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”.
Reply
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.
Reply
Mark De Martini
2/18/2016 08:20:19 pm
Sharelle,
Yumi Okawara
2/21/2016 11:35:16 pm
Hi, Sharelle!
Michael Stevens
2/14/2016 09:28:22 pm
Hello Mary,
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Mark De Martini
2/18/2016 08:35:00 pm
Misa,
Reply
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.
Reply
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
Reply
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.
Reply
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?
Reply
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.
Reply
JeeSoo Lee
2/14/2016 12:52:58 am
Hi Christian,
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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?
Reply
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.
Reply
christian trinidad
2/14/2016 07:10:17 pm
hi Sharelle !
Reply
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.”
Reply
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.
Reply
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!
Reply
Abhisheak Sharma
2/20/2016 01:12:42 pm
Hey Gabriel,
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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,
Reply
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.
Reply
Abhisheak Sharma
2/20/2016 10:21:30 pm
Hey Madalyn,
Reply
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"?
Reply
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"?"
Reply
JeeSoo Lee
2/14/2016 12:37:25 am
Hi Tina,
Reply
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.
Reply
Mary Rasooli
2/13/2016 05:13:33 pm
My open-ended question:
Reply
christian trinidad
2/14/2016 09:30:01 pm
hi mary !
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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?
Reply
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?
Reply
wenli zhou
2/21/2016 10:10:54 pm
Hi Jessica,
Reply
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?
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Myah Rodriguez
2/22/2016 08:41:28 pm
Hi Xiaoguo,
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Poli 3 - DeAnza
Winter 2016 |