政府 マグロウヒル社教科書に抗議 — 2015年3月31日

政府 マグロウヒル社教科書に抗議

[古森義久]【慰安婦問題で日本政府反撃】~米・教科書の記述訂正求める~

日本政府がついにアメリカの教科書の慰安婦誤記に抗議して、訂正を求めた。教科書出版社側はこの要求を拒否した。だがこのやりとりでは米側の「逃げ」の特徴が明確となったこの点から日本側にとっての少なくとも二つの貴重な教訓が浮かび上がるといえる。
日本政府がアメリカの大手出版社の教科書部門「マグロウヒル・エデュケーション」に対し昨年12月、抗議をしたことが1月16日の報道で明らかとなった。日本の外務省が同社発行の教科書の日本の慰安婦に関する記述が間違っているとして訂正を求め、同社はこれを拒絶したというのだ。

アメリカ大手紙ウォールストリート・ジャーナルの報道によると、この教科書には以下の記述があった。

「日本軍は大戦中に14歳から20歳の女性を20万人も強制徴用し、慰安所と呼ぶ軍の売春宿で働かせた」

「日本軍はその(慰安婦奴隷化の)活動を隠すために多数の慰安婦を虐殺した」

とんでもない虚構である。だがマグロウヒル社側はこの抗議や要求をはねつけた。「慰安婦の歴史的事実について、学者の意見は一致している。わが社は執筆陣の著述、研究、表現をはっきりと支持する」と述べたというのだ。

日本外務省はこの記述の執筆者であるハワイ大学の現代史のハーバート・ジーグラー准教授にも抗議した。だが同准教授は「出版社も私も、日本側の主張はまったく考慮しない」と反論したという。

さてこの日本政府の動きは慰安婦問題での国際的な濡れ衣を晴らすための対外発信の第一歩として歓迎すべきである。この種の抗議を何度も何度も繰り返すべきだ。そのためには今回のアメリカ側の反応の特徴を銘記しておくべきである。

第一の特徴は慰安婦問題での自分たちの記述の根拠には触れないという点だった。「軍による強制連行」、「20万」、「性奴隷」、「慰安婦多数の虐殺」、などいずれも一方的なデマなことはもはや確認された。それでもなおその虚構の糾弾を日本側に浴びせるのならば、浴びせる側がその内容を実証する事実を具体的に明示するのが自然だろう。

だが最近のアメリカ側は決してそれをしない。明示したくてもできないのだ。そのかわりに「ほとんどの歴史学者が認めている」とか「国際的な意見の一致がある」「元慰安婦たちがそう証言している」という、いずれも曖昧な表現の「根拠」を示唆するだけなのだ。

アメリカ側のそんな「逃げ」の第二の特徴は、抗議する側へのレッテル貼りでの誹謗である。慰安婦問題で真実を告げようとする日本側の識者や勢力に「右翼の修正主義者」とか「ホロコースト否定主義者」という不当なレッテルを貼る。議論の核心に入ることを避けるため、日本側の言動がとにかく一部の過激な右翼勢力だけなのだと力説する。日本側の動きをいかにも邪悪な言動のような虚像として描く。これまた煙幕作戦的な「逃げ」だといえる。

今後、日本側はこの種の抗議を根気よく続けねばならないが、その際にはアメリカ側のこの逃げの手口を熟知して、その弱みを突くことが必要になるだろう。

Japan In-depth 2015.1.19

http://megalodon.jp/2015-0331-2150-52/japan-indepth.jp/?p=14477

https://web.archive.org/web/20150323043749/http://japan-indepth.jp/?p=14477

19人が声明 ハンギョレ —

19人が声明 ハンギョレ

「安倍首相の教科書修正圧力に驚愕」米歴史学者が共同で声明

次期米国歴史学会長が言及、マニング教授などの権威者19人
「安倍政権、慰安婦関連の確立された歴史の削除の試み」
「右翼過激派がジャーナリストや学者らを威嚇している」と批判

米国の著名な歴史学者たちが日本の安倍晋三首相の米国の歴史教科書の修正圧力に反発している。パトリック・マニング(ピッツバーグ大学)、アレクシス・ダデン(コネチカット州大学)教授など19人の歴史学者たちは5日、「日本の歴史家たちを支持する」と題した声明で、「私たちは最近、日本政府が第二次世界大戦当時、日本帝国主義による性的な搾取の野蛮なシステムの下で苦痛を経験した日本軍慰安婦について、日本およびその他の国の歴史教科書の記述を抑圧しようとする最近の試みに驚愕を禁じ得ない」と明らかにした。彼らは「国や特定の利益団体が政治目的のために、出版社や歴史学者に研究結果を変えるように圧迫することに反対する」と述べた。
今回の声明は、日本政府が米国の歴史教科書『伝統と遭遇:過去に対するグローバルな視点』を出版したマグロウヒル社と著者に、昨年末に慰安婦関連の文章を削除することを要求したことがきっかけとなった。この教科書は「日本軍は14~20歳の約20万人の女性を慰安所で働かせるため強制的に募集、徴用し、『慰安所』と名づけられた軍施設で働くように強要した。日本軍は、このような事実を隠蔽しようと多くの慰安婦の女性たちを虐殺した」と記述している。声明を主導したアレクシス・ダデン教授はハンギョレとの通話で「外国政府がすでに証明された歴史的事実を教科書から削除してほしいと要求することは極めて異例なことだ」と述べた。

この声明には、米国の歴史学会(AHA)の次期会長候補とされる著名な歴史家であるマニング教授をはじめ、権威ある日本の近現代史研究者であるキャロル・グラック コロンビア大学教授と日本が修正を要求した教科書の著者であるハーバート・ツィーグラー ハワイ大学教授などが参加した。ダデン教授は「アジアの研究者だけでなく、ロシア、米国、ヨーロッパ、中南米など、様々な研究者が署名に参加した」と紹介した。

声明は慰安婦についての記述と関連し、「吉見義明中央大学教授による緻密な日本の文献研究と生存者の証言が、国の支援した性奴隷システムの本質的特徴を示していることは、議論の余地がない」と明らかにした。声明は「一部の保守的な政治家は、国家レベルの責任を否定するために法的な議論を展開し、他の政治家たちは生存者たちを中傷している」とし「右翼の過激派は、慰安婦問題を記録に残し犠牲者たちを記述することに関わったジャーナリストと学者たちを威嚇している」と批判した。

声明はまた、「我々はマグロウヒル社を支持し、『いかなる政府にも歴史を検閲する権利はない』というツィーグラー教授の見解に同意する」と強調した。

ハンギョレ日本語版 2015.02.06

http://megalodon.jp/2015-0331-2135-23/japan.hani.co.kr/arti/international/19599.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20150207070614/http://japan.hani.co.kr/arti/international/19599.html

安倍 WPインタビュー — 2015年3月29日

安倍 WPインタビュー

David Ignatius’s full interview with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe

DAVID IGNATIUS: I want to start with economics and the economic policies that we call “Abenomics.” Explain to me the way that your economic policies are different from previous efforts to stimulate the Japanese economy and get out of deflation and, beyond that, what you’ve learned from your first several years about what works and what doesn’t. And a final question: We’ve seen the first three “arrows” of Abenomics. The third arrow of structural reforms is just beginning, but people wonder if perhaps there’s a fourth arrow coming, and what that might be.

PRIME MINISTER SHINZO ABE: Well, first of all, since 1997, for more than 15 years, the Japanese economy has been in a doldrum, suffering from long-lasting deflation. But during this period, of course, various economic policies were introduced. Unfortunately, they did not culminate in Japan exiting from deflation. So, we decided to go for bold monetary policy which had not been taken before. In Japan, some people argued that this policy of bold monetary policy would be effective for combating deflation, and there were opposing opinions about this policy, but nevertheless we decided to go for bold monetary policy, together with flexible fiscal policy. And also we came up with a growth strategy that would be strengthened as time goes forward. And these three policies would be introduced simultaneously. That was something new. This kind of policy had not been taken before.

I think we are in the process of coming out of deflation. And we are in the process of changing the deflationary mindset. As a result, for the last two years, in real terms, our economy has grown by 8 trillion yen and in nominal terms by 17 trillion yen. The unemployment rate is at the lowest position in the last 20 years. And wage increases that happened last year were the first time in the last 15 years. I assume that come April we will have another round of wage increases, which will be even more than what happened last year. That’s what I think. In the last two years, what was lagging behind was the hefty growth of exports. However, in the recent past exports are again rising. So there is no doubt that the macroeconomic situation is going for the better. However, what we have not been able to achieve so far is the actual feeling that this macroeconomic growth is happening. This actual feeling is not shared by the people in all corners of Japan, as well as those who are working in SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprises] or micro-industries. They have not been able to feel, actually, the benefits of economic change.

If you ask whether there is a fourth arrow: If there was a fourth arrow, I think that would be targeting the local regions. We would be introducing policies that will really support the growth capabilities of the local regions.
You spoke of the deflationary psychology that gripped Japan for these 15 years. What was that psychology, and how do you want to change it?

The first thing about the deflationary mindset is the loss of confidence, saying that Japan will never be able to grow. And another aspect of that is what is happening in the corporate world. This could be regarded as a sequel to the bursting of the bubble economy. Corporations were very cautious, overly cautious, about making capital expenditures, and also corporations were very cautious about investing in human resources or increasing their wages. On the other hand, the prices of commodities did not rise, so no increase in commodity prices became the common sense in the mindset of the Japanese people. In that sense, the consumers will wait and wait until they make a new consumption, and as I mentioned in the corporate sector, they will refrain from making any further investment. In other words, the best thing for them, in the deflationary mindset, is to hold on to cash. That’s why in the corporate sector there was an increase in internal reserve and, on the consumption side, saving increased.

The famous economist John Maynard Keynes said that in the end, economic growth is about “animal spirits.” Is Abenomics about returning animal spirits to Japan, and what will that look like?

I think what is meant by animal spirits is to be pro-active on all things that you do. For example, in the mind of management they will try to increase their revenue from sales, and they will try to increase their profits, and they will be positively investing in human resources which will be necessary in growing the company. That would be the animal spirits. I think, exactly, Japan is in the process of regaining this animal spirit.

A final economic question, prime minister, is a cyclical, long-term one. Japan is a country that for demographic reasons some analysts say is in a process of long-term slowing — that there’s only so much you can do. I wonder what your assessment is of that, and when you think ahead ten years, 20 years, what you think a stable growth trajectory for Japan might be.
Well, about the declining population, we know that it is not possible to reverse this trend immediately. However, I guess there are two things which are needed in order to grow even under the situation of declining population. Two points: First, I mentioned previously that it is important to incorporate the vitality, or induce the vitality, of the local regions. I think this local region vitality is also effective in stopping this trend of declining population. Actually, compared with a metropolitan region like Tokyo, local cities have higher birthrates. Despite this fact, young people from high-birthrate regions are migrating to low-birthrate metropolitan regions.

So this trend is something that I want to change. That means that we will have to create a place of employment in local regions, and we will have to work hard for attractive community building, and also we will have to have policies that will make living in local regions attractive, so that people will enjoy their lives, and enjoy their possibilities in local regions. We have to explore that situation on the side of corporations. Maybe there is a possibility of relocating “headquarter” functions to local regions. Then the working people there will raise the birthrate and there will be better work-life balance. That will all lead into a virtuous cycle.

Other areas I would like to emphasize would be incorporating and capitalizing on the vitality of women. So far, hitherto, we were not able to utilize in an effective way that vitality of women in this society. So we must change that. Also, we must create a situation where elderly people can continue to work, utilizing their experience and knowledge in the workplace. And also people with disability must be able to find places to work in this society. Also, emphasis would be placed on enhancing productivity in the manufacturing process. That means greater efficiency, automation and greater use of robotics. These will be areas that I will emphasize.

Let me turn, Mr. Prime Minister, to security issues. And let me begin with the obvious first question for Japan, and the United States as well, which is the fact of a rising China. I’d like to ask you about your own approach to China since you’ve been prime minister. You have been fairly tough in stating your views, certainly on the issue of the East China Sea and the Senkaku Islands. I wonder, first, if you think that’s had some effect on Chinese leaders, on President Xi, and second, whether you think it’s now possible to maintain a path of cooperation with China — once they realize that Japan won’t be pushed around.

First of all, the peaceful development of China gives an opportunity to Japan as well as the whole world. Last year in November on the occasion of the APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] meeting in Beijing we had the summit talks between Japan and China. And we returned to the cardinal position of a “mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests.” So it was a major step forward in improving the Sino-Japanese relationship. I think because it was a major step forward, in various areas, dialogue and cooperation have resumed. For example, the other day the LDP [Liberal Democratic Party] secretary-general resumed talks with his counterpart from the Chinese communist party.
Another development is the communication mechanism between Japan and China on the maritime areas or the airspace above the high seas. Actually, this communication mechanism was proposed during the first Abe administration, in 2006 to 2007. We called for this mechanism to be established. However, since, then, the Chinese side did not make any moves, unfortunately. But again, this time around this mechanism is being implemented.

However, militarily we must note that the Chinese defense expenditure is increasing 27 years consecutively at a growth rate of almost double-digits, year upon year. And now the defense budget of China is 3.6 times that of Japan. In the field of security, what I think is important is that we encourage the Chinese side to transparency, to observe and share international norms, and to play a constructive and collaborative role regarding regional and global issues.

Their maritime behavior is not happening only around Senkaku Islands, or East China Sea, it is also causing concern countries like Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries regarding their behavior in the South China Sea, as well. So together with the United States and ASEAN countries, we would like to urge China to become a country that will be responsible in regional issues, as well as a country that will be involved in constructive cooperation.

Let me ask you ask about an issue that will be central to your visit to Washington, which is Japan’s relationship with the United States. I want ask specifically about Japan’s military security relationship with the U.S. President Obama is often criticized at home and overseas as being a somewhat weak president in his use of force. I want to ask what Japan’s experience has been. Are you satisfied that Japan can continue to depend on U.S. military guarantees for security.

We welcome the Obama administration’s policy called the “pivot to Asia,” because it is a contributing factor to the safety and peace of the region. I think this pivot policy is playing an indispensable role in enhancing the deterrence of the U.S.-Japan alliance, as well as ensuring peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region. Last year in April, President Obama visited Japan. On that occasion he mentioned the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance, especially for the security of the Asia-Pacific region. We were able to communicate that, together, we will be playing an important role in that regard. Also, President Obama mentioned and stated very clearly that Senkaku Islands would be an area where Article 5 of the security treaty would be applied. I think he was the first U.S. president to state this very clearly. So in that sense we place the fullest confidence in his policy.
Let me ask you know about your view of Japan’s “self-defense forces.” You’ve said in many different ways that you think it’s time for Japan to use its self-defense forces in a more proactive way, a less restrained way. Perhaps you could explain your vision of the kind of defense forces and military posture that Japan needs in the future.

We must recognize that this is the time and age when threats would easily come across national borders, with the pervasive existence of weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, the spread of terrorism as well as cyber attack. Regarding Japan, the security environment around Japan has become even more tough. This is the time and age when one country alone cannot defend and protect its own peace and security. So with the countries of the world, we must cooperate and we must contribute so we can achieve the peace and stability, peace and safety, for our own country, for the region we are in as well as for the entire world.

Hitherto, there was a thinking in Japan that it is okay just to look inside Japan in order to secure peace for our own country, not shedding our eyes to the outside world. Of course, this thinking is in the process of changing in the past 15 years. But I think change occurring in the entire world is even bigger. The fact that we are currently working on new security legislation is for Japan to be able to handle and cope with that situation. In this new security legislation what we are looking at is to cope with the aggression or infiltration, which will not lead into the actual use of force, as well as to provide logistic support to other countries’ forces which would be benefiting Japan. With this new security legislation we will be able to respond to the expanded and enlarged PK [peacekeeping] operations, as well as in the limited way the exercise of collective self-defense right. With this new security legislation, what becomes possible for us is that we will be able to rescue U.S. forces that are doing the patrolling in nearby areas of Japan, once these ships are attacked. Hitherto, we were not able to rescue those ships.

I should ask you, Prime Minister: Your critics sometimes look at your policies and your advocating changes in the traditional role of the self-defense forces and argue that these policies are “militaristic.” How would you answer that?

Indeed, I did increase the defense expenditure, but it was only 0.8 percent, mind you. But this is limited to securing and protecting the lives of the Japanese people as well as the happy and peaceful daily living of the Japanese people. So what I am doing is only to discharge my responsibility of protecting the lives of the Japanese people in the context of the changing international situation and changing security environment.
With your visit to Washington coming up, what are your three most important goals for that visit? What do you hope to accomplish?

First and foremost, I would say that for the last 70 years the U.S.-Japan alliance achieved many things, and I would like to express that this alliance is an unshakeable alliance. I would like to confirm that. At the same time, I would like to confirm with my American colleagues that by strengthening the U.S.-Japan alliance we will be able to contribute to the peace and security of Asia-Pacific and the whole world.

Another point, if you will, will be the economic policy I am promoting. We are attaching great importance to the economic partnership agreements, and one of them is TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership]. I would like to gain common understanding between the U.S. and Japan about the importance of fostering economic partnership.

A third goal would be to make the American people have more knowledge about Japan. I would like them to know more about Japan, Japanese culture, Japanese tradition, and how Japanese people are regarding the United States. We are the countries sharing universal values, such as freedom, democracy, basic values, rule of law. So we are the countries sharing those values. This is something that I’d like to express to the American people.

I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t ask you whether you think it’s going to be possible to achieve a TPP agreement between the U.S. and Japan by the time of your visit.

I can’t say anything very specific, but there is no doubt that we are entering into the final leg of the negotiation. President Obama and I are sending encouraging messages to chief negotiators: Hang in there; do your work very hard.

Mr. Prime Minister, let me ask you a question about history: Every country thinks about its history; every country wants to feel comfortable with its history. You sometimes are called, by critics and friends alike, as someone who’s a “revisionist” — who wants to say that some of the things that Japan has been accused of doing in its past, as dark as it was, some of those things aren’t true. So I want to ask you: Is it accurate to say that you are a revisionist–that you would like to revise the picture of Japan so that it is, in your view, more accurate?
A: My opinion is that politicians should be humble in the face of history. And whenever history is a matter of debate, it should be left in the hands of historians and experts. First of all, I would like to state very clearly that the Abe cabinet upholds the position on the recognition of history of the previous administrations, in its entirety, including the Murayama Statement [apologizing in 1995 for the damage and suffering caused by Japan to its Asian neighbors] and the Koizumi Statement [in 2005, stating that Japan must never again take the path to war]. I have made this position very clearly, on many occasions, and we still uphold this position. Also we have made it very clear that the Abe cabinet is not reviewing the Kono Statement [in 1993, in which the Government of Japan extended its sincere apologies and remorse to all those who suffered as comfort women].

On the question of comfort women, when my thought goes to these people, who have been victimized by human trafficking and gone through immeasurable pain and suffering beyond description, my heart aches. And on this point, my thought has not changed at all from previous prime ministers. Hitherto in history, many wars have been waged. In this context, women’s human rights were violated. My hope is that the 21st century will be the first century where there will be no violation of human rights, and to that end, Japan would like to do our outmost.

PRIME MINISTER’S AIDE: This will have to be the final question

Let me ask you ask you political question about your party, the LDP, which is the foundation of modern Japan. Analysts sometimes write that the strength of the LDP is also its weakness; that it so tied to the traditional interests of Japan—agriculture, infrastructure construction, the biggest manufacturing companies—that its ability to change is limited. As I look at your leadership, it seems to me that you’re actually trying to break that box that LDP government sometimes makes for Japan. Am I right? Do you want to try to move your party away from being so tied to these interests, so that you can open Japan up?

This year marks the 60th anniversary of the birth of the LDP. We have to remind ourselves that we were able to last as long as 60 years because we were able to change, when change was necessary. Twenty years ago when there was the Uruguay Round [multi-lateral trade talks which lasted from 1986 to 1994], LDP politicians and farmers sat in expressing fierce opposition to the Uruguay Round. If the LDP today were the LDP of 20 years ago and before, we would not have been able to reform the policy of set-aside that continued for 40 years, the policy of agricultural cooperatives that continued for 60 years, or to discuss TPP. We would not have been able even to discuss these matters.
Twenty years ago, the average age of farmers was 56. Now it is 66. So if we are lagging in reform there will be an existential risk for the presence of farming in Japan. So sharing this sense of crisis is the energy and prime mover of my reform. In March, there was a general party congress of LDP. On that occasion I delivered a speech in which I said that if we want to protect the Japanese farming industry, which is very important, then we have to go through a major reform. I also said that if we want to maintain and preserve our universal health care insurance system, then we must have a reform of the health care system. Educational reform is really called for if we want to preserve a good future for our children.

My idea is not to destroy the organization of the LDP, or the people associated with it. I want to make them reformers. That’s what it is. Because of this we were able to have a very major victory three times, since I became president of LDP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/26/david-ignatiuss-full-interview-with-japanese-prime-minister-shinzo-abe/

安倍 NWインタビュー —

安倍 NWインタビュー

Japan’s PM on Iraq and ‘Comfort Women’

This week, President Bush will welcome Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Washington. Abe’s predecessor, Junichiro Koizumi, had a close relationship with Bush, who admired his courage in tackling Japan’s economic problems. Abe, a staunch nationalist, recently aroused controversy in the United States and elsewhere by seeming to dismiss the complaints of Chinese and Korean women who were forced to serve the Japanese Army as prostitutes during World War II. NEWSWEEK’s Lally Weymouth interviewed Abe in Tokyo last week, where he discussed many issues, from changing Japan’s Constitution to forging a new relationship with China. Excerpts:

WEYMOUTH: What do you hope to accomplish in Washington?
ABE: I believe the Japan-U.S. alliance is the only indispensable alliance, and I’d like to use my visit to further strengthen this relationship.

How do you feel about the recent agreement on the North Korean nuclear program?
I welcome this agreement but what is important is that North Korea act in a concrete manner to abandon nuclear weapons.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Do you feel sidelined because the Japanese government has said it will not participate in the U.S.-led deal until the issue of 17 Japanese kidnapped by North Korea in the 1970s is resolved?
On this question, Japan and the U.S. are fully coordinated. To the extent the issue remains unresolved, there will be no attainment of the objectives of the Six-Party Talks. All the participating countries understand that if there is no progress on the abduction issue, Japan will not participate in [providing] energy assistance for North Korea. If there is progress on that issue then Japan shall be able to make a greater contribution.

What do you define as progress?
With regard to that question of progress, at this moment North Korea is not responding in good faith. I believe that unless there is normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea by resolving the issue, North Korea will not be able to create their own future.

You’ve had success so far improving relations with China. Last week the Chinese prime minister came to Tokyo—the first visit of a senior Chinese official in seven years.
On my visit to China last year, I agreed with the Chinese leadership that we together shall build a mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests. And there are numerous issues that can be covered, like the environment, energy, North Korea, East Asian development, U.N. reform, and others. I believe that our cooperation on these fronts will benefit not just Japan and China, but Asia and the entire world.

People say that you would like to have a more robust military. Does that mean you want to amend Article 9 [which restricts Japan to self-defense]?
It’s been over 60 years since the Constitution was put in place. There are provisions in the Constitution that no longer suit the times. And as you know, this Constitution was drafted while Japan was under occupation. I believe it is important that we Japanese write a constitution for ourselves that would reflect the shape of the country which we would consider desirable in the 21st century.

As you know, your comments on “comfort women” caused an outcry in the United States. Do you really believe the Imperial Army had no program to force Korean, Chinese and other women to provide sexual services to Japanese soldiers?
I have to express sympathy from the bottom of my heart to those people who were taken as wartime comfort women. As a human being I would like to express my sympathies, and also as prime minister of Japan I need to apologize to them. The 20th century was a century in which human rights were infringed upon in numerous parts of the world, and Japan also bears responsibility in that regard. I believe that we have to look at our own history with humility, and we always have to think about our responsibility.

Do you now believe that the Imperial Army forced these women into this situation?
With regards to the wartime comfort-women issue, my administration has been saying all along that we continue to stand by the Kono Statement [a 1993 acknowledgment of Japan’s partial responsibility for the brothels]. We feel responsible for having forced these women to go through that hardship and pain as comfort women under the circumstances at the time.

I understand that you’re going to the Middle East after Washington. How do you see the danger of nuclear proliferation in Iran?
During my visit to the Middle East I would like to discuss with the leaders of the countries there how we can best secure peace and stability—especially with regards to Iran. Japan today enjoys good relations with Iran and would like to exercise whatever influence it has on the Iranians to try and work towards a peaceful resolution of the issue.

Newsweek 4/29/07 AT 8:00 PM

http://www.newsweek.com/japans-pm-iraq-and-comfort-women-98041

バーナビー — 2015年3月22日

バーナビー

마치 나치 가해자가 유대인 피해자더러 2차대전 문제 제기하면 시끄러우니 조용하라는 일이 일부 일본계 주도로 밴쿠버에서 일어나고 있다. 버나비시에 추진 중인 일본군 위안부를 기리는 소녀상 건설에 반대하는 스칼렛 이왈드(Scalet Ewald)라는 이가 인터넷 연대서명 웹사이트 ‘ 체인지닷오그’를 통해 펼친 논리가 이와 다르지 않다.

이왈드는 1만명 서명을 목표로 “데릭 코리건 시장; 위안부여성, 평화의 동상이 아님, 분쟁을 끄는 자석”이란 모호한 제목으로 연대서명을 제기했으며, 일주일이 지난 19일 현재 1만명에 거의 도달해 있다. 연대서명 취지에 대해 이왈드는 서명 페이지 하단에 데릭 코리건(Corrigan) 버나비 시장에게 ‘우리는 위안부 소녀/위안부 여성 기림비를 센트럴파크에 건설하는 데 강력히 반대한다’는 서신을 전달하기 위한 목적으로 진행 중이라고 밝혔다.

‘BC Japan network’라는 단체명을 쓰는 이왈드의 소녀상 건설 반대사유는 교묘하게 왜곡된 내용들이다. 체인지닷 오그에서 서명을 받는 첫째 이유로 이왈드는 “위안부 여성 사안은 큰 논란의 대상이며 민감하고, ‘해결할 수 없는’ 일본과 한국 사이의 오늘날 정치 분쟁이기 때문”이라고 적었다. 이에 대한 사례로 이왈드는 “실례로 한국은 위안부에 대해 일본에 분명한 공식 사과를 요구하는 데, 일본 총리는 공식적으로 여러 차례 한국에 사과했다”고 적었다. ‘사과도 받아주지 않는’ 한국인 탓은 일본 극우의 레퍼토리다.

위안부 피해자의 수요집회에서 요구는 일본정부의 사과와 진상규명 및 적절한 배상, 책임자 처벌이다. 사죄의 말은 있었으나 일본 정부가 공식적인 진상규명과 처벌, 배상에 나선 적은 없다.

무라야마 도미이치 일본 前총리 1994년 사죄 담화, 1996년 하시모타 류타로 前총리의 사죄편지는 있었으나, 진정한 사과의 요건인 진상규명 및 배상, 책임자처벌, 관련 역사교육에 대해서는 일본 정부는 구체적인 조치를 하지 않았다.

최근 아베 신조 총리는 위안부 모집에 일본군이 관여했다는 내용의 고노 담화를 계승한다면서도 동시에 “성노예는 중상“ 또는 “강제연행은 없었다”는 발언으로 사실상 담화 내용을 부정해 논란을 일으키고 있다.

이왈드는 또한 “일본은 4700만달러 상당의 여성을 위한 아시아평화국민기금(Asian Women’s Fund)를 조성해 위안부 여성을 지원코자했으나 한국은 이를 불충분하다고 봤다”며 “양국은 상당히 정치적인 사안에 다년간 합의하지 않았다”고 적었다.

해당 기금은 일본 정부가 참여하기는 했으나, 공식 배상금이 아니라 ‘배상을 대신하는 조치’였다. 한국정신대문제대책협의회(정대협) 일본 정부에 요구한 사죄·보상법 요구에 부합하지 않는 ‘위로금’이었다. 즉 끼친 피해를 인정하고 주려는 돈이 아니라, 딱하게 됐다고 주는 위로금에 정대협과 앰네스티 한국지부는 국제사회 배상기준에 맞지 않다고 비판하고 거의 피해자 75%는 수령을 거부했다.

이 기금은 2007년 해산했다. 즉 일본 정부의 공식 배상을 요구하는 이들에게 일본정부가 만든 단체가 위로금을 건네려다가 거부 당한 것이 이 사건의 핵심인데, 이를 마치 정치적 분쟁처럼 이왈드는 포장한 것이다.

이어 이왈드는 미국에 세워진 소녀상과 기림비가 ‘일본인 자손을 괴롭히게 만드는 원인’이나 한 이민집단이 다른 이민집단을 고발해 캐나다의 하나의 이민사회를 깰 수 있다고 주장했다. 또한 페어팩스나 글렌데일의 소녀상이 한·일 커뮤니티의 분열을 초래하고 있다고 주장했다.

유대인에게 제대로 사과한 독일인이나 독일계는 북미 사회에서 이왈드가 주장한 경험의 대상이 아니란 점을 간과하고 있다. 또한 미국 소녀상은 이민커뮤니티 간의 대립 끝에 나온 승자의 상징물이 아니다. 2차대전 당시 일본 제국주의에 보편적 인권을 유린 당한 피해 여성의 상징이며, 아직 이뤄지지 않은 역사적 사실 인정과 공식적 사과와 배상을 요구하는 상징이다.

일본계는 캐나다가 2차대전 당시 일본계 재산몰수 및 배상에 대해 캐나다 정부가 피해자와 그 후손 일본계에 공식 사과하고 배상한 역사를 잊어버린 듯 하다. 또한 이왈트나 네트워크의 주장을 보면 ‘분쟁을 피하자’ 면서도 한인을 깔보는 시선이 주장 안에 깔려있다. 예컨대 사과해도 받아주지 않는 한국인이란 인상을 씌워놓는 점이 대표적이다.

한편 한인 사회에는 이번 일을 계기로 좀 더 체계적이며, 비정치적이고 보편적인 대응 논리 마련과 조직력이 요구되고 있다. 이미 소녀상을 세운 커뮤니티와 연락도 필요해 보인다.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150321205210/http://www.vanchosun.com/news/main/frame.php?main=1&boardId=17&sbdtype=&bdId=53028&cpage1=1&search_keywordtype=&search_type=&search_title=&search_type

http://megalodon.jp/2015-0321-0500-57/www.vanchosun.com/news/main/frame.php?main=1&boardId=17&sbdtype=&bdId=53028&cpage1=1&search_keywordtype=&search_type=&search_title=&search_type

サンフランシスコに慰安婦像計画 — 2015年3月19日

サンフランシスコに慰安婦像計画

サンフランシスコ市に新たな慰安婦像計画 中国系が準備委設置

米カリフォルニア州サンフランシスコ市で中国系住民らが慰安婦像の設置計画を始動したことが29日までに、明らかになった。すでに準備委員会を設立し、公共スペースでの設置を目指している。これまで米国内の慰安婦像や碑は韓国系が推進しており、計画が実現すれば中国系による初の設置となる。米国における慰安婦問題で中韓連携が一層強化される恐れもある。

関係者によると、中国系の準備委が像の設置場所として選んだのは観光名所の一つ、チャイナタウン(中華街)の中心にある「ポーツマス広場」。市が進める広場の再開発事業に合わせて像を設置しようとしている。

像のデザインは慰安婦を連想させる女性の胸像で、その下に「日本軍によって強制的に性奴隷にさせられた数十万人のアジア女性の痛みを忘れない」との趣旨の碑も設置するという。

市は12月まで広場のデザインなどの再開発案を一般から募集。準備委は署名を集めた上で、市側に像設置の計画案を提出する。準備委は中国系のエド・リー市長にも直接、像設置の計画案を送付するとしている。

中国メディアによると、準備委関係者は「韓国系団体とも連携を取り、支持を求めていく」としている。関係者によれば、同州を拠点に反日宣伝活動を行う中国系団体「世界抗日戦争史実維護連合会(抗日連合会)」が準備委を支援しており、中国系のサンフランシスコ市議も像設置案への支持を表明している。

2014.8.30

http://megalodon.jp/2015-0319-1924-50/www.sankei.com/world/news/140830/wor1408300041-n1.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20141001095929/http://www.sankei.com/world/news/140830/wor1408300041-n1.html

ミンディ・カトラー NYT — 2015年3月18日

ミンディ・カトラー NYT

The Comfort Women and Japan’s War on Truth
By MINDY KOTLERNOV. 14, 2014

WASHINGTON — In 1942, a lieutenant paymaster in Japan’s Imperial Navy named Yasuhiro Nakasone was stationed at Balikpapan on the island of Borneo, assigned to oversee the construction of an airfield. But he found that sexual misconduct, gambling and fighting were so prevalent among his men that the work was stalled.

Lieutenant Nakasone’s solution was to organize a military brothel, or “comfort station.” The young officer’s success in procuring four Indonesian women “mitigated the mood” of his troops so well that he was commended in a naval report.

Lieutenant Nakasone’s decision to provide comfort women to his troops was replicated by thousands of Imperial Japanese Army and Navy officers across the Indo-Pacific both before and during World War II, as a matter of policy. From Nauru to Vietnam, from Burma to Timor, women were treated as the first reward of conquest.

We know of Lieutenant Nakasone’s role in setting up a comfort station thanks to his 1978 memoir, “Commander of 3,000 Men at Age 23.” At that time, such accounts were relatively commonplace and uncontroversial — and no obstacle to a political career. From 1982 to 1987, Mr. Nakasone was the prime minister of Japan.

Today, however, the Japanese military’s involvement in comfort stations is bitterly contested. The government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is engaged in an all-out effort to portray the historical record as a tissue of lies designed to discredit the nation. Mr. Abe’s administration denies that imperial Japan ran a system of human trafficking and coerced prostitution, implying that comfort women were simply camp-following prostitutes.

The latest move came at the end of October when, with no intended irony, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party appointed Mr. Nakasone’s own son, former Foreign Minister Hirofumi Nakasone, to chair a commission established to “consider concrete measures to restore Japan’s honor with regard to the comfort women issue.”

The official narrative in Japan is fast becoming detached from reality, as it seeks to cast the Japanese people — rather than the comfort women of the Asia-Pacific theater — as the victims of this story. The Abe administration sees this historical revision as integral to restoring Japan’s imperial wartime honor and modern-day national pride. But the broader effect of the campaign has been to cause Japan to back away from international efforts against human rights abuses and to weaken its desire to be seen as a responsible partner in prosecuting possible war crimes.

A key objective of Mr. Abe’s government has been to dilute the 1993 Kono Statement, named for Japan’s chief cabinet secretary at the time, Yohei Kono. This was widely understood as the Japanese government’s formal apology for the wartime network of brothels and front-line encampments that provided sex for the military and its contractors. The statement was particularly welcomed in South Korea, which was annexed by Japan from 1910 to 1945 and was the source of a majority of the trafficked comfort women.

Continue reading the main story
Imperial Japan’s military authorities believed sex was good for morale, and military administration helped control sexually transmitted diseases. Both the army and navy trafficked women, provided medical inspections, established fees and built facilities. Nobutaka Shikanai, later chairman of the Fujisankei Communications Group, learned in his Imperial Army accountancy class how to manage comfort stations, including how to determine the actuarial “durability or perishability of the women procured.”

Japan’s current government has made no secret of its distaste for the Kono Statement. During Mr. Abe’s first administration, in 2007, the cabinet undermined the Kono Statement with two declarations: that there was no documentary evidence of coercion in the acquisition of women for the military’s comfort stations, and that the statement was not binding government policy.

Shortly before he became prime minister for the second time, in 2012, Mr. Abe (together with, among others, four future cabinet members) signed an advertisement in a New Jersey newspaper protesting a memorial to the comfort women erected in the town of Palisades Park, N.J., where there is a large Korean population. The ad argued that comfort women were simply part of the licensed prostitution system of the day.

In June this year, the government published a review of the Kono Statement. This found that Korean diplomats were involved in drafting the statement, that it relied on the unverified testimonies of 16 Korean former comfort women, and that no documents then available showed that abductions had been committed by Japanese officials.

Then, in August, a prominent liberal newspaper, The Asahi Shimbun, admitted that a series of stories it wrote over 20 years ago on comfort women contained errors. Reporters had relied upon testimony by a labor recruiter, Seiji Yoshida, who claimed to have rounded up Korean women on Jeju Island for military brothels overseas.

The scholarly community had long determined that Mr. Yoshida’s claims were fictitious, but Mr. Abe seized on this retraction by The Asahi to denounce the “baseless, slanderous claims” of sexual slavery, in an attempt to negate the entire voluminous and compelling history of comfort women. In October, Mr. Abe directed his government to “step up a strategic campaign of international opinion so that Japan can receive a fair appraisal based on matters of objective fact.”

Two weeks later, Japan’s ambassador for human rights, Kuni Sato, was sent to New York to ask a former United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women, Radhika Coomaraswamy, to reconsider her 1996 report on the comfort women — an authoritative account of how, during World War II, imperial Japan forced women and girls into sexual slavery. Ms. Coomaraswamy refused, observing that one retraction did not overturn her findings, which were based on ample documents and myriad testimonies of victims throughout Japanese-occupied territories.

There were many ways in which women and girls throughout the Indo-Pacific became entangled in the comfort system, and the victims came from virtually every settlement, plantation and territory occupied by imperial Japan’s military. The accounts of rape and pillage leading to subjugation are strikingly similar whether they are told by Andaman Islanders or Singaporeans, Filipino peasants or Borneo tribespeople. In some cases, young men, including interned Dutch boys, were also seized to satisfy the proclivities of Japanese soldiers.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Japanese soldiers raped an American nurse at Bataan General Hospital 2 in the Philippine Islands; other prisoners of war acted to protect her by shaving her head and dressing her as a man. Interned Dutch mothers traded their bodies in a church at a convent on Java to feed their children. British and Australian women who were shipwrecked off Sumatra after the makeshift hospital ship Vyner Brooke was bombed were given the choice between a brothel or starving in a P.O.W. camp. Ms. Coomaraswamy noted in her 1996 report that “the consistency of the accounts of women from quite different parts of Southeast Asia of the manner in which they were recruited and the clear involvement of the military and government at different levels is indisputable.”

For its own political reasons, the Abe administration studiously ignores this wider historical record, and focuses instead on disputing Japan’s treatment of its colonial Korean women. Thus rebuffed by Ms. Coomaraswamy, the chief cabinet secretary, Yoshihide Suga, vowed to continue advocating in international bodies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, for Japan’s case, which is to seek to remove the designation of comfort women as sex slaves.

The grave truth about the Abe administration’s denialist obsession is that it has led Japan not only to question Ms. Coomaraswamy’s report, but also to challenge the United Nations’ reporting on more recent and unrelated war crimes, and to dismiss the testimony of their victims. In March, Japan became the only Group of 7 country to withhold support from a United Nations investigation into possible war crimes in Sri Lanka, when it abstained from voting to authorize the inquiry. (Canada is not a member of the Human Rights Council but issued a statement backing the probe.) During an official visit, the parliamentary vice minister for foreign affairs, Seiji Kihara, told Sri Lanka’s president, “We are not ready to accept biased reports prepared by international bodies.”

Rape and sex trafficking in wartime remain problems worldwide. If we hope to ever reduce these abuses, the efforts of the Abe administration to deny history cannot go unchallenged. The permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — all of whom had nationals entrapped in imperial Japan’s comfort women system — must make clear their objection to the Abe government’s perverse denial of the historical record of human trafficking and sexual servitude.

The United States, in particular, has a responsibility to remind Japan, its ally, that human rights and women’s rights are pillars of American foreign policy. If we do not speak out, we will be complicit not only in Japanese denialism, but also in undermining today’s international efforts to end war crimes involving sexual violence.

大阪府、慰安婦問題の補助教材配布へ — 2015年3月17日

大阪府、慰安婦問題の補助教材配布へ

大阪府の松井一郎知事が、慰安婦について府の高校に補助教材を配り慰安婦の強制連行はなかったと子供たちに補足説明するつもりらしい(産経によれば)。副教材など誰も読まないと思うし、「『強制連行の証拠がない』などと補足説明」する前に強制連行とは何かを補足説明した方がいいのではないか?徴用のことだと知らないで使っている人も多いぞ。産経新聞とか。

大阪府の教育委員会は、「国の指針が示されておらず、歴史認識に踏み込んだ教材の作成は困難」と判断。代わりに、取り消された(朝日新聞の慰安婦キャンペーン)記事を根拠にした教材を使ったり、指導したりしないよう求める通知を全府立高に出していた」とのこと。

大阪府、慰安婦問題の補助教材配布へ 松井知事が答弁 朝日記事取り消し受け

大阪府の松井一郎知事は13日、朝日新聞が慰安婦報道の一部記事を取り消した問題を受け、高校日本史の教科書の慰安婦に関する記述内容について、補助教材を作成し、府立高校で配布する方針を明らかにした。「強制連行の証拠がない」などと補足説明するとみられる。府議会委員会での質疑で答弁した。府教委によると、配布は今夏以降になる見通し。

松井知事は補助教材の記載内容について「今年は戦後70年で、(安倍晋三首相が夏に発表予定の)総理談話の内容を注視して考えたい」と語った。複数の文部科学省幹部は、慰安婦の強制連行説を否定する補助教材は「聞いたことがない」としている。

この問題をめぐっては、松井知事が昨年10月、「朝日が誤報と認めたことで強制連行の証拠がないと分かった。間違った教科書で知識を得るのはマイナスだ」と指摘。教科書の内容を補足する補助教材を作成する意向を示したが、府教委は先月、「国の指針が示されておらず、歴史認識に踏み込んだ教材の作成は困難」と判断。代わりに、取り消された記事を根拠にした教材を使ったり、指導したりしないよう求める通知を全府立高に出していた。

慰安婦の強制連行説は、朝日新聞が「若い朝鮮人女性を『狩り出した』」などとする自称・元山口県労務報国会下関支部動員部長、吉田清治氏(故人)の証言を取り上げて以降、国内外に広まり、教科書にも掲載されるようになった。

吉田氏の証言について、朝日新聞は昨年8月、虚偽と判断し、過去の記事を取り消している。

産経 2015.3.13[2]

キャンベル氏「冷え込んだ日韓関係、米国に有害」 — 2015年3月16日

キャンベル氏「冷え込んだ日韓関係、米国に有害」

米国:キャンベル氏「冷え込んだ日韓関係、米国に有害」

毎日新聞 2015年03月14日 11時07分(最終更新 03月14日 11時19分)

◇前国務次官補、日韓関係巡るシンポジウムで

【ワシントン西田進一郎】米国の第1次オバマ政権で東アジア政策などを担当したカート・キャンベル前国務次官補は13日、冷え込んだままの日韓関係がこのまま続けば「米国にとって有害で、(アジア太平洋地域を重視する)リバランス(再均衡)政策ができない」と危機感を表明した。さらに、日韓関係を好転させるためにオバマ大統領が積極的に行動すべきだとの考えを示した。首都ワシントンで開かれた日韓関係を巡るシンポジウムで語った。

キャンベル氏は、米国がアジア太平洋地域で大きな役割を果たし続けるためには日韓関係の改善が不可欠だとの認識を強調。オバマ大統領が昨年3月に日米韓首脳会談を主導したことを評価しながらも「十分ではなく、もっとなされるべきことがある」と指摘した。さらに、「個人的意見」として、オバマ大統領が主導して安全保障分野で3カ国協力を進めることなどを挙げ、「米国はより多くのことができるし、すべきだ」と語った。

http://mainichi.jp/select/news/20150314k0000e030151000c.ht

国務省と会談 — 2015年3月15日

国務省と会談

米国務省のサキ報道官は5日の記者会見で、同省当局者が、旧日本軍の元慰安婦の女性2人とワシントンで面会したことを明らかにした。「定期的な面会」とも述べ、米側が従軍慰安婦問題を重視していることを示唆した。

サキ報道官は「日本軍が性的な目的で女性の人身売買に関与した、重大な人権侵害で嘆かわしいことだ」との認識を示し、「過去の傷を癒やし近隣諸国との関係改善を促進する姿勢で取り組みを続けるよう日本に促す」と述べた。

面会したのは、韓国にある元慰安婦の支援施設ナヌムの家のメンバー。元慰安婦側の要望で7月31日に実現したという。

朝日 2014.8.7

http://megalodon.jp/2015-0315-0755-09/digital.asahi.com/articles/DA3S11287859.html?iref=comkiji_txt_end_s_kjid_DA3S11287859