The “Kono Statement,”
valid, incomplete, or misguided?
The “Kono Statement” issued on 4 August 1993, by then Chief
Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono in reference to the Comfort Women issue has been
interpreted as an official apology by the Japanese government. The Koreans are claiming it was not a
“sincere apology.” Critics claim it was
an apology issued falsely while ignoring the realities of the issue. I claim the “Kono Statement” is invalid
because it seems to be based on information gathered to prove women were forced
into becoming Comfort Women. As oppose
to conducting an examination to determine if any of the claims were valid
through balance research.
The impudence for the Kono Statement seems to have gained
strength from research conducted by Professor Yoshiaki Yoshimi of Japanese
modern history at Chuo University in Tokyo, Japan. Mr. Yoshimi went on a fishing expedition to
uncover war crimes committed by the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial
Japanese Navy during and before World War Two.
While fishing at the Defense Agency Library of Tokyo he
claims to have located documentary evidence the Imperial Japanese Army
established and ran Comfort Women Stations.
Mr. Yoshimi cites as evidence a notice written on 4 March 1938 by the
adjutants to the Chiefs of Staff of the North China Army and Central China
expeditionary Army titled “Concerning the Recruitment of Women for Military
Comfort Stations.”
Shall we examine key sections of this document to uncover
support for claims of impropriety by the Imperial Japanese Army? Certainly!
"Many agents should have
required special attention. Some of them accentuated the name of the armies as
much as they might hurt the credibility of the armies and cause
misunderstanding among the public, others recruited women without control
through war correspondents or entertainers, and others selected the wrong
agents who took a kidnapping approach to recruit women so that the polices
arrested them. In the future, the armies in the field should control recruiting
and select the agencies circumspectly and properly, and should build up a
closer connection with the local polices and the local military polices in the
implementation of recruiting. Take special care not to have problems which have
the potential to damage the armies' credibility or are not acceptable to social
standards."
This is glowing statement acknowledging that in 1938 the
Army recognized there was some miss-deeds in the recruitment of these women AND
took steps to correct them.
On page 8 of the document the following was written:
“There have been a lot of cases as
above reported,
therefore, from now on, the
dispatch force will carry out screening for the brokers carefully and
adequately and will corporate with the police and kenpei in regulating the
recruitment so that it won’t cause the social problem and it won’t damage the
prestige of the military”
The Army identifying a wrong-doing and taking steps to
correct it. The document was exploited
to prove there were forced Comfort Women, however portions illustrating some
were identified and measures were implemented in 1938 to eliminate the
abuses.
The Kono Statements acknowledges military involvement in the
Comfort Women Stations and mentions:
“The Government study has revealed
that in many cases they were recruited against their own will, through coaxing
coercion, etc., and that, at times, administrative/military personnel directly
took part in the recruitments. They lived in misery at comfort stations under a
coercive atmosphere.”
This part of the Kono Statement is questionable. It did not mention the problem was
identified in 1938 corrected and involvement of “many” taxes reality. Another failure when mentioned “military
personnel directly took part,” ignored the fact the military involvement was to
stop the abuses.
As for “They lived in misery at comfort stations under a
coercive atmosphere,” seems to have been written without reference to a report
on this issue written by the United States Army in 1944 titled, “Japanese
Prisoner of War Interrogation Report No. 49.”
Notice the “…Prisoner of War…” in the titled. It was an interrogation report of Comfort
Women captured by the U.S. Army as prisoners of war, not as people who were
rescued. The report notes their living
conditions:
“They lived in near-luxury in Burma
in comparison to other places. This was especially true of their second year in
Burma. They lived well because their food and material was not heavily rationed
and they had plenty of money with which to purchase desired articles. They were
able to buy cloth, shoes, cigarettes, and cosmetics to supplement the many
gifts given to them by soldiers who had received ‘comfort bags’ from home.”
Did that read as if “They lived in misery at comfort
stations under a coercive atmosphere,” as claimed in the Kono Statement?
Another bases for the Kono Statement was the interviewing of
around sixteen Korean women who claimed to have been forced into being Comfort
Women. Okay now where is the report
where around sixteen former men of the Imperial Japanese Army were interviewed
who paid for services at these Comfort Women Stations? That part of the investigation either never
took place or got lost in history. The
investigation into the issue prior to the release of the Kono Statement seems
to have been aimed to gather incriminating so-call evidence to warrant an apologetic
statement. There seems to be an absence
of any investigation into areas that may have or would have proven claims as
invalid or an exaggeration.
The Kono Statement seems to have been issued more as a
political statement than an historical statement. Many lunatic, Japan-bashing Koreans claim the
Kono Statement did not represent a “sincere apology.” Really? Here is part of the Kono Statement:
“The Government of Japan would like
to take this opportunity once again to extend its sincere apologies and remorse
to all those, irrespective of place of origin, who suffered immeasurable pain
and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.
It is incumbent upon us, the Government of
Japan, to continue to consider seriously, while listening to the views of
learned circles, how best we can express this sentiment.
We shall face squarely the historical facts as
described above instead of evading them, and take them to heart as lessons of
history.
We hereby reiterated our firm determination
never to repeat the same mistake by forever engraving such issues in our
memories through the study and teaching of history.”
What could be more “sincere” than that? It was a sincere apology based on partial
historical facts, while ignoring other facts, and rooted in a political
exercise resulting in a failed diplomatic effort.
It has been reported one clown was arrested. Also another report of a fist fight between a
clown and a Faroe Island resident.
Earlier in the week one of the clowns was interviewed by a
reporter. The clown stated they were
willing for forfeit their comical lives to save a whale. Really?
Apparently that did not include a forfeiture of their sensitivity. One of the clowns got into an argument with a
resident and got his/her feelings hurt.
This caused the clown to call the police. Such brave people.
