“Comfort Girls”: The Forgotten Tragedy of Child Exploitation

What about the Children? “Comfort Women” and “Comfort Girls”

It is widely acknowledged that the Japanese “Comfort Women” system was established by the Japanese Imperial Army to sustain their war efforts during the Asia-Pacific War period (1931-1945). Recent scholarship points to evidence of the “sexual comfort facilities” that predates this period, as early as in 1896 in Taiwan, which was annexed by Japan after its victory in the Sino-Japanese War.^[1] Within these discussions about the history of Japanese military “comfort stations” and “Comfort Women,” is a focus that is relatively lost about children.

A few scholarly works use the term “Comfort Girls-Women” to underscore the “young age” of victims that were subjected to sexual enslavement.^[2] However, apart from these studies, and the ample testimonies from Korean “Comfort Women” that discuss their underage status at the time of their sexual assault, discussions about Japanese “Comfort Women” system as a case involving children is not commonplace.

The Girls

There have been numerous publicly available testimonies from Korean “Comfort Women” that support the examination for the sexual violence these women suffered as a violation of girls or children’s rights.^[3] In fact, while there are occasional discrepancies in reported ages, a large body of consistent testimonies from survivors in Korea, China, the Philippines, and other regions indicate that many were taken at a very young age, often in their teens. Testimonies from Korean “Comfort Women” reveal the age of many of the Korean girls who were abducted, falsely recruited for work, and sexually enslaved. The age ranges vary from 17, 16, 14, to 13-year-olds who were forcibly taken.

Kim Choon-ja was underage at the time when she was pressured to volunteer for Japan’s Women’s Patriotic Service Corps. Choon-ja, along with four other girls were misinformed about the work they would do, raped by five Japanese army officers, and forced to board a Japanese troop train headed for China. In China, they were coerced into sexual enslavement in comfort stations. Moon Pil-gi was told at the age of 16 that work at a Japanese factory included support for her studies. Before she agreed to any terms, she was abducted, forced on a train to China, and made to work in a comfort station.

Another testimony from a Korean “Comfort Woman” Kim Tŏk-chin describes a similar story. Tŏk-chin was 17 years old when she was deceived by a Korean man who was “recruiting girls to work in the Japanese factories” in the beginning of February 1937. Coming from a low-income background, Tŏk-chin believed that by working overseas in Japan she would be able to help lift her family from poverty. Things did not turn out as she had hoped. Tŏk-chin and other girls, who were told a similar job recruitment story, were taken to Nagasaki, Japan, raped by soldiers for many days, then transported to Shanghai, China, and forced to work in a comfort station.

At times, girls were forcedly taken or abducted at an earlier age. Seok Soon-hee was abducted at the age of 14, and Kim Bong-yi and Gong Jeom-yeop were forcedly taken at the age of 16. These girls were forced to work in sexual slavery in Japan and in a comfort station in Inner Mongolia, where due to the unwillingness of Japanese soldiers to wear condoms, they contracted sexually transmitted diseases.

* https://www.archive814.or.kr/record/recordDetailView.do?recordId=939&recordDetailType=formDetail

These testimonies are a few of the many stories from Korean victim-survivors of comfort station violence. Many of these victims were girls who had not even had their first menstrual cycles, as was the case of Moon Pil-gi, who only got her first period after about a year of working in a comfort station. They were children. Existing international legal documents at the time of the crime, such as the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Minimum Age (Non-Industrial Employment) Convention of 1932 provide some guidance about the specific age range for childhood. Namely, under Article 2 of the ILO Convention, a child’s age is referred to as those either under 14 or those over 14 who are protected by “national laws or regulations to attend primary school.”^[4] Similar ideas are echoed in the Japan’s Child Welfare Act established in 1947, where a child is defined as a “person under 18 years of age.”^[5] These standards support the consideration that the shared stories from Korean victim-survivors were of children.

International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children

Thinking about the case of “Comfort Women” not only as a violation of women’s rights, gender-based violence, or torture of peoples, but to consider this as a case involving girls and children opens a new set of arguments about this horrific crime. How was it possible for young girls who were not even menstruating to be subjected to sexual violence? Aren’t children the most vulnerable population that ought to be protected at all costs, regardless of the status of conflict in international affairs?

The strongest case to be made against the Japanese Imperial government that implicates them in having knowingly forced Korean girls into sexual enslavement comes from international human rights law. At the time when comfort stations were most active during the Asia-Pacific War, Japan became legally bound to an international legal document that protected the rights of girls, known as the 1921 International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children.^[6] According to this Convention, the trafficking of children and girls is prohibited. In fact, trafficking of children and girls, even if there was supposed “consent” obtained by a woman or girl “underage,” is considered a violation of the Convention. The Convention also specified that countries that violate the Convention may be punishable or prosecuted. In other words, any act to even employ a minor, in this case a girl underage, would be sufficient to constitute a violation of the legal norms of the Convention.

* https://media.un.org/photo/en/asset/oun7/oun7519691

From the original ideas of the Convention, one could see how any activity involving sexual violence or trafficking involving girls would be problematic. However, the Imperial Japanese government was careful in how it was going to comply with this Convention. In acceding definitively to the Convention—which indicates that a state is legally bound to the norms in the Convention—the government put forward a reservation clause that allows states to be excluded from following certain norms of the Convention. Japan’s reservation was for the Convention to not be legally binding for activities from the Japanese government occurring in the territories of Chosen (known today as the Korean Peninsula), Taiwan, the “leased territory of Kwantung” (Guandong Province of China in the south), the Japanese governed portion of Saghalien Island (Sakhalin, an island under the control of Russia), and Japan’s mandated territory in the South Seas (Micronesian Islands).

In short, the reservation clause was put forth to rid the Japanese Imperial government of its troubles with international law. With the reservation clause that excluded the Convention’s oversight of Japan’s activities within certain territories, Japan tried to protect its system of trafficking young girls primarily in the Korean Peninsula and in certain parts of China. As most of the “Comfort Women-Girls” came from Korea, the Japanese government knowingly put forth the reservation clause and specified Chosen to be excluded from the Convention’s oversight. This way, the Imperial government could legally continue its trafficking of Korean girls to comfort stations.

Did the reservation clause protect and absolve Japan of its crimes? The short answer is no. In fact, there was a loophole in the reservation clause. In its reservation clause for the Convention, there were a few territories under Imperial Japanese control that were not listed. These included, the island of Japan, northern China, Inner Mongolia, and even Indonesia. In fact, Japan did not present a modification to the existing reservation for the purpose of widening its scope to include Indonesia, a territory which came under Japanese control in 1942. From the testimonies of Korean “Comfort Girls”, who were girls at the time when they were abducted, misinformed of their job, and sexually violated, many of the girls were trafficked within Korea, then taken to diverse parts of China through trains that crossed through northern China. At times, they were put on a ship and sailed to places like Indonesia.

Kwangtung, a region in southern China, was mentioned in the reservation clause. However, the clause never mentioned northern China where the train route from Korea to China was established. In other words, the moment Korean girls crossed the border into China from Korea on trains, the reservation clause did not apply. Japan, therefore, was violating the norms from the Convention and accountable for the illegal trafficking of girls. Consider also the island of Japan which was not mentioned in the reservation clause. From the moment Korean girls taken from Korean peninsula arrived on Japanese soil, these girls were protected by the norms of the Convention. Lastly, even the trafficking of Korean girls on ships to Indonesia, also not mentioned in the reservation clause, was illegal.

According to the Convention’s original intended purposes, Japan was therefore liable for all the different instances of illegal trafficking of girls in Japan, northern China, Inner Mongolia, and Indonesia.

Counterchallenging the Skeptics

While the evidence of comfort stations, “Comfort Women,” and in this case even “Comfort Girls” is clear, skeptics continue to question the veracity of the testimonies from victim-survivors. Most recently, a scholar claimed that “Comfort Women” knowingly subjected themselves to forced sexual labor and that most of the Korean “Comfort Women’s” testimonies were false.^[7] They argued that the women knew the type of work they were getting involved in, had a legitimate contract, and thus could not be considered as victims of gender-based violence, let alone torture. From their viewpoint, thus, the Japanese Imperial government was not accountable for any comfort station related crimes. In fact, they argued that all evidence regarding “Comfort Girls and Women” were fabricated.

But would this argument hold if we were dealing with children? If we are considering this case as one that involves minors, particularly girls, then, none of the points raised by the skeptics are valid.

Let’s go back to the Convention we discussed previously. The International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children prohibits any contract involving girls or children and explains that such contracts are in violation of the Convention. From many of the Korean “Comfort Women’s” testimonies, we know that they were underage when they were taken to comfort stations. In fact, some were abducted, and in other cases given wrong information about the employment. None were given the “correct” employment information about comfort stations. Moreover, even if we were to believe the skeptics who question the veracity of the testimonies of “Comfort Women-Girls” and accept the idea that there were “contracts” and that underage girls knew about their comfort station jobs, “contracting” underage girls would be in violation of the Convention.

Then, the conclusion is clear. Despite being bound by the norms of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children, the Japanese Imperial government, knowingly trafficked Korean girls and subjected them to sexual violence in comfort stations. Comfort stations represented a policy of children’s rights violations.

“Comfort Girls” as a New Drive for Accountability and Reparations

There have been some policy developments related to redress about comfort station policies such as the recent 2015 bilateral agreement between Japan and South Korea. This agreement includes an official acknowledgement of Japan’s damage to the honor and dignity of large numbers of women, a one-time state-level apology, and a one-time financial contribution for reparations measures. Both the non-recurrent one-time apology and financial reparation contradicted the global practices of states that have previously issued waves of acknowledgements and apologies for their grave human rights crimes.

The 2015 agreement was also made without consistent and active consultation with Korean victim-survivors of comfort stations, of whom only 6 remain alive today. To meaningfully address victim-survivors’ needs, which would likely include demands to expand apologies and reparations beyond that of what was proposed in 2015, it is time to reframe this case as one that involves the violation of girls. Specifically, as a case involving Japan as the violator of children’s rights. Perhaps then, the Japanese government may be willing to reevaluate its position and have more room for negotiation on reparations and accountability.