240708_subimg.png

For the Joint Nomination of Documents on the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” to UNESCO Memory of the World Register (3)

Typically, the UNESCO Memory of the World (MoW) program is managed by a small team at UNESCO Headquarters, along with the International Advisory Committee (IAC), which comprises 14 experts in documentary heritage. The Register Subcommittee (RSC), under the IAC, pre-screens applications to assess their potential for inscription and reports its findings to the IAC meeting. The IAC oversees the project’s operation, holds meetings every two years to review submitted applications, selects candidates for inscription, and then recommends its decision to the UNESCO Director-General. The results are officially announced by the Director-General of UNESCO.

Decision to Postpone Inscription Pending “Dialogue”

In 2017, a series of “unusual” events occurred that deviated significantly from the typical process. The application deadline, initially set for late March 2016, was extended to May 31. Additionally, the IAC meeting, originally scheduled for September 2017, was pushed back to October 24 without any explanation. Even more surprising was a report from Japan, released before the IAC meeting had even taken place, which stated that the decision to register the documents related to the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” would be postponed. These inexplicable developments were inconsistent with the established process up to that point.

On October 16, about ten days before the postponed IAC meeting, UNESCO’s Executive Board, the organization’s key decision-making body, convened. The Executive Board approved the addition of a clause allowing for a decision that “requires ‘dialogue’ between two applications with conflicting views.” Additionally, at the IAC meeting held on October 24, an unprecedented decision was made to “postpone pending dialogue” regarding the inscription of documents related to the Japanese Military “Comfort Women.” Upon receiving this decision, the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” Victims Support and Commemoration Project Team (hereinafter referred to as Project Team) immediately exercised its right to speak and raised the issue. However, on October 30, the Director-General of UNESCO announced the deliberation results, stating that “dialogue between the two applicants” from Korea and Japan would proceed without further action.

It was not difficult to infer that the anomalies during the 2017 UNESCO MoW inscription process were orchestrated by the Japanese government. The Japanese side applied hastily after the deadline had been extended, which led to the perception that there were “conflicting views” regarding the documents on the Japanese Military “Comfort Women.” Citing these conflicting views, the IAC meeting was postponed, and an unprecedented decision was made to “postpone pending dialogue,” invoking the “dialogue” regulation established by the Executive Board.

사진 2_2017년 10월 결정문 원문.png

The Exploited History of Japanese Military “Comfort Women”: Who Is Creating Historical Conflicts?

Japan’s aggressive diplomatic activities are not new. Although the history wars surrounding UNESCO are often said to have begun in 2014, when China applied for the inscription of the Nanjing Massacre documents and the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” records, it is more plausible to view the real beginning as Japan’s attempt to have Meiji-era industrial heritage sites, including Hashima Island, inscribed as UNESCO World Heritage sites. Following former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s “Strong Japan, Proud Japan” slogan, Japan pursued the inscription of coal and mining industry sites under the name “Meiji Japan’s

사진 1.jpeg

Industrial Revolution.” Among these sites was Shokasonjuku Academy, a school run by right-wing figure Yoshida Shoin, whom Abe admired. The inclusion of Shokasonjuku, known as a breeding ground for imperialism, signified an attempt to acknowledge Japan’s colonial rule and aggression as a proud part of its history. In contrast, Japan has sought to erase the history of the forced mobilization and suffering endured by Koreans and Chinese in industrial facilities such as Hashima Island.

In response to Japan’s provocation, China and South Korea naturally voiced strong criticism, and UNESCO adopted a cautious stance. It was within this context that China applied for the registration of documents related to the Nanjing Massacre and the Japanese Military “Comfort Women.” By seeking to inscribe these two historical facts, both denied by Japanese historical revisionists, China aimed to expose Japan’s responsibility for its imperialist aggression and war crimes. Until this period, both the Chinese and Japanese governments had left the task of pursuing UNESCO’s MoW inscriptions to the private sector. However, from this point on, they began to take a direct role. Former Prime Minister Abe accused China of politically contaminating UNESCO, but behind the scenes, both governments were deeply involved in UNESCO’s decision-making process.

China applied for the inscription of the Nanjing Massacre documents and the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” records but did not expect both to succeed. Anticipating inevitable conflict with Japan, China judged that it would be difficult for both applications to be accepted. China focused on the Nanjing Massacre documents and used the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” records as a bargaining chip—a strategic sacrifice aimed at gaining concessions. The fact that International Committee for the Joint Nomination of Documents on the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” to UNESCO Memory of the World Register (ICJN), comprising 15 organizations from eight countries including China, was already preparing the “Voices of the ‘Comfort Women’” application likely made this sacrifice easier for China to consider.

After the successful inscription of the Nanjing Massacre documents on UNESCO’s MoW Register, the Chinese government ceased actively supporting the registration of the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” records. When the Project Team attempted to submit the “Voices of ‘Comfort Women’” application, it felt that China was actively hindering its efforts due to China’s relentless pressure to prevent the use of Taiwan’s official name. Both Japan and China have, in different ways, exploited or sacrificed the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” issue by placing it at the forefront of their historical disputes.

The inscription of the Nanjing Massacre documents as a UNESCO MoW in 2015 came as a significant shock to Japanese right-wingers. This event marked a turning point for the Abe administration to intensify its history war. In a meeting with Liberal Democratic Party members, former Prime Minister Abe remarked, “In two years, the ‘Comfort Women’ issue will come up. It’s crucial to be fully prepared from now on,” signaling a strong push to block the inscription of the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” records. Subsequently, Japan announced that it would suspend its financial contributions to UNESCO and demanded reforms to the inscription system.

After Japan exerted overt diplomatic pressure, UNESCO relented and announced that it would begin revising its regulations. In 2015, the IAC placed the issue on its agenda for discussion. At the time, Japan anticipated that completing the revision process before the 2017 meeting and conducting reviews under the new regulations would enable it to block the inscription of the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” records. However, a comprehensive revision of the regulations did not occur. Instead, the 202nd session of the Executive Board concluded with the insertion of a clause stating that, as a compromise or workaround, “a decision may be made to require a ‘dialogue’ between two applications with conflicting views” (202 EX/PX/DR 15.8, Item 15). The IAC then used this clause to postpone the inscription of the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” records. In response, the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs protested, and efforts to pursue the inscription were stalled for over five years.

Emerging History Records: The Slow-moving “Dialogue” Process

As of late August 2024, the World Heritage inscription project is suspended, but the two applicants for the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” records are engaging in a “dialogue process” by mutual agreement. However, this process does not have the support of the UNESCO Secretariat. The Secretariat has not provided any details about the dialogue process, including when it will start, how it will proceed, when it will end, and what will happen if the dialogue fails to resolve.

The ICJN has consistently argued that since the inscription application was made in 2017, it should be governed by the old regulations, not the new ones. Additionally, it has maintained that after the dialogue concludes, the RSC assessment should be accepted and the joint nomination should proceed. The materials submitted by the Japanese side, consisting of three Japanese organizations and one American organization, include a total of six documents.^[1] These documents are objectively significant. Among them, the materials held by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) of the United States and the Japan Ministry of Defense^[1] are also included in the “Voices of ‘Comfort Women’” collection, indicating some overlap. Although the other documents held by the Ministry of Defense and the Japan Media Reporting and Production Research Centre are not included in the “Voices of ‘Comfort Women’” collection, they are important documents that could be included at any time. Therefore, the ICJN considered that discussing these documents was entirely feasible.

In May 2018, the UNESCO Secretariat announced that it had selected a mediator without any prior exchange of information regarding the topics and methods of the dialogue. Despite this, the ICJN remained committed to proceeding with the dialogue process in good faith and prepared to accept the mediator. However, the first mediator resigned after one year, having failed to establish a concrete and meaningful dialogue process. In June 2019, the UNESCO Secretariat appointed Ingrid Parent, a renowned Canadian archivist and former president of the International Federation of Library Associations, as the second mediator. Ingrid Parent aimed to facilitate an agreement on the “Terms and Conditions for Holding a Dialogue Regarding Two Nominations Concerning ‘Comfort Women’ for the Memory of the World International Register” to enable dialogue between the two applicants. From 2019 to 2024, the ICJN engaged in three virtual meetings and numerous email exchanges with the mediator to finalize the conditions for holding the dialogue. However, Japan repeatedly introduced additional conditions, which ultimately prevented the dialogue from taking place. Ingrid Parent completed her term without achieving a resolution. As of now, the UNESCO Secretariat has not provided any further guidance on how the dialogue process will proceed in the future.

In 2022, as a result of Japan’s aggressive diplomacy, UNESCO’s MoW inscription rules were revised to require all documents to be submitted through national governments. Additionally, if a concerned country objects, the application is halted from entering the review process and must instead undergo a so-called “dialogue” procedure. Under these revised rules, any attempt by a victimized country to submit documents related to the Japanese Military “Comfort Women” is likely to be blocked before even reaching the review stage due to Japan’s opposition.

Thus far, the 14 organizations representing citizen groups from seven different countries have navigated various obstacles, sometimes avoiding them and other times overcoming them, as they advanced the inscription process. After enduring a long and challenging journey to jointly nominate the “Voices of ‘Comfort Women,’” they remain steadfast in their conviction that they cannot give up at this stage.

The ICJN will endure the unreasonable processes at the forefront of the historical battles unfolding within UNESCO, participating in the dialogue process with patience and dedication, and ultimately prevail. Furthermore, it will persist in its efforts and advocacy to protect vital global documents from various threats, upholding UNESCO’s MoW principles and vision. This includes ensuring that “the world’s documentary heritage should be fully preserved for all, with due recognition of cultural practices and practicalities, and permanently accessible to everyone without interference,” and defending these principles against any unjust power.

The new records generated during this process will become “contemporary historical documents,” demonstrating that the issue of Japanese Military “Comfort Women” extends to the present and that justice is being pursued for all victims.