Published on August 30, 2020. This article examines how the Japan Federation of Bar Associations sent lawyer Etsuro Totsuka to the United Nations to advance the claim that the comfort women were “sex slaves” of the Imperial Japanese military, and discusses the Coomaraswamy Report, the Japanese government’s withdrawn rebuttal, and Japan’s response before the UN Human Rights Committee in 2014.

August 30, 2020
Continuing from the preceding chapter, this article examines the process through which the narrative that the comfort women were “sex slaves” was brought before the United Nations and became established as an international perception of Japan.
It addresses the approach made to the United Nations by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations in 1992, the lobbying activities of lawyer Etsuro Totsuka, the Coomaraswamy Report, the “vanished rebuttal” that the Japanese government prepared and then withdrew, and Japan’s response before the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2014.
This is not merely a matter of past events.
It raises the question of how the words and actions of Japanese people themselves, together with the Japanese government’s response, influenced the formation of historical perceptions in the international community.
The following is a continuation of the preceding chapter.

August 30, 2020
■ The United Nations as a Stage for Japanese People to Display a Self-Denigrating View of History
The origin of the problem can be traced back to 1992, when the Japan Federation of Bar Associations—hereinafter referred to as the JFBA—sent lawyer Etsuro Totsuka to the United Nations to lobby the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, now the Human Rights Council, concerning the “comfort women” issue and to demand action.
Lawyer Totsuka diligently engaged in lobbying activities and told the United Nations Commission on Human Rights that “the comfort women were sex slaves of the Imperial Japanese military.”
The reason Prime Minister Nakasone stopped visiting the shrine: It is said that he did so in order not to undermine General Secretary Hu Yaobang, who until then had been trying—or was believed to have been trying—to build friendly relations between Japan and China.
However, Hu Yaobang was removed from power, and in the end Prime Minister Nakasone’s consideration proved to be of no use whatsoever.
President Bush visited Meiji Shrine instead of Yasukuni Shrine, while Prime Minister Koizumi did not accompany him and waited in the car.
United Nations Commission on Human Rights: The present-day Human Rights Council.
It was a functional commission of the United Nations Economic and Social Council and was abolished when the United Nations Human Rights Council was established.
This became the origin of the United Nations’ use of the term “sex slave.”
The following year, Sri Lankan lawyer Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy was appointed Special Rapporteur by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.
Without conducting a sufficient investigation into the factual issues, she submitted a report in 1996.
The report was thoroughly biased: it adopted the embellished testimony of Seiji Yoshida and put the number of so-called “sex slaves” at 200,000.
Even Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepared a rebuttal extending to 40 pages.
The rebuttal was initially distributed at a meeting of the commission, but the Japanese government withdrew it on the grounds that it conflicted with the government’s previous official position, and it consequently became a vanished rebuttal.
It was then replaced by a document arguing, in effect, that “Japan has already apologised and has even established the Asian Women’s Fund.”
Naturally, the United Nations Human Rights Council interpreted this as meaning that Japan had committed wrongdoing, admitted its guilt and apologised, and it proceeded to issue severe recommendations to Japan.
In outline, these high-handed recommendations demanded: (1) that the Japanese government acknowledge that it had made the comfort women sexual slaves; (2) that it apologise to and compensate the sexual slaves; (3) that the perpetrators be punished; and (4) that the issue of sexual slavery be included in textbooks and made known to the Japanese public.
Furthermore, the recommendations even included words bordering on a threat, stating that “if the Japanese government does not respond adequately, this will be made an issue for the United Nations as a whole.”
If Japan does not become angry at this, it will merely continue to be made a fool of by the world.
Separately from this, regarding the government rebuttal to the Human Rights Committee established as a subsidiary body of the United Nations General Assembly: the first half was published in full in the June 2014 issue of Seiron, and the second half in its July issue.
Although the rebuttal has received a certain degree of favourable evaluation, it has problems, including its failure to state clearly that almost all the matters alleged were false and that there had been no coercion by the military.
This is presumably because it followed the government’s official position.
United Nations Human Rights Committee: The United Nations Human Rights Committee.
It was established under Article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, to supervise implementation of the Covenant, and began its activities in 1976 as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly.
It consists of 18 members and is positioned as a subsidiary body of the General Assembly.
Professor Yuji Iwasawa of the Faculty of Law at the University of Tokyo was elected as a member from Japan and served two terms as chairman beginning in 2007.
The committee—the United Nations Commission on Human Rights belonging to the Economic and Social Council, now the Human Rights Council—met in Geneva on July 15, 2014.
The committee heard representations from 16 Japanese organisations concerning matters including the Act on the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets and the comfort women issue.
Approximately 70 people from Japan participated and, as though seizing their opportunity, criticised their own country.
According to a report by the Sankei Shimbun, Yumiko Yamamoto, the representative of Nadeshiko Action, which is critical of the prevailing claims concerning the comfort women issue, also attempted to participate, but was denied entry on the grounds that admission was restricted to members who had registered in advance.
These Japanese members of anti-Japanese NGOs may believe that they are appealing to the United Nations out of a sense of justice by promoting a self-denigrating view of history, but they should understand how deeply they are despised in the international community.
People who have no patriotism and are unable to respect their national flag or sing their national anthem will never be respected in the international community.
The committee subsequently conducted hearings with the Japanese government delegation on the 15th and 16th of the same month.
Japan’s explanation was presented by Osamu Yamanaka, director of the Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but the committee reportedly refused to listen on the grounds that the explanation was inconsistent with the Kono Statement and the apologies made by successive prime ministers.
We must recognise that the situation has now become extremely serious, with the dignity and morality of Japan and the Japanese people themselves being called into question.
When subjected to groundless condemnation, Japan should rise indignantly from its seat and protest.
As will be discussed later, there are also many problems on the United Nations side, but this situation is principally the result of the self-denigrating view of history held by Japanese people and the JFBA’s exercise of its “conscience and sincerity.”
To be continued.