Published on October 29, 2019.
Based on an essay by Abiru Rui, this article examines the relationship between the Kono Chief Cabinet Secretary Statement and the Asahi Shimbun over the comfort women issue.
It discusses Seiji Yoshida’s false testimony, Asahi’s shifting arguments, the inadequacy of the hearing report on sixteen former Korean comfort women, and the problem of Kono using that report as the basis for speaking of coercion.

October 29, 2019.
Nevertheless, Mr. Kono read this slapdash thing, which can hardly even be called a government document, and emphasized that it was “an experience that could not be spoken of unless one were a victim.”
It is laughable.
The following is the continuation of the previous chapter.
For Some Reason, No Mention of the Comfort Women Issue.
Now, although for some reason it is not mentioned at all in this interview, when one speaks of Mr. Kono, above all, there is the “Kono Chief Cabinet Secretary Statement” of August 1993, which acknowledged coercion in the recruitment of comfort women.
Regarding this statement, which acknowledged coercion without any evidentiary documents or any Japanese-side witnesses, and which spread throughout the world the misunderstanding and distorted interpretation that “the Japanese government officially acknowledged the forcible taking away of comfort women,” Asahi and Mr. Kono are also in a “complicit relationship.”
Asahi, which consistently maintains a historical view that Japan was bad in everything, also persistently turned into articles, on the comfort women issue, the falsehood of the late Seiji Yoshida, a professional fabulist, that “women were forcibly taken away on the Korean Peninsula and made into comfort women,” and spread throughout the world the image of “Japan, the country of sex slaves.”
Regarding the theory of forcible taking away, many informed people, beginning with the modern historian Hata Ikuhiko, began to raise doubts as to whether it was not in fact untrue, and Asahi was placed on the defensive.
At that time, what it relied upon was Mr. Kono and the Kono Statement as the official view of the government.
In its editorial of January 12, 1992, “Let Us Not Turn Our Eyes Away from History,” Asahi had determined forcible taking away as fact, saying that women were “recruited or forcibly taken away under the name of the ‘Volunteer Corps’…”
Yet in its editorial of March 20, 1993, five months before the Kono Statement was issued, “Japan’s Morality Is Being Tested,” because the prospects for the theory of forcible taking away had begun to worsen, Asahi quietly retreated to the conjecture that forcible taking away probably had occurred.
Then, in its editorial of March 31, 1997, “Let Us Not Turn Our Eyes Away from History,” it switched the point at issue, saying that whether or not forcible taking away had occurred was not the issue.
On the other hand, on the same day’s page, an interview article with Mr. Kono was published on page one under the following headlines.
“Comfort Women Issue: Recognition of Coercion Was Justified.”
“Former Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono on the 1993 Statement.”
“Comprehensive Judgment Also Giving Weight to Testimony.”
Also, on page sixteen, Asahi carried a detailed report of the interview with Mr. Kono under the headlines, “Testimony That Could Not Be Spoken of Unless One Were a Victim,” and “First Acknowledge the Facts, Then Discuss Educational Methods Separately.”
Asahi attempted to justify itself by using the testimony of Mr. Kono, who had issued the Kono Statement, but then what was the substance of the crucial Kono testimony?
In the interview, Mr. Kono admitted that there were no documents indicating forcible taking away, and then made clear that, regarding coercion in the recruitment of comfort women, the basis was the testimony of sixteen former Korean comfort women whom the Japanese government had interviewed, and said the following.
“Because these are events from more than half a century ago, there may be mistakes in memory about the places or the circumstances.
But even so, regarding the fact that such a large wound was left on even one woman, I cannot think that the memory of the wound itself is mistaken.
If one actually reads the testimony from the hearings, one understands that it is an experience that could not be spoken of unless one were a victim.
The impression is strong that there was considerable coercion.”
The government has not disclosed this hearing report, citing reasons such as privacy information, but the Sankei Shimbun obtained it in October 2013.
The testimony of the sixteen subjects of the investigation, summarized in only thirteen A4-size pages, was astonishingly sloppy in content.
The factual relations in the testimony were vague, and discrepancies with statements made on other occasions were conspicuous.
In addition, even names and years of birth were inaccurate, and there were even cases in which only a family name was given.
As for places of origin, which are regarded as important on the Korean Peninsula, most of them, thirteen people, were unknown or unclear.
There was also testimony that a woman had worked not in a battlefield area, but in a region where there were ordinary brothels but no comfort stations.
Even after reading through this investigation report, there is no testimony that can immediately be recognized as evidence of forcible taking away by the military or by officials.
There were several women who said that they had been “taken away by soldiers,” but at the time there were many people wearing clothes like soldiers’ uniforms, and it is doubtful whether they really were soldiers.
Nevertheless, Mr. Kono read this slapdash thing, which can hardly even be called a government document, and emphasized that it was “an experience that could not be spoken of unless one were a victim.”
It is laughable.
This article continues.