“It has taken me some time, but I’ve finally come to the conclusion that much of the controversy surrounding certain of Japan’s actions during the war has in fact been created by elements within Japan itself. ”

　　　　　That’s what Professor Tsutomu Nishioka of the Tokyo Christian University, a leading expert on the “comfort women” issue, had to say about a recent UNESCO filing by an organization of citizen groups from eight nations led by China and South Korea. Japanese NGOs and other Japanese activists also prominently participated. The filing requested UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register to list more than 2,700 archival documents dealing with the “comfort women” issue. Professor Shiro Takahashi of Meisei University, Tokyo, also expressed his deep concern about the filing.

　　　　　“These groups completed their joint filing on May 31. Last year, China actually had gone ahead with filing its own request for registration, but UNESCO deferred action at the time, recommending that China make a new request for registration this year, incorporating additional materials available in other countries. I feel there is a very high possibility of the registration being recognized this year because China has followed UNESCO’s counsel for a joint request.”

　　　　　In addition to China, Japan, and South Korea, the other members of the civic group represent Taiwan, East Timor, Indonesia, the Philippines, and the Netherlands, as well Britain, as a British war museum joined the ranks at the last minute. It is not known how and why it decided to join the group.

　　　　　While Japan has yet to obtain the details of the joint registration, some facts have emerged through the materials made available at a news conference held in Seoul on June 1. It was called by a group which calls itself the “International Solidarity Committee for Joint UNESCO Memory of the World Registration of Records Related to Japanese Military Comfort Women.”

　　　　　Why have Professors Nishioka and Takahashi concluded that activists within Japan are in fact responsible for much of the continued controversy over many of these issues related to the war? First, the documents submitted to UNESCO contain a considerable amount of material from these Japanese civic activists, who have for quite some time been endeavoring to build a case against Japan’s alleged wrongdoings during the war, including enslaving “comfort women.” This submission to UNESCO is but the latest of these efforts.

　　　　　Secondly, we must look closely at another document submitted to UNESCO written by Chinese authors but based on Japanese sources. This is the book Chinese Comfort Women (Oxford University Press; 2014) by Professor Su Zhiliang of Shanghai Normal University and two colleagues. Su heads the University’s Comfort Women Research Center (CWRC). I have referred to this book in this column before (April 28, 2016).

　　　　　Prof. Su and his co-authors have made the following assertions: (1) A majority of the Chinese “comfort women” were forcibly recruited by the Japanese military; (2) Chinese “comfort women” were treated more harshly than their Korean counterparts; and (3) The “comfort women” included more than 200,000 Chinese in addition to 200,000 Koreans from the Korean Peninsula.

Coercive Recruitment Propaganda

　　　　　Meanwhile, the CWRC has announced that approximately 300,000 of the 400,000 “comfort women” were murdered by the Japanese military, although Su’s book makes no mention of this.

　　　　　To what extent is a book of such content credible? The “Japan Institute on Chinese ‘Comfort Women’” comprising five prominent Japanese scholars, including Prof. Nishioka, analyzed the book and released “Basic Research on Chinese ‘Comfort Women’ ” (“Basic Research” hereafter) on June 17, concluding:

　　　　　(1) In-depth studies of the “comfort women” issue and efforts to safeguard their human rights started in Japan after the Asahi Shimbun began its propaganda campaign about “coercive recruitment of comfort women” in 1992; (2) coercive recruitment of Chinese women for sexual servitude for Japanese soldiers has never been verified; (3) a majority of the Chinese women who stepped forward as having been “comfort women” had actually been “victims of wartime sexual violence”; and (4) the claim that there were more than 200,000 Chinese “comfort women” is based on totally haphazard calculations.

　　　　　How did Prof. Su come to this irresponsible claim? One sees an obvious Japanese influence behind it.

　　　　　Su himself writes that a conversation with a Japanese scholar was a key factor behind his decision to start researching the “comfort women” issue. In 1992, while studying at Tokyo University as a visiting researcher, a Japanese scholar mentioned to him that “the Japanese ‘comfort women’ system had its origin in Shanghai.” With no previous knowledge of, or interest in this matter, Su decided to get involved in “comfort women” studies.

　　　　　That was the same year in which the Asahi started its vigorous propaganda campaigns. As reports about Chinese “comfort women” started to appear in the Japanese and South Korean press, a Ms. Wan Ai-hua visited Japan in December that year, claiming she had been a “comfort woman” for the Japanese military in China.

　　　　　Looking at what actually happened at the time, one begins to see the truth about the so-called “comfort women” in China—that the whole matter was triggered by the Asahi’s propaganda.

　　　　　As it was, Ms. Wan turned out to be the only Chinese woman who came forward as a former “comfort woman.” Suddenly, “a ‘vigorous search’ for women in China who had formerly been ‘comfort women’ got underway, with Japanese lawyers and representatives of activists’ groups taking the lead,” points out historian Kanji Katsuoka in “Basic Research.”

　　　　　Katsuoka states that around ten lawyers visited Beijing in October of 1994 as members of a team investigating “wartime damage” in China, conducting interviews with Chinese and their families who claimed to have been victimized by the Japanese military—those who had suffered coercive recruitment as “comfort women,” bereaved families of those who had been subject to experiments by the Imperial Army Biological Warfare Unit 731, and those who had survived the “Nanjing Massacre.”

　　　　　Doesn’t this scenario demonstrate an elaborate system in which the Asahi, Japanese lawyers, and activists groups including NGOs, have worked closely with each other in a coordinated effort to willfully create controversy?

Search for “Victims”

　　　　　Let us consider point (3) raised by Nishioka and his colleagues. The Chinese “comfort women” mentioned in Prof. Su’s book and other related materials come down to 34 in all, removing duplicate data. Of the total, 26—or 77%– have turned out to be victims of sexual violence on Hainan Island and in Yu Prefecture in Shanxi Province. Why are these victims concentrated in specific areas when China is such a large country? Prof. Katsuoka analyses China at the time as follows:

　　　　　“Both Yu Prefecture and Hainan Island were special regions in which the Japanese army directly faced Communist guerilla forces. The army divided Hebei and Shanxi Provinces into three—the hostile zone (prone to fierce guerilla attacks), the semi-secure zone (subject to occasional guerilla attacks), and the secure (Japanese-controlled) zone. But there was a huge difference in the sexual assault rate between the semi-secure region and the secure region.”

　　　　　In the “semi-secure” zone, there were many cases of rape reported. In this zone, there were also allegedly many cases in which women were murdered after being raped, as those committing the rape were fearful of their crime being reported to the Japanese military police.

　　　　　Meanwhile, sexual assault against women was strictly prohibited in the “secure” zone, with Japanese soldiers aware of the stringent rules enforced by the military authorities. Therefore, “there were almost no sexual assaults in this zone…while it can be observed that there were numerous cases of sexual assault in the ‘semi-secure’ zones. This suggests that sexual assaults for the most part were limited to the “hostile” and “semi-secure” zones, where the Japanese army directly or indirectly confronted the Communist Eight Route Army, and the military police were not able to maintain public order.”

　　　　　Katsuoka further points out: “Since 1994, Japanese have crowded to these regions in great force in search of ‘plaintiffs’ for projected trials. As a result, the search for wartime victims of sexual violence made headway.” In other words, it would be safe to conclude that, despite the efforts to search for former “comfort women” in the whole of China, women with the possibility of serving as plaintiffs could only be found in Shanxi Province and Hainan Island, and furthermore, they could only find women who turned out to be victims of wartime sexual violence—not the “comfort women” they were set on finding. All this proves that these controversies have been created in large part by the Asahi and other Japanese bent on defaming their own country. It is indeed a sorry state of affairs.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 713 in the July 21, 2016 issue of The Weekly Shincho)