hankyoreh

UN‘s Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

Conflict between Seoul and Tokyo over a statement recently submitted by the Japanese government to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) are highlighting additional problems with the agreement reached by the two governments on the comfort women issue last Dec. 28, observers are saying.

While Seoul maintains that the core of the agreement was Japan’s acknowledgement of responsibility and its Prime Minister’s apology and expression of remorse, Tokyo’s focus is squarely on its description as a “final and irreversible solution” on the issue. Intended as a way of ushering in a more “future-oriented” relationship between the administrations of Park Geun-hye and Shinzo Abe, the agreement has turned instead into fuel for further conflict.

In its response to CEDAW’s questions, the Japanese government wrote, “Forceful taking away of comfort women by the military and government authorities could not be confirmed in any of the documents that the [Japanese government] was able to identify.” While the message itself is a reiteration of Tokyo’s position to date, the main issue was its decision to append a copy of the Dec. 28 agreement to its response, emphasizing the “final and irreversible solution” description - an apparent attempt to declare the debate between it and Seoul officially over. In effect, the agreement is now being used as a shield by Tokyo to deny coercion in the mobilization of comfort women and counter pressures from the international community.

CEDAW previously urged Tokyo to attempt a permanent solution on the comfort women issue on three occasions: in 1994, 2003, and 2009. It is currently set to review Japan’s observance of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women at its upcoming 63rd meeting in Geneva between Feb. 15 and Mar. 4.

It’s that delicate situation that explains the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ heated response on Jan. 31, when it stated that the “use of coercion in mobilizing, recruiting, and transporting Japanese military comfort women is an indisputable historical fact about which the international community has made a clear decision.”

“The Japanese government should refrain from statements and actions that might compromise the spirit and aims of the Dec. 28 agreement,” the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs added.

A senior source with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also criticized Tokyo’s claims on Feb. 1 as “an attempt to gloss over and divert attention from the root of the issue by arguing that there is no documentary record.”

One of the big issues has to do with Seoul and Tokyo’s completely divergent takes on the agreement’s “spirit.” To South Korea, the core of the agreement is the acknowledgement of responsibility by Tokyo, Abe’s apology and expression of responsibility, and a foundation contribution from the Japanese government. In contrast, Japan is focusing mainly on the “final and irreversible solution” aspect - indicating a major gulf in their interpretations.

“This was a foregone conclusion from the moment they decided to apply a quick diplomatic fix to an issue they couldn’t agree on and then started talking about how it was ‘final and irreversible,’” said a former senior government official.

Seoul also objected to Tokyo’s response to CEDAW’s question on whether it planned to address the comfort women issue in textbooks as a way of enlightening the public. In its reply, the Japanese government said it was not in a position to answer because “Japan does not adopt a government-designated textbook system.”

In response, the South Korean government said it was “a well-known fact that the Japanese government is directly and indirectly involved in textbook content through its teaching guidelines.”

The positions suggest the two governments are likely to go back and forth once again when Tokyo’s textbook authorization decisions are announced around March.

By Lee Je-hun, staff reporter

Please direct questions or comments to [english@hani.co.kr]