韓日慰安婦協議：尚未解決的問題 - 政大學術集成

全文

(1)國立政治大學亞太研究英語碩士學位學程 International Master’s Program in Asia Pacific Studies College of Social Sciences National Chengchi University. 碩士論文 Master’s Thesis. 韓日慰安婦協議: 尚未解決的問題 The ROK- Japan Comfort Women Agreement: An Unresolved Issue. Student: Yuna Esther Liu, 104926016 Advisor: Dr. Ming Lee. 中華民國 106 年 6 月 June, 2017.

(2) 韓日慰安婦協議: 尚未解決的問題 The ROK- Japan Comfort Women Agreement: An Unresolved Issue 研究生: 劉柔拿 Student: Yuna Esther Liu 指導教授: 李明 Advisor: Dr. Ming Lee. 國立政治大學亞太研究英語碩士學位學程碩士論文. A Thesis Submitted to International Master’s Program in Asia-Pacific Studies National Chengchi University In partial fulfillment of the Requirement For the degree of Master in China Studies. 中華民國 106 年 6 月 June, 2017.

(3) Acknowledgement First of all, I would like to pay sincere gratitude to my advisor, Professor Ming Lee, for his assistance and support. His guidance encouraged and helped me to achieve this goal. I would also like to thank my committee members, Professor Kao-Cheng Wang and Professor Fu-Kuo Liu for their time and effort in providing in-depth feedback and suggestions. Lastly, I would also like to thank my family and all my friends for their encouragement and advice. This study would not have been possible without their support.. i.

(4) Abstract At the end of year 2015, Japanese and South Korean governments announced a quick agreement over the long-standing issue of “comfort women.” While the agreement won international praises, it raised sharp criticisms from the South Korean citizens, the former comfort women and their supporters. This “final and irreversible” deal was seen as a betrayal of the victims, leading hundreds of South Korean protesters including former comfort women out on the street to denounce the deal. The comfort women issue remained a stubbornly unsolvable issue between the two countries. For the past decades, South Korean people were never satisfied with Japan’s past apologies. This thesis aims to study the reasons behind South Korean people’s constant dissatisfaction towards Japan’s allegations; to trace the ineffectiveness 2015 agreement; and to reveal the true purpose behind the agreement. This thesis is based on qualitative analysis of various scholarly books, journals and reports relevant to the topic at hand. Key Terms: Japan, South Korea, Comfort Women, Agreement, Comfort Women Agreement. ii.

(5) 摘要 2015 年年底，⽇本與韓國政府迅速發表有關慰安婦議題的協議。雖然此協議在國際上獲得讚揚，然⽽卻引起韓國⼈民、慰安婦及⽀持者們的嚴厲批判。這「最終定案」的協議被視為對犧牲者的背叛，於是幾百位韓國抗議⼈民，包括慰安婦，⾛上街頭並譴責協議。簡⾔之，慰安婦議題橫亙韓⽇兩國之間且相當棘⼿。過去幾⼗年，韓國⼈民對於⽇本的道歉感到不滿。因此本論⽂將探究韓國⼈對於⽇本道歉持續不滿的原因。本研究會依循 2015 年協議無效，並進⼀步揭露協議真正的⽬的。本論⽂以質量分析研討諸多學術性期刊、報告等資料。. 關鍵字: ⽇本，韓國，慰安婦，協議，慰安婦協議. iii.

(6) TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2. Motivation ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3. Purpose & Objectives ......................................................................................... 3 1.4. Research Approach ............................................................................................. 3 1.5. Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 1.6. Literature Reviews .............................................................................................. 5 1.7. Scope of Research ............................................................................................. 20 1.8. Limitations ......................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 2. Historical Issues in South Korea-Japan Relations .......................................... 24 2.1. Wider Historical Issues between South Korea and Japan ............................ 24 2.1.1. Dokdo-Takeshima Islands ......................................................................... 25 2.1.2. Yasukuni Shrine ........................................................................................ 29 2.1.3. History Textbook....................................................................................... 30 2.2. The Comfort Women Issue .............................................................................. 35 2.2.1. Origin and Development of Comfort Women System .............................. 35 2.2.2. Sexual Exploitation of the Comfort Women ............................................. 37 2.2.3. Class and Racial Exploitation of the Comfort Women ............................. 39 2.3. Significance of South Korea’s Comfort Women Case ................................... 43 2.3.1. Comparison to Taiwan’s Comfort Women Case ...................................... 44 2.3.2. Korea’s Colonial Experience .................................................................... 48 2.3.3. Expansion of Female Trafficking .............................................................. 50 2.3.4. Women in Korean Culture and Society..................................................... 53 Chapter 3. Justice Seeking Process for S. Korean Comfort Women ................................ 55 3.1. Japanese Government’s Violations Under International Law ..................... 55 3.1.1. Slavery and Rape ....................................................................................... 55 3.1.2. Crimes against Humanity .......................................................................... 57 3.2. International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) ......................... 58 3.2.1. Comparison to the Nuremberg Trial ......................................................... 59 3.2.2. Sexual Discrimination ............................................................................... 62 3.2.3. Racial Discrimination ................................................................................ 64 3.2.4. Comparison to the German’s Reconciliation Process ............................... 65 3.3. Comfort Women Resolution History Between S. Korea and Japan ............ 68 3.3.1. 1965 Treaty on Basic Relations ................................................................ 69 3.3.2. Kono Statement of 1993 ............................................................................ 73 3.3.3. The 2015 Comfort Women Agreement ..................................................... 75 Chapter 4. Behind the 2015 Comfort Women Agreement ................................................. 82 4.1. Perspectives of the two Governments ............................................................. 82 4.1.1. Past and Present Stance of Japanese Government .................................... 82 4.1.2. Past and Present Stance of South Korean Government............................. 87 4.1.3. Purpose of the Agreement for Japanese and S. Korean Governments ...... 91 4.2. Understanding the Agreement in Regional Context ...................................... 96 4.2.1. U.S. Rebalance to Asia .............................................................................. 97 4.2.2. Understanding the Agreement in U.S. Perspective ................................... 99 4.2.3. Understanding the Agreement in China’s Perspective ............................ 101 iv.

(7) Chapter 5. The National Response of Japan and S. Korea .............................................. 108 5.1. The Public Perspective on the Issue .............................................................. 108 5.1.1. Public Response of South Korea ............................................................. 108 5.1.2. Public Response of Japan ........................................................................ 111 5.2. The Civic Supporters of the Comfort Women ............................................. 114 5.2.1. The Comfort Women Activists in Japan ................................................. 114 5.2.2. The Comfort Women Activists in South Korea ...................................... 117 5.2.3. The International Comfort Women Activists .......................................... 117 Chapter 6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 118 6.1. Research Findings: Why the Issue Failed to be Resolved ........................... 121 6.2. Future Prospect and Suggestions .................................................................. 124 List of Illustrations Figure 1-1 [2015 Public Opinion on the Dec 28 2015 Comfort Women Agreement] .............. 5 Figure 2-1 [1877 Statement Regarding Takeshima (Ulleungdo) and Dokdo] ......................... 26 Figure 4-1 [Batavia Trial Evidence #25 Proof of Coercion] ................................................... 87 Figure 5-1 [2016 Public Opinion on the Dec 28 2015 Comfort Women Agreement] .......... 109 Map 2-2 [The Map of Japan in San Francisco Peace Treaty] .................................................. 28 Table 3-1 [The Announcement to the Media by the Foreign Ministers of ROK and Japan] .. 76 References ............................................................................................................................. 126. v.

(8) Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Introduction On December 28th, 2015, Japanese and South Korean governments surprised the world with a quick announcement of an agreement over the long-standing issue of “comfort women,” a euphemism referring to young girls forced into Japanese military brothels as sex slaves during the WWII. The issue has been one of Japan’s major wartime atrocities that continued to prevent the two countries from enjoying closer diplomatic ties. Out of approximately 200,000 victims throughout Asia, great majority were Korean. As of 2000, the “official surviving number of those who have been identified as former comfort women for each Asian country is as follows: South Korea, 168; North Korea, 260; resident Koreans in Japan, 1; the Philippines, 169; Taiwan, 45; mainland China, 11; Indonesia, about 20,000; the Netherlands, 20-30” (Lin, 2016). The current number of survivors in 2017 is numbered as 40, out of 239 South Korean women who officially registered themselves as comfort women (H. J. Kim, 2017). The issue remained unrecognized for decades and only became public in the early 1990s when some of the former victims began to spoke up in the public (Jonsson, 2015). When the issue was disclosed, Japanese government was in full denials stipulating that there were no evidences and rejected calls for compensation. Japan also argued that the 1965 Treaty of Basic Relations solved all legal wartime issues between the two countries, thus comfort women issue could not be addressed (Yamashita, 2009). However, due to the mounting international attention and evidence found in 1992 (Dudden & Mizoguchi, 2007) Japan finally made its first public apology in 1993. After the first apology, Japan constantly made attempts of apologies. However, the South Korean people, especially the former comfort women were never satisfied with the Japanese government’s apologies over the past decades. The same levels of dissatisfaction found over past apologies is found again in the 2015 agreement. By examining the comfort women issue from a historical and regional perspective, this thesis proves that ever since the end of WWII, prioritization of U.S. regional strategic purpose has been the major impediment in the process of seeking justice and sincere reconciliation for the South Korean comfort women.. 1.2. Motivation In the end of 2015, when the comfort women agreement was announced, United Nations chief sent praises to South Korea and Japan: 1.

(9) UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon praised the leaders of South Korea and Japan Monday for settling a dispute over “comfort women” forced to work in Japanese brothels during World War II. Ban welcomed the agreement following talks between the Japanese and South Korean foreign ministers in Seoul and expressed hope it will “contribute to improving the bilateral relationship.” (UN Chief Praises,” 2015). The U.S. also congratulated South Korea and Japan in reaching a groundbreaking achievement. U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice stated: “The United States congratulates the governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea on reaching an agreement, which they have made clear 'finally and irreversibly' addresses the tragic treatment of 'Comfort Women' during World War II.” (“U.S. Praises,” 2015) She added: “The United States applauds the leaders of the ROK and Japan, two of our most important allies, for having the courage and vision to forge a lasting settlement to this difficult issue” (“U.S. Praises,” 2015). John Kerry, the Secretary of State also stated that the agreement will "promote healing and help to improve relations" between two of the most important U.S. allies (“U.S. Praises,” 2015). He also praised the leaders of the two countries and called for the international community to support the agreement (“U.S. Praises,” 2015). There were many international news hailing the agreement as a progress in the relationship, which had been impossible to move on from the historical conflicts. Many of my foreign friends sent congratulations in expectation that South Korea and Japan relations will finally be improving. However, there were another contrasting news that followed immediately after the announcement. There was news that the citizens and former comfort women of South disapproved of the agreement and severely criticized its government over the decision. One of the former comfort women, in anger and disappointment, cried out loud that the agreement is government’s betrayal towards the victims. Many news reports at the time merely scratched the surface of the issue by simply providing arguments raised by the opposing group but failed to provide adequate information for the readers to fully understand their behaviours. Such superficial observation of the issue builds criticisms rather than support against the victims. For instance, Michael Green, a senior vice president for Asia and Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) criticized South Korea, arguing that South Korea keeps moving the goal posts on historical issues (Hyun, 2015). Thus, provision of in-depth information over the issue is necessary for the public to connect with the former comfort women and to understand the issue properly.. 2.

(10) 1.3. Purpose & Objectives The purpose of this thesis is to provide the readers with a better understanding of the comfort women issue from historical and regional perspectives. In studying the issue from historical and regional context, this thesis includes the perspectives of the former comfort women; the governments of Japan and South Korea; the two major regional powers, U.S. and China; the citizens of Japan and South Korea; and civic supporters of the comfort women. By studying the issue from various perspectives, this thesis answers why the comfort women issue has been dragged unresolved until today ever since the end of WWII. This paper proves that out of range of factors including sexual, class and racial discrimination against the issue; South Korea’s particular political, socio-cultural structure; Japan’s political, socio-cultural structure; the prioritization of U.S. regional strategic purpose has been the major force that pushed for ineffective agreement and cooperation between Japan and South Korea, which thus, failed to bring proper justice and reconciliation over the issue. The purpose of this thesis is found based on the following main objectives: • Examine U.S. regional strategic purpose behind the agreement • Comparison of Japan’s reconciliation process to German’s reconciliation process • Provide future perspective and suggestions for the agreement. 1.4. Research Approach This thesis studies the issue at hand mainly based on two approaches. First, this thesis undertakes historical approach to understand the comfort women issue from the former comfort women’ perspectives. Historical approach not only reveals major flaws of the comfort women agreement and reasons why the issue fails to be resolved but also provides understanding of the wider unresolved historical disputes between Korea and Japan. Second, this thesis takes geopolitical approach to understand the true purpose of the agreement. The U.S. regional strategic purpose reveals the significance of the agreement in the trilateral relations of S. Korea, Japan and U.S.. 1.5. Methods The issue at hand is to be examined by document analysis method. Collections of qualitative data will be used in order to grasp a cohesive understanding of the issue.. 3.

(11) Following are the main sources of information used for this study: books, academic articles, collection of personal accounts, data and surveys. Books and academic journals provide an in-depth historical analysis over the issue. These sources are significantly helpful in understanding the history of comfort women issue; and understanding the bilateral relations of Japan and South Korea mired in historical controversies. Many academic works also provide detailed understanding of the geopolitical perspective of the issue. Thus, academic research is the basis for understanding the issue from the former comfort women’s perspectives, to understand the development process of the recent agreement and to grasp the severity of the issue. This thesis will also collect evidences and personal testimonies using sources including news articles, magazines and reports from various organizations like the National Bureau of Asian Research, Open Society Foundations or the Women’s Active Museum on War and Peace (WAM). Personal testimonies are crucial in understanding the issue from the former comfort women’s perspectives. The collected memories of the victims’ experiences are one of the powerful tools that allow for the public to connect with the victims. Some data and surveys will also be used to understand the public perspectives over the agreement in South Korea and Japan. In understanding the South Korean public, datas conducted by Real Meter, a specialized public polling institution in South Korea will be used since many of their surveys correlate with the topic at hand. For instance, one of the surveys conducted by Real Meter shortly after the agreement was announced reveals the negative public opinions held against the agreement at the time. “According to the survey from Real Meter, 43.2% viewed it positively while 50.7% viewed it negatively […] In general, conservatives evaluated the agreement positively whereas opposition or left-aligned groups remained fiercely critical” [Fig. 1-1] (Real Meter, 2015).. 4.

(12) [Fig 1-1] 2015 Public Opinion on the Dec 28 2015 Comfort Women Agreement. Source: Real Meter (2015). 2015 Public Opinion on the Dec 28 2015 Comfort Women Agreement. Reprinted from Japanese Military Sexual Slavery Agreement, Good 43.2% vs Bad 50.7%, In Real Meter. Retrieved from http://www.realmeter.net/2015/12/일본군-위안부-합의-잘했다-43-2vs-잘못했다-50-7/ . Another survey conducted a year later reflects higher percentage of negativity in the South Korean public opinion. The data will provide clearer reflection of the public opinions on the comfort women agreement.. 1.6. 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 5.

(13) 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. 6.

(14) 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).. 7.

(15) 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. 8.

(16) 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:. 9.

(17) 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 decadelong silence. In response to the 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).. 10.

(18) 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 11.

(19) 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 Daejung, 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 silent under the San Francisco System until 1991. One reason was that they lived in countries whose governments ignored or oppressed victims’ desires. (Hayashi, 2015).. While the comfort women issue was not mentioned in the 1965 treaty, Japanese governments have constantly argued that the 1965 treaty solved all legal wartime issues between the two countries. “Japan have consistently assumed the political attitude that they have no legal responsibility whatsoever where the comfort women are concerned, while setting up the Asian Women’s Fund (AWF) in a gesture of assumption of “moral responsibility” (Youn, 2008). As mentioned in the previous section, it was not only the Japanese governments that have avoided suffering of the victims but the South Korean governments have also strived to hide the issue:. 12.

(20) A Korean victim-survivor, Hwang Kum-ju, told Kim-Gibson that she tried to report their experience after the Treaty on Basic Relations between Korea and Japan was signed in 1965. As delivering a peti- tion to the Presidential office was impossible, Hwang approached Mrs Park, then the First Lady, when Mrs Park was visiting her home town to see her parents and to celebrate the Buddha’s birthday. However, after listening to Hwang’s brief talk about her and other women’s experiences of sexual slavery, Mrs Park turned pale and urged Hwang never to tell this story to anyone. Mrs Park also remarked that what happened during the war and under Japanese colonialism is now something of the past, and it should not be mentioned again as Korea had to move forward now (Kimura, 2016).. Unlike the 1965 treaty, the 2015 agreement was clearly focused on the comfort women issue. However, not a single comfort woman has been consulted prior to the agreement and no comfort women were invited to the negotiation table. The agreement has done nothing but to further marginalize the victims. As in the settlement of the 1965 treaty, Korean government has once again agreed with the Japanese government to hide historical issue once and for all. This thesis will study measures of both agreements in details and root out the commonalities that have raised public outrage in South Korea. This thesis will also trace the relevance of the 1965 treaty to the 2015 agreement.. 4) Comparison to the German’s Case: The origin of the comfort women issue began from the failure to address the issue in the postwar trial and the contrasting difference found in the trial when compared to the International Military Tribunal (IMT) or the Nuremberg Trial. There were series of trials held against the war criminals in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (IMTFE) or the Tokyo Trial. Those crimes were separated into three categories: Article 5 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East enacted by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, Douglas MacArthur, defined the crimes within the jurisdiction of the tribunal: Class A, crimes against peace; Class B, conventional war crimes, namely violation of the laws or customs of war; and Class C, crimes against humanity (Hayashi 2013).. In contrast to the Nuremberg Trial, some of the crimes accounting as Class C crime, such as crime perpetrated against comfort women, were not considered at the Tokyo Trial (Dolgopol & Paranjape, 1994). “The sexual slavery to which the Japanese military subjected some 200,000 so-called ‘comfort women’ was not prosecuted at the Tokyo Tribunal, and to this day the survivors of these sex crimes have received no substantial legal redress” (Askin, 2008). The forced recruitment of comfort women was an outright crime against humanity. Jinyang Koh states: 13.

(21) According to Article 6 (c) of the Nuremberg Charter, there are enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population as crimes against humanity [...] Also, Article 5 of the Tokyo Charter listed similarly. Rape is also one of the notorious crimes against humanity. The Charters of the international military tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo affirmed rape as a crime against humanity. (Koh, 2007). Such crime against humanity not only failed to gain legal responsibility from Japan but has been settled on the grounds of “final and irreversible” resolution. Prof. Cho from Dongseo University argues that it is difficult to finalize historical issues by a single government, especially a crime against humanity (Yoo, 2017). It is absurd to finalize such crime as final and irreversible. Around the world, crimes against humanity are still under process of investigations. It has been more than 70 years since the first Nuremberg Trial in November 1945 but the trials are still ongoing. Not only the German’s trials differ from Japan’s but German’s post-war reconciliation process also stands in contrast to Japan’s reconciliation process. Study of German’s reconciliation process reveals the core issue that lies in the 2015 agreement between South Korea and Japan. Thus, this thesis seeks to compare the trials and reconciliation process of Japan and Germany. Lily Gardner Feldman is one of the scholars who analyzes the German-Polish reconciliation process. Feldman refers to three other cases of reconciliation in German foreign policy-relations with France, Israel and the Czech Republic, to trace similar features that define German’s reconciliation process. Feldman then briefly reviews the case of Japan and compares it to the German’s case in consideration that Germany can be an important guide for reconciliation process. During the analysis, Feldman argues an important point of what has been lacking in Japan’s reconciliation process: “The past is neither forgotten nor represents a mere footnote; rather it is a ‘productive irritant’ to be confronted constantly” (Gardner-Feldman, 2010). Rather than studying Japan’s position on a specific case, Feldman studies the general position held by Japan over wide range of historical disputes that lay between Japan and its neighbouring countries that were its former victims, which includes Korea and China. Since Feldman’s article was written on 2010, it is focused on the stance held by Prime Minister Hatoyama not the one held by Prime Minister Abe today. However, this article is still helpful for it rests with the same aim of providing a comparative analysis on the reconciliation process of Japan and Germany.. 14.

(22) While Feldman argues that German’s model of reconciliation is often flawed, overestimating harmony and peace, it still sets an important guide for Japan’s future reconciliation process. The key lesson is that in the end, German leaders have successfully challenged the rightists and have strengthened reconciliation. Feldman concludes the article with a positive outlook on Japan’s reconciliation process. This thesis’s outlook on Japan-Korea reconciliation process differentiates from that of Feldman’s in that, under the current Prime Minister Abe, the reconciliation process has not been better but has turned to its worst. Another scholar which compares the reconciliation process of Japan and Germany is Barkan. Barkan studies various war crimes’ reconciliation process to trace the effectiveness of each case. Some of the cases that Barkan focuses on are the German and Japanese cases. While studying each case, Barkan claims that there are differences found between the two. Barkan states: The Japanese response in the aftermath of World War II was very different from that of Germany. Following Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan claimed victim status and refused to acknowledge any responsibility for its war crimes. It came under a particular flood of public criticism regarding its treatment of “enemy” women, those who were known as the comfort women, during World War II. An initially small protest by women’s organizations turned into wide-spread anti-Japanese sentiment in several Asian countries. But Japan did not budge (Barkan, 2000).. Barkan also states “Germany has been, and is, the subject of intense criticism for its insufficient atonement for the crimes that it committed during World War II. But compared with Japan, Germany has atoned extensively. Japan has yet to recognize that it was guilty, let alone begin to atone or restitute its victims” (Barkan, 2000). Throughout his study, Barkan continuously emphasizes the difference found between Japan and Germany. “The inability of Japanese society to feel guilty about its war crimes and aggression stands in marked contrast with the German experience” (Barkan, 2000). Barkan argues that in the aftermath of WWII, Germany was not much different from Japan. German public did not support restitution, and in general, the Germans were also unwilling as individuals to display and admit guilt or to acknowledge moral or legal responsibility (Barkan, 2000). However, as time passed by, restitution became an inevitable process for Germany to move on from its past, to be acceptable to other nations and prove that it has truly renounced its racist past.. 15.

(23) Philo-Semitism was becoming central to the newly emerging formal German political culture, and with it, the implied recognition of restitution. Hence philo-Semitism was transformed through the restitution into an official policy. Sponsored by Germany’s struggle to cleanse itself of the past, restitution became a precedent for moral claims in international justice and was introduced into international public discourse as an implied new normative morality (Barkan, 2000).. While Barkan constantly emphasizes the differences found in two cases, Barkan does not provide a clear comparison between the two. In order for the readers to easily recognize the differences, this thesis will provide direct comparison of the two cases.. 5) The U.S. Regional Strategic Purpose Behind the Agreement: While the agreement is claimed by both Japan and South Korea as true reconciliation deal, the true purpose behind the agreement seems far from sincere reconciliation. There is an undeniable factor that have pushed both countries to proceed the agreement in the first place. Japan has long been expressing its frustration with its neighbour's criticism on their handling of past wrongs (M. Kim, 2016). What suddenly convinced Japan to make gesture of apology? Kim argues that the recent agreement was “the work of the trilateral relationship between Japan, the United States and South Korea, out of which the United States emerged as the biggest winner and South Korea the loser” (M. Kim, 2016). Against China’s increasing power and North Korea’s continued provocations, trilateral alliance had to remain stronger than ever. South Korea was under a great pressure to put aside historical conflicts for security cooperation. Out of all historical conflicts, one of the core issues impeding progress in the South Korea-Japan relations was the comfort women issue. Much like other historical issues, the comfort women issue remained a stubbornly unresolvable task for both countries. Thus, as regional security came under constant threat of North Korea and China, South Korea decided to put aside comfort women issue for security cooperation. The trilateral alliance formed under U.S. strategic purpose was the bond that have pressured Japan and South Korea to settle the comfort women issue in 2015. Tracing back at the history, however, it is not the first time that the alliance under U.S. have forced South Korea to set aside historical issues to compromise with Japan. In fact, the very basis of bilateral relations between Japan and South Korea can be seen as a forced compromise based on U.S. strategic purpose: Korea would not have allowed itself to make an easy compromise in the process of decolonization from Japan, but for the restrictions caused by the Cold War. The Korean 16.

(24) government needed economic cooperation with Japan under the restrictions of the Cold War, i.e. due to the pressure applied by the US for friendly relations with Japan and the confrontation with the North. These experts say that Korea could not have secured a satisfactory outcome (Tadashi, 2008).. The establishment of bilateral relations between the two countries was not on the basis of reconciliation but a forced alliance to combat communism at the time of Cold War. The colonial history was forced to be dismissed without proper reconciliation. An article by Na Young Lee shows how regional strategic purpose was more important for U.S. than settlement of historical injustice: Tammy Kim (2006) argues, “[e]xternal geopolitical factors at the end of the war meant that less was demanded of Japan than Germany in terms of criminal and economic accountability” (225). The “Tokyo Tribunal,” procedurally similar to the Nuremberg Tribunal, failed to try Emperor Hirohito (226), which suggests that the United States cannot avoid the responsibility for the unsettled colonial legacy and common silence regarding “comfort women.” Against emerging communist confrontation in East Asia— including the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea—the U.S. government wanted Japan to be a strong bulwark of democratic alliance during the Cold War (Chung 1995, 180). The U.S., anxious to maintain its presence and continued hegemony in East Asia, “decided to [help] build its former enemy into an economic powerhouse and competitor” (N. Lee, 2014).. South Korea never really had the chance to settle their colonial history with Japan. It had no other choice but to settle all historical issues at the expense of U.S. Cold War strategic purpose. The South Korean government had no power nor willingness to confront Japan against the comfort women issue. The country’s first priority was economic development, not reconciliation. The country was not only starving and in urgent need of economic support but had no ability to raise unsettled historical issues against Japan: South Korea’s national issues should not be dismissed. An unsettling colonial history and legacy, the U.S. military occupation, national division, the Korean War, and continued national poverty caused the Korean government’s inability to raise the issue of “comfort women.” Moreover, humiliating negotiations with its former enemy seemed inevitable to achieve the nation’s prior goal of economic growth and security at the expense of its people. During Park Jeong-Hee’s military dictatorship, the regime tried to rebuild the country’s relationship with Japan and signed the 1965 Korea-Japan Accord. Essentially, “Korea gave up the right of its citizens to sue the Japanese government for civil damages,” which came in the form of reconstruction funding, which means “economic development grants and loans” from the U.S (N. Lee, 2014).. For U.S. geopolitical purpose is the foundation of Japan-South Korea relations, many scholars have dealt with the subject at hand. One of the scholars named Park Cheol Hee studies the reasons behind incompatibility between Korea and Japan. Park argues that the two countries have different priorities in handling bilateral and external 17.

(25) affairs. Park states that Japan prioritizes security cooperation while South Korea prioritizes historical resolution: Japan, alarmed by a rising and increasingly assertive China, would like to balance against it. In Japan, China is often perceived as a challenger and even as a potential enemy. How to cope with rising China is the fundamental concern of Abe’s external strategy. […] He wants to put aside or, if possible, bypass historical controversies between the two countries. For him, dialogue between the two should be conducted mainly on the topic of security cooperation, especially in the context of rising China. But Park’s first agenda item is not security cooperation. She inherited a negative legacy, from both Lee Myungbak and Noda Yoshihiko. Making a breakthrough on the “comfort women” issue, which looms at the center of public opinion, is a foremost concern. […] She has no intention of bypassing this issue. Abe shows either a very negative or a very ambiguous attitude toward it. Japan, which prioritizes security cooperation, and Korea, prioritizing the “comfort women,” cannot take a step forward together (C. Park, 2015).. Throughout the study, Park constantly argues that Korea is too overly occupied in historical issues. This thesis is in disagreement with several arguments asserted by Park. First of all, in contrast to Park’s argument, ultimately, it seems as though security cooperation was a priority for president Park as well. South Korea have not been too overly preoccupied in historical issues as Park states, when considering the fact that Japan’s wartime crimes have never fully been brought to justice nor have it ever been legally reconciled. Secondly, as previously mentioned, South Korea have put aside historical issues for cooperation in the past as well, as clearly seen from the 1965 treaty. Thirdly, other than China, North Korea’s threat is another concern for Japan’s external strategy. Park overly emphasizes on China and fails to mention the importance of North Korean issue. Furthermore, Park mentions that the president Park inherited a negative legacy from the previous administration. It should be noted, however, that the comfort women issue has not only been a lingering issue starting from Lee’s administration, but an issue that constantly failed to be resolved even way before Lee’s administration. Lastly, Park asserts that “history can never be forgotten, but it can be forgiven” (C. Park, 2015). This thesis is in disagreement with Park’s assertion in that, because history cannot be forgotten, historical issues should be resolved and never be put aside. Once put aside, history can be forgotten, especially when Japan is in constant denial and in efforts to whitewash its past. In order for it to be forgiven, proper resolution should be proceeded between the two countries. An article by Sneider, Sohn and Soeya also provides a thorough analysis of the trilateral relationship. The first section by Sneider analyzes the trilateral relations from a U.S. perspective and by examining the historical process that led to the trilateral 18.

(26) partnership, Sneider highlights the critical role that the U.S. played in the relations between South Korea and Japan. Sneider also provides background information on the origin of how the 2015 agreement was established. Sneider’s analysis is highly useful to the study at hand for not a lot of articles have been contributed to studying the 2015 agreement. In the article, Sneider argues: “It would be naïve, however, to see this development as anything other than a fragile step forward” (Sneider, 2016). Sneider emphasizes on the danger of believing that historical issues can easily be put aside for strategic purpose in the region: The danger for U.S. policymakers is to believe that history issues can indeed now be put aside in favour of a shared understanding of the strategic situation in the region. That belief would be dangerous because South Korea and Japan could fail to secure the progress that has been made and to move ahead on both the security and history fronts to create the basis for genuine trilateral cooperation (Sneider, 2016).. While this thesis agrees with Sneider on the need to be cautious on dealing with historical issues, it disagrees with Sneider on believing that the 2015 agreement is a progress in the trilateral relations. The exact concern that Sneider points out in his study is the exact problem found in the 2015 agreement. The agreement was based on the very belief that historical issues can be put aside in favour of a shared understanding of the strategic situation in the region. Thus, as Sneider’s concern, no successful progress has been made with the agreement but instead, has resulted in the failure to move ahead on both security and historical fronts. The current situation proves that the agreement that lacks true reconciliation purpose can only worsen diplomatic relations. The second section by Sohn studies the trilateral relationship from a South Korean perspective. Sohn underlines the strategic challenge that South Korea faces in improving the trilateral relations and also expands on South Korea’s ties with China. Sohn argues that North Korea’s arising threat has been the major factor in development of trilateral cooperation but states that it has not been enough to overcome the historical tension that lies between South Korea and Japan. Sohn also argues that South Korea should avoid the Peninsula from becoming an arena for U.S.-China competition and should play a middle power role, bridging China and trilateral relations together to achieve stability on the Korean Peninsula. In comparison to Sneider, Sohn provides an understanding more consistent to the argument of this thesis. Sohn views the agreement in a much critical perspective, which embraces the perspectives carried by many South Koreans. Regarding the agreement, Sohn argues: “Clearly, the landmark agreement between the two countries is not the end of the historical disputes. The structural 19.

(27) constraints on U.S.-Japan-ROK trilateralism are thus resilient and remain unresolved” (Sneider, 2016). Sohn also provides a good understanding of the predicament state South Korea is often situated in. Sohn states: Whereas Japan is firmly aligned with the United States, South Korea has attempted to take a different approach by increasing its connectedness with both great powers. It maintains a long-standing alliance with the United States (and partially with Japan), while recently crafting an amicable relationship with China (Sneider, 2016).. South Korea’s difficult position as a mediating role between the two great powers is the reason South Korea has not been able to secure deals more favourable to its citizens and victims. The last section is by Soeya, which examines the trilateral relations from Japan’s perspective. Soeya argues that Japan and South Korea should strengthen their middle-power cooperation. Soeya’s article provides information on Japan-South Korea’s strategic cooperation. The strategic cooperation was what pushed the two countries into making the 2015 agreement. However, Soeya’s mutual strategic cooperation as the “middle-power” is not much related to the U.S. pressured strategic cooperation focused in this thesis. Understanding the agreement in U.S. geopolitical context is central to the study of this thesis. Studying the issue in geopolitical context proves that the main purpose behind the agreement is far from true reconciliation.. 1.7. Scope of Research Because the former comfort women have suffered victimization ever since the WWII but never have they received proper apologies and compensations until today, the time scope of this study starts from the time of WWII until the present day. The comfort women issue has long been hidden from the public. The comfort women issue has been held in silence for many years mainly due to the particular societal, cultural, political and economic situation of South Korea at the time. The country that have just been out of the Japanese occupation suffered again from the threats of communism and political factionalism. Yoon describes the situation in the aftermath of Japanese occupation as the following: In domestic politics during the 1940s-1950s, communist insurgencies as well as political factionalism were threatening South Korea’s political stability, thus anti-communist nation building through institutionalization of political, social, and economic infrastructure was the immediate concern. During this nation-building, social leadership. 20.

(28) and the administrative vacuum left by Japan’s colonial government were filled by local elites who were anti-communists holding conservative political views. Many of them were colonial-era Korean collaborators who later continued to assume leading roles in every corner of South Korean society… (B.S. Yoon, 2010).. Many of the former comfort women were afraid to reveal their past due to the societal and cultural unacceptability of the subject matter. “Because of the shame and the virtue of a woman’s chastity under the Confucian culture, they were not encouraged to disclose their histories” (Koh, 2007). The truth regarding the comfort women issue began to emerge as early as 1962 not in South Korea but in Japan when Senda Kako, a journalist researching the war, uncovered a previously censored wartime photograph (Sikka, 2009). After years of research and investigation on the comfort women system, Kako finally published his book to the public in 1978 (Koh, 2007). Since then, more and more materials began to surface. In South Korea, the time when the comfort women issue officially became disclosed to the public was in the 1990s when former comfort women in South Korea decided to break their silence (Yamashita, 2009). In 1991, Kim Hak-Sun testified to her life as a comfort woman. In an interview Hak-Sun gave to the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation she declared, “I wanted to sue for the fact that I was trampled upon by the Japanese military and have spent my life in misery. I want the young people of South Korea and Japan to know what Japan did in the past” (Sikka, 2009). When the accusation first surfaced, Japan denied of the involvement. However, due to series of historical documents proving the involvement of the Japanese government in the recruitment process, the Japanese government did finally admit its role under the 1993 Kono Statement. However, the statement did not define the acts as war crimes, release specific information, or adequately address the reparations issue (Tongsuthi, 1994). It also refused to reveal any testimonies from the hearings (Sikka, 2009). Ever since then, Japanese government have repeatedly avoided to face its legal responsibility. Using the evidences and testimonies that have arisen since the time the issue has been disclosed to the public, this thesis will provide better understanding of the issue from historical and regional perspective. By analyzing the reasons behind failures of past reconciliation process, this thesis also tracks the problems found in the 2015 agreement. The 2015 agreement that failed to reflect the demands of the former comfort women have resulted in the present-day situation where South Korea-Japan diplomatic. 21.

(29) relation seems to be at its worst. Korean and Japanese media both reflect enormous concerns over the current situation. The five national dailies of Japan demonstrate: “This is a grave situation,” (Yomiuri), “The relationship between Tokyo and Seoul is on the cusp of another long period of tension and distrust,” (Asahi), “This is a cause for concern,” (Nikkei), “Seoul's failure to take countermeasures against the statue clearly runs counter to the spirit of the bilateral agreement,” (Mainichi), and “This further violates the bilateral agreement,” (Sankei) (“Comfort Women Statue,” 2017).. This thesis will provide future outlook and suggestions on the issue using information available until the end of April, 2017.. 1.8. Limitations Since the comfort women issue is one of the long-standing issues at the forefront of historical dispute between South Korea and Japan, it has been previously discussed by many scholars and researchers around the world. While the historical reviews of the comfort women issue are widely available in various sources, in-depth scholarly studies dedicated to the 2015 agreement is quite limited since the agreement is a fairly new and unsettled deal. There has been questions and doubts over whether the implementation process could be finalized ever since the announcement of the agreement. Not only has it been under extreme societal and diplomatic controversy, it raised further questions amidst change of administration in South Korea after the impeachment of the President Park. Just couple of months ago in the beginning of 2017, the tension between the two countries was higher than ever. What was at the center of dispute was the comfort women statue placed in front of Japan’s consulate in the port city of Busan, South Korea. In the 2015 agreement, the two governments agreed to “refrain from criticizing and blaming each other in the international society, including the United Nations” (Han & Griffiths, 2017). Japan argues that the erection of the statue in Busan breaches this agreement as it required official approval to be installed opposite the consulate (Han & Griffiths, 2017). Shinsuke Sugiyama, Japan’s vice minister for foreign affairs, told the South Korean ambassador in Japan that the statue “went against the spirit of the JapanSouth Korea agreement concluded at the end of last year and is extremely regrettable. [It would cause an] unfavorable impact on the relationship between Japan and South Korea, as well as disturb the security of the consulate” (Choe, 2016). In response, Kim Eun-Sung, the artist argues that Japan is overreacting. Kim argued: “Which part of a statue of a girl is harming Japan? It's a statue with a message of peace and for the rights 22.

(30) of women” (Han & Griffiths, 2017). Kim argues that he never expected the statue, which was commissioned by a local Busan civic group and paid for with donations, to cause a diplomatic incident (Han & Griffiths, 2017). The dispute over the statue has been accompanied by a political turmoil in South Korea. Amidst South Korean President Park Geun Hye’s impeachment and change in the administration, there was rising fear in Japan that the 2015 comfort women agreement is to be renegotiated. Japan has been strongly pressuring the South Korean government to proceed the deal as negotiated by withdrawing its ambassador to South Korea and suspending high-level economic talks (Yoshida & Mie, 2017). Studying the aftermath situation over the process of implementation is an important part of understanding the perspectives of South Koreans in opposition of the agreement and an evidence which proves that the agreement was a failure. However, it is extremely risky to cover all up-to-date information on the issue during the time of writing. Thus, this thesis seeks to include information on the issue available until the end of April 2017. This thesis is to utilize collection of news articles to analyze the latest situation. One last limitations that is worth mentioning is that I am an American-born, Canadian-raised South Korean descendant. I was not educated in South Korea so I have not been exposed to the nationally constraint subjective views often emphasized in historical education within a country. However, I was still under some influences of skeptical attitudes held by most South Korean citizens towards Japanese government through personal connections of family and friends raised in South Korea. I have often been exposed to the negative cultural atmosphere South Korea carries towards Japan. I will try not to provoke my personal influences when writing this thesis and to maintain an objective view as much as possible.. 23.

(31) Chapter 2. Historical Issues in South Korea-Japan Relations 2.1. Wider Historical Issues between South Korea and Japan According to Japan’s Asahi Shimbun, in a recent survey asking respondents from various countries on the trust level towards Japan, only 13.8 percent of Koreans said they trust Japan (Panda, 2017a). “The results comport with older public opinion data released few years ago by Asan Institute for Policy Studies, which found Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe rated below North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un in the eyes of South Korean respondents” (Panda, 2017a). The reasons for South Korea’s high levels of dissatisfaction and distrust towards the Japanese government are due to continuous acts of denial, lack of acknowledgement, and false historical claims asserted by the Japanese government in major historical issues since the end of WWII. The inconsistent response of constant denials and apologies held by the Japanese government against its own wartime atrocities; false assertions and denials of historical truths accompanied with statements of apologies discreetly avoiding legal responsibilities; and apologies contradicting with actions have built skepticisms and distrust to the South Korean people. Historical issues have always inhibited the relations of South Korea and Japan from further progress. There are mainly four major issues which have constantly prevented the two countries from enjoying closer diplomatic relations: DokdoTakeshima islands, Yasukuni Shrine, history textbooks and comfort women. Before we move on to the detailed study of the comfort women issue, this section wishes to study other historical issues that have plagued the relations of South Korea and Japan ever since the end of WWII. The study of wider historical issues between South Korea and Japan explains the difficulties South Korea have towards accepting Japanese governments’ apologies. Japanese governments’ right extremist stance in the post-war era has extended South Koreans’ feeling of distrust and anger towards the Japanese rulers generated since the colonial era. Japanese government’s inability to face up to its past mistakes led South Korea impossible to trust the Japan. This section seeks to study some of the major historical issues from the perspective of South Korea to understand South Korea’s high levels of national distrust towards Japanese government.. 24.

(32) 2.1.1. Dokdo-Takeshima Islands “Territorial dispute over the small islands called Liancourt Rocks by U.S., reference to the French whaling ship that almost ran aground on the islands in 1849” (Heo & Roehrig, 2014), which is called “Takeshima” in Japanese and “Dokdo” in South Korea has constantly been a major deterrent in the bilateral relations of South Korea and Japan. The Liancourt Rocks are two rocky crags and 36 other volcanic rocks located 211 km from Honshu and 216 km from the Korean peninsula (Pollmann, 2015a), at the body of water between Japan and Korea, known by South Koreans as “Donghae” or “East Sea” and the “Sea of Japan” by Japan (Card, 2006). The islets are considered by both countries to be part of their own respective territories (McDevitt & Lea, 2013). The historical aspect of the controversy is rooted in the sovereignty question. There are several claims made by Japan over the sovereignty of the island. Japan asserts that it established control over the islands in 1905 based on the principle of terra nullius -claiming that it was previously an unoccupied territory (Heo & Roehrig, 2014). Most importantly, Japan argue that it acquired the islands before the official annexation in 1910, which started with Russo-Japanese War in 1904 (Pollmann, 2015a). Japan thus argue that when the protectorate and annexation treaties were nullified following WWII, Japan maintained its possessions over the islands (Heo & Roehrig, 2014). Also, Japan state that after Japan was defeated by the United States and its allies in WWII, Article 2(a) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty declared that, “Japan, recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet,” but “the Liancourt Rocks” were not specifically mentioned, thus Japan argues that the island has been officially acknowledged as the territories of Japan (S. Lee, 2002). South Korea, on the other hand claims that it has possessed sovereignty over the island since 512 under the Silla Dynasty (Pollmann, 2015a). Koreans believe that the Japanese incorporation of the Liancourt Rocks into Shimane Prefecture, western region of the Honshu island, as part of Japan’s imperial expansion into Korea, thus the area represents the first victim of Japan’s invasion to Koreans (Pollmann, 2015a). Korean authorities protested Japan’s actions by issuing Directive No. III on April 29, 1906, denouncing the acquisition (Heo & Roehrig, 2014).. 25.