コンテンツへスキップ

Open Letter of Protest to the Chairman of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on Concluding Observations on the Combined Tenth and Eleventh Periodic Reports of Japan on 26, September 2018

October 8, 2018

Dear Professor Noureddine AMIR,

(cc Profs. Marc BOSSUYT and Gün KUT)

We are deeply disappointed by and enraged at your Advance and Unedited Version of Concluding Observation (“your Report” thereafter) on September 26.  The content of your Report is characterized as three adjectives starting from “un”, “unscientific”, “unbalanced” and “unfair”.

First of all, we would like to focus on the issue of “the 100th Anniversary of Japan’s Proposal of Elimination of Racial Discrimination”.  Academics’ Alliance for Correcting Groundless Criticisms of Japan (AACGCJ) submitted its sole report on this theme, and it wrote about the same theme for Preface in the joint report by Japan NGO Coalition against Racial Discrimination (JNCRD) in July.  AACGCJ, in its sole report in July, requested the CERD and the Japanese Government to respect the Centennial of Japan’s proposal and to well disseminate it to the international community in order to resume momentum for international movement of racial equality.

Furthermore, Mr. Ohtaka Masato, Head of the Delegation of the Japanese government, touched upon the issue by mentioning “It was 99 years ago when the international community, with the active participation of Japan, took the initial step to tackle the issue of racial discrimination at the Paris Peace Conference” at the beginning of his opening remark in the CERD Session for Japan on August 16. 

Your Report, however, completely neglected our request and even the theme itself, despite the story about the origin of racial equality movement of which the CERD is currently assuming responsibility.  The CERD was established, based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) which came into effective 1969, just a half century after Japan’s initiative in 1919.  The CERD should have paid respect to the country of pioneer in this field when it comes to take up Japan as its objective country in this timing around the Centennial.  Neglecting the origin of the country in the history of racial equality movement is like that the CERD denied the roots of itself. 

Inherently, should António Guterres of UN Secretary General or Michelle Bachelet of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights take initiative for commemorating the 100th Anniversary for the commencement of racial equality movement in the international community?  The leaders of the United Nations are requested to consider that the movement began within the committee[1] responsible for drafting the Covenant of the League of Nations at the Paris Peace Conference in Versailles in February 1919.  

The total of 12 NGO Reports for Japan are posted in the web-page of the CERD.  If we divide them into the conservative and the leftist, there are five from the conservative and seven from the leftist.  Out of seven leftist reports, two are from the Korean NGOs.  After all, the NGO presentations at “Informal Meeting with NGOs” on August 14, Professor Bossuyt said about the Reports of NGOs, “very well organized” and “great variety”.  Notwithstanding the CERD admitted the diversity of NGO Reports, “your Report” on September 26 almost completely neglected five Reports from the conservative.  Moreover, “your Report” on September 26 almost neglected Japanese government’s presentations on August 16, as well as answers to CERD Members’ questions on August 17.  Even if modestly saying, “your Report” on September 26 extremely leans to one side. 

Regarding the problem of Comfort Women, we admit that “your Report” achieved some improvements compared to the previous CERD Report in September 2014.  Extremely inadequate expressions such as “the issue of foreign Comfort Women who were sexually exploited by the Japanese Military during World War II” and “bring to justice to those responsible for human rights violations” in the previous Report in 2014 was vanished in “your Report” on September 26, 2018.  

However, we are still very dissatisfied with “your Report” on September 26, 2018.  “Your Report” recommended the Japanese government a “victim-centered approach”, denying the “Japan-Republic of Korea Governmental Agreement” in December 2015 as a solution to the issue.  We strongly believe the most important approach for the historical issues is “fact-centered” rather than “victim-centered” which is inclined to be too emotional.  “Victim-centered approach” is obliged to rely exclusively on oral testimonies of alleged Comfort Women.  Generally speaking, however, any testimony must be confirmed with evidence, including cross-examination.  In fact, testimonies by alleged Comfort Women have no evidence.  The dignity of any country and its people should not be damaged by excessive emotion not based on the facts, although we understand the human rights treaty bodies should have some emotion.

We think that the CERD is not qualified to deal with the issue of Comfort Women due to the following reasons.  Firstly, the body denying its origin of the birth by itself is not qualified to deal with any historical issue.  Secondly, the CERD Member includes the two persons with very lopsided views of the Comfort Women.  Ms. Gay McDougall wrote the so-called “the McDougall Report” (1998) which has the title of “Contemporary Forms of Slavery: Systemic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery-like Practices during Armed Conflict” in 1998, while Professor CHUNG Chinsung is former one of Chairpersons of “the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan”.  The title of the report which Ms. McDougall wrote and the name of council in which Prof. Chung was used to be engaged both include “sexual slavery”.  Moreover, even the word “rape center” is used in “the McDougall Report”.  This means these two CERD Members are not qualified to discuss the issue of Comfort Women within the Committee, because they are extremely biased.  These two CERD Members are preoccupied with stereotype on the Comfort Women which are fallacious.

The Comfort Women have nothing to do with sex slavery, since they were recruited by newspaper advertisements.  Thirdly and most importantly, the CERD is not qualified to deal with the issue of Comfort Women, because it is not the issue of racial discrimination under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD).  According to the estimation by Professor HATA Ikuhiko, there were about twenty thousand comfort women in total, in which about 40% were Japanese, 30% were Chinese in the China Theater or Burmese in Burma (Theater), 20% were Koreans, and 10% were from other countries[2].  Therefore, we understand the Japanese government need not to include the issue of Comfort Women at all in the next periodic report. 

We believe that the comfort women are “military-licensed prostitutes” or “wartime-licensed prostitutes” rather than “sexual slaves”, because “forceful abduction” and “human trafficking” were never elements within the comfort women system.  In reality, some types of women are always found near every military base anywhere in the world.  We cannot understand why only the Japanese military during World War II be blamed so severely.  The Japanese military established and managed the comfort women system for the purpose of preventing rapes by soldiers and maintaining hygiene. We think the Japanese system was much better than other country’s military practices in this regard.

Documents demonstrating “sexual slavery” have not been founded by the Japanese government’s two surveys announced in July 1992 and August 1993, and by a very thorough investigation undertaken for the US Congress. The Nazi War Crimes & Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Governmental Working Group Final Report to the US Congress (hereinafter “the IWG Working Report”) was published in April 2007, after spending 30 million dollars and 6 years and 3 months. They surveyed classified documents on the Japanese government’s behaviors with a total of 142,000 pages kept at agencies such as the CIA, FBI, OSS (the Office of Strategic Services) and Army Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) and others.  However, they could not find one document demonstrating that Japan conducted “sexual slavery”.  In other words, “the IWG Report” shows that comfort women are “military-licensed prostitutes”.

During the Second World War, there were many advertisements, with the monthly pay stated, for the recruitment of comfort women in the major Japanese, Korean and Manchurian newspapers at the time.  The monthly pay indicated that they were very well compensated.  A US document demonstrates this, as well.  The US Army captured 20 Korean comfort girls working for the comfort house on the battlefield of Myitkyina in Northern Burma (Myanmar) in August 1944, and interviewed them from August to September 1944.  United States Office of War Information (OWI) [3]Psychological Warfare Team attached to US Army Forces India-Burma Theater made the interrogatory.  This document was named “OWI Report No. 49” (the so-called “OWI Myitkyina Interrogatory in 1944”) which said: “A comfort girl is nothing more than a prostitute or ‘professional camp follower’ attached to the Japanese Army for the benefit of soldiers”.  The report stated that their average net monthly pay was 750 yen, which was 75 times higher than a private first class soldier’s salary of 10 yen.

As far as the issue of Okinawa is concerned, our JNCRD Report in July 2018 demanded the CERD to retract its recommendation to the effect that the Japanese government considers recognizing the Ryukyu as indigenous peoples in its Report in September 2014.  Notwithstanding, “your Report” reiterated to recommend the Japanese government reconsider its position on recognizing the Ryukyu as indigenous peoples, completely neglecting our JNCRD Report.  As we clearly mentioned in the Report, the citizens of Okinawa Prefecture regard themselves as Japanese and not recognize themselves as indigenous people. 

As for the issue of Ainu people, they are different from aboriginal races in other countries, because their lands and rights were not robbed by the Japanese government in its history.  “Your Report” still sees the Ainu people in the stereotype of indigenous people in other countries.  The CERD is requested to correctly learn from the historical truth of individual country in the longer perspective.

As a whole, The CERD is preoccupied with stereotypes which have been inserted by the leftist NGOs for about three decades.  The CERD members are kindly requested to make much more efforts to discern the truth.  Moreover, the CERD accepted a secret backroom meeting requested by the leftist NGOs in the morning of August 16 during the Session for Japan.  We conservative NGOs were completely excluded by this meeting which extremely impaired the functioning of “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs” formally organized by the CERD secretariat on August 16.  It seems to us this is the evidence that the CERD does not put great emphasis on fairness and impartiality. 

If the CERD would continue to keep unbalanced views neglecting the Japanese government’ presentations and answers to the questions as well as the views from the conservative NGOs, it would lose its raison d’être.  UN Human Rights Council and CERD are requested to well consider why the United States announced its withdrawal from UNHRC in June 2018.  We do not support the particular reason why the US withdraws from the UNHRC, but we can well understand that the US dislikes chronic bias in UNHRC in general.   If the tendency in UNHRC will continue, it is natural the public opinion to the effect that Japan should follow the US behavior will be enhancing.   

Sincerely yours,

KASE Hideaki
Chairman, Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women (ATCW)

TANAKA Hidemichi
Chairman, Academics’ Alliance for Correcting Groundless Criticisms of Japan (AACGCJ)
Professor Emeritus, Tohoku University

YAMASHITA Eiji
Director & Secretary General, AACGCJ
Professor Emeritus, Osaka City University

[1] In fact, meetings of this committee were held 15 times in total at the room 351 of Hotel de Crillon in Paris.

[2] HATA Ikuhiko, Comfort Women and Sex in the Battle Zone, Hamilton Books, 2018, p.315. The

 original Japanese version of this book was published in 1999. 

[3] US President Franklin D. Roosevelt established OWI for wartime information and propaganda in

June 1942.  But, its predecessor Office of Coordinator of Information (OCI) was already established

by FDR in July 1941, before the beginning of World War II.

Kase Hideaki, Chairman
JAPAN ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH ABOUT COMFORT WOMEN
September 14, 2018

STATEMENT CONCERNING “CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS” ISSUED BY THE
UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL
DISCRIMINATION (CERD)

CERD’s recommendations demonstrate bias against and infringement upon the
human rights of the Japanese people

We urge the Japanese government to request that CERD be structurally and
procedurally reformed

On August 16 and 17 the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter CERD) considered reports submitted by Japan. On August 30 CERD released its concluding observations, as well as recommendations to the Japanese government concerning problems stemming from alleged racial discrimination, e.g., the
comfort-women issue.

These recommendations are exceedingly biased, and threaten to destroy the very fabric of our nation, Japan. CERD has been entrusted with protecting human rights, but instead it is fostering racial discrimination against the people of Japan, and infringing upon their human rights.

The Japanese government has already expressed its disappointment via the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Permanent Mission of Japan to the International
Organizations in Geneva. Nevertheless, it behooves our government to tender to the United Nations, clearly and straightforwardly, its objections to the workings of a committee that issues recommendations of this ilk, and to call for the reform of CERD. If no reform is accomplished, Japan should withdraw its ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, or resign from the Human Rights Council. We cannot think of a single reason for Japan to remain a member of an organization that infringes upon Japanese human rights, especially given Japan’s enormous financial contribution.

The Japan Alliance for Truth About Comfort Women submitted a memorandum prepared jointly with the 21-member Japan NGO Coalition Against Racial Discrimination to CERD. We also participated in the CERD session in Geneva, during which we presented our position. In view of the events that transpired there, we have outlined our objections to CERD’s recommendations and our reasons for requesting the reform of that committee.

To these we add our appeals to the Japanese government.

I. The Comfort-Women Problem

A. Appeal to the Japanese government

1. Japanese government’s confusing statements

Having stated that it “recognized that the issue of comfort women was an
affront to the honour and dignity of a large number of women,” the Japanese
government representative spent a great deal of time explaining the various
gestures of apology Japan has offered, including the Asian Women’s Fund, the
Japan-Korea Agreement of 2015, and other efforts toward compensation. Only
at the end of the presentation did the government representative state that the
recommendations had included some inaccurate and inappropriate language,
among which were the accusations of coercive recruitment of comfort women
and the term “sexual slavery.”

However, apologies and compensation send the message that Japan is
acknowledging crimes against the comfort women. By following that message
with the denial of sexual slavery and coercive recruitment, the government was
contradicting itself. This must surely have confused committee members, a
confusion that the government invited.

Committee member Marc Bossuyt is a member of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration in The Hague and a former judge at the Belgian Constitutional
Court. Even someone with his credentials said, at the end of the session, that
CERD would not tolerate the minimization of the comfort-women problem.
Bossuyt also said that he “did not understand the State party’s position that
‘sexual slavery’ was not an appropriate term to describe it.”

2. Clarifications needed from Japanese government

As the Japanese government representative stated at the beginning of the
CERD session, all events pertaining to the comfort-women issue took place
prior to 1995, when the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination was concluded. Therefore, said issue is not within the purview
of the Convention. If the government feels compelled to provide explanations
concerning the comfort-women issue, it is objective facts that are needed, not a
litany of apologies.

Problems relating to military personnel and sex arise in the armed forces of
every nation. Are problems similar to the comfort-women issues, but that
occurred in other nations, also going to be questioned? Why did the
government representative not voice an objection on this point, which sorely
needed to be raised?

B. Protest to CERD

1. The “honor and dignity of women” mantra

One of CERD’s recommendations concerning the comfort-women issue was a
victim-centered approach. However, CERD should be committed to a factcentered
approach. We are appalled at the committee’s basing its examination
on the testimonies of former comfort women — uncorroborated testimonies.
This is a violation of one of the main principles of law — only corroborated
testimony is admissible.

Gay McDougall is a CERD member representing the United States, and the
author of Systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices during
armed conflict, published in 1998, when she was Special Rapporteur. In that
report McDougall criticizes the Japanese government for its denial of legal
liability for the comfort stations, which she calls “rape centres.” At the August
2018 session, McDougall called for a halt to discussions of facts, and then
inserted her pet phrase (“the honor and dignity of women”). She insisted that
the great majority of comfort women were from Korea, a claim that is totally
spurious. When the facts did not coincide with her viewpoint, she trotted out
“the honor and dignity of women.”

2. The inapplicable “sex slave” argument

Chinsung Chung, a CERD member who represents South Korea, is a former
co-chairperson of the Council for the Handling of Problems Associated with
the Korean Volunteer Corps. Korean Council for the Women Drafted for
Military Sexual Slavery by Japan (often referred to as the Korean Council).
Upon hearing the Japanese delegation’s denial of coercive recruitment, Chung
claimed that there are many written works, photographs, films, and testimonies
that bear witness to the suffering of comfort women.” She then mentioned that
she uses the term “sexual slavery” in the English translation of the
organization’s name: The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military
Sexual Slavery by Japan. This had nothing to do with the topic at hand and
explained nothing.

3. Repudiation of an intergovernmental agreement

The Japanese government representative stated that with an agreement
concluded in December 2015 between Japan and the Republic of Korea, “the
[comfort-women] issue is resolved finally and irreversibly.” CERD member
McDougall reacted by saying that intergovernmental agreements do not resolve
wartime problems. In CERD’s concluding observations, McDougall said that
the agreement between Japan and Korea does not clearly state that Japan bears
responsibility for infringing upon the human rights of former comfort women,
thereby repudiating the statement that the issue had been resolved. In raising
objections to an intergovernmental agreement, CERD is overstepping its
authority.

4. CERD is not fulfilling its mission

Committee members are biased. They issue recommendations that have no
basis in fact, that change topics or points of issue in midstream, that offer
reasons that make no sense, and that repudiate an intergovernmental agreement.
It is obvious that CERD is not acting objectively or fairly, and thus has failed
to accomplish its mission.

II. Other Issues Concerning Racial Discrimination (Koreans Residing in Japan,
Okinawans)

The aforementioned Marc Bossuyt opened his remarks about Korean residents
in Japan as follows: “There were approximately 400,000 Koreans in Japan,
the majority of them forced to live in Japan when Korea was a Japanese
colony, and their descendants.” This statement is patently untrue. Bossuyt
goes on to opine about the human rights of the Korean minority in Japan. We
believe that his comments can be traced to a biased memorandum submitted
by NGOs, which Bossuyt accepted at face value. We find especially
unwelcome recommendations that Japan allow Korean residents to vote in
local elections, offer subsidies to Korean schools, and permit Korean residents
to hold public office and participate in the National Pension Plan.

Additionally, we issued a memorandum stating that the Okinawans are not
indigenous people; we also voiced this opinion at the CERD session. That
notwithstanding, CERD recommended that we recognize Okinawans as
indigenous people. Given that most of the inhabitants of Okinawa Prefecture
do not labor under this recognition, we find CERD’s recommendation
unforgivable. Here again, CERD has adopted the biased position taken by
some NGOs.

When, in cases like this, CERD receives multiple memoranda from NGOs, we
suggest that they consult the Japanese government to arrive at the facts, instead
of adopting a particular position for reasons that we cannot fathom. It is
impossible to accomplish the mission of a United Nations human-rights
committee by adopting a position without such a consultation.

III. Effect of Recommendations Should Not Be Underestimated

CERD recommendations are not legally binding. But NGOs submitting
memoranda that served as the basis for actual recommendations will announce
that they have received the UN “seal of approval” when they return to Japan.
We cite the Hate Speech Elimination Act of 2016. The following statement
describing how the law came into being appeared on the website of the
Ministry of Justice:

Ways of dealing with hate speech were recommended to the government
in Concluding Observations on the Sixth Periodic Report of Japan by the
UN Human Rights Committee in July 2014 and Concluding Observations
on the Combined Seventh to Ninth Periodic Reports of Japan by the UN
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in August of the
same year.

This law was enacted because the recommendations of CERD had an impact
on the Japanese government.

When a CERD member suggested that the action the Japanese government had
taken to eliminate hate speech was inadequate, the Japanese government
representative replied that draconian regulations specifying punishments
threaten to suppress legitimate freedom of speech. The Hate Speech
Elimination Act applies only to hate speech directed toward persons
originating from outside Japan. This law without a doubt discriminates against
the Japanese, suppresses their freedom of speech, and constricts the space in
which discourse takes place.

Another of CERD’s recommendations involves amending the Hate Speech
Elimination Law so that its scope embraces all people, not only those of
foreign origin. We will be paying close attention to the government’s response
to this recommendation.

IV. On the Centenary of Japan’s Racial Equality Proposal

At the beginning of the session, the Japanese government representative
described the first step toward eliminating racial demonstration, made by the
Japanese government via the presentation of the Racial Equality Proposal 99
years ago, at the 1919 Paris Conference. In our capacity as an NGO, we also
submitted a memorandum to CERD stating that Japan was a pioneer in the
movement to eliminate racial discrimination. We are discouraged by CERD’s
failure to acknowledge this achievement in its concluding observations.

We strongly urge CERD to issue a statement commemorating the centenary of
Japan’s Racial Equality Proposal. Such a gesture may inspire the peoples of
the world to contemplate the significance of eliminating racial discrimination.
Further, we ask the Japanese government to organize commemorative events
to remind us of Japan’s estimable achievement and of the trajectory of efforts
to eliminate racial discrimination, as well as to encourage future endeavors in
that direction. One possibility would be the hosting of an international
symposium on racial discrimination that would feature the world’s most
prominent specialists. Still another possibility would be to invite Prime
Minister Abe to deliver an address at the UN General Assembly describing
Japan’s admirable accomplishment, and encourage all peoples of the world to
join together and work toward ending the horrific oppression of specific
ethnic groups by particular nations; racial discrimination remains a serious
problem even in the 21st century.

V. Conclusion

The UN human-rights committees that have concerned themselves with the
comfort-women issue are the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women, the Committee Against Torture, the Human Rights
Committee, and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The
Japanese government has made statement after statement to these committees
describing the apologies that have been offered to the former comfort women.
These apologies have given the misleading impression that Japan is
acknowledging criminal behavior on its part. According to recommendations
issued by CERD, Japan is responsible even to the families of the former
comfort women. At this rate the problem will persist even when there are no
longer any comfort women. We urge the government to refrain from offering
any apology whatsoever in the future.

We also request that the government limit the issues addressed by the various
UN committees to those arising after the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination was concluded. The committees should be
asked to make their recommendations after having conducted a thorough
investigation of the facts. If they are unwilling to comply with this request,
Japan should withdraw from the organization that has oversight of these
committees, the Human Rights Council.

We must put an end to debates over the comfort women at the United Nations.
Otherwise we will not be able to eradicate the falsehoods about comfort
women that are spread throughout the world. It is crucial that the people of
Japan be told precisely how biased CERD is. And finally, we urge the
government to take resolute action at the UN on behalf of the Japanese people
and our national interests.

Objection to the Chairman of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on Holding a Secret Meeting with Particular Japanese NGOs on August 16, 2018

September 11, 2018

Dear Professor Noureddine AMIR,

(cc Profs. Marc BOSSUYT and Gün KUT)

We are appalled that the CERD held a secret, backroom meeting with leftist Japanese NGOs during the 96th Session for Japan at the Palais Wilson in the early morning of August 16, 2018.

Officially, the CERD held two meetings with NGOs, “Informal Meeting with NGOs,” between 10:00-13:00 on August 14 and “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs,” between 13:45-14:45 on August 16.  These two meetings between CERD Members and NGOs were officially scheduled and were publicized well in advance.  On August 14, the “Informal Meeting with NGOs” was held, attended by all Japanese NGOs, leftist as well as conservative.  At that meeting, six or seven leftist NGOs made speeches while two conservative NGOs including AACGCJ made speeches.  However, no leftist NGO made any speech at the “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs” on August 16, whereas five conservative NGOs made speeches.  We conservatives were very much surprised by the unbalanced number of speakers at the “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs”, unlike those at the “Informal Meeting with NGOs” on August 14.  We very much wondered how this occurred.

We have come to the conclusion that an unscheduled secret meeting, between CERD Members and leftist NGOs, was held on August 16, entirely separate from the official “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs”.  On August 17, the Ryukyu Shimpo, one of two of Okinawa’s major newspapers, reported that Ms. ITOKAZU Keiko (of Okinawa), a member of the Japanese House of Councilors, made a speech before the opening of CERD Session for Japan which started at 15:00 on August 16.  Where did Diet member Ms. ITOKAZU make her speech on August 16?  She was absent from the official meeting “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs” where we were in attendance.  She must have made her speech at some other location with the CERD along with other Japanese leftist NGOs.  From a reliable source, we have learned that a secret meeting was held between CERD Members and the leftist NGOs, presumably including Korean NGOs, at 9:00 a.m. on August 16. This was a backroom deal in which the CERD engaged upon request from the leftist NGOs. We see this is as fraudulent.

We are extremely dismayed that the CERD would resort to such obfuscation and lack of transparency.  The CERD announced that it prepared two meetings with NGOs.  All NGOs were requested by the CERD to gather at the two scheduled NGO meetings, and to engage in open discussion. That the CERD met privately with leftist NGOs indicates that the CERD rejects impartiality and presumably does not consider open debate of any value.  We were not informed of this unscheduled meeting and we were entirely excluded.  Moreover, we lost the opportunity to hold an open discussion with leftist NGOs at the “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs”. 

Perhaps the leftist NGOs were afraid that what they were to claim would have been pointed out by us as false, had they attended the “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs”.  It seems to us this is the real reason why they requested the CERD to convene a backroom meeting. Indeed, there is an overabundance of fallacies within each of their positions on a number of issues, including the Comfort Women, Okinawa, the Ainus, “hate speech” and so on.  At the same time, CERD Members missed an opportunity to hear the facts at the “Lunchtime Briefings”.  CERD’s behavior, holding a secret meeting with just one group of NGOs, entirely negated the purpose of the “Lunchtime Briefings by the NGOs”.

CERD Sessions should not entail the use of backroom or secret sessions.  We request that you reflect on this issue and we ask that such behavior not be repeated in the future.  We further request that the CERD explain how it will improve its practices in order to assure fairness and impartiality.

We look forward to your response. 

Sincerely yours,

KASE Hideaki

Chairman, Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women (ATCW)

TANAKA Hidemichi

Chairman, Academics’ Alliance for Correcting Groundless Criticisms of Japan (AACGCJ)

Professor Emeritus, Tohoku University

YAMASHITA Eiji

Director & Secretary General, AACGCJ

Professor Emeritus, Osaka City University

Your Highness Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad al-Hussein,
(cc Dear Mr. Gianni Magazzeni, Chief, UPR Branch, OHCHR)

 We very much respect your extraordinary efforts over the past decades in the field of international human rights. We especially appreciate your tremendous contribution in establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC-CPI) in 2003.

 However, we are very much dissatisfied with the report, “Compilation on Japan”, edited by the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on September 4, 2017. In Paragraph 32, the report uses the words “sexual slavery practices”, “sexual slavery crimes”, “prosecuting and punishing perpetrators”, and “bring to justice those responsible” on the issue of the World War II comfort women, referring to the Committee against Torture (CAT) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

 The OHCHR’s report of September 4 does not mention the other sides of the debate at all. For example, YAMANAKA Osamu, Director of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division, Foreign Policy Bureau, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) clearly stated at a meeting of Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) in Geneva on July 15, 2014 that the phrase “sexual slavery practices” is not at all appropriate. Moreover, SUGIYAMA Shinsuke, Senior Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, MOFA (currently Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs, MOFA) definitely stated, at a meeting of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on February 16, 2016, that the phrases “forceful abduction”, “sexual slavery” and “the number of comfort women is 200,000” are totally without meaning after explaining in detail why so many fallacies prevail on the comfort women issue. He pointed out that a Japanese writer named YOSHIDA Seiji and the Asahi Shimbun, one of the major daily newspapers in Japan, had circulated fallacies on the comfort women issue for decades. Sugiyama mentioned that in August 2014, the Asahi Shimbun admitted to repeatedly circulating false reports on the comfort women, based on a book, My War Crimes (1983), written by Yoshida, over a period of numerous years and apologized for their mistakes. Sugiyama also pointed out that the issue of the comfort women was finally and irreversibly resolved by an agreement between the governments  of the Republic of Korea and Japan in Seoul on December 28, 2015.

 In UNESCO’s Memory of the World (MoW) Programme in Paris, two different nominations on the comfort women are now being confronted. On one hand is the “Voice of ‘Comfort Women’”, based on the “sexual slavery” concept, while on the other hand is the “Documentation on ‘Comfort Women’ and Japanese Army Discipline” based on the concept that “comfort women” participated in “military-licensed prostitution”. The International Advisory Committee (IAC) of the MoW Programme, following the decision of the Executive Board of UNESCO in its meeting on October 16, 2017, recommended to the Director-General that UNESCO facilitate a dialogue on October 30, among the two nominators of nominations and concerned parties with a view to leading a joint nomination to encompass, as far as possible, all relevant documents. For now, UNESCO did not recommend inscribing either of the two proposals. We welcome UNESCO’s decision, and look forward to the dialogue between the two nominating groups.

 Thus, two different arguments concerning the comfort women prevail at present. The OHCHR, however, documented arguments based on only from one side as seen in its report, “Compilation on Japan”, on September 4, 2017, completely neglecting the arguments of the other side. We understand that the OHCHR, as the secretariat for the UPR, is requested to be neutral and impartial when it makes its reports. We are very concerned about the fairness of OHCHR.

 The “sexual slavery” argument relies exclusively on the oral testimonies of alleged comfort women. Generally speaking, however, any testimony must be confirmed with evidence, including cross-examination. Even in matured democracies, including Japan, a widely held criticism is that court rulings are highly contingent on suspects’ confessions, which, in turn, often lead to inappropriate prosecution for crimes that were never committed. The former Korean comfort women easily play on the Japanese government’s sense of “responsibility”, as many Koreans still have unfavorable perceptions of Japan. We do not believe that testimonies of the former comfort women are reliable.

 We, however, believe that the comfort women are “military-licensed prostitutes” or “wartime-licensed prostitutes” rather than “sexual slaves”, because “forceful abduction” and “human trafficking” were never elements within the comfort women system. The Japanese military established and managed the comfort women system for the purpose of preventing rapes by soldiers and maintaining hygiene. We think the Japanese system was much better than other country’s military practices in this regard. 
Documents demonstrating “sexual slavery” have not been founded by the Japanese government’s two surveys announced in July 1992 and August 1993, and by a very thorough investigation undertaken for the US Congress. The Nazi War Crimes & Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Governmental Working Group Final Report to the US Congress (hereinafter “the IWG Working Report”) was published in April 2007, after spending 30 million dollars and 6 years and 3 months. They surveyed classified documents on the Japanese government’s behaviors with a total of 142,000 pages kept at agencies such as the CIA, FBI, OSS (the Office of Strategic Services) and Army Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) and others. However, they could not find one document demonstrating that Japan conducted “sexual slavery”. In other words, “the IWG Report” shows that comfort women are “military-licensed prostitutes”. During the Second World War, there were many advertisements, with the monthly pay stated, for the recruitment of comfort women in the major Japanese, Korean and Manchurian newspapers at the time. The monthly pay indicated that they were very well compensated. A US document demonstrates this, as well. The US Army captured 20 Korean comfort girls working for the comfort house on the battlefield of Myitkyina in Burma in August 1944, and interviewed them from August to September 1944. Office of War Information (OWI) Psychological Warfare Team attached to US Army Forces India-Burma Theater made the interrogatory. This document was named “OWI Report No. 49” (the so-called “OWI Myitkyina Interrogatory in 1944”) which said: “A comfort girl is nothing more than a prostitute or ‘professional camp follower’ attached to the Japanese Army for the benefit soldiers”. The report stated that their average net monthly pay was 750 yen, which was 75 times higher than a private first class soldier’s salary of 10 yen.

 By the way, a civil group “Justice for Lai Dai Han” was established in London on September12, 2017. Lai Dai Han in Vietnamese means of “mixed Korean parentage” in English. Many Vietnamese women suffered sexual exploitation at the hands of some of South Korea’s soldiers serving alongside US Forces in the Vietnam War. There are perhaps thousands of Lai Dai Han children and many more live today in the shadows. The mothers of Lai Dai Han were in many cases raped by South Korean soldiers during the war. Therefore, Lai Dai Han can be considered the result of “sexual slavery”, and this entirely contrasts to the World War II Japanese military comfort women, who were merely “military-licensed prostitutes”.

 Under the name of the NGO “International Career Support Association”, we have, to date, requested seven times(*1) at Regular Sessions of the UN Human Rights Council that “the Coomaraswamy Report” on the comfort women in 1996 be withdrawn. Taking this opportunity, we would like to know when the UN Human Rights Council will properly address our request. “The Coomaraswamy Report” is replete with many grave errors, as it is based on very low-quality materials that are filled with numerous fallacies. Also, ”the Coomaraswamy Report” is based on the fallacies circulated by YOSHIDA Seiji and the Asahi Shimbun, as well. And yet, because of the Report’s association with the UN, these grave errors persist worldwide. As a result, the dignity of Japan and the Japanese public within the international community has been immensely damaged for the past two decades. Although 46 Japanese Academics did the same thing in their open letter to Your Highness on May 2, 2017, we would like to reiterate the request that the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) withdraw “the Coomaraswamy Report” and appoint a new and proper UN Special Rapporteur on the comfort women issue in order to draft a new report that is free from factual error. Falling this, it is doubtful that the United Nations Human Rights Council can be considered fair and impartial. We think this matter bears directly on the dignity of UNHRC.

 Only three countries, China and both Koreas, made remarks on the issue of the comfort women at the UPR Working Group for Japan on November 14, 2017. We would like the international community to be well aware that these countries’ views are considerably biased when it concerns Japan. Consequently, we think what they say about Japan should be discounted in general. In the case of China, the Communist Party and the government are not legitimate representatives of the Chinese people. The Chinese Communist Party bases its legitimacy solely criticizing Japan over historical issues. Thus, the Chinese Communists have no choice but to slander Japan in order to maintain their political power. In the case of the two Koreas, it is very difficult for people to have pro-Japanese attitudes since Koreans in both countries have highly unfavorable perceptions toward Japan. Although the comfort women issue was finally and irreversibly resolved by a governmental agreement between the Republic of Korea and Japan in December 2015, the South Korean government has yet to live up to its promises. The moral being of South Korea as a sovereign country is in serious question.

 Finally, it would be highly appreciated if the OHCHR would exhibit its editing capacity when it makes reports, in an attempt to be neutral and impartial as the secretariat.

Sincerely yours,

Chairman KASE Hideaki
Alliance for Truth about Comfort Woman
in Tokyo, Japan

Chairman TANAKA Hidemichi
Academic Alliance for Correcting Groundless Criticisms of Japan
(AACGCJ) in Tokyo, Japan

(*1)Mr. FUJIKI Shunichi at 31st Session in March 2016,

Ms. SUGITA Mio (currently Member of House of Representative) at 32nd Session,

Professor FUJIOKA Nobukatsu at Session 33rd Session,

Mr. Tony MARANO at 34th Session,

Professor YAMASHITA Eiji and Mr. FUJII Mitsuhiko at 35th Session, and
Mr.FIJIKI Shunichi at 36th Session in September 2017.

August 6, 2015


On May 5th, 2015, one hundred and eighty-seven American-based researchers of Japan issued a statement on the comfort women issue titled, “Open letter in support of historians in Japan” (hereafter, “American scholars’ statement”). It is our understanding that, subsequently, the number of signers increased to some four hundred and sixty people. In response to the challenge proposed by the American scholars’ statement, we Japanese scholars respond with the following views.

  1. Complete agreement that events should be viewed in their historical context,
    and weighed carefully in the balance
    We were struck by this passage from the American scholars’ statement:“[…] we believe that only careful weighing and contextual evaluation of every trace of the past can produce a just history. Such work must resist national and gender bias, and be free from government manipulation, censorship, and private intimidation.”
    We are sympathetic to this suggestion, which we believe to be an important, fundamental principle of historical research. It is cause for celebration that researchers in both Japan and the United States are in agreement on this point.
    That we are attempting a response here is due to our having detected, in the American scholars’ statement, a willingness to deal constructively with historical facts that has previously been lacking in American debate on the comfort women issue.
     
  2. Who are the “historians in Japan”?The above-mentioned agreement on a fundamental principle of historical inquiry notwithstanding, there remain aspects of the American scholars’ statement that we find puzzling, or that cause us to harbor grave intellectual reservations.
    The American scholars’ statement is titled, “Open Letter in Support of Historians in Japan,” and begins:“The undersigned scholars of Japanese studies express our unity with the many courageous historians in Japan seeking an accurate and just history of World War II in Asia.”
    It is unclear, however, whom the American scholars mean here by “historians in Japan.” Academic freedom is guaranteed in Japan, which means that there exists a broad diversity of scholars and researchers. According to the explanation provided by the American scholars who compiled the statement, they were influenced by a statement issued in December of 2014 by the Historical Science Society of Japan (Rekishigaku Kenkyūkai, commonly abbreviated as “Rekiken”).This Rekiken statement includes this assertion: “The forced abduction of comfort women is a fact. Comfort women were sex slaves.” It would seem that this assertion is almost completely different from the current American scholars’ statement, which includes neither the phrase “forced abduction of comfort women,” nor the phrase, “sex slaves.”Furthermore, Rekiken is a Marxist organization that has opposed the Japanese-American Security Treaty.
    (See link for their April 1st, 2013 statement. http://rekiken.jp/appeals/appeal20130401.html)
    Were the American scholars aware of these positions when they signed their May, 2015 open letter?
     
  3. History must not be used for political purposesIn the American scholars’ statement, Japan’s “comfort women” system is understood to be “one of the most divisive issues” of historical interpretation. The American scholars write:
    We wish to ask the American scholars whether they are seeking unanimity of historical interpretation between the United States and Japan. We ask this because we believe it impossible to achieve unanimity of historical interpretation among differing nations and peoples when that interpretation goes beyond the level of historical fact. This impossibility is self-evident when one considers, for example, the differing historical interpretations of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki between America and Japan.
    “Postwar Japan’s history of democracy, civilian control of the military, police restraint, and political tolerance, together with contributions to science and generous aid to other countries, are all things to celebrate as well.”
     “Yet problems of historical interpretation pose an impediment to celebrating these achievements. One of the most divisive historical issues is the so-called ‘comfort-women’ system. This issue has become so distorted by nationalist invective in Japan as well as in Korea and China that many scholars, along with journalists and politicians, have lost sight of the fundamental goal of historical inquiry, which should be to understand the human condition and aspire to improve it.”
    We affirm the American scholars’ statement when it points out the problem of Korean and Chinese nationalistic rhetoric. We, too, oppose nationalistic rhetoric without basis in historical fact when it is deployed by any country.
    From this perspective, we are compelled to point out that in the United States, too, one is able to find a mistaken understanding of the facts of the comfort women issue. In their statement, the American scholars allow that, “the precise number of ‘comfort women’ […] will probably never be known for certain.” If this is truly the American scholars’ position, then it should be an imperative, based upon this admission of great uncertainty as to the actual number of comfort women, to correct the erroneous passages in the McGraw-Hill textbook without delay.
    But the McGraw-Hill textbook is not the only site for the perpetuation of mistaken information on comfort women numbers. The stelae accompanying the comfort women statues erected throughout the United States also state unequivocally that “two hundred thousand ordinary women were abducted and forced to work for the Japanese military.”
    In addition to these falsehoods, in the Coomaraswamy Report filed with the United Nations, as well as in United States House of Representatives Resolution No. 121, the Japanese military stands accused, not only of abducting comfort women, but also of drawing and quartering them, and of slaughtering them en masse in order to cover up the evidence of their crimes. What we are asking for here is simply the correction of statements such as these that are so greatly at odds with fact.
    We believe it is our mission as scholars to bring facts to light exactly as we find them. We must not allow ourselves to be drawn away from our scholarly preserves and into the realm of politicization, as doing so would hinder the kind of dialogue and cooperation that are necessary for solving the many problems that we now face.
     
  4. There is no basis for singling Japan out among the twentieth-century history of wartime sexual violence and military prostitutionIn their statement, the American scholars conclude that the Japanese military’s comfort woman system was “distin[ct].” Thus,“Among the many instances of wartime sexual violence and military prostitution in the twentieth century, the ‘comfort women’ system was distinguished by its large scale and systematic management under the military, and by its exploitation of young, poor, and vulnerable women in areas colonized or occupied by Japan.” If the American scholars see the comfort woman system as one of prostitution carried out in the service of an army, then we are in agreement on this point. In order to prevent rape and other sexual violence in theaters of war, and in order also to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease, the Japanese military permitted brokers to procure comfort women from Japan as well as the Korean Peninsula, which at the time was part of the home territory of Japan. In addition to granting permission for this to take place, the Japanese military also helped expedite the process of procurement.We object to the singling out of Japan for special opprobrium on this score, especially when one compares Japan’s actions with those of the Soviet Union’s Red Army, which permitted the rape of the women of defeated populations in Manchuria, Germany, and elsewhere; of the United States military, which used as prostitutes Japanese women provided by the Japanese government under the American Occupation; and of South Korea, which forced its own countrywomen to work as prostitutes for the sake of South Korea’s American allies during and after the Korean War.Leaving aside for a moment the horrors of raping defeated populations, we feel that the American and South Korean actions described immediately above show just how common and universal was the “exploitation of young, poor, and vulnerable women.”As a result of the poverty in Japan and on the Korean Peninsula at that time, parents took out loans with prostitute brokers and made their daughters work for these brokers as repayment of those loans. Such tragedies are now regarded as violations of the law. However, one can still find such tragedies occurring with terrible frequency all around the world. Human trafficking is a booming business and is still the result of poverty and famine, such as the case of the North Koreans who flee into China in order to escape the crushing conditions in their home country. As a United Nations report lays out, women in North Korean political prisons are subjected to appalling sexual abuse. Women’s rights continue to be trampled upon, even as we write.

 
We consider it incumbent upon all of us to strive to eliminate such tragedies without any excuse or prevarication. In order to realize this aim, we must examine, from the perspective of women’s rights violations, all of the facts from the past through to the present in an empirical and academic way. We must not allow nationalism or political objectives to distort our view of the facts.

◆Drafters
 WATANABE Toshio 渡辺 利夫  Takushoku University *President
 NAKANISHI Terumasa 中西 輝政   Kyoto University
 TAKUBO Tadae 田久保 忠衛  Kyorin University

◆Signatories
 ANBO Katsuya 安保 克也 Osaka International University
 ANDO Yutaka 安藤 豊 Hokkaido University of Education
 ARAI Kohichi 新井 弘一 Kyorin University
 ARAKI Kazuhiro 荒木 和博 Takushoku University
 ASADA Sadao 麻田 貞雄 Doshisha University
 ASANO Kazuo 浅野 和生 Heisei International University
 CHE Kilsong 崔 吉城 Hiroshima University
 EDWARDS Hiromi エドワーズ 博美 University of Maryland
 ETOH Hiroyuki 江藤 裕之 Tohoku University
 FIJII Genki 藤井 厳喜 Takushoku University
 FUJIOKA Nobukatsu 藤岡 信勝 Takushoku University
 FUKUCHI Atsushi 福地 惇 Kochi University
 FUKUDA Hayaru 福田 逸 Meiji University
 FUKUI Yuhzoh 福井 雄三 Tokyo International University
 FURUTA Hiroshi 古田 博司 Tsukuba University
 HAKAMADA Shigeki 袴田 茂樹 Niigata Prefectural University
 HAMAYA Hidehiro 浜谷 英博 Mie-Chukyo University
 HASEGAWA Kohichi 長谷川 公一 Edogawa University
 HASEYAMA Takahiko 長谷山 崇彦 Chuo University
 HATA Ikuhiko 秦 郁彦 Nippon University
 HIGASHINAKANO Shudo 東中野 修道  Asia University
 HIGUCHI Tsuneharu 樋口 恒晴   Tokiwa University
 HiIZUMI Katsuo 樋泉 克夫 Aichi University
 HIRAMA Yohichi 平間 洋一 National Defense Academy of Japan
 ICHIMURA Shin-ichi 市村 真一 Kyoto University
 IJIRI Hidenori 井尻 秀憲 Tokyo University
 IMAOKA Hideki 今岡 日出紀 Shimane Prefectural University
 INAMURA Kohboh 稲村 公望 Chuo University
 INOUE Masao 井上 雅夫 Doshisha University
 IRIE Takanori 入江 隆則 Meiji University
 ISHIGAKI Kichiyo 石垣 貴千代 Toyo University
 ISHII Nozomu 石井 望    Nagasaki Junshin Catholic University
 ISOMAE Syuji 磯前 秀二 Meijo University
 ITOH Ken-ichi 伊藤 憲一 Aoyama Gakuin University
 ITOH Takashi 伊藤 隆     Tokyo University
 KANAOKA Hideo 金岡 秀郎 Akita International University
 KANEKO Yoshio 兼子 良夫 Kanagawa University
 KATOH Juhachi 加藤 十八 Chukyo Women`s Universitu
 KATSUOKA Kanji 勝岡 寛次 Meisei University
 KEINO Yoshio 慶野 義雄 Heisei International University
 KIMURA Hiroshi 木村 汎 Hokkaido University
 KITAMURA Minoru 北村 稔 Ritsumeikan University
 KITAMURA Yoshikazu 北村 良和 Aichi University of Education
 KOBORI Kei-ichiro 小堀 桂一郎 Tokyo University
 KOIZUMI Toshio 小泉 俊雄 Chiba Institute of Technology
 KOYAMA Kazunori 小山 一乗 Komazawa University
 KOYAMA Tsunemi 小山 常実 Ohtsuki University
 KUNO Jun 久野 潤 Osaka International University
 KUSAKA Kimindo 日下 公人 Tama University
 MABUCHI Mutsuo 馬渕 睦夫 National Defense Academy of Japan
 MATSU-URA Mitsunobu 松浦 光修 Kohgakkan University
 MERA Kohichi 目良 浩一 University of Southern California
 MIZUTO Hideaki 水渡 英昭 Tohoku University
 MOMOCHI Akira 百地 章 Nippon University
 MURATA Noboru 村田 昇 Shiga University
 NAGOSHI Takeo 名越 健郎 Takushoku University
 NAKAMURA Katsunori 中村 勝範 Keio University
 NAKAYA Noriko 中屋 紀子 Miyagi University of Education
 NISHI Osamu 西 修 Komazawa University
 NISHIDATE Kazume 西館 数芽 Iwate University
 NISHIO Kanji 西尾 幹二 University of Electro-Communications
 NISHIOKA Tsutomu 西岡 力 Tokyo Christian University
 NITTA Hitoshi 新田 均 Kohgakkan University
 NIWA Fumio 丹羽 文生 Takushoku University
 NIWA Haruki 丹羽 春喜   Osaka-gakuin University
 NODA Yasuhisa 野田 裕久 Ehime University
 OH Sonfa 呉 善花 Takushoku University
 OH-HARA Yasuo 大原 康男 Kokugakuin University
 OHIWA Yujiro 大岩 裕次郎 Tokyo International University
 OHTA Tatsuyuki 太田 辰幸 Toyo University
 OKADA-COLLINS Mariko 岡田-コリンズ マリ子Central Washington University
 OKAMOTO Kohji 岡本 幸治 Osaka International University
 OSADA Goroh 長田 五郎 Myojo University
 OSADA Mitsuo 長田 三男 Waseda University
 OYAMA Kazunobu 小山 和伸 Kanagawa University
 SAKAI Nobuhiko 酒井 信彦 Tokyo University
 SASE Masamori 佐瀬 昌盛 National Defense Academy of Japan
 SHIBA Kimiya 柴 公也 Kumamoto Gakuen University
 SHIBATA Norifumi 柴田 徳文 Kokushikan University
 SHIBUYA Tsukasa 澁谷 司 Takushoku University
 SHIMADA Yohichi 島田 洋一 Fukui Prefectural University
 SHIMOJOH Masao 下條 正男 Takushoku University
 SUGIHARA Seishiroh 杉原 誠四郎 Josai University
 TAKADA Jun 高田 純 Sapporo Medical University
 TAKAHARA Akiko 高原 朗子 Kumamoto University
 TAKAHASHI Shiroh 高橋 史朗 Meisei University
 TAKAI Susumu 高井 晉 National Defense Academy of Japan
 TAKAYAMA Masayuki 高山 正之 Teikyo University
 TANAKA Hidemichi 田中 英道 Tohoku University
 TEI Taikin 鄭 大均 Tokyo Metropolitan University
 TOKUMATSU Nobuo 徳松 信夫 Tokoha University
 TOMIOKA Koh-ichiro 冨岡 幸一郎 Kanto Gakuin University
 TOYODA Aritsune 豊田 有恒 Shimane Prefectural University
 TOYOSHIMA Norio 豊島 典雄 Kyorin University
 TUCHIDA Ryuhtaro 土田 龍太郎 Yokyo University
 UMEHARA Katsuhiko 梅原 克彦  Akita International University
 UMEZAWA Shohei 梅澤 昇平 Shobi Gakuen University
 URABE Kenshi 占部 賢志 Nakamura Gakuen University
 USHIO Masato 潮 匡人 Takushoku University
 WATANABE Shoh-ichi 渡部 昇一 Sophia University
 YAGI Hidetsugu 八木 秀次 Reitaku University
 YAMAFUJI Kazuo 山藤 和男 University Electro-Communications
 YAMAMOTO Shigeru 山本 茂 Kyushu Women`s College
 YAMASHITA Eiji 山下 英次 Osaka City University
 YOSHIDA Yoshikatsu 吉田 好克 Miyazaki University
 YOSHINAGA Jun 吉永 潤 Kobe University
 YOSHIWARA Tsuneo 吉原 恒雄 Takushoku University

( 110 persons in all )