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.