tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-217950152024-03-13T07:04:04.913-07:00ZEROThe Rose is without why; She blooms, because She blooms.
These roses under my window makes no reference to former roses or to better ones; they are for what they are...there is no time for them....it is perfect in every moment of its existence.zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.comBlogger1004125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-79548256660040386732018-05-10T09:35:00.001-07:002018-05-10T09:42:35.165-07:00Much Of What You May Think You Know About Korean ‘Comfort Women’ Is Wrong<a href="https://taskandpurpose.com/much-may-think-know-korean-comfort-women-wrong/">Much Of What You May Think You Know About Korean ‘Comfort Women’ Is Wrong
By JASON MORGAN on February 12, 2018 T&P ON FACEBOOK </a>
The comfort women issue exploded in 1992 when Japanese historian Yoshimi Yoshiaki announced the discovery of documents linking the Japanese government to the wartime brothel network in the 1930s and ‘40s. Japan was accused of abducting hundreds of thousands of women as sex slaves, and then of massacring them in droves once the Fifteen-Year War in Asia had been all but lost. The main victims were said to be Koreans. Japanese politicians made endless apologies, and the anti-establishment Japanese press had a field day. Even the United Nations got involved, releasing the infamous Coomaraswamy Report on the comfort women issue in 1996.
For South Korea, where anti-Japanism is a perennial centerpiece of statecraft, the comfort women issue would seem to be a diplomatic slam dunk. And yet, the more South Korea presses the topic, the more it loses ground.
There are two main reasons for this.
First, the key comfort women claims are not true. Apart from rare war crimes (wherein offenders were later tried and punished), there was no systematized “forced abduction.” There were nowhere near “200,000 comfort women”. Many of the comfort women were not Korean. Much of this fantasy flowed from the pen of a communist named Yoshida Seiji, whose 1982 work of fiction, Watashi no senso hanzai (“My war crimes”), was treated as fact by the Asahi Shimbun newspaper. Today’s comfort women partisans continue to recycle Yoshida’s points, even if they do not cite him by name. Indeed, even the Coomaraswamy Report is essentially a rehashing of Yoshida’s book.
The second reason is that the closer one examines the comfort women issue, the worse other countries (including South Korea) begin to look.
From the ancient Greeks to the American Civil War to Bordels Mobile de Campagne, prostitutes have always followed the columns. German researcher Magnus Hirschfeld was the first to investigate the inseparability of war and sex. During the Great War, Hirschfeld found, there was heavy traffic at brothels arranged by combatant governments. Business boomed.
World War II was different, with men stationed in far-flung garrisons surrounded by potentially hostile locals. Americans, with the largest military-run brothel system in the world, had the luxury of locating their comfort stations along Hotel Street in Honolulu, far from enemy lines. For security reasons, Japanese field commanders forbade patronizing local prostitutes in order to stem information leaks.
Also fearing reprisals by Chinese civilians, high-ranking Japanese officials, in imitation of Western models, set up “comfort stations” (iansho) in an attempt to reduce the scourge of rapes bedeviling operations. The recruitment of women for these iansho was often subcontracted to madams in Japan and pimps in Korea. (This was made much easier because the Korean peninsula, under the yangban system, had centuries of experience in buying and selling young women — another inconvenient fact for comfort women diplomacy.)
While the Japanese military strove to end wartime rapes, some other combatant countries actually encouraged it. The worst offender during World War II was surely the Soviet Union, whose troops went on a rape rampage at the end of the war. In Manchuria, countless Japanese women committed suicide after being brutalized by advancing Soviet troops. (Although not encouraged by commanding officers, U.S. GIs raped French women by the thousands after liberating Normandy.)
Controlling venereal disease was the other calculus in a commander’s decision to provide his men with prostitutes. U.S. Gen. Claire Chennault’s Flying Tigers, for example, were often grounded by syphilis and gonorrhea. Although forbidden to visit Kunming’s notorious red-light district, where the VD infection rate was said to be 100%, GIs kept going anyway. Exasperated, Chennault flew in prostitutes from India until Gen. Joseph Stilwell intervened.
Surprisingly, the comfort women system did not end in 1945. The Korean War brought comfort stations for troops from the United States. Indeed, the South Korean government supported this peninsular comfort women system. Former president Park Chung-hee personally signed an order in 1977 to clean up the “camptowns” where “Western princesses” serviced U.S. troops. The aim? To keep the American military in South Korea and U.S. dollars flowing into the economy. South Korean women who work at the brothels thronging U.S. bases are still stuck in an endless cycle of sex work and societal discrimination.
The hard truth is that South Korea is also guilty of heinous war crimes. In 1966 and 1968, for example, South Korean troops savagely raped and butchered dozens of defenseless Vietnamese peasant women in Binh Tai, Phong Nhi, and Phong Nhat. There is also the record of Korean cruelty against Allied POWs in World War II, and the sad legacy of the Lai Dai Han, the tens of thousands of abandoned, illegitimate children of South Korean soldiers born during the Vietnam War. It is a losing diplomatic gambit for any nation to bring up the history of wartime violence against women.
However, there is something much more sinister afoot with the comfort women issue than just shortsighted diplomacy. Today, the United States is home to several comfort women statues, most recently in San Francisco. (The mayor of Osaka, San Francisco’s sister city, cut ties after the city council approved the statue.) Comfort women statues can be found throughout South Korea, as well, most notably in front of the Japanese consulate in Busan. A comfort woman statue went up late last year in Manila, and in Sydney in 2016.
What do all these locations have in common? They are all key American allies in Asia. And the country with the biggest interest in breaking up American alliances with Asian nations is, of course, the People’s Republic of China. The comfort women controversy is a Chinese weapon to destabilize American relations with Asia and weaken Japan’s standing around the world. This is the overriding reason why South Korea must cease pressing the comfort women issue: it is now a subsidiary of the Chinese information war.
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CNg8UEX3Urk/WvR2bIA_dGI/AAAAAAAABvk/qU4i4ZhmaboKBJNdHCP4IwIHCuEyHC6iQCLcBGAs/s1600/Much%2BOf%2BWhat%2BYou%2BMay%2BThink%2BYou%2BKnow%2BAbout%2BKorean%2B%2BComfort%2BWomen%2B%2BIs%2BWrong.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CNg8UEX3Urk/WvR2bIA_dGI/AAAAAAAABvk/qU4i4ZhmaboKBJNdHCP4IwIHCuEyHC6iQCLcBGAs/s640/Much%2BOf%2BWhat%2BYou%2BMay%2BThink%2BYou%2BKnow%2BAbout%2BKorean%2B%2BComfort%2BWomen%2B%2BIs%2BWrong.png" width="122" height="640" data-original-width="304" data-original-height="1600" /></a>
zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-44567193291821196772018-01-19T02:07:00.000-08:002018-01-19T02:07:27.952-08:00The war in the Pacific had ended by January of 1945
<a href="https://socialistworker.org/2018/01/17/never-forget-nagasaki?utm_content=bufferdcaa7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer">Never forget Nagasaki
January 17, 2018
Rory Fanning, author of Worth Fighting For: An Army Ranger's Journey Out of the Military and Across America, recounts his trip with another antiwar veteran to Japan to discuss the horrors the U.S. atomic bombings during the Second World War and the urgent need for nuclear disarmament today, in an article first published at Jacobin.</a>
<blockquote>Mike and I did not give the order to drop the bombs. We did not fight as soldiers in the war that dropped those bombs. However, we were pawns of the U.S. war machine in its latest, longest war.
We both partook in wars that have <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/hiroshima-nagasaki-nuclear-bomb-atomic-obama">killed</a> over a million people, the<a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/this-ex-army-ranger-goes-on-missions-to-high-schools-but-not-to-recruit/"> majority </a>of them civilians. We signed up to fight terrorism but soon realized we were the ones doing the <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/hiroshima-nagasaki-nuclear-bomb-atomic-obama">terrorizing</a>.
We believe our role in the war on terror connects us in some way the 140,000 civilians who were killed within days of the atomic blasts. We believe that the deaths of so many civilians in both of these wars should never have happened.
THE CONSENSUS argument holds that the United States dropped those bombs on so many civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war and save millions of lives. This claim <a href="https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/tokyo-firebombing-world-war-ii/">cannot be justified.</a>
The war in the Pacific had ended by January of 1945. The Japanese were <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=5FZGAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=We+rarely+saw+any+fathers+in+the+town+a+woman+from+Nagasaki&source=bl&ots=hV1RVKHrc1&sig=uFby4rvs1-UQt6JNBUJWjWR4Y_c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=juH0VNz3MozqaIjOgcgN&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=We%20rarely%20saw%20any%20fa&f=false">starving</a> and the country could no longer manufacture what it needed to continue the fight. The United States had the ultra-secret purple and red Japanese cyphers transmitting this information. High-level government officials offered surrender terms to Douglas MacArthur a full <a href="http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/doc/177107060.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Aug%2019,%201945&author=WALTER%20TROHAN&pub=Chicago%20Daily%20Tribune%20(1872-1963)&edition=&startpage=1&desc=BARE%20PEACE%20BID%20U.%20S.%20REBUFFED%207%20MONTHS%20AGO">seven months </a>prior to the bombing, terms nearly identical to those accepted in Japan Bay on September 2, 1945.
This history remains largely untaught, just as the fact that the Taliban surrendered within months of the initial American invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 remains untaught--to say nothing of the lies that led us into the Iraq War. Seventy years separates the Second World War and the global war on terror, but the cliched line nevertheless applies to both: "Truth is the first casualty of war." This sense of being lied to, of being manipulated into participating in so much death and destruction, drove us to Japan.
As we uncovered the lies of the war we fought, we soon wanted to uncover the lies of other wars, especially the "Good War," the one that is so often used to justify others. Learning the truth can only provide so much closure; stopping the lies that lead to war became our priority. </blockquote>
https://megalodon.jp/2018-0119-1900-04/https://socialistworker.org:443/2018/01/17/never-forget-nagasaki?utm_content=bufferdcaa7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
<a href="https://megalodon.jp/pc/get_simple/decide">The Firebombing of Tokyo
BY
RORY FANNING</a>
<a href="https://megalodon.jp/2018-0119-1906-00/www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html">Was Hiroshima Necessary?
Why the Atomic Bombings Could Have Been Avoided
By Mark Weber</a>
zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-27771423674923554692018-01-19T01:53:00.000-08:002018-01-19T01:53:08.351-08:00The decisive factor in their unconditional surrender was the entry of the Soviet Union into the Pacific war against Japan<a href="https://www.facebook.com/thenatlinterest/posts/10159902388995646?pnref=story">Australia: The Next Nuclear Weapons Power?
Ramesh Thakur
January 18, 2018</a><blockquote>
The belief in the coercive utility of nuclear weapons is widely internalised, owing in no small measure to Japan’s surrender immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet the evidence is surprisingly clear that the close chronology is a coincidence. In Japanese decision-makers’ minds, the decisive factor in their unconditional surrender was the entry of the Soviet Union into the Pacific war against Japan’s essentially undefended northern approaches, and the fear that the Soviets would be the occupying power unless Japan surrendered to the US first. Hiroshima was bombed on 6 August 1945, Nagasaki on 9 August. Moscow broke its neutrality pact to attack Japan on 9 August and Tokyo announced the surrender on 15 August.</blockquote>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-92107056520951568272017-05-03T09:41:00.002-07:002017-05-03T09:41:45.759-07:00Army sex and military brothels contributed to victories in major wars Army sex and military brothels contributed to victories in major wars
02.04.2007
Pages: 12
There were three attempts to institute brothels in the Russian army during World War I. Both the Tsarist and Provisionary governments planned to establish field brothels for the needs of the army, for a number of reasons. The Bolsheviks had a similar plan in the works in April 1917. Russian army brothels were to be modeled on the German military brothels, which had rendered services to the army personnel since 1915.
The Russian army captured several German field brothels following the Brusilov Breakthrough in the summer of 1916. The Russian newspapers reported that the Cossacks had treated the daughters of joy in a very gallant fashion. It was reported that the ladies had stayed with the Cossacks for quite awhile as the Russians moved farther westward. In most cases the headquarters turned a blind eye to debauchery since the troops under General Brusilov were doing well at the time. The war eventually turned into a protracted trench war. As a result, brothels began to spring up in close proximity to many frontline units of the Russian army.
The Russian Provisionary government planned to legalize the operation of military brothels. In March 1917, the then foreign minister Pavel Milyukov, an active supporter of the “war till victory,” proposed to use relevant experience of the enemy and establish field brothels in the Russian army. Milyukov came up with the proposal a few days before he tendered his resignation. According to Milyukov, field brothels were supposed to give a boost to the troops’ morale. Besides, the move was designed to change the soldiers’ hostile attitude toward the Provisionary government.
Milyukov’s proposal gained no official support; the Provisionary government shelved it till better times. But the members of the executive committee of Petrograd Council of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies apparently took note of it. In April 1917, Petrograd Council of People’s Deputies issued order No 3 with the intention to consider the establishment of field brothels in the Russian army. The Council hoped that the measures would help decrease a high incidence of violent crimes committed by military personnel against the local population. Yet again, the proposed plan provided for the use of German experience. However, no real steps were taken in the end. The civil war soon broke out in Russia, the world revolution followed. The latter did not prevent the German military brothels from servicing officers and soldiers up to 1945.
The German military authorities were known for their strict adherence to rules and regulations regarding the supply of troops with weaponry and provisions. Issues relating to sexual life of military personnel were addressed by the German military command with the same level of pedantry. The army authorities apparently acknowledged that allowing access to women of easy virtue was something that had to be allowed within reason, if one wanted to keep up the troops’ morale. That is the reason why measures were taken to ensure that military brothels for officers and solders were erected in all territories occupied by the German troops. Mobile field brothels staffed with 5-20 “ladies of pleasure” would follow the army. The life of military harlots was anything but a bed of roses. According to rules, every woman was to service up to 600 soldiers a month, otherwise she must be deprived of her salary and benefits.
There were three classes of houses of joy; the highest for the officers, intermediate ones for non-commissioned officers, and the third for common soldiers. The rules and regulations stipulated that one prostitute was to be provided for 100 soldiers, one prostitute for 75 non-commissioned officers, and one prostitute for 50 officers. However, the military authorities soon began to find it increasingly difficult to supply brothels with scores of patriotism-minded German prostitutes in order to satisfy the needs of lust-inflamed men in uniform. Besides, inmates could not last long due to heavy daily workloads.
Consequently, the military authorities had to hire local females in regions occupied by the Germans. In view of the chronic misery of the occupied territories, most women took the job voluntarily. Money and food rations were the best motivation for them to sell their bodies to the enemy. At the beginning the German officers were strictly forbidden to have any kinds of contacts of an intimate nature with women from the occupied districts. Before long the officers grew too tired of the charms of the German ladies of the evening in military brothels. Eventually, the top brass had to shut their eyes to numerous cases of relationships involving German officers and local women. Some of the officers even fathered children.
Basically, the German military command established the system of military brothels in an effort to curb the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among the military. It was thought that precautionary measures could be best enforced on the basis of militarized institutions placed under control of army sanitary officials. The Germans had good reasons to take steps aimed to control the spread of STDs derived from prostitutes in occupied countries. For instance, the number of German soldiers who contracted various venereal diseases in Hungary alone was greater than the total number of casualties suffered by the German army over a month’s period of combat operations.
Soldiers had to comply with rigorous sanitary requirements every time they wanted to use services of army prostitutes. Rules and regulations were laid down by the military authorities with a great deal of German pedantry. On the whole, a visit to a military brothel was hardly a chance for soldiers to indulge themselves in debauchery. Prior to applying for an entrance card, every soldier was to undergo a mandatory medical examination. Aside from containing usual information e.g. time allotted and number of a brothel, the card also had some space reserved for a prostitute’s signature and registration number to be put at the end of the visit. The soldier would be issued three condoms and a can with disinfectant powder by a sanitary official. Then the soldier would be shown to a shower bath. The soldier was required to pour disinfectant first on his genitals and then on the prostitute’s genitals before engaging in intercourse. Once the visit was over, the soldier was to show his card and an empty can of disinfectant to a sergeant major assigned to the brothel. In fact, soldiers were strictly forbidden to shirk from practicing coitus while in a brothel. Failure to perform or refusal to visit a brothel might be considered a punishable offence. Common soldiers were entitled to six visits to a brothel per month.
n 1915, the Germans used airplanes for dropping propaganda leaflets over some sectors of the Eastern front. The leaflets featured girls of Slavic appearance cuddling young men in fancy clothes. The caption read, “Ivan, your sweetheart is having fun with another man while you make war!”
Tweet
Print version
+ - Font Size
The British took advantage of the German system of military brothels during WWII. A number of German soldiers were hospitalized and treated for scabies after contracting the disease in military brothels, which were furnished with infected condoms by the British spies.
According to unconfirmed reports, Soviet military intelligence set up a brothel for Western sailors in the port of Murmansk in WWII. Murmansk was extensively used by U.S. and British convoys for delivering arms and provisions for the Red Army during the war. The state-controlled house of prostitution was staffed with young attractive women handpicked by intelligence officers. The authorities got rid of the women in a most horrible way shortly after the war ended in 1945. Rumor has it that 300 women were ordered to board a barge that was subsequently towed into the sea and sunk.
zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-17374768579339954532016-08-11T06:07:00.001-07:002016-08-11T06:08:09.307-07:00 the bomb may have cost, rather than saved, American lives.<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/09/how-us-hiroshima-mythology-insults-veterans/">AUGUST 9, 2016
How US Hiroshima Mythology Insults Veterans
by JOHN LAFORGE
Tweet
Email
shutterstock_229629571 2
“The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
— Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, WWII Air Force Commander of the 21st Bomber Command, Sept. 20, 1945.</a>
With President Obama’s May 27 visit to Hiroshima, reporters, columnists and editors generally adhered to the official story that “the atomic bomb…ultimately spared more Japanese civilians from a final invasion,” as Kaimay Yuen Terry wrote for the Minneapolis StarTribune, or that, “Without it, more Japanese would have died in a US assault on the islands, as would have tens of thousands of Americans,” as Mike Hashimoto wrote for the Dallas Morning News.
“The dropping of the bombs stopped the war, saved millions of lives,” Harry Truman wrote in his memoir Truman Speaks. Oddly, historians have found no record of any memo, cable, command projection or study, military or civilian, where this estimate was suggested to him. In his book The Invasion of Japan, historian John Ray Skates says, “… prophecies of extremely high casualties only came to be widely accepted after the war to rationalize the use of the atomic bombs.” And historian Martin J. Sherwin has “cited a ‘considerable body’ of new evidence that suggested the bomb may have cost, rather than saved, American lives. That is, if the US had not been so determined to complete, test, and finally use the bomb, it might have arranged the Japanese surrender weeks earlier, preventing much bloodshed on Okinawa.”
Obama — uttering not a word about the historical controversy roiling since 1945 — perpetuated the rationalization, cover-up, and nostalgia that guarantees the US will never apologize for the needless and experimental massacre of 200,000 Japanese civilians. As Hashimoto wrote, “No apology [is] needed for sparing lives on both sides…”
The New York Times reported vaguely that, “Many historians believe the bombings on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki, which together took the lives of more than 200,000 people, saved lives on balance, since an invasion of the islands would have led to far greater bloodshed.”
While “many” historians may still believe this, the majority do not. As noted by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s chief historian J. Samuel Walker: “The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it,” Walker wrote in the winter 1990 issue of Diplomatic History.
Five years earlier, historian Gar Alperovitz wrote in Atomic Diplomacy, “[P]resently available evidence shows the atomic bomb was not needed to end the war or to save lives — and that this was understood by American leaders at the time.” Further declassification made his lengthy history, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of An American Myth (Knopf, 1995) even stronger on this point.
Admirals and Generals Debunk the Myth
Contrary to Gov. Sarah Palin’s claim that Obama’s visit to Hiroshima “insults veterans,” the fiction that the atomic bombs ended the war is the real insult to the people who actually fought and won the war against Japan. The official myth that incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki forced Japan’s surrender ignores and obscures the fact that combat veterans and bomber crews defeated Japan well before August 6, 1945 — by sacrificing so mightily in dangerous bombing raids and in bloody battles for Midway, Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and elsewhere. Dozens of high-level military officers have testified to this fact.
Most of the ranking officers who directed the war in the Pacific have never agreed that the atom bombs were conclusive. Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, Commander of the 21st Bomber Command, speaking publicly and for the record Sept. 20, 1945, said unequivocally: “The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.” Pressed by a reporter who asked, “Had they not surrendered because of the atomic bomb?” Gen. LeMay — who directed the destruction of 67 major Japanese cities using mass incendiary attacks — said flatly, “The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.”
Likewise, Gen. George Kenny, who commanded parts of the Army Air Forces in the Pacific, when asked in 1969 whether it was wise to use atom bombs, said, “No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit,” Alperovitz recounts in The Decision.
Alperovitz’s research found that Adm. Lewis Strauss, special assistant to WW II Navy Secretary James Forrestal, wrote to the naval historian Robert Albion Dec. 19, 1960 “from the Navy’s point of view, there are statements by Admiral King, Admiral Halsey, Admiral Radford, Admiral Nimitz and others who expressed themselves to the effect that neither the atomic bomb nor the proposed invasion of the Japanese mainland were necessary to produce the surrender.”
In Mandate for Change, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower wrote that when Secretary of War Henry Stimson told him atomic bombs were going to be used, “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…”
President Truman’s Chief of Staff, Adm. William Leahy, adamantly agreed. As Robert Lifton and Greg Mitchell, report in Hiroshima in America: 50 Years of Denial, Leahy said, “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons….” Lifton and Mitchell also note that Henry “Hap” Arnold, Commanding General of the Army Air Forces, said in his memoirs, “It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse.”
Answers to questions about the need of the atomic bombings were given early on, but some were kept secret. “[T]he US Strategic Bombing Survey published its conclusion that Japan would likely have surrendered in 1945 without atomic bombing, without a Soviet declaration of war, and without an American invasion,” Alperovitz reports in The Decision. The historian spent 30 years studying the issue and has revealed that a 1946 study by the Intelligence Group of the War Department’s Military Intelligence Division — discovered in 1989 — “concluded the atomic bomb had not been needed to end the war” and “judged that it was ‘almost a certainty that the Japanese would have capitulated upon the entry of Russia into the war.’”
The government’s official pretexts for incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki still dominate public opinion. In 2005, a Gallop poll reported that 57 percent of people surveyed in the US believed the bombings were justified and legitimate. The myth retains its usefulness. President Obama’s proposed 30-year, trillion-dollar program to rebuild the nuclear weapons production establishment can only go ahead if taxpayers hold fast to the idea that something good can come from the mass destruction of civilians.zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-6809880946805471162016-08-10T18:12:00.001-07:002016-08-10T18:12:53.958-07:00Dual Citizenship -- Loyal to Whom?</<a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/we-are-all-vittorio-arrigoni/list-of-politicians-with-israeli-dual-citizenship-/175479365845092/">List of Politicians with Israeli Dual Citizenship -
2011年6月22日 20:12
Dual Citizenship -- Loyal to Whom?</a>
by Dan Eden
Someone wrote and asked me, "Why are there Israeli- but not Mexican-American Dual Nationals?"
Well, here's my take on this. I'd also like your views and opinions.
Unless we are Native American Indians, all Americans have their origins in some other country. Both of my parents were from England. They were proud to be "British" but they were most proud of achieving their American citizenship. Sure, we had pictures of the Queen and nick-nacks with the Union Jack on them. My mother even celebrated the traditional 4 o'clock tea time and was good at making Yorkshire Pudding. In the late 60's my older brother served in the US Army and did his tour in Viet Nam. When it came down to "allegiance," we were all patriotic Americans. Period.
The word "allegiance" means that we promise loyalty. It also carries with it the expectation that this loyalty will be exclusive and unrestrained. In the case of a declared war or real threat or conflict, for example, our allegiance to America should preclude any other interest, be it another country or political ideology.
When they took their oath to become American citizens, my parents had to pledge their "allegiance" exclusively to America and renounce their allegiance to "any and all foreign governments." That included Great Britain, one of our strongest allies.
Before Viewzone asked me to research the meaning of "dual citizenship," I had never heard of the term. How could someone be a citizen of two countries at the same time? But I was just ignorant. Dual nationalities and citizenships are quite common.
From my internet research, I learned that in 1997, a French Canadian with a U.S. passport ran for mayor of Plattsburgh, N.Y. He argued that the incumbent spoke French too poorly to be running a city so close to Quebec. He lost. Also in 1997, a retired top American official for the U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) ran for president of Lithuania. He was inaugurated in February to a burst of fireworks!
In 1996, Dominicans from New York not only could vote in the Dominican Republic's presidential elections for the first time, they could vote for a fellow New Yorker. Multiple nationalities have become so commonplace that some analysts fear the trend is undermining the notion of nationhood, particularly in the place with the most diverse citizenry on Earth: the United States.
Debate over the issue intensified in the late 1990s, when Mexico joined the growing list of poor nations that say it's OK for their nationals to be citizens of the countries to which they have migrated. Under the law that took effect in 1998 Mexicans abroad -- most of them in the United States -- will be able to retain Mexican citizenship even if they seek U.S. citizenship. And naturalized Americans of Mexican descent will be able to reclaim their original citizenship. The Mexican government stopped short, for now, of giving expatriates the right to vote.
Security Issues
Since citizenship carries with it a responsibility to be exclusively loyal to one country, the whole concept of dual citizenship and nationality raises questions about which of the dual citizenships have priority. This is extremely important when the two countries have opposing interests. It can be a deadly problem when a dual citizen is in a high position within our American government.
Can one imagine a Japanese citizen serving in the Pentagon during WWII? Or how about a citizen of the Soviet Union holding a cabinet position in the White House during the Cold War?
Today's conflicts are centered in the Middle East. America needs to balance foreign policies towards oil producing Arab nations with our goal being peace and stability in the region. This places a burdon on our government to be even-handed in our dealings with the Arab world and Israel. While the Iraq War was waged on lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction and revenge for 911, the real reason has emerged as a well designed global plan to improve the power and leverage of Israel. Added to this policy is yet another potential blow to American interests and security -- the impending War with Iran. This war will be waged for the security of Israel and will be paid for by the blood of American soldiers and the hard-earned money of American citizens whose quality of life is inversely tied to the cost of petrolium.
Recently, in their much lauded paper, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, Harvard professor, Stephen Walt, and University of Chicago professor, John Mearsheimer, focused attention on the strong Israeli lobby which has a powerful influence over American foreign policies (see BBC article). They detail the influence that this lobby has exerted, forming a series of international policies which can be viewed as in direct opposition to the interests and security of the American people. These acts and policies are more often than not carried out by US government appointees who hold powerful positions and who are dual American-Israeli citizens. Since the policies they support are often exclusively beneficial to Israel, often to the detriment of America, it has been argued that their loyalties are misdirected.
A few classic examples can be cited here.
Jonathan Jay Pollard was an American-Israeli citizen who worked for the US government. He is well known because he stole more secrets from the U.S. than has any other spy in American history. During his interrogation Pollard said he felt compelled to put the "interests of my state" ahead of his own. Although as a U.S. Navy counter-intelligence specialist he had a top-secret security clearance, by "my state" he meant the state of Israel.
Literally tens of thousands of Americans holding U.S. passports admit they feel a primary allegiance to the state of Israel. In many instances, these Americans vote in Israeli elections, wear Israeli uniforms and fight in Israeli wars. Many are actively engaged both in the confiscation of Palestinian lands and in the Israeli political system. Three examples come to mind:
One is Rabbi Meir Kahane, who founded the militant Jewish Defense League in the U.S. in the 1960s, then emigrated to Israel where, eventually, he was elected to the Knesset. Until he was shot and killed at one of his U.S. fund-raising rallies in 1990, the Brooklyn-born rabbi shuttled between Tel Aviv and New York, where he recruited militant American Jews for his activities in Israel against Palestinians. He claimed to be a "dual citizen" of America and Israel.
Another Jewish American, James Mahon from Alexandria, Virginia, reportedly was on a secret mission to kill PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat when he was shot in 1980 by an unknown assailant. When he was shot, Mahon held an American M-16 in his hand and a U.S. passport in his pocket.
Then there was Alan Harry Goodman, an American Jew who left his home in Baltimore, Maryland, flew to Israel and served in the Israeli army. Then, on April 11, 1982, armed with an Uzi submachine gun, he walked, alone, to Al-Aqsa, Jerusalem's most holy Islamic shrine, where he opened fire, killing two Palestinians and wounding others. Both the U.S. and Israeli governments played down the incident, as did the media.
Most recently, US Navy Petty Officer, Ariel J. Weinmann, while serving at or near Bahrain, Mexico, and Austria, "with intent or reason to believe it would be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation (Israel), [attempted] to communicate, deliver or transmit classified CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET information relating to the national defense, to a representative, officer, agent or employee of a foreign government." Weinmann was apprehended on March 26 after being listed as "a deserter by his command," according to the US Navy. The information he gathered was supplied to Israel.
The examples of Kahane, Mahonm, Goodman and Weinmann raise the question of when a U.S. citizen ceases to be, or should cease to be, a U.S. citizen. U.S. Law at one time clearly stated that an American citizen owed first allegiance to the United States. A U.S. citizen should not fight in a foreign army or hold high office in a foreign country without risking expatriation. What the heck happened?
The 1940 Nationality Act
Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, "shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by...voting in a political election in a foreign state."
This law was tested many times. In 1958, for instance, an American citizen named Perez voted in a Mexican election. The case went to the Supreme Court, where the majority opinion held that Perez must lose his American nationality. The court said Congress could provide for expatriation as a reasonable way of preventing embarrassment to the United States in its foreign relations.
But then something very odd happened.
In 1967 an American Jew, Beys Afroyim received an exemption that set a precedent exclusively for American Jews. Afroyim, born in Poland in 1895, emigrated to America in 1912, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1926. In 1950, aged 55, he emigrated to Israel and became an Israeli citizen. In 1951 Afroyim voted in an Israeli Knesset election and in five political elections that followed. So, by all standards he lost his American citizenship -- right? Wrong.
After living in Israel for a decade, Afroyim wished to return to New York. In 1960, he asked the U.S. Consulate in Haifa for an American passport. The Department of State refused the application, invoking section 401 (e) of the Nationality Act -- the same ruling that had stripped the American citizen named Perez of his U.S. citizenship.
Attorneys acting for Afroyim took his case to a Washington, DC District Court, which upheld the law. Then his attorneys appealed to the Court of Appeals. This court also upheld the law. The attorneys for Afroyim then moved the case on to the Supreme Court. Here, with Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Lyndon Johnson's former attorney and one of the most powerful Jewish Americans, casting the swing vote, the court voted five to four in favor of Afroyim. The court held that the U.S. government had no right to "rob" Afroyim of his American citizenship!
The court, reversing its previous judgment as regards the Mexican American, ruled that Afroyim had not shown "intent" to lose citizenship by voting in Israeli elections. Huh?
While Washington claims it has a "good neighbor" policy with Mexico, the U.S. does not permit Mexicans to hold dual nationality. The US makes them become either U.S. or Mexican -- you can't be both. But the U.S., in its special relationship with Israel, has become very sympathetic to allowing Israeli-Americans to retain two nationalities and allowing U.S. citizens not only to hold public office in Israel, but to hold US government positions as well! No other country holds this special exception to our laws of citizenship.
So, you might ask, are there any other dual Israel-American citizens who hold US government positions that could compromise American security? Yes. Consider the following list that I obtained on the web:
Michael Mukasey
Recently appointed as US Attorney General. Mukasey also was the judge in the litigation between developer Larry Silverstein and several insurance companies arising from the destruction of the World Trade Center.
Michael Chertoff
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, at the Justice Department; now head of Homeland Security.
Richard Perle
One of Bush's foreign policy advisors, he is the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. A very likely Israeli government agent, Perle was expelled from Senator Henry Jackson's office in the 1970's after the National Security Agency (NSA) caught him passing Highly-Classified (National Security) documents to the Israeli Embassy. He later worked for the Israeli weapons firm, Soltam. Perle came from one the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktanks, the AEI. Perle is one of the leading pro-Israeli fanatics leading this Iraq war mongering within the administration and now in the media.
Paul Wolfowitz
Former Deputy Defense Secretary, and member of Perle's Defense Policy Board, in the Pentagon. Wolfowitz is a close associate of Perle, and reportedly has close ties to the Israeli military. His sister lives in Israel. Wolfowitz came from the above mentioned Jewish thinktank, JINSA. Wolfowitz was the number two leader within the administration behind this Iraq war mongering. He later was appointed head of the World Bank but resigned under pressure from World Bank members over a scandal involving his misuse of power.
Douglas Feith
Under Secretary of Defense and Policy Advisor at the Pentagon. He is a close associate of Perle and served as his Special Counsel. Like Perle and the others, Feith is a pro-Israel extremist, who has advocated anti-Arab policies in the past. He is closely associated with the extremist group, the Zionist Organization of America, which even attacks Jews that don't agree with its extremist views. Feith frequently speaks at ZOA conferences. Feith runs a small law firm, Feith and Zell, which only has one International office, in Israel. The majority of their legal work is representing Israeli interests. His firm's own website stated, prior to his appointment, that Feith "represents Israeli Armaments Manufacturer." Feith basically represents the Israeli War Machine. Feith also came from the Jewish thinktank JINSA. Feith, like Perle and Wolfowitz, are campaigning hard for this Israeli proxy war against Iraq.
Lawrence (Larry) Franklin
The former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst with expertise in Iranian policy issues who worked in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and reported directly to Feith's deputy, William Luti, was sentenced January 20, 2006, "to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat" and members of the pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Franklin will "remain free while the government continues with the wider case" and his "prison time could be sharply reduced in return for his help in prosecuting" former AIPAC members Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, [who] are scheduled to go on trial in April [2006]. Franklin admitted that he met periodically with Rosen and Weissman between 2002 and 2004 and discussed classified information, including information about potential attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Rosen and Weissman would later share what they learned with reporters and Israeli officials." (source: sourcewatch.com).
Edward Luttwak
Member of the National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at the Pentagon. Luttwak is reportedly an Israeli citizen and has taught in Israel. He frequently writes for Israeli and pro-Israeli newspapers and journals. Luttwak is an Israeli extremist whose main theme in many of his articles is the necessity of the U.S. waging war against Iraq and Iran.
Henry Kissinger
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Kissinger sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle. For detailed information about Kissinger's evil past, read Seymour Hersch's book (Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House). Kissinger likely had a part in the Watergate crimes, Southeast Asia mass murders (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), Installing Chilean mass murdering dictator Pinochet, Operation Condor's mass killings in South America, and more recently served as Serbia's Ex-Dictator Slobodan Milosevic's Advisor. He consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Kissinger is the Ariel Sharon of the U.S. Unfortunately, President Bush nominated Kissinger as chairman of the September 11 investigating commission. It's like picking a bank robber to investigate a fraud scandal. He later declined this job under enormous protests.
Dov Zakheim
Dov Zakheim is an ordained rabbi and reportedly holds Israeli citizenship. Zakheim attended Jew's College in London and became an ordained Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in 1973. He was adjunct professor at New York's Jewish Yeshiva University. Zakheim is close to the Israeli lobby.
Dov Zakheim is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and in 2000 a co-author of the Project for the New American Century's position paper, Rebuilding America's Defenses, advocating the necessity for a Pearl-Harbor-like incident to mobilize the country into war with its enemies, mostly Middle Eastern Muslim nations.
He was appointed by Bush as Pentagon Comptroller from May 4, 2001 to March 10, 2004. At that time he was unable to explain the disappearance of $1 trillion dollars. Actually, nearly three years earlier, Donald Rumsfeld announced on September 10, 2001 that an audit discovered $2.3 trillion was also missing from the Pentagon books. That story, as mentioned, was buried under 9-11's rubble. The two sums disappeared on Zakheim's watch. We can only guess where that cash went.
Despite these suspicions, on May 6, 2004, Zakheim took a lucrative position at Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the most prestigious strategy consulting firms in the world. One of its clients then was Blessed Relief, a charity said to be a front for Osama bin Laden. Booz, Allen & Hamilton then also worked closely with DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is the research arm of the Department of Defense.
Judicial Inc's bio of Dov tells us Zakheim is a dual Israeli/American citizen and has been tracking the halls of US government for 25 years, casting defense policy and influence on Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Judicial Inc points out that most of Israel's armaments were gotten thanks to him. Squads of US F-16 and F-15 were classified military surplus and sold to Israel at a fraction of their value.
Kenneth Adelman
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Adelman also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle, and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Adelman frequently is a guest on Fox News, and often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. Through his racism or ignorance, he actually called Arabs "anti-Semitic" on Fox News (11/28/2001), when he could have looked it up in the dictionary to find out that Arabs by definition are Semites.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby
Vice President Dick Cheney's ex-Chief of Staff. As chief pro-Israel Jewish advisor to Cheney, it helps explains why Cheney is so gun-ho to invade Iran. Libby is longtime associate of Wolfowitz. Libby was also a lawyer for convicted felon and Israeli spy Marc Rich, whom Clinton pardoned, in his last days as president. Libby was recently found guilty of lying to Federal investigators in the Valerie Plame affair, in which Plame, a covert CIA agent, was exposed for political revenge by the Bush administration following her husband's revelations about the lies leading to the Iraq War.
Robert Satloff
U.S. National Security Council Advisor, Satloff was the executive director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Many of the Israeli lobby's "experts" come from this front group, like Martin Indyk.
Elliott Abrams
National Security Council Advisor. He previously worked at Washington-based "Think Tank" Ethics and Public Policy Center. During the Reagan Adminstration, Abrams was the Assistant Secretary of State, handling, for the most part, Latin American affairs. He played an important role in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which involved illegally selling U.S. weapons to Iran to fight Iraq, and illegally funding the contra rebels fighting to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. He also actively deceived three congressional committees about his involvement and thereby faced felony charges based on his testimony. Abrams pled guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanors and was sentenced to a year's probation and 100 hours of community service. A year later, former President Bush (Senior) granted Abrams a full pardon. He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Reagan Administration's State Department.
Marc Grossman
Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. He was Director General of the Foreign Service and Director of Human Resources at the Department of State. Grossman is one of many of the pro-Israel Jewish officials from the Clinton Administration that Bush has promoted to higher posts.
Richard Haass
Director of Policy Planning at the State Department and Ambassador at large. He is also Director of National Security Programs and Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He was one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the first Bush (Sr) Administration who sat on the National Security Council, and who consistently advocated going to war against Iraq. Haass is also a member of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.
Robert Zoellick
U.S. Trade Representative, a cabinet-level position. He is also one of the more hawkish pro-Israel Jews in the Bush (Jr) Administration who advocated invading Iraq and occupying a portion of the country in order to set up a Vichy-style puppet government. He consistently advocates going to war against Iran.
Ari Fleischer
Ex- White House Spokesman for the Bush (Jr) Administration. Prominent in the Jewish community, some reports state that he holds Israeli citizenship. Fleischer is closely connected to the extremist Jewish group called the Chabad Lubavitch Hasidics, who follow the Qabala, and hold very extremist and insulting views of non-Jews. Fleischer was the co-president of Chabad's Capitol Jewish Forum. He received the Young Leadership Award from the American Friends of Lubavitch in October, 2001.
James Schlesinger
One of many Pentagon Advisors, Schlesinger also sits on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor, who supported going to war against Iraq. Schlesinger is also a commissioner of the Defense Department's National Security Study Group, at the Pentagon.
David Frum
White House speechwriter behind the "Axis of Evil" label. He lumped together all the lies and accusations against Iraq for Bush to justify the war.
Joshua Bolten
White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Bolten was previously a banker, former legislative aide, and prominent in the Jewish community.
John Bolton
Former UN Representative and Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Bolton is also a Senior Advisor to President Bush. Prior to this position, Bolton was Senior Vice President of the above mentioned pro-Israel thinktank, AEI. He recently (October 2002) accused Syria of having a nuclear program, so that they can attack Syria after Iraq. He must have forgotten that Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, some of which are thermonuclear weapons (according to a recent U.S. Air Force report).
David Wurmser
Special Assistant to John Bolton (above), the under-secretary for arms control and international security. Wurmser also worked at the AEI with Perle and Bolton. His wife, Meyrav Wurmser, along with Colonel Yigal Carmon, formerly of Israeli military intelligence, co-founded the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri),a Washington-based Israeli outfit which distributes articles translated from Arabic newspapers portraying Arabs in a bad light.
Eliot Cohen
Member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board under Perle and is another extremist pro-Israel advisor. Like Adelman, he often expresses extremist and often ridiculus anti-Arab and anti-Muslim views. More recently, he wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal openly admitting his rascist hatred of Islam claiming that Islam should be the enemy, not terrorism.
Mel Sembler
President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. A Prominent Jewish Republican and Former National Finance Chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Export-Import Bank facilitates trade relationships between U.S. businesses and foreign countries, specifically those with financial problems.
Steve Goldsmith
Senior Advisor to the President, and Bush's Jewish domestic policy advisor. He also served as liaison in the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (White House OFBCI) within the Executive Office of the President. He was the former mayor of Indianapolis. He is also friends with Israeli Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert and often visits Israel to coach mayors on privatization initiatives.
Adam Goldman
White House's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community.
Joseph Gildenhorn
Bush Campaign's Special Liaison to the Jewish Community. He was the DC finance chairman for the Bush campaign, as well as campaign coordinator, and former ambassador to Switzerland.
Christopher Gersten
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families at HHS. Gersten was the former Executive Director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, Husband of Labor Secretary.
Mark Weinberger
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Public Affairs.
Samuel Bodman
Deputy Secretary of Commerce. He was the Chairman and CEO of Cabot Corporation in Boston, Massachusetts.
Bonnie Cohen
Under Secretary of State for Management.
Ruth Davis
Director of Foreign Service Institute, who reports to the Office of Under Secretary for Management. This Office is responsible for training all Department of State staff (including ambassadors).
Daniel Kurtzer
Ambassador to Israel.
Cliff Sobel
Ambassador to the Netherlands.
Stuart Bernstein
Ambassador to Denmark.
Nancy Brinker
Ambassador to Hungary
Frank Lavin
Ambassador to Singapore.
Ron Weiser
Ambassador to Slovakia.
Mel Sembler
Ambassador to Italy.
Martin Silverstein
Ambassador to Uruguay.
Lincoln Bloomfield
Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs.
Jay Lefkowitz
Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council.
Ken Melman
White House Political Director.
Brad Blakeman
White House Director of Scheduling.
I don't know about you, but dual citizenship is fine with me for an ordinary citizen. But if you hold an official position that demands that you put American interests above all else -- if you should look transparent and fair to the rest of the world regarding your formation of Middle East foreign policies, then this is a dangerous trend. Even if there were no pro-Israeli agenda, the fact that decision makers have a bias or an allegiance to one of the parties involved in the current conflict should have raised red flags long before now.
If you think we're being unfair here, ask yourself: How you would react to the Head of Homeland Security if he or she were a dual national with citizenship in Iran, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia? Ask yourself why you don't feel the same about Israeli dual citizenship. Then you will understand how powerful the Israeli lobby has been in "adjusting" your acceptance of their special status.
Hey, I could be way off on this. Let's hear from you.
UPDATE: December 4, 2007
Newsweek's Michael Isikoff reports that Iraq war architect Paul Wolfowitz has been rewarded with a new position in the Bush administration which will allow him to oversee classified intelligence and inform policies on WMD issues.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has offered Wolfowitz, a prime architect of the Iraq War, a position as chairman of the International Security Advisory Board, a prestigious State Department panel, according to two department sources who declined to be identified discussing personnel matters. The 18-member panel, which has access to highly classified intelligence, advises Rice on disarmament, nuclear proliferation, WMD issues and other matters. "We think he is well suited and will do an excellent job," said one senior official.zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-48368558095853966342016-08-08T16:34:00.002-07:002016-08-08T16:34:42.339-07:00Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?
<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/2011/12/05/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor/">Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?
By PATRICK J. BUCHANAN • December 5, 2011, 7:43 PM</a><blockquote>
Tweet
On Dec. 8, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt took the rostrum before a joint session of Congress to ask for a declaration of war on Japan.
A day earlier, at dawn, carrier-based Japanese aircraft had launched a sneak attack devastating the U.S. battle fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Said ex-President Herbert Hoover, Republican statesman of the day, “We have only one job to do now, and that is to defeat Japan.”
But to friends, “the Chief” sent another message: “You and I know that this continuous putting pins in rattlesnakes finally got this country bit.”
Today, 70 years after Pearl Harbor, a remarkable secret history, written from 1943 to 1963, has come to light. It is Hoover’s explanation of what happened before, during and after the world war that may prove yet the death knell of the West.
Edited by historian George Nash, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and Its Aftermath, is a searing indictment of FDR and the men around him as politicians who lied prodigiously about their desire to keep America out of war, even as they took one deliberate step after another to take us into war.
Yet the book is no polemic. The 50-page run-up to the war in the Pacific uses memoirs and documents from all sides to prove Hoover’s indictment. And perhaps the best way to show the power of this book is the way Hoover does it — chronologically, painstakingly, week by week.
Consider Japan’s situation in the summer of 1941. Bogged down in a four year war in China she could neither win nor end, having moved into French Indochina, Japan saw herself as near the end of her tether.
Inside the government was a powerful faction led by Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye that desperately did not want a war with the United States.
The “pro-Anglo-Saxon” camp included the navy, whose officers had fought alongside the U.S. and Royal navies in World War I, while the war party was centered on the army, Gen. Hideki Tojo and Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka, a bitter anti-American.
On July 18, 1941, Konoye ousted Matsuoka, replacing him with the “pro-Anglo-Saxon” Adm. Teijiro Toyoda.
The U.S. response: On July 25, we froze all Japanese assets in the United States, ending all exports and imports, and denying Japan the oil upon which the nation and empire depended.
Stunned, Konoye still pursued his peace policy by winning secret support from the navy and army to meet FDR on the U.S. side of the Pacific to hear and respond to U.S. demands.
U.S. Ambassador Joseph Grew implored Washington not to ignore Konoye’s offer, that the prince had convinced him an agreement could be reached on Japanese withdrawal from Indochina and South and Central China. Out of fear of Mao’s armies and Stalin’s Russia, Tokyo wanted to hold a buffer in North China.
On Aug. 28, Japan’s ambassador in Washington presented FDR a personal letter from Konoye imploring him to meet.
Tokyo begged us to keep Konoye’s offer secret, as the revelation of a Japanese prime minister’s offering to cross the Pacific to talk to an American president could imperil his government.
On Sept. 3, the Konoye letter was leaked to the Herald-Tribune.
On Sept. 6, Konoye met again at a three-hour dinner with Grew to tell him Japan now agreed with the four principles the Americans were demanding as the basis for peace. No response.
On Sept. 29, Grew sent what Hoover describes as a “prayer” to the president not to let this chance for peace pass by.
On Sept. 30, Grew wrote Washington, “Konoye’s warship is ready waiting to take him to Honolulu, Alaska or anyplace designated by the president.”
No response. On Oct. 16, Konoye’s cabinet fell.
In November, the U.S. intercepted two new offers from Tokyo: a Plan A for an end to the China war and occupation of Indochina and, if that were rejected, a Plan B, a modus vivendi where neither side would make any new move. When presented, these, too, were rejected out of hand.
At a Nov. 25 meeting of FDR’s war council, Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus: “The question was how we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”
“We can wipe the Japanese off the map in three months,” wrote Navy Secretary Frank Knox.
As Grew had predicted, Japan, a “hara-kiri nation,” proved more likely to fling herself into national suicide for honor than to allow herself to be humiliated.
Out of the war that arose from the refusal to meet Prince Konoye came scores of thousands of U.S. dead, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fall of China to Mao Zedong, U.S. wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the rise of a new arrogant China that shows little respect for the great superpower of yesterday.
If you would know the history that made our world, spend a week with Mr. Hoover’s book.</blockquote>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-77110968239223095782016-06-06T23:36:00.000-07:002016-06-06T23:36:51.215-07:00Sex Slavery for US military and Rape in Okinawa
<a href="http://dot.asahi.com/wa/2016060300059.html?page=1"> 作家・北原みのり氏の週刊朝日連載「ニッポンスッポンポンNEO」。沖縄の元米軍海兵隊による殺害事件について言及する。</a>
* * *
沖縄で20歳の女性が殺された。容疑者は元米軍海兵隊の30代の男だ。こういう事件が起きるたび、とっさに耳と目を塞ぎたくなる。防衛本能だと思う。事件の直後から、必ずといっていいほど聞こえてくる暴言の数々に、耐えられそうもない。
案の定、オバマ大統領来日を控えていた政府内から「最悪のタイミングだ」という声があがったことが報道された。また前衆議院議員の中山成彬氏は「折からの県議選にも影響する最悪のタイミング」とTwitterでつぶやき、橋下徹氏は3年前に国内外からバッシングされ撤回した自身の発言「(米軍に)風俗を活用してもらいたい」を「やっぱり撤回しない方がよかったかも」とTwitterでつぶやいた。中山成彬氏にいたっては、「護身術を身につけることを勧める」「下手に日本女性に手を出すと逆にやられるぞという風評を広めたい」とも発言しており、私は、これらの暴力発言に、じわじわと苦しみが深まっている。この国で女として生きている意味を考えさせられている。
先日、沖縄で性暴力問題に長年取り組んできた高里鈴代さんの講演を聴いた。日本の敗戦後、アメリカの占領地となった沖縄で、アメリカ軍が公認する風俗店がつくられた。いわゆるAサインバーと言われていて(AはApproved=許可されている)、ここで働く女性たちは、性病検査を徹底的に受けさせられた(性病検査済み=Approvedな女)。Aサインバーがつくられたのは、徹底的に沖縄の米軍人を性病から守り、彼らの健康を維持するためだった。
当時の状況を調査した時、特にベトナム戦争時のAサインバーで働く女性たちの過酷さは、筆舌に尽くしがたいものがあったという。人を殺す訓練を受け、実際に殺し、自分も生と死の狭間から生還した男たちが沖縄に立ち寄った時、女たちは1日に20~30人もの相手をしなければいけない日々だった。女たちは店から様々な名目で借金を背負わされ、1カ月平均100ドルの給料時代に、7千ドルの借金を抱えさせられていた人もいた。自分の意思で辞められない状況だったのだ。そして何より、Aサインバーがあったとしても、米軍による強姦事件はなくならなかった。
高里さんは、こう仰る。
「沖縄の米兵は透明人間なんです」と。
どこから来て、どこに移動するのか、沖縄の人たちには知らされていない。数時間後にグアムの基地に向かう米兵2人によるレイプ事件が起きたこともあった。沖縄滞在は、たった2日だった。不平等な地位協定のため、もし日本の警察が彼らを捕らえられなければ、加害者が罰せられることはなかっただろう。
「タイミング」の問題ではない。そして「風俗活用云々」の問題ではない。沖縄の人が、そして米軍基地の周辺に住む人々が、常に抱えている恐怖であり、悔しさだ。その痛みによりそうことなく、男の性欲の話をまずする男や、政局の話をしたがる政治家たちに、感じる心はあるのだろうか。
※週刊朝日 2016年6月10日号zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-54885401671514524112015-08-25T07:14:00.001-07:002015-08-25T07:14:54.026-07:00Japanese 'Comfort Women' and U.S. Military. Prostitutes<a href="http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/re/k-rsc/lcs/kiyou/pdf_23-2/RitsIILCS_23.2LEE%20Na.pdf">-209-
日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村の「洋公主」
─
植民地の遺産と脱植民地の現在性
─
LEE Na-Young
(李
娜榮)/呉
仁済(訳)</a>
1
.はじめに
「少なくとも自国の娘を
他民族の慰みもの
として差し出し,外貨獲得,安保の論理を掲げ
ることは無いようみなが努力しなければ」ならない。
(マル誌,1988:112)
」
(強調は筆者,
以下同じ)
「日本帝国主義の挺身隊―すなわち従軍慰安婦は,有史以来人類が犯した10大罪悪のひ
とつに数えられるほど残忍な蛮行である。被害者のハルモニたちの証言によると,一日に
最高で60人の飢えたオスを相手にしなければならなかったというからゾッとする。ユダヤ
人収容所のナチスも考えつかなかったほど非人道的な蛮行である。その従軍慰安婦として,
10代前半の少女である国民学校高級班まで連行した事実が当時の学籍簿などで立証されて
いるが,
民族に対する侮辱と冒涜
がそれほど骨の髄まで浸透していたというのだろうか。
挺身隊に連れて行かれた国民学校の少女らの学籍簿の記録を見てみよう。体が肥えてはち
きれそうで,明朗なので小さく見えるが成熟したところがあり,血色が良く胸板が厚く,
忍耐力が強い等,性奴隷として適格であることを強調している。壬辰倭乱〔文禄・慶長の役〕
以来不変の,彼らの
残忍な民族性の発露
以外の何者でもない。日本総理の謝罪は言うまで
もなく,被害者のハルモニたちへの補償だけで済む問題ではないということを言わんとす
るこの国民学校生徒の挺身隊の瞳が
民族の良心に銃弾を打ち込んでいる。
(朝鮮日報
,1992
年1月15
日,イ・ギュテコーナー)
」
「日本軍慰安婦と聞いて最初に思い浮かぶのは,日本軍で性病の広がりを防ぐための『軍
隊による政策的な性病診療』
,毎日数十名の日本軍を相手にするよう強制されたということ,
そして数十年間朝鮮女性に対する拉致と日本軍慰安婦に対する殺人と殴打が,誰に妨害さ
れるでもなく行われたという点等である。呆れることに,
解放後このような非人間的な状
況
は,基地村の女性たちに対してもそのまま繰り返された......日本軍慰安婦であった朝鮮
女性が日本軍が移動するアジア全域を引きずり回され
日本軍の性奴隷
として生活したよう
に,基地村の女性は米軍の訓練場所が移れば毛布一枚だけを持ってついて回る自分たちを
みずから「毛布部隊」と呼ぶ現実がある。
」
(老
ノグンリ
斤里から梅
メヒャンリ
香里まで,2001:316
-
317)
以上の言説は,日本軍「慰安婦」問題と米軍基地村の「洋
ヤンゴンジュ
公主」
(韓国で一般的に使われる,
基地村の性売買に従事する女性への蔑称)
〔公主は姫の意〕問題を切り離して考えることの出来
ない韓国の歴史的現実をよく示している。最初の文章は,民主化運動が盛り上がっていた
1980
年代後半,米軍基地村がアメリカ帝国主義の象徴として注目された当時,代表的な進歩系雑誌
に掲載された「洋公主」に関する記事の一節である。二つ目の文章は,韓国の代表的な保守系
日刊紙の論説委員が,日本軍「慰安婦」問題が社会的なイシューとなった時期に書いた社説の
内容である。最後の文章
は,2000
年代初め,米軍駐屯による歴史的な被害を告発するために結
成された進歩集団が発刊した小冊子の一部である。このように,大韓民国において「慰安婦」
と「洋公主」は歴史的な節目ごとに特定の「記標」
〔記号表現,シニフィアン〕として登場して
きた。それぞれ異なる文脈と目的から出発するが,韓国の左派/右派陣営には,女性の身体を
借りて民族の自尊心という名目により日本帝国主義とアメリカ帝国主義の「残忍さ」を告発し
ているという相同性が見られる。この時,明示的に表現されるのは「被害者=女性」であるが,
実質的な語り手は隠された「発話者=主体=男性」である。女性の身体は植民地主義と帝国主
義の残忍な行為が行われる場所であり,民族の自尊心を発話する道具となるが,女性の身体そ
のものは沈黙させられたまま発話者の主体位置を確認するための象徴としてしか使われない。
ここに,進歩と保守は「女性」という鏡に互いの姿を映し,韓国,アメリカ,そして日本は「民
族主義」という鏡に互いを映し出すことによって,相補的な支持関係を表す。
一定期間日本軍「慰安婦」がそうだったように,韓国人にとって基地村は誰も触れたくない
が誰もが知っている「秘密」であった。民族と国家の「恥辱」として無意識の層位に隠されて
いた暗い影のような存在である。しかし,日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村の「洋公主」は,時
空を行き交い,記憶と忘却の薄い層位を行き来して浮遊する幽霊のように常にわれわれの周囲
を飛び回り,予想できない日常の中でふと「私」自身と遭遇する。われわれはなぜ語らなかっ
たのか,そしてなぜ「ある瞬間」に発話するのか? いかなる文脈で誰が語るの
か? 1980年
中頃,日本軍「慰安婦」問題が公論化される前,
「洋公主」
〔
양공주
〕
「洋セクシ」
〔
양색시
〕
「洋
ガルボ」
〔
양갈보
〕の公式的な用語が慰安婦(
comfort woman
)であったという事実を考えると,
なぜ日本軍「慰安婦」はある瞬間に歴史化されたが,米軍基地村の「洋公主」は未だ非可視化
されたまま残されているのだろうか?
その過程でわれわれは何を「歴史化」し,何を残存物の
まま残しておくのか? 言い換えると,日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村の「洋公主」についてわ
れわれが知っていることは一体何であり,真に「知ろうとすること」とはまた何だろうか? そ
してその理由は何か? このような問いは,必然的に「われわれの記憶にはどのような『歴史』
があるのか」という問いにつながる。失った歴史の残存物の中に残されているものは何なのか?
本稿は,大韓民国の現在を生きるわれわれ全員の複雑な記憶の層位の中に隠されている女性
の「存在」についての物語である。
「他者」の経験に関するものではなく,
「われわれ」の過去
と現在を構成する象徴であり,
「実際」に機能する日本軍「慰安婦」と基地村「洋公主」の歴史
的な構成方法に関する事柄なので,われわれ自身にまつわる物語である。これまで多くの国内・
国外のフェミニストは,民族主義とジェンダーの間にある矛盾した関係を告発するとき,
「慰安
婦」と「洋公主」に注目してきた。そうすることで韓国の家父長男性の家父長性が植民性と結
合する時に振るわれた女性への暴力と搾取の構造を明らかにし,隠された男性中心的な民族(主
義)の二面的な顔を明らかにしようとした。何よりも男性中心的な民族主義と帝国主義,植民
地主義の相同性を暴露しようとするフェミニストの企
プロジェクト
画は,真の脱植民地国家に対する問いで
あった。筆者はそのようなフェミニストの企画を継承し拡大させながら,
「慰安婦」
と
「洋公主」
の構成条件を検討し,これらの相同性と相違点について分析する。結論的には,大韓民国の「過
去」に記憶を巻き戻し,失ったものと残ったものの絶え間ない対話を追及するこの論文は,ベ
ンヤミンの言葉を借りるなら,
「歴史的な唯物主義」に基づくものであるといえる(
Eng and
Kazanjian,
2003
:
1)
。失ったものは残ったものと不可分の関係にある。それは歴史の中で消し去
られたわれわれの記憶を紡ぐ作業が,われわれの立つ歴史の「場」への逆説的な「登場
(
emergence
)
」を予告するからである。したがって本稿では,逆説的に登場せざるを得ないもの
を辿っていきたい
.米軍基地村の「洋公主」づくり
日帝の植民地遺制を基盤として
日本の植民地支配が終息して以降も,朝鮮半島の女性の身体/セクシュアリティに対する統
制と活用の歴史は断絶することなく継続した。解放直後に始まった南朝鮮の米軍政は,アメリ
カ国内の性売買禁止政策とは異なり,米軍兵士の保健と衛生のために性売買を管理・統制
(regulation and control)する政策を採用した。これにより,公娼をはじめ性病感染が疑われる
すべての「危険な」女性は性病検査の対象となったが ,初の検査は194
6年3月
に明月館,国一
館などで働くソウル市内の四大券番の妓生を対象とした採血検査だったという。その後,軍政
庁の指示で厚生部が主導してソウル市内の各券番の妓生に対して性病検査が実施さ
れ,1947年
になると米軍政は「市民の保健厚生を期して」
「花柳病根絶策」の名分を掲げ,公娼はもちろん
女給妓生まで定期的な検診を実施し,健康証明書を交付して私娼を統制しようとした。したがっ
て,妓生,女給,ダンサー,接客婦,ウェイトレスなどすべての「接客業者」は,定期的な検
診と処置の対象となり,健康証明書の発給を勧められ,身体検査で引っかかった者は許可を得
られなかったか,既存の許可権が取り消された。性病に感染したことが判明した女性は,当時
性病感染者の治療を主に担当していた国立性病センター(1947年12月開設)に送られたり,完
治するまで女性監獄に監禁されたりもした。監獄から放免された後も,完治していないことが
疑われる梅毒患者には継続的な治療が強制された。
記憶すべきは,性売買の効率的な管理のために米軍政が日帝当時の公娼地域(集娼地域)を
そのまま活用したという事実である。ある報告書は,日帝の登録制性売買のおかげで性売買女
性の居住を「
(米)憲兵隊によって成功裏に保護を受けられる」狭い地域に制限することができ
るようになったことで,高い接近性と効率的な統制の可能性が確保されたと指摘している
(
Report from Joseph T. Caples, Lt. Col. MC Surgeon, Titled
“
Factors Influencing Rates, VD Rates
during the Last Six Months of
1948
and Januar y
1947
,
”
2
Februar y,
1949)
。
実際公娼地域は,毎週実施される性病検査を容易にし,究極的には「駐屯部隊において性病を最
小化」させようとした米軍医官の要請にもとづいて
1945年後半
から米軍兵士にとって「出入り許
可区域」
(
on limits
)とされ始めた。また,性病諮問委員会は,士兵〔将校より下位の下士官
・
兵卒〕
の性的活動を監視するため,
「士兵サービスクラブが単位地域になるべく近い場所あるいは単位地
域内に設置されること」を勧告したりもした(
Headquarters XXIV Corps, APO
23
, May
11
,
1948)
。
米軍が日帝公娼地域を活用できた背景には,ほとんどの米軍基地が日帝時代に建設された軍
基地にもとづいていたという事情がある。例えば,富
プピョン
平は,194
5年9月に
米軍が進駐し韓国で
初めての基地村がつくられた地域だが,元は日帝が
1930年代に
満州事変を支援するために建設
した兵站基地で,かつ公娼地区でもあった。米軍は,日帝によって建立された大規模な造兵廠
の建物を活用し,補給輸送本部を設置し,南朝鮮駐屯の全米軍部隊への兵站,補給,輸送業務
を担当させた。これは,キャンプ・グラント(
Camp Grant
)
,キャンプ・マーケット(
Camp
Market
)
,キャンプ・タイラー(
Camp Tyler
)
,キャンプ・ヘイズ(
Camp Hayes
)などを網羅す
る広範な軍事基地であった。米8軍司令部の駐屯により形成された梨
イテウォン
泰院地域もまた日帝司令
部の心臓部であったが,米軍司令部が当時の建物をそのまま使用し,釜山のハヤリア部隊地域
〔
Camp Hialeah
〕も日帝の軍司令部を米軍が代替したものだった。ほとんどの日本軍基地が米軍
基地に変貌を遂げたように,相当数の日帝公娼地域(集娼村)が米軍基地村へと変化した。
龍
ヨンサン
山,
釜山,
玩月洞,
凡
ポムジョンドン
田洞
(米
「ハヤリア」
部隊入口)
,
大
テグ
邱の桃
トウォンドン
源洞
(いわゆる
「チ
小石の庭
ャガルマダン」
)
,
大
テジョン
田の中
チュンアンドン
央洞(旧貞
チョンドン
洞)など,ほとんどの集娼村は日帝時代に有名な公娼地域であったものが
米軍基地村に活用され,
その後韓国国民にとって代表的な性売買地域(集娼村)として機能した。
1947年11月,公娼制が廃止された後,表面上は禁止主義が宣言されたが,事実上性売買は米
軍によって継続的に管理され
た。194
8年5月,
米軍は緊急会議を招集し,全国的な性売買がは
びこり性病感染率が増加していると主張し,その根本的な原因として公娼制廃止令を挙げた。
彼らは,
「適法な性売買を不法とする法律第7号の執行」が事実上性売買女性の活動を管理・統
制できなくしていると不平をもらした。したがって,性売買女性を対象とした性病検査,感染
者への性病検査,監禁,治療はほとんど米軍が撤収する
1949年まで
続き,米軍のみを相手にす
るサービス・クラブ(
ser vice clubs
)とダンスホールもまた,依然として「合法的な」米軍の余
暇施設として,米軍兵士と性売買女性が接触する場所に使用された。
兵士の性欲管理と安寧のために
日帝の植民地支配と米軍政支配が基地村の構築に必要な下部構造を整備したとすれば,朝鮮
戦争は基地村の成長のもととなる肥沃な土壌となった。戦争勃発直後から朝鮮戦争に投入され
た外国軍人は,1951年の約20万人から1953年には3
2万5千人に増加した。これに伴い,韓国
政府の立場からは自国の女性の貞操管理という次元で「若い」外国兵の性欲管理が主要な問題
として浮上し,国連軍を率いるアメリカの立場からは戦闘によって疲弊した兵士を慰撫するこ
とが戦闘力維持のための必須課題として持ち上がった。これにより韓国政府は,特定の場所に
慰安所を設置し,登録制を実施して性売買女性に強制的に性病検査を受けさせ,許可を受けた
業者と性売買女性から一定の税金を徴収するなど,名実共に「公娼制」が復活した。特に兵士
の性的欲求の解消を通じた軍の士気高揚のため軍慰安所が設置されたが,イ・イムハによると
1950年夏,釜山慰安所
の設置に次いで馬
マサン
山に連合軍慰安所5ヶ所が設置さ
れ,1951
年には釜山
だけで慰安所74ヶ所と国連軍用ダンスホール5ヵ所が許可されたという(イ・イムハ,2004
a
)
。
慰安所は,韓国軍が直接介入して設置し民間業者が監督するやり方と,民間業者が最初から進
んで関係当局に申請しそれを政府が許可するやり方の二形態に分けられる
-215-
日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村の「洋公主」
(
LEE
)
朝鮮戦争が終わって軍隊慰安所と「公式的な」軍慰安婦の存在は解体されなければならなかっ
たが,韓国政府の望みは性病統制だけでなく,彼女たちに対する効率的な統制であった。特に,
朝鮮民族/外国人(他者)
,性売買女性/一般女性,内国民相手の性売買/外国人相手の性売買
などの多様な境界に対する国家権力と「一般国民」の不安感は,外国人を相手に性売買を行う
女性に対する強力な統制方法についての関心につながっていった。そうしてソウル市内の随所
に広がっている私娼と「洋公主」を一定地域に集結,統制しようとした韓国政府の関心と効率
的な戦闘力向上のため安全なセックスおよび性病防止対策に悩んでいたアメリカ側の利益が一
致し,両国の協議が始まった。
これを受けて性病防止のための<性病対策委員会>が韓米間に組織され
,1957年第4次会議
において「慰安婦」女性を一定地域,すなわち国連軍,韓国軍駐屯地およびソウル,釜山,大
邱などに集結させなければならないという意見が提起され,この問題を米8軍と協議すること
が決まった。委員会に参席した米経済調整官室(
OEC
)
〔
Office of Economic Coordinator
〕側の
関係者は,この問題を韓国政府が決定して欲しいと提議した。そしてこの決定により,米8軍
ではソウルに接客業所10ヶ所,仁川にダンスホール12ヶ所,釜山にダンスホール2ヶ所など
を指定し設置した。これにより
,1957
年保健社会部傘下の性病診療所89ヶ所のうち半分近い
43ヶ所が,米軍基地が集中するソウル,釜山,大邱,坡
パジュ
州,楊
ヤンジュ
州,平
ピョンテク
澤の6地域に設置される。
妓生,酌婦,女給,ダンサー,下女などとともに定期的に性病検診の対象となった洋公主とい
う範疇は,今や国家機構によって公式的に「慰安婦」と「米軍同居女」の二つに分類され,他
の性売買女性と区別して統制され始めた。
1957年以降
,政府の一連の政策によって,洋公主の区画化と隔離,効率的な監視体制が可能
となり,性病診療所が米軍基地周辺に集中し,相対的に自国の兵士の「安全」が確保されたと
判断した米軍当局は,同年米軍の外出と外泊を許可する。米軍の外泊許可は,同
年(1957年)
日本に性売買防止法が制定された事実と無関係ではない。韓国政府は米軍の日本行き性売買の
需要を韓国内に向けるための方法として,慰安婦を相手に啓蒙講演会を開いた。各地の警察幹
部が直接介入して組織し,管理・実行するやり方だったが,主な内容は性病予防と米軍を相手
にするときの正しい態度を身につけるためのものだった。以上のように,
米軍の余暇と休息
(
Rest
& Recreation
(
or Recuperation
)
)のための安全な空間づくりの土台が用意されると,小さな村
落だった村々は基地村(東
トンドゥチョン
豆川,議
ウィジョンブ
政府など)として急激に栄えることになる。
国家安保と経済発展のために
基地村の本格的な制度化と定着は,朴正煕政権によってもたらされた。朴正煕政権は,
「淪落
行為等防止法」
(1961年11月9日公布。以下,淪防法と略す)とは
無関係に,1961年
観光事業
振興法を制定し,これにもとづいて免税ビールの供給を受けた特殊観光施設業者を公式化する。
また,
「国内の各種行事にともなう多くの外国人来韓に備えて」
淪防法が適用されない
「赤線地帯」
を設定した。私娼根絶の難しさと性売買女性の救済,補導という美名のもと,外国人相手のド
ル稼ぎで女性を差し出すことのできる口実を見つけ出し,1962年6月に保社〔保健社会部〕
,法
務,内務の3部合同で国内の全104ヶ所に特定の淪落地域を設定,淪落行為の取り締まりを免
除する赤線地帯に指定したのである。ここでは龍山駅,永
ヨンドゥンポ
登浦駅,ソウル駅など全国46の性売
買集結地域と,梨泰院,東豆川,議政府など32の基地村が含まれていた。このような特定淪落
地域設定の名分として,政府は淪落地域を一般人居住地域から隔離し,市民の風俗と教育に及
ぼす悪影響を希釈し,淪落女の集団化を誘い,彼女たち自身が抱
ポジュ
主〔女郎屋の主人〕による搾
取を自発的に防御し,効率的な性病管理が可能である点を掲げている。しかし,特殊地域設定
の直前である196
2年4月に
<人身売買及び他人の売春からの搾取の禁止に関する条約>〔人身
売買禁止条約〕に署名したという事実は,国家の利益という大前提のもとに行われる女性の性
的労働に対する搾取が犯罪にはならないというアイロニーを示している。結局,悪徳抱主の搾
取からの保護,貯蓄誘導と就業補導など,淪落女性をして「新たな生活」に導くため特定区域
の設定が不可避であったという名分の裏には,国家の経済成長と外貨稼ぎの道具として女性の
セクシュアリティを活用するという意思が隠れていたのである。朴正煕政権は「慰安婦」を新
たに「特殊業態婦」と呼び,彼女らの身体の効率的な統制および管理の体系を模索した。これ
により<特殊観光協議会>と<韓米親善協議会>が基地村の性売買を通じた外貨稼ぎの主要な
制度基盤として設置される。前者は観光事業奨励というレベルで,後者は韓米民間人の親善の
促進という美名の下に設立されたが,これらはさまざまな外形上の変化を経て,基地村の性売
買女性に対する統制・管理機能を含めた基地村の「問題」を管理・経営する公的機構として定
着する。
基地村の景気が絶頂だった
1960年代当時
,登録証のある女性,米軍と正式に結婚した女性以
外に「ヒッパリ」
〔日本語の「引っ張り」に由来〕など,登録のないまま働く女性の数が東豆川
一帯だけでも1万名に肉薄したという。米軍2,3名当り一名の性売買女性がいたという当時の
一般的な算出基準にもとづくと,基地村全体の性売買女性の数は少なくとも2万名に達しただ
ろうことが推定される(政府推算1万6千名)
。まして公式的には20歳以下の女性のみが保健
所に登録することができたが,相当数の未成年者が未登録状態のままであったと推測される。
女性が政府指定の場所で性売買を行える条件は,週に一度一般の産婦人科に委託した性病診
療所(または保健所)に行って検診を受け,自身がきれいな「体」で「安全なセックス」を米
軍に提供できることを証明することであった。したがって,彼女らにとって検査証は,常に所
持すべき基本的な身分証と同じであった。検査証を所持していないことが米軍憲兵に見つかる
と,憲兵の車に乗せられて警察署に連行され,即決裁判を受けた。検査証を忘れた日には,再
発給のために保健所(韓国)職員に賄賂まで差し出さねばならなかった。時には,性病がある
と判断され米軍に目を付けられると,有無を言わさずトラックに乗せられ収容所に連行される
こともあった。一時期基地村で性売買を行っていたキム・ヨンジャ氏の証言によると,米軍一
名が性病にかかると,誰から性病が移ったのか追求して回ったという(キム・ヨンジャ,
2005)
。ところがほとんどの米軍の「目」からは,夜に出会った韓国女性の外見を見分けるのは
容易でなかったので,顔の似た複数の女性を疑うことがよくあったし,医務隊出身の軍人は疑
われた女性全員をジープに乗せてモンキー・ハウス〔駐韓米軍を相手にして性病を患った女性
を強制収監した施設〕に送ったという。こうして収容された者は,大韓民国という地で米製品
だらけの米製収容所で米製の薬を投与され,米軍によってきれいな女かそうでないか検査され
ることを「恥ずかしくもいぶかしく」思った。そして大韓民国が「淪落行為が法で禁止された国」
であるという事実を知らなかった
-217-
日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村の「洋公主」
(
LEE
)
問題は,そのようにして稼いだお金の多くが,基地村の女性自身のためではなく家族扶養に
充てられたという事実である。貧しい家族の生計のため,兄や弟の学費のため,病床の父母の
薬代のため,その他さまざまな理由で彼女たちが稼いだお金は大韓民国の家父長家族の維持と
再生産のために使われた
が,1970
年代当時京
キョンギド
畿道観光運輸課は,京畿地方だけで年間8百万ド
ルの外貨が
「洋公主」
の手に入り,
「彼女らが稼ぐドルに頼って暮らす扶養家族数も一日平均4名」
であると公式に認めている
。1970
年代当時米軍の数が45
,
000名余りであることを勘案して推定
される基地村女性の数を20
,
000名余りとすると,少なくとも80
,
000名が「洋公主」の収入源に
直接依存して生計を維持していたと思われる。
植民地と戦争,アメリカによる再植民地化とクーデターなど,ダイナミックな現代史を歩ん
だ大韓民国は,国家安保のために駐韓米軍の継続的な駐屯が不可避だったのも事実だが,農業
など生産関連の産業が没落しサービス業に依存する奇形的な産業構造とともに,アメリカによ
る援助と米軍基地から流れ出る外貨に絶対的に依存していたので,経済的な側面からも米軍の
存在は絶対的であった。特に,
PX
〔軍内の売店〕経済と呼ばれるほど米軍基地から流れ出る米
製物品と米軍関係の経済的効用は,当時の国家の根本的な基盤となるほど重要であった。当時
基地村関係の産業は
GNP
全体の25
%
を占め,このうち半分が性産業に関わるものだったという
(
Moon,
1997)
。実際,1960年代の米軍専用ホールは,1964年に9百7十万ドル以上の利益を上
げたが,それは韓国が稼ぐ外貨(ドル)1億ドルの10
%
におよぶものだった。一人当たりの国民
所得が100ドルに満たなかった頃,一ヶ月で120ドルの賃金をもらう米軍士兵の威力は事実上
大きなものだった。そのような基地村経済への依存
は,1970年代,当時のキム・
ハンリョル経
済企画院長が国会質疑の答弁で認めたように,米軍駐屯により得られる外貨は建設,用役,物
品からなる直接軍納〔民間業者が軍に物資を納品すること〕1億ドルと不法
PX
経済などを除い
ても,年間1億6
千万ドルに達したという(新東亜,1970.9月号:130)
。そのうち京畿道内の
米軍専用ホール200余りを通じて稼ぎいれる収入だけでも6百万ドルに達したが,政府は基地
村ホールから観光振興という名目で毎月一定額を徴収した。米軍専用ホールは「観光振興法」
によって毎月500ドルを銀行に預金しなければならなかったが,この法定ドルを納められなけ
れば当局から許可取消処分を受けもした。
1970年代に入って女性の
セクシュアリティが外貨稼ぎの主な資源と国家経済成長の足掛かり
として認識されると,
「洋公主」は「民間外交官」
「経済建設のために必要な外貨を獲得するた
めに身体を捧げる」
「愛国者」と呼ばれ始めた。特にニクソン・ドクトリン以降米軍撤収が憂慮
されていた時期,韓国政府は基地村の女性を国家安保のための必須の存在として認知し,性的
に接触する米軍に
「民間外交官」
の役割を果たすよう教育した。性病予防教育と簡単な英語講座,
米国式の礼節教育が「教養講座」という美名の下,主に保健所や警察署で行われた。キム・ヨ
ンジャは
「洋公主」
が
「愛国者」
と呼ばれていた教養講座を次のように振り返る。
「ふむふむ,
えー,
あなた方は愛国者です。勇気と誇りをもってドル獲得に寄与することを忘れてはいけません。
えー,私はみなさんのような隠れた愛国者のみなさんに感謝いたす次第です」
(キム・ヨンジャ,
2005)
。
このように,反共―親米主義的な思考回路をもとに西欧流の発展論理を無批判に追求してき
た韓国式近代化の歴史の中で,基地村の女性は米軍に「体を売る」汚い「洋ガルボ」として社
会的な蔑視の対象となったが,時には国益に寄与するドル稼ぎの「愛国者」と呼ばれた。韓国
政府は特殊区域の指定,酒類免税,韓米親善協議会,韓米親善郡民協議会,韓国特殊観光協議
会など数々の名目と制度をつくり,女性を継続的に統制し搾取してきたが,公式の歴史の中で
は彼女たちの存在は可視化されて来なかった。大韓民国全体が「洋公主」が保証する国家安保
に依存し,
「洋セクシ」が稼いだ金に,あるいは彼女たちの職場と結びついた経済構造に寄生し,
一定程度アメリカの「慰安婦」となって生きてきた歴史は沈黙の記憶の中に埋められるしかな
かった。
結論的には,基地村を通じてアメリカは外部に露出することのない孤立した地域で米軍の性
的欲求を安全に解決し,民主主義と自由の守護者というイメージを維持することができたし,
韓国政府は国家経済と安保の保証を得ながら韓国社会全般の性産業の形態,奇形的な産業発展,
家父長的イデオロギーと結びついた基地村の問題を米軍基地だけの問題に還元することで,国
家の問題を地域化,個人化,種別化することに成功した。
4
.日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村「洋公主」の相同性
では,特定の歴史的な局面において構成され,日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村「洋公主」を
歴史的な連続線上で思考するというのはどういう意味だろうか? 日本軍慰安所と米軍基地村
がもつ制度としての違い,歴史的時空間の違いがあるにも関わらず,筆者はそれらを弁別的主
体として特定の局面にのみそれぞれ停泊させないことによって遂に「見えるもの」があると考
える。
第一に,制度として,日本軍慰安所と米軍基地村は近代以降軍事化された世界秩序の歴史的
断面を表している。
両制度はともに,自国の軍人の士気の高揚,戦闘力の維持,性病の効率的
な防止のために考案されたもので,そのために人種化された他国の女性の身体が動員されたと
いう共通点をもつ。シンシア・エンロー(
Enloe
,2000)が指摘
したように,軍事主義は金と武
器だけでは存続できず,特定の性的関係を保障する政策に依存する
(253)
。したがって,軍事
主義の企画においてジェンダー関係は男性軍人に対比される対象(性的対象としての他国の女
性)を維持,再生産するように組織されなければならず,それは男性軍人の再生産のための必
須条件となる。
軍社会化された世界秩序の中で,地域と国家内の安保のパラダイムは依然として女性の暴力
の経験を沈黙させる機制として働く。周知の通り国家安保の論理は,朴正煕政権以降,反共・
規律社会としての大韓民国を支える主要なイデオロギーのひとつであった。それは,第一に米
軍と基地村周辺の韓国国民の暴力に対する女性の抵抗行為を軍事的同盟関係を損なわせる反政
府的行為と判断させ,第二に米軍基地反対運動と基地村性売買反対運動を国家安保を害する反
国家的行為と判断させ,80年~90年代初期まで反基地(村)運動を抑圧する機制となり,第三
にニクソン・ドクトリン当時米軍撤収の危機に直面すると「洋公主」を国家発展に寄与する「愛
国者」と呼ぶ欺瞞的政策が採用された背景となる。
そのような軍事主義的経済は,最近の全地球化されたセックス観光産業の拡大の根幹にもな
る。バタチャリヤ(
Bhattachar yya
,2002)の指摘のように,グローバル・セックス労働の枠組
みは冷戦時代に確立し,この時期はグローバルな性的サービスがアメリカ化した商品文化のス
タイルを借用した時期でもあ
る(121)
。韓国の近代的性売買の根幹が日帝強占期に確立され,
それをもとにした基地村と妓生観光の構築,韓国内性産業の拡散,基地村への外国人性労働者
の流入という歴史的な過程を考慮すると,韓国の性売買の歴史において冷戦体制の中の軍事主
義的経済の影響力は決して無視してはならないだろう。とりわけ近年全地球的な生産関係の再
組織化は,単位国家と民族的境界を越えて廉価で代替可能な労働力のプールを創出し,超国家
的な性産業に流入する人々の数を増加させて来た。このような状況で富国(
richer nations
)の
軍事的権力が貧しく従属的な地域に居座ると,その軍人の存在は地域経済を変化させ
(
Bhattachar yya
,2002:121)
,同時に異国的な(
exotic
)他国の女性への男性の接近度を高める
ばかりでなく,そのような幻想の主体を再生産する機能を果た
す。2010年現在
,平澤の米軍基
地内に多数のフィリピン人性売買女性が存在するという事実は,国家の従属性と女性のセクシュ
アリティの関係の中に記入される異国的なファンタジーがどのように第三の国家(駐屯国)に
おいて具現されるのかを赤裸々に物語っている。
何より,朝鮮半島は冷戦体制が唯一存続している地域で,冷戦時代のパラダイムが依然とし
て有効な場所である。
「銃口」を突きつけている外部の「敵」が明らかな状況で,
名もない「人間」
の犠牲は常に国家安保の名のもとに正当化される。問題は,そのような犠牲の時期にも完全に
消滅する名前と思い出される名前に二分されるという点である。国家安保のため壮烈に戦死し
た国軍兵士は記憶されるべき名前だが,国家安保のために動員される身体としての女性は消さ
れなければならない名前となる。
第二に,慰安婦制度や基地村制度は,被殖民地,地域男性の意図的/非意図的な共謀があっ
たために可能だったシステムである。
まず,すでに少し言及したように,日本軍慰安所に朝鮮
女性が大規模に強制動員されえた背景には,伝統的な儒教・家父長社会において「嫁入り前の」
朝鮮の処女の性的純血が疑いの余地無く「事実」として認識されたという点である。何よりも
実際に朝鮮人男性の共謀がなければ,かくも多くの朝鮮女性が「挺身隊」という美名の下で組
織的に動員されえただろうか(日帝強占期の公娼制を維持できた大規模な人身売買の体系をは
じめ慰安婦動員を仲介するときに朝鮮男性が介入したという事実は,生存者の証言や多数の歴
史的資料からすでに確認されている)?まして「慰安婦」の動員に関わった韓国内の男性によ
る証言の不在,
「慰安婦」問題自体に関する韓国社会の長い沈黙,公論化されて以降も継続する
民族の「羞恥」という強力な言説が物語るものは何だろうか?
米軍の休息と娯楽のための空間として,基地村もまた韓米両国の同盟の中で建設されたが,
韓国国民の「日常の承認(
daily acceptance
)
」
(67)がなければ維持されるのは困難であっただ
ろう。米軍政下で米軍兵士クラブを運営した者は韓国人男性であり,その後確立された基地村
の性売買を経営し管理する者もまた韓国人であった。彼らの経営手法が,
チョン・ジンソン
(2003)
が明らかにした日帝時代の企業慰安所の形態と類似しているという点もまた驚くべき事実では
ない。性売買の抱主やクラブの事業主のみならず,不動産業者,地域の公務員と警察,周辺の
商人もみな日常の中で米軍の存在を「当然のもの」として受け入れた。しかし,
皮肉にもその「当
然のもの」は社会的な「害毒」をもたらす「性病保菌者」として,
「隔離」の対象である「洋公主」
という非正常な存在と同時性をもっている
-220-
立命館言語文化研究23巻2号
「若者と子どもたちに害毒をもたらすので,彼女らを防止できないのであれば,いっその
こと隅に追いやって」隔離しなければならない(韓国日報,1955年12月12日)
。
「特殊地帯を設置し設定する問題は内務部との意見の食い違いによって遅れていはいる
が,米軍の娯楽施設の指定要求は第一に衛生的で,第二に保健上支障を来たさない施設を
指定することだというのに,
売春女性の性病保菌問題が大きな難題であるという(朝鮮日報,
1958年2月2日)
。
このようにつくられた米軍基地村という「正常」でない状況は,
「正常性というカモフラージュ
(
camouflage of normalcy
)
」
(
Enloe
,2000:66)によって隠されてきた。基地村の構成的な「非
正常性」は,第一に,基地村経済(米軍の存在)を通じて得る日常の中の物質的利益とともに,
より大きくは国家的利益の計算を通じて隠されてきた。第二に,非正常性の民族的羞恥は,韓
国内に存在する「女性」への男性中心的な規範と結びついて「正常化」される。すなわち,米
軍の存在が汚い女性の身体を通じてのみ維持されうる(私が実際やっていけるのは,あの汚い
洋カルボのおかげである)という「認定不可能な」非正常性は,性的規律の対象として男/女
を区別し,
民族的範疇においてそれらを位階化することによって正常化されるのである。しかし,
非/正常性が常に存在するという事実だけで,
「正常性」は民族的不安を通じて暫定的に縫合さ
れているに過ぎないという逆説を表している。エンローが看破したように,いかに軍基地が地
域のカモフラージュを獲得するかという問題についての理解は,国際的軍事同盟が維持される
方法についての理解の本質であり,それを維持させる「正常性」は既存の男性性/女性性に関
する思考に依存す
る(67)
。そのため「慰安婦」と「洋公主」は,はじめから男性間関係を形成
し維持し再生産する構造の中に置かれ深く根づいており,ジェンダー関係の(再)構築と不可
分の関係にある。
第三に,両問題は,民族主義の高揚のためのアリバイとして動員される女性の「凄惨な」経
験という側面において相同性をもつ。
これこそが,
「慰安婦」と「洋公主」の身体がなぜ大韓民
国の国民の無知と関心,沈黙と暴露の不連続線上に置かれるのかを説明してくれる。被植民者
の去勢された男性(性)=無能な国家と民族を象徴する記標としての「慰安婦」
,羨望と屈辱の
空間としての基地村,卑屈な韓国男性の二重性を顕現する存在としての「洋公主」は隠される
べき民族の羞恥であると同時に国家の自主権,民族の自尊心,植民地主義と帝国主義の残忍さ
を告発する記標として選択されてきた。このうち「ユン・グミ事件」は,
「洋公主」の現存が韓
国社会で公認された初の事件として記録されるべきものである。当時米軍によって凄惨に殺害
された「洋公主」の身体は,主権を侵奪された祖国と同一視され,基地村は奪われた民族の領
土として召喚された。こうして,
生前ただの一度も
「真の」
民族の一員になれなかった
「汚い」
「洋
カルボ」は,死後はじめて「民族の魂」として昇華した。アメリカ帝国主義の「犠牲」となっ
た女性の身体は,その後反帝,反米民族主義運動を後押しする触媒として機能した。このよう
に「慰安婦」と「洋公主」という存在の「公認」が,韓国の民主化と民族主義意識が高揚した
1990年代という時代的同時性をもつという点は,偶然というよりは必然であると思われる。
もちろん,民族のパラダイムは,植民地主義と帝国主義による女性の性的搾取の問題を読み
取らせるという長所がある。なかんずく韓国で民族主義の言説は,政府の対日,対米交渉時に
相当なレバレッジ効果〔てこの原理〕を生み出してきたし,十分に脱植民地化されていない国
家に対する根本的な問いへと転換されうるという点で意味がある。実質的に市民社会の強力な
抵抗が政府に交渉力を付与し,対日,対米従属関係において民族の自尊心を律する道具的な機
能も果たす。しかし,それは当面の国家(政府)の利益に合致するときにのみ選択的に使用さ
れるという限界があり,民族とジェンダーの二重の関係について説明することはできない。ま
して韓国の植民地の歴史と植民地性の克服の問題を内部から省察するよりは,日本による過去
「清算」
,あるいは駐韓米軍撤収の観点にのみ還元することで,
「韓国男性の主体の位置は消え去
ると同時に曖昧になる」
(
Yang
,1998:168)
。この不透明さこそ隠された主体の位置を確認し,
安定化するのに寄与する。
民族主義は,文化的な再現体系(
systems of cultural representation
)であると同時に社会的な
差異がつくられ遂行される歴史的実践(
historical practices
)である(
McClintock
,1996:260)
。
民族主義はしばしば暴力的で,常に性別化された社会的競争を通じて人々のアイデンティティ
を構成する(260)
。なぜならば民族は,民族国家の資源への接近を制限もし,正当化もする文
化的な再現をめぐる競合体系(
contested system
)だからである。
そのため,
性的に侵害された女性という象徴を通じて,
国家の自主権と民族の自尊心を主張し,
日帝侵略と米軍駐屯の問題を提起しようとした男性(集団)
(ら)の「慰安婦」
「洋公主」言説
からわれわれが読み取るべきは,民族主義と女性の矛盾した関係だけでなく,暴力の技術と政
治的な権力の関係がどのように具体的に女性の身体を通じて具現され,維持されるのかについ
ての洞察である。
結論的には,日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村の「洋公主」問題は,国家と女性の二重の関係
を物語っている。どんな形であれ継続すべき国家間関係の中で,優先的に考慮すべき事柄,排
除されたり沈黙されるべき事柄にジェンダーがどのように介入したのかを示しているのである。
国家の必要性にもとづいて女性の身体/セクシュアリティが動員されたが,非難の対象,沈黙
の主な対象は女性であり,国家は時々偽善的な代弁者,事後の保護者として登場する。
かくし
てわれわれは,植民地主義と帝国主義が被植民地/他国女性の身体/セクシュアリティを活用
する方法とともに,民族(主義)がそれを解決できる代案的,抵抗的実体として存在しないと
いう悲しい現実を直視することになる。日帝によって「つくられた」慰安婦は,植民地支配の
終息後も継続する植民地性の残存物が重層的に機能した「結果物」であり,植民地支配終息後
の韓日関係の中で依然として清算されていない過去と現在の象徴である。同時に,基地村「洋
公主」は過去を十分に清算できないまま再植民地化を経験し,それを完全に克服できなかった
後期植民地国家の凄絶な現実の証拠となる象徴である。そのため証拠は,実体を「非存在化」
する戦略を通じて削除されてきた。
歴史の中で慰安婦と洋公主は,民族の羞恥だからであろうと,国際関係における外交的な理
由からであろうと,国防と経済開発の目的であろうと隠されるべき非存在であったが,かろう
じて明らかになる,あるいは明らかにせざるをえない彼女らの「実存性」は,非存在化という
戦略が必然的な失敗であることを暴露する。存在の否認,非存在の矛盾した認定が折り重なり
交差する中で,
「慰安婦」または「洋公主」という「女性の身体」は,第一に外部の他者(敵)
を確認する機制であり,第二に内部の境界を(再)構成する機制として活用されてきた。日本
やアメリカの立場から見ると,女性の身体は「外部の他者(敵)
」を攻略したり無力にする機制
であり,彼らの内部の男性性を再構築する基盤となる。韓国の立場から見ると,それらの女性
の身体は実質的に両国の関係を持続させる足掛かりとなってきたが,時に日本軍と米軍の「残
忍さ」の証拠となり,日本帝国主義,アメリカ帝国主義の不道徳さに対比される韓国民族の道
徳的な優位を確認したり,
「強い民族=男性性」を再構築するために動員される。何よりも他国
によって性的侵奪を受けた「貞操を捨てた女性」は「正しい女性」に対する反対抗的なリファ
レンス(
reference
)
〔参照点〕として機能し,効果的に女性を分ける境界線となる。
「慰安婦」
や「洋公主」は,民族国家の設立過程で望ましい「女性」をつくるための規制的(
regulator y
)
フレームとして機能したに過ぎず,
物的存在と身体としての女性の経験は削除される。そのため,
実在した物的存在としての「女性」
(慰安婦であれ洋公主であれ)は,大韓民国の歴史と現在に
おいて非存在として幽霊のように彷徨するが,適切な時期に動員される「記標」はむしろ実存
性を獲得するのである。
このような存在/非存在の交差過程における逆説は,男性(男性により代弁される国家)同
士の葛藤・対話において主体にも客体にもなれないまま,それらの関係の「場」となったり主
張の材料として活用される「女性の身体」ではなく,女性(ジェンダー関係)不在の男性同士
の関係,国家間の関係が成立しえないということを暴露するという点である。結論的には,ジェ
ンダー関係を通じて縫合された大文字の歴史,国際関係,国家安保と経済成長,民族の自尊心
という言説の脆さがみずから内部崩壊する地点を指し示すという点において,
「慰安婦」と「洋
公主」言説の構成体系は相同性をもつのである
5
.脱植民地の可能性のために:解決されない諸争点
第一に,戦時性暴力との関係性と差別性の問題
である。すでに指摘したように,慰安婦と基
地村の制度は,女性個人と性購買者の個別の取引関係ではなく,国家の男性代理人同士が女性
の身体/性を交換する体系である。それらは,もちろん戦時下で行われる他国による占領国の
女性に対する組織的な強姦と性的搾取の問題に関連するが,慎重に分離すべき必要性も提起さ
れる。まず,
「慰安婦」制度は,植民地状態で被植民地女性に対する性的暴力の問題であり,帝
国の拡張に動員された被植民地女性の身体/セクシュアリティの問題なので,一般的な戦時女
性暴力の問題とは弁別される
(チョン・ジンソ
ン,2003)
。基地村もまた,終戦ではない休戦体
制の下で,同盟国の兵士の性的欲求の解消とそれにもとづいて確固とした同盟関係を築くため
に駐屯地女性の身体/セクシュアリティが動員されたという特徴をもつ。もちろん,戦時慰安
所と米軍基地村の構成的な特徴に関してはより多くの実証的研究が必要だが,優先的に筆者は
(広義の)
「戦時体制」において国家の利益のために動員され交換される女性
の問題として,
「慰
安婦」と「洋公主」問題を読み解きたい。もちろんここには,女性同士の人種および階級の差
異の問題が記述されなければならないだろう。
「慰安婦」と「洋公主」の問題は,国家間,植民・
被植民地の権力の位階秩序において特定の人種(民族)の女性に対して行われる性的蹂躙の問
題なので,人種差別の問題と切り離すことができず,同じ時空間であってもすべての女性が同
じく経験する問題ではないので,
階級の問題でもある。社会的な階層分化が停滞していた日帝期
階層と地域にかかわらず多くの朝鮮女性が日本軍「慰安婦」として動員され(チョン・ジンソン,
2001:56)
,朝鮮戦争後多くの女性がただ生存のために基地村で働いたが,どのような文脈にお
いても与えられた選択肢が少なく,総体的に性的暴力に脆く,継続的な性的搾取から抜け出し
難い女性は,低所得層,低い階級の女性だからである。このような点から,われわれは階級化
され,性愛化され,人種化された女性の身体(
classed, sexualizedand racialized women
’
s bodies
)
が国家間の位階秩序の中でどのように位置づけられるのかという認識論の地図を描けるだろう
し,それを通じて既存の秩序に亀裂を入れる抵抗の拠点をつくりだせるだろう。
第二に,性売買(
prostitution
)との関係設定の問題
である。強制性(強制動員,誘い込み,
強制労働,欺き,詐欺など)
,暴力および人権侵害的な要素(賃金搾取を含む)
,男性同士の関
係網の中で取引されたり活用される女性の身体,被害者が被害を打ち明け難いばかりでなく,
みずから羞恥心と烙印を抱いて生きていく構造としての男性中心主義的なセクシュアリティの
問題という点などにおいて,日本軍「慰安婦」と基地村「洋公主」は,一般的な「性売買」と
類似の側面をもつ。しかし,性売買との類似点または連続線を強調すると,歴史的な差別性の
問題が無化されるという点ばかりでなく,被害者に責任を転嫁する
男性中心的なセクシュアリ
ティの構造
に再び行き着くというジレンマに陥る。特に,
「みずから貞操を捨てた女性」に対す
る強力な家父長的パラダイムと実践的構造が常に存在する限り,それらの共通点を指摘するこ
とは現実的でも抵抗的でもない。
一般的に韓国社会で通用する「慰安婦」言説は「動員され強要された性奴隷制」という家父
長的なパラダイム,
「踏みにじられた純粋な民族の処女性」という民族主義的パラダイムにもと
づいており,その根底で強力に働いているのは強制性と任意性にもとづく性売買に関する認識
枠組みである。自発性にもとづく性売買女性と区別してこそ耳に届く「慰安婦」言説という逆
説は,性売買が汚く醜いもので,女性の選択にもとづいたものであるという見方を前提として
いる。強制性にもとづいてこそ犯罪行為が成立すると考える視点もまた,性売買=罪や悪とい
う認識論とさほど異ならない。このような二分法的な見方が存在する限り,またみずから強制
性を証明できない限り,
「洋公主」が自身の経験を公論化することは難しいだろう。
実際,韓国社会にはこのような観点から日本軍「慰安婦」と米軍基地村「洋公主」を切り離
して,思考してきた。それは,慰安婦運動陣営においても一定期間維持されてきた立場だった。
「慰安婦は,当時の公娼制度下の
日本人売春女性とは異なり
,国家と公権力によって軍隊
から
強制的
に性的慰安を与えることを強要された
性奴隷
であった」
(従軍慰安婦問題第2次
調査発表に対するわれわれの立場)
このような主張は,
「慰安婦」言説を構成する男性中心の論理,とりわけ過去を否認する日本
の右派の立場(慰安婦=売春婦)を否定するためには適切であるかのように見えるが,性売買
の論理の根底にある男性中心の論理を再度認める愚を犯すことになる。それは,性売買女性と
そうでない女性,強制的に「やられた」
「かわいそうな」女性とそうでない「不穏な」女性を分
けるという点で強力な家父長制のコードと出会い,
結局「強制的に騙されて連れて来られた女性」
のみが同情の対象となり,そうでない女性の経験は沈黙されるという結果を生んだ。何より
自発/強制の論理に束縛された純粋な被害者/不純な同調者という二分法の問題は,性売買に
従事する女性のみに注目し,それと関わる男性を免責する機制として働くという問題点がある。
男性主体が民族主義と帝国主義(植民地主義)の言説を通じて一度,性売買言説を通じて二度
隠される間に,女性は二重,三重の傷を負ってきた。
「どのように性売買女性となったのか」と
いう問いが隠しているものは結局,
「慰安婦」や「洋公主」の後ろ指を差してきた韓国国民の情
緒に共通に流れる家父長的イデオロギーの偽善的な顔であり,植民地主義と帝国主義が発話す
る場所である。日本政府が慰安婦問題を取り上げるたびに持ち出す「官憲による強制連行はな
かった」という主張(チョン・ジンソ
ン,2007:404)
,それを裏付ける公文書の不在に対する
主張,基地村に(韓,米)国が介入していたという公的な証拠が不在であるという主張が,実
際は性売買女性を非難する狭義の自発/強制の概念と相通ずるという点を想起しなければなら
ないだろう。
そのため,狭義の強制性を超えた概念の設定が必要であり,最終的に自発/強制という二項
対立的な論理構造にもとづく性売買パラダイムを克服する必要がある。非/自発的に「体を売
る女性」を体系的につくりあげる制度とイデオロギーに対して問題提起するには,条件によっ
て制限された選択肢を選択せざるを得ない文脈への理解が先行されなければならない。何より,
自発であれ強制であれ,女性の身体/セクシュアリティが位置する場において行われる搾取と
暴力,抑圧の効果に注目すべきである。このとき,体系的な国家介入の問題,自発的にやめる
ことのできない状況的問題,烙印の問題とそれを通じた暫定的あるいは最終的に利益を獲得す
る者の問題は必ず問わなければならない事項である。それは,現在も継続している駐屯軍によ
る暴力と搾取,清算されていない植民地性と歴史的責任の問題から大韓民国,日本,アメリカ
政府のいずれもが自由でありえないということを告発するのである。
最後に残された問題は,普遍的な人権言説に訴える方法と超国家的にアジェンダ化するとき
に直面するジレンマ
である。アメリカと国連,そして人権関連の国際機構の実践を批判的に検
討したグルーアル(
Grewal
,1998)は,国際
化という美名の下で行われている実践様式のみな
らず,グローバル・フェミニストの活動の中においてすら,人権言説は多様性と多元論に関す
る非‐衝突的(
non-conflictual
)モデルに包摂された普遍主義概念にもとづいていると評価した
(520)
。したがってグルーアルは,暴力の対象を再現する方法だけでなく,再現する者の主体構
成(
subject-constitution
)の方法もまた探究の対象となるべきであると主張する。これは,特定
の歴史的局面において誰が誰を代弁して語るのか? どのような文脈で何が聞こえ,何が黙殺
されるのか? 誰が誰の代わりとなり,誰に語る権利,判断する権利を付与するのか? とい
う質問につながり,現実的に「女性問題」を国際的に公論化する方法と密接に関わっている。
現在まで日本軍「慰安婦」運動は,イシューの社会化,歴史化,国際化という点において大
きく貢献してきた。しかし実質的に国内のみならず国際的に,とりわけ国連の人権機構にそれ
を知らせアジェンダ化するたびに直面するジレンマは,特定の時空間において恣意的に選択さ
れる女性の経験に関する問題であり,それを選択する主体の位置性である。何よりも「普遍的
な女性の経験」
「普遍的な人権言説」によって装飾されてこそ国際社会で訴える力をもつという
点である。
NGO
の立場で選択せざるを得ないもっとも効率的な運動方法は聞こえるものを聴け
る場所にまで引き連れていくことであるが,問題は特定の事案を構成する歴史的な文脈が削除
されたまま,それを受け入れ公論化「してあげる」主体‐権力の位置性のみがますます足場を
固めていくという点である。その主体‐権力が植民地主義と帝国主義の拡大をリードした国家
であるならば,ますます問題である。このような難題は,
「日系米国国会議員の発議‐米下院の
決定‐日本政府に対する圧力行使」というナラティブの構造
を持った2007
年の米下院の日本軍
「性奴隷制」謝罪決議案の採択過程で克明に現れた。その過程で結果的に浮かび上がったのは,
非西欧国家の抑圧を非難し矯正しようとする(西欧の)
「自由の守護神」
「国際警察」としての
アメリカの国家的な位相である。
「植民地の過去の中に囚われている」
韓国女性の
「被害」
経験は,
「近代化され民主的な」
西欧男性と
「伝統的かつ家父長的な」
東洋男性の対話‐対決の場において,
アメリカ(西欧)の道徳的位相を高める道具として活用されたのである。このことを通じて逆
説的に明らかとなったのは,基地村「洋公主」が公論化されえない理由である。基地村問題は
実際に「聞くことができ,代わりに語ることのできる」権力の主体がみな関係している現在的
事案であり,したがって真の脱植民地国家への希望をもつことが不可能な企画であることが迂
回的に明らかとなったのである。
そのため,われわれが究極的に問わなければならない問題は,極端な暴力の被害者を再現す
る方法が,どのようにそれを再現(しようと)する主体の自己構成様式と結びつくかという点
であり,したがって究極的な分析の対象は被害者の経験ではなく,いかなる方法で,なぜ,誰
が被害者に注目するかである。
歴史を再考するとき常に,
ある事柄は説明されないままこぼれ落ち,
記憶の残存物として残る。
それは西欧的な思惟方法と理論的枠組みに傾倒したわれわれの(植民地化された)
「片目」の思
考によるものなのかも知れない。問題は,
説明されるべき当の対象は何層もの層位に囲い込まれ,
中心で安らかに隠れているという点である。他者は常に境界の政治学(包摂と排除)を通じて
区別され,項目化され,見える対象,分析の対象,説明して証明すべき対象として残るが,そ
れを行う権力‐主体は特権化された位置で目に見えない透明な存在として残る。今われわれの
問いは,
「慰安婦」
「洋公主」についてのものではなく,彼女らを構成しようとする権力,彼女
らについて沈黙したり語らせたりする権力,彼女らを位置づける権力,彼女らをして「事実」
の証明を要求する権力についてのものでなければならないだろう。明らかにされる「対象」を
通じて発話しようとする隠された欲望を追跡することこそが,性売買言説,植民地言説,民族
主義言説,被害者言説,人権言説などに安楽に寄りかかり隠れている主体の位置性を暴露する
作業となると思われるからである。かくしてわれわれは,大韓民国に残存する植民地性,歴史
的残滓としてのみならず全地球的な資本化の過程の中で継続する植民地主義と帝国主義の問題
を正面から凝視することになるだろう。
※本文の〔 〕内は訳zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-4557552563852168472015-08-21T16:54:00.000-07:002015-08-21T16:54:29.701-07:00The 'sanitised narrative' of Hiroshima's atomic bombingThe 'sanitised narrative' of Hiroshima's atomic bombing
By Rupert Wingfield-Hayes
BBC News
4 August 2015
From the section Asia
Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Media caption
Hiroshima survivor Keiko Ogura recalls the horror of what she saw
The US has always insisted that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary to end World War Two. But it is a narrative that has little emphasis on the terrible human cost.
I met a remarkable young man in Hiroshima the other day. His name is Jamal Maddox and he is a student at Princeton University in America. Jamal had just toured the peace museum and met with an elderly hibakusha, a survivor of the bombing.
Standing near the famous A-Bomb Dome, I asked Jamal whether his visit to Hiroshima had changed the way he views America's use of the atom bomb on the city 70 years ago. He considered the question for a long time.
"It's a difficult question," he finally said. "I think we as a society need to revisit this point in history and ask ourselves how America came to a point where it was okay to destroy entire cities, to firebomb entire cities.
"I think that's what's really necessary if we are going to really make sense of what happened on that day."
Damage in Hiroshima, 1945
A conventional view in the US is that while terrible, the use of the bomb brought an end to the war
It isn't the sort of thing you often hear said by Americans about Hiroshima. The first President George Bush famously said that issuing an apology for Hiroshima would be "rank revisionism" and he would never do it.
The conventional wisdom in the United States is that the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, and because of that it was justified - end of story.
Is that really the end of the story?
It's certainly a convenient one. But it is one that was constructed after the war, by America's leaders, to justify what they had done. And what they had done was, by any measure, horrendous.
Damage from US bombing of Tokyo (1945)
Tokyo had already been devastated by waves of US firebombing
It didn't start on 6 August. It had started months before with the fire bombing of Tokyo.
On 9 March 1945, 25 sq km (9.7 sq miles) of Tokyo were destroyed in a huge firestorm. The death toll was as large, or even larger, than the first day at Hiroshima. From April to July the relentless bombing continued in other parts of Japan.
Then came Hiroshima.
'There was no sound at all'
Keiko Ogura had just celebrated her eighth birthday. Her home was on the northern edge of Hiroshima behind a low hill. At 08:10 on 6 August, she was out on the street in front of the house.
Picture of a model showing the target of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima
The bomb was set to explode 500m (0.3 miles) above the ground for maximum destructive effect
"I was surrounded by a tremendous flash and blast at the same time," she says.
"I couldn't breathe. I was knocked to the ground and became unconscious. When I awoke I thought it was already night because I could not see anything, there was no sound at all."
What Keiko witnessed in the following hours is hard to comprehend.
By mid-morning, survivors of the blast began pouring out of the city looking for help. Many were in a terrible state.
"Most of the people who were fleeing tried to go to the hillside. There was a Shinto shrine near our house so many came here," she says.
"Their skin was peeling off and hanging. At first I saw some and I thought they were holding a rag or something, but really it was skin peeling off. I noticed their burned hair. There was a very bad smell."
Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Media caption
Witness: World's first atomic bomb attack
A deliberate civilian target
Eighteen-year-old Shizuko Abe was staggering out of the city, the whole right side of her body burned, her skin hanging off. Now 88, she still bears the terrible imprint of the bomb on her face and hands.
Yoshie Amaha, a patient at the Tokyo Imperial University Hospital, displaying injuries suffered as a result of the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima on the 6 August 1945.
Many of those who did not die from the initial impact of the bomb were left with horrific injuries
"I was burned badly on my right side and my left hand was also burned from the bomb. Fire was coming closer… We were told to run to rivers when hit by air raids so people jumped into the rivers.
"So many bodies were floating in the river that I could not even see the water," she says.
Somehow, despite the agony, she staggered to a medical station.
"They did not even have any dressing for the wounds. Many injured people lay their bodies down under the roof, so I found a place there as well to lie down. People around me were calling out 'Mother it hurts, Father it hurts'.
"When I stopped hearing that, I realised they had died right next to me."
Crew of the Enola Gay in a military parade in New York, April 1946
The crew of the Enola Gay were treated as heroes for dropping an A-bomb on the heavily populated city
Hiroshima was not a military target. The crew of the Enola Gay did not aim at the docks, or large industrial facilities.
Their target was the geographical centre of the city. The bomb was set to explode 500m (0.3 miles) above the ground for maximum destructive effect.
On the ground many survived the initial blast, but were trapped in the wreckage of their homes under wooden beams and heavy tiled roofs. Then the fires began.
Ms Abe remembers hearing the cries for help from beneath the debris as the flames swept forward.
"They were such sad voices calling out for help. Even 70 years later, I can still hear them calling out for help," she says.
Children in Hiroshima, Japan, wearing masks to combat the odour of death after the city was destroyed by the first atom bomb, October 1945.
Children who survived Hiroshima's bombing wear masks to cope with the smell of tens of thousands of corpses
No-one is sure how many died on that first day. Estimates start at 70,000. More than eight out of 10 were civilians.
If you look up "Hiroshima in colour" online, you will find some remarkable film that is now kept in the US national archives.
A US military team and Japanese camera crew shot more than 20 hours of film in March 1946. It is the most complete and detailed visual record of the after effects of the first atomic attack.
There is high-quality colour footage of the horrific scarring caused by flash burns from the bomb. There are injuries that had never been seen before.
'They should not thank the bomb'
What is all the more remarkable is that the film was not seen in public until the early 1980s. It was marked secret and suppressed by the US government for more than 30 years.
Instead, Americans were told a sanitised narrative of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: that a great scientific endeavour had brought quick victory, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.
A victim of the atomic bomb blast over Hiroshima, in a makeshift hospital in a bank building (Sept 1945)
Radiation poisoning, a previously unknown condition, would claim thousands more victims in the weeks after the bombing
Decades later when Ms Ogura travelled to the Washington DC to see the unveiling of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Museum, she was astonished to find this version of history still holding sway.
"Many American people said to me, '"Congratulations, you could come here thanks to the bombing! Without the bombing you would have to do hara-kiri, you know, commit suicide'."
"That is a very awful excuse. We do not blame the Americans, but they should not say that thanks to the bomb so many people could survive."
A lifetime of radiation secrecy
The atomic bombing has left one final legacy that sets it apart from all the other horrors of World War II.
In the weeks after the bombing otherwise healthy people began dying of a strange new illness. First they lost their appetite, then they began to run a high fever.
Finally strange red blotches began appearing under their skin. No-one knew it at the time, but these people were dying from radiation poisoning.
To this day many hibakusha keep their pasts a secret, afraid that their families will be discriminated against because of the fear of radiation.
"I had bad burns and looked deformed so I could not keep it secret," says Ms Abe. "My children were discriminated against. They were called 'A-bomb children'."
Tears fill her eyes as she describes what happened to them.
Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Media caption
Rupert Wingfield-Hayes takes a trip on the tram that survived the Hiroshima bombing
"They told me they had to choose a different route to come home from school because they were bullied and chased by the other children. I felt the pain my children had to go through because of their mother, because of me."
Even today some hide the fact that a grandparent is an A-bomb survivor, afraid their children may find it difficult to find a husband or wife.
The human cost
It is said that those who don't know their own history are condemned to repeat it. Japanese leaders are rightly criticised for their continued attempts to whitewash Japan's WWII crimes in China, Korea and South East Asia.
A file photo dated September 1945 of the remains of the Prefectural Industry Promotion Building after the bombing of Hiroshima, which was later preserved as the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, Atomic Bomb Dome or Genbaku Dome
One of the very few buildings that survived the blast was the Prefectural Industry Promotion Building
Picture of the A-bomb Dome in Hiroshima
Today it is known as the A-bomb Dome, a peace memorial to the bombing
It is also true that terror bombing was not invented by the United States. The Nazis unleashed it at Guernica in 1937 and again on British cities in 1940.
The Japanese bombed Chongqing for six years. The British destroyed Dresden and many other German cities.
But no other bombing campaign in WW2 was as intense in the destruction of civilian lives as the US bombing of Japan in 1945. Between 300,000 and 900,000 people died.
As Jamal Maddox put it to me so well, how was it that the country that entered the war to save civilisation ended it by slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians?zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-42049211373050229942015-08-21T04:06:00.002-07:002015-08-21T04:06:53.609-07:00ATOMIC BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WAS AN ILLEGAL ACT IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. 【英文】
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW - ATOMIC BOMBING OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI WAS AN ILLEGAL ACT IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.
The Japanese Government presented a letter of protest as stated below, to the Government of the United States through the Government of Switzerland on August 10, 1945.
August 10, 1945
A New-Type, Cruel Bomb Ignoring International law; Imperial Govern-ment Protest to the Government of the United States.
With regard to the attack by a new-type bomb on the city of Hiroshima by a B-29 bomber on the 6th inst. the Imperial Government filed the following protest on the 10th inst. to the Government of the United States through the Government of Switzerland, and gave instructions to the Japanese Minister to Switzerland, Kase, to make the explanation of explanation of the same effect to the Inter-national Committee of Red Cross.
Protest against the Attack of a New-Type Bomb by American Airplane:
On the 6th of this month, an airplane of the United States dropped a new-type bomb on the urban district of the city of Hiroshima, and it killed and wounded a large number of the citizens and destroyed the bulk of the city. The city of Hiroshima is an crdinary local city which is not provided with any military defensive preparations or establishments, and the whole city has not a character of a military objective. In the statement on the aerial bom-bardment in this case, the United States President “Truman” asserts that they will destroy docks, factories and transport facilities.
However, since the bomb in this case, dropped by a parachute, explodes in the air and extends the destructive effect to quite a wide sphere, it is clear to be quite impossible in technique to limit the effect of attack thereby to such specific objectives as mentioned above; and the above efficiency of the bomb in this case is already known to the United States. In the light of the actual state of damage, the damaged district covers a wide area, and those who were in the district were all killed indiscriminately by bomb-shell blast and radiant heat without dis-tinction of combatant or non-combatant or of age or sex. The damaged sphere is general and immense, and judging from the most cruel one that ever existed. It is a fundamental principle of international law in time of war that a belligerent has not an unlimited right in chosing the means of injuring the enemy, and should not use such weapons, projectiles, and other material as cause unnecessary pain; and these are each expressly stipulated in the annex of the Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and artices 22 and 23(e) of the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. Since the beginning of the present World War, the Government of the United States has declared repeatedly that the use of poison or other inhumane methods of warfare has been regarded as illegal by the pubic opin-ion in civilized countries, and that the United States would not use these methods of warfare unless the other countries used these first. However, the bomb in this case, which the United States used this time, exceeds by far the indiscriminate and cruel character of efficiency, the poison and other weapons the use of which has been prohibited hitherto because of such an efficiency. Disregarding a fundamental principle of international law and humanity, the United States has already made indiscriminate aerial bombardments on cities of the Empire in very wide areas, and it has already killed and injured a large number of old people, children, and women and collapsed or burned down shrines, temples, schools, hospital and ordinary private houses. Also, the United States has used the new bomb in this case which has indiscriminate and cruel character beyond comparison with all weapons and projectile of the past. This is a new offence against the civilization of mankind. The Imperial Government impeaches the Government of the United States in its own name and the name of all mankind and of civilization, and demands strongly that the Government of the United States give up the use of such an inhumane weapon instantly.
Note: Japan Branch of the International Law Association, Japanese Annual of International Law, 8, pp.251-2. (Tokyo: 1964)
米機の新型爆弾による攻撃に対する抗議文】
今月6日、米国航空機は、広島市の市街地区に対し新型爆弾を投下し、瞬時にして多数の市民を殺傷し同市の大半を潰滅させました。
広島市は、何ら特殊の軍事的防衛機能や、そのための施設を施していない普通の一地方都市です。
同市全体を、ひとつの軍事目標にするような性質を持つ町ではありません。
本件爆撃に関する声明において、米国トルーマン大統領は、「われらは船渠(せんきょ)工場および交通施設を破壊した」と言っています。
しかしこの爆弾は、落下傘を付けて投下され、空中で炸裂し、極めて広い範囲への破壊的効力を及ぼすものです。
つまり、この爆弾で、この投下方法を用いるとき、攻撃の効果を右のような特定目標に限定することは、物理的に全然不可能なことは明白です。
そして本件爆弾が、どのような性能を持つものであるかは、米国側は、すでに承知しているものです。
実際の被害状況は、広範囲にわたって交戦者、非交戦者の別なく、男女老幼を問わず、すべて爆風および幅射熱によって無差別に殺傷されました。
その被害範囲は広く、かつ甚大であるだけでなく、個々の傷害状況を見ても、「惨虐」なるものです。
およそ交戦者は、害敵手段の選択について、無制限の権利を有するものではありません。
不必要の苦痛を与えるような兵器、投射物その他を使用してはならないことは、戦時国際法の根本原則です。
そのことは、戦時国際法であるハーグ陸戦条約規則第22条、及び第23条(ホ)号に明定されています。
米国政府はこのたびの世界大戦勃発以来、再三にわたって、
「毒ガスその他の非人道的戦争方法の使用は文明社会の世論によって不法であり、相手国が先に使用しない限り、これを使用することはない」と声明しています。
しかし、米国が今回使用した本件爆弾は、その性能の無差別かつ惨虐性において、従来かかる性能を有するが故に使用を禁止せられをる毒ガスその他の兵器よりも、はるかに凌駕するものです。
米国は国際法および人道の根本原則を無視して、すでに広範囲にわたって日本の大都市に対して、無差別爆撃を実施しています。
多数の老幼婦女子を殺傷しています。
神社や仏閣、学校や病院、一般の民家などを倒壊または焼失させています。
そしてさらにいま、新奇にして、かつ従来のいかなる兵器、投射物とも比べ物にならない無差別性、惨虐性をもつ本件爆弾を使用したのです。
これは、人類文化に対する新たな罪悪です。
日本政府は、ここに自からの名において、かつまた、全人類、および文明の名において、米国政府を糾弾します。
そして即時、かかる非人道的兵器の使用を放棄すべきことを厳重に要求します。
昭和20年8月11日
zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-18959694154402130192015-08-21T04:04:00.001-07:002015-08-21T04:04:47.993-07:00Five myths about the atomic bomb<a href="http://megalodon.jp/2015-0821-2003-31/https://www.washingtonpost.com:443/opinions/five-myths-about-the-atomic-bomb/2015/07/31/32dbc15c-3620-11e5-b673-1df005a0fb28_story.html?tid=sm_tw">Five myths about the atomic bomb
By Gregg Herken July 31</a>
Gregg Herken is an emeritus professor of U.S. diplomatic history at the University of California and the author of “The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War” and “Brotherhood of the Bomb: The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller.” As a Smithsonian curator in 1995, he participated in early planning for the National Air and Space Museum’s Enola Gay exhibit.
On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Another bomb fell Aug. 9 on Nagasaki. Decades later, controversy and misinformation still surround the decision to use nuclear weapons during World War II. The 70th anniversary of the event presents an opportunity to set the record straight on five widely held myths about the bomb.
1. The bomb ended the war.
The notion that the atomic bombs caused the Japanese surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, has been, for many Americans and virtually all U.S. history textbooks, the default understanding of how and why the war ended. But minutes of the meetings of the Japanese government reveal a more complex story. The latest and best scholarship on the surrender, based on Japanese records, concludes that the Soviet Union’s unexpected entry into the war against Japan on Aug. 8 was probably an even greater shock to Tokyo than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima two days earlier. Until then, the Japanese had been hoping that the Russians — who had previously signed a nonaggression pact with Japan — might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war . As historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa writes in his book “Racing the Enemy,” “Indeed, Soviet attack, not the Hiroshima bomb, convinced political leaders to end the war.” The two events together — plus the dropping of the second atomic bomb on Aug. 9 — were decisive in making the case for surrender.
2. The bomb saved half a million American lives.
Footage from the Enola Gay and Hiroshima
Play Video4:45
Archive footage from the plane that dropped ‘Little Boy’ on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and the aftermath of that detonation. (Internet Archive)
In his postwar memoirs, former president Harry Truman recalled how military leaders had told him that a half-million Americans might be killed in an invasion of Japan. This figure has become canonical among those seeking to justify the bombing. But it is not supported by military estimates of the time. As Stanford historian Barton Bernstein has noted, the U.S. Joint War Plans Committee predicted in mid-June 1945 that the invasion of Japan, set to begin Nov. 1, would result in 193,000 U.S. casualties, including 40,000 deaths.
But, as Truman also observed after the war, if he had not used the atomic bomb when it was ready and GIs had died on the invasion beaches, he would have faced the righteous wrath of the American people.
3. The only alternative to the bomb was an invasion of Japan.
The decision to use nuclear weapons is usually presented as either/or: either drop the bomb or land on the beaches. But beyond simply continuing the conventional bombing and naval blockade of Japan, there were two other options recognized at the time.
The first was a demonstration of the atomic bomb prior to or instead of its military use: exploding the bomb on an uninhabited island or in the desert, in front of invited observers from Japan and other countries; or using it to blow the top off Mount Fuji, outside Tokyo. The demonstration option was rejected for practical reasons. There were only two bombs available in August 1945, and the demonstration bomb might turn out to be a dud.
The second alternative was accepting a conditional surrender by Japan. The United States knew from intercepted communications that the Japanese were most concerned that Emperor Hirohito not be treated as a war criminal. The “emperor clause” was the final obstacle to Japan’s capitulation. (President Franklin Roosevelt had insisted upon unconditional surrender, and Truman reiterated that demand after Roosevelt’s death in mid-April 1945.)
Although the United States ultimately got Japan’s unconditional surrender, the emperor clause was, in effect, granted after the fact. “I have no desire whatever to debase [Hirohito] in the eyes of his own people,” Gen. Douglas MacArthur, supreme commander of the Allied powers in Japan after the war, assured Tokyo’s diplomats following the surrender.
Footage of Nagasaki after the atomic bomb
Play Video2:26
Archive footage taken of the Japanese city of Nagasaki after it was destroyed by the atomic bomb ‘Fat Man’ on August 9, 1945. (Internet Archive)
4. The Japanese were warned before the bomb was dropped.
The United States had dropped leaflets over many Japanese cities, urging civilians to flee, before hitting them with conventional bombs. After the Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, which called on the Japanese to surrender, leaflets warned of “prompt and utter destruction” unless Japan heeded that order. In a radio address, Truman also told of a coming “rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this Earth.” These actions have led many to believe that civilians were meaningfully warned of the pending nuclear attack. Indeed, a common refrain in letters to the editor and debates about the bomb is: “The Japanese were warned.”
<b>
But there was never any specific warning to the cities that had been chosen as targets for the atomic bomb prior to the weapon’s first use</b>. The omission was deliberate: The United States feared that the Japanese, being forewarned, would shoot down the planes carrying the bombs. And since Japanese cities were already being destroyed by incendiary and high-explosive bombs on a regular basis — nearly 100,000 people were killed the previous March in the firebombing of Tokyo — there was no reason to believe that either the Potsdam Declaration or Truman’s speech would receive special notice.
5. The bomb was timed to gain a diplomatic advantage over Russia and proved a “master card” in early Cold War politics.
This claim has been a staple of revisionist historiography, which argues that U.S. policymakers hoped the bomb might end the war against Japan before the Soviet entry into the conflict gave the Russians a significant role in a postwar peace settlement. Using the bomb would also impress the Russians with the power of the new weapon, which the United States had alone.
In reality, military planning, not diplomatic advantage, dictated the timing of the atomic attacks. The bombs were ordered to be dropped “as soon as made ready.”
Postwar political considerations did affect the choice of targets for the atomic bombs. Secretary of War Henry Stimson ordered that the historically and culturally significant city of Kyoto be stricken from the target list. (Stimson was personally familiar with Kyoto; he and his wife had spent part of their honeymoon there.) Truman agreed, according to Stimson, on the grounds that “the bitterness which would be caused by such a wanton act might make it impossible during the long postwar period to reconcile the Japanese to us in that area rather than to the Russians.”
Like Stimson, Truman’s secretary of state, James Byrnes, hoped that the bomb might prove to be a “master card” in subsequent diplomatic dealings with the Soviet Union — but both were disappointed. In September 1945, Byrnes returned from the first postwar meeting of foreign ministers, in London, lamenting that the Russians were “stubborn, obstinate, and they don’t scare.”
zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-91382164573421686542015-08-21T03:55:00.001-07:002016-01-02T05:01:48.961-08:00The Scars of War: Vietnam Comfort Womenhttp://megalodon.jp/2016-0102-2146-38/www.nationofchange.org/2015/04/09/the-scars-of-war-vietnam-comfort-women/
<a href="http://megalodon.jp/2015-0821-1935-25/www.nationofchange.org/2015/04/09/the-scars-of-war-vietnam-comfort-women/">The Scars of War: Vietnam Comfort Women
comfortwomen4815
Unfortunately, many governments have drawn a line of distinction between the comfort women of World War II and the prostitutes in the wars that followed.
Published: April 9, 2015 | Authors: Lolita Di | NationofChange | Blog Post</a>
While there has been light shed on the issue of comfort women used by the Japanese Imperial Army during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) and World War II, not much has been discussed about the use of Vietnamese comfort women by South Korea.
During the Vietnam War (late 1960’s – early 1970’s) South Korea sent troops to Vietnam in an attempt to keep South Vietnam free from communism. It was reported later that many South Korean troops raped Vietnamese women and committed atrocities such as massacring farmers and aged people, and many others were forced into working as prostitutes for the South Korean soldiers. Many of these women would then later become pregnant and after these mixed Korean-Vietnamese children were born they were shunned by Vietnamese society and their soldier fathers returned to South Korea never to be seen or heard from again. The plight of these women was lost to history and not discussed until the late 1990’s when many of the victims began to speak out against the Vietnam and South Korean governments and demand recognition and compensation. To date the South Korean government has done little to acknowledge the issue but has continued to pursue further financial compensation from Japan for their own comfort women survivors and some say that their actions have become hypocritical and they are using the issue as their own political tool. In fact, South Korea orchestrated with Korean-American’s politically-driven campaign in the U.S. continent against Japan.
Acknowledgement and Compensation of Comfort Women
In 1973 Japanese author Kakou Senada published the first account of comfort women titled Military Comfort Women which detailed the Japanese army’s involvement in establishing comfort stations. The book was roundly criticized and attacked as being false, but it led to research into the issue. The Kono Statement of 1993, which was released by then Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan, Yohei Kono acknowledged the involvement of the military in the establishment of comfort stations and the coercion of the comfort women.
As a result, Japan set up the Asian Women’s Fund to compensate the victims of this practice partly funded by the Japanese government. Korea had also demanded compensation from the government and received $800 million in aid and loan packages over ten years. The South Korean government has been publicly supportive of the thousands of comfort women taken from their country and homes during the wars, even going after Japan for a second compensation. But history has shown that the Korean government was complicit in the use of comfort women.
Korea’s Use of Comfort Women
In large part due to testimony from survivors of the comfort station system, we now know that Korea established their own comfort women system during the Korean War (1950-1953). The Korean military set up two types of comfort stations—U.N. Comfort Stations for U.N. soldiers and Special Comfort Stations for Korean soldiers.
Many Korean women were forced to work in these comfort stations and many of those women were married and had children to support. Husbands were drafted into service and they had no other means to support their families. In many cases these comfort women were trucked to the front lines to service South Korean soldiers.
During the Vietnam War, South Korea sent troops to aid the anti-communist forces and while establishing their own comfort stations. Initially, South Korean soldiers raped many Vietnamese women then both the South Korean and Vietnamese military began to force Vietnamese women to work in comfort stations. In many cases children were produced as a result of the rapes and forced into sexual slavery as Vietnam comfort women.
These children are referred to as lai Daihan. The term is specific to children born of a South Korean father and a Vietnamese mother. It is unclear how many of these children were born, but estimates range in the tens of thousands. Unfortunately these children were ostracized by the Vietnamese and stigmatized because they were a product of rape and forced sexual encounters.
South Korea had set up a multi-operation comfort system for soldiers so they could use these women. The first was a “special comfort unit” named ‘T’uksu Wiandae’, and it operated from multiple stations. The second operations were mobile units for use in various locations. These mobile units visited the barracks of the soldiers. The third operation were prostitutes who worked in private brothels that were hired by the military. The women that were kidnapped and forced into this issue were from all over Asia.
The story of the Vietnam comfort women and their shunned children only came to light in the 1990s and 2000s as South Korea had increasing financial investments in Vietnam. But even though South Korea has demanded compensation from Japan—twice—for the Korean survivors of the comfort stations and has publicly supported these women, they have yet to acknowledge their own establishment of comfort stations, both in their own country during the Korean War and the use of them with Vietnamese women during the Vietnam War.
In addition to the establishment of comfort stations in Vietnam and the rampant rape of Vietnamese women, the South Korean military was also responsible for some other war crimes in the country. One particular incident involved the massacre of unarmed Vietnamese civilians, mostly women and children, at Phong Ni and Phong Nhat in 1968. Additionally, the Korean government publicly admonished the United States military for producing and then leaving behind many children during the Korean War, but they have continued to ignore the children produced through rape and sexual slavery of Vietnam comfort women.
But the Vietnamese are not unaware of the horrible treatment of these children. The term lai Daihan translates to Daihan, the Vietnamese word for Korea, and lai which implies contempt for that mixed blood. Nationalism and racism is common among the people of Southeast Asia and this has fueled the shunning of these children both by the Vietnamese and the Koreans.
The Legacy of The Vietnam Comfort Women and Their Children
While Korea continues to go after Japan and use the comfort women issue as a political tool they still ignore the victims of their own past crimes during conflicts within the region.
Former South Korean soldiers and civilian workers stationed in Vietnam during the war have continued to deny the existence of their children as has the government of South Korea. Some estimates put the number of Vietnamese comfort women at around 5,000 to 30,000 but no one knows an exact number. And they cannot be easily verified because of the secretive nature of the government.
The issue has largely remained a secret and information from the Vietnam War period has been hard to come by, though there is documentation that the Viet Cong did report to the Korean military on the huge numbers of rapes and kidnappings of Vietnamese comfort women by Korean troops during the war.
With more and more Korean survivors, among others, coming forward and giving testimony to what they suffered, the hope is that the truth about Vietnamese comfort women and their children will eventually come to light.
Kim Bok-dong, a Korean survivor of the Japanese comfort stations, along with the Korean Council for Military Sexual Slavery(Women Drafted) , who have helped protests every Wednesday in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul, recently met with victims of sexual slavery and violence committed by South Korean soldiers in Vietnam. The council members want the issue of all comfort women brought to light, in addition to recognition by the governments who allowed and encouraged the practice.
In 2001 at a summit meeting with the Vietnamese government, Kim Dae-jung, then South Korean president, expressed regret for the abuses committed by South Korean soldiers against the Vietnamese during the war, but many say the statement didn’t go far enough. Kim Bok-dong said after the meeting with Vietnamese survivors, “The government should resolve the wrongdoing its countrymen committed. It cannot ignore these acts.”
But while statues have been erected to commemorate the lives and suffering of comfort women at the hands of the Japanese and protest have been held to pressure Japan to take official responsibility for their actions, the plight of comfort women used by South Korea, both during the Korean War and Vietnam War has largely gone ignored.
The United States government has gotten involved in pressuring Japan, as has the U.N. Human Rights Commission, but the former comfort women from the Korean and Vietnam wars are seeking Korea to also step up and take responsibility for their own actions, even as they call loudly for Japan to do the same.
Vietnamese Comfort Women and the U.S. Military
Prostitution was big business during the Vietnam War and many American servicemen took advantage of this service. Thousands of women worked out of camps and bars that sprung up around U.S. military bases. Many of these women got pregnant and the resulting children—some estimates put the number around 50,000—were shunned and ostracized, much like the children of mixed Korean and Vietnamese descent.
These children are called ‘bui doi‘ which translates to “dirt of life.” The women, too, were shunned and forced to live a life of poverty. Considering the history of comfort women used by both the Japanese and Korean military, and the coercion of many Korean women into forced prostitution, one wonders how many of these prostitutes were also coerced. It may not have been done by the Vietnamese government directly, but if prostitution is illegal in the country, then the government turned a blind eye. It is believed they may have even encouraged the practice to generate income.
Many of the thousands of women working as prostitutes during the Vietnam War were held against their will by pimps and lured with the promise of good-paying, respectable jobs so they could support their families in a country torn apart by war. They would never see most of the money, if any, paid to their pimps or the bar owners by the American soldiers. In some cases women were injected with silicone to make them more shapely so that the American soldiers would feel more “at home” with the Asian women.
While the U.S. military did not officially condone the practice of prostitution around military bases, they didn’t do anything to stop it, either. In many cases, soldiers on leave would go to surrounding countries where a similar set-up existed, such as in Thailand. Many of these hubs of prostitution were referred to as ‘rest & recreation’ sites. So even among the U.S. military, the practice was unofficially encouraged. If the men were kept happy, they followed orders and stayed in line.
And there were many instances of rape by soldiers during the war, among the other atrocities committed against the civilian population. It seems there has always been the misguided perception that allowing prostitution or establishing comfort stations would reduce rape, but that is a fallacy, as is the idea that the spread of sexually transmitted disease can somehow be controlled.
Governments also turn a blind eye and even encourage prostitution with the belief that it can elevate the socioeconomic status of the country. By permitting either system, governments allow the rape, abuse, and exploitation of women.
Unfortunately, many governments have drawn a line of distinction between the comfort women of World War II and the prostitutes in the wars that followed. They cite that fact that prostitutes were paid, so they couldn’t possibly have been forced. Whether forced through kidnapping, lured with the promise of a job, or coerced due to financial constraints, it is still exploitation of women.
What these governments refuse to acknowledge is that the women who worked as prostitutes were cheated out of any money and many were forced and held against their will.
While many have pressured the Japanese government to acknowledge and atone for their use of comfort women, many of these same governments should acknowledge their roles in the exploitation of these women. It’s time for Korea, Vietnam, and the United States to take responsibility for their actions and their encouragement of abuse.zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-37009240400548615982015-06-05T08:21:00.000-07:002015-06-05T08:21:00.660-07:00慰安婦はドルを稼ぐ愛国者<a href="http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%9F%93%E5%9B%BD%E8%BB%8D%E6%85%B0%E5%AE%89%E5%A9%A6">韓国軍慰安婦</a>
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rI4gOP94IDc/VUeNvFz0qjI/AAAAAAAAAqQ/ATi1oEdQjw4/s1600/001.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rI4gOP94IDc/VUeNvFz0qjI/AAAAAAAAAqQ/ATi1oEdQjw4/s640/001.jpg" /></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tFcs_AY-Lsg/VUeNY_Z3ysI/AAAAAAAAAqI/leE0g3qUAEg/s1600/002.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tFcs_AY-Lsg/VUeNY_Z3ysI/AAAAAAAAAqI/leE0g3qUAEg/s640/002.jpg" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J1MlG1fp60E/VUeNXK8KmGI/AAAAAAAAAqA/y2Y15sAZhes/s1600/003.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-J1MlG1fp60E/VUeNXK8KmGI/AAAAAAAAAqA/y2Y15sAZhes/s640/003.jpg" /></a><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-27I3VTDbMdE/VUeNzLkXocI/AAAAAAAAAqY/nG-Ceh-DqZk/s1600/004.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-27I3VTDbMdE/VUeNzLkXocI/AAAAAAAAAqY/nG-Ceh-DqZk/s640/004.jpg" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8iLC2_qytRA/VUeNzlbMdvI/AAAAAAAAAqc/Mn9Ey1EJ2_o/s1600/005.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8iLC2_qytRA/VUeNzlbMdvI/AAAAAAAAAqc/Mn9Ey1EJ2_o/s640/005.jpg" /></a><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u28t_3UROHQ/VUeOH5sHbrI/AAAAAAAAAqo/DDGfAhf_90w/s1600/006.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u28t_3UROHQ/VUeOH5sHbrI/AAAAAAAAAqo/DDGfAhf_90w/s640/006.jpg" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZekgnzLvAMY/VUeOVIlFGEI/AAAAAAAAAq4/AFh1fTYlXjE/s1600/007.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZekgnzLvAMY/VUeOVIlFGEI/AAAAAAAAAq4/AFh1fTYlXjE/s640/007.jpg" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-26z9tmc43Io/VUeOI3tjgeI/AAAAAAAAAqs/aHusWnIemsI/s1600/008.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-26z9tmc43Io/VUeOI3tjgeI/AAAAAAAAAqs/aHusWnIemsI/s640/008.jpg" /></a><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X_vpO0wQ2FM/VUeOawRY-YI/AAAAAAAAArA/yHnfClmJiXg/s1600/009.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X_vpO0wQ2FM/VUeOawRY-YI/AAAAAAAAArA/yHnfClmJiXg/s640/009.jpg" /></a>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-66431011877238043932015-06-01T19:57:00.000-07:002015-06-01T19:57:13.505-07:00'Mythology' of 1945 A-bombs<a href="http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/opinion/AJ201506020016">INTERVIEW: U.S. history professor highlights 'mythology' of 1945 A-bombs</a>
<a href="http://megalodon.jp/2015-0602-1153-58/ajw.asahi.com/article/views/opinion/AJ201506020016">June 02, 2015</a>
<a href="http://www.asahi.com/articles/DA3S11785770.html">(インタビュー 核といのちを考える)米国で原爆神話に挑む ピーター・カズニックさん
2015年6月2日05時00分</a>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-80371624039325846652015-05-23T21:42:00.000-07:002015-05-23T21:42:00.968-07:00Koreans pimps exploited Korean women for Sex Slaves for the military service men.<a href="http://www.excite-webtl.jp/world/korean/web/?wb_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newstown.co.kr%2Fnews%2FarticleView.html%3Fidxno%3D207410&wb_lp=KOJA&wb_dis=2&wb_chr=">挺身隊対策協が儲けは不順(不純)な慰安婦賭け、
チュンダンシキョヤウィアンブ
問題を韓米日安保協力体制を破るために悪用している
チ・マンウォン博士 ¦ j-m-y8282@hanmail.net</a>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.newstown.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=207410">정대협이 벌이는 불순한 위안부 놀음, 중단시켜야</a>
<a href="http://megalodon.jp/2015-0524-1337-19/www.newstown.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=207410">위안부 문제를 한미일 안보협력 체제를 깨기 위해 악용하고 있다</a>
지만원 박사 | j-m-y8282@hanmail.net
폰트키우기 폰트줄이기 프린트하기 메일보내기 신고하기
승인 2015.05.23 23:01:55
트위터 페이스북 네이버 구글 msn 카카오톡 카카오스토리
'해방전후사의 재인식' 제1권 434-476쪽에는 샌프란시스코주립대학의 소정희 교수의 귀한 논문이 실려 있다. 아래에 요지를 소개한다.
식민통치의 마지막 10년(1935-45)은 조선의 산업혁명 시기였다. 농민들은 토지로부터 추방되고, 노동계급이 태동하고, 인구의 유동성이 증대하고, 도시 사회가 폭넓게 확산되고, 여성계에서는 소위 신여성에 대한 선망이 확산됐던 그런 시기였다. 1917년 이광수의 소설 '무정'이 연재되었다. 이 소설은 신문명의 보급서였다. 서구의 신문명이 유입되고, 개화사상이 확산되고, 신청년과 신여성을 연애의 표상으로 삼은 신소설이었다. 1935년 심훈의 상록수는 답답하고 고리타분한 농촌을 계몽하기 위한 계몽서였다. 당시의 농촌 사람들의 생각이 얼마나 고루하고 원시적이었는가를 적나라하게 묘사했다. 위안부 역시 이러한 개화기 시대의 산물이었던 것이다.
190명의 위안부를 조사했더니 88%에 해당하는 168명이 바로 탈농촌 시기인 1937-44년 사이에 위안부가 되었다. 도시를 흠모하는 일종의 골드러시가 한창이었던 시절에 가정을 뛰쳐나온 여식들이 인신매매단의 좋은 먹이감이 된 것이다. 181명의 위안부를 조사한 결과 그중 4분의 1 이상이 이미 가족과 떨어져 식모, 공장 노동자, 식당 및 기생집 접대부 등으로 일하고 있다가 위안부가 되었고, 66% 정도가 만주, 대만, 중국 등으로 이송되어 갔다.
위안부로 가게 된 경우는 가정을 이미 탈출해 있던 여성에게만 해당되는 것이 아니었다. 가정에서 부모나 오빠들로부터 폭력을 당하고 있던 어린 여식들이 폭력을 피해 달아났다가 곧장 인신매매단의 덫에 걸려들기도 했고, 배움의 신기루를 찾아 넓어진 세상으로 도망쳐 나온다는 것이 곧 인신매매단의 희생양이 되어 위안부의 길로 들어서기도 했다. 당시 인신매매단의 앞잡이는 대부분 조선인들이었고, 군대 위안부를 경영하는 사람들 속에는 조선인들도 꽤 있었다.
위안부로 가는 길은 두 가지 경로였다. 가정-노동시장-위안부업소로 가는 과정이 있었고, 곧바로 가정-위안부업소로 가는 과정이 있었다. 이런 과정을 촉진한 매개체가 인신매매단이었으며, 인신매매단에 걸려들 수 있었던 환경은 곧 여성에 대한 가정폭력과 학대 그리고 배움에 대한 선망을 무조건 억압하는 무지몽매한 조선 가정의 여성비하 문화 때문이었다. 소정희 교수는 가정에서 곧바로 위안부라는 구덩이로 떨어진 한 많은 위안부 6명의 케이스를 정대협 자료에서 쉽게 찾아냈다. 이러함에도 정대협은 이 사실을 알면서도 위안부 문제를 정치 문제로 부각시키기 위해 사회에 그릇된 인식을 확산시켰다.
정신대의 주장에 의하면 모든 위안부는 가정에 있던 조신한 여식들이었는데, 어느 날 갑자기 일본 순사들이 들이닥쳐 강제로 붙잡아다가 일본군이 운영하는 유곽에 집어 넣었다는 것이다. 소정희 교수에 의하면 이는 사실이 아니다. 소정희 교수가 조사한 6명의 위안부 사례는 이를 이해하는데 생생한 자료가 된다. 이하 소정희 교수의 사례를 요약 소개한다.
조선의 부모가 딸들을 위안부로 내몬 대표적 사례
1) 문필기 : 정대협이 매주 주한 일본대사관 앞에서 주최하는 시위에 늘 참가하는 여성이다. 그녀는 18세가 되던 해인 1943년 후반부터 2년 동안 만주의 군위안소에서 일했다. 1945년 해방을 맞아 평양-개성-서울을 거쳐 고향으로 갔지만, 이내 고향을 떠나 진주-목포-광주-전주를 떠돌며 독신으로 살았다고 한다. 그녀는 1925년, 경남 진양군에서 2남 9녀를 둔 구멍가게에서 태어났다. 어렸을 때 가장 하고 싶은 것이 공부였다. 아버지는 "가시내가 공부하면 여우 밖에 될게 없다"며 화를 냈다. 어머니가 몰래 쌀 한 말을 팔아 보통학교에 넣어주었다. 일주일 안 돼서 아버지가 딸을 교실에서 끌어내고 책을 불태워 버렸다. 그래도 화가 풀리지 않아 딸을 죽어라 패고 집에서 쫓아내 버렸다. 큰 집에 가 있다가 다시는 공부를 하지 않겠다는 약속을 한 후 집으로 돌아왔다.
공부 못한 것이 한이 된 상태에서 9살부터 집에서 살림하고, 밭일도 하고, 목화밭을 매고, 물레질도 했다. 구멍가게에서 파는 고구마도 쪘다. 농사일을 할 때마다 밥을 해서 들로 날랐다. 그러던 1943년 가을 어느 날, 마을에 사는 일본 앞잡이 노릇을 하는 50대 아저씨가 공부도 하고 돈도 벌 수 있는 곳으로 보내주겠다 해서 따라 나섰다. 18세 였다. 그 남자와 일본인 순사가 그녀를 곧장 차에 태워 부산으로 데려갔다. 긴 머리를 자르고 치마저고리를 벗기고 원피스를 입혔다. 그리고 다른 네 명의 여인들과 함께 곧장 만주로 이송됐다. 이 이야기를 포함해 아래의 모든 이야기들은 정대협이 엮은 '증언집'에 수록돼 있다.
이 여인이 매주 수요일 12시에 일본대사관 앞에 나와, 일본이 자기를 강제로 연행해 가서 위안부로 삼았다며 사죄와 피해 배상을 요구하고 있는 것이다. 이 위안부 놀음은 간첩의 처이자 정대협의 상임대표인 윤미향이 꾸려가고 있다. 문제는 이 여인에 있는 게 아니라 정대협에 있다.
2) 이상옥 : 이 위안부의 아버지는 경상북도 달성군 달성면 면장이었다. 머슴을 두고 농사를 짓는 부농이기도 했다. 9살에 학교에 들어갔지만 오빠가 "계집애를 학교에 보내서 어디다 쓰느냐"며 학교를 못 가게 하고, 책을 아궁이에 넣어 태워 버렸다. 그래도 학교에 가려 하자 죽인다고 협박했다. 옆집 언니가 학교에 다니는 게 너무 부러운 나머지 그해 어머니에게도 알리지 않고 서울로 도망갔다.
고모가 학교를 보내주었지만 오빠가 고모에게 집요한 압력을 넣었다. 고모집을 나와 소리개라는 집에 들어갔다. 9명의 처녀들이 있었는데 그들은 모두 그들의 아버지에 의해 팔려왔다고 했다. 15세인 그녀가 가장 어렸다. 이 여인들이 가는 곳으로 따라가 보니, 시모노세끼 였다. 그들을 인솔한 군속이 열 명의 처녀들을 넘긴 곳은 바로 조선인 부부가 운영하는 군 유곽이었다. 그들은 이들 처녀들과는 아무 관계없이 돈을 주고 받았다. 이 여인은 일본말을 한다는 것 때문에 일본 군병원에 일하면서 봉급도 받았다. 일본 군의관이 그녀를 가엽게 여겨 조선으로 돌려보내려 했지만 그날 폭격을 맞아 허사가 됐다. 이 여인 역시 여성에 대한 가정 폭력으로 인해 유곽으로 떠밀린 케이스 였다.
3) 이득남 : 이 위안부는 1918년생이다. 그녀는 1939년부터 3년은 중국에서, 또 다른 3년은 수마트라에서 위안부 생활을 했다. 학교에 가고 싶었지만 아버지는 주정꾼이자 노름꾼으로 이유 없이 마구 때렸다. "집에 있는 것이 죽기보다 싫었다" 17세에 시집을 가라 했지만 그녀는 이를 팔려가는 것으로 생각했다. 이웃 친구와 함께 봉급을 받을 수 있는 직장을 찾기 위해 기차를 타고 인천 방직공장으로 갔다. 그게 위안부로 가는 길이었다.
4) 김옥실 : 이 위안부는 1926년 평양시내에서 10리 되는 촌에서 태어났다. 현재는 김은례로 알려져 있다. 그녀의 아버지 역시 공부하려는 딸에게 가혹한 매질을 했다. 11세 때, 동네친구 하나가 한글도 가르쳐주고 노래도 배워준다는 데가 있다 해서 같이 가서 며칠 있다가 아버지에 들통이 났다.
"에미나이 세끼가 글 배워서 어디에 쓰갔네, 연애편지질이나 하려구 그러나!" 매를 든 아버지가 무서워 할머니 뒤에 숨었지만 다리몽둥이를 부러트린다며 때렸다. 그 후 아버지가 보기 싫어 집을 나왔다. 하루는 아주머니들로부터 평양에서는 기생이 최고라는 말을 들었다. 고운 옷 입고, 고운 가마 타고 다닌다는 기생이 되고 싶어 기생집으로 가서 양녀가 됐다. 불과 일주일 만에 아버지에 들켰다. "이 에미나이가 조상 망신, 동네 망신은 다 시키고 돌아 다닌다"며 매를 맞고 집으로 압송돼 왔다. 다시 양말공장으로 뛰쳐 나갔다. 거기에서 3년, 담배공장에서 4년 일하다가 드디어 인신매매 단에 걸려들었다.
5) 배족간 : 이 위안부는 1922년생이다. 이 여인은 자살까지도 기도했을 정도로 어머니로부터 모진 학대를 받았다. 광목공장에서 일하게 해주겠다는 동네 구장의 거짓말에 속아 집을 나간 것이 곧 중국행이 되었다. 중국의 여러 위안소들을 떠돌았다. 1946년 집으로 돌아왔지만 어머니는 냉담했다. 어머니가 임종할 때 딸을 찾았지만 그녀는 가지 않았다.
6) 송신도 : 이 위안부는 1922년 생으로 어머니로부터 모진 학대를 받았다. 16세 때부터 먹고 살기 위해 수많은 잡직들을 전전하다가 좋은 직장 구해주겠다는 이웃의 꼬임에 빠져 중국으로 갔다가 1938년부터 1945년까지 위안부 생활을 했다. 일본인 병사가 결혼하자고 하여 일본으로 동행했지만, 그는 일본에 도착하자마자 그녀를 버렸다.
정치 목적을 위해 위안부 악용하는 정대협
이미지위에 마우스를 올려 보세요!
</blockquote>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-51291429547940938752015-05-23T21:09:00.000-07:002015-05-23T21:09:56.830-07:00Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Big Historical Lie<a href="http://orwellwasright.co.uk/2013/08/06/hiroshima-nagasaki-and-the-big-historical-lie/">Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Big Historical Lie</a>
<a href="http://megalodon.jp/2015-0524-1305-57/orwellwasright.co.uk/2013/08/06/hiroshima-nagasaki-and-the-big-historical-lie/">Posted on August 6, 2013 by orwellwasright | 21 Comments</a>
<blockquote>
We are told repeatedly that, without the use of weapons which current Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui refers to as the “ultimate inhumane weapon and an absolute evil”, Japan would never have surrendered. We are told that President Truman was troubled by the mounting Allied casualties, and that the Joint Chiefs had told him to expect 1,000,000 dead Americans in the pending attack on the Japanese home islands. Yet this figure is a complete fabrication, invented by Secretary of War Stimson. No such claim was made by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Truman himself, in different statements, asserted “thousands of lives would be saved,” and “a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities,” and also “I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved by making that decision.” None of these statements were based on any evidence.
The alleged indefatigably of the Japanese military and their unwillingness to surrender is also a proven myth. By the summer of 1945 their position was hopeless and numerous attempts to surrender had already been made. Brigadier Gen. Carter W. Clarke stated: “We brought them down to an abject surrender through the accelerated sinking of their merchant marine and hunger alone, and when we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.”
Truman knew weeks before the Potsdam Conference, which began in July, 1945, that the Japanese were making overtures to surrender, the only condition being the retention of the Emperor. But Truman was determined to test the new bombs. In the words of General Douglas McArthur: ”The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” In the event, the US agreed to the terms of the Japanese surrender anyway – but not until they had tested their new weapons and caused the deaths of 100,000s of innocent civilians.
In reality, most of the military top brass were disgusted at the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki and understood completely that it served no military purpose whatsoever. Admiral William D. Leahy, the President’s Chief of Staff said, “The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” This view was reiterated by Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, who said, “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace… The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan.”
So what is the truth about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why, when intelligence agencies knew months in advance that contingency plans for a large-scale invasion were completely unnecessary and that Japan desperately sought peace, did they, as Admiral Leahy put it, adopt “an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages”?
There are two main reasons. Firstly, the Russians had entered the Japanese war and were making striking advances through Manchuria, decimating the already weakened Japanese army. Indeed, their role was pivotal – as Air Force General Claire Chennault stated: “Russia’s entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped.” The last thing the American leadership wanted was for Russia to receive equal spoils of war and emerge from the war as a superpower equal to the US.
In this sense, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more accurately perceived as the opening salvos of the Cold War, rather than the final shots fired in the Second World War – the Cold War was, after all, defined essentially as a balance of nuclear powers; realpolitik and the primacy of power where the arms race and military insanity took supremacy over diplomacy.
The other, far more sinister reason, was one of scientific curiosity. After making such a huge investment in the Manhattan Project (2 billion in 1940) and with three bombs completed, there was little to no desire to shelve the weapons. The fissionable material in the Hiroshima bomb was uranium, while the Nagasaki bomb was plutonium, and subsequently there was intense scientific curiosity as to the different effects these bombs would produce. As the US Army director of the project, General Leslie Groves pondered: “what would happen if an entire city was leveled by a single uranium bomb?” “What about a plutonium bomb?” For the science experiment to go ahead, surrender was not an option.</blockquote>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-71451873137463019512015-05-15T17:18:00.002-07:002015-05-15T17:18:57.665-07:00Gang Rapes and Beatings, Brothels Filled with Teenage Prostitutes -- The Depths of American Brutality in Vietnam<a href="http://www.alternet.org/books/gang-rapes-and-beatings-brothels-filled-teenage-prostitutes-depths-american-brutality-vietnam">Gang Rapes and Beatings, Brothels Filled with Teenage Prostitutes -- The Depths of American Brutality in Vietnam
A powerful excerpt from Nick Turse's new book, 'Kill Anything That Moves' exposes the horrors committed by the U.S.</a>
<a href="http://megalodon.jp/2015-0516-0913-34/www.alternet.org/books/gang-rapes-and-beatings-brothels-filled-teenage-prostitutes-depths-american-brutality-vietnam">By Nick Turse / Metropolitan Books January 19, 2013</a>
<blockquote>
The disdainful attitude that led American troops to gleefully cut off ears and run down pedestrians by the roadside was even stronger when it came to a group that, for the young soldiers, was doubly “other”: Vietnamese women. As a result, sexual violence and sexual exploitation became an omnipresent part of the American War. With their husbands or fathers away at war or dead because of it, without other employment prospects and desperate to provide for their families, many women found that catering to the desires of U.S. soldiers was their only option.
By 1966, as the feminist scholar Susan Brownmiller observed, the 1st Cavalry Division, the 1st Infantry Division, and the 4th Infantry Division had all already “established official military brothels within the perimeter of their basecamps.” At the 1st Infantry Division base at Lai Khe, refugee women—recruited by the South Vietnamese province chief and channeled into their jobs by the mayor of the town—worked in sixty curtained cubicles kept under military police guard. Jim Soular of the 1st Cavalry Division recalled the setup at his unit’s compound, known as Sin City.
<blockquote>
You had to go through a checkpoint gate, but once you were in there you could do anything. There were all kinds of prostitutes and booze. The [U.S.] army was definitely in control of this thing. The bars had little rooms in the back where you could go with the prostitutes. I know they were checked by the doctors once a week for venereal diseases.</blockquote>
At Dong Tam, the 9th Infantry Division camp, the sign on a large building next to the headquarters read “Steam Bath and Massage.” The troops knew it by a different name: “Steam ’n Cream.” The building boasted approximately 140 cubicles filled with Vietnamese women and girls. At another U.S. compound, the prices of sex acts were announced at an official briefing, and, for a time, “little tickets had been printed up . . . blue ones for blow jobs, and white ones for inter-course,” recalled one patron to an army investigator. GIs paid a dollar or so for the former and around two for the latter
Everywhere, every kind of sex was for sale. “At the entrance to the MACV compound in Qui Nhon, a six-year-old girl is offering blow jobs,” wrote one journalist sizing up the sex-work scene. “One night early on in my stay,” he reported,
I found myself with a thirteen-year-old girl on my lap insisting “we go make lub now” in the bordello her mother had thrown up opposite an American construction site. The bordello is made of sheets of aluminum somehow extricated from a factory just before attaining canhood. You can read the walls of the structure from a distance. They say “Schlitz, Schlitz,” in rows and columns, over and over again.
The girl wants $1.25. With some difficulty I refuse.
Later in the war, even walking as far as the camp entrance would become unnecessary, as certain bases began allowing prostitutes directly into the barracks.
“Hootch maids,” who washed and ironed clothes and cleaned living quarters for U.S. servicemen, were also sometimes sexually exploited. As one maid put it, “American soldiers have much money and it seems that they are sexually hungry all the time. Our poor girls. With money and a little patience, the Americans can get them very easily.” And other women working on bases fell victim to sexual blackmail. One such case was revealed in an army investigation of Mickey Carcille, who ran a camp mess hall that employed Vietnamese women. By threatening to fire them if they did not comply, Carcille forced some of the women to pose for nude photographs and coerced others into having intercourse with him or performing other sex acts.
In addition to sexual exploitation, sexual violence was an every-day feature of the American War -- hardly surprising since, as Christian Appy observed, “the model of male sexuality offered as a military ideal in boot camp was directly linked to violence.” From their earliest days in the military, men were bombarded with the language of sexism and misogyny. Male recruits who showed weakness or fatigue were labeled ladies, girls, pussies, or cunts. In basic training, as army draftee Tim O’Brien later wrote in his autobiographical account of the Vietnam War, the message was: “Women are dinks. Women are villains. They are creatures akin to Communists and yellow-skinned people."
While it’s often assumed that all sexual assaults took place in the countryside, evidence suggests that men based in rear areas also had ample opportunity to abuse and rape women. For example, on December 27, 1969, Refugio Longoria and James Peterson, who served in the 580th Telephone Operations Company, and one other soldier picked up a nineteen-year-old Vietnamese hootch maid hitching a ride home after a day of work on the gigantic base at Long Binh. They drove her to a secluded spot behind the recreation center and forced her into the back of the truck -- holding her down, gagging, and blindfolding her. They then gang-raped her and dumped her on the side of the road. A doctor’s examination shortly afterward recorded that “her hymen was recently torn. There was fresh blood in her vagina.”
On March 19, 1970, a GI at the base at Chu Lai, in Quang Tin Province, drove a jeep in circles while Private First Class Ernest Stepp manhandled and slapped a Vietnamese woman who had rebuffed his sexual advances. According to army documents, with the help of a fellow soldier Stepp tore off the woman’s pants and assaulted her. The driver apparently slowed down the jeep to give the woman’s attackers more time to carry out the assault, and offered his own advice to her: “If you don’t fight so much it won’t be so bad for you.”
Again and again, allegations of crimes against women surfaced at U.S. bases and in other rear echelon areas. “Boy did I beat the shit out of a whore. It was really fun,” one GI mused about his trip to the beach resort at Vung Tau. The sheer physical size of American troops -- on average five inches taller and forty-three pounds heavier than Vietnamese soldiers, and even more imposing in comparison to Vietnamese women -- meant that their assaults often inflicted serious injuries. Sometimes, Vietnamese women were simply murdered by angry GIs. One sex worker at a base in Kontum, known as “Linda” to the soldiers there, was gunned down after she laughed at a customer who, according to legal documents, “thought she was going to go out with another G.I.” On March 27, 1970, in Vung Tau, several Vietnamese prostitutes became embroiled in an argument with a soldier over payment. He assaulted a number of them and stabbed one to death.
Most rapes and other crimes against Vietnamese women, however, did take place in the field -- in hamlets and villages populated mainly by women and children when the Americans arrived. Rape was a way of asserting dominance, and sometimes a weapon of war, employed in field interrogations of women captives to gain information about enemy troops. Aside from any such considerations, rural women were generally assumed by Americans to be secret saboteurs or the wives and girlfriends of Viet Cong guerrillas, and thus fair game.
The reports of sexual assault implicated units up and down the country. A veteran who served with 198th Light Infantry Brigade testified that he knew of ten to fifteen incidents, within a span of just six or seven months, in which soldiers from his unit raped young girls. A soldier who served with the 25th Infantry Division admitted that, in his unit, rape was virtually standard operating procedure. One member of the Americal Division remembered fellow soldiers on patrol through a village suddenly singling out a girl to be raped. “All three grunts grabbed the gook chick and began dragging her into the hootch. I didn’t know what to do,” he recalled. “As a result of this one experience I learned to recognize the sounds of rape at a great distance . . . Over the next two months I would hear this sound on the average of once every third day.”
In November 1966, soldiers from the 1st Cavalry Division brazenly kidnapped a young Vietnamese woman named Phan Thi Mao to use as a sexual slave. One unit member testified that, prior to the mission, his patrol leader had explicitly stated, “We would get the woman for the purpose of boom boom, or sexual intercourse, and at the end of five days we would kill her.” The sergeant was true to his word. The woman was kidnapped, raped by four of the patrol members in turn, and murdered the following day.
Gang rapes were a horrifyingly common occurrence. One army report detailed the allegations of a Vietnamese woman who said that she was detained by troops from the 173rd Airborne Brigade and then raped by approximately ten soldiers. In another incident, eleven members of one squad from the 23rd Infantry Division raped a Vietnamese girl. As word spread, another squad traveled to the scene to join in. In a third incident, an Americal GI recalled seeing a Vietnamese woman who was hardly able to walk after she had been gang-raped by thirteen soldiers.139 And on Christmas Day 1969, an army criminal investigation revealed, four warrant officers in a helicopter noticed several Vietnamese women in a rice paddy, landed, kidnapped one of them, and committed “lewd and lascivious acts” against her. The traumatic nature of such sexual assaults remains vivid even when they are couched in the formal, bureaucratic language of mili tary records. Court-martial documents indicate, for instance, that after he led his patrol into one village, marine lance corporal Hugh Quigley personally detained a young Vietnamese woman -- because “her age, between 20 and 25, suggested that she was a Vietcong.” The documents tell the story.
<blockquote>
After burning one hut and the killing of various animals, the accused with members of the patrol entered a hut where the alleged victim was. The accused, seeing the victim, grabbed for her breast and at the same time attempted to unbutton her blouse. As the victim held her child between the accused and herself, she pulled away. At this time, the accused pulled out his knife and threatened to cut the victim’s throat. The baby was taken from the victim and then the accused took the victim by the shoulders, laid her on the floor and then pulled her blouse above her breast and lowered her pants below her knees. The accused then knelt by the head of the victim, took his penis out of his pants and made the victim commit forced oral copulation on him. After a few minutes of this act the accused then proceeded to have non-consensual intercourse with her . . . The same witnesses who saw the accused commit these alleged acts will testify that the victim was scared and trembling.</blockquote>
Quigley was found guilty of having committed forcible sodomy and rape.
Some commanders, like an army colonel who investigated allegations of rape in an infantry battalion, nevertheless sought to cast Vietnamese women as willing participants. Writing about the heavily populated coastal regions of I and II Corps, he conjectured that in those areas “the number of young women far exceeds the number of military age males,” so the local women undoubtedly welcomed the attentions of American troops as a means to “satisfy needs long denied.” Assuming that all Vietnamese women longed for intercourse with armed foreigners marching through their villages, the colonel blithely concluded, “The circumstances are such that rape in contacts between soldiers . . . and village women is unlikely.”
The colonel’s theory about universally willing partners becomes even more preposterous when we consider the shockingly violent and sadistic nature of some of the sexual assaults. One marine remembered finding a Vietnamese woman who had been shot and wounded. Severely injured, she begged for water. Instead, her clothes were ripped off. She was stabbed in both breasts, then forced into a spread-eagle position, after which the handle of an entrenching tool -- essentially a short-handled shovel -- was thrust into her vagina. Other women were violated with objects ranging from soda bottles to rifles.
Excerpted from KILL ANYTHING THAT MOVES: The Real American War in Vietnam by Nick Turse, published by Metropolitan Books,</blockquote>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-75355195178609634982015-03-09T09:02:00.004-07:002015-03-09T09:09:20.320-07:00The Firebombing of Tokyo<a href="http://megalodon.jp/2015-0310-0053-03/https://www.jacobinmag.com:443/2015/03/tokyo-firebombing-world-war-ii/"> The Firebombing of Tokyo
Seventy years ago today, the United States needlessly killed almost 100,000 people in a single air raid over Tokyo.
by Rory Fanning</a>
<blockquote>Today marks the seventieth anniversary of the American firebombing of Tokyo, World War II’s deadliest day. More people died that night from napalm bombs than in the atomic strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But few in the United States are aware that the attack even took place.
The lack of ceremonies or official state apologies for the firebombing is unsurprising considering that many Americans see World War II as the “just war” fought by the “greatest generation.” These labels leave the war and the atrocities Americans committed during it largely untouched by critique.
The little that is available to study on the firebombing, at least here in the US, is told from the perspective of American crewmen and brass, through usually biased American military historians. Those seeking better understanding of the March 9 tragedy must wade through reams of history primarily devoted to strategy; the heroics of American soldiers; the awesome power behind the bombs unleashed that day; and a cult-like devotion to the B-29 Superfortress, the plane that dropped the napalm over Tokyo and the atomic bombs, and was the inspiration for George Lucas’s Millennium Falcon.
The overriding narrative surrounding the events of March 9, 1945 is that the American pilots and military strategists such as Gen. Curtis LeMay, the architect of the firebombing, had no other option but to carry out the mission. The Americans had “no choice” but to burn to death nearly one hundred thousand Japanese civilians.
.
World War II was carried out with brutality on all fronts. The Japanese military murdered nearly six million Chinese, Korean, and Filipino civilians by the end of it. However, to argue that Japanese civilians deserved to die — that children deserved to die — at the hands of the US military because their government killed civilians in other Asian countries is an indefensible position, in any moral or ethical framework.
LeMay claimed that the Japanese government relied on residential “cottage” war production, thus making the civilians living in Tokyo a legitimate military target. However, by 1944 the Japanese had essentially terminated its home war production. A full 97 percent of the country’s military supplies were protected underground in facilities not vulnerable to air attack the day of the bombing. The Americans knew this.
The United States had broken Japan’s Red and Purple cipher machines well before 1945, allowing them access to the most classified enemy intelligence. American generals understood the war would soon be materially impossible for the Japanese.
The US Naval blockade had also prevented oil, metal, and other essential goods from entering Japan long before March 9. Japan was so cut off from basic supplies that it was constructing its planes partially out of wood.
The Japanese population at this point in the war was most concerned with starvation. The 1945 rice harvest was the worst since 1909. Surveys commissioned by Japan’s government in April 1945 reported the population was “too preoccupied with the problems of food” to worry about fighting a war. Victory for the Allies was guaranteed by the start of the year.
The most damning evidence against the firebombing can be traced to August 19, 1945, when Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune finally published a piece gracefully titled “Roosevelt Ignored M’Arthur Report on Nip Proposals” that he had been sitting on for seven months.
Trohan wrote:
<blockquote> Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago….
The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication, [who] urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures….
The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. President Roosevelt dismissed the general’s communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, “MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician.”</blockquote>
The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta.
In January 1945 — two days before Franklin Roosevelt was to meet with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin in Yalta — the Japanese were offering surrender terms almost identical to what was accepted by the Americans on the USS Missouri in the Japan Bay on September 2, 1945.
The Japanese population was famished, the country’s war machine was out of gas, and the government had capitulated. The Americans were unmoved. The firebombing and the nuclear attacks were heartlessly carried out. <b>If anyone is guilty of disregarding the “context” of the firebombing of Tokyo, it’s the sycophantic and biased American historians who deride these critical facts.
</b>
So why did the Americans continue to raid and terrorize the Japanese civilian population knowing the war could have been over? Many argue that the Americans were flexing their muscles for Russia in anticipation of the ensuing Cold War. Countless pages have been written about this.
But what is too often overlooked is the racism of the day. It is America’s racism that best explains the extent of the firebombing and the nuclear attacks. The racist mindset that all too many Americans were comfortable with in the Jim Crow era easily bled onto the Japanese. The horror stories of the almost two hundred thousand Japanese Americans who lost their livelihoods as a result of Roosevelt’s internment camps are just one example of how Americans saw not only the Japanese but Japanese-Americans.
The firebombing of Japan was about testing new technologies on a civilian population. Significant funds had gone into the development of American military technology — 36 billion in 2015 dollars funded the creation of the atomic bomb. Napalm was new as well. The firebombing of Tokyo marked the first time it was used on a dense civilian population. The Americans wanted to assay their new inventions on a group of people who they thought were less than human.
LeMay famously remarked, “Killing Japanese didn’t bother me very much at that time… I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.” LeMay later leveraged his war credentials and racism to earn a spot on segregationist Gov. George Wallace’s 1968 presidential ticket.
Terms like “greatest generation” betray Americans by keeping them willfully disconnected from their past. These labels flatten complex legacies, and prevent a thorough questioning of power.
Why did no one from the greatest generation stop these needless bombings? How can a country whose leaders constantly invoke its “exceptionalism” regularly fall back on the platitude “All sides were committing atrocities so why focus on the Americans?” These are the questions our high school textbooks need to be asking.
.</blockquote>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-51275847912355859602015-03-03T02:59:00.000-08:002015-03-03T02:59:17.392-08:00Allied soldiers 'raped one million Germans after the end of Second World War'<a href="New book alleges Allied soldiers 'raped one million Germans after the end of Second World War'">New book alleges Allied soldiers 'raped one million Germans after the end of Second World War'
'When The Soldiers Came' claims Allied troops raped one million women
Children, men and young boys were also abused by soldiers, it claims
Until now it was thought only the Stalin's Red Army raped German women
But author insists she has spoken to some who can attest to the abuse
There was a misconception all women traded sex for coveted goods
But western soldiers took advantage of power to rape, says the author
By ALLAN HALL IN BERLIN FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 01:23 GMT, 2 March 2015 | UPDATED: 15:06 GMT, 2 March 2015</a>
<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/book-claims-us-soldiers-raped-190-000-german-women-post-wwii-a-1021298.html">Postwar Rape: Were Americans As Bad as the Soviets?
By Klaus Wiegrefe
March 02, 2015 – 06:36 PM</a>
<blockquote>
The soldiers didn't give up easily though. They began searching all the houses in the area and ultimately found the two women in a neighbor's closet shortly before midnight. The men pulled them out and threw them onto two beds. The crime the six soldiers ultimately committed took place in March, 1945, shortly before the end of World War II. The girl cried for help: "Mama. Mama." But none arrived.
Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of German women experienced a similar fate at the time. Often, such gang rapes were blamed on Soviet troops in Germany's east. But this case was different. The rapists were soldiers from the United States of America and the crime took place in Sprendlingen, a village near the Rhine River in the west.
By the end of the war, some 1.6 million American troops had advanced deep into Germany, ultimately meeting the advancing Soviets at the Elbe River. In the US, those who freed Europe from the plague of the Nazis came to be known as the "Greatest Generation." And Germans too developed a positive image of their occupiers: cool soldiers who handed out chewing gum to the children and wowed the German fräuleins with jazz and nylons.
But is that image consistent with reality? German historian Miriam Gebhardt, well known in Germany for her book about leading feminist Alice Schwarzer and the feminist movement, has now published a new volume casting doubt on the accepted version of America's role in German postwar history.
Reports from the Catholic Archive
The work, which came out in German on Monday, takes a closer look at the rape of German women by all four victorious powers at the end of World War II. In particular, though, her views on the behavior of American GIs are likely to raise eyebrows. Gebhardt believes that members of the US military raped as many as 190,000 German women by the time West Germany regained sovereignty in 1955, with most of the assaults taking place in the months immediately following the US invasion of Nazi Germany.
The author bases her claims in large part on reports kept by Bavarian priests in the summer of 1945. The Archbishop of Munich and Freising had asked Catholic clergy to keep records on the allied advance and the Archdiocese published excerpts from its archive a few years ago.
Michael Merxmüller, a priest in the village of Ramsau near Berchtesgaden, wrote on July 20, 1945, for example: "Eight girls and women raped, some of them in front of their parents."
Father Andreas Weingand, from Haag an der Amper, a tiny village located just north of where the Munich airport is today, wrote on July 25, 1945: "The saddest event during the advance were three rapes, one on a married woman, one on a single woman and one on a spotless girl of 16-and-a-half. They were committed by heavily drunken Americans."
Father Alois Schiml from Moosburg wrote on Aug. 1, 1945: "By order of the military government, a list of all residents and their ages must be nailed to the door of each house. The results of this decree are not difficult to imagine. ... Seventeen girls or women ... were brought to the hospital, having been sexually abused once or several times."
The youngest victim mentioned in the reports is a seven-year-old child. The oldest, a woman of 69.
Macho Fantasies
The reports led book author Gebhardt to compare the behavior of the US army with the violent excesses perpetrated by the Red Army in the eastern half of the country, where brutality, gang rapes and incidents of looting have dominated the public perception of the Soviet occupation. Gebhardt, however, says that the rapes committed in Upper Bavaria show that things weren't much different in postwar Germany's south and west.
The historian also believes that similar motives were at work. Just like their Red Army counterparts, the US soldiers, she believes, were horrified by the crimes committed by the Germans, embittered by their pointless and deadly efforts to defend the country to the very end, and furious at the relatively high degree of prosperity in the country. Furthermore, propaganda at the time conveyed the idea that German women were attracted to American GIs, further fueling macho fantasies.
Gebhardt's ideas are firmly rooted in the current academic mainstream. In the wake of the torture scandal at Abu Ghraib and other war crimes committed by US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, many historians are taking a more critical look at the behavior of the American military during the days immediately preceding and following the end of World War II in Germany. Studies in recent years have shed light on incidents involving GIs plundering churches, murdering Italian civilians, killing German prisoners of war and raping women, even as they advanced across France.
Despite such findings, the Americans are still considered to have been relatively disciplined compared to the Red Army and the French military -- conventional wisdom that Gebhardt is hoping to challenge. Still, all of the reports compiled by the Catholic Church in Bavaria only add up to a few hundred cases. Furthermore, the clergymen often praised the "very correct and respectable" behavior of the US troops. Their reports make it seem as though sexual abuse committed by the Americans was more the exception than the rule.
How, then, did the historian arrive at her shocking figure of 190,000 rapes?
Sufficient Evidence?
The total is not the result of deep research in archives across the country. Rather, it is an extrapolation. Gebhardt makes the assumption that 5 percent of the "war children" born to unmarried women in West Germany and West Berlin by the mid-1950s were the product of rape. That makes for a total of 1,900 children of American fathers. Gebhardt further assumes that on average, there are 100 incidents of rape for each birth. The result she arrives at is thus 190,000 victims.
Such a total, though, hardly seems plausible. Were the number really that high, it is almost certain that there would be more reports on rape in the files of hospitals or health authorities, or that there would be more eyewitness reports. Gebhardt is unable to present such evidence in sufficient quantity.
Another estimate, stemming from US criminology professor Robert Lilly, who examined rape cases prosecuted by American military courts, arrived at a number of 11,000 serious sexual assaults committed by November, 1945 -- a disgusting number in its own right.
But Gebhardt is certainly correct on one point: For far too long, historical research has been dominated by the idea that rapes committed by GIs were implausible because German women wanted to jump into bed with them anyway.
How, though, is one to interpret the complaint filed by a hotelier in Munich on May 31, 1945? She reports that US soldiers had commandeered a few rooms and that four women were "running around completely naked" and were "exchanged several times." Was it really voluntary?
Even if it isn't likely that the Americans committed 190,000 sexual crimes, it remains true that for postwar victims of rape -- which was undeniably a mass phenomenon at the end of World War II, there is "no culture of memory, no public recognition, much less an apology" from the perpetrators, Gebhardt notes. And today, 70 years after the end of the war, it unfortunately doesn't look as though that situation will soon change.</blockquote>
zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-35743895826982183132015-01-12T22:23:00.001-08:002015-01-12T22:23:31.937-08:00Rape during the occupation of Japan<a href="http://www.peeep.us/bc468615">昨年10月23日マスコミ倫理懇での朝日慰安婦報道の検証に関わるスピーチを文章にしました
投稿者:miyadai
投稿日時:2015-01-12 - 21:27:21</a>
<a href="http://www.peeep.us/8bb62b48">Rape during the occupation of Japan</a>
<a href="http://www.peeep.us/3a91b423">3 Dead Marines and a Secret of Wartime Okinawa
By CALVIN SIMS</a>
<a href="http://www.peeep.us/9f2a7772">Published: June 1, 2000</a>
<blockquote>
"rape was so prevalent that most Okinawans over age 65 either know or have heard of a woman who was raped in the aftermath of the war."[2]
According to George Feifer the majority of the likely thousands of rapes were committed in the north, where the campaign was easier and the American troops were not as exhausted as in the south.[5] According to Feifer especially troops landed for occupation duty committed rapes.[5</blockquote>zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-51046115755799195772014-11-28T03:11:00.001-08:002014-11-28T03:11:31.287-08:00"The New Korea" by Alleyne Ireland<a href="http://www.peeep.us/4792fdb5">
October 1, 2014
"The New Korea" by Alleyne Ireland</a>
The state of 19th century Korea (Joseon Dynasty 조선왕조 李氏朝鮮) was very similar to that of present day North Korea. The majority of the population were starving and were enslaved by a small number of corrupt bureaucrats called Yangban (양반 両班) who were supported by Qing Dynasty China. (Just like Kim Jong-un and his henchmen rule North Korea with aid from China today) When Japan defeated China in Sino-Japanese war (1894-95), Yangban lost their backing. Soon Korea fell into total chaos and became literally brankrupt. To avoid being invaded by Russia militarily, Korea chose to be annexed by Japan in 1910. This move was welcomed by the majority of Koreans (former slaves who enjoyed freedom and better lives under new administration) but was resented by Yangban who lost their privilege to enslave people. (Yangban would soon launch independence movement)
A British scholar, Alleyne Ireland, was a leading expert on colonial administration in Asia. He gained deep knowledge of Japan's annexation of Korea from his visit there in 1922. The following are excerpts from his book "The New Korea" originally published in 1926.
"The New Korea" by Alleyne Ireland
My opinion of Japanese administration in Korea has been derived from the consideration of what I saw in the country, what I have read about it in official and in unofficial publications, and from discussions with persons (Japanese, Korean and foreign) who were living in the Peninsula at the time of my visit.
It is true that at the time Japan annexed Korea in 1910, the actual conditions of life in the Peninsula were extremely bad. This was not due to any lack of inherent intelligence and ability in the Korean race, but to the stupidity and corruption which had characterized the government of the Korean dynasty, and to the existence of a royal court which maintained a system of licensed cruelty and corruption throughout Korea. Such was the misrule under which the Koreans had suffered for generation after generation that all incentive to industry and social progress had been destroyed because none of the common people had been allowed to enjoy the fruits of their own efforts.
From 1910 to 1919 Japanese rule in Korea, though it accomplished much good for the people, bore the stamp of a military stiffness which aroused a great deal of resentment.
The New Korea of which I write is the Korea which has developed under the wise and sympathetic guidance of Governor-General Saito. At the time of my own visit to Korea in 1922, the Governor-General had nearly completed three years of his tenure in the office. The following is the list of measures Governor-General Saito introduced upon his arrival in 1919.
1. Non-discrimination between Japanese and Korean officials.
2. Simplification of laws and regulations.
3. Prompt transaction of state business.
4. Decentralization policy.
5. Improvement in local organization.
6. Respect for native culture and customs.
7. Freedom of speech, meeting and press.
8. Spread of education and development of industry.
9. Re-organization of the police system.
10. Enlargement of medical and sanitary agencies.
11. Guidance of the people.
12. Advancement of men of talent.
13. Friendly feeling between Japanese and Koreans.
The general consensus of opinion in Korea in 1922 was that Governor-General Saito had been animated by a sincere desire to rule Korea through a just and tolerant administration, that he had accomplished notable reforms, that in the matter of education he had ministered very generously to the cultural ambitions of the people, and that in regard to their political ambitions he had shown himself eager to foster local self-government and to infuse a spirit of friendliness and cooperation into the personal relations of the Japanese and Koreans.
Discussing Korean affairs with a good many people (Korean, Japanese and foreign) I found almost unanimous agreement on two points: one, that native sentiment had shown a continuing tendency to become less anti-Japanese in recent years; the other, that the remarkable increase in the country's prosperity had been accompanied by a striking improvement in the living conditions of the Korean people at large.
Writing now, four years after the date of my visit, and having in mind the most recent accounts of the state of Korea, I can express my conviction that there has occurred a steady and accelerating improvement in the general conditions of the country, in the administrative organization and personnel, and in the temper of the intercourse between the Koreans and the Japanese.
◇ ◇ ◇ ◇ ◇ ◇ ◇ ◇ ◇ ◇
Professor Atul Kohli of Princeton University confirmed Alleyne Ireland's conviction with the following data in his 2004 book "State-Directed Development":
"Korean population doubled from just over 12 million in 1910 to over 25 million in 1945 due to the institution of modern healthcare under the Japanese. Economic output in terms of agriculture, fishery, forestry and industry increased by tenfold from 1910 to 1945 as illustrated on the chart below. The economic development model the Japanese instituted played the crucial role in Korean economic development, a model that was maintained by the Koreans in the post-World War II era."
Alleyne Ireland's book makes it clear that the common perception -- Japanese invaded Korea, exploited Korean people and committed atrocities -- is just a myth.
zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-23250722859965529862014-11-28T03:10:00.001-08:002014-11-28T03:10:25.387-08:00"Comfort Women of Empire" Reviewed by Professor Jun BongGwan<a href="http://www.peeep.us/d24ee355">English Translation of Comfort Women Articles by Scholars
October 31, 2014</a>
"Comfort Women of Empire" Reviewed by Professor Jun BongGwan
The following is a summary English translation of Professor Jun BongGwan's review of the book "Comfort Women of Empire." Dr. Jun is a professor of Korean Literature at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. The review was published on July 20, 2014 in Korea's leading newspaper ChosunIlbo. The original article is shown at the bottom.
Professor Jun BongGwan
Professor Park Yuha, the author of "Comfort Women of Empire," has published five books on Korean literature during the annexation period. But I didn't know she published a book "Comfort Women of Empire" last year. I found out about it because I heard the news that her book got banned from publishing and that she was being sued for defamation by a Korean civil group.
After reading the book, I was a little bit disappointed because there was nothing in the book that I didn't know. We all knew that Korean comfort women were not coercively taken away by Japanese military. Japanese military commissioned Korean men in prostitution trade to recruit women in Korean peninsula and operate comfort stations in China and so on. Japanese military was busy fighting all over Asia, and it certainly didn't have time to be in Korea recruiting women.
Although Professor Park Yuha recognizes that Japan's imperialism was the root cause of women's suffering, she claims Korean men in prostitution trade were the ones legally responsible, not Japanese military. I disagree with her logic because Japanese military commissioned Korean men in prostitution trade. So Japanese military is legally responsible as well in my opinion.
Korean fathers and brothers who sold their daughters and sisters, Korean men in prostitution trade who took women away on false pretenses at times, Korean town chiefs who encouraged those acts. They all should be held accountable someday. But now is not the time. We must make Japan apologize and compensate again before we admit our responsibility.
If one reads the book carefully, it is clear that Professor Park had no intent to defame former comfort women. But to suggest that Korea and Japan should both admit responsibility at the same time is a naive diplomatic strategy.
zerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-50974733750754599152014-11-09T21:02:00.000-08:002014-11-09T21:02:03.027-08:00Myth and Truth in East Asia 1<a href="http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001681752">11:10 pm, November 06, 2014
The Yomiuri Shimbun
Index
</a>
1 Senkakus - tense waters
2 The Long Road to Collective Self-Defense
3 Chilly Ties with South Korea
4 Investigating Reports on 'Comfort Women'
Foreword
East Asia is currently driven by tension as never before. Elements creating instability in this region include North Korea's provocative actions involving its nuclear and missile development, China's military rise and heightened Japan-China tensions over the Senkaku Islands, and friction between Japan and South Korea over so-called comfort women and other issues.
Making matters worse, rather than holding talks directly with Japan to ease tensions and repair ties, China and South Korea have expanded their anti-Japan propaganda campaigns in the United States and other nations. This has made resolving these problems even more complicated.
SLIDE 1 OF 2PREVNEXT
"Japan created this tension by nationalizing the Senkaku Islands. China has simply been forced to respond in the way it has."
"The Abe administration refuses to acknowledge acts of barbarity committed by the former Japanese military forces, including the comfort women issue, and is trying to revise history."
"Japan has not seriously reflected on its past war of aggression, so allowing it to exercise the right of collective self-defense is dangerous."
These arguments put forward by China and South Korea are not based on fact. Rather, they are distortions of the truth intended to implant self-serving perceptions in the opinion of the international community. We believe this will become evident upon reading this booklet, which contains selected stories and serialized articles on these topics from The Japan News, the English-language newspaper published by The Yomiuri Shimbun.
Unlike the propaganda being spread by China and South Korea, the articles in this booklet adhere to a cardinal principle of journalism: Convey the truth by examining and verifying actual occurrences and episodes. We hope this booklet will become a valuable material for determining what is really happening in East Asia.
October 2014
Takashi Sadahiro
Managing Editor, The Japan News
1 Senkakus-tense waters
Quantity vs. logic in 'propaganda war'
On Sept. 11, 2012, the Japanese government purchased three of the Senkaku Islands, which are Japan's sovereign territory, from the then owner and nationalized them. China, which claims territorial rights over the islands in Okinawa Prefecture, reacted fiercely. Since then, China has repeatedly engaged in dangerous, provocative behavior against Japan.
Japan must return to China all the territories it has stolen, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said during his visit to the historical city of Potsdam, Germany, on May 26, 2013. At the site of the 1945 Potsdam Declaration, which set the terms for Japan's unconditional surrender at the end of World War II, Li criticized Japan with strident words.
For China, the site of the Potsdam Conference was the most appropriate place to spread the image of "a Japan that challenges the postwar international order" to the world.
The reasoning behind China's demand for Japan to "return" the Senkaku Islands can be summarized as follows:
-Japan took the Senkakus from China during the Qing dynasty.
-Japan, defeated in World War II, must return the land it stole to the original holder states.
-Therefore, Japan does not possess territorial rights over the Senkakus.
It is important for China to launch a "propaganda war" to spread its argument to the world. Its approach is to "use all possible means."
The Olympic Games, which should be a festival of peace, is no exception.
"Japan will have to keep a low profile before the Olympics to avoid any military conflicts [with China]. This will guarantee the stability and peace of the East China Sea, which will be beneficial to the whole of East Asia," wrote the Global Times on Sept. 9, 2013, just after Tokyo was chosen as the venue for hosting the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games in 2020. It criticized Japan over heightened military tension with China over the Senkaku issue. The paper, published under the auspices of the People's Daily, is an official organ of the Chinese Communist Party.
China has been waging an extraordinary propaganda war against Japan. An incident in autumn 2012 shocked Japan's Foreign Ministry.
Advertisements criticizing Japan were carried around the world in such major newspapers as The Washington Post and The New York Times, one after another. They included newspapers in surprisingly small or lesser-known countries including an island nation in the Pacific and a country in Africa, according to a senior ministry official.
Chinese diplomats frequently appeared on TV programs in various countries to criticize Japan.
Against China's "media blitz," using a great amount of resources and various media outlets, Japan made "logical" counterarguments through diplomats stationed in foreign countries.
One of them was late Ichiro Komatsu, who was dubbed "Mr. International Law" because of his expertise on international law. In 2012, when he served as Japan's ambassador to France, he assembled French journalists and explained in detail, in French, that Japan's territorial possession of the Senkaku Islands poses no problems under international law. He died in June 2014 after serving as director general of the Cabinet Legislation Bureau.
Keiichi Hayashi, the ambassador to Britain, contributed a commentary to the Nov. 14, 2012, issue of the Financial Times of Britain with the headline: Time for China to calm down and stop bullying.
The commentary contains important keywords: "Japan stands firm and calm against China's attempt to challenge the postwar international order over the Senkaku Islands by coercion and intimidation."
This response to China's attempt "to change the status quo by coercion" has been the main pillar of the Japanese government's claims in the "propaganda war." If China continues its provocative behavior against Japan, and even if it took over the Senkaku Islands by military force, Japan can keep making appeals to the world that Japan is justified in claiming sovereignty over the islands. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has also been advocating the stance as a leader during his visits to other countries.
China continues provocative actions
China first claimed territorial rights over the Senkaku Islands in Okinawa Prefecture in 1971. Two years earlier, the then U.N. Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East compiled a report identifying possible undersea oil reserves near the islands.
The report is believed to have spurred China to assert its claim over the islands. In 1992 China passed the "territorial water law" and unilaterally added the islands to its territories.
In 2012 it was revealed that then Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara had been negotiating the purchase of three of the Senkakus with their owner.
The then Democratic Party of Japan-led administration of Yoshihiko Noda feared the islands would become "metropolitan estates" under Ishihara, a hard-liner against China. Before the purchase by the metropolitan government was carried out, the central government bought the islands and nationalized them on Sept. 11, 2012.
The Chinese government reacted fiercely against Japan's action. Since then it has taken provocative actions, such as dispatching China Coast Guard ships into Japan's territorial waters. A growing number of Chinese fishing boats has also intruded Japanese territorial waters near the Senkakus. Chinese military assertiveness has been growing increasingly conspicuous.
China advancing into Pacific
On July 25, 2013, a P-3C patrol plane of the Maritime Self-Defense Force spotted five Chinese military vessels, including a destroyer, sailing in waters about 100 kilometers northeast of Miyakojima island, southwest of Okinawa's main island.
It was later confirmed that the Chinese ships had entered the Pacific Ocean by way of Soya Strait between Hokkaido and Sakhalin Island after conducting joint live-ammunition firing exercises with the Russian Navy in the Sea of Japan off Vladivostok.
That meant the Chinese military vessels had, for the first time ever, circumnavigated the Japanese archipelago.
A day before the passage through Soya Strait, a Chinese early warning plane, Y-8, had flown in the airspace between Okinawa's main island and Miyakojima island.
It was also the first time that a Chinese military plane had crossed over China's self-designated "first island chain" to intrude into Japan's airspace over the Pacific.
The first island chain is what the Chinese People's Liberation Army's Navy has designated in reference to a series of island groups spanning the southern part of Kyushu, the Nansei Islands, Taiwan and the Philippines.
What it refers to as the "second island chain" comprises the line stretching from the Izu Islands and Ogasawara Islands, both administered by the Tokyo metropolitan government, over to Papua New Guinea, by way of Guam and Saipan.
At that time, then Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera happened to be on an inspection tour of the Maritime Self- Defense Force's Kanoya Air Field, and he revealed the Chinese early warning plane's flight between the Okinawa main island and Miyakojima island to reporters accompanying him. "From this point onward, China will most likely make advances into the Pacific Ocean," Onodera warned.
It was believed the Y-8 plane may have engaged in an exercise over the Pacific in tandem with the five Chinese military vessels.
Joint action between military vessels and aircraft in a region far from mainland China would be impossible without a certain amount of preparation.
Pointing to this, a senior Defense Ministry official noted that, China's moves this time "must have taken not only the first island chain but also the second island chain into account."
This reasoning can be substantiated by remarks made by those with ties to the Chinese military. In July 2013, Ou Chienping, chief of the military forces construction institute of the PLA's National Defense University, emphasized in an online program sponsored by the People's Daily that the Chinese Navy needs "the capability to cover great distances, as we have to get out into the Pacific by going beyond the first island chain."
The Nansei Islands, including the Senkaku Islands, and Okinawa Prefecture are situated along the route that Chinese naval ships will traverse on their way to the Pacific Ocean.
China's strategy
The Chinese Navy has adopted the so-called anti-access/ area denial (A2AD) strategy. China regards waters from mainland China to its first island chain as "China's waters," where missiles, highperformance fighter jets and drones are deployed to prevent an intrusion by the U.S. military and to attempt to keep such an intrusion outside the second island chain. Thus the strategy is intended to prevent U.S. troops from reaching mainland China in the event of a conflict.
According to Japan's Defense Ministry, A2AD has already entered an operational stage. On Sept. 8, 2013, an H-6 of China's air force, a large bomber capable of carrying nuclear missiles, flew across the first island chain for the first time. It is considered only a matter of time before China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, makes its way into the Pacific Ocean.
Regarding the motivation behind Chinese military's advance into the Pacific, Timothy Keating, then commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, made an interesting remark during his testimony before Congress in 2008. He said a high-ranking Chinese military officer he met the previous year had proposed dividing control of the Pacific between the two countries, with the sea east of Hawaii controlled by the United States and the ocean west of Hawaii by China.
During a summit meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama on June 7, 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping reportedly made a comment to the effect that the Pacific Ocean is a vast, open space with sufficient room for both the great powers of China and the United States.
China's former top leader Deng Xiaoping is said to have left behind a maxim in four Chinese characters that says, "Sharpen your claws while you wait for the right opportunity."
Having achieved economic development, China has launched a mission to build a new relationship between great powers with the United States. The Japan-China row over the Senkaku Islands is closely intertwined with the national strategy of China, which is also looking beyond Japan to keep a close eye on the United States.
China claims Japan agreed to 'shelving' Senkaku issue
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is known as being well-informed about Japan, as he is fluent in Japanese and has served as Chinese ambassador to Japan. Such a person is sending a message to the international community that Japan and China agreed in the past to "shelve" the territorial issue over the Senkaku Islands.
On Sept. 20, 2013, Wang told the audience during a lecture at a think tank in Washington: "Forty-one years ago, when China and Japan achieved the normalization of diplomatic relations, leaders of the two nations reached a very important agreement...that is...we can set aside our difference [on the Senkaku issue] and take care of it or resolve it at some later date."
What does China's "shelving" agreement claim mean? To understand what Wang intended to say, one must look back at how the issue unfolded.
The Senkaku Islands were included in Japan's territories in January 1895, after the nation confirmed the islands were not under the control of China, or the Qing, at that time. The confirmation came after Japan conducted research over a decade or so.
Following Japan's defeat in World War II, the nation lost its overseas territories in line with the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. However, 48 nations, including the United States-which signed the treaty-considered the Senkaku Islands as part of Okinawa and put them under U.S. administrative control.
Under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement signed on June 17, 1971, the islands were returned to Japan.
However, after a U.N. research team brought up the possibility of oil reserves being located near the Senkaku Islands in 1969, China and Taiwan began to assert territorial rights over the islands in 1971 for the first time.
Under such a delicate situation, Japan and China formally established diplomatic relations in 1972.
Wang argues that the two nations agreed to "shelve" the settlement of the dispute over sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands during the normalization talks. Following this logic, it becomes Japan that broke the agreement through nationalizing the islands in 2012.
Such a stance was also taken by former Chinese "paramount leader" Deng Xiaoping. In October 1978, when Deng came to Japan to exchange the instruments of ratification of the Japan-China Treaty of Peace and Friendship, he said at a press conference at the Japan National Press Club: "We call the Senkaku Islands the Diaoyu Islands. [Japan and China] have different names for them and call them differently. At the time of normalization of diplomatic relations between China and Japan, the two sides pledged not to touch on the issue. Also this time, during the negotiations of the peace and friendship treaty, [the two nations] agreed not to touch on the issue.
"I think it doesn't matter if this kind of problem is shelved for some time. It will be fine if it is shelved for a decade. People in our generation lack wisdom. Those in the next generation will be wiser than us. Then, they will be able to find a good solution that is acceptable for everyone."
Deng's remarks can be interpreted as saying the confrontation should be shelved for the sake of friendly relations of the two nations, but it should be noted that China claims the issue has been set aside on the premise that sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands has yet to be determined.
Prof. Akira Kotera at the University of Tokyo, an expert on international law, compared China's claims to a situation where one person passes in front of another person's house and suddenly declares it to be "my house." This is because China did not make any objection to Japan's sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands for nearly two decades after the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. If Japan accepts China's "shelving" agreement claim, "Japan will have to negotiate with China over the territorial rights, and that will eventually lead to a situation where the islands would be put under joint control," Kotera said.
For Japan, there is a grudging acknowledgement that the "shelving" agreement claim had never been clearly dismissed.
Takakazu Kuriyama, former Japanese ambassador to the United States who was involved in the diplomatic normalization talks with China as the director of the Treaties Division of the Foreign Ministry, expressed the view in an article of the December 2012 issue of Ajia Jiho (Asia times) that there was tacit approval because the Japanese government did not directly reject China's claim that the issue had been "shelved." However, Kuriyama also wrote, "It's too one-sided for China to claim there existed a clear agreement between Japan and China to shelve the issue."
Currently, the Japanese government maintains that there is a pledge neither to touch on the Senkaku issue, nor shelve the issue, as stated by Deng, either during the negotiations to normalize bilateral diplomatic relations or during the negotiations for the bilateral peace and friendship treaty. This stance was clearly shown in a government statement, approved by the Cabinet on Oct. 26, 2010, in the form of a reply to a lawmaker's question.
However, a former Japanese government official admitted to the existence of the "shelving" agreement, complicating arguments on the issue.
Quotes stitched together to make 'shelving' claim
On Sept. 23, 2012, a Japanese person appeared on a program of state-run China Central Television to talk about the Senkaku issue. His name is Ukeru Magosaki, former head of the Intelligence and Analysis Bureau of the Foreign Ministry and a former professor of the National Defense Academy.
On "Xinwen Lianbo," a nationally televised news program, Magosaki said, "I think there was an agreement [between Japan and China] to shelve the Senkaku issue." He also offered his own view that there must be a hidden reason the Japanese government does not acknowledge this now.
On what grounds does Magosaki say there was an agreement to shelve the Senkaku issue? As evidence for his argument, he introduced records of meetings between then Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka and then Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in September 1972 in his book titled, "Nihon no Kokkyo Mondai: Senkaku, Takeshima and Hopporyodo" (Japan's border issues: Senkaku Islands, Takeshima islands and northern territories) in the Chikuma Shinsho series published by Chikumashobo Ltd.
The book says on Page 74:
Zhou: "Japan and China should seek major common interests and overcome minor differences."
Tanaka: "I can basically understand what Premier Zhou is saying well. I side with Premier Zhou's opinion that we should put aside minor differences on specific issues and seek major common interests."
Tanaka: "What do you think about the Senkaku Islands? Some people say things about them to me."
Zhou: "I don't want to talk about the Senkaku Islands at this time. It's not good to discuss this now. It became an issue because of the oil out there. If there wasn't oil, neither Taiwan nor the United States would make this an issue."
Official record shows different context
According to the database of Japanese Politics and International Relations of the University of Tokyo's Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, which covers disclosed records of the Tanaka-Zhou meetings, however, one cannot help but notice the way Magosaki quoted their conversations could cause misunderstanding.
The Tanaka-Zhou meetings were held four times over four days. Zhou made the remark-"Japan and China should seek major common interests"-during the first meeting on Sept. 25, 1972, while Tanaka's "I side with" remark was made during the second meeting the next day. Furthermore, those remarks were made in contexts unrelated to the Senkaku issue.
It was during the third meeting on Sept. 27 that Tanaka asked Zhou about his recognition of the Senkaku Islands and Zhou replied, "I don't want to talk about..." Magosaki stitched together quotes from the talks between Tanaka and Zhou.
On Page 76 of his book, Magosaki also said, "It was the meeting between [then Chinese Vice Premier] Deng Xiaoping and then Foreign Minister Sunao Sonoda held at a time of negotiating the Japan-China Treaty of Peace and Friendship that had the most in-depth discussions between the two countries over the Senkaku issue."
The treaty was signed on Aug. 12, 1978. Sonoda was in charge of negotiating with Beijing.
Sonoda did indeed say at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives on May 30, 1979, "The Chinese side has its own assertion over the sovereignty of the Senkaku Islands."
"I think an idea of leaving the situation as it is would also be good for Japan's own interests," he said.
However, Sonoda clearly said at the lower house's plenary session the following day, "The issue of the Senkaku Islands is neither a condition nor agenda for the Japan-China Treaty of Peace and Friendship. The territorial issue is not being discussed."
A senior Foreign Ministry official brushed aside Magosaki's assertion, saying, "If [Japan and China] agreed to shelve the Senkaku issue, China must have made some document on that."
Senkaku 'choke points' to check China's Pacific advance
In October 2013, about one month before China established an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, the People's Liberation Army Navy carried out a large-scale military drill called Maneuver-5 on the high seas about 700 kilometers south of Okinawa main island.
All three major fleets of the PLA Navy-the North Sea Fleet, East Sea Fleet and South Sea Fleet-participated in the drill, which was one of the largest naval exercises China had ever carried out in the Pacific Ocean.
The PLA Navy has demonstrated "the unswerving will and determination of the PLAN to safeguard China's national sovereignty and maritime interests," Rear Adm. Liao Shining, the navy's deputy chief of staff, said proudly.
China has adopted an anti-access/area denial (A2AD) strategy, with which it aims to prevent U.S. forces from coming close to the mainland.
The primary focus of the strategy is to prevent direct attacks on Beijing by keeping the U.S. forces' powerful strike capabilities, including those of aircraft carriers, at a distance from the mainland.
In addition, if Chinese nuclear-powered submarines can freely enter the Pacific Ocean, China will be able to attack the U.S. mainland, giving it a major advantage in negotiations with the United States.
"The ultimate goal of Maneuver-5 exercise was to secure naval supremacy in the northwestern Pacific. The maximum range of U.S. cruise missiles is 3,000 kilometers. The sea area where Maneuver-5 was conducted matches the area including points where the U.S. forces are assumed to fire cruise missiles at Beijing [if the United States has to attack Beijing]," said Keiichi Kawanaka, former associate professor at the National Defense Academy.
However, there are two major hurdles that the Chinese Navy must overcome to move around freely in the western Pacific.
One is to establish "air superiority" to a degree where Chinese battleships would not be attacked by U.S. fighter jets. During the period of the Maneuver-5, Chinese Y-8 airborne early warning aircraft and H-6 bombers participated in the drill, passing over the high seas between Okinawa Island and Miyakojima island of Okinawa Prefecture daily.
Such moves by Chinese military aircraft into the airspace over the Pacific have been conspicuous since the summer 2013.
Setting up the ADIZ in the East China Sea is the first step to securing air superiority, some experts say.
"China deepened its confidence over air command in airspace distant from the mainland during the Maneuver-5. This became a strong motive for the country's setting-up of the ADIZ," Kawanaka said in his analysis.
Another hurdle is to secure safe passage in the Nansei Islands, including the Senkaku Islands.
At a symposium hosted by a U.S. Navy-related organization on Jan. 16, 2014, in a Washington suburb, retired Vice Adm. Yoji Koda, former commander in chief of the Self-Defense Fleet of the Maritime Self-Defense Force, emphasized, "From China's A2AD strategy point of view, Japan's Nansei Islands constitute to be 'hard choke points' against the PLA forces' advancement into the Western Pacific in trying to realize the strategy."
He said in the same context, "Stable and firm control of these 'choke points' will surely be one of most important roles and missions of Japan and the SDF under the Japan- U.S. alliance to counter and suppress China's challenge to realize the A2AD strategy."
If Japan steadily defends the Nansei Islands, continuing to allow the SDF to be deployed at any time, Chinese military vessels will be unable to easily venture out to the Pacific, as they fear attacks, including those using antiship missiles. For such military strategy-based reasons, China has been adamant about changing the status quo of Japan's effective control over the Senkaku Islands.
China eager to develop, deploy
China has been eagerly advancing the development and deployment of weapons and equipment needed to realize A2AD.
Preliminary stage deployment of the antiship ballistic missile Dong Feng (DF)-21D has already begun, according to the U.S. Defense Department.
The PLA Air Force is reportedly developing next-generation stealth fighters J-20 and J-31, with a timetable for practical deployment seen within several years. There were reports in 2013 that there had been a test flight of the stealth combat drone Ligian (Sharp Sword). China has been hastily developing unmanned vehicles, it was also reported.
The PLA Navy has been moving forward with the deployment of its first domestically manufactured aircraft carrier, a version of the Aegis destroyer known as Chengdu, as well as submarines. The Chengdu is seen as an important part of an aircraft carrier battle group.
Chinese military forces are also equipped with the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS), a Chinese own version of the Global Positioning System (GPS), designed to improve the precision of missiles and operate drones.
The BDS already covers almost all of Asia, the western Pacific Ocean and Australia. Employing fishing boats equipped with the BDS, the Chinese military has been gathering intelligence on foreign naval vessels and aircraft.
2 The Long Road to Collective Self-Defense
Japan-U.S. pact to enter new stage
"The Japan-U.S. alliance will enter into a different sphere, as the exercise of the right of collective self-defense will become a great deterrent."
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe could hardly contain himself as he made this comment to his aides in late June 2014, as the government saw its prospects of changing the interpretation of the Constitution to allow the nation to exercise this right brighten.
On July 1, the government decided on a reinterpretation of the Constitution to allow limited exercise of the right of collective self-defense during a Cabinet meeting, a major turning point for the country's security policy in the postwar era.
Abe sometimes complains that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is too close to China.
However, considering that China has repeatedly carried out provocative and aggressive actions around Japanese territory and North Korea continues to develop ballistic missiles and other weapons, Japan has no alternative but to deepen the Japan- U.S. alliance through joint military exercises and the unification of operation plans to handle emergencies.
"In several years, it may become impossible to protect the Senkaku Islands only with the Maritime Self-Defense Force. It will be too late when such a situation becomes a reality," Abe reportedly said.
At the risk of criticism within the country, Abe pushed forward efforts to change the constitutional interpretation.
Besides his wariness over the rise of China and outbursts from North Korea, Abe sought to realize the reinterpretation of the Constitution because he felt the U.S. position as "world policeman" had eroded.
'Not friends'
When Abe spoke of changing the constitutional interpretation, he often said, "If someone cannot help his or her friend, they are not friends."
The prime minister obviously meant that when the Japan- U.S. alliance based on trust is undermined, the alliance will become a worthless piece of paper.
When Obama visited Japan in April 2014, Abe spoke with U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who had accompanied Obama. Abe mentioned the example of "friends," and explained that under the current constitutional interpretation, Japan could not protect U.S. vessels carrying civilians escaping some disaster. In response, Rice reportedly said such a relationship could not be called an alliance, and she called on the prime minister to push forward with the review of the constitutional interpretation concerning the exercise of the right of collective self-defense.
At a press conference on July 1, 2014, Abe mentioned a statement by a U.S. high-ranking official that encouraged him to work on the issue. "I was urged to seriously consider whether the U.S. public would continue to trust Japan if a Self-Defense Forces' vessel did not take any action when a nearby U.S. vessel that was protecting Japan came under attack."
On the other hand, Abe stressed that the Cabinet decision will not change the basic interpretation of the current Constitution.
"The existing principle that dispatching troops overseas is prohibited in general will not change at all," he said. "There will never be a case in which the Self-Defense Forces will participate in combat in wars such as the Gulf War and the Iraq War."
Abe emphasized that the latest Cabinet decision will further decrease the risk that Japan is dragged into war. "I want to clearly say once again that Japan will never become a country that wages war again," he said.
Points of Cabinet decision on July 1, 2014
* The use of minimum necessary force is permitted under the Constitution when an armed attack takes place against a foreign country with which Japan has close relations and there is a clear danger that the people's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will be fundamentally undermined.
* There are cases in which the use of force has its basis in the right of collective self-defense under international law.
* Discussions will be carried out to speed up the issuance of commands and other procedures to deal with an infringement that does not amount to an armed attack. Legislation will be established to enable the Self-Defense Forces to protect weapons and other supplies used by U.S. military units engaged in defending Japan.
* Legislation will be established to enable the SDF to come to the rescue of civilians or foreign troops in remote locations when certain conditions, including the provision of consent by the government of a country to which the SDF is dispatched, are met.
* The SDF will be able to provide logistic support for foreign troops in areas other than those in which the "troops are engaged in acts of combat."
China's defense budget quadruples
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's top security concern is China's military strength.
China has increased its defense spending annually by 10 percent or more in recent years, as well as accelerating modernization of its military equipment.
The defense budget announced by Beijing in March 2014, was about 808.2 billion yuan (\12.93 trillion), up by 12 percent from last year and quadruple the figure 10 years ago.
Despite appeals for transparency, China has not broken down its defense budget figures.
The defense spending increase is aimed mainly at the rapid modernization of its weaponry. The Chinese Navy began operating its first aircraft carrier Liaoning in 2012, and the air force is developing an advanced type of stealth fighter jet.
Some experts speculate that China may be able to commission its first domestically built aircraft carrier in the early 2020s.
Meanwhile, Japan's defense budget has remained flat and the United States is being forced to make significant cuts to achieve fiscal reconstruction.
A senior Defense Ministry official said, "The military power of Japan and the United States is much greater than that of China now, but the gap is narrowing."
The greatest concern now may be intensifying provocative actions by the Chinese armed forces.
In May and June, 2014, Chinese fighter planes made extremely close approaches to Self-Defense Forces aircraft over the East China Sea. The Chinese fleet and submarines are also increasing their scope of activities around Japan and in the western Pacific. In 2012, North Korea launched a long-range ballistic missile that reportedly can reach the west coast of the United States, and is now developing nuclear weapons.
The security environment in East Asia is becoming increasingly hazardous.
LDP's compromise for agreement with coalition partner
One of the highest hurdles Abe had to clear before the Cabinet decision was to get an approval from its coalition partner, Komeito.
The wishes of Komeito, which called itself a party for peace since its inauguration 50 years ago and has been reluctant to endorse reinterpretation of the Constitution, were taken into consideration when composing the final draft of a Cabinet decision on exercising the right of collective self-defense.
However, the agreement left important issues to be addressed later by the Diet, including how to handle collective security.
"A strictly defensive posture will be maintained and [Japan] will not become a major military power that could threaten other nations."
"If a dispute takes place, the maximum possible diplomatic efforts will be made to resolve it peacefully."
The final text of the Cabinet decision incorporated the above two sentences at Komeito's request.
Such revisions were made in response to criticism from those opposed to "becoming a war-ready nation," and are intended to show that Japan will continue to be a pacifist country that values peaceful solutions above all else.
Additions describing how the changing security environment has necessitated collective self-defense as a defensive measure, and on the importance of increasing deterrence by strengthening the Japan-U.S. alliance, increased the overall length of the text by 20 percent, a government source said.
The government and the LDP approached the negotiations with Komeito with an attitude that "any wishes for how things are expressed would be accommodated," the sources said.
In the end, it was agreed that three new conditions for mobilizing the right of self-defense could only be invoked in situations when Japan's continued existence is threatened and there is a clear danger that the people's lives and rights will be fundamentally undermined.
Moreover, it was decided that when a situation arises, the government would determine whether to exercise the right of self-defense based on these conditions.
Minesweeping operations in sea lanes was one point of contention on which agreement was not reached.
It was proposed that participation would be allowed if the effect on Japan was to be inordinately large, but not if the effect was expected to be more minor.
The LDP saw such situations as appropriate to exercising the right of collective self-defense, according to a high-ranking party member. But according to Komeito Vice President Kazuo Kitagawa, "Just having mines laid in a sea lane isn't enough to merit [invoking the right of collective self-defense]."
Battle over an adverb
Regarding the issue of collective security, there was a battle over a single word at a meeting of the ruling parties.
Komeito deputy chief Kazuo Kitagawa criticized a provision in the final draft that said the nation's right of collective self-defense "could also be" a reason for the use of force mentioned earlier in the draft.
"Does 'also' mean that collective security is included?" Kitagawa wanted to know. Komeito is cautious about collective security.
The expression "could also be" was based on the LDP's position. Even if Japan independently begins minesweeping in sealanes by exercising its right of collective self-defense, that same activity would become an act of collective security in the eyes of the international community if the U.N. Security Council adopted a resolution urging member nations to sweep mines in sea-lanes and take other measures. Collective security refers to the use of force approved under the U.N. framework.
LDP members put the meaning of collective security in "also" because they worry that Japan would have to stop all its activities after the adoption of such a U.N. resolution if the use of force under collective security was categorically excluded from the draft.
However, Komeito leaders opposed this, arguing it would be impossible to consolidate opinion within their party if collective security was included in the discussion.
Accepting the request from Komeito, LDP agreed to change the expression to "could be" in the draft to be endorsed by the Cabinet.
LDP Vice President Masahiko Komura, who chairs the meetings between the two parties, said collective security has not been an official agenda item of their discussions. If Komeito wants the wording to be changed, "also" should be taken out, Komura said.
In reality, however, the government and the LDP have informally established a policy that the SDF could continue its activities even after a U.N. resolution was adopted, if those activities meet the new three conditions to allow the exercise of Japan's self-defense right and are not acts of combat to harm an enemy.
The government's written answer to the Diet, which was endorsed by the Cabinet in June, 2014, also stipulates that the SDF can continue its activities even if a U.N. resolution is adopted when the individual self-defense right is exercised.
Self-defense change certain to strengthen U.S. alliance
The government's decision to approve the limited exercise of its collective self-defense right is certain to cement its alliance with the United States further.
U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel expressed strong support for the decision at his meeting with then Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera in Washington on July 11, 2014. Now, attention is being focused on what measures to enhance the alliance will be included in drafting new Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation, observers said.
Hagel said at a press conference held after the Japan-U.S. defense ministerial meeting at the Pentagon that Tokyo's approval for the limited exercise of the collective self-defense right allows Japan to be involved more actively in areas such as defending against ballistic missile attacks, preventing weapons of mass destruction from proliferating and participating in military exercises with U.S. forces.
"We can raise our alliance to a new level [with the decision], and we intend to do that," Hagel emphasized.
Onodera and Hagel have paved a way for the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture, which was stalled under the Democratic Party of Japan-led government, and turbocharged discussions on enhancement of the Japan-U.S. alliance, said officials of both governments.
Particularly, the U.S. side considers the Japanese government's new view on its national security, including the approval for the limited exercise of its collective self-defense right, as marking a new era in the Japan-U.S. alliance because it reduces restrictions on the roles the Self-Defense Forces can play and enables the two countries to carry out joint drills in peacetime, which assume integrated operations of the SDF and U.S. forces at the time of emergencies.
Both Onodera and Hagel expressed their desire to enhance the Japan-U.S. alliance at the press conference.
"This bold, historic, landmark decision will enable Japan to significantly increase its contribution to regional and global security and expand its role on the world stage," said Hagel.
Onodera said, "Revision of the guidelines will reflect contents of the Cabinet decision and become groundbreaking."
Washington expects the SDF to play a larger role because it has set a "rebalance" policy to emphasize the Asia-Pacific region but is forced to cut defense spending to rehabilitate its fiscal condition.
The United States is trying to expand its trade with Asia-Pacific countries with their economies booming, but North Korea is proceeding with development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and China is intensifying its hegemonic activities, such as its aggressive advance into the East and South China seas. Furthermore, cyber-attacks allegedly committed by the Chinese military have continued against U.S. companies.
Though the security environment is unstable in the Asia- Pacific region, the United States, which is already exhausted fighting in Iraq and in other wars, has found it to be too heavy a burden for it to deal with the situation alone. In reality, Washington is said to want Japan, a U.S. ally, to shoulder part of its security burden.
An official at the Pentagon said that Japan will become close to a reliable ally to the United States like Britain and Australia, if the revision of the guidelines increases options in Japan-U.S. security cooperation and expands the range of activities the SDF can do.
As one measure to strengthen the Japan-U.S. alliance, Onodera said during a lecture in Washington that cooperation in defense equipment is also significant.
The SDF has decided to introduce F-35s, state-of-the-art stealth fighters, and MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor transport aircraft. This move is expected to make joint drills smoother on the assumption that responses to emergencies can be better coordinated if U.S. forces and the SDF use common equipment, observers said.
Remote islands key in guidelines
During their meeting on July 11, 2014, Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera and his U.S. counterpart, Chuck Hagel, recon- firmed a schedule for formally deciding on the Guidelines for Japan- U.S. Defense Cooperation by the end of 2014 after releasing an interim report of the new guidelines in autumn, sources said.
The focus of the bilateral defense guidelines revisions is expected to be on how the two nations will cooperate to address so-called gray-zone situations, cases that cannot be immediately judged as armed attacks. A case such as the seizure of remote islands, including the Senkaku Islands in Okinawa Prefecture, by an armed group disguised as fishermen is considered to be a gray-zone situation.
The United States clarified its stance that Article 5 of the Japan- U.S. Security Treaty, which stipulates the obligation of the United States to defend Japan, applies to the Senkaku Islands. However, some observers say Japan cannot expect the U.S. military to come to its aid when the case is a gray-zone situation.
The current defense guidelines revised in 1997 have given special emphasis to dealing with emergencies on the Korean Peninsula, and they do not provide clear stipulations on how to deal with gray-zone situations.
The government hopes to secure the U.S. military's involvement in defending the nation in the future by stipulating the roles of the Self-Defense Forces and the U.S. military in the defense of remote islands, including in the case of gray-zone situations, sources said.
Regarding emergencies on the Korean Peninsula, if a restriction on SDF actions deemed inseparable from the use of force by another country is eased on the basis of the government's new interpretation of the Constitution, it will be possible to expand the scope of the SDF's logistic support to the U.S. forces. Countermeasures for cyber-attacks, as well as cooperation in space fields, including maritime surveillance using satellites will be stipulated in the revised guidelines, sources said.
Onodera clarified the aims of the guidelines revisions at a press conference on July 11, 2014, saying, "We'd like to ensure the contents [of the guidelines] allow Japan and the United States to cooperate seamlessly and swiftly together in cases ranging from normal circumstances, including gray-zone situations, to emergencies."
SDF at crossroads after 60 years
The Self-Defense Forces marked the 60th anniversary of its inauguration on July 1, 2014, same day as the Cabinet decided on a reinterpretation of the Constitution.
There was a time when the SDF was given only second-tier status due to its connection with Article 9 of the Constitution, but today it has developed into a government organization regarded favorably by over 90 percent of Japanese.
Depending on the course of Diet discussions on Japan's right of collective self-defense, however, the SDF might be ordered to carry out challenging missions it has never done before. Standing at a crossroads, it is also true that men and women in uniform feel uncertain about the future of the SDF.
With the enforcement of the Defense Agency and Self-Defense Forces laws on July 1, 1954, the agency and the SDF came into being. The SDF is based on the National Security Force established in 1952, which grew out of the National Police Reserve created in 1950. Currently, the three branches of the SDF have a total of 225,000 members.
"I couldn't even think of wearing a uniform when I commuted to the office," Hiroshi Morishige said, recalling the early days of the SDF when the public viewed it with a stern eye. Morishige, now 86, dealt with the 1985 crash of the Japan Airlines passenger jet and other incidents as chief of staff at the Air Self-Defense Force.
When he was in the ASDF, a few schools refused to enroll some children because their fathers were SDF members. In 1960, when protest movements over the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty were at their height, Morishige witnessed demonstrators, who had surrounded the Diet Building, heading to the former Defense Agency building in the Roppongi district. Fearing they might occupy the agency, he rushed to the roof of the agency to incinerate classified documents, Morishige said.
He even suffered personal damage when a terrorist set his house on fire in 1992, though he had already retired from the SDF at that time.
However, times have changed. According to a 2012 survey by the Cabinet Office, a record 91.7 percent of respondents said they had favorable impressions of the SDF. Photo books and TV dramas on SDF members are very popular today.
"SDF members, which had put up with such slander as 'tax-money snatchers' and 'violators of the Constitution,' are steadily working on disaster aid, peacekeeping operations and daily training," Morishige said proudly.
"What the Self-Defense Forces is today is the result of various achievements made over the 60 years," said Shigeru Iwasaki, chief of the Joint Staff who heads the SDF.
A 21-year-old sergeant who has volunteered for a threemonth ranger training course at the Ground Self-Defense Force's Fuji School Brigade said, "I watch video footage of U.S. forces in Iraq and other places to form mental pictures" to supplement his lack of experience in real combat.
Rangers infiltrate hostile areas to carry out their missions. In a five-day training program that started June 27, 2014, the sergeant and others in the ranger course were to trek through the mountains of Izu Peninsula and other places, each carrying more than 40 kilograms of gear on his back. Eight of the 24 trainees have already quit the course because they could not endure the hard training.
Today, not only the GSDF but also the Maritime and Air Self-Defense forces are facing a wider range of missions. But expectations for rangers with excellent physical performances are exceptionally high in the GSDF, which faces new challenges such as establishing a unit to regain control of a remote island occupied by an enemy.
The sergeant wants to be assigned to a special operations unit engaged in counterterrorism operations in the future. If he is assigned to such a unit, the sergeant could be dispatched to a dangerous area abroad.
His 23-year-old fiancee, who is also an SDF member, said: "I respect what he wants to do...All I can do is pray for him to return safely if he goes on a dangerous mission."
If the exercise of the right of collective self-defense is permitted in the near future, the SDF is more likely to use force overseas.
A senior SDF officer expressed concern that this might cause a worsening of the favorable public impression the SDF has built up over a long time.
"If we are dispatched on a mission abroad that divides public opinion," he said. "How will the public see the SDF then?"
Web edition part 2
Speech
Clip to Evernote
inShare
Myth and Truth in East Asiazerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21795015.post-19892435217337822362014-11-09T21:00:00.002-08:002014-11-09T21:00:20.600-08:00Myth and Truth in East Asai 2<a href="http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0001682522">1:05 pm, November 06, 2014
The Yomiuri Shimbun
3 Chilly Ties with South Korea</a>
Public, private sectors pouring oil on flames
Bilateral relations between Japan and South Korea have chilled dramatically in recent years.
South Korean President Park Geun-hye said in a speech in March 2013: "The historic dynamic of one party being a perpetrator and the other party a victim will remain unchanged even after 1,000 years have passed." Is it impossible to remove anti-Japanese sentiment from the hearts of South Korean people?
"We will cast Japan out of Asia."
This is the strident message of the Voluntary Agency Network of Korea (VANK), a South Korean civil organization with about 120,000 members, mainly young people.
VANK also wants to call the Sea of Japan "Donghae," or East Sea, and insists that "Dokdo [Takeshima islets] is territory of South Korea."
SLIDE 1 OF 1
Asahi Shimbun President Tadakazu Kimura, center, bows in apology on Sept. 11, 2014, in Tokyo.
It says such claims are "correct knowledge" and transmits these views around the world.
The organization has compiled actions conducted by the defunct Imperial Japanese Army such as the Nanjing Incident and Bataan Death March into a video and made it available on the Internet. The video was made in English and appears to have been designed to spread the image of an "atrocious and inhumane Japan" to the world to fuel anti- Japanese sentiment.
It is generally known that the Imperial Japanese Army killed many Chinese people in the Nanjing Incident in 1937. China says "more than 300,000" people were killed, but the basis of this figure is unclear. A Japanese historian says the number is about 40,000. The Japanese government's position is that it is "difficult to recognize a correct figure."
The Bataan Death March refers to an incident that took place in April 1942 on the Bataan Peninsula of the Philippines' Luzon Island, in which the Japanese military forced U.S. and Filipino prisoners of war to march for days under the scorching sun, resulting in many deaths. After World War II, Lt. Gen. Masaharu Honma, the commander of the Imperial Japanese Army's 14th Army stationed on the island, was sentenced to death by the U.S. military tribunal for Class B and C war crimes.
To "cast out" Japan from Asia, VANK has a program to educate South Koreans to become special volunteers, dubbed "cyberdiplomats." The 12-step program includes spreading "correct knowledge" to overseas friends or sending protest letters to parties who "misunderstand" South Korea.
VANK's activities have been heavily supported by the South Korean government and that country's companies. The South Korean government provided funds to the organization for four years from 2005. In February 2013, then South Korean President Le Myung Bak awarded an honorable recognition to Park Ki Tae, the leader of VANK.
In 2008, major shochu brewery Jinro Ltd., currently Hite Jinro Co., donated 110 million won (about \10 million at the current exchange rate) to VANK. The money was used in a youth education program called Cyber Dokdo Academy, jointly promoted by VANK and the North Gyeonsang Province government. The program was designed to foster human resources that can spread the view to the international community that Takeshima in Shimane Prefecture, called Dokdo in South Korea, is a territory of South Korea.
This joint drive by the public and private sectors of South Korea is part of a campaign called "Discount Japan," a new movement to undermine Japan's position in the international community.
VANK leader Park told The Yomiuri Shimbun that VANK is fighting against Japanese politicians and right-wingers who promote a revival of imperialism.
"We would like to positively share friendship with young Japanese who wish for peace in East Asia," he said.
However, Kobe University Prof. Kan Kimura, an expert on Japan-South Korea relations, said: "VANK may be not intending to inflame nationalism. However, the South Korean government has skillfully taken the organization under its wing and is using its members as tools in the 'Discount Japan' campaign."
The South Korean government has been promoting the "Discount Japan" campaign in various fields. Manga, a signature symbol of Japan's youth culture, is one such example. The South Korean Gender Equality and Family Ministry displayed dozen of manga stories based on the theme of socalled comfort women at an international manga festival in France. The ministry plans to distribute them to other countries after translating the stories into English, French and Japanese.
Anti-Japan movements gain foothold in U.S.
The raging tide of anti-Japan sentiment is not limited to South Koreans alone. In recent years, Americans of South Korean descent have been stepping up a similar campaign in the United States, as if to act in concert with the movement launched in South Korea.
Glendale, a suburb of Los Angeles, is a U.S. city where such activities are under way. On July 30, 2013, a statue depicting a young girl intended to symbolize so-called comfort women was erected at a local park, at the initiative of the Korean American Forum of California, a pro-Seoul nonprofit organization. The figure closely resembles one built in front of the Japanese Embassy in the South Korean capital in late 2011.
Comfort women refer to those who provided sexual services for officers and soldiers of the now-defunct Imperial Japanese Army at comfort stations, most of them privately owned and operated, during World War II. The South Korean government has asserted that many women were forced into sexual slavery by the prewar Japanese army. The Japanese government has refuted the South Korean argument, saying none of its official records contain a description of such forcible conduct by the Japanese army.
The Glendale city council's decision to approve the erection of the statue was preceded by a public hearing on July 9, 2013. The meeting was attended by many Japanese, Japanese- Americans and others. They included members of the Study Group for Japan's Rebirth, Southern California, a nonprofit organization working to improve Japan's international standing in the United States. The group is led by Koichi Mera, a Japanese resident in Los Angeles.
During the public hearing, Mera and many others opposed the plan to erect the statue, dismissing as fiction the assertion that the Japanese government had forced women into sexual slavery during World War II.
However, their argument was countered by local residents of South Korean descent who insisted there was no denying that Korean women had been forced to work as sex slaves. Some participants said the Japanese government had acknowledged its prewar army's involvement in controlling and managing comfort women, citing a statement issued by then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono in 1993.
Controversial Kono statement
Kono's statement said the Imperial Japanese Army had been "directly or indirectly" involved in setting up and managing comfort stations. The statement was interpreted as Japan's own acknowledgment of its forcible action to take away such women. However, the statement was hardly supported by substantial evidence. (details in Chapter 4)
During the July 9, 2013 public hearing, the plan for the statue was put to a vote, and four of five city council members voted in favor of the plan.
In many other U.S. locations, similar movements related to the comfort women issue have been taken, including the erection of monuments and the adoption of city council resolutions. One such area was Bergen County, N.J., where a monument citing the issue was built in the front yard of a courthouse in March. Its inscription said the prewar Japanese army had forced Korean women to work as sex slaves.
The structure stands alongside other monuments marking such historical events as the Holocaust by Nazi Germany and slavery in the United States. It was apparently intended to show the public that the prewar Japanese army's involvement in the provision of sexual services by comfort women must be treated as a historical atrocity like the Holocaust.
Book boycott
South Korean groups leading such anti-Japan campaigns are strongly united. They are also gaining political power with which they could swing U.S. public opinion. One such example is a campaign to boycott "So Far from the Bamboo Grove," a semi-autobiographical novel published by an American of Japanese descent, Yoko Kawashima Watkins, in 1986. The novel depicts the hardships experienced by a Japanese girl named Yoko during World War II. The Japaneselanguage translation of the book was published by a Tokyo publishing house in July 2013.
Immediately after the end of the war, Watkins returned to Japan from the Korean Peninsula. As the wife of an American soldier, she moved to the United States. In "So Far from the Bamboo Grove," she recounts the misery of war by speaking of her own experience.
In 1998, the novel was cited as recommended reading by a U.S. guidebook for teachers and became reading material for American students.
However, controversy arose in South Korea when the novel's Korean-language edition was published there in 2005. Objections were raised over the book's descriptions of Koreans sexually assaulting Japanese women and plundering Japanese. But the novel also depicts Koreans who treated Yoko's family kindly and helped them.
The book's Korean-language edition was withheld from publication in 2007.
In the United States, those of South Korean descent initiated a campaign to boycott the book, asserting that the novel was a historical distortion of Japan's colonial rule over the peninsula. The book was removed from the list of suggested readings in some areas.
It is of great value to South Korea that the anti-Japanese movement is based in a superpower like the United States. In October 2013, a delegation of South Korean parliamentarians visited the United States. In a meeting with South Korean diplomats there, they urged the diplomats to increase the number of American supporters of their country, insisting that the so-called comfort women issue must be resolved within the international community.
However, it must be recognized that an extreme anti-Japan campaign by pro-South Korea citizens in the United States could produce the opposite effect of what was intended. Citizens of the United States, a nation traditionally built on immigration, are inclined to be skeptical toward any disputes over how people from two different nations perceive facts related to their historical relationship.
James Schoff, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the United States would not support one side in dealing with two nations with which it is on friendly terms.
As things now stand, the Japanese government has not yet taken any measures to counter South Korea's anti-Japanese campaign. "If South Korea goes too far, it will earn them international distrust," said an official from the Japanese Embassy in Seoul who asked not to be identified.
This sentiment was echoed by a Foreign Ministry official who said: "What one should consider in thinking about diplomacy is how his or her country appears to the rest of the world.
"South Korea's current behavior makes it look as if it were on the way to committing suicide."
"So Far from the Bamboo Grove" ~ girl's hazardous journey to safety
In July 1945, Yoko, an 11-year-old Japanese girl, left her home, which was surrounded by bamboo groves, in Nanam, a city in the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, with her mother and sister.
Yoko's family had heard a rumor that the Soviet army would invade the city, so they decided to return to Japan.
The family's escape to Pusan (present-day Busan) was a hazardous journey of over 1,000 kilometers.
Over and over again, Yoko witnessed Korean men sexually attacking Japanese women. The three shaved their heads, hoping to look like men, and managed to escape such a danger.
It took them two months to arrive in Busan. They boarded a freighter heading for Japan, finally reaching safety.
Japanese Embassy, textbooks also targeted
As a chorus of voices chanted repeatedly, a high school girl was so touched by the scene that she began to cry. Meanwhile, primary school children led by their teacher were carrying placards containing such messages as "Many countries have suffered because of Japan's depraved desires," and "The hearts of old ladies who were sex slaves have been tainted."
In the afternoon of Nov. 6, 2013, a crowd of about 200 people, mainly young people, gathered in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. It was the scene of weekly demonstrations against Japan over the so-called comfort women issue.
The following Wednesday, the demonstrations, which began in 1992, marked their 1,100th iteration. At that important juncture, a representative of a civic group known as the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan made a speech. Many reporters were in attendance to cover the event.
A 22-year-old female university student from Daejeon who took part in the demonstration told The Yomiuri Shimbun: "I'm studying English so I can let people abroad know about the comfort women issue. To resolve the issue, I think we should join these demonstrations more often."
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations stipulates that it is the duty of a hosting country to protect the safety of embassies. According to South Korean law, assemblies and demonstrations are banned within 100 meters of a foreign diplomatic establishment.
But local police simply stood by watching the demonstrations held in front of the Japanese Embassy, effectively giving tacit approval.
In South Korea, there is a word that translates to "anti-Japan innocence," meaning anything is pardonable as long as it is anti-Japan. In this country, being labeled pro-Japan can even cost a person his or her life.
In May, 2013, there were news reports that a 95-year-old man who spoke nostalgically of the days under Japan's colonial rule of Korea was beaten to death at a park in Seoul. There were a spate of writings on the Internet defending the perpetrator.
Kim Wan Seop, a critic who wrote "A written plea in favor of Japan," in which he praised Japanese colonial rule in Korea, was fiercely criticized and even physically assaulted. The publication was later designated as "harmful to young people" and its sale was effectively banned.
Startling remarks about Japan have been boldly carried by local newspapers. The Chosun Ilbo, the daily with the country's largest circulation, carried in early September an essay written by a contributor titled "How to conquer Japan through the use of feng shui."
According to the article, a temple called Jissoji was built in South Korea to cut off the air flow from the continent to Japan. "Every time you strike a map of Japan carved on the temple bell, another blow is dealt to Mt. Fuji," the article said. The contributor was a professor at Woosuk University in Jeonju.
South Korean history education is one of the factors behind what a source who is well versed in Japan-South Korean relations calls "senseless anti-Japan sentiment."
In South Korea, government-designated textbooks were formulated under the administration of then President Park Chung Hee, promoting history education that is strongly tinged with nationalism.
From fiscal 1974 to 2009, primary, middle and high schools each used only one government-designated history book. Currently, primary schools must use a designated history textbook, while a textbook screening system was adopted for middle and high schools in fiscal 2010, allowing them to select a history textbook from among several choices.
"The History of South Korea," the government-designated textbook used until recently at middle schools, described Japan's prewar rule over Korea as "an oppressive and inhumane rule through military power," and one that "reduced [people in South Korea] to the state of slavery."
Regarding the Takeshima islets in Shimane Prefecture, the textbook said, "Japan unilaterally placed it into its territory, but our nation recovered it when we liberated ourselves from Japan's rule." Such statements are used to justify South Korea's illegal occupation of the islands.
People who underwent such an education now have pivotal roles in South Korean society.
On the subject of education, President Park Geun-hye made a surprising proposal on Nov. 14, 2013.
During her speech in Seoul, she proposed the "publication of a common history textbook to be used across Northeast Asia."
Yet Japan and South Korea have been trying to conduct joint research by historians for more than 10 years since 2002.
According to Hiroshi Furuta, a professor at University of Tsukuba who took part in the research, the two sides failed to reach any accommodation. When the Japanese side tried to use objective data, the South Korean side would get angry, refusing to accept Japan's arguments.
Furuta, a scholar of East Asian politics, said South Korea will never create a history textbook based on objective historical facts.
Attempts at joint research
Joint studies on history between Japan and South Korea have been conducted twice in the past.
The first, which began in 2002, started when Seoul was upset over descriptions in a history textbook in Japan, which later developed into a diplomatic issue. Eleven history scholars from each side took part and published a report in 2005. As seen in the report, both sides failed to narrow their differences over major issues of contention, including the legitimacy of the 1910 treaty on Japan's annexation of Korea and the handling of South Koreans' rights to seek wartime damages from Japan. The report documented the opinions of both sides.
The second joint study was held from 2007 to 2010, while a subgroup was newly established to discuss the textbook issue.
The South Korean side criticized a history book in Japan, saying it described Japan's aggression on the Korean Peninsula using weak language. Meanwhile, the Japanese side called it problematic that South Korea had mixed together the issues of the so-called comfort women and the wartime labor mobilization system in which women worked in factories.
During summit talks in December 2011, then Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and South Korean President Lee Myung Bak agreed to hold a third round of joint research, but it has not yet begun.
Funds offered as atonement
The Japanese and South Korean governments confirmed that the issue of war reparations between the two nations was settled by their 1965 accord on the right to claim war reparations and economic cooperation.
The Japanese government nonetheless provided livelihood support to former comfort women through the Asian Women's Fund, established in July 1995 and disbanded in March 2007.
The fund-with donations from the Japanese people and \4.8 billion from taxpayers' money-offered an atonement payment and supported groups that provide medical and welfare services to those women.
The atonement money was delivered with a letter of apology from the incumbent prime minister to 285 former comfort women in South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines.
In South Korea, however, a campaign to reject the atonement money was launched, and a series of incidents was reported about former comfort women being harassed for receiving the money. As a result, only 60 of about 240 people who came forward as having served as comfort women filed an application to receive the money.
After the fund was disbanded, the Japanese government covered medical checkup costs for the women and provided medicine through nonprofit organizations.
According to the Foreign Ministry, Japan has secured a yearly budget of \10 million to support former comfort women since fiscal 2007.
Concessions to South Korea 'led to nothing'
Relations between Tokyo and Seoul were further strained in August 2012, when then South Korean President Lee Myung Bak visited the Takeshima islets in Shimane Prefecture. South Korea claims the islands. Noda regarded Lee's visit as a betrayal of Japan's desire to improve relations.
In an interview carried in the morning edition of The Yomiuri Shimbun's Oct. 29, 2013 issue, Noda expressed frustration that Lee had taken such a step amid a decline in his approval rating.
"I believed he had taken an apparently anti-Japanese action, calculating his behavior in connection with his [falling] support rate. I argued with myself why this extraordinary situation was going on," Noda said.
Since the two nations normalized diplomatic ties in 1965, the Japanese Foreign Ministry has apparently sought to appeal to Seoul with logic and emotion-70 percent affection and 30 percent logical reasoning.
This approach has been adopted in consideration of Japan's colonial rule over the Korean Peninsula before and during World War II. With that past in mind, the ministry has paid heartfelt attention to the stance taken by South Korea in dealing with bilateral issues, not just thinking about them logically.
However, a senior ministry official has said he feels such lines of thinking may be outdated today. He said Japanese concessions to South Korea have led to nothing. This sentiment is shared by others.
"We shouldn't compromise our principles when dealing with South Korea," a close aide to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said.
Japan's efforts upended by 'moving goalposts'
Some Japanese government officials are beginning to think of South Korea as "moving goalposts." The phrase suggests that Japan has been unable to "score a goal" because the target is always moving.
The metaphor shows that Japanese efforts to improve bilateral relations will always be met by South Korea's moves to escalate its demand for an apology from Tokyo, leaving the situation with no resolution in sight.
Over the years, Japan has repeatedly apologized for its colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula before and during World War II. The Japan-South Korea joint communique issued prior to the normalization of bilateral ties in 1965 stated that "....there have been unfortunate times [in the two nations' historical relations], it is truly regrettable and we are deeply remorseful."
On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end on Aug. 15, 1995, then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama expressed "feelings of deep remorse" for the suffering inflicted on other Asian nations by Japan's wartime conduct.
Emperor Showa also expressed a similar sentiment. In 1984, he met then South Korean President Chun Doo Hwan during the latter's visit to Tokyo. In the meeting, the Emperor said it was "indeed regrettable" that there was an unfortunate past between the two countries.
However, South Korea demanded a more explicitly worded apology from Japan. Tokyo and Seoul coordinated their opinions in negotiations over the issue. In 1990, the current Emperor expressed "the deepest remorse" in a meeting with Chun's successor, Roh Tae Woo.
In August 2012, however, then South Korean President Lee Myung Bak said, "[The Emperor] does not need to visit [South Korea] if 'the deepest remorse' was the only phrase he could find after months of agonizing rumination."
4 Investigating Reports on 'Comfort Women'
Delayed apology
On Sept. 11, 2014, The Asahi Shimbun, Japan's second-largest newspaper expressed a formal apology for the delay in correcting the misreporting regarding the issue of so-called comfort women.
In a news conference on the day, Tadakazu Kimura, president of the Asahi, said, "I apologize to our readers for carrying the erroneous articles and being too late in making the correction."
In a special feature in its Aug. 5 morning edition, the Asahi carried the results of an in-house investigation into its past reports on comfort women. The newspaper admitted that the account given by Seiji Yoshida-who said comfort women had been forcibly gathered on South Korea's Jeju Island-was false and retracted at least 16 articles that were based on it. But it had not offered any apology for publishing the articles, drawing a barrage of harsh criticism.
The Asahi said it would establish a third-party panel consisting of lawyers, historians and journalists to conduct a thorough review of the impact of its comfort women coverage on Japan-South Korea relations and the international community.
Yoshida's account was quoted in the report that Radhika Coomaraswamy submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 1996. The Asahi had argued that it is important that there was coercion in a broad sense, but it was criticized as simply switching the point of contention.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe blamed the Asahi shortly after the press conference, saying on a radio program that the newspaper's reporting on the issue of comfort women tarnished Japan's honor.
"It's true that many people have suffered, and Japan's honor has been stained in the international community because of [the Asahi Shimbun's] erroneous reporting," Abe said on the radio program.
3 decades of debate
It was thirty-two years ago when The Asahi Shimbun first reported unverified remarks that Korean women were "forcibly taken away" to serve as so-called comfort women during World War II.
The Asahi's stories on the comfort women issue over the decades have been a significant factor in the entrenchment of the distorted view that "the Japanese military systematically and forcibly took away women to serve as comfort women" for its soldiers.
Even today, this fabrication about the comfort women is being dispersed around the world, and there is little likelihood it will be rectified anytime soon.
The Japanese government "should ensure that all allegations of sexual slavery perpetrated by Japanese military during wartime against the 'comfort women' are effectively, independently and impartially investigated and that perpetrators are prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished." On July 23, 2014, the U.N. Human Rights Committee made this recommendation during a session in Geneva. Although this is not legally binding, the panel also urged Tokyo to pay reparations to former comfort women and disclose "all evidence available."
During discussions on the UNHRC report on Japan held on July 15-16, Osamu Yamanaka, the director of the Foreign Ministry's Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division, had twice insisted that the term "sexual slaves" was not appropriate. However, his assertions were not accepted.
Critical views of Japan are not limited to just the United Nations. According to the Foreign Ministry, two comfort women statues and six stone monuments dedicated to these women have been erected in the United States. More such statues have been built in South Korea. Most have been erected at the behest of groups of citizens with Korean ethnicity, and appear to be aimed at tightening the net of international opinion around Japan.
One of the reasons why fierce scorn continues to be heaped on Japan almost 70 years after World War II ended is the belief that the Japanese government forcibly recruited and rounded up Korean women to serve as comfort women. The government has pored through its documents and other relevant materials but has not found one shred of evidence that the women were "forcibly taken away."
Tracing the path back to where this fabrication started leads to an article in the Asahi's morning edition published by its Osaka Head Office on Sept. 2, 1982. Carried in the city news section, the article's Japanese headlines blared: "I also forcibly took Korean women" and "Violence inflicted as women taken against their will."
Yoshida frequently quoted
The detailed report was about remarks by Seiji Yoshida, who claimed to be the former head of the mobilization department of the Shimonoseki branch of Romu Hokoku-kai. The Asahi reported Yoshida's remarks during a speech in Osaka before he in July 1983 published a book on this topic, titled, "My war crimes: Forced transportation of Koreans."
The Asahi reported on Yoshida's comments at least 16 times, including the original story.
Researchers and other people began to raise doubts about the credibility of Yoshida's remarks from about 1992. Despite this, the Asahi ran a special report on Jan. 25, 1994, to mark the 115th anniversary of the newspaper's establishment in which it even boasted that its series of articles had helped make comfort women an international issue.
On Aug. 5, 2014, the Asahi at last published a special review on its comfort women coverage, and finally admitted that Yoshida's remarks were false. It retracted some of the articles' contents. The most significant piece of evidence behind the claim that women had been "forcibly taken away" had crumbled.
Suspicions over Yoshida statements ignored
The remarks by Seiji Yoshida that spawned the fabrication that "comfort women had been forcibly taken away" were oddly vivid.
An article in the Sept. 2, 1982, morning edition printed by The Asahi Shimbun's Osaka Head Office reported claims by Yoshida that he had rounded up and forcibly taken away 200 young women from Jeju Island, South Korea.
The article said: "Ten fully armed Japanese soldiers took part in this. When we found a settlement, the soldiers would first surround it. Then, the nine subordinates of Yoshida would storm the settlement together. Young women were dragged out to the lane with their arms twisted behind their backs. These women were then shoved into the back of a truck covered with a canopy."
The article also claimed Yoshida had forcibly rounded up as many as 950 Korean women to serve as comfort women over three years.
With the apparent seal of approval from the Asahi, in July 1983 Yoshida published a book that expounded on his claims. Titled "My war crimes: Forced transportation of Koreans," the book was later translated into Korean. In 1992, Yoshida visited South Korea and even apologized to former comfort women. In time, the expression "forcibly taken away" became more widely used when referring to the treatment of these women.
The Asahi continued to put wind in Yoshida's sails.
In a column on Page 1 of the evening edition on Jan. 23, 1992, the Asahi lauded Yoshida for "having the guts" to step forward and speak about his involvement in the comfort women issue.
Some readers apparently contacted the Asahi to voice their doubts over the veracity of Yoshida's claims. However, the March 3, 1992, version of the same column admonished these readers with a pointed comment: "There are things we don't want to know or believe. But we cannot properly record history without fighting such sentiments."
Asahi changes the topic
Even in South Korea, Yoshida's comments soon met with skepticism.
Japanese historian Ikuhiko Hata conducted a research survey on Jeju Island and published a paper in the June 1992 issue of the Seiron monthly magazine in which he "confirmed that Yoshida's remarks appear to be fabricated."
The findings of Hata's survey also were carried in the April 30 morning edition of The Sankei Shimbun. Jeju Island should have been home to many people who had lived through the war and knew what had happened during those years. However, not one of them offered any statement that women had been hunted and forcibly taken away on the island.
Hata also confirmed that in August 1989, a reporter from a Jeju local newspaper wrote in a review of Yoshida's book that "there are hardly any people whose testimony backs up his claims" about women being forcibly rounded up.
Despite this, the Asahi has never properly addressed suggestions that Yoshida's remarks were untrue until recently. On March 31, 1997, The Asahi Shimbun's morning edition carried a special article on its coverage of the comfort women issue. However, the daily only said it was "unable to confirm the authenticity" of Yoshida's comments. Furthermore, the Asahi said "there is no reason to limit" the issue to one of women being "forcibly taken away." This time it argued that greater importance should be attached to the fact that those women were caught in a situation marked by a "coercive nature."
Nobukatsu Fujioka, a visiting professor at Takushoku University and an expert on the comfort women issue, has derided the Asahi for adding this new concept to the mix at this late stage.
"The Asahi wrote all these articles about women 'being forcibly taken away,' and then it comes out with the assertion that 'a coercive nature' is the heart of the problem," Fujioka said. "It has completely changed the subject."
Mystery shrouds Yoshida
According to Yoshida's eldest son, who is in his 60s, Yoshida adopted the name Seiji during an exchange of messages with the publisher of his 1977 book about Korean comfort women and Japanese people. The publisher, Shinjinbutsuoraisha, and Yoshida decided to use the penname Seiji, rather than his real name, Yuto. The names of real people who appeared in the book were all changed to fake names, and Yoshida reportedly mentioned that dates and places were also changed. Yoshida's eldest son remembers his father saying when the book was published, "This will make our family better off."
Hata telephoned the publisher after Yoshida's book was released. The person in charge of the book told Hata, "That's a novel." In 1996, Hata phoned Yoshida to ask him whether his remarks about the comfort women were true. Yoshida allegedly told him, "The section about hunting for comfort women on Jeju was interspersed with fiction." Hata has labeled Yoshida a "professional con artist."
Almost nothing is known about Yoshida's personal history before and during World War II. According to his eldest son, Yoshida spent some time after the war as the owner of a fertilizer company. After years of staying tight-lipped about the many questions surrounding the truthfulness of his remarks on comfort women, Yoshida died in Chiba Prefecture on July 30, 2000. He was 86.
Yomiuri reported comments as false
On the national news page of its evening edition on Aug. 15, 1992, The Yomiuri Shimbun carried an article with a headline "Meeting over comfort women issue held to reflect on 'war victims.'"
The article reported on testimony made by Seiji Yoshida at the meeting, saying that he was involved in forcibly taking away Korean women.
But since then, the Yomiuri has neither carried Yoshida's remarks nor run articles that could be construed as saying, on the basis of his testimony, that the women were forcibly taken away.
'Scoop' sheds light on victims
On Aug. 11, 1991, The Asahi Shimbun morning edition published by its Osaka Head Office carried a major scoop on its city news page.
Under the headline "Tears still well up when I remember," the article featured the statements of Kim Hak Sun, a former comfort woman living in Seoul. An almost identical article was printed in the Asahi's Tokyo edition the next day. The story was an exclusive that not even local South Korean media had covered.
With its 1991 exclusive, the Asahi became the first media outlet in the world to share the human voice of a "victim" in this matter-a former comfort woman. With a comfort woman coming forward, the fabrications embedded in Asahi's coverage of this issue-that comfort women were forcibly rounded up and taken away-began to take on a touch of reality.
Riddled with problems
Penned by Takashi Uemura, the opening paragraph of the article began: "A 'Korean military comfort woman' forced to provide sexual services for Japanese military personnel after being taken to the combat zone under the name of the female volunteer corps during the Sino-Japanese War and World War II has been found living in Seoul..."
From the beginning, the article gave the impression that the woman had been forcibly taken away by the Japanese military and forced to be a comfort woman.
However, parts of the story are inconsistent.
In the article, Kim explains that "when I was 17 [under the Korean way of counting ages; she was actually 16], I was tricked and made to serve as a comfort woman." Although the beginning of the Asahi story implied Kim was taken away as a member of the female volunteer corps, she herself said that was not the case. In the first place, comfort women and the volunteer corps who were mobilized to work in factories and elsewhere were completely different.
Uemura wrote the article after listening to a tape recording of Kim's statements made by the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, a support group for former comfort women.
Key elements omitted
On Dec. 25, 1991, another article written by Uemura on the struggles Kim had experienced in her life was carried on Page 5 of the Asahi's Osaka morning edition.
Remarkably, Uemura did not mention in his stories about Kim that Kim's mother had sold her to a family that ran a school for kisaeng-a kind of female entertainer-for \40. Kisaeng learn traditional arts to perform at banquets and other events, and some reportedly became comfort women.
Furthermore, Kim has stated that her adoptive father took her to Beijing after telling her, "If you go to China, you can make money." Uemura's articles describe the person who tricked Kim as someone "doing work in the district." It is not made clear that it was, in fact, her adoptive father.
In December 1991, Kim filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court seeking compensation from the Japanese government. Kenichi Takagi, the lawyer who led the team for plaintiffs Kim and others, told The Yomiuri Shimbun in an interview in August 2014: "We and Ms. Kim are not saying she was forcibly taken away as a member of the volunteer corps. She was sold after she went to the kisaeng school."
The implications and nuances of "a comfort woman forcibly taken away by the Japanese military" and an "unfortunate comfort woman sold off by her parents" are strikingly different.
Uemura's ties to plaintiffs
Another glaring oversight in the Asahi's coverage cannot be simply brushed off.
In its special report, The Asahi Shimbun clarified that Uemura had married the daughter of Yang Sun Im, a senior official of Kankoku Taiheiyo Senso Giseisha Izoku Kai.
The organization, an association of families of people killed in the Pacific War, was involved in organizing a lawsuit brought by Kim and others. This means Uemura was a close relative of someone involved in the lawsuit.
Tokyo Christian University Prof. Tsutomu Nishioka, an expert in South Korean and North Korean regional studies, believes Uemura has left himself open to criticism. "There's not much Mr. Uemura can do to prevent people from assuming that he tried to use his story to benefit a court case involving a relative," Nishioka said.
Uemura was a reporter in the city news section at the Asahi's Osaka Head Office when he wrote the original article about Kim.
The Asahi's special report tried to dispel suggestions that Uemura used his family connections for his articles, and insisted "he did not obtain any special information through his relationship with his mother-in-law." The Asahi report concluded by stating, "There was no intentional twisting of the facts in the article by Uemura."
Report's timing complicated PM's S. Korea visit
The Asahi Shimbun's morning edition on Jan. 11, 1992, carried another "scoop" at the top of its front page. The main headline read: "Comfort stations; records show military involvement."
The story was carried in the paper only five days before then Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa's scheduled trip to South Korea.
In its special report on the comfort women issue published on Aug. 5, 2014, the Asahi said it did not time the story's publication with the prime minister's visit to South Korea. However, the 1992 story included the sentence: "[The findings] placed a very serious burden on the shoulders of Prime Minister Miyazawa, who is scheduled to visit South Korea from Jan. 16." It seems certain that the Asahi had Miyazawa's visit in mind.
The story in question reported that documents showing the Japanese military's involvement in the establishment of comfort stations and the recruitment of comfort women during World War II were found in the library of the then Defense Agency's National Institute for Defense Studies.
However, historian Ikuhiko Hata pointed out in his book "Ianfu to senjo no sei" (Comfort women and sex on the battlefield) that the documents reported on by the Asahi had been open to the public for 30 years before the newspaper printed the story.
"It was common knowledge among researchers that the Japanese military was involved" in the establishment of comfort stations, Hata said in the book.
Even the Asahi itself admitted in an editorial published on Jan. 12, 1992, the day after the initial article, that it was common knowledge that such stations were established under the administration of the Japanese military, and in that sense, the discovery of the documents by the newspaper was not surprising in itself.
However, reporting this common knowledge again and on a larger scale ignited anti-Japan sentiment in South Korea. Miyazawa visited the country amid a highly charged atmosphere, with South Korean demonstrators throwing eggs at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul.
In response to the Asahi's reporting, South Korean newspapers unleashed a hostile campaign against Japan. The Hankyoreh, a leading daily, said in its Jan. 12, 1992, edition that Japan's savagery had finally been revealed.
During a summit meeting on the second day of his visit, Miyazawa apologized to South Korean President Roh Tae Woo, who called on the Japanese prime minister to bring to light the whole truth about the comfort women issue and take "appropriate measures."
Miyazawa reportedly told Roh, "I apologize and express remorse [over comfort women] from the bottom of my heart."
"Prime Minister Miyazawa used eight different expressions to apologize," a South Korean government official told local media, revealing the number of times the prime minister had expressed apologies.
Yukio Takeuchi, who accompanied Miyazawa to South Korea as his secretary, recalled the summit meeting.
"It was completely unexpected that [the South Korean] president stuck to the comfort women issue and spoke in such a tone of reproach," said Takeuchi, a former administrative vice minister of the Foreign Ministry who later became a Supreme Court justice. "As his secretary, I apologized to the prime minister for failing to anticipate this situation."
Anti-Japan sentiments ignited
The documents in question only showed the Japanese military's involvement in controlling private operators of comfort stations. But the Asahi's article was interpreted in South Korea and other countries as saying that documents had at last been discovered proving that the Japanese military forcibly took women away to make them comfort women.
The Asahi also carried a story explaining the meaning of "comfort women" that included the phrase "forcibly taken away" on the front page. This apparently led to the mistaken impression that the military was involved in forcibly taking women away.
In an effort to stop Japan-South Korea relations over the comfort women issue from deteriorating further, the Japanese government on Aug. 4, 1993, issued a statement through then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono (the Kono statement). However, since Kono made remarks at a press conference implying that the Japanese military had actually taken women away forcibly, it has spread the misunderstanding that the Japanese government had officially admitted its former military had done so. That has made the problem even more complicated.
Roh recalled the comfort women issue in an interview carried in the March 1993 edition of Bungei Shunju magazine.
"The Japanese mass media have stirred up this problem," Roh said in the interview. "It has kindled anti-Japan sentiment among the people of my country and infuriated them."
'200,000 comfort women'
The Asahi also confused comfort women with female volunteer corps, who were recruited to work at factories and do other jobs unrelated to sex services, in its article in the Jan. 11, 1992, edition. The article said the military forcibly took away 80,000 to 200,000 Korean women and others under the name of female volunteer corps. South Korean media also addressed the issue.
The Chosun Ilbo, a South Korean daily, reported on the Asahi's article the following day. It said in its editorial on Jan. 13, 1992, that there were 80,000 to 200,000 comfort women, the same figures the Asahi used, and said 80 percent of them were Koreans.
A group of former comfort women said in a lawsuit against the Japanese government that there were 100,000 to 200,000 comfort women. It is undeniable that the Asahi's article made the "200,000 comfort women" theory more credible and helped disseminate it.
Based on the number of Japanese soldiers, Hata estimated there were about 20,000 comfort women. He also said Koreans were estimated to account for 20 percent of that number.
The Yomiuri Shimbun itself wrote in articles published in the early 1990s that there were said to have been over 200,000 comfort women.
Asahi and South Korean media shared sympathy
Since the latter half of the 1990s, repercussions of The Asahi Shimbun's factually inaccurate coverage of the so-called comfort women issue have manifested themselves in South Korea, the United Nations, the United States and elsewhere. The Asahi stories fueled the misperception that these women had been systematically and forcibly rounded up and taken away by the Japanese military. As the issue mutated into an international matter, South Korean media quoted these Asahi articles, which fanned anti-Japan sentiment among the public in South Korea. The Asahi would then report on these consequences, and the cycle would be repeated. There emerged a type of shared sympathy among the Asahi, South Korean media and that country's public opinion.
The headline for the front page's top story in the Asahi's morning edition on Jan. 11, 1992, said documents found in the archives of the then Defense Agency "showed military involvement" in running wartime comfort stations. In its evening edition that day, the Asahi bragged that its article had been "quoted and extensively reported" by South Korean TV stations and radio since that morning.
The following day, The Chosun Ilbo newspaper's morning edition cited the Asahi story. On Jan. 13, its editorial demanded the Japanese government issue an apology to and pay appropriate compensation to surviving comfort women.
When then Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa visited South Korea and issued a formal apology to the comfort women on Jan. 16, the Asahi's coverage was widely praised in that country.
An article in The Dong-A Ilbo on Jan. 16 said this apology was forthcoming "because of The Asahi Shimbun's extensive coverage about military involvement on Jan. 11. Without this, the Japanese government might still be trying to escape responsibility by claiming the 'women were taken by private operators.'"
Fabrications appear in U.N. reports
In April 1996, the U.N. Human Rights Commission (now the U.N. Human Rights Council) adopted a report compiled by Radhika Coomaraswamy that recommended the Japanese government pay compensation to former comfort women.
In its evening edition on Feb. 6, 1996, two months before Coomaraswamy's report was adopted, the Asahi ran a frontpage story headlined, "Give compensation to former comfort women." The story outlined the content of the report. An article on the city news page in the same edition said the United Nations' special rapporteur on violence against women had given a clear rebuke to the Japanese government, which had "avoided paying state compensation to individual war victims." A commentary piece, whose headline suggested the debate on compensation to individuals might be rekindled, also emphasized the Asahi's view that "the Japanese government should pay compensation" to former comfort women.
Ever since the 1992 Asahi report about "military involvement" in so-called comfort stations, demanding that Japan's government pay compensation has become a clear trend among South Korean media. The tone of the Asahi's articles has matched that of the media in South Korea.
In August 1998, the U.N. Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights adopted the McDougall Report that, among other things, called for the prosecution of "all those responsible" for the comfort stations, and a "compensation scheme to provide official, monetary compensation" to former comfort women.
A person who was on the commission when both reports were adopted has revealed that outside forces had been pushing for these developments.
"South Korean support groups for former comfort women and Japanese nongovernmental organizations had been stepping up their lobbying at the United Nations to ensure these reports were adopted," the source said. Since about 1992, lawyer Etsuro Totsuka has been a central figure in the drive to press the United Nations to take up the comfort women issue.
Totsuka, who is the head of an NGO, is known as the first person to have described comfort women as "sex slaves" at the United Nations.
"I believed the compensation problem probably couldn't be resolved through lawsuits in Japanese courts," Totsuka said. "The military's involvement had become clear [because of the Asahi's stories], so I thought it was about time to give an account on this issue to the United Nations."
Lawsuits by plaintiffs including comfort women were going through Japan's courts. However, given their slim chances of a legal victory, it appears turning to the United Nations was an attempt to apply "outside pressure" via the international body.
Repercussions rumble on
The 1996 Coomaraswamy Report was based partly on the testimony of Seiji Yoshida, who claimed he had forcibly taken away Koreans to work as comfort women. Although suggestions that Yoshida's comments were untrue had been raised since 1992, the report's acceptance of them as if they were "historical fact" also raises doubts about its credibility.
In August 2014, Yang Sun Im, who heads an association of Pacific War victims and their families that has organized plaintiff groups for lawsuits by former comfort women, told The Yomiuri Shimbun that she believes not all of Yoshida's claims can be dismissed.
"The content of his remarks was extremely detailed, and would have been impossible unless he had actually experienced what he was talking about," Yang said. "Nobody can say that his entire story was fabricated."
Yang is the mother-in-law of Takashi Uemura, the then Asahi reporter who scooped the testimony of former comfort woman Kim Hak Sun in 1991.
On July 30, 2007, the United States - Japan's ally - joined the fray as the House of Representatives passed a resolution demanding the Japanese government issue a formal apology over the comfort women issue. Movements to establish statues and other memorials dedicated to these women are continuing.
In March 2014, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said about comfort women, "It breaks my heart to think about those who went through indescribable hardships." And in his remarks at a House of Councillors Budget Committee session, he clearly denied that his Cabinet will review the Kono statement. Still, the criticism of Japan knows no bounds and seems certain to continue.
Published since 1955 by THE YOMIURI SHINBUN
1-7-1 Otemachi, Chiyoda Ward, Tokyo 100-8055
E-mail: japannews@yomiuri.com
Web edition part 1
Speech
Clip to Evernote
inShare
Myth and Truth in East Asiazerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14384809541337623511noreply@blogger.com0