At the UN CEDAW session, a Chinese committee member attempted to label Japan as “historical revisionist.” Japan responded with fact-based rebuttals, exposing a familiar political maneuver.

2016-02-21

The following continues from the previous chapter.
Emphasis in the text is mine.

The first to speak was Lilian Hofmeister, a female committee member from Austria.

She warned Sugiyama, saying, “The committee addresses the comfort women issue because human rights violations are ongoing. The outcome must be one that satisfies the victims.”

When Sugiyama expressed the view that there was no evidence indicating forced recruitment, the response came from one of the members in charge of the comfort women issue, a female committee member from China, Zou Xiaoqiao.

She said, “The government representative’s remarks are regrettable and disappointing. They are unacceptable. Even if these events occurred seventy years ago, historical facts cannot be changed or denied.”

Zou concluded by asserting that the Japanese government was denying the comfort women issue and stating, “I want the Japanese government to recognize what happened during World War II.”

This was China’s habitual tactic—attempting to brand Japan as “historical revisionists.”

Sugiyama immediately rebutted her.

“Unfortunately, not only are these remarks unacceptable to the Japanese government in every respect, but I must also say with regret that statements contrary to fact have been made.”

While Sugiyama was speaking, Zou shook her head in apparent disbelief and closed the laptop on the desk in front of her.

During the break, Zou did not conceal her anger toward the Japanese government.

“We had anticipated this ever since the Abe administration came into office. That is why, over the past three years, stronger language regarding the comfort women issue has been used at the UN,” she said.

The committee’s final observations following the review of Japan are scheduled to be released on March 7.

Judging from the remarks by Zou and others, it is highly likely that the content will be strongly critical of the Japanese government.

Even so, the significance of the Japanese government’s first attempt to comprehensively explain the factual background of the comfort women issue is substantial.

After the session, Sugiyama told reporters the following:

“Further efforts are necessary to continue communicating and to make others understand the points that are based on misunderstandings.”