Japan’s Honor Cannot Be Restored by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs — Yoshiko Sakurai’s Warning
In this February 1, 2016 Sankei Shimbun front-page essay, journalist Yoshiko Sakurai criticizes Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) for decades of silence on the comfort women issue, arguing that true restoration of Japan’s honor cannot be entrusted to a bureaucracy that refuses to confront falsehoods. She urges Prime Minister Abe to establish a new, intellectually courageous body dedicated to disseminating historical truth to the world.
February 1, 2016
The following is from today’s front page of the Sankei Shimbun.
(Black boldface emphasis, except for the headline, is mine.)
“We Cannot Entrust This to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs” — Yoshiko Sakurai
At last, beginning on February 15 in Geneva, the Japanese government will refute the claim that “comfort women were forcibly taken away” before the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
This response addresses the Committee’s inquiry of July last year: “There is a claim that there was no forced abduction of comfort women—please provide your view.”
The persistent and deeply rooted criticism of Japan’s history stems primarily from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ failure to ever present a proper rebuttal to the international community.
Compared to the long silence that so deeply damaged Japan’s national interests, this minimal rebuttal deserves limited acknowledgment merely for existing at all.
However, judging from the serious internal conflicts that preceded it, one cannot help but conclude that Japan’s true restoration of honor cannot be achieved by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The government’s written response to the Committee had actually been completed by November of last year.
It firmly stated that international condemnations such as the Radhika Coomaraswamy Report contained “one-sided and unsubstantiated claims” and demanded an understanding of Japan based on objective facts.
It also noted that the Asahi Shimbun had retracted articles based on the testimony of Seiji Yoshida, who falsely claimed military abductions; that the Japanese government’s investigations since the early 1990s had found no evidence of forced abductions by the military or police authorities; and that the figure of 200,000 victims arose from a confusion between comfort women and the teishintai (women’s volunteer corps), lacking any factual basis.
However, after the Japan–Korea foreign ministers agreed on December 28 that “the comfort women issue has been finally and irreversibly resolved,” MOFA opposed the prepared response.
Officials argued that the strong expressions—such as “one-sided and unsubstantiated”—would place South Korea’s Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se in a politically untenable position and proposed a single-page substitute limited to the phrases “final and irreversible resolution” and “agreement not to criticize each other internationally.”
Chief Cabinet Adviser Seiichi Etō and others fiercely objected.
What valid reason could there be for not directly answering the United Nations’ questions?
They rightly argued that objective statements of fact do not violate the Japan–Korea agreement’s pledge to refrain from mutual criticism.
A compromise was eventually reached: the final response denied forced abductions but omitted any mention of the “200,000” figure or the “sex slave” accusation.
Those points, it was decided, would be stated orally at the Geneva meeting by Vice Foreign Minister Shinsuke Sugiyama.
But how well does the Foreign Ministry grasp the severity of this situation?
Can mere oral remarks counteract the entrenched historical defamation of Japan?
In fact, the opportunity to refute at all did not arise from the ministry’s efforts.
It was former Diet member Mio Sugita and others who, at the committee’s preparatory session last July, argued that the theory of forced abduction lacked evidence.
The committee members were astonished—saying “This is the first time we’ve heard that”—and contacted the Japanese government to confirm.
This demonstrates how little MOFA has communicated to the world.
For decades, the ministry has fled from every battle concerning Japan’s honor.
The Japan–Korea agreement at the end of last year may have temporarily improved bilateral relations and facilitated U.S.–Japan–Korea cooperation.
Yet this is only a short-term diplomatic gain.
Internationally, it is being misinterpreted as “even the conservative Prime Minister Abe admitted to forced abduction and sexual slavery,” and criticism of Japan on historical issues remains as harsh as ever.
In the long run, Abe’s statements have placed an even heavier burden upon Japan.
Therefore, now more than ever, Japan bears a grave responsibility to abandon optimism and to engage in far more intelligent, sustained information dissemination.
When Prime Minister Abe answered a question in the Diet from Kyoko Nakayama of the Japan Kokoro Party, saying, “There is no such fact as sexual slavery or 200,000 victims. The government will clearly demonstrate that these claims are false,” he surely spoke with this recognition in mind.
Likewise, his comment that “the military was involved” referred to administrative oversight of the establishment and management of comfort stations, not to forced abductions.
Why, then, does the Foreign Ministry not face these crucial parliamentary statements with greater seriousness?
Why does it fail to draw from the Prime Minister’s words the conviction to defend the national interest—and the spirit to fight for it to the end?
Surely, they cannot intend to leave the Prime Minister standing alone in this struggle.
Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Koichi Hagiuda has clearly stated that refraining from mutual criticism and explaining objective facts are entirely separate matters.
But while MOFA fails to grasp this distinction, anti-Japanese campaigns continue to advance in South Korea and across the world.
On the day of the Japan–Korea agreement, Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida stated that the South Korean side would not apply to UNESCO to register the comfort women issue as part of the “Memory of the World” heritage.
Yet the very next day, South Korea flatly denied this.
Now China is coordinating with South Korea, Indonesia, and Taiwan to jointly apply within two years.
The number of comfort woman statues continues to grow, not decline, both inside and outside South Korea.
If Japan does not fight with all its might now, it will be impossible to overturn the grotesque distortion—described by Nakayama as the belief that “the true nature of the Japanese is that of beasts.”
But negotiation without resistance is MOFA’s habitual nature.
It failed to mount any substantive counterargument against Congressman Mike Honda, the Asahi Shimbun, or the Coomaraswamy Report.
It has consistently run from every battle concerning Japan’s honor.
Does the Foreign Ministry truly believe its mission ends with diplomatic negotiation, with no duty to defend Japan’s historical integrity and national honor?
If so, the task of communicating Japan’s historical truth must be entrusted to another body.
It is now the Prime Minister’s responsibility to establish a new system—one that will fight intellectually and fearlessly, using the facts of history as its weapon.