"GFJ Commentary" introduces news analyses andopinions in Japan on the relations of Japan with therest of the world, but they do not represent the views ofGFJ as an institution.

October 23, 2014

How to Cleanse Asahi’s Widespread“Misreports” on Comfort Women
By SUGIURA Masaaki
It is likely to take a mind-boggling amount of time and energy to cleanse and disinfect the“contamination of misreports” that the Asahi Shimbun spread throughout the world by its false
articles about the late YOSHIDA Seiji’s testimony to the effect that he had forcibly taken away
Korean women to make them serve as “comfort women” for Japanese soldiers during World War II.
Chief Cabinet Secretary SUGA Yoshihide’s statement on the government’s explicit intention toeradicate misunderstanding from the international community is an exceedingly significant step. The
Asahi is unwilling to take responsibility on its own and is also not trying to announce the retractionof its false reports to the world. This is an issue that affects Japan’s honor and interests. The
government and the ruling coalition parties should conduct active public relations activities toinform the facts to the world. Needless to mention the importance of formulating related budget.
Politicians themselves should make utmost efforts to let the world know without leaving the task todiplomats only. Starting form 1982, the Asahi Shimbun ran 16 false articles based on theself-proclaimed writer YOSHIDA Seiji’s vivid fabrication that he had “hunted up young Korean
women on Jeju Island to provide the Japanese forces with comfort women.” The Asahi reports
during this period of time fueled anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea and the Japanese
government announced the 1993 KONO Statement, which can be interpreted as the Japanese army
“having forcibly taken away Korean women” during World War II. In addition, then Chief Cabinet
Secretary KONO Yohei admitted in a press conference that the Japanese army had forcibly taken
away local women during World War II and his statement made matters even worse. As a result, themisunderstanding that the Japanese armed forced had “forcibly taken away” many comfort womenas “sex slaves” spread across the international community.

Apart from the “intentional misunderstandings” from China and South Korea, themisunderstandings can be largely categorized into the misunderstanding from the United Nations,the misunderstanding from media outlets around the world and the misunderstanding from theUnited States on the basis on my analysis of the impact of Asahi’s misreports on the international
community. The worst is the misunderstanding from the United Nations. U.N. Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon, who contravenes the U.N. Charter if he does not keep neutral, made a statement
criticizing Japan. With regard to the comfort women issue, in 2013, Ban said in his native country,

South Korea, “The Japanese government and political leaders need to reflect very profoundly uponthemselves and need to have international future-oriented visions.” His critical remark about theJapanese government was applauded by South Korean media. Ban exercised his personnel authority
and used a shrewd tactic of appointing Navanethem Pillay, of South Africa, who almost crazily
repeats condemnations against Japan for the comfort women issue, as U.N. High Commissioner for
Human Rights to minimize his own public exposure over the issue. On April 6, Pillay announced astatement about the comfort women issue, repeating the word sex slave. In this statement, she“deeply deplored,” saying, “Japan has neglected to make moves for a comprehensive, fair andpermanent solution to the issue of wartime sex slaves.” It was quite natural that in response to herstatement, SUGA stated that the expression of sex slave was very deplorable. Looking back onhistory, in 1996, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights defined comfort women as “military sexualslaves who were forcibly taken away” in the Coomaraswamy Report. This report was discussed
within the United Nations with authority and Japan was virtually standing idly by. Regarding thereport, Suga said, “Japan was affected by Asahi’s articles. There are occurring misunderstandings
from the international community and I would like to express the Japanese government’s stance andpolicy more clearly than ever before.”

I used to be a New York correspondent assigned to the United Nations. To be honest, theinfluence of Japan’s public relations activities is weak. Currently, Japan is providing 270 million
dollars in contributions to the United Nations, coming in second after the United States. The figure isdouble that of China, which ranks fifth. Russia is in eleventh place and South Kore is in thirteenth,but they are conducting incomparably active lobby maneuvering to Japan. The previous Japaneseadministrations just provided money and did not present proper counterarguments. Probably, a major
reason for this is that Asahi’s misreports were not confirmed as false reports yet. In the current
administration, Prime Minister ABE is shouldered with too heavy a diplomatic responsibility and itis the time for other politicians to act. At the U.N. General Assembly to be held in September, ABE
should meet with Ban and request him to be neutral on the comfort women issue, to dismiss Pillay,
who appears to be trampling the U.N. Charter by repeating one-sided claims, and to draft a newreport that reflects the falseness of Asahi’s reports. In addition, ABE should clear up international
misunderstandings in his keynote speech at the General Assembly. Measures for the U.S. media arealso indispensable. In 2007, ABE stated at the Diet session that there was no evidence of theJapanese army’s “comfort women hunting” by forcibly taking them away. However, U.S. public
opinions struck back and the New York Times called for the Japanese government to make official
reparations for the victims, criticizing that Japan twisted the truth and defamed the victims. The Los
Angeles Times claimed that the Japanese prime minister’s statement had given further sufferings tothe victims and that the Japanese government should bear moral and legal responsibility to makereparations for the survivors.

For a measure, if the Japanese ambassador to the United States invites major newspaper
reporters and gives a “comfort women lecture,” it will be effective. In the lecture, the ambassador
should share in detail with them the latest news of Asahi’s misreports about the Japanese army
having forcibly taken away local women during World War II. For another measure, it is conceivablethat ABE has a lunch meeting with the presidents of major newspaper companies on his visit to theUnited States and calls for understanding, just as NAKASONE Yasuhiro did. The U.S. governmentis strongly opinionated about the comfort women issue. It is also necessary for the Japanese
Embassy in the United States to explain the issue by presenting an English translation of Asahi’s
announcement of its misreports coupled with the Japanese government’s interpretation to the senior
officials of the U.S Department of State. What matters is that not only the Press Secretary of theDepartment of State but also President Obama criticized Japan. In South Korea after his visit toJapan in April, Obama said, “The comfort women issue is a very serious human rights violation.
Japan should listen to the voices of the victims.” He showed some understanding of South Korea’sstance on the history issue. This statement seems as if Obama had kicked ABE by a hind leg
immediately after shaking hands with him. At the next top-level meeting with Obama, ABE needs totell and reconfirm the falseness of the assertion that the former Imperial Japanese Army forcibly took
away local women. That is, Japan just locally procured comfort women in an extraordinary situationof war just as Western countries did and there is no fact that Japan promoted an atrocious national
policy as Stalin encouraged raping. ABE should claim that discussing the comfort women issue by
the moral in peacetime does not lead to any solution. It is totally justifiable that the Liberal
Democratic Party claims that the government should announce a “new statement” of different
dimension from the KONO Statement.

(This is the English translation of an article written by SUGIURA Masaaki, politicalcommentator, which originally appeared on the e‐Forum “Giron‐Hyakushutsu” of
GFJ on September 8, 2014.)