 3월 핵과 경제발전의 병진정책을 발표하면서 비핵화 불가론을 명확히 했다”고 말했다. 북한 스스로 양보할 수 없는 레드라인을 설정한 셈이다. 그렇다고 방치할 수도 없다. 북핵 문제를 다른 나라의 손에 맡겨 두기보다는 남북문제와 병행해 푸는 정공법이 필요하다는 지적이다.
북한을 효과적으로 설득해 핵 문제를 풀려면 기초부터 새로 다져야 한다는 의견도 나왔다. 최강 아산정책연구원 부원장은 “남북대화는 ‘우리가 북한을 얼마나 알고 있는가’에서 시작해야 한다”며 “그러나 과거보다 현 정부의 대북 정보가 부족하다는 생각이 든다. 북한 정권에 대한 정보와 연구가 절실하다”고 강조했다.
신각수 국립외교원 국제법센터장은 “대화를 하되 시간 계획을 정해놓고 진전이 없으면 제재로 넘어가는 체계적인 틀이 필요하다”고 제안했다. 김흥광 NK지식인연대 대표는 “대통령 직속으로 북핵폐기위원회(가칭) 같은 기구를 만들어 북핵 해결을 위한 구체적인 로드맵을 만들자”고 제안했다.
③ 中과 전략적 협력… 기초는 한미동맹
통일의 기회를 포착하기 위해선 동북아시아에서 주요 2개국(G2)인 미국과 중국 간 힘의 균형 변화에 능동적으로 대응하는 통일 정책을 마련해야 한다는 제언이 많았다.
신각수 국립외교원 국제법센터장은 “세력 전이(轉移) 후에 나타날 새로운 동북아 질서에 대한 비전을 제시하고 이를 적극적으로 알리며 미중의 전략적 안정을 위해 우리가 할 일을 찾아야 한다”고 말했다.
윤덕민 국립외교원장은 “한국의 정책은 결코 두 개의 태양 가운데 하나를 선택하는 일이 아니다”라며 “굳건한 한미동맹을 바탕으로 중국 일본 러시아 등 지역 국가들과 동반자 관계를 구축해야 한다”고 강조했다. 윤 원장은 “중국이 미국을 추월한다는 일각의 지적에 동의하지 않는다. 과거 미국은 제조업 분야에서 독일과 일본에 밀리자 금융으로 패러다임을 바꿨고 또 정보기술(IT)이라는 새로운 패러다임을 가져왔다”고 덧붙였다. 새로운 규칙으로 지도력을 발휘하는 미국을 무시하는 잘못을 범하지 말아야 한다는 지적이다.
김흥규 아주대 교수는 “중국 군 내부에서도 한국 중심의 통일이 중국 국익에 더 부합할 수 있다는 판단을 하는 등 북한에 대한 한중 간 인식 차가 좁혀졌다”며 “이런 변화를 신속히 읽고 전략적으로 활용해야 한다”고 제안했다.
④ “北이 변해야 5·24해제” 명확한 신호를
2010년 천안함 폭침 도발에 대한 징벌적 제재인 5·24 조치를 북한이 진정성 있는 대화 의지를 보이지 않는 상황에서 해제하는 것은 시기상조라는 의견이 지배적이었다. 반면 남북대화의 물꼬를 트기 위해선 정부가 5·24 조치를 넘어 남북관계를 질적으로 진전시키려는 의지와 해법을 마련해야 한다는 지적도 나왔다.
유호열 고려대 교수는 “북한이 노리는 도발-대화-보상-도발의 악순환을 반복하게 한다는 점에서 (북한의 책임 있는 조치 없는) 5·24 조치의 전면 해제는 어려울 것 같다”고 말했다. 그러면서도 유 교수는 “국민 여론의 추이를 보면 조치를 해제함으로써 다른 방식의 (남북)관계 변화를 기대하고 촉구하는 방향으로 의식이 변하고 있다. 정부가 대북정책에서 고민해야 할 중요한 잣대”라고 분석했다.
엄종식 전 통일부 차관은 “남북관계를 새로 진전시키려면 5·24 조치에 대한 논의를 시작해야 한다. 이 문제를 우회해서는 남북관계의 방향을 새롭게 할 수 없다”고 지적했다. 그는 5·24 조치를 취할 당시 차관을 지냈다.
금강산관광 재개는 5·24 조치 해제보다 더 어려운 문제라는 인식이 많았다. 관광객 신변안전 보장, 한국 정부와 민간기업의 재산을 일방적으로 몰수한 북한의 책임 등을 해결하지 않고 관광을 재개하는 것은 무책임한 것으로 판단했다.
⑤ 정권 바뀌어도 지속될 대북정책 틀 짜자
정권에 따라 바뀌는 대북·통일정책도 이제는 국가적 공감대에 바탕을 둔 지속가능한 정책으로 발전시켜야 한다는 주문이 이어졌다. 엄종식 전 통일부 차관은 “지도자는 사회 각 요소를 통합하는 능력을 발휘해야 한다. 특히 자유민주주의 시장경제에 기반을 둔 통일국가 미래상을 확고히 보여줄 수 있어야 한다”고 말했다.
최대석 이화여대 교수는 남북관계의 현 상황을 “불확실한 평화의 시대”로 규정하며 “억지가 작동하지만 충분치 않기 때문에 이를 넘어서 안정적인 평화로 가는 길을 찾아야 한다”고 강조했다.
윤완준 zeitung@donga.com
·정성택·박희창 기자 2014-09-30
"남북 관계에 '갑을관계론'은 안 통한다" 2013 이도흠
"남북 관계에 '갑을관계론'은 안 통한다":
"남북 관계에 '갑을관계론'은 안 통한다"
[김재명의 '월드 포커스'] 정전 60주년 맞는 한국사회의 요구
김재명 국제분쟁 전문기자, 성공회대 겸임교수, 프레시안 기획위원
"남북 관계에 '갑을관계론'은 안 통한다"
[김재명의 '월드 포커스'] 정전 60주년 맞는 한국사회의 요구
김재명 국제분쟁 전문기자, 성공회대 겸임교수, 프레시안 기획위원
2013.05.27
인류 역사가 곧 전쟁의 역사라 한다. 동전의 양면처럼, 인류 역사는 화해의 역사이기도 하다. 전쟁 당사자(국가 또는 민족)들이 한바탕 크게 전쟁을 치르고는 어느 정도 세월이 흐르면서 화해를 하고는 했다. 중동의 앙숙 이스라엘-이집트가 1948년부터 1973년에 걸쳐 4차례 전쟁을 치렀지만(1차 1948년, 2차 1956년, 3차 1967년, 4차 1973년), 1979년 평화협정으로 적대관계를 청산했었다.
올해는 6.25 한국전쟁이 정전협정으로 3년 동안의 유혈을 끝장낸 지 60년을 맞이하는 해이다. 60년이면 두 세대에 해당하는 기간이다. 아이가 태어나 자라서 어른이 되고, 또 아이를 낳은 일이 두 번 되풀이되는 기간이다. 전 세계 전쟁사에서 두 세대가 지나도록 화해하지 않고 으르렁대는 사례들은 흔하지 않다. 안타깝게도 한국이 대표적인 보기로 꼽힐 정도다.
이즈음 한반도 정세는 긴장감 속에 휩싸여 있다. 북한은 3차 핵실험을 했고 남북관계는 살얼음판이다. 금강산관광이 없어진 뒤 '남북관계의 마지막 보루'라 일컬어지는 개성공단은 폐쇄 위기에 놓였다. 한반도를 둘러싼 국제정세도 평화와는 거리가 멀다. 일본은 극우파들이 망언을 되풀이하고 있다. 이처럼 한반도를 둘러싼 기상도는 흐리다. 무엇이 잘못됐는지, 해법은 무엇인지를 찾아봐야 한다.
5월 24일 서울 조계사 한국불교역사문화기념관 2층 국제회의장에서 열린 '한국전쟁 정전협정 60주년 특별 세미나'(불교생명윤리협회 주최, 민주화를 위한 전국교수협의회 주관)는 위와 같은 문제의식에서 출발하고 있다. 세미나 주제는 '동아시아 질서와 한반도 평화체제 구축'.
세미나는 △법응스님(불교생명윤리협회 공동 대표),
인류 역사가 곧 전쟁의 역사라 한다. 동전의 양면처럼, 인류 역사는 화해의 역사이기도 하다. 전쟁 당사자(국가 또는 민족)들이 한바탕 크게 전쟁을 치르고는 어느 정도 세월이 흐르면서 화해를 하고는 했다. 중동의 앙숙 이스라엘-이집트가 1948년부터 1973년에 걸쳐 4차례 전쟁을 치렀지만(1차 1948년, 2차 1956년, 3차 1967년, 4차 1973년), 1979년 평화협정으로 적대관계를 청산했었다.
올해는 6.25 한국전쟁이 정전협정으로 3년 동안의 유혈을 끝장낸 지 60년을 맞이하는 해이다. 60년이면 두 세대에 해당하는 기간이다. 아이가 태어나 자라서 어른이 되고, 또 아이를 낳은 일이 두 번 되풀이되는 기간이다. 전 세계 전쟁사에서 두 세대가 지나도록 화해하지 않고 으르렁대는 사례들은 흔하지 않다. 안타깝게도 한국이 대표적인 보기로 꼽힐 정도다.
이즈음 한반도 정세는 긴장감 속에 휩싸여 있다. 북한은 3차 핵실험을 했고 남북관계는 살얼음판이다. 금강산관광이 없어진 뒤 '남북관계의 마지막 보루'라 일컬어지는 개성공단은 폐쇄 위기에 놓였다. 한반도를 둘러싼 국제정세도 평화와는 거리가 멀다. 일본은 극우파들이 망언을 되풀이하고 있다. 이처럼 한반도를 둘러싼 기상도는 흐리다. 무엇이 잘못됐는지, 해법은 무엇인지를 찾아봐야 한다.
5월 24일 서울 조계사 한국불교역사문화기념관 2층 국제회의장에서 열린 '한국전쟁 정전협정 60주년 특별 세미나'(불교생명윤리협회 주최, 민주화를 위한 전국교수협의회 주관)는 위와 같은 문제의식에서 출발하고 있다. 세미나 주제는 '동아시아 질서와 한반도 평화체제 구축'.
세미나는 △법응스님(불교생명윤리협회 공동 대표),
조희연 성공회대 사회학과 교수(민교협 상임의장), 이도흠 한양대 국문과교수(민교협 상임의장)의 인사말
△이종석 세종연구소 통일전략연구실 수석연구위원(전 통일부장관)의 기조발제에 이어
△이철기 동국대 정치외교학과 교수가 '평화협정의 필요성과 가능성, 그리고 쟁점들'
△김근식 경남대 정치외교학과 교수(극동문제연구소 연구실장)가 '김정은 체제의 대외전략 변화와 동아시아 질서: 평화의 출구전략'
△김재명 <프레시안> 국제분쟁전문기자(성공회대 겸임교수)가 '여성의 관점에서 본 전쟁의 참상과 한반도 평화론'을 각기 발제하였다.
회의장 분위기는 올해 정전협정 60년을 맞아 정전협정이 평화협정으로 전환됨으로써 한반도에 항구적인 평화가 정착되길 바라는 마음으로 가득했다. 참석자들은 "지난 60년 동안 한반도에서의 남북간 대결, 북미간 대결이 되풀이되는 갈등의 악순환 고리를 평화협정 체결로 끊어야 한다. 이를 위해 관련국 당사자들은 결단을 내려야 한다"고 입을 모았다.
회의장 분위기는 올해 정전협정 60년을 맞아 정전협정이 평화협정으로 전환됨으로써 한반도에 항구적인 평화가 정착되길 바라는 마음으로 가득했다. 참석자들은 "지난 60년 동안 한반도에서의 남북간 대결, 북미간 대결이 되풀이되는 갈등의 악순환 고리를 평화협정 체결로 끊어야 한다. 이를 위해 관련국 당사자들은 결단을 내려야 한다"고 입을 모았다.
5시간 동안 이어진 세미나에서 나온 발언의 주요내용을 간추려본다.<편집자>
▲ 정전협정 60주년을 맞아 불교계와 민교협이 함께 '동아시아 질서와 한반도 평화체제 구축' 세미나를 열었다. 사진은 세미나 장소인 서울 조계사 한국불교역사문화기념관 2층 국제회의장. ⓒ불교생명윤리협회
▲ 정전협정 60주년을 맞아 불교계와 민교협이 함께 '동아시아 질서와 한반도 평화체제 구축' 세미나를 열었다. 사진은 세미나 장소인 서울 조계사 한국불교역사문화기념관 2층 국제회의장. ⓒ불교생명윤리협회
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)