Based on Professor Shiro Takahashi’s analysis, this essay examines how international discourse on the comfort women issue emerged only after Asahi Shimbun’s January 1992 reporting, and how subsequent UN debates were influenced by Japanese media misinformation.

2016-03-02

Today, an essay by Professor Takahashi Shiro of Meisei University appeared in the opinion section on page 19 of the Sankei Shimbun.

Takahashi Shiro, former chairman of the Saitama Prefectural Board of Education, is a professor at Meisei University, a visiting professor at Reitaku University’s Center for Moral and Ethical Education, chairman of the Oyagaku Promotion Association, and a member of the Council for Gender Equality.

All emphasis in the text is mine.

At the review meeting on Japan held on February 16 in Geneva by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Foreign Ministry Vice-Minister Sugiyama Shinsuke responded to a question from an Austrian committee member regarding the comfort women issue by stating that Asahi Shimbun’s erroneous reporting had exerted a major influence on the international community. He pointed out that Asahi itself had acknowledged that the figure of “200,000” originated from mistakenly conflating members of the Women’s Volunteer Corps, mobilized for ordinary wartime labor, with comfort women.

In response, on the 18th Asahi Shimbun submitted a protest document to the Foreign Ministry, citing the view of members of the “Third-Party Committee to Examine Asahi Shimbun’s Comfort Women Reporting,” including Hayashi Kaori, that there had been “no international impact,” and objected that Sugiyama’s remarks were made “without presenting evidence.”

Asahi further stated, “Our newspaper has not reported that the figure of 200,000 originated from confusion between the Women’s Volunteer Corps and comfort women.”

At a press conference on the 23rd, Foreign Minister Kishida Fumio dismissed Asahi’s protest outright, saying, “The substance of the remarks is consistent with explanations we have given to date and presents no problem.”

In fact, at the United Nations Human Rights Council on September 15 the year before last, a representative of the Japanese government had already rebutted a statement by South Korea, referring to the Coomaraswamy Report, as follows:

“I wish to report that articles by a major Japanese newspaper were recently retracted based on that newspaper’s own verification. The figure of 200,000 resulted from confusion between the Women’s Volunteer Corps and comfort women, and claims of forcible abduction were shown to be falsehoods by the individual who provided the testimony. It is deeply regrettable that media information influenced these reports submitted to the United Nations.”

[Omitted]

Committee member Hayashi Kaori concluded, based on a keyword search for Yoshida Seiji, that there had been “little impact on the international community.” However, even without explicit reference to Yoshida, numerous articles clearly relied on or referred to his testimony. It is evident that had Asahi Shimbun withdrawn Yoshida’s testimony at an early stage, the harmful effects could have been prevented.

Major U.S. newspapers and Korean newspapers had not taken up the comfort women issue prior to Asahi Shimbun’s “January 1992 forcible abduction propaganda.”

For reference, an editorial in the Chosun Ilbo dated August 30, 2012 cited Asahi’s January 11, 1992 report on “military involvement” and Yoshida’s testimony as grounds for claims of forcible abduction.

[End of excerpt]