At the very beginning of the new year, the New York Times ran an editorial highly critical of Japan’s new prime minister, Shinzo Abe. Titled “Revisionism in Japan,” the editorial began by warning: “If the prime minister modifies the official apologies for wartime sex slavery, he could inflame regional tensions.”

　　　This criticism is based on a dispatch by Reuters, which reported on an exclusive interview the conservative mass-circulation daily Sankei Shimbun had with Abe on December 31, 2012. In that interview, the new prime minister was quoted as saying he hopes to announce an unspecified “forward looking statement” befitting the 21^st century, replacing the official apologies made in 1995 by the then prime minister, Tomiichi Murayama, for Japan’s World War II aggression. The Times had this to say about Abe’s remarks:

　　　“Few relations are as important to stability in Asia as the one between Japan and South Korea. Yet, Japan’s new prime minister, Shinzo Abe, seems inclined to start his tenure with a serious mistake that would inflame tensions with South Korea and make cooperation harder. He has signaled that he might seek to revise Japan’s apologies for its World War II aggression, including one for using Koreans and other women as sex slaves.”

　　　Describing Abe as “a right-wing nationalist,” the Times columnist noted that Abe remarked that his previous administration, in 2006-7, had found “no evidence that the women who served as sex slaves to Japan’s wartime military had, in fact, been coerced” and warned that “(A)ny attempt to deny the crimes and dilute the apologies will outrage South Korea, as well as China and the Philippines, which suffered under Japan’s brutal rule.”

　　　The columnist further described Abe’s intentions as “shameful impulses,” concluding that “(S)uch revisionism is an embarrassment to a country that should be focused on improving its long-stagnant economy, not whitewashing the past.”

　　　Made up of just 35 lines, the editorial offers a rich array of pungent rhetoric using such terms as “sex slaves,” “right-wing,” “nationalist,” “revisionism,” and “shameful.” In point of fact, the editorial strikes one as an emotionally-charged diatribe unbecoming a daily which has won high international recognition for its superb news coverage, including the expose last fall of the appalling corruption that has engulfed the Chinese Communist Party.

Total Disregard of Japan’s Assertions and Explanations

　　　Gathering as much pertinent information as possible constitutes the basis of journalism. An editorial must reflect insights that are based on facts.

　　　And yet, one fails to discern any trace of sincere efforts to search for historical facts pertaining to the Times’ claims, conspicuously reflecting a lack of knowledge about the past on the part of the columnist. I wonder if the columnist might wish to take back the word “impulse” that he or she thrust on Abe, and reflect on whether the word might be better applied to him or herself: was the columnist factually well-prepared to write this editorial?

　　　Past criticism towards Japan concerning the so-called “comfort women” issue focused on a claim that the women were coerced into brothels by the Japanese government and military. However, years of research in a number of nations, including South Korea, the Philippines, and Indonesia, has failed to uncover any materials or documents testifying to the existence of organized coercion of the women by authorities. There was even testimony by a number of those concerned, including some of the “comfort women” themselves, denying that there was any coercion. Controversial remarks were made by Seiji Yoshida, soldier-turned-author who initially claimed to have coerced Korean women into army brothels under military orders in Korean Comfort Women and the Japanese (Shin Jinbutsu-orai Sha, Tokyo; 1977), which was quite a commercial success. However, subsequent reporting by a female South Korean investigative journalist, as well as several independent investigations by specialists, have revealed Yoshida’s remarks as having been a complete sham instigated for commercial gain.

　　　When the case for coercion of the women began to appear increasingly weak, South Korea and China, as well as some members of the American media and influential social and political figures, started taking things even further, condemning Japan for committing acts of sexual slavery in total disregard of Japan’s assertions and explanations. I am not certain how much thought the New York Times gave to its choice of terminology but it is interesting to note that the editorial in question did in fact use the phrase “sex slaves” instead of the word “coercion.”

　　　I too am in agreement with those principles which find the existence of these “comfort women” during the war to be wrong. It is of course better that sex not be bought and sold. However, as for those who wish to continue to condemn Japan – nearly 70 years after the end of the war – we must ask if those nations and their military themselves stand on moral ground high enough to make such denunciations.

　　　It is a well-known fact that when the Americans occupied Japan following the end of the war, the first thing they demanded was that the Japanese “provide women.” This has been noted by political journalist Toshio Sumimoto of the mass-circulation daily Mainichi Shimbun in his 629-page account entitled: Secret Annals of the American Occupation of Japan (Chuo Koron Sha, Tokyo; 1988). Sumimoto went on to serve as editorial director and vice president of the Mainichi.

　　　Secret Annals is a compilation of articles the journalist penned starting in April 1952, when Japan regained its sovereignty following the end of seven years of American occupation under which the people were denied freedom of expression, with newspapers, magazines, radio programs, and dramas rigidly censored. Having anxiously waited for the end of the occupation, Sumimoto wrote extensively about people and happenings based on his experience as a journalist committed to vigorous information gathering. Here’s what he had to say:

　　　“On the first night in which the U.S. Army was stationed in the port city of Yokohama, some officers sped to Tokyo in a jeep. Mistaking the Marunouchi Police Station as the Metropolitan Police Headquarters, they barged into the building, demanding that they be provided with women. When told that no such services were available, the GIs pointed to groups of women walking outside the police station, saying ‘there are plenty of them right there.’”

　　　This happened in the summer of 1945. One can easily imagine a scene in which the occupiers, who had absolute power, demanded that women be provided. What followed all across Japan still lives vividly in the memory of many Japanese people. People do not forget such things. And yet, we never dare talk about it. Because we have convinced ourselves that this is what defeat in a war means, as we give due consideration to the values and background of that era.

Folly of Judging the Past by Today’s Standard

　　　The US and Japan have both faced challenges and aspirations for a better future over the course of their respective histories. I have already mentioned the similarities found between the brothels of the Japanese military during the war and those of the American military after.

　　　The New York Times, as well as South Korea and China, now condemn Japan’s war-time military brothel system as “sex slavery.” But does it make sense to judge the past by today’s standards? If so, then those making the accusations must also be prepared to answer for their own past.

　　　In this vein, it is worth noting that full-scale slavery existed in the US until the Civil War, and that the basic civil rights of many black people were denied until quite recently. Millions of Africans were brought to America in slave ships, not as human beings, but as mere chattel. Wasn’t there even an American president who had a black slave woman bear his children?

　　　That said, I wish to emphasize that there is another side to the American character which I truly respect. Despite its history of slavery, ｔhe US has in more recent times – perhaps more so than any other nation – genuinely grappled with national policies for eliminating every type of discrimination, including sexism and racialism. That is why I still have a very high regard for the US.

　　　Having gone through the difficult process of forging this national character, I am convinced that Americans are intrinsically best disposed to understand the sincere efforts that the people of Japan have, and will continue to, make in safeguarding the same values that Americans prize. For example, wishing to make a contribution to the order of the international community after World War I, Japan proposed mankind’s first declaration of universal racial equality at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Unfortunately, it was President Woodrow Wilson, serving as chairman of the conference, who failed to take up the proposal from Japan, which had over the decades agonized over racial inequity imposed by the Western powers.

　　　Even though prostitution was in general viewed differently before the war, the Japanese government and the people of Japan have expressed deep regret about the brothel system of that period. Despite this, the New York Times has, without sufficient research or confirmation of the facts, declared the brothel system to have been “sex slavery,” while also continuing to accuse Japan of not reflecting enough on the past. I am determined to put my honor at stake in refuting such groundless accusations.

　　　What puzzles me most is why so great a daily as the New York Times, which is generally seen to represent America’s good sense, does not bother to investigate the conditions of the pertinent matters. Why does it neglect verification of facts? Why does it refuse to look more closely at America’s important Pacific ally, Japan?

　　　Japan and the US share many values. I earnestly hope that Prime Minister Abe will take the lead in better articulating Japan’s position to the US, implementing a national project to disseminate pertinent information, enabling us to form a more solid partnership by learning more from each other.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 541 in the January 17, 2013 issue of The Weekly Shincho)