2007 US Congress Subcommittee Hearing

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

STATEMENT OF
THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA
CHAIRMAN

before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC, AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
on Protecting the Human Rights of Comfort Women

February 15, 2007

Clearly, it is a matter of historical record that the Japanese military forced some 50,000 to
200,000 women from Korea, China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Holland and Indonesia to provide
sex to Japanese soldiers during WWII and, H. Res. 121, introduced by Congressman Mike
Honda, calls upon the US House of Representatives to urge Japan to accept full responsibility for
the actions of its military.

Japan contends that it has accepted responsibility. But it wasn’t until the 1980s and 1990s that
major publications in Japan began to describe the details of what is now known as the “comfort
women” system and that countries occupied by Japan also began to speak out about it.

In response to these developments, Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Kono Yohei issued a
statement of admission and apology in 1992. Prime Minister Koizumi also issued an apology in
2001. However, in 2006, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Shimomura Hakubun, as well as
Japan’s largest circulating newspaper, Yomiuri Shimbun, specifically challenged the validity of
the Kono statement and this has led to the belief that Japan is attempting to revise history.

For the record, I am including an article from The Daily Yomiuri dated December 24, 2006
entitled “LDP split over ‘comfort women’/Lawmakers plan to seek revision of 1993 statement on
culpability.” I am also including other newspaper articles from here and abroad which raise
similar concerns and address other matters pertinent to this issue.

I also note that according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “there has been a
noticeable trend for new editions of history textbooks to omit references to comfort women.”
The Japanese Government says this is not the case and has submitted a statement suggesting
otherwise which I have included for the record.

As an aside, I will say that in no way is this hearing meant to embarrass Japan. Like my
colleagues, I appreciate that Japan is a close US ally and I have a special love and affinity for the
people of Japan and their leaders. But more sacred to me is our obligation to protect the human
rights of those who were forced to be comfort women.

This is the very reason why I believe this hearing is important. Some may say the past is the past
and that the US is also an offender and violator of human rights. Maybe this is so. But nowhere
in recorded history has the US military as a matter of policy issued a directive allowing for the
coercion of young women into sexual slavery or forced prostitution. On the other hand, this is
exactly what the Japanese military did and it is an affront to truth for any government to
downplay its history.
Civilized society cannot allow history to be revised or denied under any circumstances.
Regardless of what bearing this, or any other issue, may have on bilateral relations, or US
foreign policy, civilized society has a moral obligation to remember, to give voice to those who
have suffered, to pay living tribute to victims past and present, to defend human rights.
Otherwise we run the risk of another Holocaust or, in this case, young women being forced into
sexual slavery.

While I am aware that Japan set up the Asian Women’s Fund in 1995 and agreed to pay for
medical and support programs, and fund operational expenses for comfort women victims, the
Japanese government refused to finance atonement payments. Atonement payments were
financed through private Japanese contributions and, to date, only 285 women have received
payments from the Asian Women’s Fund. In March of this year, the Asian Women’s Fund will
expire.

For the record, I will emphatically state that I do not believe any amount of money can atone for
what these women suffered and, while I support any woman’s right to lay claim to these funds, I
do not believe the Japanese government or its citizens should suggest that a monetary payment
can make right a moral wrong. So, for me, any and all discussions about the Asian Women’s
Fund sufficing as an act of apology falls short of what is relevant.

What is relevant is that Japan acknowledge, acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical
responsibility for its Imperial Armed Force’s coercion of young women into sexual slavery
during its occupation of Asia and the Pacific Islands during WWII. According to the
Government of Japan, it has done so, and since 1996 every Prime Minister of Japan has extended
his sincere apologies. According to the Government of Japan, current Prime Minister Abe also
announced to the Diet in October 2006 that the government continues to stand by its statement of
apology.

H. Res. 121 suggests that this is not enough and, for this reason, we will consider the testimony
presented to us in order to make a good-faith effort about where we go from here.