Comfort Women

Huun Jin Kim

“Mr. Chairman, how much compensation do you think ought to be paid to a woman who was raped 7,500 times? What would the members of the Commission want for their daughters if their daughters had been raped even once? China, Korea, Philippines, Netherlands, Burma – these are your daughters. How can the international community, even though dominated by men fail to demand that Japan provide meaningful compensation for each of these women?”

-- Karen Parker’s statement on comfort women during the fifty-first session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1996.

The connotation of the word “comfort women” may seem harmless and even comforting to some extent. However, a seemingly harmless word is literally a translation of the Japanese euphemism, jugun ianfu, (military comfort women), which categorically refers to women of various ethnic and national backgrounds and social circumstances who became sexual slaves for the Japanese troops before and during the Pacific War. The “comfort” was meant for the Japanese troops, who needed to satisfy their sexual appetite at the cost of comfort women’s pain and suffering. The Japanese government must make appropriate reparations to the victims of this crime against humanity. The following questions will be addressed to seek legitimacy behind the reparations: who were comfort women; what were the reparations proposed by the victims; how has the Japanese government responded to these demands; what must be done as atonement for the victims of this crime against humanity?

The Japanese government’s rationale for needing sexual slaves for its troops can be traced back to 1932. It begins with documentation of Japanese Lieutenant-General Okamura Yasuji’s proposal for a “shipment” of comfort women to be sent to Shanghai, China as a solution for 223 reported rapes by his troops. The solution was obviously to systematically negate the growing tension caused by the Japanese military’s brutality on its colonies.

However, the proliferation of state mandated sexual slavery began with the Nanjin Massacre in 1937. After the merciless slaughter of thousands of Chinese, and the pillaging and arson that followed, (as if this were not enough) they set upon the barbarous act of raping an insurmountable number of women. As a result of the Nanjin Massacre, anti-Japanese sentiments grew and it became harder for Japan to fully occupy their frontiers. "Comfort Houses" were set up at a fast rate in order to 'settle down' disorderly Japanese troops. The Japanese Army used comfort stations extensively until the war ended in the Pacific in 1945.

The estimated number of victims varies: according to different sources, between 80,000 to 200,000 girls and women, of which more than 80% were Korean women, were kidnapped, forced, or deceived into working at ‘manufacturing plants’ for imperial Japan. “I was raped by three Japanese soldiers and then taken away in a truck,” a former comfort woman testified at International Criminal Court.

Another victim recounted how she was kidnapped; she was placed in a cubicle, where her hands were tied behind her back, and her legs were spread and tied to posts. “They (Japanese soldiers) lined themselves outside our cubicles and as soon as one of them had satisfied his sexual desires another would come and have his turn,” she testified (Yu, 6). According to the victims, comfort women were restricted to confines of the ”Comfort Houses” by strict security and had to ‘receive’ men as many as 10 to 25 times per day.

U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Karen Parker, confirmed victims’ testimonies, and added her findings during the fifty-first session of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights (1996). Parker states, “Our research shows that more than ½ of the girls and women died as a direct result of the treatment they received. Many survivors were detained in the program for 3 to 5 years… Taking the lowest figure, at any given time, there were about 20,000 jugun ianfu. Each of them was raped at least 5 times per day. That means that there was at least 100,000 rapes per day arranged by the Japanese authorities and carried out by its soldiers – 100,000 rapists per day… Even assuming only 5 years of program, there were at lest 125 million rapes – 125 million rapes against the women of Korea, Philippines, Burma, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, Netherlands.”

Article 1 of the 1927 Slavery Convention explicitly defines slavery and slave trade as, “the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership is exercised… slave trade includes all acts involved in the capture, acquisition or disposal of a person with intent to reduce him to slavery.” The apparent similarities between slavery and slave trade and comfort women and their recruitment leads to the conclusion that the situation comfort women were in resembled sexual slavery rather than free-willed prostitution that the Japanese government asserted. In addition, the Japanese government placed itself in direct violation of the Convention of Saint-Germain-en-Laye of 1919 by involving itself in a modern day slave trade.

Any military personnel with Pacific War experience knew of the existence of comfort women. In 1947, the writer Tamura Taijiro subjectively depicted the life of Korean Comfort Women in his novel Shunpuden (A Prostitute’s Story). A more objective approach was taken under Senda Kako’s Jungun Ianfun (Military Comfort Women) in 1973. For the first time, Kako took up the challenge of investigating “the actual conditions comfort women endured.” (Yoshimi, 37) Although some awareness has existed before, widespread awareness of issues regarding comfort women and reparations for comfort women is a recent development.

The issues regarding comfort women were largely ignored and forgotten until 1980s, when the victims began to come forth and speak out. In a direct response to the growing awareness of the true story behind comfort women, the Japanese government issued a statement. “In regard to comfort women… it appears that the persons thus treated were led around by civilian operators following the military force. We consider it impossible for us to investigate and make a definitive statement as regards the actual conditions pertaining to this practice.” This historical distortion that the Japanese government exhibited was largely due to the lack of primary documents referring to the incident, most of which were systematically destroyed along with other sensitive documents during the finals days of the Pacific War. Ironically, this very response brought many Korean women’s rights organizations to form the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan in November 1990. The Korean Council then sent an open letter to the Japanese Prime Minister Kaifu Toshiki, which listed the following six demands (Yoshimi, 36):
1. the Japanese government acknowledge the fact that (the military) forced Korean women to accompany troops as comfort women;
2. the Japanese government issue an official apology for these practices;
3. the Japanese government disclose all acts of brutality (committed by the government or military);
4. a memorial to the people victimized be erected;
5. survivors or their families be compensated; and
6. in order to prevent the recurrence of these wrongs, the facts be taught as a part of history education.

In response to the six demands, Japan declined to meet any of them by denying the Japanese government’s involvement, and asserting that issues of compensation have already been settled in the peace treaty of 1965. The Japanese government’s reaction brought forth further action by the Korean Council and led Kim Hak Sun, a former Korean comfort woman, to become the first victim to testify in public in August of 1991. The Japanese government dismissed such testimony as being allegations without the proof of factual evidence. However, on 16 January 1992, just before Japan's former Prime Minister Miyazawa visited South Korea, Yoshimi Yoshiaki, a professor of Japanese history at Chuo University, discovered six historical documents proving the Japanese military’s involvement with comfort women in the Self Defense Force Library in Tokyo. The emergence of forgotten documents forced the Prime Minister to make a public apology to Koreans during his state visit to South Korea, but issues regarding compensation and reparation to victims were still left unresolved.

The measures taken by the Japanese government to offer reparations for comfort women have been both inadequate and insufficient. Firstly, the Japanese government has yet to fully acknowledge and make a public apology for their involvement in sexual slavery and trade in regards to non-Korean comfort women. Secondly, the Asian Women’s Fund, the organization that provides monetary reparations for comfort women, is privately funded. This private fund implicates that the Japanese governement still holds on to the position that they are not liable for what occurred before and during the Pacific War. Thirdly, they have not taken sufficient measures to educate the public on this issue. For example, Yasukuni, a controversial museum of the Pacific War, doesn’t include any information about comfort women and elevates war criminals, those who are responsible for organizing “war-rape,” as heroes.

Regarding the issue of sufficient compensation, the Japanese government asserts that according to the peace treaty of 1965, they don’t legally have to make any more reparations. The recent Japanese High Court ruling in March of 2001 also adhered to the same reasoning by seeking shelter behind the peace treaty. To seek legitimate response from the Japanese government, it is vital to investigate what occurred in the peace treaty. The only military tribunal concerning the sexual abuse of comfort women took place in Batavia (Jakarta), Indonesia in 1948. The Batavia trial convicted several Japanese military officers for having forced 35 Dutch women into comfort stations. The same trial completely ignored ordeals suffered by women of other ethnic backgrounds, including Koreans. The systematic rape committed by the Japanese government was largely ignored in the peace treaty due to the Japanese government’s denial about such an event and the Allied forces’ inability to investigate deeper into Japanese occupied territory.

By examining the aforementioned paragraphs, one might presume that the issue regarding comfort women is a strictly bilateral issue between Korea and Japan. However, to presume that comfort women issues are bilateral would be illogical. War-rape is an international issue regarding the violation of human rights. The victims weren’t just Koreans, they were women of various race and ethnicity who were victims of the inhuman practice of systematic usage of the female bodies as a commodity. In respect to Dutch, Taiwanese, Filipino, and other women who made up remaining 20% of comfort women, actions must be taken on behalf of them by their government. Why should this become an international issue now?

Perhaps, it was motivated by the politics to counter a growing Japanese revisionist movement, or maybe the deep-rooted Confucian philosophies regarding the chastises of women in Eastern society deterred many of the victims from coming forth and testifying against the Japanese government for nearly half of the century. Whatever the reason may be for this issue to resurface in modern days, the international community must take action to set an example to prevent further crime against humanity.

The Japanese government has advanced the absurd notion that war-rape is a newly condemned crime. “War- rape,” in spite of its failure to attract sufficient remedial measures, has been condemned in international law for centuries. Grotius, one of the forerunners of international law, indicates that war-rape was a crime against humanity in 1625. Besides the condemnation of war-rape in international law, international law has long required compensation for victims of war crimes. The right to compensation of injury is, according to Grotius, one of the five basic elements of law. The famous American case Marbury v. Madison (1803) calls the right of individual compensation "the very essence of civil liberty." The right to individual compensation has existed in the sphere of international law even before World War I. The Hague Convention of 1907 required compensation for violations of the rules of war. Accordingly, former comfort women should be compensated as the victims of war-rape, and not be victimized once again through the trapping technicalities of the farce peace treaty of 1965.

Perhaps, more than any other forms of reparation, the one thing that victims crave is spreading the truth about the horrifying conditions of their ordeal in a hope that this type of tragedy will never occur in the future. However, even the truth has become skewed to fit the Japanese revisionists who praise the Pacific War. On the anniversary commemorating Japan’s defeat (August 16, 2002), Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper offered up an extraordinarily exculpating editorial protesting the complaints made by comfort women as “fabricated history,” because the women volunteered, the newspaper alleged (Struck, A15). Also, some of intellectuals such as Nokatsu Fujioka, an influential revisionist, view the Japanese government as the victim of unfounded allegations (Park, 9). Alarmingly, these ultra nationalistic views that deny the truth are slowly beginning to emerge in Japan’s mainstream.

For more than fifty years, comfort women have relieved their horror in silence. Haven’t they suffered long enough? The elderly victims have only a few more years to live. Therefore, the silence must be broken and spread through the international community so that these atrocities never occur again. It may be true that history can be distorted through the likes of a powerful state; however, for the former comfort women the pain of lost innocence and shame will never be erased from their minds.

Huun is a political science major in his 3rd semester at SMC. Huun is interested in Human Rights Law and is very active at SMC as Vice President of Amnesty International (SMC Chapter) and Commissioner of Academic Support for SMC Associated Students