Week 5 - Comfort Women

2/11/2016

The once exceptional practice of state apology would seem to have acquired another convert. On December 18, 2015, the Japanese Foreign Minister, Fumio Kashida, offered a formal apology to his South Korean counterpart, Yun Byung-se, for the so-called “comfort women” who had been forced to work in Japanese brothels during the wartime occupation of the Korean peninsula. Later on that same day, the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, reiterated the apology in a telephone call to the South Korean president Park Geun-hye. Taken at face value, this latest apology (buttressed by an $8.3 million compensation package) marks a return to the spirit of the mid-1990s when Japan, after a long period of equivocation and denial, began to atone in earnest for its wartime actions (Lind 2009: 135). Despite his own conservative inclinations, Prime Minister Abe looks to have finally taken a conscious stand against the historical revisionism that has grown like a cancer within Japan during the early years of the 21st century, telling reporters that this marks a new beginning in relations between Japan and South Korea. Like so many scenes of atonement before it, however, this latest act of contrition raises thorny questions, not just about the merit of apology as a political institution, but about the value of trying to come (ever more perfectly) to terms with the past.
READ MORE HERE.

Write a summary of what you learned from the article above. Include 3-5 major discussion points in the article. Ask a critical thinking question of your classmates at the end of your post. (A critical thinking question is an open ended question.)

Original Posts 250 words (minimum). Respond to three other students 50 words (minimum). Original post due Thursday @ midnight. Responses (3) due Sunday @ midnight.

59 Comments

Mary

2/11/2016 09:43:46 pm

Within the political sphere, it is easy for politicians to issue apologies for their countries/states’ behaviors. It is very difficult however, to determine the effectiveness of such apologies in the eyes of the people who matter most: the victims. This article examines political atonement and the motives of a leader's’ decision to apologize to a group that has been marginalized, abused and/or attacked in some way. I learned that the motives for the comfort women apologies may have been political in nature (not surprising) as the President may be trying to appear compliant with international human rights practices. As stated in the article, “along with humanitarian intervention, the practice of political atonement is perhaps best seen as an expression of the increasing importance states attach to adhering to (or at least being seen to adhere to) international human rights norms”.
Aside from attempting to “Appear” compliant and just in their human rights practices, I learned that at times apologies may be results of pressures from other groups. In this case, the US may have played a pivotal role while trying to boost its own interests in the situation.
The last main point I chose was the idea that the promissory aspect of an apology essentially forces a country to remove itself for practices that may have affected the victims. So when a country issues an apology and is attempting atonement, it is setting them up to remain accountable and honest about their practices in the future regarding such issues.
Regardless, I believe such apologies are open-ended if not followed with actions of solidarity, whether that may be opening shelters or centers for those victims to seek sanctuary and healing, or to provide some form of emotional/mental/physical support; a generic apology coming from a politician can only promise and heal so much.

Sharelle Smith

2/11/2016 11:04:22 pm

Mary I agree that country tries to remove themselves from the wrong. They do that by not acknowledging the incident and convincing themselves that over time it will be forgotten about. The atrocities are way to horrendous and no one forgets. It makes the country seem harsh and inhumane. I think some sort of big ceremonial event is most appropriate for that sort of thing.

Mark De Martini

2/18/2016 08:20:19 pm

Sharelle,
I think you have a great point by staging a ceremonial event to heal the past transgression. A basic apology and a cash remittance is often politically too little to late. All of that can be forgotten very easily. A formal ceremony is a great way to express honest sorrow over past injustices and give something to everyone.

Yumi Okawara

2/21/2016 11:35:16 pm

Hi, Sharelle!
I like how you pointed out and strongly agree with you. Basically, the apology is politically things, but this case was too late. Moreover, even if nobody knows what happened actually, we can forget easily regrettably.

Michael Stevens

2/14/2016 09:28:22 pm

Hello Mary,
I agree; a generic apology can only do so much. However, they did accompany the apology with a cash settlement. Better than an apology, the perpetrator and victim should negotiate together in order to determine an adequate method of atonement for the victim. Hence, South Korea should have negotiated a settlement (which does not necessarily have to be purely monetary) on behalf of the South Korean comfort women. In this way, an apology may be more authentic and well-intentioned.

Anteo Swenson

2/20/2016 11:06:37 am

Nice critic. I do agree with the influence that external actor have had in such political apologies. Particularly, the influence of the United States has been an important one. After all, South Korea and Japan are both developed countries, the situation might've been different if one of the wasn't. Also, reputation for a leading developed country I think is imperative my important in this time where human rights have become so popular.

Misa Toyoura

2/11/2016 10:44:51 pm

South Korea and Japan have agreed to a landmark deal that addresses the long-standing dispute over Korean women who were forced to serve as sex slaves for Japanese soldiers during World War II.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued an apology for the atrocities suffered by these individuals, known as “comfort women”.
The Japanese government also agreed to pay $8.3 million to the South Korean government to support these women. This is very controversial— my understanding until today wad that comfort women were not sex slaves, but they were prostitutes in another words, they were making money out of this. However, we all don’t know what really happened at this point anymore.
However, my question here is why does money always make things better, and almost 100 years later?? These types of payments are silly. We can all apologies for our past. Best sincerely and wholeheartedly apologies, accept we were wrong, learn from our mistakes and move forward. (do Americans pay for bombing in Japan? Do white people give out money to black people just because their grand-grand-grand parents own theirs?!?) We all know that horrible things happen and we do feel sorry for them, yet we need to move on. Making such a big deal of the past while the present is just as bad if not, worse just makes me sad how society works this way.
There are women in the world now being kept, stoned, raped and treat abhorrently. Let's do something about them with that $8M.

Sharelle smith

2/15/2016 12:01:10 am

The result is that the apology is delineated for the people offended. They never really asks the families what is an appropriate apology. It's kind of disrespectful to give a monetary gift for political reasons. They would never admit it, the government. The answer would be you should be grateful that an apology was given.

Mark De Martini

2/18/2016 08:35:00 pm

Misa,
I agree with you that at a certain point constant, never-ending apologies and cash remittance is counterproductive, especially when the victims as a generation have mostly passed on. I feel its better to move forward as a world community than beat the past to death. WWII was horrible as so many people suffered. The Germans and Japanese militaries were predisposed to barbarism. I blame the barbarism on German and Japanese national leadership taking advantage of excellent martial cultures and perverting them to the darkest, imaginable form. From that darkness crawled man's inhumanity to his fellow man.

Mark De Martini

2/20/2016 08:42:02 am

Sometimes it is instructive to put two and two together. Last week at De Anza some Political Science students got to see the grievances crowd in action. Two grandsons of Japanese who were interned in U.S. concentration camps gave a presentation. I expected a historical perspective to raise awareness of a political failing to never happen again. Instead, the presenters did a disservice by accusing the U.S. government (and Americans in general) as being white imperial racists (exact wording). The presenters identified themselves as Socialist Progressives. To understand the socialist movement with clear optics one must admit the socialist movement's goal is to replace our current constitutional government with a communist model. To accomplish this goal the current governmental construct has to be successfully demonized before being torn down. This is a lesson strait from Poli 2 Comparative Politics under authoritarian rule. I admit the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was wrong and should have never happened. It is however important to see the event in the times it took place. There was no balance or comparisons to the presentation. Our enemies the Japanese and Germans starved, tortured, enslaved and murdered many of their captives military and civilian alike. The American Japanese were fed well and given reasonable care in comparison to how our enemies treated American captives. Those white imperial racists Americans saved the world from two totalitarian regimes that were dedicated on enslaving the world. It was wrong for the presenters to insult every American of that generation that was willing to give their life for a cause that no one can argue as unjust. Understand that for the presenters, it was more important to use their grandfather's humiliation as a vehicle to promote their own agenda and not to educate. I feel sorry for them as it is obvious they hate America and wish to turn it into something far worse under socialism. The same can be said of groups demanding an apology for the U.S. dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I guess the ensuing deaths of hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and millions of Japanese would have been better had the bombs not been dropped. On a small scale last week's presentation served to showcase the mentality of many grievance movements that wish to deconstruct the governments and cultures they attack. This is reason to be skeptical of the grievance and remittance movement.

Anteo Swenson

2/20/2016 11:12:05 am

I really liked how you tied the topic with the conference, they do, after all, have a lot to do. It's also true that such camps should've never happened in the United States and they were wrong, but generalizing an insult like the presenters did was not adequate. Every government has done something that can shame them, it seems to be a different case when it does something like that to its own population. Domestic and international wrongdoings by a government can be different to try to apologize for.

yumi okawara

2/21/2016 11:41:23 pm

Hi! I like how you analyzed. I disagree with reparation when a country apologize to another country historically. However, people who are deceased already never had an opportunity to receive apology. Japan should have apologized to South Korea.

Abhisheak Sharma

2/20/2016 10:06:02 pm

Hey Misa
I honestly believe money can’t make things better. Money is important and to some the most important but it won’t help them heal their deep inside wounds from the past. Money does help you buy needs but can it bring back the time of your loved ones who suffered through the pain of a nation's actions? I say no, money can’t bring you your loved ones pain suffered back.

Jessie Chen

2/21/2016 10:15:38 pm

I think it is because people usually think that money can make up or replace anything. However, something will not be replaced by money actually. Even an apology with a large amount of money, it is too late to say sorry. The reason is that most women who had been mistreated are already deceased. They never have the chance to receive the apology anymore.

Christian Trinidad

2/11/2016 10:51:26 pm

We live in the time of political correctness and if you break that the “PC police” will jump all over you and demand you say your sorry. In the case of japan they are trying to make up for things done during a time when girls and women where used for sex and “comfort” to the Japanese soldiers stationed in Korea. The apology comes with a monetary apology as well to the tune of $8.3 million, making in my mind at least the apology seem a little disingenuous. It is almost like they apologized just so humanitarian organizations would get off there back. After the deal was signed South Korean women took to the streets to protest calling the apology “ hollow and humiliating“. You cant apologize then turn around and do it again so the apology comes with a sort of non aggression agreement. Japan wants to put everything in the past and move on the the new relationships it has made. I mean we dropped an atom bomb in them twice and made them tell us they are sorry thats crazy. Prime minister Abe said “we should not drag this problem in to the next generation”. In this day-n-age you have to apologize for everything and it is like you have to apologize a million times , throw a benefit concert and start a charity just to show you are truly sorry. my question to every one is how can a country show they are truly sorry with out jumping through all the hoops?

Thu-Thao Ho

2/12/2016 12:49:32 am

Honestly countries should show they are really sorry. It seems like the word "sorry" is seen as the simple way out of dealing with the problem. Unless nations actually take action to help the people in need and alleviate conflict what reforms can be done? Apologies made by countries often have loop holes like you pointed out. One way I propose is for a nation to request the World Bank for finances in order to bring medical aid as well assistance to these innocent women. Women do not deserve to live life with such a dark path towards the future.

JeeSoo Lee

2/14/2016 12:52:58 am

Hi Christian,

I think that it is impossible for an offending state to show genuine regret in its apology, just as it is impossible for the victimized state to genuinely forgive and accept the apology. Two nations trying to heal a broken bond is not nearly the same as two people trying to do the same. There are way too many factors in the complex political system of a nation, as well as the opinions of its people and other nations’ influence. A good way to build trust again is to offer rehabilitation programs for the people who have directly suffered. Japan could also acknowledge its cruelty by teaching the true history in schools. Japan could also aid South Korea with current political, economic, and social affairs to demonstrate that they are now trustworthy.

Anteo Swenson

2/20/2016 11:18:01 am

It is quite comical what governments would do. It's also sad that a government would apologize so hypocratically. However, in this case, the apology was made to try to improve economic, political, and ultimately, diplomatic relations between South Korea and Japan. After all, they are the financially leading countries in such area, along with China, but China is not considered a United States ally.

Sharelle smith

2/11/2016 10:59:01 pm

There are 3 main concerns with a government apology is it sincere, are there strings attached and the reason for a late apology. The apology is for the people affected. The sad part is by the time the apology is given many times the people are already deceased. Black Water is an example of an apology yearned for and never given because of " politics" . Which is a lame excuse. There shouldn't be politics attached to apologies, but they are. The government should be an example for the people and admit wrongs and try to do better. In the article the people may not feel it was a sincere apology because it wasn't from the person that allowed the wrong to happen. The people that deserve an apology should be asked what they would accept as a sincere recognition of wrong. It should be in a ceremonial format as well. Calling someone and sending a message of apology is the same as not apologizing at all. Even the best a apologies for the most grievous offensive have to be said over and over. Government sees apologizing as promising not commit a wrong or injustice again which is why they drag tail to do so. It can mend relationships and bonds, create new allies. It is hurtful and wrong to not admit fault especially when it's obvious. Instead of good will it incubates bad will and no trust. Not to mention that it looks bad to those who are watching. In black water the father only wanted an apology and a change in how u.s military intervene to prevent tragedy for another family. He knew who's actions caused his pain but in the companies pride and ignorance they would not apologize but instead kept offering hush money.

Misa Toyoura

2/14/2016 08:05:55 pm

I agree with you! however, your question "what's the most appropriate way of apologizing?" I feel like it will make the issue even worse when state appolozizes because it feels like they just do it because they have to not because they are really sorry unfortunately.

Sharelle smith

2/11/2016 11:07:43 pm

Forgot open ended question, what would be a appropriate way to give a sincere apology from a government leader or country?

Mary Rasooli

2/13/2016 04:56:49 pm

In my opinion, unfortunately I feel that any apology that comes from a government body, especially late is insincere and ineffective. Especially in a situation where these women have been dehumanized and stripped of their humanity, an "I'm sorry" does nothing to lessen the suffering and pain that people have endured. Corrective measures would be to prioritize the issue and take every preventative measure as well as provide an source of healing for the victims.

christian trinidad

2/14/2016 07:10:17 pm

hi Sharelle !

Im not sure if there is an appropriate way for a government to apologize. Most come with some sort of money or aid. I think the apology should depend on the seriousness of the offense in question but by the same token sometimes war is war and war is hell.

Gabriel Alcantara

2/11/2016 11:56:54 pm

Apologies are only valid so many times. Just like Paul Muldoon says on his article, Political Apology 2.0: Japan says Sorry to ‘Comfort Women’ (Again), “there is no formula” to how many times a state should apologize. However, many state apologies are “half-hearted and insincere.”
Japan and South Korea held a grudge between them over the women who were held “captive” as “comfort women” during World War II for Japanese soldiers. Although there were many publicized apologies around 1995, the situation never went away. The victims are not yet ‘satisfied’. As Paul Muldoon says, “a state would seem to have a moral obligation to keep on apologizing” if there’s still a distrustful relationship between the oppressor and the oppressed. However, how much is an apology worth? How would an apology help heal the wounds? If anything, it could stop the ‘bleeding’, but after that, what would be the oppressor’s responsibility to the healing process? Should they be involved in reconstructing what has been broken or should they just leave, and let the other country take care of it by themselves? I believe that the best form of a state apology would be not doing it in the first place, and/or not repeating the same mistake so there will never be a need for a second apology. If a trustful relationship can be rebuilt between the two parties, then we could eliminate the need for all of this half-heart apologies given by the state.

Mary Rasooli

2/13/2016 05:10:38 pm

Hello! I appreciated the question you asked about whether or not the government should they be involved in reconstructing what has been broken. I think that is essential to the healing of the victims' families. Any form of aid would be a huge step in the right direction whether that may be in the form of a mental health program/service, as an effort to help the victims cope and find peace within themselves.

Misa Toyoura

2/14/2016 08:10:17 pm

I don't think apologizing can help lead the positive effects between this two nations anymore. But, I disagree how one nation pay money for what had happened!

Abhisheak Sharma

2/20/2016 01:12:42 pm

Hey Gabriel,
I agree with you about having the importance of trust between the two nations who have had hard grudges between them two. Having trust is the key to getting over the past memories and moving on. Handing out a public apology over and over again without really understanding how tough it is for the other nation to get over that dark cloud.

Madalyn Hart

2/11/2016 11:57:35 pm

Reading this article saddened me. While I am happy Japan apologized to the women of South Korea, I am annoyed that they did it to better their reputation among other onlooking countries and organizations. If they truly meant it, they would have said it long ago. My question to Japan is why has it taken them so long to do it? In the article it said how Japan wants to change its relationship with South Korea so that it doesn't effect the new generations. While I full-heartedly agree that that is a good idea and that the past should stay in the past I don't think Japan should expect immediate positive results. No matter how many times one says sorry, and no matter how many times they actually mean it, wounds still take time to heal. In times of war countries need to fight together and join forces, not take advantage of their women.

Mary Rasooli

2/13/2016 05:30:44 pm

Hi, I also agree that it is extremely disturbing and saddening especially now that the apology was incentivized and motivated by other monetary and political gains. I definitely agree that Japan's attempt to improve relations will be a slow, gradual process and something that may or may not even work.

Misa

2/14/2016 08:00:30 pm

Hi,Madalyn! I agree with you. especially the part you said Japan should not except the immediate positive results since it's been really long this two nations have been arguing this. Actually, they did apologize before many times, however apologizing is never enough for victims, which is pretty understandable. Yet, I don't agree with giving them money instead.

JeeSoo Lee

2/14/2016 12:44:37 am

Hi Madalyn,

I think the reason that Japan took so long to do it is because in the face of current international systems, it is imperative that once-violent states acknowledge and atone for their wrongdoings so that they can adhere to modern human rights laws and build up trust abroad. I believe that it is impossible for a few people in political power speak for all people of the nation; even now, many Japanese people are angry about this apology. These political figures could not be expected to apologize on behalf of the whole nation because apologies were less important many decades ago.

Michael Stevens

2/14/2016 09:23:46 pm

Hello Madalyn, they actually DID apologize long ago; this is the second time they have apologized for this crime. Although I also agree that time is a great healer, I also believe that words do have a place. It would be hard to accept an apology if what they say in the apology seems unrepentant. Like you, I believe that it is a step in the positive direction.

Abhisheak Sharma

2/20/2016 10:21:30 pm

Hey Madalyn,
I agree with your thinking how Japan only apologize to gain its own political advantage. I think it took Japan a long time to apolozies because before it wouldn't do there country good or matter in fact make their country look evil for their past actions to others.

Thu-Thao Ho

2/12/2016 12:39:17 am

The first point that needs to be addressed at firsthand is that an "apology" may be deceptive. It can act as a simple excuse to not make actual amends to terrible past deeds. Though the Japanese Foreign Minister openly offered a formal apology to the South Korean President, that does not necessarily bring back justice to the innocent women who are victims to the huge act of violation to human rights. Countries that remain profiting from the sex industry such as Japan must recognize that women are human beings and must be treated with the equivalent amount of kindness and respect. It is appalling to see that innocent women are being subjected to becoming "comfort women" and limiting their own futures due to the orders of government leaders. With regard to promises of apology after wartime occupation in the Korean peninsula, Japan has continued to avoid facing the violation of human rights at hand. It wasn't until the mid-1990's that Japan started to make "amendments" for past wartime crimes. How is it that nations can just cause conflict, and then apologize formally many years later and expect the whole incident to be alleviated? International affairs would be avoidable if nations would deter from causing issues overseas whether it is violating humanitarian rights or not adhering to terms of sovereignty. Nations should not just apologize for wrong-doings but should actually take action to alleviate the conflict and controversy. Nations should not just move on thinking that they cannot bring the issue to the next generation. With that being said, my question is with the recognition of accepting the dark past, why has there not been any institutions being built to help women who are victims of being used as "comfort women"?

Mary Rasooli

2/13/2016 05:18:50 pm

"with the recognition of accepting the dark past, why has there not been any institutions being built to help women who are victims of being used as "comfort women"?"
I like this question! This is something I was pondering for quite a while. If the government wanted to apologize and be forgiven, they should have realized that a verbal im sorry doesnt fix what has been done. To truly show they are sorry, they could have explored the option to build programs and institutions recognizing sex slavery and addressing the issues within the industry. They could have offered programs that could have served as sanctuaries for the women in times of distress. It's still way too late now in my opinion.

JeeSoo Lee

2/14/2016 12:37:25 am

Hi Tina,

I think this event is a critical example of the phrase “Actions speak louder than words.” As the article states, South Korean and Chinese activists are protesting this apology because they feel as if Japan is insincere with their words. To build up institutions for victims of past atrocities would be to apologize much more genuinely with actions that would have real substantial results. Perhaps the $8.3 million compensation could be used by South Korea to fund these institutions themselves.

wenli zhou

2/21/2016 10:15:50 pm

HI Thu Thao, that's a good question. I would love to look into that. According to my knowledge, not just there is no institution help these comfort women(in China), they were being neglected after they got back home. lots of them stayed single. Their tragedy was overlooked by lots of people and government.

Mary Rasooli

2/13/2016 05:13:33 pm

My open-ended question:
Why did it take Japan so long to "apologize" and why were the women still upset and protesting after the apology?

christian trinidad

2/14/2016 09:30:01 pm

hi mary !
I think the reason that women where still mad after the apology is in fact that is took so long for japan to admit what they did was wrong. From what i remember from the article the women felt that the apology was forced and only came after pressure from other countries and human rights organizations.

Jessie Chen

2/21/2016 10:19:45 pm

I think it is because the Japanese government didn't apologize in the right time (or you can say "directly"). Most women who had been mistreated are already deceased; however, the government did the apology after decades. They never have the chance to receive the apology anymore. The one who need to apologize is the Japanese government during WWII and those Japanese soldiers.

JeeSoo Lee

2/14/2016 12:26:34 am

Japanese Foreign Minister, Fumio Kashida, and Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, issued a formal state apology to South Korea on December 18th 2015 for its oppression and mistreatment of “comfort women” during their occupation in Korea. This official political apology came with a nice compensation package of $8.3 million. Japan has a bad track record of covering up its own history in the country, unwilling to acknowledge their atrocities even amongst themselves.

To be received favorably in the current international system, states must adhere to human rights law and atone for past injustices. This means that Japan, no matter how insincere, must pay its victims respect and issue an apology for its past wrongs. There are undoubtedly critics who say that Japan is only saying sorry to gain diplomatic political power among other states. South Korean women have protested outside of the Japanese embassy in Seoul, saying that the apology is hollow. It is also apparent that it is the influence of U.S. and its desire for peace among its East Asian allies that pressured Japan into apologizing and South Korea into accepting its apology. Others question if anything has changed from a mere symbolic apology. There is no reversing history; as a Holocaust survivor once said, “Whoever was tortured stays tortured.” A third response is that Japan has not only caused harm in Korea, and that Chinese women during the Rape of Nanjing also deserve an apology for their grievances; there are protestors in China demanding Japan to apologize for their grievances as well.

It is not surprising that Japan is reluctant to atone for its past – first of all, an official apology is an official seal of wrongdoing as a nation. This can also damage its state reputation abroad, and affect national pride back at home. Japan is also indirectly stating that by apologizing for its past use of violence, it is renouncing future use of violence as well.

There are many terrible events in history that is beyond reparation for its victims. It is wrong for states to demand victims for forgiveness and healing. With this in mind, there must be criteria for successful and effective state apologies. Many politicians say that these apologies must be exceptional and ceremonial, done by a figure with the authority to represent its people, and contain the name and descriptions of the injustice itself.

This is not the first time that Japan has issued an apology to South Korea; there was one in 1993 and another in 1995. South Korean victims are understandably still angry about this incident. Japanese Prime Minister Abe thinks that the Japanese-South Korean relations are good now and that it is time for Korea to move on. My question is this: Is it possible for a few political figureheads to truly speak the mind of an entire nation? How could the differing values of the peoples of an entire nation apologize and expect to be accepted by the people of another entire nation?

Michael Stevens

2/14/2016 09:18:38 pm

The problems you bring up go back to the very problem of justice: how should oppressors be punished? For example, if someone breaks into someone's home, they may receive 2-6 years in California for their crime. However, the person whose home is broken into may have a mental issue with security for the rest of their lives, well beyond 6 years. So, should we punish the perpetrator for the rest of their lives? I don't think so. Once you do the time that society sets, then you should be free. If Japan pays the penalty determined by South Korea, then it should be free of responsibility.

Michael Stevens

2/14/2016 09:11:05 pm

I learned that this is actually the second time that Japan has apologized for comfort women. I also learned that any state apology is going to face three criticisms: does this symbolic gesture adequately compensate for past injustices, is the apology sincere, and why hasn’t similarly oppressed groups received an apology? In addition, I learned that within an apology, there is an implicit understanding that the country will refrain from performing that injustice again in the future. This, along with the lowering of morale, is probably why governments hesitate to make formal apologies.

From the beginning of the article, I wondered why Japan only apologized to South Korea. Since the atrocities occurred during World War II, North and South Korea were not split yet, yet only South Korea was apologized to. I assumed while reading that Japan did not apologize to North Korea for political reasons. First, South Korea is a major world player in electronics while North Korea is impoverished; hence, South Korea has more power so they “deserve” an apology. Second, South Korea is more politically aligned to the west in terms of democracy than North Korea. Third, the new Trans-Pacific Partnership includes the United States and Japan, but South Korea has shown interest in joining the partnership. Having Japan apologize to South Korea may sweeten the deal and entice South Korea to join in the trade agreement. Or, perhaps the apology was a part of the deal getting done since the trade agreement was agreed upon six weeks later.

The article also made me reflect on the justice system and the nature of justice. Whenever someone is wronged, society has to determine a price for the perpetrator to pay. However, the victim has to live with the consequences for the rest of their life. Hence, people feel that there is a disconnect in justice no matter the situation. The article more or less advocates for a set penalty for crimes much like the justice system. Although I have many questions, the one I decided to go with is: why was Japan pressured to apologize only to South Korea (not China or North Korea), especially since they have already apologized before?

Yumi Okawara

2/15/2016 04:17:50 pm

According to the article, it has happened milestone in South Korea and Japan on December 18, 2015 -- During World War II, Korean women were compelled to have sex as sex slaves for Japanese soldiers. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe apologized for “comfort women” and agreed to pay $8.3 million to the South Korean government to support the women. Even though atrocious act truly happened between two countries, I believe the sexual slavery was generated in other countries during the war. Honestly, I do not understand why Japanese Prime Minister Abe agreed to pay $8.3 million to the South Korean government as a Japanese. Both governments seem like the only solution is to pay money -- I believe it is totally wrong. They should have a conference without reparation no matter how ceremonial is. I do understand when they have the conference, things got out of control especially between both countries. It is not the first time apologizing to the South Korean government from the then Prime Minister, Kono. Even though the South Korean government said “reparation is unnecessary” after apologizing, the South Korean government demand reparation in 2007. In my opinion, despite we do not know what actually happened at that time, Japanese people do not want to agree with huge sum of money because this money comes from our tax. In spite of the reference of the South Korean government, they could not control action for reparation in succession. There are many dire events within a historical context; therefore, I do understand politicians need to apologize on the surface.

Abhisheak Sharma

2/16/2016 03:25:58 pm

I learned a lot from this article on how hard it is to forget about the past and move on without holding grudges. The article talks about the bitter relationship Japan and south Korea has had since World War II and Japan's countless efforts trying to move on from the negative memories. Japan's apology has more than them just accepting that they did some really harmful things to people. They have their political interests involved than rather just being concerned about what the people in south Korea were put through. I don’t think there can ever be a correct way of showing that a country really deeply apologies for their action made in the past. Most of the people will always think why now is a country apologizing, after so many years. It's easy for the politicians to issue their sympathy to others but its effect on the people who it's towards dont view it as a satisfactory apology. Japan offered money in return with their apology to the government for the women in need. This offer of money really doesn't go well with people actually trying to accept japan's apology. Money helps a lot but does it bring back the pain and suffer these women were put through all the year back almost 100 years. Some of them aren't even alive to see Japan really try to make things better. Money isn’t the right way to show your sorry it's wrong and I don’t get how South Korea even took the money in those terms.
Is there a right way to apologize without others having doubts about if it's really meant or just being done for personal interest?

Mark De Martini

2/17/2016 08:28:46 pm

The article is primarily about issues surrounding state apologies for past transgressions. Recently, in 2015 Japan's foreign minister and prime minister issued a formal apology to South Korea in regards to WWII "comfort women". It is of interest that Japan issued a formal apology for the same issue back in 1993. The 2015 apology was accompanied by a 8.3 million compensation package. The questions to ask are: how many apologies are required, are apologies constructive after the first one, and who does the apology serve? Germany and Japan had much to atone for after the war. They were are the only ones. America has slavery and the Indians. Turkey has Armenian genocide they refuse to acknowledge to this day. There are too many other examples to list. To make initial, sincere apologies to the injured party, and commit to a reasonable remittance for those directly affected, is just good national policy. There are limits. Germany and Japan are constantly reminded of their past mistakes by the international community and pressured to continue apologizing for a war fought a generation ago. The result keeps Germany and Japan humbled in ways that are psychologically damaging to their national character. The worst political decisions are made out of guilt. It's only a matter of time when future generations who have no connection to the war, push back against those who maintain the "guilt machine" as a means to humble those nations or bleed them for evermore compensation. There is a risk in overplaying apologies on the national level. If a county sincerely atones and remits former transgressions, it is the best interest of all to move on from there. At a certain point the trust and respect won by the apology will turn to resentment and conflict if forced to repeat for reasons more political than humane. An important issue discussed by the author was the normalization of human rights being universally accepted by the community of nations. State apologies lend credence that formerly barbaric countries now see the value in behaving civilized. I feel this is true since Japan and South Korea, once bitter enemies and competitors are far more conciliatory today. The same can be said for a Germany that shed its proud, militaristic, Prussian culture for a role as an EU economic superpower. Reminding Germany of its Nazi past (as was recently done by Greece), is highly counterproductive. This doesn't mean that history should be forgotten, (most folks hate history anyways), since barbarism needs to be stamped out wherever it appears. The only way to identify man's inhumanity to man it is to know the past.

Anteo Swenson

2/18/2016 09:04:28 am

Last year an apology was made by Japan towards South Korea for the sexual enslavement of Korean women during times of war. Such apology was made by Japan’s prime minister and it was accompanied by a generous amount of money. This action gives Japan a good reputation, since it seems to be acting out of morality and actual regret. Japan hasn’t been the only state that has apologized for past atrocities committed to another nation; plenty of states have been doing this. It seems like the Human Rights have become popular for the powerful nations who want to seem that they embrace and follow them. However, these acts have become increasingly suspicious, why are the powerful nations apologizing? It could be out of reputation, since it’s in important in the international scenario. Or it could have another purpose. Japan, for example, it apologized to another powerful country, South Korea, both of which are the U.S.’ allies. The act of diplomatic apologizing can raise many doubts among the international community. Nevertheless, political apologies are part of the international play between states. It is part of diplomacy’s protocol. In fact, I believe in some cases they are necessary, primarily if there’s an interest at play from one nation. But not all responses to a political apology are negative and skeptic. By apologizing to another nation, a new relation can be born, one that will be a new starting point between states, aside from the fact that it may hold a promise of no more future wrongdoings. Following this idea, if a state does not have economic or political interest in having a good relation with another nation, it will not apologize, right? Except if the state had to apologize out of reputation. There are certainly a lot of reasons behind a political apology, it is a shame that they can’t all be done out of sincerity and a moral stance.

Megan Fernandez

2/18/2016 07:58:47 pm

To me, it seems that the most effective (or promising) aspect of a formal apology on behalf of a country such as Japan is the “promissory dimension.” Abe’s statement that Japan and South Korea were into “a new era” and that “we [they] could not drag this problem into the next generation seems to be a marked effort to absolve Japan of the recursion of allegations against it. However, his public statement is no more than his word and the monetary compensation cannot undo the justice done upon the Korean women forced to work as sex workers. The article also brings up the question of how many times a country must apologize. In my opinion, once if supported with deliberate and intentional action is enough. It is admirable that Abe would publicly apologize for in doing so, Japan publicly acknowledges its wrongdoing. The author, Paul Muldoon, suggests that the best contribution to normative political theory would be to set out the criteria for a good enough apology. I believe that the best way countries can amend for their wrongdoing during wartime is to advocate and or pass policy that would prevent and inhibit atrocities such as those committed against Korean and Chinese women by the Japanese military. This would be the best response to such an egregious wrongdoing. A public apology is only the tip of the iceberg of the government taking action to affirm that it has taken a stance in adequately addressing its wrongdoings and preventing them from happening again. Otherwise, such apologies are empty, and as the article said, unless such action is taken, one apology ought to be enough, but it rarely is.

Megan Fernandez

2/18/2016 08:05:13 pm

A question I have for the class is, do you deem verbal apologies or action taken in response to redress more important politically?

Jessie Chen

2/18/2016 11:09:42 pm

Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, and Japanese Foreign Minister, Fumio Kashida, presented a formal apology to those “comfort women” who were treated as sex slaves during Japanese occupation in Korea. Japan also offered $8.3 million as the “apology gift” to the South Korean government to support women. According to the title of the article, we can learn it is not the first time that Japan makes a formal state apology, which leads to an interesting question: why did Japan decide to apologize again after around a decade when they did the first apology? Also, as the article has mentioned, the apology should have done in the ceremonial format: “right location, right time, right tone.” For my opinion, even an apology with a large amount of money, it is too late to say sorry. The reason is that most women who had been mistreated are already deceased. They never have the chance to receive the apology anymore. The person who offered the apology is not quite right also. The one who need to apologize is the Japanese government during WWII and those Japanese soldiers; however, we all know it is impossible. I think the responsibility should be taken by those people who allowed or made the mistreated behaviors happen instead the people in present (such as this generation) do the apology. Honestly, I believe not many people can understand what happened during that time period; people in the present have less resonance to the past. My question is: Do the state apology can represent all the people in the nation?

wenli zhou

2/21/2016 10:10:54 pm

Hi Jessica,
Absolutely not, I do not think state apology can represent all the people in the nation. However, State need to have an attitude too. Even though it can not represent all the people, it still form a better relationship for people of these two states.

Steven Pham

2/19/2016 02:37:10 pm

After reading the article, I picked up that the Japans' Prime Minister and Foreign Minster has apologized to the "comfort women" for their horrible duties they had to do for the Japanese back during the war. But it still seems a bit fishy since they gave a cash compensation afterward which makes it look like they are trying to buy the forgiveness of the "comfort women" instead of them accepting it, without any strings attached. Another puzzling thing to mention too, is why do they apologize now and not earlier? Why do they have to apologize again since they have already done so, a while back? Some speculate that the United States has something to do with the apology so they can reestablish the good connection with Japan and the South Korea again. So the question that still intrigue me is that, is this apology really from the heart and the guilt still felt or is this just another political move from the Japanese government?

Jessie Chen

2/21/2016 10:32:02 pm

After reading the article, I also wonder why the government apologized twice and after so many years.
For your last question, I think even though the Japanese government made the apology sincerely, they don't really have the same feelings with those "comfort women." I believe not many people can understand what happened during that time period; people in the present have less resonance to the past.

wenli zhou

2/21/2016 10:04:25 pm

Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, reiterated the apology in a telephone call to the South Korean president Park Geun-hye. Abe hope that he can put a period to this issue with his apology.
One of the discussion point in the article is the importance of “international community” . international pressure is an important factor that made Abe into apology. If no one ever speak about it, Japan would not want to make such apology because It is public opinions matters. Public opinion draws attention on issues that likely to be overlooked. Therefore “international community” do have huge power in the form of moral sanction. Another discussion point in the article is apologies always have a promissory dimension. If a state made apologies on their previous wrongdoing, that can serve as a promise that they would never do that again. Personally I don’t agree with that because we haven't experience anything like this so far. I trust international law more than a promise. Article also discussed about successful apologies, they suggest, can help to rebuild that most precious, if most intangible, of political commodities: trust. I do agree that apology can make two states closer. It is a friendly sign that a state was willing to stand against the historical revisionism and make apology for what they have done wrong in the past. Two country can only establish a relationship when there is no revisionism.
“Historical revisionism that has grown like a cancer within Japan during the early years of the 21st century.” Many schools revised their history textbook in Japan, instead of telling students what really happened, they simply skip that part of history. However, history cannot be revised or hide. My question is, do you think this is wrong? What impact does it have?

Yumi Okawara

2/21/2016 11:21:20 pm

Hi, Wenli! I totally agree with you; if there is no international pressure, Japanese Prime Minister Abe will never apologize to South Korea I guess. Also, it is true that "they simply skip that part of history." But we can say nobody knows what happened during the war.

Xiaoguo Zhang

2/22/2016 02:30:46 pm

The term “comfort women” is debatable. Coined by the Japanese army, the name implies that those women were recruited to “comfort” Japanese soldiers. This intentional, euphemistic ambiguity conceals Japan’s culpability in establishing a wartime sexual slavery system. Some people, whether intentionally or unintentionally, confuse “comfort women” with military prostitutes. The mix-up and resulting discrimination that is surviving “comfort women” faced after the war adds insult to injury. “Comfort women” are in fact women who were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese army. A large number of women from China, Korea, countries of Southeast Asia and even some European countries were ruthlessly crushed by the Japanese soldiers’ actions.
The surviving “comfort women” are passing away one by one. Although some of those who are still living today have sought justice by going to Japan to appeal for compensation, they have come away empty-handed, not even receiving an apology from the Japanese government. The Japanese government rejected their appeals citing expired statute of limitations and denying it as a state action. Japan persistently denies history and the conscription of “comfort women” as a state action. Japan refuses to apologize to and compensate the surviving “comfort women” in Asia.
I sincerely hope the Japanese government and its people, especially the government, can learn from Germany. To exercise deep introspection on the war it waged is a precondition, or a political foundation, for Japan to eliminate its conflicts with other Asian countries. Without this, Japan’s future looks bleak. It must re-examine itself over the war crimes it committed. I believe the “comfort women” issue is a scar left by WWII that affects Japan’s relations with China, South Korea and other countries. If Japan truly wants to live together in peace with other Asian countries, it must first redress the problems of its history.

Myah Rodriguez

2/22/2016 08:41:28 pm

Hi Xiaoguo,

I really appreciate your comment about political redress for violations of human rights.You wrote:To exercise deep introspection on the war it waged is a precondition, or a political foundation, for Japan to eliminate its conflicts with other Asian countries." I think that is absolutely true, and not just for Japan, but for every nation around the world that wishes to "apologize". Germany is a good example as far as making amends for wartime crimes. I wonder, do you think as a global community. nations around the world should be doing more to redress the actions it has done that have harmed millions?

Myah Rodriguez

2/22/2016 08:36:03 pm

As the world becomes an increasingly more globalized and interdependent place, the opinions of the international community become more of a factor in one nation’s global standing. And, as global human rights play a bigger factor in global politics, it comes as no surprise that nations are extending political apologies to nations and exploited groups within those nations, for various moral wrongdoings that have been committed in the past. Japan is one of the most recent nations to participate in this growing trend. In 2015, both the Foreign Minister of Japan, Fumio Kashida, and the President, Shinzo Abe, extended formal apologies to their counterparts in South Korea of the “comfort women” it exploited during World War II. The author claims that this public apology, as well as those of around the globe moving forward, should be scrutinized for effectiveness and motivation. Otherwise, he claims, apologies will lose their sincerity and meaning. He gives the following criteria for a genuine political apology: 1 - It should be ceremonial in nature. 2 - It must be offered by someone with authority, someone who is considered to be a legitimate representative of the people. 3 - It must identify and explain the injustice, as well as a legitimate reasoning for why it happened. And lastly, 4 - it must include a promise by the nation apologizing to never commit such an act again. Without all of these factor, political apologies will lose their value and become empty promises.
I found it interesting how the author then goes on to talk about the purpose of political apologies. Many victims of the actions being apologized for, believe that such apologies never go far enough. They do not erase the experiences of those who have suffered. Since this is the case, the author argues that a political apology should not aim to heal the wounds and sufferings of the victims. Instead, it should follow normative theory and meet certain political and global criteria in order to be effective.
Although I can see the rationale behind the author’s opinion, I still feel uneasy accepting his conclusion. My question to anyone reading is this: how far should a state go in the name of righting its past wrongdoings? Can a nation really claim to apologize and “move on”, when the effects of its actions leave thousands of people vulnerable, wounded, and damaged?

Michelle Bounkousohn

3/27/2016 01:26:42 pm

With Japan's 2015 formal apology to the South Korean foreign minister for the usage of "comfort women" during the Japanese occupation of Korea, their apology and $8.3 million compensation package must be analyzed for their authenticity and real effects on the victims of those war crimes. In atoning for crimes against humanity, is a single politician's promise enough? Is $8.3 million enough to apologize to 50,000 to 200,000 who were forced into sexual slavery? These are the questions that must be addressed within the scope of international relations and war crimes.

While political apologies are powerful, they must be supported by sincere actions. Japan's acknowledgement of these war crimes come after decades of silence and denial, which makes this apology more powerful, though it is imbued with a sense of hollowness and insincerity, especially when no equivalent apology had been offered to China despite Chinese women being forced into sexual slavery as well.

As a long-term political tactic, this apology seeks to build trust and an acknowledgement of the past. In the article, Muldoon talks about the characteristics of an effective political apology: (1) the framing as an exceptional event, (2) an offer by an individual with requisite moral authority with the political authorization to represent the people, (3) must name with specificity the injustice in question, (4) a solemn swear to never commit a similar act in the future. In this sense, this apology is relatively sincere, though it does lack future accountability and a promise to ameliorate the pain caused. Perhaps it would have been more effective to have established a fund for victims and their families, or to have apologized symbolically and directly to one of the individuals who had been involved.

Week 5 - Comfort Women

Leave a Reply.

Poli 3 - DeAnza

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS

Week 5 - Comfort Women

Leave a Reply.

Poli 3 - DeAnza

THE BEAUTYOF BLACKCREATION

ABOUT USJOURNALS​​SUBMISSIONS

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS