Abe's distortion over comfort women recurs

Concerns linger over legal binding of agreement

By Yi Whan-woo

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Tuesday, for trying to deny an “undeniable fact” that Tokyo coerced Korean women into sexual servitude for soldiers during World War II.

The criticism came one day after Abe said that there was no evidence showing that the women were forcibly mobilized, adding fuel to the dispute over the latest agreement reached between Korea and Japan.

“There are multiple resources, including testimonies of the victims, reports of the Allies of World War II and a U.N. report by (former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women) Radhika Coomaraswamy, that show the victims were taken against their will,” ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck said.

Concerns are growing in Seoul that Tokyo may continue to distort issues on its sex slavery although the two sides agreed to end their historical dispute “finally and irrevocably” in December.

“I believe Abe’s comments were aimed at wooing Japanese conservatives but it leads Koreans to question the credibility of the landmark agreement,” said Kwak Jin-o, a senior researcher at the Northeast Asian History Foundation.

Speaking to the Japanese Diet, Abe said there was no evidence of the Japanese military’s mobilization of the euphemistically-called “comfort women.”

“I’ve remained unchanged in my view,” he said.

In a separate event on Jan. 14, Sakurada Yoshitaka, a lawmaker of Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party, called former Korean sex slaves “professional prostitutes” although he later apologized for his remark.

Such provocative comments have stirred up a debate in interpreting the landmark deal struck between foreign ministers of the two nations in Seoul, on Dec. 28.

Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida then said his country “fully recognizes its responsibility” for its state-perpetrated sex crimes and delivered Abe’s “heartfelt apology.”

Kishida also said the country’ military was involved in the “comfort women” issues, adding such incidents “left a scar on the honor and dignity of the victimized women.”

To some Koreans, it was interpreted that Kishida acknowledged the Japanese Army played a key role in kidnapping, coaxing and forcing victims into prostitution.

But others remained skeptical about such a view.

Legally binding deal?

Lee Myeon-woo, a senior researcher at the Sejong Institute, said there are lingering concerns that Japan will exploit the Dec. 28 agreement to woo conservatives.

Lee claimed that the controversial accord “leaves room” for Tokyo to interpret it for its own sake, while underscoring the “final and irrevocable” nature of the agreement to prevent Seoul from raising objections.

He also said that the agreement involving Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se was only made verbally.

Kwak Jin-o disagreed, saying a verbal agreement can have legal force as equal as a treaty in written form.

The U.N.’s 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties defines a “treaty” as “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law.”

A foreign ministry official insisted on validity of the Dec. 28 deal, saying “There are a number of ways other than a treaty for two or more nations to reach an agreement over certain issues and implement it.”

“The agreement last year was one of such cases,” the official said on condition of anonymity.

A different official echoed a similar view, saying “The agreement was made and announced on a government-to-government basis and therefore trustworthy enough.”

Meanwhile, the Lawyers for a Democratic Society, a group of progressive-minded lawyers, claimed that the landmark accord was “null and void.”

It said both Seoul and Tokyo did not win consent from the surviving Korean victims of Japan’s sexual enslavement of the women prior to making the bilateral compromise.

“The Dec. 28 agreement is void because it conflicts with the Vienna Convention in terms its form and content,” said Lee Sang-hee, a society member.

“First of all, it is not in written form.

“The compromise is also in violation of the convention because it failed to take the basic rights of the victims into account.”

Lee cited the convention’s Article 53, which states that “a treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.”

Koreans accounted for a majority an estimated number of 200,000 “comfort women.”

The 46 remaining Korean victims, who are aged 89 on average, have been seeking for individual compensation from Japan.

They lashed out at the government for making what they called a unilateral agreement and agreeing to receive 1 billion yen from Japan to set up a Korea-run foundation, which will be aimed at helping the victims.

“The international community knows that those victims had been deprived of their women’s rights and it is their basic right to retrieve what they’ve lost,” Lee said.

“The government prevented them from pursuing their rights and therefore clearly violated Article 53.”