Chapter 2: The Fiction Equating Comfort Women with Sex Slaves
Spreads throughout the World
1. US House Resolution (2007) and its nationwide repercussions
By Hisae Kennedy

My UN fantasy
When I was a child, I was convinced that the United Nations was an imposing,authoritative organization that stood above all the world’s nations. To me, the UN
secretary-general was the president of the world. At some point I learned that the UN is aremnant of the Allied forces whose core members were the victor nations of World War
II. I also discovered that Japan and Germany are even today named as enemy nations in
the UN Charter. Furthermore, China and Russia, both of which were or might as wellhave been at war with the Western powers during the postwar era, are permanent
members of the UN Security Council!
Those revelations did not sway my vague conviction of the UN’s prestige. After all, 193
nations had joined the organization. I thought that UN resolutions were momentous, andits decisions irrevocable (or rather, that any nation opposing them would be ostracized by
the international community). I also thought that to some extent, all Japanese had thesame perception of the UN as I did.
When I came to live in the US and learned how the Americans and the US media
perceive the UN, I was surprised at how different impressions are from country tocountry. To Americans, the US is 100% fruit juice. The involvement of other countries
means an increase in impurities and additives; the result is a drink you wouldn’t want to
consume.
Setting the juice metaphor aside for the moment, it is quite clear that Americans thinkworld affairs should be decided by the US, without interference from other nations. Thisis understandable, since there are a great many cases in which UN intervention simply
complicates problems and makes them more difficult to resolve. In any case, it neveroccurs to Americans to look to other nations or the international community when adecision needs to be made.
Compensation suits go nowhere

1The comfort-women controversy did not command the attention of Americans on awidespread level until 2007, when the House of Representatives passed Resolution 121.
Until then, it had been overshadowed by other controversies between the US and Japan.
The first wave of litigation began in 1998, when Tom Hayden (then a California Statesenator), Rod Pacheco, and Mike Honda (both California State assemblymen) sponsored
what became known as the Hayden Bill, which was passed by the State Senate. The
legislation, entitled “Compensation: World War II slave and forced labor,” would enable
victims of Nazi persecution who were forced to work without compensation to institutesuit for compensation in California State courts. According to the text of the bill, thosevictims had until 2010 to file suit. Between 1999 and 2000 former prisoners of war, as
well as Chinese who had worked for Japanese companies during the war, brought a large
number of actions seeking compensation from Japan.
Fifteen women (natives of China, Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan who now resided in
California) filed a class-action suit against the Japanese government in federal district
court in Washington, D.C. on September 18, 2000. All of them claimed they had been
forced to service Japanese soldiers as comfort women during World War II. The
Japanese government requested that the court dismiss the suit on the grounds that the San
Francisco peace treaty had settled all wartime claims.
Assisting the plaintiffs in the class-action suit was a Chinese anti-Japanese organizationthat goes by the name of “Global Alliance for Preserving the History of WWII in Asia”(hereafter “Global Alliance”). It was this group that lobbied elected officials to draft statelegislation on its behalf, and instigated the class-action suit.
The Department of State and Department of Justice responded by supporting the Japanese
government’s position in every case. Consequently there ensued a round of contentious
interchanges between the US government and the California legislature. Moreover, theWall Street Journal and other leading media representatives also sided with the US
government (and therefore with the Japanese government), and were intensely critical of
the lawsuits.
On January 15, 2003 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the
California legislation passed in 1999 recognizing the right to file suit for compensation
was constitutional. However, on January 21 a San Francisco federal court ruled the
Hayden Bill unconstitutional and dismissed 28 pending class-action suits against
Japanese companies. On February 26, 2006 the US Supreme Court dismissed aclass-action suit instituted by former comfort women.
In other words, during that era the US government, judiciary and media demonstrated anunderstanding of Japan’s position, as well as agreement that Japan had no legal obligation
to compensate the plaintiffs.
It is my belief that these problems have been legally resolved. Once it became clear that
the US government and judiciary were not going to change their minds, and2

Japan-bashers were not going to win the hearts of media representatives or the American
people, the anti-Japanese organizations changed their tactics. They abandoned the former
prisoners of wars and laborers, whom they’d used to fulfill their perverted mission, andadopted new causes: women’s rights and human rights.
A new agenda: women’s rights
When activists Mindy Kotler and Annabel Park were lobbying US representatives in theireffort to get the anti-Japanese resolution passed, they maintained that the comfort-womensystem in operation during World War II was the root cause of the infringements ofwomen’s rights and human rights now occurring in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, andDarfur.
Voters will certainly not be pleased if the politicians they elect neither care about nor
oppose regional infringements of women’s rights and human rights. But direct criticism
of violations of human rights in these nations can accelerate to diplomatic problems, andthat would be a nuisance. Also, we must remember that the Chinese are accomplices in
the massacre in Darfur. To show that they are struggling to resolve human rights
problems, these activists must choose a country to attack. So why not focus on docile
Japan? After all, the Japanese never make a fuss.
Back in 1999, Rep. Mike Honda passed a resolution denouncing Japan in the California
State Senate. Honda made the following comment during an interview published in Japan
Focus.
I passed the resolution AJR 27 in California Assembly in 1999 and it
caused quite a bit of stir with the Consulate General (of Japan) in San
Francisco. They said, “Why California? This is a national and international
issue, not a state issue.” But it still passed. Then I went to Congress andsaid, “I am in Congress now. I will introduce this resolution again and it
will be on a national and international level.”1

How do you explain Honda’s indefatigable passion for casting aspersions on Japan?
Where does this tenacity come from? If human rights really were his chief concern, it
would make more sense for him expend his considerable energy on passing a resolution
critical of China. But he has not done anything of the kind. To the contrary, in 2015
Honda was one of the representatives who accepted money from Iran, which has amiserable human-rights record, before the nuclear agreement between that nation and the
US was concluded, and voted in favor of the pact. For that he was called a traitor by
American conservatives. Honda’s “principles” notwithstanding, he doesn’t seem to havethe slightest interest in correcting a real, current problem — Iran’s infringement of humanrights.
Resolution 121
1

http://apjjf.org/-Kinue-TOKUDOME/2438/article.html (05/02/2007)

3

When Resolution 121 passed, thanks to the obsessive campaign waged by Rep. Honda,
Mindy Kotler, and others, only about 10 congressmen were present to cast their votes forthe resolution. In September 2014 I met with US Representative Dana Rohrabacher at acoffee shop in Huntington Beach, California. He said that leaving the historicalbackground of the comfort-women controversy aside, Japan and the US must show aunited front in the face of a greater enemy, i.e., China. For some reason, the Japanese
media have reported that Mr. Rohrabacher voted in favor of the anti-Japanese resolution
after being approached by Korean lobbyists. This is not true. He did not vote in favor of
the resolution. As a matter of fact, he didn’t even know that it had passed.
Very few ordinary Americans know anything about that resolution. The US House ofRepresentatives introduces both binding and non-binding resolutions. The resolution
condemning Japan was non-binding; therefore, it was not passed on to the Senate, nor
was it passed on to the government to be signed into law. Still, the people of Japan took it
seriously, since the US Congress had passed it. And since its intent was to censure Japan,
I can see why they would take offense.
They say that approximately 7,000 resolutions have yet to be voted on. Here are some ofthose resolutions, all non-binding.
 Resolution 2617: Apollo Lunar Landing Legacy Act
Introduced on July 8, 2013 by Rep. Donna Edwards (Democrat), its purpose is toestablish the Apollo Lunar Landing Sites National Historical Park on the moon.
 Resolution 808: Department of Peacebuilding Act
Introduced on February 25, 2013 by Rep. Barbara Lee (Democrat), its purpose is toestablish a Department of Peacebuilding, whose mission will be cultivating peace anddeveloping policies that promote national and international-conflict prevention.
 Resolution 997: English Language Unity Act
Introduced on March 6, 2013 by Rep. Steve King (Republican), its purpose is to establish
English as the official language of the US.
 Resolution 3276: Shutdown Prioritization Act
Introduced on October 8, 2013 by Rep. Bill Foster (Democrat), its purpose is to prohibit
the operation of an exercise facility for Members of the House of Representatives duringa Government shutdown.
 Resolution 1665: Read the Bills Act
Introduced on November 7, 2013 by Rep. Rand Paul (Republican), its purpose is torequire representatives to sign an affidavit stating that they have read the legislation they
are to vote for online one week before the vote, and to wait one week before the final
vote.
I hope readers will understand the point I am trying to make here.

4The role of unexamined resolutions
There are countless other proposals of this sort. The Chicago Tribune’s lampooning of
the colossal amount of time wasted in Congress really hits the mark.2 When a binding
resolution is involved, representatives in favor of it make their opinions known, and thenthose opposed to it voice their opinions. Supporting documents must be carefully checked
and recorded, and not until then does voting take place. But non-binding resolutions haveno legal significance, so there is no need to analyze or verify evidentiary material. As
they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. These resolutions come into existence,
despite the fact that they are meaningless manifestations of the introducers’ complacency,
and they are why we have National Pi Day and National Lobster Day.
The same conclusion can be drawn for the Coomaraswamy and McDougall reports. We
can ignore Resolution 121; it has no real significance, as it never was subjected toanalysis. We could ignore the Coomaraswamy and McDougall reports for the same
reasons. Unfortunately, however, these reports have taken on a life of their own, just as
though they had been verified. When Resolution 121 was passed, anti-Japaneseorganizations acted as though they had achieved a major triumph, and stepped up theircondemnation of Japan. They used the non-binding resolution as the legal basis for the
installation of comfort-woman statues in cities like Fullerton, California.
Left-wing Japanese activists and Chinese and Korean lobbyists have perversely andaggressively advertised their positions on the comfort-women controversy. There are also
Americans willing to campaign for the installation of comfort-women statues in US cities.
I’d like to take a closer look at two such campaigns, in California and New Jersey.
Glendale, California
The first city favored with a comfort-woman statue was
Glendale, California. I don’t think many Japanese had evenheard of Glendale prior to the statue’s advent.
A five-member City Council governs Glendale; the council
selects one of its members to serve as mayor for a one-year
term. The mayor has no more power than other council
members.
The current mayor is Paula Devine. Serving on the City
Council are Zareh Sinanyan (who was mayor in 2014),
Laura Friedman (mayor in 2011), Vartan Gharpetian, and Comfort-woman statue
installed in Glendale, California
2“Resolve not: Getting rid of silly congressional commemorations,” Chicago Tribune, 26 July 2011.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-26/opinion/edit-resolution-20110726_1_resolutions-jefferson-or-madison-post-offices (retrieved 6/28/2016).

5

Ara Najarian (mayor in 2007, 2010, and 2015). The term of Frank Quintero, who lashed
out at members of the Higashi Osaka City Assembly visiting Glendale to express theiropposition to the comfort-woman statue, with “What about the Nanking massacre?” hasexpired. Paula Devine, Quintero’s successor, was elected to the council in July 2014.
The campaign to place a comfort-woman statue in Glendale began when Chang Lee, a
Korean businessman residing in Los Angeles, approached the City Council and offered
its members a trip to Korea.
Mayor Dave Weaver, who was uncomfortable accepting such an invitation, declined theoffer. But the other four members accepted. Frank Quintero reportedly made two trips toKorea.
We have no information about the details of those trips, but when the council members
returned to the US, two Korean former comfort-women arrived in Glendale unannounced,
and tearfully related their experiences, surprising Mayor Weaver.
A few weeks after their visit, Chang Lee approached the council with his plan to install acomfort-women monument behind the Glendale Central Library. Soon thereafter council
members decided to forge a sister-city relationship between Glendale and two Koreancities. When a proposal was made for a third such relationship, it met with vigorous
opposition from Mayor Weaver, and was rejected.
As if our story weren’t strange enough already, we learned from the ALPHA-LA (anorganization operating under the aegis of the Global Alliance (full name: Global Alliancefor Preserving the History of WWII in Asia) website and the Los Angeles Times that theCity of Glendale ordered the comfort-women monument well before holding a public
hearing on the subject. Council members must have been confident of public support for
the installation.
Mayor Weaver opposed the installation till the very end. He was planning on using thesite as a parking lot, and says that he had absolutely no knowledge of the comfort-women
project.
Chang Lee was subsequently appointed to the Glendale Planning Commission.

Inside the City Council
Now I’d like to take a closer look at two of the council members.
Zareh Sinanyan is an American of Armenian descent. If the purpose of the
comfort-women monument campaign is, as the Korean organizations behind it claim, topromote women’s rights and human rights, I find Sinanyan a strange choice. His publiccomments indicate that he opposes such rights, and for that he should be censured.

6

Statements Sinanyan has made on YouTube and other social media outlets would offend
any decent, sensible person.
Typical of those comments is a threat to rape an opponent with a tennis racket posted on
YouTube. Similarly, he uses a vulgar word for the female genitals to taunt his opponent
in a debate.
Laura Friedman, another council member, went to Tibet in the summer of 2014 to attend
the 2014 Forum on Development in Tibet.
The Tibetan government in exile expressed its concern about the 2014 forum as follows:
China said that the attendees at this event signed and agreed to a document(the “Lhasa Consensus”) that attacked His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lamafor presenting a “distorted and incorrect” picture of Tibet and claimed that
Tibetans were happy and enjoyed religious freedom.
(…)
China claims that over 100 foreign politicians and dignitaries attended thisevent, but there was no foreign media coverage.
(…)
However, while attendees were enjoying a conference in Lhasa, at least 10
Tibetans in Kardze, Kham (Ch: Ganzi, Sichuan Province) were shot by
Chinese police during a peaceful protest. Of the 25 arrested, [at] least five
Tibetans have died due to untreated gunshot injuries; one committed
suicide to protest the torture.3

We don’t know why Friedman participated in this conference, but we must be mindfulthat as far as Tibet is concerned, by “development” the Chinese mean destroying
Buddhist temples in Tibet, displacing ethnic Tibetans, and sponsoring the migration of
Han Chinese into Tibet in large numbers. If Friedman truly wishes to promote universal
human rights, why has she not spoken out about China’s slaughter of Tibetans, or robbing
them of autonomy? If she cares about women’s rights, why has she not criticized China’s
one-child policy?

Rationale for the statues
Former Harvard University professor Mera Koichi and other residents of Los Angeles
filed a suit demanding that the comfort-woman statue in Glendale be removed. The
Global Alliance submitted an opinion requesting that the suit be dismissed. It was
dismissed, and when the plaintiffs appealed, the Global Alliance submitted a brief
protesting the appeal. Here we have opinions submitted by a group interested in3

http://www.tibetnc.org/2014/08/21/tibetan-national-congress-condemns-china-lhasa-consensus/?lang=en

7

influencing the outcome of the lawsuit, though not party to it. This was a suit filed against
Glendale by private citizens. The residents of Glendale should be made aware that thedefendant, the City of Glendale, was supported by a Communist, anti-Japaneseorganization because its interests happened to coincide with those of Glendale’s
government.
Incidentally, though the comfort-woman statue is situated in a plaza behind the library,most citizens of Glendale using that library or walking in the area are not aware of its
presence. When I visited the plaza, I did not encounter anyone who knew the statue wasthere. Nor was anyone aware of the term “comfort woman.” I had to explain. When I told
them, “The comfort women were prostitutes who serviced Japanese soldiers during
World War II,” most of them seemed confused. I had no intention of adding that the
Koreans maintain that the comfort women were abducted and forced to become
prostitutes. The Americans were obviously puzzled, but I pretended not to notice.
On July 30, 2014 there was a ceremony commemorating the one-year anniversary of theinstallation of the statue. The only people who showed up were about a dozen Koreans.
This was strong proof that Americans are not interested in the controversy. The stark
reality is that the statue’s intended audience is Koreans.

Union City, New Jersey
Since we are on the subject of iniquity, I must mention Brian Stack, the mayor of Union
City, New Jersey. His is a typical case, embodying the contradictions facing
municipalities that are approached by lobbyists for the comfort-women monument
campaign, and choose to cooperate with them.
On August 4, 2014 an unveiling ceremony for a new comfort-woman statue was held inUnion City. Two former comfort women, Yi Ok-seon and Gang Il-chul, were present.
Unlike Glendale, where there is a sizable Korean community, Union City has very few
Korean residents. Nevertheless, the sixth comfort-women monument to be situated in the
US was installed in that city on public land, bearing the inscription “In memory of
thousands of women and girls from Korea, China, Taiwan, the Philippines, the Netherlands,
and Indonesia, who were forced into sexual slavery by the armed forces of Imperial Japan
before and during World War II.”
The former comfort women who attended the unveiling are Gang Il-chul and Yi Ok-seon.
Gang lived in China, where the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) enjoys one-party rule,
for more than 50 years. She worked as a nurse for the PLA (People’s Liberation Army)
during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, which claimed 45 million
Chinese lives. Yi Ok-seon also lived in China until 1999, and she too worked for the
PLA.
As employees of the PLA, the two women were part of an organization that slaughtered
Chinese, Tibetans, and Uighurs. And now, all of a sudden, they are demanding redress

8

from the Japanese government in connection with the comfort-women system of 70 yearsago.
I am not aware of any other event that has revealed the hypocrisy that haunts the
comfort-women monument campaign as much as this ceremony did. The organizers
invited the media and local dignitaries. Attendees gathered around the monument, abutterfly sculpture mounted on a stone slab, as Stack delivered his speech, which was
designed to appeal to listeners’ emotions: “It’s about human rights, it’s about education —educating our youth about what took place in the past, so we don’t make the same mistakes
again.”
But just a few miles away from the spot where Mayor Stack was making demands on theJapanese government are public houses that were the scene of acts described as “among
the most vile crimes I’ve seen in my time as U.S. Attorney” by (then) New Jersey
Attorney General Chris Christie in 2005.
Judicial authorities conducting an investigation into human trafficking ascertained that asmuggling ring operating in two bars in Union City and another, smaller tavern inGuttenberg Township, was forcing underage women into prostitution.
The young women, aged 13 to 21, had been lured to Union City from the Honduras. They
were smuggled into the US and forced to provide sexual services to bar customers from12:00 noon until 2:00 a.m., seven days a week. One 21-year-old was impregnated by acustomer, and gave birth in a bathtub; the infant died the next day.

Cities overrun by corruption are targets
In a court under State Attorney Christie’s jurisdiction, defendant Luisa Medrano(proprietor of the three bars) testified that she had paid tens of thousands of dollars inbribes to Union City Mayor Stack and Guttenberg Township Mayor David Delle Donna.
In return, she asked authorities to overlook the forced prostitution of underage females at
her places of business.
Only the mayor of Guttenberg Township received a judgment with a prison sentence
attached. Medrano was sentenced to house arrest. Through Christie’s good offices, theinvestigation focusing on Stack was discontinued after he contributed the money he’dreceived from Medrano to a women’s shelter. Why did Christie absolve Medrano andStack, her accomplice, of guilt in one of “the most vile crimes” he had ever seen?
Unlawful behavior like this is bound to incur the wrath of law-abiding citizens. Many ofthem (including former Union City Deputy Police Chief Joseph Blaettler, who once
campaigned for Brian Stack) have filed suit against the mayor. Meanwhile, Christie’s
reputation is at an all-time low. You can even find an organization called “NJ against
Chris Christie” on Facebook.

9

Other cities that have allowed the installation of comfort-woman statues are similar to
Glendale and Union City. Perhaps city fathers are after Korean votes. But it’s also
possible that by pretending to care about abuses of women’s rights that allegedly
occurred nearly a century ago, they are attempting to draw attention away from their own
misdeeds and corruption. And Chinese, Korean, and Japanese Communists are waiting
for their chance to pounce on those misdeeds, that corruption.

American political situation
As I mentioned earlier, when the comfort-women controversy reared its head, andlawsuits were instituted, the US government and judiciary consistently sided with Japan.
But when the Obama administration took office, Japan policy began veering in a slightly
different direction. This change brought a rising shrillness in criticism not only inconnection with the comfort-women controversy, but also other issues as well, such aspilgrimages to Yasukuni Shrine and whaling.
Japan wasn’t the only new target of this change in US policy: also pinpointed were other
US allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and Israel. This prompted sarcastic remarks fromthe ASEAN4 nations like, “Please tell us exactly who your allies are.” Israel’s prime
minister expressed concern about Obama’s conciliatory policy toward Palestine. The
American people certainly do not support Obama’s policies, which don’t make it clear
which nations are US allies, and which enemies. Senator Ted Cruz, who has been
campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, said recently that theconsequences of Obama’s foreign policy are “that our friends no longer trust us, and ourenemies no longer fear us.”
Furthermore, in a speech delivered in April 2014 during an official visit to Korea,
President Obama made an appeal to the Japanese government regarding the comfort
women. He said that “they deserve to be heard; they deserve to be respected; and there
should be an accurate and clear account of what happened.”5
In that speech President Obama stressed the importance of “accurate and clear” records,
but he is not thinking about something as admirable as creating a truthful, accurate andfair record. He is asking Japan to accept the testimony of the former comfort women as
an accurate, fair and absolute account of the past.
It is clear from President Park’s comments at the joint press conference that she favored,
at least at the time, a rapprochement with North Korea. No Korean president has spoken
out in favor of reunification to the extent Park has. But in 2015 her government began to
4

ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations; member states are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos,
Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.
5

Speech delivered on April 25, 2014.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/04/25/press-conference-president-obama-and-presidentpark-republic-korea.

10adopt a hardline attitude toward the military threat from the north. US-Korean joint
maneuvers were thorough. At the end of the year Japan and Korea concluded anagreement that claimed to be an irreversible solution of the comfort-women controversy.
Prime Minister Abe ranks the agreement as a necessity for regional security reasons. But
while US and European media expressed their approval, the Chinese government was
dissatisfied. The Chinese were scheming to cause estrangement between Japan and Korea
over historical disputes, and then estrangement between Japan and the US, so theagreement was a huge disaster for them.
Obama is quite different from previous US presidents, to the extent that there are rumors
circulating that he is a Communist. In fact, his grandparents and his mother werereportedly quite left-leaning.
Then we have Donald Trump, another Republican candidate for president in the 2016
election. His outlandish pronouncements have the media in a tizzy, but his Asia policy
does not favor US allies there. He has gone so far as to say that he might remove US
troops from Japan, depending on the situation. Of course, the US president has
considerable power, but he cannot singlehandedly violate or discard treaties. The removalof US troops would require congressional approval. US intervention would also require
the agreement of Congress and the American people. Given that the notion of one-nation
pacifism (which means not getting enmeshed in other nations’ disputes) has become
entrenched in the US, it makes sense for Prime Minister Abe to think that it is crucial tobolster relationships of military cooperation with nations vulnerable to the same threats,
i.e., Korea, India, and the Philippines.
As the Obama administration treads the anti-Japanese pro-Chinese road, and Korea has
opted for an extremely pro-Chinese pro-North Korean course, what diplomatic pathshould Japan pursue? Should it be, as some online sources hint, one that involves
abrogating the alliance with the US, or breaking off diplomatic relations with South
Korea? Should Japan withdraw from the United Nations? I am sure that Communist
China would be delighted at any or all of those eventualities.

Japan must be preparedJapan always remits its designated financial contribution on time, but Japan has almost no
influence on UN positions or actions. The organization has condemned Japan withrespect to comfort women for discrimination against women and infringement of
women’s rights. But I am convinced that Japan has never violated human rights to an
extent that would justify interference from the UN.
I met with a former UN official in Los Angeles who writes under the pseudonym Frank
Morse. He offered the following advice.
Apparently, at one time the US was experiencing the same sort of problems with the UN.
The US always paid its assessment on time. But it had no influence on the UN.

11

Then the US stopped paying its assessment on time. The Americans decided to withhold
payment until the US was given consideration in keeping with its national interests andits demands were accepted. Once it did that, the US was no longer ignored. This is how
the UN functions. This is the devious foundation on which diplomacy and international
politics are based.
The former UN official spoke softly. “One can always object to these practices. But that’s
how the international community functions. If Japan wants to do something so much thatit’s willing to completely change the way it’s been doing things, then … .”I don’t agree with the extreme position that would have Japan suffer in silence when it is
not given an opportunity to state a claim, and then when withdraw from the UN when its
limit has been is reached. That wouldn’t accomplish anything. The limits of patience arereached when you don’t voice your opinions. Is Japan willing to change its way of doing
things to protect its national interests?
What is the true objective of activists who insist on calling attention to problems orcontroversies, using the UN, or US Congress, or midsize American cities as their stage?
We really need to find out why they are using these problems to fuel the flames of hatred.
It can’t be simply that they want to dishonor Japan. There must be more to it than that.
As I mentioned earlier, the mission of the anti-Japanese campaigns waged by the Global
Alliance is purportedly to heighten Japanese awareness of the history of the alliance
between China and the US. Obviously the group wants to tell us that Japan is the enemy
of both the US and China, and is attempting to turn American public opinion against
Japan. And it seems that these forces have selected left-leaning American cities where
corruption is rampant as their bases of activity.
The Obama administration, which wants to curtail military expenditures, was enthusiastic
about the agreement signed by Japan and South Korea about the comfort women. Theremay be more attempts to install comfort-woman statues in other American cities, but they
are unlikely to be welcomed by local governments. At least the controversy will nolonger be considered a problem that needs resolution, and will not attract a great deal of
public sympathy.
When the comfort-woman-statue fever has waned, we will need to take a long hard lookat anti-Japanese activity in the US, and do our utmost to combat it.

12