Question 6: Any perpetrators' testimonies ?
Then what about the perpetrators' testimonies ? is the question 6.
The answer for this question is,
Answer 6: Seiji Yoshida, Seiji is an alias and real name is ?Yuto?,
whose false testimony is the only one.
Yes, it's Mr.Seiji Yoshida. He used to identify himself as 東治, Toji
for a certain period. I'm sure this is obviously an alias also and he
seems to have a real name. His last name Yoshida is certainly a real one
though. The only perpetrator's testimony is the false one given by him.
His testimony is like this.
Mr. Yoshida, 10 conscripts and 10 local soldiers abducted 205 women into
2 trucks in Jeollanamdo and Jejudo under the order from the military as
descibed in "My war crime - abduction of Koreans with coercion" issued in
1983. He said they abducted women just as kidnappers did.
However, is this trustworthy ?
According to the news reporter Heo Yeongseon's article in the local Jeju
news on August 14th 1989 and the modern historian Ikuhiko Hata's field
investigation described in "Seiron" issued in June 1992, it's obvious
that Mr.Yoshida's testimony is a lie.
Moreover, even "Asahi shinbun" that had repeatedly reported his testimony
and agitated for the abduction with coercion, wrote later as "Asahi news
and some other media came to doubt his testimony" on March 31st 1997.
In fact they declared to deny his testimony.
I'm surprised to see how Asahi corrected their tones.
They are quite unscrupulous aren't they ?
Well now that we know there have'nt been any trustworthy perpetrators'
testimonies, what about the witnesses' testimonies ? is the question 7.
Question 7: Any witnesses' testimonies ?
The answer for this question is,
Answer 7: This is also zero. It's a strange story that in spite of
existences of the women calling themselves the victims, we've
never seen a Korean witness.
Next is the question 8. Then,
Question 8: Was the comfort woman issue taken up through the negotiation
process for the establishment of diplomatic relations between
Japan and Korea ?
Though I hinted at the answer a bit, the answer 8 is,
Answer 8: The talks between Japan and Korea continued as long as 14 years.
Though every single issue, even if it was very small, was taken
up one by one, not only Japan didn't submit this issue but
This is the very important fact, isn't it ?
And the question 9 which is the simple question.
Question 9: There has been none of a document, a victim's testimony,
a perpetrator's testimony and a witness's testimony that we can
trust to be the proved fact. And even Korea didn't take up
this issue at all through the process of the establishment
of diplomatic relations between Japan and Korea.
Why has this become the international issue ?
We should know the answer for this. The answer 9 is,
Answer 9: After Japan had entered Heisei Period, "Asahi Shimbun" sparked
this issue and the Kiichi Miyazawa cabinet implemented the apology
The course of this policy is like this.
Mr.Takashi Uemura, a reporter of "Asahi", reported ex-comfort woman's
testimony in Osaka headquarter edition on August 11th 1991. This article was
the root cause of the "comfort woman issue". Nothing about the issue had not
been reported even in Korea at that time.
As for the contents of the artcle, it was a fabricated report in which Mrs.
Kim Haksoon was abducted, forced into the "Women's Volunteer Corps" and then
"sent to the battle area". As being a group of women mobilized to the
military arsenals or the clothing factories, the Women's volunteer Corps had
nothing to do with the "battle area" or the soldiers' sexual frustrations
either. Besides, Mrs.Kim wasn't "abducted" but was sold by her poor mother.
That's to say, the "comfort woman issue" has come from the fabricated report
by "Asahi". This fabrication can't compare with Aru-aru's fabricated natto
report. And next, on December 16th same year, the Pacific War Victims
Association of Korea filed a suit with the Tokyo district court for 20
million yen a person, 300 million yen in all to be paid to the plaintiffs:
35 people including three ex-comfort women. The chief attorney was Mr.
As "Asahi" sensationalized this accusation, it rapidly became critical.
Here, we should never forget that Mr.Takashi Uemura reported this lawsuit.
To tell the truth, he had been married to a daughter of then executive
director and a current chairman of the Pacific War Victims Association of
Korea that brought an action to the court. In a word, the man whose position
was the executive director's son-in-law gave the first report on this lawsuit.
I think we should never forget this fact.
Moreover, what disastrously depraved the issue had been Prime Minister
Miyazawa's diplomatic stance at that time.
Without clarifying the fact or arguing with Korea thoroughly based on the fact,
he tried to calm down the situation by admitting the fault and apologizing as
It was ex-chief cabinet cecretary Kono's statements announced on August 4th
1993, the day before the general resignation of Miyazawa cabinet that has left
traces until today.
By his statements, not only the situation has never calmed down at all, but
as Japan's govt itself has been considered to have admitted the "direct
involvement" in the "abductions" of the comfort women by the "authorities etc.",
Japan's honor in the international community has been disastrously stained.
The resolution to demand Japan's apology in the American House of
Representatives this time is also based on Kono statements.
I believe everyone knows it. What huge problems it has created for the future !
This is the last question.
Question 10: Is Japan liable for the ex-comfort women ?
This is the question 10.
Yes, this is the answer.
Answer 10: No. There hasn't been any evidences that we can confirm the facts
of abductions by the army and the authorities. Additionally the both
countries admitted that all issues between the nations had been
"completely and permanently" solved based on the "agreement of claim
and economic cooperation" agreed in the process of the establishment
of diplomatic relations between Japan and Korea in 1965.
Accoding to this agreement, Japan provided Korea with the huge amount of
economic cooperation that were free $300 million and the loan for $200 million:
the foreign currency reserves of Korea at that time was only $130 million.
This means that Japan provided far more than three times, close to four times
of the Korea's foreign currency reserves.
No one can deny the fact that this fully contributed to Korea's economic
recovery after the war and it's well known to the public.
And the conclusion.
The comfort woman issue isn't the fact legally and from a historical angle.
It's nothing but the political phantasm generated by Kono statements and keeps
harming Japan's national interests.
I think earnestly that we Japanese shouldn't lose sight of this fact.