This article examines how changes in terminology and evidentiary standards reshaped the comfort women narrative internationally, focusing on statements by Japan’s bar association and the consequences for global perception.

2017-04-07
Global perception shifted not because new evidence emerged, but because terminology did.
When proof is absent, words do the work.
This record shows how assertions softened, definitions moved, and accountability blurred—yet the narrative persisted internationally.
Correcting the record is not revisionism; it is evidentiary responsibility.

2017-04-07
One of the reasons the comfort women issue became so internationalized that Japan came to be recognized as “a barbaric country that used sexual slavery” lies in the following.
This is a continuation of the previous chapter.
No documents proving “forced recruitment” in the Korean Peninsula have been found through investigations by the government or scholars.
Even the Kono Statement (1993), which acknowledged “coercion,” does not use the term forced recruitment.
Then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono stated at the press conference announcing the statement that “forced recruitment is a fact,” but the basis for that claim has remained unclear.
Scholars have also raised doubts about the definition and accuracy of the expression “sexual slavery.”
Asahi Shimbun, which had campaigned on the comfort women issue, retracted in 2014 articles based on the false testimony of Seiji Yoshida, who claimed women were forcibly taken in Korea, and admitted that many aspects of the comfort women situation were unclear.
In apparent response to these developments, statements and declarations by the Japan Federation of Bar Associations changed in quality.
In a 2010 joint declaration and proposal with the Korean Bar Association, the comfort women issue was defined as “the organized and continuous coercion of sexual acts against women under direct or indirect involvement of the military.”
This fact alone—that the JFBA issued joint declarations and proposals with the Korean Bar Association—should lead discerning readers to reaffirm the correctness of my arguments, and it is truly chilling.
In a 2015 report, the issue was defined as the forcing of sexual acts under conditions where freedom was restricted, regardless of the manner of recruitment, transport, or management.
Compared with earlier statements that categorically asserted forced recruitment and sexual slavery, the tone was softened and the point of contention shifted.
“What evidence was used to conclude ‘forced recruitment’? It is a serious problem that lawyers, who should be professionals in evidence-based fact-finding, issued presidential statements based on no evidence or uncertain evidence.”
Yasuhiko Horiuchi, an attorney and organizer of the association “So no Kai,” which seeks to protect Japanese tradition and culture, points out that there may have been a prevailing attitude within the JFBA at the time that vague objective facts were acceptable so long as Japan’s responsibility could be pursued and compensation realized.
One of the reasons the comfort women issue became so internationalized that Japan came to be recognized as a barbaric country that used sexual slavery unquestionably lies in the activities of the JFBA.
“If lawyers have a conscience, they should consider correcting, revising, or withdrawing statements once errors are discovered,” Horiuchi proposes.
(Names honorifics omitted.)