/

Kono apology was tug of war: panel

by Reiji Yoshida

Staff Writer

A government panel unveiled Friday its much-anticipated report on the 1992-1993 diplomatic negotiations between Seoul and Tokyo over the “comfort women” wartime brothel system. The report describes a political tug of war over the wording used in an apology statement that was issued by then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono in 1993.

In drafting its report, the five-member panel inspected confidential government records. It said Seoul repeatedly demanded that Tokyo admit it forced Korean women to work at “comfort stations” — and said South Korea would not demand any financial compensation for the women.

Although the panel’s report lacks a clear conclusion, it apparently suggests that Seoul and Tokyo wrestled with the text through extensive political to and fro rather than by investigating the historical record of what critics call Japan’s sexual slavery.

At a news conference on Friday, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said the Cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe would uphold the Kono statement regardless of what the report had found.

“We’d like to leave intellectuals to handle questions of history, including those about the ‘comfort women,’ ” Suga said.

“There is no change at all in our position to uphold the Kono statement. We feel heartache when we think of (women) who suffered from indescribable experiences,” Suga said.

Abe’s Cabinet launched the panel in April after pressure from conservative lawmakers who insisted Japan did not force thousands of women to work in brothels against their will.

Suga and Abe have repeatedly stressed the government will neither revise nor replace the Kono statement, regardless of what the panel concluded.

The panel’s launch itself drew international attention because Abe had earlier suggested he wanted to revise the Kono statement. He repeatedly denied that intention, however, after winning a second term as prime minister in December 2012.

The panel’s report says the Korean side proposed that Kono admit “comfort women” were recruited by “the Japanese military and businesses who received instructions from the military.” The Japanese side maintained there are no historical materials that show the military itself directly recruited the women.

The Japanese side proposed that it admit the comfort stations were set up by private-sector businesses based on the “intention” of the Japanese military authority, while the South Korean side demanded that the word “instruction” be used instead. The word “request” was eventually adopted.

The final version of the Kono statement reads: “The then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of the comfort stations and the transfer of comfort women.

The recruitment of the comfort women was conducted mainly by private recruiters who acted in response to the request of the military. The Government study has revealed that in many cases they were recruited against their own will, through coaxing, coercion, etc., and that, at times, administrative/military personnel directly took part in the recruitments.”

During political negotiations prior to the announcement of the Kono statement, the Korean side told Tokyo that “it has a policy not to seek financial compensation,” according to the panel’s report.

The panel was headed by former prosecutor-general Keiichi Tadaki. The other four members included Hiroko Akizuki, professor of international law at Asia University in Tokyo, and noted historian Ikuhiko Hata.

  • wada

    Japanese government strongly uphold the Kono’s statement. Why South Korea government criticizes Japan’s inspection and intimidates Japan?

    • Kyle

      Japan specifically investigated the process of the Kono Statement (not the overwhelming evidence) and suggested it was a diplomatic agreement rather than a sincere apology based on evidence of misdeeds.

      In simple terms, “we did not say sorry because of any real evidence, only to accommodate Korea.” The utter lack of sincerity on the part of Japan is quit shocking.

      • wada

        Thank you for replying.

        I finished reading the document announced by Japan government yesterday. At first, I have respect for the both member of Japan and South Korea in that time. They were struggling with saving victims and built the system to help them.

        But, a few people broke the system and assaulted victims to use the system. It was tragedy.

        The document showed that Japan and South Korea had a struggle with the problem 21 years ago. I hope that they don’t forget it and have a struggle with the problem in the future.