Abe is a nationalist. I think that actually explains all.

For all that I love Japan, as it is my second home, I still cannot believe that Abe and his government are still so concerned with saving face that they cannot admit to the wartime atrocities. Unlike Germany, Japan still has to make peace with its ghosts of the past and it's unfortunate that this aspect of the culture is preventing this.

This is extremely evident in the Yasukuni Shrine controversy that comes up everytime the PM goes to visit.

I am a history major at Adrian College, in Adrian, Michigan with a focus on Asian History. I have read a few books on comfort woman and what I don’t understand is with all the publication and documentation, how the Japanese government could until 2007 deny any involvement in the kidnapping and coercion of women in the Philippines, Vietnam, China and other occupied countries during WWII. In a way it makes sense. Today, Japanese high school history textbooks don’t have any real mention of who bombed then in 1945 or why. The Japanese also deny any involvement in the Nanjing Rape in the Providence of Nanjing China during the Sino-Japanese war, where 300,000 civilians were slaughtered. Men were told to rape their wives, daughters, or sometimes even sons at gun point and then the whole family was murdered. Once again there is a lot of documentation, but still the Japanese Government denies to this day any such thing happening. The funny thing is the Japanese foot soldiers were the ones who leaked to the world what happened in Nanjing. They were bragging about it.

Japan did issue an apology, but I think it was just a diplomatic move so the Japanese government wouldn't look bad.

I mean, you can't apologize then act as though the incident never occurred. AC is correct, in Japanese textbooks, the rapes in Nanjing aren't mentioned the issue of comfort women isn't mentioned. On the issue of sex crimes, mass rape was considered a war crime until 2001. I suppose it's about time, but it could've happened much sooner.

AC, I was with you until this:

Today, Japanese high school history textbooks don’t have any real mention of who bombed then in 1945 or why.

That would be quite a book indeed! Would lead into an interesting discussion of the Cold War, anyway - a discussion that's perhaps omitted in many western high schools as well.

I'm sorry but phrases like that still floor me.

Pls sign LABAN's petition to urge Speaker Pelosi to bring the resolution to the floor.

http://www.gopetition.com/online/11466.html

As someone who is half-Japanese, I've watched Japanese nationalism policies and beliefs shoot the country in the foot over, and over, and over. Japanese textbooks (last I heard) refused to include the invasion of China (and major events like the Rape of Nanjing) - as well as proclaiming that Japan was the "victim" throughout WWII. Japan also has very draconian policies - I am, supposedly, a test-tube baby, as my American father does not exist in Japanese records. When I was attempting to get a Japanese passport at the age of 10, the officials were very obstinate and couldn't seem to understand why I couldn't sign my name in Japanese (I can write my first name in the simplest alphabet, but that's it) and put up a 30-minute argument with my mother before letting me sign my name in English. All this and the population growth is negative - one would think they would take any citizens they could.

I love Japan. I honestly do. I think they do a lot of things right - usage of space, usage of technology, programs regarding trash disposal (serious sorting - they don't have the space to fill up dumps with more than what's necessary), public transportation, food... But I think they do a lot of things wrong too. Women are constantly groped surreptitiously on crowded trains. Racism against other Asians is still prevalent and there is remarkable ignorance about other races (notably African-American). Japan continues to vitimize itself in WWII history and denies much of its responsibility in WWII events... So much of this has, sadly, become a part of Japanese culture, and one hopes the next generation will move the country forward...

I might also add this link, which, I think, does an amazing job making a point (and poking fun at Abe).

http://www.imdiversity.com/Villages/Asian/Secret_Asian_Man/SAM_Images/SAM_comfort_women_032707.gif

Everything that has been said about school textbooks in these comments is wrong. You can read about current disputes in school texbooks right now, on websites for any newspaper in Japan, and you can see that they include mention of many aspects of the war. The claim about school textbooks not saying who bombed them in 1945 or why is particularly ludicrous, objectionable and disgusting. It is also completely wrong.

Japan has apologised repeatedly for its war crimes over the past 50 years (40 times, in fact), it has pioneered much of the research into the victims of the war (including the Rape of Nanking) and it has offered reparations and aid to previously-invaded nations. It is also the only nation in the world with a pacifist constitution. It apologised for the comfort women in 1993 not, as some would argue, to pacify other nations, but because a Japanese researcher revealed evidence of crimes by the army in Government documents.

I have a post regarding this on my blog which perhaps includes some information which is not being presented here. Given American war crimes at present are a major concern for most of the rest of the world, and given that the US has still failed to apologise or give any kind of reparations to Vietnam for its monstrous behaviour there, I would recommend a little more caution from the primarily American readership before jumping in on this topic.

To: ACfeminist, I too go to Adrian College and was in the same class with you when we talked about comfort women.
It’s hard to believe that in the 21st Century governments still try to deny historical events, even when there is documentation that proves otherwise. I find it inexcusable for the Japanese Government to still deny that there were comfort women or act as if the military had nothing to do with it. The Japanese Government is not the only government in the world that tries to skim over history or leave out the unsavory parts, but if Japan never faces the truth about what happened during World War II then they are going to have one generation that lacks the understanding for the current circumstance that their country is facing and the world.

MCV, the Japanese have apologised 40 times for the damage done during the war, including apologising in 1993 for the comfort women after a Japanese researcher produced evidence from Japanese archives to show government involvement. They have started a (privately funded) reparations fund, provided enormous amounts of aid and assistance to countries they invaded, and have the worlds' only pacifist constitution, which prevents them any overseas military action and essentially leaves them dependent on other nations for their own defense.

What more would you have them do? How many times should they apologise? 50? 60? 100? how many times should they apologise for the comfort women, even though there is no direct evidence of military involvement in the coercion?

How many times do you think the rest of the world can say "Japan has not atoned" and "Japan should apologise" before the Japanese politely note that you aren't really listening, and stop trying?

And when will the US apologise for Vietnam? Offer aid? Start a fund for victims of the war?

Flashheart: "I'm sorry for what we did to you" is an apology.

"I'm sorry for what was done to you, but it wasn't our fault, and it was probably your own fault, or the fault of your parents, and really, we didn't do anything, and so I'm not really sorry, I mostly just feel slightly bad about what was done to you by someone that was completely not us" is not an apology.

People will stop demanding an official apology when an official apology comes that doesn't backtrack and fall all over itself making it clear that the official policy is "It wasn't our fault and we didn't have anything to do with it."

Your last line is a distraction, and has nothing to do with the point. It may be that all of us think that the US government should apologize for Vietnam... whether we do or not has absolutely nothing to do with Japan's obligations for misdeeds.

RoymacIII, here is the text of the comfort women apology of 1993:

Undeniably, this was an act, with the involvement of the military authorities of the day, that severely injured the honor and dignity of many women. The Government of Japan would like to take this opportunity once again to extend its sincere apologies and remorse to all those, irrespective of place of origin, who suffered immeasurable pain and incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women

that Japan is 'keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war and deeply reproaches itself

This is the best apology you'll ever see in the international community for war crimes, and the comfort women apology is particularly good. Japan has apologised, but the west continues to pretend that it hasn't and to make up ludicrous lies and slanders like those shown in the comments on this thread.

The Vietnam issue is not a distraction - the issue of comfort women raised its head in the media recently because the US Senate raised it. The US hasn't come clean about its own war record. So why should anyone listen to them crying crocodile tears about the fate of other nations in the region - particularly when the nation responsible for their pain has apologised, offered reparations, and is now pacifist?

And that apology would probably be fine if it weren't for, say, the current government denying that it happened, or saying things like "I believe some parents may have sold their daughters. But it does not mean the Japanese Army was involved."

When you say "it happened, but we weren't involved" you're saying "It wasn't our fault." Are you saying that the quotes attributed to Prime Minister Abe and Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Shimomura are lies?

And the Vietnam issue is a distraction. The last time I checked, Vietnam is not Japan, and the issue of whether or not the US owes the people of Vietnam an apology is not the same as whether or not Japan is denying official involvement in the atrocities done to comfort women. Again, it's possible to care about both issues, and the fact that the US doesn't have a perfect track-record doesn't have anything to do with Japan's track-record.

The fact that I've gotten tickets for speeding doesn't mean that I'm out-of-line or wrong when I say "Drinking and driving is stupid and dangerous" and responding with "But you've got tickets for speeding and continue to speed, why should anyone listen to you?" does nothing to address the original point.

To flashheart:
Denying military involvement is an apology, wow, well if I was one of those women who was seized by the military to be comfort women, it would appear to me the Japanese Government still is coming up excuses, by trying to blame them or their family.

MCV, if you pursue the matter a little you'll find that there is no factual evidence of military involvement, which is why Abe does not want to apologise for it. The government is not denying the army paid comfort women or that they were mistreated, but strangely insists on keeping its apologies for past wrongs within the confines of past wrongs for which there is evidence. So far there is no direct evidence of a military policy of kidnapping and coercion, only of procuring women through agents who in many cases behaved badly. The Japanese apology stands for this and for other aspects of the comfort women situation, it has been reiterated by Abe and it is part of a series of apologies and reparations.

If you read Japanese government statements on the issue you will see exactly what they are denying, and it tends to be stories based not on the known facts.

Abe and his predecessor are involved in a conservative reassessment of Japan's role in the war. They were voted in, and the reason they were voted in probably has something to do with increasing Japanese dissatisfaction at the way their apologies are not respected. An apology means a lot in Japan, and when Japanese hear that foreigners are saying things like this:

Japanese textbooks (last I heard) refused to include the invasion of China (and major events like the Rape of Nanjing)

roymacIII, under your analogy, if drink driving is invading foreign countries and killing and enslaving their population; and speeding is invading foreign populations and carpet bombing their population, then yes, I think that you are a hypocrite when you speed but criticise drink driving. Or are all the deaths and slaughter in cambodia and Laos (and the sexual service of Vietnamese women during the war, with the failure to repatriate their half-American children) somehow less serious to you than what the Japanese government did?

The 1993 apology was not from the Prime Minister. The last Prime Minister I forgot his name already informally apologized for Nanking for example. I think Abe still visits military shrines. Reparations have been from private donations not the government. I think reparations from the government are in order. Finally, many progressives are as hard on the US as we are on everyone else. Some of us are even harsher critics of the US because we feel it's our duty as citizens to do so. I am an equal opportunity critiquer.

Nanking is terrible to me because I'm Chinese and my dad was in China during the occupation but as a woman, the WWII sex slaves issue hits home even more. I actually think it's worse to survive 20,000-50,000 rapes than to be killed during Nanking for example. Check out this video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3GkS3ViToGA

The first woman said she was in a comfort station for three years, rarely got time and was raped 20-50 times a day. People have to remember that 75% of them died in the process. The few that survived lived only to see a formal apology from the Prime Minister. I ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of a woman who was raped 20,000-50,000 times and ask what the government owes her not only in dignity but financial caretaking.

And was Vietnam worse because 3,000,000 people were killed in that region? Sure but I think the sex slave issue is nastier as a woman and because they survived thousands of rapes. It's hard enough to survive one rape.

"So far there is no direct evidence of a military policy of kidnapping and coercion, only of procuring women through agents who in many cases behaved badly."

Flashheart - No direct evidence? You can't be serious. Like perhaps a document that says "Here is our kidnapping and rape policy". I doubt that would get such formal treatment.

If you're using a words like "procure" and "coercion" to refer to sexual slavery wherein women are raped 40 times a day you really need to check yourself. Seriously, those terms are grossly offensive in the context of what happened.

Procure.

Coerce.

And you wonder why people are still irate?

I like "agents who in many cases behaved badly." Because "behaving badly" is the appropriate way to refer to kidnapping women for the purpose of government-sanctioned gang rape. It's just like, oh, throwing a party while your parents are out of town.

There are government files which say the military was involved. Even if there were private contractors it was military soldiers who did the raping. Most were not prostitutes. They were kidnapped as young as 12 and most were under 20. It's insane there are people who don't sympathize with these women and demand full redress, psychologically in the form of a genuine, formal apology from the PM, and financially. What's even more insane is they were shunned after the war because they had been violated as sex slaves. They are models of exemplary courage and indomitable spirit.

DonnaDarko, Abe has stated that he will not say whether or not he will visit the Yasukuni Shrine because of the sensitivity of neighbouring nations, so you aren't correct about that. You might also like to note that many comfort women were paid for their work. For a particularly unpleasant example of the difference between what people claim after the war, what happened at the time and how allied military authorities viewed the issue of rape in war, you might like to try reading an interrogation of comfort women by US soldiers. You can find it through wikipedia, I think. It doesn't quite agree with the picture painted in the youTube video.

As for the issue of women being raped while they were in the camps (regardless of whether they were paid), this is the matter that the apology covers, specifically referring to the "involvement of the military authorities of the day." What else do people here think the apology refers to? If they aren't apologising for deceiving women into being raped in a camp, exactly what were the Japanese apologising for in 1993? The bad food?

Abe's specific refusal to apologise is on two grounds: 1) that the army did not do the recruiting, so does not need to apologise for recruiting it didn't do; and 2) the government has already apologised. Why should they apologise again? Are they to apologise every time new material becomes available? Maybe every time someone writes a book about the war in Asia the prime minister of Japan should go around the world apologising?

As for the claim that 3000000 dead is somehow equivalent to 200,000 women sexually enslaved - please forgive me if this seems like a very pro-American accounting system. Perhaps you should check with the Vietnamese women who lost whole families, were raped by American soldiers, left destitute, or forced into prostitution for American soldiers by dislocation and poverty before you make such a judgement. The crazy claims about Japan's education system and this pretty little accounting system certainly seem to be evidence to me that Americans should be thinking twice before criticising other countries' war records - or their cultural history.

I thought in any case that the idea that a woman would rather be dead than raped is a rather old-fashioned one? If anyone here has read "A woman in Berlin" you will be familiar with the common saying of Berlin women immediately after the war - "better a russian on top than a yank overhead." It's worth thinking about such a saying - and the Victorian double-standard of 'death before dishonour' before engaging in such any dubious accounting of the sort given in the previous posts.

roymacIII, under your analogy, if drink driving is invading foreign countries and killing and enslaving their population; and speeding is invading foreign populations and carpet bombing their population, then yes, I think that you are a hypocrite when you speed but criticise drink driving. Or are all the deaths and slaughter in cambodia and Laos (and the sexual service of Vietnamese women during the war, with the failure to repatriate their half-American children) somehow less serious to you than what the Japanese government did?

I'm not particularly interested in giving you serious lessons in logic- the point is that Japan is responsible for Japan, and the United States is responsible for the United States. One nations record has nothing to do with the other's. It is entirely possible for us to say "Hey, Japan- that was shitty" and also think "Wow, there are things that the United States has done that are really shitty, too."

"What about those things that you did?!" is not a valid criticism. It's distraction. What the United States did has nothing to do with what Japan did or did not do.

So roymacIII, you are happy for:

1) Iran to criticise the US for failing to separate church and state
2) Libya to criticise the US for aiding terrorism (e.g. the IRA)
3) the Taliban to criticise the US' domestic violence rate

Under your philosophy, its not just the case that these countries are free to criticise the US (obviously they are, since they can say whatever they like) but their criticism should carry some weight.

If you reject this idea, then you have to also reject the US' right to criticise Japan for past war crimes. Unless you think the US is special...?

But the issue is more important than "shut up America, you're stupid" (important though that issue is). From the point of view of feminist critiques of Japan on this site, I see an enormous amount of ignorance, tied in with a general lack of understanding of Japan and Japanese history. If I had a dollar for every ignorant person who has claimed that Japanese textbooks don't teach war history, I would be a very rich man.

Foreign ignorance about Japan, and a common view that those inscrutable and alien yellow people don't really feel any remorse for their actions (and hate foreigners) has led to two unpleasant and related things:

1) a refusal to accept well-meaning apologies from people in Japan who have a heartfelt and strong grief at what happened
2) a growing anger by less affected people - including young people - who know their war history very well, are well aware of how much Japan suffered in the war, and are heartily sick of having to continually apologise to everyone else. This is leading to the Abes and Koizumis of the Japanese right gaining political ascendance. Where will this lead, one wonders?

One could be forgiven, reading some of the things written on this site, that people really don't understand Japan at all and don't want to, but are happy to rush in to condemnation from their "superior" societies regardless. What should the Japanese think of Western feminism if this is the limit of its interest: "look at those inscrutable yellows, they abuse everyone and hate women"?

“You might also like to note that many comfort women were paid for their work.�

I can barely believe I actually just read that sentence. Comfort women paid for their work?

“Work�? You mean being raped all day? That’s “work�?

And then getting paid would make it okay? Are you laughing when you type out a sentence like that?

And please spare the race-baiting/�superior society� nonsense. People concerned about this come in all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds, and corners of the earth – this isn’t a white-American-only concern. It’s a human concern.

Crimes committed by Americans or any other nation have no impact on this matter; you don’t get away with robbing a bank just because the guy down the street robbed one too. Vietnam, My Lai, Abu Graib, Trail of Tears, Manzanar, whatever…should all be apologized for, but have no bearing on how the comfort women issue is viewed- it’s just a distraction by someone who has no real ground to stand on.

Are they to apologise every time new material becomes available?

Well, why not? Why is this such an unreasonable thing to happen? Yes, every time a new, previously unpublicized dimension to the atrocity is made known, they apologize for it.

Or, here's another idea, one that is of course anathema to any politician: tell the whole damn truth, provide the documentation, omitting nothing, and then apologize and make restitution for the whole damn thing. And then you don't have to worry about "new" material becoming available.

By the way, regarding the Viet Nam conversation: other information from the Department of Things That Have Absolutely Nothing To Do With the Topic at Hand includes Belgian atrocities in Africa and Cromwell's policy of "To Hell or Connaught."

Flashheart: Under your philosophy, its not just the case that these countries are free to criticise the US (obviously they are, since they can say whatever they like) but their criticism should carry some weight.

If it's a valid criticism, it doesn't bloody well matter where it comes from. I'm not saying that their criticisms deserve weight over anyone else's criticism, and I haven't suggested that the United States, as an entity, deserves special weight. If the criticism of Japan's treatment of comfort women is valid, it's valid regardless of who levies it. Bringing up American involvement in Vietnam has nothing to do with Japan. They're two seperate issues. They might both be worthy of criticism. It's entirely consistent to say "Japan's treatment of comfort women was completely wrong, and the 'apology' they've issued, in light of other comments, is insufficient" and also say "The US actions in Vietnam were horrible and deserving of criticism, as well."

Foreign ignorance about Japan, and a common view that those inscrutable and alien yellow people don't really feel any remorse for their actions (and hate foreigners)

I see, because criticizing a Japanese official's comments is clearly the same as saying things about "those inscrutable and alien yellow people"? Come off it.

I'm one of the few people on the prog blogosphere who continuously brings up the fact 3,000,000 were killed in the region during Vietnam while 1/50th the number of Americans died so I am more comparing a woman or man killed during the Rape of Nanking with someone who survived 20,000-50,000 rapes. By the way, many of the women of Nanking were raped before they were killed. If anyone were to choose between being raped and killed in Nanking and surviving 50,000 rapes, they would choose being killed. And like I said earlier, most of these survivors only lived to see a formal apology from the head of state. As far as formal apologies go, Japan never genuinely, formally apologized like Germany did, with a very formal, head-bowing ceremony, because they are always trying to save face. If so many Chinese and Koreans believe they have no received a genuine apology from Japan for various war crimes and occupations, they are probably right.

If most of these women only lived to see a genuine, formal apology for the Prime Minister, he should apologize. It's really fucking nasty that he would make political points on 200,000 women's bodies. Most of these women were kidnapped or trafficked meaning they were tricked into sex slavery which is how women are tricked into sex slavery today. Many were told they would work in a hospital because they were poor and uneducated and had few choices. A few were prostitutes but surely even they had no idea what they were getting into.

ccall, they were paid to work. If you have some confusion about this fact, you might like to try reading the report of the US interrogators who captured and interviewed comfort women. You'll note they had time tables and working conditions, and they were paid considerably more than frontline soldiers.

There is no argument that some women were coerced and tricked into a business they were not expecting to be in, and that their conditions declined over the time of the war. Many were left destitute and penniless in foreign countries due to the Japanese loss and the sudden devaluation of the war bonds they were paid in. The abuse of these women was the cause of the Japanese Government's apology. Abe's problem is the claims of militarily-organised kidnapping, because he says that there is no evidence of this.

Refusing to apologise for something for which there is no evidence does not count as a "qualification." People who have been abused by governments don't always tell the truth, and the government's responsibility is not to apologise to known fakers like Iris Chang, but to the real and actual victims of known and actual events. One does not apologise for what one did not do.

As for the claim that Japan has not given a proper apology because "it was trying to save face" - a laughable statement, and I provide it as proof of the kind of cultural slander that I described as a common view that "those inscrutable yellow people aren't really sorry for their actions." For those who aren't sure, here is the text of the apology again:

The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious damage that Japan caused in the past to the Chinese people through war, and deeply reproaches itself

The Japanese Government and the Japanese people are deeply aware of the fact that acts by our country in the past caused tremendous suffering and damage to the peoples of Asian countries, including the Republic of Korea (ROK) and China, and have followed the path of a pacifist state with remorse and determination that such acts must never be repeated

There was a period in this century when Japan brought to bear great sufferings upon your country and its people. I would like to state here that the government and people of Japan feel a deep regret for this error

Reflecting upon the suffering that your people underwent during this unfortunate period, which was brought about by our nation, I cannot but feel the deepest remorse

The equivalent apology by America would be: "the people and government of America are sorry for the suffering we caused the people of Vietnam in a war which we started."

Is that clear enough? Do you really expect anyone to believe that this does not constitute a serious apology?

And one further apology, from the prime minister in 1998:

The Government of Japan, painfully aware of its moral responsibility concerning the issue of so called "wartime comfort women," has been sincerely addressing this issue in close cooperation with the Asian Women's Fund which implements the projects to express the national atonement on this issue. Recognizing that the issue of comfort women, with an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that time, was a grave affront to the honor and dignity of large numbers of women, I would like to convey to Your Excellency my most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women.... By the Statement of Prime Minister in 1995, the Government of Japan renewed the feelings of deep remorse and the heartfelt apology for tremendous damage and suffering caused by Japan to the people of many countries including the Netherlands during a certain period in the past. My cabinet has not modified this position at all, and I myself laid a wreath to the Indisch Monument with these feelings on the occasion of my visit to the Netherlands in June last year

In a word, no.

Why not? What on earth do you expect to be an apology?