The Asahi Shimbun boasts an assortment of flowery expressions in its mission statement, pledging to “hold onto our true principles of safeguarding the freedom of speech,” “contribute to the happiness of the people based on our solid commitment to justice and humanitarianism,” and “report the truth objectively and expeditiously.”
　　　　　However, an examination of the liberal mass-circulation’s reporting on the so-called “comfort women” reveals a pattern of brazenly false statements more in line with the lowest of huckster consumer ads. Bluntly speaking, one has a difficult time comprehending in what specific ways the daily has ever “contributed to people’s happiness” or “reported on the truth objectively and expeditiously.”
　　　　　Over the years, the Asahi has carried grossly inaccurate reports on matters pertaining to the “comfort women,” tenaciously refusing to issue any correction notices or apologies. The daily’s stubborn reluctance to admit any mistakes is a cause for disgrace and shame to contemporary Japanese, and will undoubtedly affect future generations as well. Time and again, the influential daily has been charged with carrying unsubstantiated reports erroneously linking the “comfort women” with members of the Korean Women’s Volunteer Corps. But the Asahi has put its head in the sand every time it has been confronted with such criticism, never bothering to retract these reports that have so seriously defamed Japan and outraged South Koreans.
　　　　　Recently, the Asahi in essence refused to print an editorial ad on the so-called “Kono Statement” from the Japan Institute for National Fundamentals (JINF)—a privately-financed Tokyo think tank that I head. Our editorial was in response to the government’s review of Japan’s official apology over the “comfort women” issue delivered to South Korea in August 1993 by then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono. The review was released on June 20th. After scrutinizing the report, we at JINF felt that it lacked substance and that a further probe is called for. At that time we believed the Diet should summon Kono and Sakutaro Tanino, then chief of the Cabinet Councilor’s Office on External Affairs, both of whom were deeply involved in drafting the statement. They must explain how the governments of Japan and South Korea worked secretly together to agree on the statement. We entitled our editorial: “Review of Kono Statement Far from Over.”
　　　　　Below is the gist of the statement:
　　　　　–In connection with the “comfort women” issue, a totally unsubstantiated accusation that wartime Japan was responsible for “putting 200,000 Korean women in sexual slavery” has unfortunately spread globally. We believe the government’s review was a legitimate and pertinent step to deny such groundless accusations;
　　　　　–However, the review lacks substance, serving only one purpose, i.e., covering up the mistakes of the “apology diplomacy” committed by Kono and the Foreign Ministry, sadly failing to retrieve the honor we Japanese lost through these false reports;
　　　　　–During his visit to South Korea in January 1992, then Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa apologized to his counterpart Roh Tae-woo eight times; at the time, however, the Japanese government itself had not in fact ascertained that the “comfort women” had actually been forcibly taken to Japanese military brothels in Korea;
　　　　　–The government formally apologized to South Korea in 1993, issuing the “Kono Statement” as a stopgap measure to appease South Korean anger over absolutely unsubstantiated reports by the Asahi. The reports were based on spurious testimony by one Seiji Yoshida, a self-styled author who remarked that he had once ordered his men to round up young women in Korea’s Cheju Island in order to send them to military brothels. Yoshida later publicly admitted his story was fictitious; and,
　　　　　–To safeguard our national interests by restoring our national reputation over the “comfort women” incident, it is mandatory that the Diet summon Kono and Tanino, both of whom were deeply involved in drafting the “Statement,” and have them explain the process by which this document was put together.

“Sorry We’re Out Of Space”

　　　　　On July 4th, JINF requested five national dailies—the Yomiuri, the Asahi, the Mainichi, the Sankei, and the Nihon Keizai—to run our statement. Except for the Asahi, they all printed the editorial between July 17th and 19th. As of this writing (July 29th), however, the Asahi has yet to run it.
　　　　　In the meantime, we received a letter from the Asahi’s advertising department, asking if we had materials to substantiate two of our claims—1) “During his visit to South Korea in January 1992, then Prime Minister Miyazawa apologized to his South Korean counterpart eight times over the ‘comfort women’ issue,” and 2) “South Korean public opinion was furious over the Asahi’s inaccurate reports linking ‘comfort women’ with members of the Women’s Volunteer labor Corps.”
　　　　　JINF replied that, as regards Question 1), the Asahi itself reported on January 18th, 1992 on the reaction of the Korean public, noting that a popular column in the daily’s morning edition specified that Miyazawa sincerely apologized to President Roh eight times.
　　　　　As concerns Question 2), there is indisputable proof in the reports filed by the Asahi’s former Seoul correspondent Takashi Uemura, who first reported on August 11th, 1991, as follows, erroneously linking “comfort women” with a body that had absolutely nothing to do with them—the Women’s Volunteer Corps:
　　　　　“During the Sino-Japanese War, as well as World War II, Korean women were forced into sexual servitude for the Japanese military under the pretext of joining the Women’s Volunteer Corps. One of these former Korean ‘comfort women’ was recently found to be alive in Seoul. The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan will be hearing her testimony.”
　　　Three days later, the woman the Asahi reporter had just written about showed up in Seoul for a news conference. Revealing her real name as Kim Hak-sun, she told the press she had actually been sold to a brothel by her parents when she was just 14 years of age.
　　　Clearly, Ms. Kim had no connection whatsoever with the Women’s Voluntary Corps, which was comprised of young Korean women who volunteered to work in war industries. She couldn’t possibly have been taken by force to a battlefield brothel as there absolutely were no such cases during the war. Nevertheless, reporter Uemura continued to dispatch false reports, taking advantage of Ms. Kim who had unfortunately been sold to a brothel because of her family’s abject poverty. In this process, Uemura defamed Japan, its people, and Japan’s armed forces. The Asahi went ahead to take up the fabricated stories about Ms. Kim in its editorials as well as its popular Vox Populi, Vox Dei column, proliferating inaccurate reports first across Japan and then around the world.
　　　　　JINF answered the Asahi’s questions by pointing out these facts. The daily has since remained completely incommunicado. As we talked shop with representatives of the other dailies in preparation for running our editorial, we heard absolutely nothing from the Asahi .
　　　　　So we decided to pursue the matter by calling the advertising department, only to get this explanation: “Our space is all sold out for the dates which you have requested, July 17th and 18th.” We told them any day would be fine, but as of this writing we have yet to hear from them again. I doubt if we will ever hear from them again, as they have basically refused to deal with us. As they have so many times before, they have once again put their heads in the sand, refusing to grapple with a fact that is extremely inconvenient—and obviously very embarrassing—to them.

[ Editor’s note: A week after this column was published, the Asahi admitted errors in its “comfort women” reports, retracting all of the 16 stories it has run since 1982 based on testimony by a Japanese man who in 1982 claimed to have been a wartime “comfort women” recruiter. In 1996, he publicly admitted that his testimony was false. ]

The New York Times and the Asahi: Almost Like Twins

　　　　　The New York Times—one of America’s leading liberal dailies—behaves quite like the Asahi when it comes to confronting inconvenient facts. These dailies are birds of a father, one on either side of the Pacific.
　　　　　Earlier this year, Professor Kevin Doak at Georgetown University sent a rebuttal to the Times’ March 2nd editorial entitled “Mr. Abe’s Dangerous Revisionism.” The editorial charged Prime Minister Shinzo Abe with claiming that the Nanjing Massacre of 1937 never happened and also stated that he was considering rescinding an apology to the former Korean “comfort women.”
　　　　　Both of these charges are false. Professor Doak pointed out: 1) Abe has never said the Nanjing Massacre did not happen; 2) Groundless charges against any head of state are discourteous and unpardonable; 3) Abe’s remarks and what his actions symbolize may from time to time not be entirely clear to Japan’s neighbors—especially China—but it is China, certainly not Japan, that has resorted to military action to create instability in the Asia-Pacific region; and, 4) Over the past six decades, Japan has remained a steady and dependable democracy.
　　　　　Then on March 10th, Prof. Doak received a note from the Times, asking if he would approve of the addition of the following reference as an “editor’s note” at the end of his comments: “And yet, he (Abe) published a book co-authored with Naoki Hyakuta (a prolific broadcast writer who serves as a member of the managerial committee of NHK, the Japan Broadcast Corporation), in which his co-author says the Nanjing Massacre is a fabrication.” What one can see is a temporizing eagerness on the part of the daily to defame Abe as “a revisionist” at all costs.
　　　　　Prof. Doak naturally turned down the daily’s request on the grounds that “the co-author’s views had absolutely nothing to do with the Prime Minister’s.” From that point on, there was no further word from the Times. It continued to ignore Doak’s stern response to its editorial, although subsequently running a perfunctory correction following a protest from the Japanese government. A little over a month later, Doak asked the daily why it was procrastinating, drawing a reply which quite coincidentally was identical in essence to the one we at JINF received from the Asahi: “We have no space to run your op-ed.” We are more than a little bemused that these two liberal dailies think and act alike.
　　　　　The preceding anecdotes remind one that everywhere in this world there are unfortunately large media organizations that throw their weight around, shamelessly shutting their eyes to their own lies and mistakes of fact while promoting their own agenda.

(Translated from “Renaissance Japan” column no. 617 in the August 7, 2014 issue of The Weekly Shincho)