米山隆一の10年先のために

　少々重い話題になるのですが、現在アメリカの下院議員のMike Honda氏より従軍慰安婦問題について対日非難決議案が提出され、15日に公聴会が開かれました。今後の審議日程は不明ですが、4月頃に採決に付され、採択される可能性もあるとのことです。

　現在日本政府は外交ルートを通じてこの阻止に動いており、その成果が待たれます。

　個人的な見解ですが、私は従軍慰安婦が日本政府の強制において行われたと言う説を信じていません。勿論私は完全な戦後生まれですし、この分野での専門家でもありません。従って私の見解は単なる「推測」に過ぎないのですが、それでもそれにはそれなりの理由があります。

　私は1967年生まれですが、私が小学生の時、こと戦争に関しては世を挙げて「日本性悪史観」とでもいえる考え方が支配的でした。中でも私が小学3年−4年の時に受け持ちだった先生はばりばりの日教組の活動家で、私達はそれこそ徹底的に「日本軍の蛮行」を教えられました。私自身「日本の戦争犯罪」をきちんと認識することが重要だと考えていましたから、彼の授業の他に、推薦された戦争物の書物も数多く読みました。その多くは「児童向け」でしたが、中には五味川純平の「人間の条件」のような一般向けの有名な本もありました。

　それらの著作の中で「慰安婦」の存在を指摘したものはありましたが、日本政府の関与による「従軍慰安婦」を指摘し糾弾したものはありませんでした。又件の教師も、それを教えはしませんでした（資料によると日本軍の関与を指摘した書物は1970年代から出始めていたようですが）。

　それが1980年代、私が高校生になったころから、突如「隠された歴史の悲劇」として従軍慰安婦問題が大々的に取り扱われだしました。当時私はそれを信じたのですが、次第に「何故35年以上も隠しおおせてきたのか？」と言う疑問を感じるようになりました。あれ程に日本の戦争犯罪を暴くことに熱心だった人達から「国家による慰安婦制度の運営」を隠すことは、ちょっとやそっとの事では出来なかったはずです。殊に日本の戦争犯罪は、終戦時に連合軍側の「東京裁判」によって徹底的といっていいほどに洗い出されています。敗戦の混乱の中、日本軍が、組織的に行っていた慰安婦制度の証拠を、連合国の調査からも分からないほどに完全に消し去り、慰安婦の全ての人が羞恥心から誰一人それを連合軍に告発せず、それに関わった日本兵の全てが（少なくとも1950年代以降は自ら関わった日本の戦争犯罪を告白することは、むしろ賞賛される雰囲気だったと思われるにもかかわらず）保身の為に35年間（少なくとも25年間）沈黙を守り続けたと考えるのは、あまりにも無理があるように思います。

　私はその後この話題が出るたびに資料をチェックしているのですが、元慰安婦の方々の証言以外に「日本政府が公式に慰安婦制度を運営していた」事を示す証拠を、浅学にして見たことがありません。元慰安婦の方々の証言は大変痛ましいもので、戦争の悲惨を示す証拠ではありますが、「慰安婦制度は日本政府が運営したものだったのかそれとも民間の劣悪な売春宿だったのか」と言う質問に答えるものではありません。

　戦後60年以上経った今となっては、いくら調べてみたところで、真実を確かめるすべはほとんどないのが実情で、論争は常に水掛け論に終わってしまうことでしょう。しかし現存する証拠と状況から常識的に判断する限り、戦争・終戦時の共通認識だったと資料からうかがい知れる「慰安所は劣悪な売春宿であり、日本軍はこれを許可若しくは黙認して利用していた」と考えるのが妥当であるように私には思えます。そうであれば日本政府がこの範囲で非難を受けるならともかく、やってもいない「従軍慰安婦制度」について非難を受けるいわれは無いわけで、日本政府は明確にそれを論証すべきだと私は考えます（ただし日本政府は1993年の河野談話で一旦「従軍慰安婦制度」への国の関与を公式に認めていますので、その扱いには細心の外交的配慮が必要でしょう。―その意味で河野談話は痛恨であったと言えます）。

　以上の観点から、私は Mike Honda 下院議員の決議案には賛成できないと考え、一個人としての以下の見解をHonda氏にFAX しました。他国の議会の決議案に日本人の私が口を出すのは極めて差し出がましいことなのですが、実はこの決議案それ自体が「アメリカの議会の権限ではない決議を出そうとする」同様に差し出がましいものなので、その辺はおあいこでしょう。氏の決議案の提出は日本にとって不幸ですが、これを契機として互いに真摯に議論しあうことで、日米の相互理解と、関係各国のこの問題についての理解が、少しでも深まっていけばと思います（氏が読んでくれると言う保証は勿論全くありませんが）。

Dear Representative Mike Honda

My name is Ryuichi Yoneyama, and I am a member of the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party.  I am very pleased to submit this letter for your attention.  Although this letter only expresses a private opinion, and does not reflect the views of the LDP, I would be honored if you would hear what I have to say.

I have heard of your vigorous humanitarian activism and admire your endless passion for justice and human rights.  However, I do not support the resolution that you are now proposing in the United States House of Representatives for three reasons: 

First, the widespread notion that the Japanese government recruited Asian women into serving the Japanese army as prostitutes is simply not true.  I believe the truth is that these women were bought or kidnapped by private agents, such as Japanese criminal organizations and other members of the so-called “pleasure quarters”, and were merely utilized by Japanese soldiers.  In short, this was not “official sexual slavery” but private prostitution.  I admit that this prostitution was licensed, or at least condoned, by the Japanese government, but that is totally different from saying that the Japanese government actively recruited women, ran the pleasure quarters, and forced women into sexual slavery. 

Perhaps you might be inclined to say, “This is just your belief; there is no evidence”, and you might be right.  However, the same logic applies to the “official sexual slavery” theory.  As you know, the Allied Powers led by the United States held the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (the Tokyo Trials) just after the end of the war.  Twenty-five Class “A” war criminals were sentenced to death in that court, and over 1000 “B” and “C” Class war criminals were sentenced to death in 49 courts around the world.  However, not a single war criminal was found guilty of sexual slavery.  Why?  Because at that time there was no evidence suggesting the direct participation of the Japanese government or army in sexual slavery.  Everyone, including the Americans, had considered wartime prostitution a private industry.  No accusations were made for decades, and then suddenly, after 38 years, the “official sexual slavery” theory was introduced by several Japanese and Korean scholars.  Although these scholars produced “evidence”, some of it turned out to be forged and some was based on pure misunderstanding.  For example, Mr. Yoshida, a Japan Communist Party politician, published a book saying that, as a soldier in the Japanese army, he forcibly recruited young girls to be “comfort women” on Cheju Island in Korea.  However, when Professor Hata of Nihon University conducted interviews on the island to verify Mr. Yoshida’s claim, he couldn’t find anyone who knew of the recruiting of young girls by the Japanese army.  Mr. Yoshida then admitted that his claim was untrue. 

After these accusations, many people for and against the “official sexually slavery” theory endeavored to find new evidence.  However, until now, no one has found any concrete evidence showing the direct participation of the Japanese government in sexual slavery.

I suspect you would argue that eyewitness accounts and personal testimony have provided the best and most concrete evidence for the “official sexual slavery” theory.  I agree that these witnesses, describing their hardships during the war, were indeed compelled to provide sexual service to Japanese soldiers under miserable conditions.  However, this does not mean they were compelled to do so by the Japanese government.  In fact, I wonder how they knew whether the brothels were run by the Japanese army or by criminal gangs?  As you can imagine, these women must have been terrified, and were frightened young girls who didn’t understand Japanese very well.  To these women, there was no difference between the Japanese gangsters who forced them into prostitution and the Japanese soldiers who bought them as “good customers”, and thus no difference between private prostitution and “official sexual slavery”.  There was no hope in their lives regardless of the situation.

I am indeed truly sorry for the hellish conditions that these women experienced, and am ashamed that the war started by the Japanese government resulted in such a miserable fate.  Nevertheless, we should recognize that the situation I’ve just described is quite different from saying that the Japanese government forced these women into sex slavery, and thus the government bears the primary responsibility for their suffering.

What I want to say is that we are ready to be judged by humanity with objective facts and concrete evidence, but not by someone’s “belief”.  It is my hope that you, who have devoted your life to realizing justice and protecting human rights, will also share this conviction.

The second reason for my objection is that the Japanese government has already admitted responsibility for the war and apologized repeatedly.  As you know, the number of official apologies currently stands at 36.  Some of these apologies were made by emperors, while others were made by prime ministers.  Furthermore, the Japanese government has admitted its participation in sexual slavery during the war, and an apology was made in 1993 by Yohei Kono, then Chief Cabinet Secretary. 

You may think that it is contradictory for me to point out the government’s apology while also saying that I don’t believe in the direct participation of the Japanese government in sexual slavery.  I would argue that this shows sincerity, not inconsistency.  We Japanese really feel sorry for these women.  Even if prostitution was run by the private sector, we know that the war was started by the Japanese government, that the Japanese government licensed or condoned “pleasure quarters” for the army, and that Japanese soldiers did in fact make use of these brothels.  We know that the lives of these women were desperate, whether they were “official sex slaves” or private prostitutes.  The government’s participation in wartime prostitution, whether direct or indirect, is a heavy responsibility.  This is why the Japanese government has apologized repeatedly. 

If you believe that the Japanese government has not yet apologized, that is a misunderstanding on your part.  However, if you think the government should apologize again because its previous apologies were not sincere, I simply want to say, “Please believe us; we are very sorry from the bottom of our hearts.”

The third and final part of my objection is philosophical.  Although we are very sorry for these women and are willing to apologize to them, I don’t think anyone is authorized to dictate to us when or how this should be done.  If one person has the right to arbitrarily demand an apology, then shouldn’t everyone be able to do so?  After all, we are all equal as human beings.  If this were to happen, the world would be full of repeated accusations and endless apologies.  The United States, for example, may someday be pressured to apologize to the Vietnamese for the Vietnam War.  Vietnam may someday be pressured to apologize to the Cambodians for the invasion of Cambodia.  Cambodia may someday be pressured to apologize to the victims of the Khmer Rouge, including American victims.  While I don’t know if these apologies are necessary, I am very sure that such accusations only serve to incite more hatred. 

As you know, human beings have made many errors resulting in tragedy, and the world is full of the remorse of people crushed by the irresistible forces of destiny.  I believe that these tragic episodes in history cannot be overcome by accusing each other but rather by understanding each other.  I really hope that you—someone who has devoted his life to justice and human rights—will share this idea with us. 

It is my fondest wish that this letter will give you a reason to rethink your proposal in the House of Representatives.  Thank you very much for your time.

With regards,
Ryuichi Yoneyama