Chinese Comfort Women (32 page)

The efforts of Japanese lawyers, researchers, and citizen groups are particularly remarkable because they are working under extremely difficult circumstances: those in Japan who pursue the issue of Japan’s responsibility for war crimes continue to face abusive messages and threats of violence. Attorney Ōmori Noriko, whose meeting with Kang Jian at the United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in September 1995 led to a transnational collaboration representing Chinese comfort women, views her effort to support these people as a meaningful service to her own country as well. “If we truly care about Japan’s future,” she said, “we must ensure that Japan can obtain full trust from the world in terms of moral principles, and particularly that Japan can form a truly friendly relationship with Asian countries. Now concerning the ‘comfort women’ issue, so many countries are still seeking a sincere apology and, above all, they want to see the Japanese government take responsible action to help heal the victims’ wounded hearts in the remaining days of their lives. It is not acceptable to say that the issue belongs to the past.”
⁶
Onodera said to a Chinese newspaper reporter at an interview that these Japanese lawyers, scholars, and citizens shared a firm belief: “Japan and Japanese people cannot win the trust of Chinese people and other people of Asian nations unless we assume our responsibilities for the war victims.”
⁷
Words and actions such as theirs have won the hearts of the Chinese people. In 2003, Oyama Hiroshi became the first non-Chinese national chosen to receive the China Central Television annual award, People Who Moved All China.

Since 1995, several transnational groups have been formed to support the litigation brought forward by former Chinese comfort women. Among these is the Association to Support the Lawsuits of Chinese Comfort Women, which is led by Ōmori Noriko and consists of peace activists and Japanese citizens. This group has worked with the Japanese organization known as the Association to Support the Claims of Chinese War Victims as well as with the Chinese lawyer Kang Jian on the Shanxi victims’ lawsuits. Another group, led by Japanese historian Ishida Yoneko and called the Association for Uncovering the Facts of Sexual Violence Committed by the Japanese Military in China and Supporting the Legal Cases for Redress (
Chūgoku ni okeru
Nihongun no seibōryoku no jittai o akiraka ni shi, baishō seikyū o shiensuru kai
),
⁸
made multiple trips to Shanxi Province beginning in 1996 to work with local Chinese victims and volunteers. Members of the association are volunteers and come from different areas of Japan. The results of their investigation contributed to the supporting evidence for the Shanxi women’s lawsuits. In southern China a joint investigation into the comfort women system on Hainan Island was conducted by a transnational group and local supporters: Onodera Toshitaka and members of the Japanese Legal Team for Chinese War Victims’ Compensation Claims, along with Kang Jian, participated in the investigation. Another transnational group, this one led by Su Zhiliang, Chen Lifei, and the Japanese writer Nishino Rumiko, also engaged in multiyear investigations into the issues of comfort women, forced labour, and other atrocities committed by the Japanese military in the Hainan area. In Taiwan, Tsuchiya Kōken, president of the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, and Arimitsu Ken, chief coordinator of the Japanese Post-War Compensation Network, helped form a transnational legal team representing the Taiwanese victims. Japanese attorney Shimizu Yukiko and Taiwanese attorney Wang Ching-feng headed the team.
⁹
Assisted by local volunteers, these transnational groups played an important role in the Chinese comfort women’s redress movement.

Figure 22
“Comfort station” survivor Mao Yinmei (middle) in front of her house with Su Zhiliang (second from right) and researchers from Germany and Japan.

With the support of the non-governmental transnational groups, surviving Chinese comfort women filed five lawsuits with Japanese courts between 1995 and 2001; four of these suits were filed by women from Mainland China and one was filed by women from Taiwan. As of 3 March 2010, all the cases have been denied. The decisions of the Japanese courts, as seen in the brief summaries below, were based on nullification defence arguments – namely, “statutory time limitation,” “state immunity,” and “abandonment of the right to claim.”

The First Lawsuit Brought Forward by Former Chinese Comfort Women

On 7 August 1995, Li Xiumei, Liu Mianhuan, Zhou Xixiang, and Chen Lintao of Yu County, Shanxi Province, filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court, demanding an official apology from the Japanese government and 20 million
yen
(about $US211,000) per victim for having been taken by the Japanese army and used as sex slaves between 1942 and 1944.
¹⁰
A Japanese legal team led by Ōmori Noriko and Chinese attorney Kang Jian represented the plaintiffs. Li Xiumei and Liu Mianhuan attended the court hearing on 19 July 1996 and alleged that, at ages fifteen and sixteen, respectively, they were kidnapped from their home village by Japanese soldiers, confined in a Japanese fortress, and continually raped. Torture inflicted by Japanese soldiers permanently damaged Li’s right eye and injured Liu’s left shoulder. Six years later, on 30 May 2001, the Tokyo District Court dismissed the case on the grounds that an individual had no right to sue a state for compensation. The plaintiffs appealed to the Tokyo High Court on 12 June 2001. On 15 December 2004, the Tokyo High Court rejected the plaintiffs’ appeal, stating that the Japanese government had no responsibility for damages and that the statute of limitations had expired, even though the court recognized that the four plaintiffs had been taken to Japanese military bases by force and repeatedly raped and that they continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder after the war.
¹¹
The plaintiffs immediately appealed to Japan’s Supreme Court. On 27 April 2007, the Supreme Court delivered a half-page judgment rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims.
¹²

The Second Lawsuit

On 22 February 1996, Guo Xicui and Hou Qiaolian from Yu County sued the Government of Japan in the Tokyo District Court, asking for an official apology and 20 million
yen
(about US $190,000)
¹³
per individual as compensation for sufferings endured as sex slaves for the Japanese military.
¹⁴
A Japanese
legal team led by Ōmori Noriko and Kang Jian represented the plaintiffs. Reportedly, Guo was fifteen and Hou was thirteen years old when each was kidnapped, confined, and raped by Japanese soldiers on a daily basis for more than a month in 1942.
¹⁵
Again the Tokyo District Court waited for six years to hand down its verdict. One of the plaintiffs, Hou Qiaolian, died on 11 May 1999 while the case was pending. The court rejected the victims’ compensation claims on 29 March 2002. The decision cited a rule stipulating that the current government could not be held responsible for any acts by the state under the former Constitution of the Empire of Japan.
¹⁶
The surviving plaintiff appealed to the Tokyo High Court. Three years later, on 18 March 2005, the Tokyo High Court upheld the earlier district court’s ruling. While acknowledging the fact that the Japanese troops forcibly kidnapped, confined, beat, and raped the two women, and that, as a result, they suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, the court held that China had waived its right to seek compensation from Japan under the 1952 peace treaty between Japan and the Nationalist regime in Taiwan and that the twenty-year statute of limitations had elapsed.
¹⁷
On the day the Tokyo High Court ruled, the following groups presented a joint statement protesting the judgment: the All China Lawyers Association, the All-China Women’s Federation, the China Foundation for Human Rights Development, and the Association on the History of the Resistance War.

The surviving plaintiff, Guo Xicui, lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court of Japan on 30 March 2005. On 27 April 2007, the Supreme Court issued a final judgment on the appeal, upholding the Tokyo High Court ruling against the compensation claim. Despite its recognition of the damage done to the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court took the position that, under the 1972 Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué, Chinese people lost their rights to judicially claim war compensation from Japan.
¹⁸
It interpreted the communiqué as “a framework like the San Francisco Peace Treaty,” which was signed between Japan and the Allied powers in 1951 and that waived all Allied reparation claims, including the right of individuals to seek compensation.
¹⁹
At a press conference after the court decision, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao strongly opposed the Japanese Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Joint Communiqué and asked the Japanese government to deal seriously with China’s concerns and to handle the war reparation issue properly.
²⁰

The Third Lawsuit

On 30 October 1998, ten more Chinese victims of the military comfort women system, including Wan Aihua, Zhao Runmei, Gao Yin’e, Wang Gaihe, Zhao Cunni, Yang Shizhen, Yin Yulin, and the daughter of deceased victim Nan
Erpu, filed a lawsuit against the Government of Japan at the Tokyo District Court, demanding a public apology from the Japanese government and 20 million
yen
for each individual victim. A Japanese legal team headed by Nakashita Yūko represented the plaintiffs. The court did not rule until nearly five years later, when, on 24 April 2003, it denied the plaintiffs’ claim for compensation.
²¹
At the end of the judgment, Presiding Judge Takizawa Takaomi recognized all the allegations made by the plaintiffs, stating that “The actions of the Japanese soldiers were abnormal, contemptible and barbaric, even if they were carried out in wartime,” but he had “no choice but to deny judicial relief through the application of (existing) laws.”
²²
The plaintiffs appealed to the Tokyo High Court on 8 May 2003, and on 31 March 2005 the High Court upheld the verdict of the district court. By that time four of the plaintiffs had died.
²³
The plaintiffs appealed to Japan’s Supreme Court, but their appeal was denied in December 2005.
²⁴

The Fourth Lawsuit

On 16 July 2001, Huang Youliang and Chen Yabian, both from Lingshui County, and Lin Yajin, Deng Yumin, Chen Jinyu, Tan Yadong, Tan Yulian, and Huang Yufeng, all from Baoting County, Hainan Province, sued the Government of Japan in the Tokyo District Court. A Japanese legal team led by Onodera Toshitaka and Chinese attorney Kang Jian represented the plaintiffs. Reportedly, all eight ethnic minority women had been between fourteen and eighteen years old when Japanese forces occupied their hometowns and forced them into sexual slavery. Initially, the plaintiffs demanded only that the Government of Japan publish an official apology and compensate each individual with 3 million
yen
(about US$24,096).
²⁵
As the Japanese government did not respond to their demands, after three years had passed, the plaintiffs increased the claim for compensation to 20 million
yen
for each victim.
²⁶
The court did not issue a judgment until five years later, during which time two of the plaintiffs died. In support of the former comfort women’s lawsuit, 20,166 residents of Hainan Province signed a petition in March 2006.
²⁷
The Tokyo District Court finally made a decision on 30 August 2006, denying the victims’ claims and maintaining that an individual Chinese person had no right to sue the Japanese state. The surviving plaintiffs lodged an appeal with the Tokyo High Court, but, on 26 March 2009, it upheld the initial verdict of the district court. Indignant over the ruling, the plaintiffs pledged to appeal to the Japanese Supreme Court.
²⁸
On 3 March 2010, the Supreme Court of Japan rejected the appeal of the eight Chinese comfort women, upholding the verdicts of the first and second trials. On 8 March 2010, commenting on the Japanese Supreme Court’s argument that the plaintiffs lost
the right to claim individual compensation when China signed the Sino-Japanese Joint Communiqué, Qin Gang (China’s foreign ministry spokesperson), made the following remarks: “The Sino-Japanese Joint Statement is a serious political document between the two governments. Any unilateral interpretation of the document by the Japanese court is illegal and invalid.”
²⁹