Solidarity Message to <Anti-War Coalition In Solidarity to Protect Article 9>

People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy(PSPD) has opposed the amendment of peace constitution and rearmament of Japan by Abe administration. We are very concerned about national security bills in a bid to be passed at the National Diet of Japan.

Japan must be prevented from exercising the right of collective self-defense. This will nullify the Japanese peace constitution, particularly article 9, which has served as an anchor of peace in East Asia.

This year is the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII. The memories of the atrocious Japanese colonial rule and aggression in the past in many of its neighboring countries cannot be simply erased.

Japan must stop military buildup and preserve its peace constitution.

We will continue to stand in solidarity with those who are concerned about and marching for peace across Asia-pacific.

Peace & Solidarity

Peace and Disarmament Center, PSPD

11 January 2016

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
UN Headquarters
405 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
USA    

Cc : Zainab Hawa Bangura, UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict
Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Rashida Manjoo, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women
Pablo de Greiff, UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation, and Guarantees of Non-recurrence
H.E. Choi Kyong-lim, President of the UN Human Rights Council
Members of the UN Committee against Torture
Members of the UN Human Rights Committee 
    

Re: Clarification on the UN Secretary-General’s Position on the Recent Republic of Korea-Japan Agreement on Wartime “Comfort Women”

People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) is a non-governmental organization based in Seoul, the Republic of Korea (ROK) with United Nations(UN) ECOSOC consultative status. We are writing to you today to seek clarification of the Secretary-General's position on the recent ROK-Japan agreement on wartime “comfort women”. We express our concern on your recent congratulatory remarks on the agreement, because we view that the agreement was not made in a way to implement the values and principles put forth by the UN, which has emphasized a victim-centered approach.

In the official statement regarding the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan on issues related to “comfort women” from the ROK which was released on 28 December 2015, you welcomed “that the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea have reached an agreement,” and hoped “that the agreement will contribute to improving the bilateral relationship between the two countries.” Following your statement, the ROK President’s Office (Blue House) released a briefing on 1 January 2016, saying that you congratulated President Park Geun-hye, via telephone, on reaching the agreement with Japan, and stated that “history will laud President Park’s courageous decision based on her vision.”   

Yet, the latest agreement between the ROK and Japan hardly reflects the wishes of the victims themselves, nor did the process involve any participation by the victims. Lee Yong-soo, one of the few surviving victims of Japan’s wartime sexual slavery policy, harshly criticized the agreement, saying “The agreement does not reflect the views of former ’comfort women’. I will ignore it completely.”  Ms. Lee condemned the deal as amounting to “a second death of the victims.” The latest agreement indeed does not incorporate any of the demands which include official apologies, legal reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence. The victims have consistently put forward these demands since making their past agony public for the first time in 1991. According to the recent agreement, the Japanese government did promise to provide JPY 1 billion (around 8.3 million USD) for a new special fund to be set up for a foundation for the surviving “comfort women”. However, Mr. Fumio Kishida, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, made it clear that the money was not legal reparation , and still refuses to recognize Japan’s legal responsibility for wartime sexual slavery. However, the governments of both countries have concluded that the latest agreement will be the “final and irreversible” resolution to the “comfort women” issues, thus inviting mounting criticism from inside and outside the ROK.

We would like to remind you that the latest agreement on “comfort women” does not even satisfy the UN recommendations regarding Japan’s wartime sexual slavery and related issues which were made in the past. Different human rights mechanisms of the UN have condemned the acts of wartime sexual slavery committed by Japan as “crimes against humanity,” and recommended that the Japanese government acknowledge its legal responsibility, make formal reparations to the victims, and prosecute the parties responsible for such crimes. During its review on Japan in July 2014, the UN Human Rights Committee noted that most “comfort women” were recruited by, transported to, and managed at Japanese military bases or agencies working on behalf of the Japanese military through force and coercion, and expressed concerns at the Japanese government’s continued denial that these women were “ever mobilized or migrated by force” (CCPR/C/JPY/CO/6, para 11). In August 2014, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed its concerns that the Japanese government had not recognized nor apologized to “comfort women”, and urged the Japanese government to immediately conclude investigations and bring to justice those responsible for human rights violations (CERD/C/JPN/CO/7-9, para 18).

We would also like to point out that the UN and the international community at large uphold a consistent set of victim-centered principles and standards with respect to the rights of victims of human rights violations.

In February 2005, the UN Commission on Human Rights (now the UN Human Rights Council) adopted “Principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity” (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1), followed by “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” (A/60/509/Add.1) adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2005. These two documents endorse the “victim-centered perspective” in international human rights law, and emphasize the victims’ right to justice, right to reparation, and right to know. These documents also stress as essential principles the need to give victims restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, reparation, and redress.

Since its establishment in 2002, the International Criminal Court has also stressed the need for victim participation in all phases of investigation and judicial procedures. “The Chicago Principles on Post-Conflict Justice 2001-2008”, which provide basic guidelines on the handling of atrocities perpetrated under authoritarian rule and amid armed conflicts, also emphasize: “Policies that seek justice for past violations should be victim-centered and should address victims’ rights to remedies and reparations.”

We note with serious concern that your remarks on "welcoming" the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan, and lauding it as a “courageous decision” by the South Korean President are not in line with the human rights principles and positions the UN and the international community have accumulated so far. 

We would therefore like to request your response to the following questions to further clarify your position. 

1. Do you think that the recent agreement between South Korea and Japan satisfy the UN-emphasized principles of the rights of the victims of human rights violations and properly address war crime legacies and past recommendations made by the UN human rights mechanisms to Japan?

2. According to the briefing issued by the Presidential Blue House of the ROK, you phoned the President of the ROK to discuss the recent agreement. Have you done the same with the Prime Minister of Japan? If so, what exactly was discussed or remarked in the latter conversation? If no such conversation took place with the Prime Minister of Japan, why have you had such a conversation with the President of the ROK and not with the Prime Minister of Japan?

3. The UN Secretary-General is obligated to make efforts to promote human rights in all Member States. Therefore, some argue that the UN Secretary-General should help invalidate the recent agreement between the ROK and Japan that seems to condone war crimes. What do you think of this argument?

4. Is the Secretary-General inclined to urge both the government of the Republic of Korea and Japanese governments to resolve the “comfort women” issues through official apologies, legal reparations, and guarantees of non-recurrence from the Japanese state through processes that are actually based upon victim participation?

We thank you for your reply in advance and look forward to hearing back from you at the earliest possible time. If you have any questions or would like clarification, please do not hesitate to contact us at [email protected] or +82 (0)2 723 4250. 

Yours sincerely,

 
Ms. Hyunback Jung
Co-Representative
People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy 

South Korean Civil Society’s Declaration against the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan 

Immediately cease the GSOMIA negotiation

(16 November 2016, Seoul) We, 225 public figures and 113 civil society organisations, call upon Park Geun-hye administration to stop the signing of dogmatic, undemocratic and unpeaceful General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Japan. Both governments held the first meeting in Tokyo on 1st of November, the second meeting in Seoul on 9th of November, the third meeting in Tokyo on 14th of November and tentatively initialed the GSOMIA. The Park administration has already requested the legislative office for examination in an aim to ratify the GSOMIA within this month. We strongly condemn the government’s undemocratic decision and warn the Government to immediately stop negotiation on the GSOMIA.

We strongly protest against the way how negotiation process has been carried out in an unfair and non-transparent manner. As we all recall, this Agreement was secretly carried out to the point of initialing by Lee Myung-bak administration in 2012 and was ceased due to the strong opposition from the people. People were outraged by the fact that the government pushed ahead with the agreement without consensus from the general public with the power vested and the national assembly as the representative body of the government.  

This undemocratic behavior is repeated and getting even worse. The Ministry of National Defense, which is mainly responsible for the GSOMIA has vowed until recently that forming general public consensus is crucial and that the “signing the GSOMIA can only be proceeded with conditions established.” Regardless, the Park Geun-hye administration has disregarded such conditions and without any attempt to reach a general public’ s consensus, it has decided to continue signing the GSOMIA like a military operation. 
 
While South Korean people are angered and shocked by the recent Presidential scandal, the GSOMIA is being enforced. As proved by a million protesting on 12th of November, majority of people are calling for the President’s immediate resignation. As the Park administration has failed to carry out the constitutional responsibility bestowed by the people, it is not qualified to proceed the GSOMNIA. Paradoxically speaking, this GSOMIA negotiation clearly proves that the President must not be involved both in domestic and international affairs. 
 

We are extremely concerned about the negative impact of the GSOMIA. The government has granted indulgence through abruptly settling on the Agreement on ‘comfort women’ to Abe Shinzo administration in Japan, which has been right wing-led and distorted its history of aggression. Signing the GSOMIA will rather encourage Japan’s remilitarization and exercise of collective self-defense. As the most affected victims of Japanese imperialism, we will not accept the government to blindly take such actions.  

The GSOMIA will instigate the possible new cold war in Northeast Asia. Republic of Korea is the closest neighboring country to North Korea, an explicit enemy of the US-Japan alliance, and China and Russia, strategic competitor countries of US. The reason for the US-Japan alliance to include South Korea in their military strategy largely lies in geopolitical factor. The Korean Peninsula will be a strategic advantage as battle front and troop as the last resort. The South Korea-US-Japan Military Information Sharing Pact signed in 2014 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) deployment decision made in this July are in the same context. Such South Korea’s trilateral alliance may raise increasing concern in strengthening the trilateral alliance between North Korea, China and Russia. The result will be a new cold war in Northeast Asia and exacerbation of arms race as well as permanent loss of peace on the Korean Peninsula. As the victim of cold war, we will not allow the re-emergence of a new cold war. 

Some may assert that military cooperation with Japan is necessary in a pragmatic approach against the acceleration of North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapon threats. Nevertheless, the GSOMIA for trilateral missile defense system establishment will not assure South Korea’s safety. According to a report published by the US Congress Research Service (CRS) in June, 2013, it is assured that “South Korea might not benefit as much, because it is so close to North Korea that incoming missiles would likely fly on a lower trajectory and could arrive in a matter of minutes.” Considering our reality that we are still under ceasefire, this is a valid criticism. 

Military approach like the GSOMIA will clearly not stop North Korea’s nuclear development. This is just expansive reproduction of a failed policy. This will only lead to self-harm result in the Korean Peninsula. This will erupt cold war in Northeast Asia in reality and waste valuable resources that should be utilized for welfare and proliferation of humanity not for military competition.

The cooperation between South Korea-Japan and South Korea-US-Japan should not head in such direction. The objective of cooperation should be focused on peace and the means should be through diplomatic channels. Six-party talks should be resumed as it has been discontinued for about past eight years and relations between North and South Korea, North Korea and the US as well as North Korea and Japan should be resolved.

However, the Park administration has clearly proved that it has no will or capability to do so. It is gradually being disclosed that a shadowy advisor who is at the center of the corruption scandal has exerted extensive influence on domestic and international affairs but the government is still attempting to sign the GSOMIA. '

We will never accept such a historical regression. We can no longer trust the government that has lost ability to realize the seriousness of the issue and the President Park Geun-hye has no credibility, qualification or capability as a leader of this country. 

2015 East Asia Peace Declaration

The year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the world’s liberation from the military aggression and colonialism of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. The 2015 also marks the 70th year since the horrors of the atomic bomb inflicted devastation on humanity for the first time. 

Although East Asia endured continuous warfare and the Cold War tensions over the past seven decades, East Asia as a region went through a most dramatic transformation and achieved unprecedented development and prosperity in history. In spite of these accomplishments, however, potentials and possibilities of East Asia now face critical challenges—an ongoing war in the Cold War standoff, and reinforced arms race. In particular, unsolved North Korea’s nuclear problems not only destabilize the Korean armistice, but accelerate the regional nuclear and conventional arms race. Furthermore, despite the fact that Japan was the principal aggressor in East Asia throughout the early 20thcentury, its recent attempts to reemerge as a military power without making clear amends to the past, further destabilizing East Asia’s volatile peace. As Japan attempts to revise its Peace Constitution that has been the cornerstone for peace in the postwar East Asia, we cannot help but be concerned.

Increasingly fractious hegemonic competition in the East Asia–Pacific region today are also worsening wounds of the past. If we continue to resort to militarism and nationalism without a reliable regional peace mechanism that can resolve such sensitive regional issues in a nonviolent and mutually-beneficial manner, East Asia may degenerate from its mutual prosperity into a melee for hegemony. We must learn from our past—two World Wars stemmed from our inability to control such hegemonic rivalry.

Furthermore, the East Asia–Pacific region has directly suffered from massive casualties incurred by a series of nuclear catastrophes: atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear tests conducted in places such as the Bikini Atoll, and the recent Fukushima nuclear disaster. As demonstrated by the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster caused by an earthquake along Japan’s east coast, nuclear catastrophes do not exclusively result from the weapons of foreign countries, but can be triggered by nuclear facilities any country in the region. Forging a world without nuclear weapons, that is, building a world free of nuclear threats, has become the earnest desire and sincere hope of all East Asians. As is clear from the seriousness of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, nuclear power is the energy of the past and therefore, each country should suggest a goal to create a nuclear phase-out society. 

East Asia has become a tangled intersection of superpowers and home to a fierce arms race, making it one of the world’s most volatile regions. It is also the region most vulnerable to potential human and ecological disasters inflicted by nuclear weapons and accidents. Europe has been the center of the global movement to create, maintain and consolidate peace in the post-World War II era, and it is now East Asia’s turn to do the same. In this vein, to forge a lasting peace in East Asia and contribute to peace for all humanity, we of this conference declare the following.

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is the Cornerstone for Peace in East Asia
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is the cornerstone for peace in East Asia and a failsafe that prevents us from repeating past mistakes. We believe the biggest contribution Japan can make to regional peace and prosperity is to adhere to its commitment to global peace as stated in its constitution and flourish as an exemplar for peaceful development. For a long time, a number of Japanese intellectuals strived to uphold the peace provision outlined in the Japanese Constitution. Civil society organizations across Japan and East Asia proposed and supported the movement to award the Nobel Peace Prize to the Japanese Peace Constitution. This movement also has received international attention and support. Along with those who represent Japan’s voice of conscience, we solemnly state Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution must be upheld as an expression of humanity’s noblest goal—world peace. Nuclear threats and ecological crisis threats future of human beings. Now, it is time to expand our international peace movement to reflect universal pacifism which is stipulated in the Japanese Peace Constitution to other countries' constitutions.

Peace in East Asia Cannot be achieved without Ending the Korean War
The existing armistice and division of the Korean Peninsula are the unfortunate outcome of the World War II and the Cold War. The armistice system of the Korean peninsula not only caused pains of the Koreans but also is a fundamental cause of unstable peace in the region. The divided Korean peninsula is the world’s most heavily militarized zone and the powder keg in East Asia where the world’s largest military exercises are conducted. North Korea’s recent nuclear developments have exacerbated vicious cycle of an arms race in and surrounding of the Korean peninsula. The Korean War needs to end for peace in the Korean peninsula and East Asia. The four key parties—the United States, China, North and South Korea—must immediately convene a peace talk to replace the current armistice treaty with a peace treaty. The recent normalization of the U.S.-Cuba relations can serve as a benchmark for the future normalization of the U.S.–North Korea relations.

Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and ‘Nuclear Safety’ will create a Nuclear-Free World 
North Korea’s development and sophistication of its nuclear weapons programs can no longer be ignored. The Six-Party Talks, which aim to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and establish peace, must be resumed at the earliest possible time. To this end, the threshold for resuming dialogue and negotiation must be lowered. To weaken North Korea’s motives to develop its nuclear weapons and to minimize the threat of another Korean conflict, the United States, South Korea, and Japan, that enjoy asymmetric military advantages over North Korea, should take the initiative in relieving tensions in Korea. First and foremost, transforming the unstable armistice system into a peace system, normalizing the US-North Korea, Japan-North Korea relations, denuclearizing the Korean peninsula and negative security assurance on North Korea should be discussed with a bolder and more comprehensive approach. To expedite this process, the contribution of the United State is crucial in normalizing its relations with North Korea and signing the Peace Treaty to denuclearize North Korea and reduce arms in both countries. In response, both North and South Korea must abide by the promises made in the 1992 Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. 

To be truly free from all nuclear threats, it is also imperative to respond and provide alternative measures for the threats posed by the “peaceful” use of nuclear energy. Establishing joint safety measures for nuclear power plants in Japan, China, and North and South Korea—in operation, under construction, and scheduled for construction—has become a pressing matter. Full cooperation among concerned countries is one of the most urgent tasks. 

The Roles of Women and Civil Societies should be emphasized for Peace and Cooperation 
We cannot blame governments only for all the threats to peace in East Asia. Political parties, legislatures, and civil societies too are responsible and should work together to influence public opinion and advise the governments to make laws and policies that promote peace. For a harmonious and sustainable future, we must strive to bolster and facilitate understanding and cooperation between people beyond our borders, and build solidarity for peace and justice, so that we do not repeat the unfortunate history of our past. In particular, as rightfully advised by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, the importance of expanding the role and participation of women in redefining security and establishing a lasting peace should be emphasized.
 
Solidarity for peace towards a new East Asia has already begun to form. Until this solidarity becomes an ‘East Asian Peace Community of Nations’, let us never stop our march for peace. 

13 August 2015
Participants, 2015 International Conference for Peace in East Asia