By Takahashi Shiro, Guest Fellow, International Research Institute of Controversial Histories
Japanese https://i-rich.org/?p=2329
Among the papers that China submitted additionally after the registration subcommittee, under the International Advisory Committee of UNESCO Memory of the World, pointed out the insufficiency of the previously submitted papers, there are sources (the record of verbal testimonies by comfort women) held at the Chinese Comfort Women Study Center headed by Professor Su Zhi-liang of Shanghai Normal University, who was sent by China to the International Advisory Committee meeting held at Abu Dhabi on October 6, 2015. China also added “Statements by 1,000 Japanese war criminals,” the result of the brainwashing education conducted against Japanese prisoners of war by the Chinese Eighth Route Army under the command of the Chinese Communist Party for application to Memory of the World. The application paper China submitted states that the submitted source is the proof of “forced abduction” of comfort women. However, after examining the source, we found that there are several problems.
First, as a typical statement by former Japanese soldiers, it is mentioned that Lieutenant General Sasa Shinnosuke and Lieutenant Colonel Hirose Saburo raped women, but apparently comfort women were at the comfort station for economic reasons due to poverty and they were paid due fees. Therefore, either incident does not prove that comfort women were “forcibly abducted” or made “sexual slaves.” As to how those women were investigated or whether they were legally protected if court trials were held, there should have been court records, but they have not been made public.
Second, “Record of Japanese Military Comfort Women” (twenty-five items) kept at Jilin Province Dang-an Hall which China additionally submitted for Memory of the World Register does not verify the claim of “forced abduction” or “sexual slaves.”
Third, one of the twenty-five items is “Nanjing Military Police Examination Report on the Situation of Recovered Security within the Jurisdiction of Nanjing Military Police,” recording the numbers of Japanese soldiers and that of comfort women and how the Japanese Army treated sick or injured Chinese citizens free of charge. According to the record, there were 25,000 Japanese soldiers and 141 comfort women. However, 141 comfort women did not serve the entire Japanese soldiers and there are no descriptions verifying that comfort women were “forcibly abducted” or made to work as “sexual slaves.”
Fourth, the report made by the Shanghai City Police in 1938 writes that Japan-friendly Chinese were involved in “forcibly abducting” comfort women. But the source did not back up the “Japanese-friendly” description or there was no mention of the word Japan. This source only indicates that Chinese forcibly made Chinese women prostitutes.
Among the “Military Comfort Women” sources China additionally submitted is “Statements by 1,000 Japanese war criminals examined by the Chinese Communist Party,” which says, “From 1952 to 1956, more than 1,000 Japanese war criminals were investigated by the Chinese Communist Party Government, about 8.5% of which admitted to “setting up comfort stations,” and 61% stated that they had sexually related with comfort women.” However, no sources exist, verifying China’s allegation that comfort women were “forcibly abducted” or treated as “sexual slaves.”
At the beginning of the “military comfort women” paper China additionally submitted for Memory of the World Register, it is stated, “Comfort women refer to women who were put into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army. Most of these women were forcibly made sexual slaves.” However, comfort women were not “forcibly abducted,” but they were engaged in “prostitution business under legal protection,” and at war times, many belligerents set up similar institutions and it is not at all true that the Japanese comfort women system was a sheer rarity.
As we have just seen, the problem is that China strongly promotes its points, while putting together pieces incapable of verifying “forced abduction” or “sexual slavery.” We must say that China’s application is nothing short of political propaganda.
I attended as an observer the Memory of the World International Advisory Committee, held on October 4 through 6, 2015 at Abu Dhabi, capital of the United Arab Emirates, and submitted an opinion paper to the Committee, asserting the following three points as basic concerns.
First, UNESCO clearly states in General Guidelines to Safeguard Documentary Heritage 2.5.4: “The rule of law is respected...copyright legislation...are consistently observed and maintained with dignity and transparency.” China used a photograph of Yangjia-zhai comfort station without its owner’s consent in the application process, falsely alleging that China possesses copyright, which violates Guidelines.
Second, Guidelines states (4.4.3), “The IAC will also require that documentary heritage be accessible.” However, China made only a part of the application sources accessible. If China’s unilateral application denying accessibility of its materials and objective examination by others were to be registered, UNESCO’s international trust and authority will be surely damaged.
Third, among materials China submitted for nomination, some have been partially extracted from the entire context, which makes it impossible to evaluate the source in the full perspective and to judge the authenticity of the content.
Based on these fundamental problems, I explained in detail to Chairperson Dr. Reyes the memorandum submitted to the United States Congress by Lary Niksch, researcher at the Congressional Service titled “The system of “comfort women” organized by the Japanese military during the 1930s and 1940s,” which then became the basis for the anti-Japan resolution concerning comfort women, held at the United States House of Representatives on July 30, 2007. I also emphasized that by the IWG (United States Interdepartmental Working Group) report, it was clearly verified that no historical sources exist to prove “forced abduction” of comfort women.
The revised IWG report of April 3, 2007, deleted Yoshida statement and mentioning the book written by Tanaka Yuki, clearly stated that The Asahi Newspaper’s false report of January 11, 1992 was “the greatest impact.”
I also reported that the Japanese Government refuted at the United Nations Human Rights Council held on September 15, 2014 and at the United Nations International Committee on Civil and Political Rights held on August 31, 2015, regarding the fact that The Asahi Newspaper’s false reporting influenced the United Nations Coomaraswamy Report and became the basis for the global misunderstanding that “200,000” comfort women were “forcibly abducted.”
Chairperson Reyes and Advisors from the United States and Canada showed particular interest in my explanation demonstrating Tanaka Yuki’s book in English and primary sources including IWG reports, which I believe decisively helped Chairperson Reyes understand Japan’s position. At present, after receiving the recommendation of dialogue, China is negotiating over the conditions of dialogue. This will be one of the major focal points of dialogue.
Note: Related Documents is provided in Japanese Site.