[Imperial Comfort Women-Japan, Korea, Annexation, Treaty and the Battle of Memory] Summary
https://www.facebook.com/notes/70507476186107
July 29 , 2013 Professor Park Yu Ha Sejong University
EmpireComfortWomenDigestJapanKoreaAnnexation1
EmpireComfortWomenDigestJapanKoreaAnnexation2
EmpireComfortWomenDigestJapanKoreaAnnexation3
EmpireComfortWomenDigestJapanKoreaAnnexation4
12 , about the past settlement of 1965 .
Since the Japan-Korea Treaty of 1965 was a treaty based
on the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 ,
it was a treaty on post-treatment of " war ".
It was not a treaty on liquidation in the past called "annexation control".
That is why no word of apology for " annexation dominance"
is included in the text of the Convention.
In fact, "compensation" regarding recruitment etc.
was also limited after the Sino-Japanese War.
However, Korea was not a Japanese war partner,
but rather a position that fought together,
so this compensation was for compensation, etc.,
as it were called "Japanese people".
The main focus was on financial post-treatments, including savings and others,
that would cause the two countries to suddenly separate.
And Japan said that it would be better to be able
to claim " individual claims " individually .
However, the Korean side , with the awareness of North Korea ,
rejected the proposal for South Korea as the only “ state ”
of the Korean peninsula to take over.
In other words,
there is a historical history that it was in the midst of a severe Cold War era
that only "Korea" could recognize the legitimacy that it could claim compensation
(Jang Baktin).
Initially, the Korean side tried to claim damage (such as loss of life)
due to "annexation control".
Although the reason why it was finally deleted is unclear,
it is probably the ongoing controversy-there may be a debate
that "the annexation rule is legal ", that is ,
it is what Korea did with its will. unknown.
Certainly no other former empire had apologized for "colonial rule" at that time,
which was the limit of historical thinking .
In other words, the 1965 treaty did not apologize for the annexation ,
but it did not lead to the Cold War era when the former empires apologized
for such things The reason is that the former colonial side was also rushing
for “past liquidation” by the cold war era.
About the 1910 Merger Convention .
Furthermore, there is also a argument
that the 1910 merger treaty itself is "mandatory"
and a argument "illegal" going back.
about "annexion control" will arise in Japan.
However,
But even if it is clear that a few did it,
As long as it was through the "legal process" (at the time) of "the treaty",
Making this "illegal" is legally correct but practically impossible.
That was what Joseon Dynasty did with the approval
of the great powers that made the colony,
such as the United States and Britain,
In the sense that they were based on their own "law",
they could not be called "illegal",
Anyway, as long as there is a word
that Joseon Dynasty Korea approved the "merger",
Unfortunately there is also a reality that it can not be called "illegal".
However,
the "merger", which was not even the opinion of most people in the public,
was not informed or informed that it was "acknowledged"
in a real sense in that it did not obtain the approval
or approval of "most Koreans". It can not say.
However,
when a representative of a country has done so,
it should be considered politically and historically limited
that it can not be said that it is "illegal" even if it is a complaint.
If the people of the future recognize that there was a problem with such "law"
( The apology of Japan in the 1990s has already
been acknowledged indirectly ),
Even if it is not "illegal", it is possible to regard it as morally problematic.
Regardless of the law,
there is no doubt that Japan is responsible for the control of annexed land.
14 , " The problem of law "
What the Korean government and support groups are seeking
is to " reimburse " by admitting that it is " illegal "
related to the recruitment of comfort women and the use of a comfort center
(Many Japanese supporters also claim it).
However, since " prostitution " was not recognized as " illegal "
in Japan at that time, it is unreasonable to regard that as " illegal ".
Even if it was a time when it was beginning
to be considered illegal internationally.
At that time,
it was a time when even sexual violence had not been punished by the law,
which is why men repeated rape without any sense of sin.
However,
"trafficking" was recognized as "illegal" even at that time.
The problem lies in whether the Japanese commanded trafficking .
Although he knew that he was actually trafficking, he had acquiesced.
However,
there are cases in which the Japanese army has instructed the trader
to return if it is brought in by fraud or abduction or to place another job ,
and it is hard to say that the military accepted
fraud or abduction as an organization.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Japan has targeted women
in annexed areas as discrimination, rape and exploitation as a sectarian country
15. " About the Asian Women's Fund " again
In that sense, the 'moral responsibility' of the 1990s, even if unconscious,
was just 'apology and compensation' at that point.
It was also recognized that the Korean comfort woman
who first raised his voice was the existence by " annexation rule ",
and it was compensation for it.
Italy and Britain have already apologized for colonial rule.
However,
in Japan too, Prime Minister Hosokawa and Prime Minister Murayama did.
However,
at first the “comfort women issue” was regarded as “annexational rule”,
but it was affected by the fact that people
from different countries later appeared.
Because it was regarded as a universal "women's problem"
Such a way of thinking eventually disappeared.
However,
due to this problem, other countries / regions have been settled
after accepting the "Asian Women's Fund".
And now, only " Korean comfort women " are seeking say" reparations "
because they are " illegal " in the comfort women issue,
so it is necessary to reconsider them as "the Japan-Korea issue ."
And again,
we should think about an appropriate solution while keeping
such a situation in mind.
The uniqueness of Korean comfort women can not be seen just
by thinking it as a "human rights of women"
problem with other countries such as the Netherlands and China.
And when you think of it as a victim in the patriarchal system,
you can face it as a true "female human rights" problem.
Some people in Japan don't try to avoid responsibility as other countries
have done it, but call on "the former empire " in the world,
including the Netherlands,
for awareness and remorse as problems caused by " colonial rule "
You should.
Only then can the United States , the United Kingdom,
and the Netherlands be able to address this issue as a ' home ' issue .
Women in their own country and in other countries
were also mobilized because of their desires.
16 , " About sexual slavery "
Korean comfort women were also played a role like "paramilitaries".
It is no wonder that they were miserable, but the main actors
who were confined and forced to work were not only the military
but also the traders .
It should be considered that their " slavery " in the sense
that they did not have freedom was established in the first place in relation
to a company called "master".
At the same time, they are forced to labor hard by the needs of the state ,
and even their lives
It is also a " national slave " in the sense that it is secured
(the battlefield, disease, overwork).
It is no different than a military person,
in the sense that there is no freedom of movement,
freedom of business or freedom to save lives.
A small amount of compensation was paid to Korean soldiers.
That is because there was a law to protect them.
And women were not protected by such ' law '
because the modern state system was male-centric .
17 Kono talks .
The Kono discourse admits that she has
become a comfort woman " against her will, "
and does not admit physical " forced enthusiasm ."
In other words,
She mentioned that the process s
he took was not will and that sex work
at the comfort center was not their choice,
and admits structural rather than physical compulsion .
In the case of Koreans,
even if it appeared to have gone voluntarily,
it was also a word that correctly recognized that
it was what was brought about by the annex land rule .
In other words,
it does not admit what is called " forcedness "
as claimed by the Kono reviewers.
Moreover, since it is a fact that "officials were involved"
in the sense of managing, it is not necessary
to review Kono discourse as long as it is.
BTS members famous for atomic bomb T-shirts are crazy inside the bus Videos leaked! https://twitter.com/i/status/1062852872176451584
Overseas fans seem to be exactly the same
Suddenly overflowing with compliments of English praise. Creepy…
http://www.ekn.kr/news/article.html?no=398456
https://news.v.daum.net/v/20181106030037589
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20181114000854
Dokdo is also doing anti-Japanese act of singing our territory.
The capital flight started
World stock price / Korea KOSPI
Do not move, government intervention,
Trading suspension, circuit breaker activation,
power off of server,
Koria have a proven track record.
Yuzuru Sato
Korea attacks Japan by combining hands with North Korea and China
Propaganda neglect affects the recreation of the comfort women problem,
the activities of Japanese companies around the world
Possibility of losing in the image strategy at the US jury trial.
DiffusionHopeGermanNGOSupportLaosAdoptVillage
DiffusionHopehttps://laos.oxfam.org/
Englisharticles futukiitihoyoujiyo
