A natural path taken to become a human rights lawyer

Q. Nice to meet you, Mr. Totsuka Etsuro. Please introduce yourself briefly for the Kyeol webzine readers.

After becoming a lawyer in 1973, I worked under the late lawyer Kashiwagi Hiroshi (柏木博), who was highly conscious about human rights, and dealt with many cases. I did not feel very motivated for other areas, but when my colleague introduced me to the lawsuit on the SMON (Subacute Myelo-Optic Neuropathy) disease, I felt that I could work hard for the victims of a large-scale drug case. Since then, I focused on cases related to arbitrary detention or abuse in psychiatric hospitals.

I became a human rights lawyer probably because of the education I had received. I entered a middle school that was affiliated with a mission school called Rikkyo University and continued to receive Christian education. I think I was unconsciously influenced by that to a great degree. I studied physics in the science department in college. Most of my fellow students went to work in the nuclear industry, but I realized the dangers of nuclear power and left the field, which made me 'the lost lamb.' Afterwards, I prepared to study artificial intelligence engineering in the USA, but my English wasn’t good enough. Turning to my second best option, I enrolled in a graduate school majoring in psychology and studied English at night. Unfortunately, neither of those studies went well. Consequently, I transferred to law school to find an employment, following my father's advice who was a former law student. I passed the national civil service examination, but my appointment did not go as I expected. I subsequently took the bar exam to become a human rights lawyer. I think I was very lucky to pass the examination.

In August 1984, I participated in the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (SCPPHR) in Geneva for the first time. Thanks to the advice I received from a senior lawyer who had experiences with the UN, I was able to participate as a representative for the International League for Human Rights (ILHR) of the Japan Civil Liberties Union (JCLU). I focused on the human rights in the mental health sector for some time after becoming a human rights lawyer, and then went abroad to study in England after the enactment and enforcement of the Mental Health Law in 1987. By then, I had been almost 'burned out' from my activities. In England, I studied international law to guarantee human rights at the LLM programme of the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).

Discovering the 'comfort women' issue while studying international law to guarantee human rights in Japan

Q. You raised the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue for the first time at the UN in 1992. What was your motivation?

As I began my research for the introduction of international law to guarantee human rights in Japan, such as the ratification of international agreements on individual communications, I came to think that relevant UN human rights activities are important. I wanted to make Japan a better country by introducing the international law to protect human rights in Japan.
Consequently, on February 17, 1992, on behalf of the International Educational Development (IED), a non-governmental organization, I stated at the UNCHR that, "'comfort women' were sex slaves" and requested UN’s mediation. At the meeting of the ‘Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery’ in May of that year, I demanded an investigation into the violation of the slavery ban as well as the violation of the International Labour Organization's (ILO) Forced Labour Convention (No.29). That was also my significant activity at the time.

Q. How did you first become interested in the Japanese military ‘comfort women’ issue?

While working in partnership with Motoka Shoji (本岡昭次), the late senator of the House of Councilors, the National Diet of Japan, I watched closely beside him as he devoted himself to the ’comfort women’ issue since about 1990. I read relevant literature extensively, gave internal advice for him, or helped him deal with the questions posed by the National Diet of Japan.

Intense repercussions and backlashes strengthen the motivation

Q. What was the response at the time when you raised the ’comfort women’ issue at the UN?

Of all the statements I had made at the UN, my statement on the "sex slave" at the UNCHR in 1922 created the biggest repercussions. First of all, the South Korean government gave a speech that welcomed my statement. Secondly, the Japanese Ambassador Katsumi Sezaki (瀬崎克己) showed a degree of caution and sincerity that he had never shown before. When he saw me entering the conference room before my speech, he inquired, "Do you know who will give a speech on the ’comfort women’ issue?" to seek some information. He was very surprised when I replied, "I will." He probably expected that the speaker would be from South Korea. All his responses to my remarks at the time were sincere, unlike those of the recent Japanese government’s. Thirdly, shortly after my speech, a staff member from the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), one of the most prominent NGOs of the UN, approached me. He gave me detailed advice by mentioning that, "This issue is extremely important and thus requires continuous reviews. Why don't you address it at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), or at the SCPPHR’s Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery?" It was my first time to encounter these kinds of responses.

Finally, the most surprising response was the emotional backlash of Japanese journalists, except for those from the Mainichi Newspapers. All Japanese correspondents were male at the time, and I had never witnessed such extreme and severe responses before. Their responses were so weird that they were certainly comparable to todays’ ‘Net Right’ (the extreme right-wing Internet users). I was extremely shocked. When I heard insulting remarks such as, "Are you even a jurist, after what you’ve done?" I replied to them angrily, "I am a qualified jurist, indeed." I thought 'I’ll study the issue thoroughly to make legal arguments! The UN will judge which side is legally right.' These experiences became the starting point for my research and the motivation to go on with my UN activities instead of a single speech. When the ICJ report finally came out in 1994, I thought, ‘This has proven that I am a jurist, indeed.'

Shortly after my speech at the UNCHR in February 1992, I received requests for support from a group of Korean residents in Japan through senator Motoka, and also from the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance through the World Council of Churches (WCC).

Interview with Totsuka Etsuro, an international lawyer representing Japan’s conscience - Part 2