Literature Reviews

For the matter of comfort women case has been a longstanding controversial issue which has inhibited Japan-South Korea relations from improvement and since it is a major war crime of the WWII, in which the dwindling number of survivors of the comfort stations have long been waiting for a genuine remedy, it has been a topic hotly contested by numerous scholars. In this section, some of the works with diverse narratives on the subject will be overviewed, followed by critical assessments of the content. Reviewing diversified narratives of the issue helps the readers to understand why the issue has been dragged on for decades and failed to be resolved.

1) Historical Overview of the Comfort Women Issue:

The victimization of Korean comfort women can be divided into the following three major components: (1) their being forced into military sexual slavery, (2) their suffering inside military brothels, and (3) their half-century of agonizing experiences after their return home (Min, 2003). A detailed study on the origin and development of the comfort women system, the history of bilateral relations and two countries’ efforts to settle the issue are all crucial elements in understanding victimization of the former comfort women. An in-depth historical review over the comfort women issue should

not only include study of the bilateral relations in regards to the comfort women issue;

a detailed description of the origin and development of the comfort women system;

background study of the victims; but also, testimonies given by the victims, authorities or former soldiers who were associated with the crimes. Testimonies are an important tool to draw a more comprehensive understanding of the comfort women system.

Testimonies provide levels of information that cannot be found when studying the issue merely from a historical context:

Making an attempt to historically and socially contextualize the ‘comfort women’ system is important for a better understanding of the system. However, only focusing on the historical development and origin of the system can run the risk of overlooking the actual experiences of women who were forced to become ‘comfort women’. As Soh argues that from a feminist point of view, lives within the system and what it meant for them, are equally or even more important to explore. The distinctiveness of the system in part lies not in its assumed cultural peculiarity, but in women’s own voices unfolding their experience (Kimura, 2016).

One of the works that provides detailed historical descriptions of the comfort women system is a work by Nisha Sikka. By providing historical evidences, Sikka explains Japan’s purpose behind the system and how the system operated. The description is accompanied by past records and testimonies of former comfort women and former Japanese soldiers. Testimonies help reflect the severity of the crime and expose clearer understanding of the system. Sikka also provides information of how the comfort women issue that has long been hidden from the public and how it has been exposed. Sikka’s study also traces the inconsistent responses given by the Japanese government over time. Sikka argues that the Japanese government’s continuous inability to take responsibility results in further marginalization of the comfort women (Sikka, 2009). Sikka’s work helps to lay the foundation for this study as it explains the leading causes of dissatisfaction that the comfort women have towards the Japanese government. The past responses of the Japanese government have built upon high levels of distrust and dissatisfaction that the comfort women and citizens of South Korea currently have towards the Japanese government. Thus, it is important to study those factors in answering the question this thesis deals with. Sikka reveals the unjust treatments that the comfort women have faced for decades in claiming legal redress by studying the response held by the Japanese government over time.

Although the Japanese government has offered the limited surviving comfort women unofficial apologies and compensation, the majority of these women have refused to accept it at least until the government of Japan owns up to this violation and offers a

legal and legitimate apology thereby, in part, relinquishing them from the burden of this history (Sikka, 2009).

However, an important information is missing from the study. It fails to provide any explanation on the significance of the 1965 treaty. Japanese governments have continuously made assertions that the 1965 treaty has settled all wartime issues including the comfort women issue. This is one of the common arguments Japan has continuously been holding over time: “There have been numerous attempts to end the 70-year-old dispute. Despite an agreement signed in 1965, as well as an apology in 1993, South Korea has been persistent in claiming that Japan hasn’t done much for the tormented souls” (Desai, 2015). In order to fully understand the position of the comfort women, there needs to be a clear recognition of all counter-arguments asserted by the Japanese government. Also, analysis of past treaties need to be carried out to judge the credibility of the counter-arguments. Sikka’s work also fails to incorporate background information on the comfort women. Background study on recruited women is important in understanding the victimization of the comfort women and especially, the arguments held by the Japanese right extremists. The questions of who were the victims and were there coercion in the process of “recruitment” of the comfort women have always been at the center of the issue for it constitutes crucial criteria for the responsibility of the Japanese government (Youn, 2008).

Kimura is another scholar who focuses on the study of the comfort women system. Kimura begins by tracing the origin, development and expansion of licensed prostitution, which was a system newly developed in Japan for “sexual (and racial) control replicating state-controlled prostitution in Europe (and the US)” (Kimura, 2016) and highlights how it links to the development of the comfort women system. By highlighting the criminality of Japanese governments in institutionalizing the exploitation of women under the licensed prostitution system, Kimura proves Japanese government’s criminality and its direct involvement in the operation of the system:

Identifying the ‘comfort women’ system with licensed prostitution, ultra-nationalists argue, on the contrary, that the ‘comfort women’ system was also legal at the time and that criticism of the ‘comfort women’ system cannot, therefore, be warranted. They maintain that the involvement of the Japanese government in licensed prostitution was minimal and limited. As already argued, however, licensed prostitution was organized in the interests of the nation state, and itself is a symbol of systematic violence against women (by the nation state). Any suggestion of the connection between the ‘comfort women’ system and licensed prostitution needs, thus, to be made only to illuminate the accountability of the Japanese government for the ‘comfort women’ system (Kimura, 2016).

Kimura also helps the readers to form deeper connectivity with the former comfort women by providing detailed testimonies and backgrounds study of the victims. Many of the comfort women were those in economically disadvantaged upbringings. Thus, many were recruited with false promise of jobs:

In Korea, many women were recruited to work in restaurants, factories or hospitals, but who actually offered these jobs and to what extent the women could refuse the offer varied. Recruiters could be either Korean or Japanese civilians, and many women took up the offer to ease financial difficulties that their family had at the time (Kimura, 2016).

As previously mentioned, the question of who were the victims is at the centre of controversy. Japanese rightist claim that most comfort women were those who were looking for jobs and were victims of swindlers engaged in the trafficking of human beings (Youn, 2008). “They say that the Japanese authorities were not involved in such an act of swindling, and that those women should not be regarded as having been forcefully taken away to comfort stations” (Youn, 2008). Many scholars such as Kimura, Youn, and Barkan argue against those arguments and prove that the women were “forcibly taken away” either by offering jobs at a distant location, human trafficking or abduction (Youn, 2008). “The comfort women were not prostitutes: they were slaves. Most were neither persuaded nor seduced to work in brothels. Rather they were imprisoned and forced to submit to rape and sexual assaults” (Barkan, 2000).

Kimura also study some of the common arguments held by the Japanese right extremists. As the author takes into consideration of the arguments held by the Japanese right extremists, arguments supporting the comfort women strengthen. This thesis will also study the rightist positions often held by the Japanese governments.

Another important aspect in the historical analysis of the comfort women issue is to study the history of South Korea-Japan bilateral relation in regards to the issue.

The comfort women issue is not merely an injustice of the past but an issue that has expanded and worsened over time. “The ordeals suffered by comfort women are not only historical injustices but also a contemporary issue as long as there exist not only survivors demanding redress but also women sex workers suffering silently from what the South Korean media call ‘enslaved prostitution’” (Soh, 2007). While many authors have traced the history of South Korea-Japan bilateral relations and history of the comfort women issue, not many include the study of the 2015 agreement, for it is a fairly new deal. This thesis differentiates itself by including analysis of bilateral

relations regarding the 2015 agreement and study of controversies surrounding the settlement of the 2015 agreement.

2) Understanding the Position of the South Korean Government:

Understanding South Korean government’s position on the issue is important to the topic at hand but not many works have been solely dedicated to this study. One of the few works that deals with this study is an article by Bang Soon L. Yoon. By answering the question of why the issue has long been hidden from the public and how the silence was broken, Yoon’s article reveals a great deal about the South Korean government’s position on the issue. Yoon studies the issue in the context of South Korea’s unique historical, political and social conditions during the postwar period.

Yoon argues that within this particular context, none of those actors who could have advocated for the victims’ rights were available, which includes the government or the civil groups. The lack of feminists political or civil movement further exacerbated the silence over the issue. Yoon proves that over time, the achievement of democratization in South Korea, expansion of global feminist movement and the rise of international human rights regime contributed to breaking the silence over the issue and establish the comfort women movement (B.S. Yoon, 2010).

Yoon compares the comfort women case to other gendered war atrocities and proves that silence over sexual violence against women has been widely common across the human history. However, Yoon asserts that South Korean case also carries its own distinctiveness when compared to other countries’ gendered war atrocities.

During the postwar period, South Korea was a weak and poor country with a dictatorial political system filled with pro-Japanese collaborators that had no power nor much of an incentive to confront Japan over such issue (B.S. Yoon, 2010). Japan was an essential ally for the U.S. Cold War strategy, which pressured South Korean government to be silent over bringing justice to victims of Japan’s war time atrocities (B.S. Yoon, 2010). Also, sexual subject matter was culturally and socially unacceptable for public discussion as it was considered a shameful topic (B.S. Yoon, 2010).

Yoon proves against the claim that comfort women issue is a lie, an argument often held by the Japanese rightists. Moteki Hiromichi, a secretary general of Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, argues:

How did this whole controversy begin? Not in Korea, but in Japan! The first assertions that Korean women were coerced into serving as military prostitutes were made not by Koreans, but by Japanese. The anti-Japanese movement in Korea owes its existence to Koreans who were fooled by the lies of a Japan-hating Japanese (Hiromichi, 2012).

Hiromichi also argues that the “[President] Rhee certainly knew about military prostitutes and the high wages they commanded. Everyone knew” (Hiromichi, 2012).

The common argument held by the Japanese right extremists is that the comfort women issue is a lie since the issue has first arisen in Japan not Korea and questions the credibility of the arguments held by the comfort women by pointing out their decade-long silence. In response to the decade-long period of silence held by South Korea, Hiromichi argues: “Where is your pride as Koreans? You should be ashamed of yourselves”

(Hiromichi, 2012).

Yoon’s study of the issue in multiple contexts provides information required for this thesis’s aim of understanding the issue from the perspectives of those in oppositions of the 2015 agreement. While Yoon provides many information that prove against major assertions held by the Japanese rightists, Yoon fails to directly indicate those arguments. In studying the issue, it is important to recognize the arguments held by the Japanese rightists.

Another article which touches upon the stance of South Korean government is an article by Jinyang Koh. In the article, Koh examines unsuccessful past attempts to redress the issue and seeks all remedies possible at both international and domestic levels. One of the resolution methods Koh examines is the International Court of Justice (ICJ) established in 1945 under the Charter of the U.N. Koh states that since the comfort women issue became a legal dispute throughout Asia, many Asian countries including South Korea may be able to bring an action before ICJ (Koh, 2007). Koh argues, however, that there are some barriers to this approach. One of the barriers Koh mentions is the low levels of consent seen from both the governments of Japan and South Korea.

Koh argues that the South Korean government has shown negative attitude in bringing an action for the former comfort women:

Setting aside the standpoint of the Japanese government, the Korean government has shown the negative attitude to bring an action for the former comfort women before it.

To illustrate, the former President Youngsam Kim announced that the Korean government would not demand any reparation from Japan, and another former President Daejoong Kim stated that Japan should apologize officially in order to develop the diplomatic relationship between two countries, but did not mention anything with regard to the issue of the reparation (Koh, 2007).

Study of South Korea’s particular historical, political, cultural and social conditions during the postwar period may sufficiently retract statements as above.

Nonetheless, it is an undeniable fact that the South Korean government was not much of an active supporter for the victims. “It is reasonable to suppose that even the South Korean government was not overly concerned with the suffering of the Japanese military comfort women” (Hayashi, 2015). Many testimonies and interviews of the victims reveal that they have grievances against their own government as well. Park Ok-Sun expressed her anger towards the South Korean government in its failure to press the Japanese government for proper compensation to the victims:

We were taken to the military brothel by the Japanese military mainly because our country, colonized by Japan, was not strong enough to protect us. Therefore, this is not our individual problem, but our nation's problem. Until the Japanese government resolves the Jungshindae issue, it cannot have normal relations with Korea. The Korean government should put pressure on the Japanese government to acknowledge the crime and compensate the victims (Min, 2003).

The study of South Korean government’s position is an important element in understanding the long-term victimization of the comfort women; their half a century of extended victimization after their return home.

3) Content Analysis of the 1965 and 2015 Agreements:

The study of 1965 and the recent 2015 agreement is critical to the topic at hand for both agreements share identical issues that have raised enormous outrage from the South Korean public. K. J. Noh, a longtime activist and member of the Veterans For Peace states:

When the treaty needed to be passed, Kishi [Nobusuke, the grandfather of the current Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, was drafted into the process, and called in his cards with his loyal former subaltern, Park, who passed the treaty in June of 1965, which renounced all reparation claims on the part of Korea. The people of South Korea exploded in protest and outrage; Park Chung Hee declared martial law arresting, imprisoning, and torturing thousands of people in order to ratify and implement the legislation. Park the daughter may now be looking at the same bleak history (Noh, 2015).

Both agreements have been reached at the grounds of “final and irreversible”

deal, without taking the public or victims’ opinions into consideration. The 1965 treaty was an agreement that have left scars on the Korean citizens’ national dignity and a reflection of distorted democracy maintained in Park Chung Hee’s era. It has won high criticisms from the South Korean citizens and the left-wing party for it lacked any legal apology or reparation from Japan. The treaty was considered a sellout over economic

assistance. “The opposition vehemently protested that this all added up to a national sell-out” (P. Kim, 2011). The same criticisms are arising against the recent settlement.

Analyses of both agreements are highly important in understanding the controversy over the 2015 agreement. However, limited numbers of articles analyze both deals.

One of the few articles that have focused on studying both agreements is an article by Sharon Grace Lin. Lin first briefly goes through the history of international treaties regarding lists of wartime crimes Japan is responsible for, such as slavery, forced labour, military brothels, comfort women. Then, Lin provides an overview of the diplomatic history between two countries over the issue of comfort women. In the overview, Lin focuses on studying the past 1965 treaty and the 2015 agreement.

Although Lin touches upon the lists of agreements carried out between both countries and stresses the importance of 1965 treaty and 2015 agreement, Lin fails to incorporate any detailed contents of the agreements. Regarding the agreement carried out during the presidency of Kim Dae Jung, Lin states: “Then-President of South Korea, Kim Dae-jung, promised Japanese Prime Minister Keizo that an apology from Japan would settle the score and President Kim’s successor would not resurrect the histor[ical] issue with Japan again” (Lin, 2016). The description lacks some of most important information of agreement, such as the compensation measure.

The significance of 1965 treaty in the comfort women issue is due to its failure to incorporate any measures relating to the comfort women:

According to documents recently declassified by both governments, the “comfort women” issue was again not mentioned during negotiations between South Korea and Japan. In any case, former “comfort women” have been excluded from all compensation or economic assistance […] Former “comfort women” survivors were forced to keep

According to documents recently declassified by both governments, the “comfort women” issue was again not mentioned during negotiations between South Korea and Japan. In any case, former “comfort women” have been excluded from all compensation or economic assistance […] Former “comfort women” survivors were forced to keep