[Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media] Media that politicizes and ignores victims prevents resolution of the Japanese military "comfort women" issue

Original Korean version published by Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media on August 14, 2020: https://www.ccdm.or.kr/xe/watch/297201

On May 7, 2020, Lee Yong-soo, a Japanese military “comfort women” victim-survivor and women’s rights activist, held a press conference. The press primarily reported that “the ‘comfort women’ organizations’ donation fund operations lacked transparency and that the funds were not being used for the victims” and “at the time of the 2015 Korea-Japan ‘comfort women’ agreement, only Yoon Mee-hyang was aware of the fact that Japan had promised 1 billion yen, while the victims were unaware.”

Afterward, media coverage primarily by the Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily reported that the then-Democratic Party candidate Yoon Mee-hyang (former chair of board at The Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issues of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan (hereinafter The Korean Council) / representative of the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan) had been ignoring the victim halmonis’ opinions in her activism. The coverage also developed the narrative that the donation funds were used in unethical ways.

The dominant narrative of Yoon Mee-hyang and the “comfort women” organization’s scandal began to erase the core problem of holding Japan historically accountable to apologize and accept legal responsibility.

1. How did the press conference by Lee Yong-soo turn into “The Korean Council’s alleged fraud”?

Those who have seen Lee Yong-soo’s first full press conference or were present at the scene would have felt that the media coverage was misleadingly construing the activism on Japanese military sexual slavery. As Lee Yong-soo has subsequently stated in both press conferences and official statements, the central point of her claim is not about “The Korean Council’s alleged fraud.”

The main messages she intended to put forth in her press conference was as follows:

• In order to build constructive relationships between Korean and Japanese citizens, we must focus on education initiatives such as exchange and collaboration between students of both countries.
• If there are any setbacks in the movement, we must overcome them and improve the transparency of civil society organizations.
• Regarding the 2015 rushed agreement, the civil society opinion collection process and government official conversation records should be disclosed.

Her message addressed the direction for the resolution of the Japanese military “comfort women” issue moving forward, and raised issues with civil society organizations’ approaches to activism; she was not suggesting that the 30-year-long “comfort women” movement has been wrong.

Why did the media focus on the “poor management of donation funds” allegation?

The Korean Council’s “poor management of donation funds” received the most coverage following Lee Yong-soo’s first press conference. Major newspapers excluding The Hankyoreh like Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Daily, Dong-A Ilbo, and Kyunghyang Shinmun all published relevant articles. The Hankyoreh addressed the allegations centering the Korean Council’s clarifications.

Chosun Ilbo especially was central to the coverage of these allegations. Major articles include <Yoon Mee-hyang and her husband sent their daughter to the U.S. for study abroad, while paying only 6.4 million won for income tax for the past 5 years> (May 11, Reporter Kim Eun-jung) and <Kim Bok-dong scholarship given to children of staff at Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, National Farmers Federation, and Korea Alliance For Progressive Movement> (May 11, Reporter Park Sang-hyun and Heo Yu-jin). The first article claims that “Yoon Mee-hyang had used ‘comfort women’ victims to send her daughter to study abroad” and the second one asserts that “the Korean Council had used the Kim Bok-dong scholarship money to support civil society organization activists.”

△ Chosun Ilbo article that inflated suspicions on the Korean Council’s financial malfeasance (May 11)

However, these two articles are irrelevant to the contents of Lee Yong-soo’s first press conference. All that Lee Yong-soo had raised about donation funds were “What have the protests (Wednesday Demonstrations) done? They were of no use” and “I celebrated my birthday at a hotel. The director of the Daegu Citizens’ Forum for Halmoni’s historical museum arranged to provide the 10 million won of congratulatory money to the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste. They should use it for the halmonis. For 120 days, I had to go to Washington D.C. to try to pass the [U.S. House of Representatives] resolution but not one person supported me financially. I don’t even know where the donation funds are used.”

Regardless of Lee Yong-soo’s press conference, it is always necessary to address the accounting errors that may arise due to the differences in fund operations between public foundations/civil society organizations and businesses. The problem is that some media went beyond Lee Yong-soo’s statements or the Korean Council’s clarifications, misconstruing the issue to make it seem as though there were substantial malfeasances. The Korean Council stated that while it had no intentions of doing so, some errors were found in its finances. It also requested re-disclosure and released numerous documents clarifying the situation, but the press continued the misleading coverage.

Media coverage that raised allegations on the monthly wage of Yoon Mee-hyang at civil society organizations, the amount spent on her daughter’s study abroad, and the scholarship established by the late Kim Bok-dong continued to pour out. Rooted in a misunderstanding of civil society finance management, the press went so far as to report “33 million won spent at a pub”. The Korea Economic Daily’s article <The Korean Council’s Suspicious Drink Money> (Reporters Yang Gil-Seong, Kim Nam-young, and Kim Bo-ra) triggered countless subsequent articles concerning civil society organizations’ alleged financial malfeasance.

△ Korea Economic Daily’s article that inflated inflated suspicions on the Korean Council’s financial malfeasance with fake news of “spending 33 million won at a beer pub.” (May 11)

The analyses leave us with one question: why did the media cover the issue in the way that it does? The media coverage was focused on topics that are entirely different from the actual contents of the first press conference. Their coverage disparaged the 30-year movement for justice on the Japanese military “comfort women” and damaged citizen’s trust in Korean civil society organizations’ activism. Citizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media went back to August 1991, when the late Kim Hak-soon became the first residing in Korea to publicly testify as a Japanese military “comfort woman” victim. What had the media coverage been like back then?

2. No one addressed this issue as a political problem in August 1991.

On August 14, 1991, Kim Hak-soon became the first residing in Korea to publicly testify as a Japanese military “comfort woman” victim-survivor. As the Japanese government was denying the existence of the Japanese military sexual slavery system and no one in Korea had publicly come forward as a victim-survivor, her testimony was incredibly important and valuable. This first public testimony of a victim-survivor residing in Korea received immense media spotlight.

On Kim Hak-soon’s testimony, Chosun Ilbo said “Japanese government must officially apologize and pay reparations”

We monitored 5 newspapers throughout August 1991, and all had covered Kim Hak-soon’s public testimony. The five newspapers had all written articles about Kim Hak-soon’s press conference, with notable ones being Chosun Ilbo’s <“I am the proof that Women’s Labor Corps[1] existed”>, JoongAng Daily’s <Kim Hak-soon revealed that she was a Women’s Labor Corp>, Dong-A Ilbo <Kim Hak-soon halmoni, the first residing in Korea to come forward, said “I will get reparations for what I suffered as a Women’s Labor Corp>, Kyunghyang Shinmun <Kim Hak-soon halmoni, who was taken as a Women’s Labor Corp, publicly came forward with tears about being forced into sexual slavery in battlefields — “17-year-old trampled upon”>, and The Hankyoreh <Raising awareness of the realities of Japanese military “comfort women”>.

△ Coverage of 5 major newspapers on Kim Hak-soon’s testimony in August, 1991 (August 15~16, 1991) ⒸCitizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media

Judging from the page numbers, the newspapers did not seem to cover the press conference as a major issue at the time. The articles were positioned at the end of newspapers such as page 22 on Chosun Ilbo, page 18 on JoongAng Daily, page 18 on Dong-A Ilbo, page 13 on Kyunghyang Shinmun, and page 15 on The Hankyoreh. Headlines on the first page of Chosun Ilbo on August 16, 1991, were <Japan accelerating ‘military power’> and . Headlines on the front page of JoongAng Daily on August 15, a day before, were <Plans for North-South Korea joint factories / President Noh’s commemoration speech for the 46th anniversary of Independence Day>, those for Dong-A Ilbo were , , those for Kyunghyang Shinmun were and , and those for The Hankyoreh were and <pan-ethnic protest held with 20,000 attendees>.

Chosun Ilbo published an editorial on August 16 titled <The first to publicly testify about Women’s Labor Corps>, which said: “On the 14th, 66-year-old Kim Hak-soon, who had been forcibly taken as Women’s Labor Corps by the Japanese military and suffered all kinds of shame, first revealed her difficult life. The life of a woman who lived a grueling life after being forcibly taken as a “comfort woman” for the Japanese military at the age of 16 makes us reflect on our history as citizens who lost their country. We focus on Kim Hak-soon’s testimony not just to recollect our people’s sad history, but because the wrongdoings of the Japanese empire buried in history must be revealed, and a formal apology and reparations for those wrongdoings are necessary for our future and Japan-Korea relations.”

The editorial also stated that “it is a fact that around 2 million Koreans were conscripted into forced labor under the Japanese empire, and it is a shame that despite officially acknowledging that there were at least 660,000 Japanese forced laborers, the Japanese government still does not sufficiently disclose the truth. The fact that the Japanese government especially does not mention the Japanese military sexual slavery issue elicits suspicion.” “Given Kim’s testimony, we believe the Japanese government should officially apologize and pay reparations for the Japanese military sexual slavery issue. In addition, the Korean government should actively provide support through initiatives such as building memorials for victims who have been hidden in the shadows of history.” It argued strongly for the Japanese and Korean governments to establish a solution.

Dong-A Ilbo and JoongAng Daily also criticized Japan’s concealment of historical wrongdoings and demanded an apology and investigation of truth in their columns. Kyunghyang Shinmun and The Hankyoreh did not publish any such editorials or columns.

△ Chosun Ilbo editorial saying “a formal apology and reparations for those wrongdoings are necessary for our future and Japan-Korea relations” (August 16, 1991)

3. Media that “jumped into politics” after the Park Geun-hye administration

Overall, at the time of Kim Hak-soon’s testimony in August 1991, all news media shared Kim’s words as they were. At the same time, they accurately pointed out the Japanese government’s responsibility to resolve the Japanese military “comfort women” issue. This was quite different from the press conference of Lee Yong-soo in 2020.

What had happened between these two moments? After the Roh Tae-woo administration during which Kim Hak-soon’s testimony brought public attention to the Japanese military sexual slavery, the Korean government officially began to take action to resolve the Japanese military “comfort women” issue during the Kim Young-sam administration. Shortly after being sworn into office, Kim said the following in a chief secretary meeting on March 13, 1993: “Given that we will not be demanding material reparations from the Japanese government, reparations should be made starting next year from the government’s budget. This way, we can take the moral high ground and approach new Korea-Japan relations.” This led to the “Act on Livelihood Stability and Commemorative Projects, Etc., for Sexual Slavery Victims Drafted for the Japanese Imperial Army under the Japanese Colonial Rule.”[2] It was followed by the Kono Statement.

However, as the Japanese government, which expressed remorse in the Kono Statement, attempted to resolve the Japanese military sexual slavery issue through the Asian Women’s Fund, the issue was left unresolved. As Japan began funding victims through the Asian Women’s Fund in 1998, the Kim Dae-jung administration expanded the Korean government’s funds. In August 2005, the Roh Moo-hyun administration disclosed documents from the 1965 Agreement Between Japan and the Republic of Korea Concerning the Settlement of Problems in Regard to Property and Claims and Economic Cooperation (hereinafter “1965 Claims Agreement”) and stated publicly that the agreement did not resolve the Japanese military “comfort women” issue, the Sakhalin Koreans issue, and the atomic bomb victims issue.

However, the Korean government did not negotiate to resolve these issues afterward. In this context, the Korean Constitutional Court ruled in August 2011 that the government’s lack of active efforts to solve the Japanese military “comfort women” issue was unconstitutional. However, the diplomatic tensions between Korea and Japan worsened as then-president Lee Myung-bak visited Dokdo in 2012, and Japan’s Democratic Party lost to Shinzo Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party.

Throughout these various administrations during which the resolution of the Japanese military “comfort women” issue did not make much progress; the media’s attitude largely remained the same as in 1991. We will examine some examples to illustrate this point. Regarding the Constitutional Court decision in August 2011, Chosun Ilbo published an editorial titled <Editorial / Government’s responsibility to actively resolve the “comfort women,” atomic bomb victims issues> and The Hankyoreh published an editorial titled <Editorial / Constitutional Court rules that government should take initiative to resolve “comfort women” issue>.

Chosun Ilbo said in the above editorial that “Based on this ruling, the government must begin new diplomatic international law efforts to ensure that ‘comfort women’ and atomic bomb victims receive reparations from the Japanese government. This ruling was instrumental in demonstrating that the government has a constitutional duty to act as much as possible for redress when its citizens’ human rights have been violated by another nation’s illegal acts.” The Hankyoreh wrote that “The government must officially initiate diplomatic negotiations about the ‘comfort women’ issue to ensure that the Japanese government takes legal responsibility, officially apologizes, and provides reparations.”

While they differ in degress, Chosun Ilbo and The Hankyoreh’s editorials both argued that the government should diplomatically establish the Japanese government’s legal responsibility. However, the media coverage shifted drastically as the Park Geun-hye administration held the Korea-Japan Minister of Foreign Affairs Press Conference and established the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation.

① 2015 Presidential Speech for the March 1st Independence Movement Day Memorial Event, “‘Comfort women’ victim halmonis’ human rights issue should be resolved”

Korea-Japan diplomatic relations, which had worsened after President Lee Myung-bak visited Dokdo, was still at a low point when the Park Geun-hye administration began. Japanese Prime Minister Abe took office towards the end of 2012, and Korean President Park Geun-hye took office at the beginning of 2013. For 2 years and 8 months, the Korea-Japan summit was not held. In November of 2015, the two finally met, but for the first time in 3 and a half years. Many analysts suggested that no summits were held during this period because President Park entwined the Japanese military “comfort women” issue with the question of whether to hold a summit, thereby freezing diplomatic relations herself. The Park administration, which consistently advocated for resolving the “comfort women” issue since its inauguration, also voiced its strong opinion in the 2015 memorial statement.

In her speech for the 96th March 1st Independence Movement Day Memorial Event that year, Park said “it is time for us [Korea and Japan] to become companions in the more mature 50 years ahead of us and write a new history” and that “We have urged the resolution of the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ victim halmonis’ human rights issue, which is necessary for the journey into the future we share.” She also emphasized that “two halmonis had passed away within this year already. We do not have a lot of time.”

All five newspapers we monitored covered the president’s March 1st speech. Chosun Ilbo interpreted Park’s message in her March 1st speech and said she urged the resolution of the Japanese military “comfort women” issue in their article <To North Korea, “conversation will open path”; To Japan, “regretful reflection will open path”> (March 2, 2015). JoongAng Daily and Dong-A Ilbo quoted her emphasis on resolving halmonis’ human rights issue. Kyunghyang Shinmun did not mention the word “comfort women”, and The Hankyoreh maintained a critical stance, noting that “as President Park has kept her stance on historical issues, it seems difficult that Korea-Japan relations would normalize soon” in their article <President Park maintains a hardline stance on Japan….urges for the ‘resolution of historical issues’ in her March 1st Memorial Event> (March 2, 2015).

△ Coverage of 5 major newspapers on President Park Geun-hye’s March 1st Memorial Event in 2015 (March 2, 2015) ⒸCitizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media

The five newspapers’ similar tone is reflected in their opinion section. In their opinion section, the newspapers all expressed concerns about Korea-Japan relations that had been stagnant. Chosun Ilbo mentioned such concern in its column, and the rest called for a more proactive engagement in diplomacy in its editorials.

In <Global Focus / Clash between Japanese history revisionism and revisionist-oriented  strategy against Japan>, Chosun Ilbo stated the demands of the victim-survivors and the Korean government, despite noting that “Japan must reconsider its principles of historical revisionism, and Korea must be flexible in its approach in dealing with Japan’s revisionism.” President Park Geun-hye’s memorial speech was not mentioned in the editorial that day. In <Editorial / “Remembering only what is necessary is not history”>, JoongAng Ilbo defended the Park Geun-hye administration, saying “It would have been difficult for President Park to express friendliness toward Japan when Japan’s attitude had not changed.” Nevertheless, the editorial also urged Japan to take courageous and honest behaviors on history. Kyunghyang Shinmun and The Hankyoreh evaluated President Park’s remarks as diplomatically “not resonating” and “unimpressive.”

△ Editorials and columns of 5 major newspapers on President Park Geun-hye’s March 1st Memorial Event in 2015 (March 2, 2015) ⒸCitizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media

② Attitudes that have changed since the Korea-Japan “comfort women” agreement in December 2015

While the media largely reflected similar historical perceptions until March 2015, they began to visibly grow divided since December 2015. On December 28, 2015, the ministers of foreign affairs of Japan and Korea announced a “final” and “irreversible” agreement on the Japanese military “comfort women” issue, which is a war crime and crime against humanity. The agreement would never mention the Japanese military “comfort women” issue again in the international community. Based on this condition, Japanese Prime Minister Abe expressed apologies and remorse in a phone call with President Park Geun-hye and provided 1 billion yen funding. Japanese military “comfort women” victim-survivors strongly opposed the agreement, and the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan declared it “unacceptable.”

The media should have correctly informed the readers on the contents of the agreement and their specific meanings. They should have included conflicting arguments on the agreement and urged the government to respond to the public opinion that did not trust the agreement. However, some media had covered up the problems with the agreement and illustrated the agreement as a diplomatic achievement of the Park Geun-hye administration and broadcasted that victims’ voices should be forgotten and the “past should be forgotten for the future.”

On the morning newspapers from December 28, 2015, which was written before the agreement was reached, hope for an “innovative solution” that would satisfy both parties, wariness of Japan’s manipulation of the media, and concern over an “insufficient agreement” were present. Chosun Ilbo’s <Would Japan, Korea find a breakthrough with “neutral rhetoric” surrounding “comfort women” legal responsibility> (December 28, 2015, reporter Lee Yong-soo), JoongAng Daily’s <To not lose the fight, Lee Sang-duk does not dye his white hair> (December 28, 2015, reporter Ahn Hyo-sung), Dong-A Ilbo’s <President Park’s concerns: “an insufficient agreement would draw backlash”> (December 28, 2015, Reporter Woo Kyung-im), Kyunghyang Shinmun’s <Rapid waves of solving “Japanese government’s legal responsibility” in the “comfort women” issue> (December 28, 2015, reporter Yoo Shin-mo), The Hankyoreh’s <Korea, Japan rush to “find an innovative solution to the ‘comfort women’ issue”> (December 28, 2015, reporter Lee Jae-hoon) contain hope for “creative alternative” and “possibilities for resolution of the issue” in the agreement.

△ Chosun Ilbo urging for proper response of the Korean government before the 2015 Korea-Japan agreement (December 28, 2015)

Media coverage included concerns regarding the contents of the agreement. Specifically, Chosun Ilbo demanded a strong and clear apology from Japan in <Editorial/Does the government know the intents of Japan in making noise about the “comfort women” agreement> (December 28, 2015), stating that if “Prime minister Abe is determined to ‘take responsibility,’ he should officially acknowledge state responsibility for the forced mobilization of Japanese military “comfort women” and apologize sincerely to victim-survivors. If they try to evade Japanese government’s responsibility through a format of Korea-Japan joint fund or try to do away with a vague and ambiguous apology, not only Korean citizens but also other victimized countries will find it difficult to accept.”

JoongAng Ilbo argued that “Korea-Japan should move forward to the future” on the day after the agreement

However, on December 29, 2015, the next day, all five newspapers expressed concern and welcome. The concerns expressed included the following: The settlement is not legally binding; it became the “final resolution”; it contradicts the sentiment among victim-survivors, civic groups, and the general public. The following aspects were welcomed: The Japanese government officially admitted to responsibility in mobilizing “comfort women” for the first time; it promised to financially support the victim-survivors through the Japanese government budget; the two nations resolved the largest diplomatic issue for the first time in 24 years and created a new foundation for relations between the two countries moving forward.

△ Editorials of 5 major newspapers on “comfort women” agreement in December 2015 (December 29, 2015) ⒸCitizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media

Each newspaper had a different “emphasis.” The Hankyoreh criticized the agreement most strongly. In the editorial, the Hankyoreh emphasized that “the Japanese government’s legal responsibility in the perpetuation of the ‘state crime’ of the Japanese military sexual slavery system has not been clarified.” It also criticized that the agreement seems like “the Korean government is standing by an incomplete resolution put forth by Japan” and that “the contents [of the agreement], which stands against principle, should not be forced onto citizens as a ‘diplomatic resolution.’” The editorial further urged additional discussions, arguing that “the two countries should not mention a final resolution of the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue, but rather start a new agreement for a sincere resolution.”

Kyunghyang Shinmun and Dong-A Ilbo attended to both the positive and negative aspects of the agreement and focused on the messages that “the nature of negotiations make it difficult for all sides to be satisfied” and that “Japan’s future actions are important.” The two newspapers also included victim-survivors’ criticism of the government’s rushed agreement in their regular newspaper articles.

Chosun Ilbo first expressed concern that “the agreement had listened to all demands that Japan had strongly asked for during the negotiation process” and then noted that “the hostile environment between Korea and Japan, tied to the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue, should not continue,” emphasizing the “conclusion.” The editorial advised that the government should “provide detailed explanations and consideration regarding the contents of the agreement.”

JoongAng Daily went a step further than Chosun Ilbo’s argument of “we should not stay in the past” that called for more actively “moving forward.” Rather than pointing out the problems of the agreement, its <Editorial/Korea and Japan should now move on forward> (December 29, 2015) focused on expressing concerns about potential circumstances in which “individual victims or civic groups that disapprove of the agreement would start lawsuits not only domestically but also internationally” or in which “mutual criticism on the international community” may take place. It also cited a ‘proverb’ that “a full win essentially does not exist in diplomacy” and actively reprinted the claims of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that “the contents of the agreement led the maximum yield within a practically possible scope.” The editorial ended with a “hopeful suggestion” of “Korea and Japan should move towards the future based on this agreement.”

The editorials have shifted entirely from those of the day before the agreement. Notably, JoongAng Daily had demanded the Japanese government’s recognition of legal responsibility and apology and reparations at the level that Korean citizens can accept in an editorial published the day before. In <Editorial/Historical “comfort women” negotiations depend on Japan’s sincerity> (December 28, 2015), it said “the essence of the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue, which is a universal women’s rights issue, is the recognition of Japanese government’s legal responsibility” and noted that “if Japan makes an ambiguous apology in the name of Prime Minister Abe and provide some money as consolation fund, it will be impossible to reach the complete resolution that Japan has hoped for.” Its stance has changed drastically overnight.

△ JoongAng Daily article arguing to “move forward to the future together” after the 2015 Korea-Japan agreement (December 29, 2015)

Chosun Ilbo “‘Comfort women’ victim-survivors show conflicting opinions on the agreement”

On the other hand, Chosun Ilbo reported in <Conflicting stances of halmonis…“the agreement is unacceptable” “I’d have to follow even if I am not satisfied”> (December 29, 2015, Reporter Sun Jung-min and Um Bo-un) that “victim-survivors were divided between those who considered the agreement as ‘unacceptable’ and those who said they ‘are not satisfied but will follow the government’.” JoongAng Daily also took a similar stance in its article <“I’ll follow even if I am not satisfied” “I’ll ignore it as a whole”> (December 29, 2015, Reporters Lim Myong-soo, Yun Jung-min, Oh Jong-taek). However, JoongAng Ilbo captured the precise context of halmonis’ remarks by detailing that “in the press conference, Yu hee-nam halmoni said ‘I’d have to follow the government even if I am not satisfied.’ However, after hearing that the funding is not legal reparations, she reversed her attitude saying ‘we do not need to receive their funding or medical support. No halmonis would respond to such funds.’”

Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily’s reports are difficult to be seen as true. In CBS Radio <Kim Hyun-jung’s News Show> (December 29, 2015), Lee Yong-soo mentioned that “the said victim-survivor is experiencing dementia and has difficulties making precise judgments.” She made it clear that Japanese military “comfort women” victim-survivors would not “accept” and “follow” the agreement.

△ JoongAng Daily editorial saying that the Japanese government’s acknowledgment of responsibility is the key issue before the 2015 Korea-Japan agreement (December 28, 2015)

③ The launch of the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation led to the division of Chosun, JoongAng, Dong-A vs. Hankyoreh, Kyunghyang

The Reconciliation and Healing Foundation was established as a follow-up measure to the Korea-Japan “comfort women” agreement on December 28, 2015. On July 28, 2016, the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation held a press conference and hosted an office sign unveiling ceremony. The events were planned to announce its official launch. At this press conference, two incidents took place. Around 20 college students intruded the press conference by surprise to “oppose the launch of the foundation, which ignored Japanese military ‘comfort women’ victim-survivors.” The other incident was that chair of board Kim Tae-hyun of the foundation was attacked with capsaicin as she was stepping outside after the press conference. The office sign unveiling ceremony took place without any issues.

The next day, Chosun Ilbo and JoongAng Daily “only” reported the fact that chair of board Kim Tae-hyun had been attacked with capsaicin. Chosun Ilbo reported <Capsaicin sprayed onto ‘Comfort Women Foundation’ on the first day of launching> (July 29, 2016, Reporter Lee Yong-soo), and JoongAng Daily reported <Self-defense spray sprinkled with shouts of “No to Korea-Japan agreement”> (July 29, 2016, Reporters Yoo Ji-hye, Jung Jin-woo). JoongAng Daily in particular placed a color photo with the title “Capsaicin terror” on its front page. JoongAng Daily’s only articles related to the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation on this date were the front-page photo and a subsequent article on page 10.

In <Korea “entirety of funds will support victims,” Japan “not decided”> (July 29, 2016, Reporters Lee Ji-eun, Jang won-jae, Cho Seung-ho) and <70% of Japan funds will directly support victims…30% to commemorative projects> (July 29, 2016, Reporters Cho Seung-ho, Kim Dan-bi, Jang Won-jae), Dong-A Ilbo noted that “projects to support Japanese military ‘comfort women’ victims have been launched” and reported the official sign unveiling ceremony of the foundation. They also delivered the information that discussions were still underway on how to use the 1 billion yen. On the other hand, they wrote that “opinions for moving onto reconciliation and final stage through full-scale support for victim-survivors with the launch of the foundation also prevail.” The incidents that took place in the press conference were described as “capsaicin spray” and “10 university students intruded and disturbed the press conference.” Dong-A Ilbo criticized the capsaicin “terror” as “unacceptable behavior” in <Chitchat/”Terror” on the day of “comfort women” foundation launch> (July 29, 2016, Editorial writer Kwon Sun-hwal).

△ JoongAng Daily front page on the day after the launching of the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation. JoongAng Daily covered one article on the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation. (July 29, 2016)

In coverages by Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Daily, and Dong-A Ilbo, victims’ voices regarding the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation were not mentioned, nor were there any voices criticizing the foundation’s reckless launching. Instead, they characterized only the incidents at the press conference as “reckless acts” or “terror,” making it seem as though there were merely radical voices that were critical of improving Korea-Japan relations.

Reports by The Hankyoreh and Kyunghyang Shinmun were clearly different. The only difference was that The Hankyoreh reported the two incidents in different articles and Kyunghyang did not. Otherwise, they maintained the same argument that “the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation has regressed further than the Asian Women’s Fund of 1995” and “that the ‘comfort women’ foundation has hastily launched with neither reconciliation nor healing.”

The Hankyoreh pointed out in <“Comfort women” foundation regressed compared to the 1995 Asian Women’s Fund> (July 29, 2016, Reporters Kim Jin-chul, Lee Je-hoon, Gil Yun-hyung) that the foundation has regressed compared to the Asian Women’s Fund, which was launched in 1995 but failed. The Asian Women’s Fund was established under the leadership of the Japanese government but the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation was launched by the Korean government, and that Asian Women’s Fund investigated historical documents but the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation only provided temporary subsidiary support and medical expenses. Kyunghyang Shinmun criticized the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation’s lack of specific program details or plans and the ambiguous timeline for transfer of 1 billion yen from the Japanese government in <Funds and project plans all “clueless”… “comfort women” foundation starts recklessly> (July 29, 2016, Reporter Nam Ji-won) 

The Hankyoreh included voices of victim-survivors including Kim Bok-dong in <I don’t need any foundation or money, I want a sincere apology from Japan> (July 29, 2016, Reporter Park Soo-jin), and Kyunghyang Shinmun reported critiques of civic groups such as the Korean Council in <The Korean Council “The government closed its ears on the voices of survivors…Who is the foundation for”> (July 29, 2016, Reporter Noh Do-hyun).

△ Coverages of 5 major newspapers on establishment of the Reconciliation and Healing Foundation (July 29, 2016) ⒸCitizens’ Coalition for Democratic Media

4. Let’s return to “victims’ voices” for resolution of the issue

“I am alive. It is senseless to argue that [the Japanese military sexual slavery system] did not exist.”

August 14, 1991. When Kim Hak-soon gave her first testimony on August 14, 1991, every media channel shared her voice in their newspapers.

“Given Kim’s testimony, we believe the Japanese government should officially apologize and pay reparations for the Japanese military sexual slavery issue. In addition, the Korean government should actively provide support through initiatives such as building memorials for victims who have been hidden in the shadows of history.” (Chosun Ilbo), “The fact that they have not even provided a formal apology, let alone reparations, proves how cunning and shameless they are.… It’s not too late. ‘Comfort women’ victims have overcome major hardships in their lives and have transcended honor and disgrace. For the sake of the historical record, we must document their testimonies.” (JoongAng Daily). Media that had made these remarks are arguing for the opposite in less than 30 years. What made them change their stance?

Much has changed over the last 30 years. Korea developed economically. Politically, democratic governments came into place and the voices of civil society calling for resolution of the “comfort women” issue have grown louder. Japan’s administration changed, and the international state of affairs shifted as well. But does that mean the directions and methods for resolving the Japanese military “comfort women” issue should change as well?

The aspect of media coverage that seems to have changed the most is the presence or absence of “victim-centered approach.” This change is shaped by whether we approach the resolution of the Japanese military “comfort women” issue through the lens of victim-centered approach. In the cases of Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Daily, and Dong-A Ilbo, victims have disappeared from articles. These newspapers claim that we should negotiate with Japan not “for victims” but rather “for the development of the country,” “for the improvement of diplomatic relations,” and “for clearing of history.” Some editorials and columns in The Hankyoreh and Kyunghyang Shinmun criticize politicians for saying “political choices.” For whatever reason, the voices of victim-survivors have disappeared from the media.

It is inherently unreasonable to try to resolve an issue concerning victims without those victims’ voices. The media must return to the victims’ voices. We must continue to demand that Japan provide a genuine and official apology and legal reparations, as well as an education that builds correct historical awareness for its future generations. Peace activist and women’s rights activist Kim Bok-dong left us this will: “Please fight until the end for the resolution of the Japanese military “comfort women” issue. Please keep supporting students of Korean ethnic schools in Japan for me.” – Kim Bok-dong

* Monitoring duration and subject

o Monitoring duration: August 1991, March 1-4, 2015, June 22-24, 2015, December 28-30, 2015, January 13-15, 2016, July 28-30, 2016.

o Monitoring subjects: Kyunghyang Shinmun, Dong-A Ilbo, Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Daily, The Hankyoreh (*limited to newspaper print articles)

[1] Translator’s note: In the early 1990s, Japanese military sexual slavery system and the Women’s Labor Corps, where young women and girls were forced to labor at munitions factories, were often used interchangeably. After more research on the issue, the Japanese military sexual slavery system and Women’s Labor Corps were understood to be separate systems. This note applies to all mentions of Women’s Labor Corps in this report

[2] Translator’s note: this act was enacted by the Korean National Assembly