When UN committee members reacted with surprise, saying “This is the first we’ve heard of it,” it exposed how Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs had failed to communicate basic facts internationally. This article examines why restoring Japan’s honor cannot be entrusted to the Foreign Ministry alone.

2016-02-01

(Emphasis in the text, except for the headline, is mine.)

“We Cannot Leave This to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” — Yoshiko Sakurai

At the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which will convene in Geneva starting February 15, the Japanese government will finally rebut the claim that “comfort women were forcibly recruited.”

This response addresses a question posed by the committee last July, asking Japan to state its view on claims that there was no forced recruitment of comfort women.
The persistent and deeply rooted historical condemnation directed at Japan is primarily the result of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs having never once offered a serious rebuttal to the international community.

Compared with the previous silence that severely damaged national interests, this response deserves some credit for at least making a rebuttal, however minimal it may be.

Nevertheless, considering the grave confrontations that have arisen up to this point, one cannot avoid concluding that the true restoration of Japan’s honor cannot be entrusted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

In fact, Japan’s response to the committee had been completed by November of last year.

It firmly countered international criticisms, including the Coomaraswamy Report, by stating that they contained “one-sided and unsubstantiated claims,” and it sought proper understanding of Japan based on objective facts.

The draft clearly stated that Asahi Shimbun had retracted articles based on the testimony of Seiji Yoshida, a supposed witness regarding forced recruitment; that government investigations since the early 1990s found no evidence indicating forced recruitment by the military or authorities; and that the figure of 200,000 was a conflation of comfort women and the Women’s Volunteer Corps, lacking concrete substantiation.

However, on December 28, when the foreign ministers of Japan and South Korea agreed that the comfort women issue had been “resolved finally and irreversibly,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed reservations about submitting that response.

The ministry argued that using strong language such as “one-sided and unsubstantiated claims” would make it difficult for South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se to manage hardline domestic opinion, and instead proposed submitting a single-page document that merely reiterated the agreement and the promise not to criticize each other internationally.

It was Prime Minister’s advisors, including Seiichi Eto, who vehemently objected.
They asked: what legitimate reason is there not to properly answer the UN’s question?

Their argument—that objectively stating facts does not violate the agreement not to criticize each other—was entirely sound.

The compromise that emerged was the response mentioned at the outset.

While it denied forced recruitment, the document made no reference whatsoever to allegations of 200,000 victims or sexual slavery.

These points are reportedly to be addressed orally by Vice Foreign Minister Shinsuke Sugiyama at the Geneva session.

To what extent does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs understand the severity of the situation?
Can deeply rooted historical condemnation of Japan really be dispelled through oral statements alone?

In fact, even this opportunity to rebut the allegations did not come about through the ministry’s efforts.

It was triggered when former House of Representatives member Mio Sugita and others asserted at a preparatory meeting of the committee last July that the forced recruitment theory lacked any basis.
Committee members reacted with surprise, saying, “This is the first we’ve heard of this,” and contacted the Japanese government for clarification.

This episode clearly demonstrates how little the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has communicated to the international community.

(To be continued.)