Abe misquoted? Probably not.
Posted by Matt Dioguardi on March 6th, 2007
There seems to be a big brouhaha over the New York Times report by Nori Onishi entitled, Abe Rejects Japan’s Files on War Sex. The story concerned some recent remarks by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe about comfort women.
At least part of the problem is that Onishi reported the following:
“There is no evidence to prove there was coercion, nothing to support it,” Mr. Abe told reporters. “So, in respect to this declaration, you have to keep in mind that things have changed greatly.”
Is this quote wrong?
It’s hard to say.
Let’s look at what Abe stated:
1.a「強制性を証明する証言や裏付けるものはなかった。
1b. だからその定義については大きく変わったということを前提に考えなければならない」
Source: Sankei Shinbun’s Iza website:
http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/politics/41472/
My translation:
1 a “As far as coercion, there was no proof or testimony to substantiate it happened.
1. b “That’s why I’m telling you, we need to take into consideration that the definition was greatly changed.”
My translation skills are limited, but I think that anyone with reasonable Japanese skills will see the New York Time’s translation, while not that good, is passable.
Note the Japanese Chosun Shinbun, which I take to be a zainichi Korean newspaper, also reported a quote, nearly the same as the one above. See here.
So why do Occidentalism and JapanProbe accuse the NYT of mistranslation, when perhaps the translation is fairly passable; because, as best I can tell, they compare different quotes.
I’m am not sure in what context Abe made these comments. But he did not make them in isolation. He clearly said more than one thing. He was quoted selectively both in the Japanese press and in the English press. Occidentalism and Japan Probe possibly took one thing Abe said as reported in the Japanese press and compared it something *different* that Abe said as reported in the English Press. (I think.)
It was reported by some in the Japanese press that Abe stated:
2a「強制性については従来から議論があったところだ。
2b 当初、定義されていた強制性を裏付けるものがなかったのは事実ではないか」
Source: Nikkei
(I can not provide a direct link to this article at the Nikkei shinbun because it seems to no longer exists, however many blogs reported the article, and these can be found using a Google search. Click here.)
Now I translate the above statements as follows:
2a. As far as coercion this was previously debated.
2b. At first, using the original definition we had of coercion, there was no way to substantiate any coercion, and that is a fact, is it not?
Now the idea of mistranslation seems to have originated specifically from a single comment made by “Matt” who I take to be a leading contributor to the Occidentalism site. He stated:
Ponta, Pacifist, Kaneganese, Mika, Two Cents, should there be any revisions to my translation? I have changed the translation to past tense to reflect the past tense in the Japanese. A whole lot of different translations have appeared in English, all of them wrong, I believe.
「当初定義されていた強制性を裏付ける証拠がなかったのは事実だ」
“It is a fact there was no proof to support coercion as it was initially defined”
「定義が大きく変わったことを前提に考えなければならない」
“We must premise it [the kono statement about comfort women] on the thought that the definition of it [coercion] had been greatly changed from its [initial] definition”
But are these the exact quotes that correspond with the NYT quote?
The first one here corresponds roughly with with my 2b, as reported in the Nikkei Shinbun. The second quote corresponds roughly with my 1b as reported in the Iza website.
So perhaps that NYT’s quote was not so bad.
Now let’s look at the AP quote:
“The fact is, there is no evidence to prove there was coercion,” Abe said.
Abe’s remarks contradicted evidence in Japanese documents found in 1992 that historians said showed military authorities had a direct role in working with contractors to forcibly procure women for brothels.
Note that this quote taken in the context of the “direct role” of “military authorities” is not deceptive. That is just what Abe is saying. So this quote is not so bad, I think. Moreover, it can be read to roughly correspond with my 1a above.
If one views an NHK report of this at YouTube, one sees that NHK reported the story in a similar way. So I don’t think the AP was so far off here. Will people also want to accuse NHK of not reporting the story correctly?
While JapanProbe has argued that this is not really news, this may be incorrect as well. That is Abe here was at least *less* equivocal than in his previous statements. He clearly does not see any coercion as far as government invovlement is concerned. Previously, his statements were harder to interpret.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Hi Matt,
So we have two competing quotes, one of which may have been said, or both may have been said by PM Abe. You present these two -
「強制性を証明する証言や裏付けるものはなかった。
だからその定義については大きく変わったということを前提に考えなければならない」
Which you assert is probably the original quote of the translation by the NYT, which is -
“There is no evidence to prove there was coercion, nothing to support it,” Mr. Abe told reporters. “So, in respect to this declaration, you have to keep in mind that things have changed greatly.”
I think this is significantly different to the Japanese quote you cite. It does not include the word testimony, for example. Take this quote -
「当初定義されていた強制性を裏付ける証拠がなかったのは事実だ」
“It is a fact there was no proof to support coercion as it was initially defined” (you could also use the word coerciveness)
All you need to do is take off 当初定義されていた and you end up with the NYT quote of “There is no evidence to prove there was coercion, nothing to support it”.
Furthermore, how the NYT translates this from your example -
だからその定義については大きく変わったということを前提に考えなければならない
As “So, in respect to this declaration, you have to keep in mind that things have changed greatly” is beyond me. All it sounds like is that PM Abe has simply changed his mind about the comfort woman subject. Even if you assert that the first sentence is a correct translation, the second is unforgivable. Not to mention the lack of context. Furthermore, the iza article you cite provides the context for PM Abe’s comments that the NYT, butchered translation and all, does not -
しかし、談話の根拠は元慰安婦女性からの聞き取り調査だけで、９年３月の参院予算委員会で、平林博内閣外政審議室長は「個々の証言を裏付ける調査は行っていない」と答弁した。
Very quick translation:
However, the basis for this [the assertion of direct coercion in kono statement on comfort women] was just an survey of the comfort women. On the 9th year of Heisei in March, the head of the budgetary committee Mr Hirabayashi replied at the committee metting that “There was no investigation to substantiate each individual testimony”.
Which is PM Abe assertion. However, thanks to the “newspaper of record”, most people believe that PM Abe rejected any instances of coercion, rather than making a statement of fact about the Kono Statement on comfort women.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I need to add that the past tense in the NYT translation is missing. He is not saying there is no evidence, he is saying there was no evidence.
You translate this - 強制性を証明する証言や裏付けるものはなかった。 as “As far as coercion, there was no proof or testimony to substantiate it happened”. I do not think “As far as coercion” is reasonable at all. It makes it seem like he is talking about coercion when the main subject is something else, nor is the anything in the Japanese to suggest anything like “As far as coercion”.
How about this - “There was nothing to support coerciveness, no proof or testimony”. This correct sentence is also in the proper context. It lets us know he is talking about something else, which is the Kono statement.
The NYT article is demagoguery, and nothing else. It should be retracted.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Thank you for these really good responses. You’re probably, right. But if I can find time, I will have one more look at this again tomorrow.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Hi Matt. I just found this. I am sure it could be of reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlGRbvX_M-w&mode=related&search=
March 7th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Matt, I really appreciate your comments. You’ve an excellent blog and I’ve added it to my links.
I’m going to try and make a second entry in my blog about NYT and Abe. But just in case I don’t get to it today or at all, I’ll comment here.
First, check out this editorial:
http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200703050055.html
The phrase, “as initially defined” must have thrown some people for a loop.
The NYT reporter probably has a strong view that the comfort women program was very unjust, coercion was rampant, and that Japan is not admitting it. Other reporters might feel similarly.
(I happen to think we’re all biased, but that by constantly bringing our view up against criticism we can nevertheless improve it. That is we have to have some kind of viewpoint, but having said that it’s not as if we can’t improve our viewpoint.)
Anyway, Abe made a garbled comment full of doublespeak. I mean, either these girls were forced or they were not. Saying that they were forced because of circumstances is silly. So he was talking doublespeak and his statements were *not* clear. I do think he made more than one statement, and that also added to the confusion.
Now, my guess is that the reporters were just waiting him to deny the comfort women coercion issue. So at least the AP and NYT jumped all over the statement, and led by their strong views on the matter probably missed the forest for the trees.
They were probably thinking, “Now, I’ve got him, this is just the statement we’ve been waiting for.” and couldn’t wait to write up their stories.
Even the Japan Times (following Kyodo and AP) translated “initially defined” as “initially suggested”.
See here:
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20070302a9.html
Here’s yet another interpretation:
So, I think if we ask the question this way, was it either of these cases:
a. The reportage was lacking in quality, but not unethical.
-or-
b. The reportage was *intentionally* misleading, or lacking in quality, to the point where it was unethical.
I would tend to think (a) at this point, and not (b).
Further, I think depending on how Abe actually phrased himself, the story may have been newsworthy. He might have said things less equivocally here and intentionally with a little bit of provocation. This might test the waters for him and fire up his base a bit.
Until a full transcript can be found of what he stated, it’s really hard to say.
I do think the NYT article sounded very sensationalized. It used the term “sex slaves”. Were there, in fact, sex slaves? If the NYT wants to stand by this as a fact, then they can, of course, report things this way. It’s their reputation that’s on the line.
Hurriedly yours, Matt Dioguardi
March 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Here is an interesting polemic by the Alexis Dudden.
Dudden argues:
This might just be a coincidence, or it could be that Abe *was* intentionally being provocative.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
This is from an editorial that’s been posted onto a blog. The blogger states it is from the Asahi Shinbun but does not give a link.
That quote taken in isolation is very confusing. Was there, in fact, an original definition explicitly stated before we had a *new* definition? Did Kono himself offer this *new* definition? Or is it that Abe, using the non-original definition, accepts Kono’s statement, even though Kono never offered an explicit definition?
Who did all this defining of the word coercion in the first place and in the last place?
March 7th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Hi Matt,
It could be that Abe was being provocative in regards to Korea, but somehow I doubt it. I would say it has more to do with the pressing concerns of the US House Resolution. I would add that the comments were not really a “choice” that he had regarding the timing because he was answering a question about the Kono statement (I think! All this comfort woman talk is making my brains as addled as theirs!).
As you point out, the statement itself is a clumsy. Not a gaffe, but absolute poison without the proper context.
OK, so why is point so important? Why does PM Abe risk looking like “holocaust denier” to dispute the point that the Japanese army was actually involved in rounding up these women? It is simple. That small fact changes the meaning of the comfort woman from one that was for most people a completely and legal system of prostitution with a number of cases of genuine abuses, to one where every single woman was kidnapped by the Japanese army and forced into sexual slavery.
The Japanese government is in a pickle. On one hand, there are people saying they were abused at the comfort stations, and some say they were forced to go there by Japanese soldiers. On the other hand, the Japanese government cannot find any documents indicating that Japanese soldiers did round up women. However, the Japanese government cannot prove a negative, and even in the largely voluntary system of prostitution that we have in the west, there are still cases of abuse.
The other problem is that yes, there WERE women that were forced to have sex. Not really sex slaves, since they were paid, but yes, the system was set up in a way that did not respect individual and female rights. Among the willing prostitutes there were also girls that were sold by their parents, either to a kisaeng house (a traditional Korean geisha brothel) who then sold them to the army, or directly to brokers/recruiters for the Japanese army. In a way, selling to the Japanese army meant that a girl would work a 6-12 month contract before she could come home.
What this means is that many of the girls would actually have either been pressured by their family to do it, or conceivably in some cases, told by their family and recruiters a lie about what the job entailed. So in this sense, some of the girls would have been forced. Japanese and Korean society at the time did not give much attention to individual or womens rights, so there would be little the girls could do to protect their rights, especially once money changed hands. Once the family received the advance, which is as much as 3000 yen (to put it in perspective, a common soldier got 10 yen a month), that was the end. Whether she wanted to be a prostitute or not, she would have to either work at the comfort station, or pay back the advance, and if she had the money to pay back the advance, she wouldn’t be in that situation in the first place. I am sure you can imagine what would happen if a “comfort woman”, who’s family had received the advance, refused to have sex at the comfort station. Once the contract was done in 6-12 months, she could return home, along with the additional money she earned at the comfort station, said to be 750 yen per month.
So the situation is that Japan was in control at the time, so the buck stops with them. However, it would also be wrong to impose the present societal attitudes in judging the past. Both Korean and Japanese people have a long history, up until after the second half of the 20th century, of selling their female family members. So yes, in that sense it is wrong. On the other hand, Koreans did not respect their women either, so it is not right for them to attack Japan unilaterally on this issue.
I find it not only likely, but almost inevitable that these kinds of abuses took place, given the state of society in Japan and Korea. Parents pressuring and selling their daughters should have been forbidden, but I think there would have been a lot of people that thought that as long as the parents agreed to it, then the girls were not being forced.
So the issue is very complex. The US House Resolution has strawmanned the comfort woman controversy to death by asserting that every single one of the 200,000 mostly Korean comfort women (and that number is a matter of disputation) was forced into it by the Japanese army and their agents, and that the women were sex slaves, and that all this could be kept a secret until the 1980s. 200,000 missing women would have been a story of undeniable historical significance, and it would have been known from the moment that women started to be kidnapped. The claim that 200,000 women were kidnapped by the Japanese army and their agents takes place in a historical void. No contempory document, diary, newspaper, or anything else even mentions it. It simply did not happen.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
By the way, thanks for the link at your kind words, Matt
March 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
I neglected to include this link to a contemporary US army report on comfort women. Documents like this should have been seen by the House committee, but were not.
http://www.exordio.com/1939-1945/codex/Documentos/report-49-USA-orig.html
March 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
“That quote taken in isolation is very confusing. Was there, in fact, an original definition explicitly stated before we had a *new* definition? Did Kono himself offer this *new* definition? Or is it that Abe, using the non-original definition, accepts Kono’s statement, even though Kono never offered an explicit definition?”
Matt, I posted a Youtube in one of my previous comments. In that video one of the commentators opines that essentially PM Abe is retracting the part of the Kono statement that strongly suggests or indicates coercion by the Japanese army.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Here’s a link to unofficial translations of official statements by Japanese officials concerning the comfort women:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/index.html
Yohei Kono’s statement, now attracting so much attention is here:
http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9308.html
March 7th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
“In that video one of the commentators opines that essentially PM Abe is retracting the part of the Kono statement that strongly suggests or indicates coercion by the Japanese army.”
I don’t want to deny this is the case, it may well be. However, Abe’s is stating that when talking about coercion in the narrow sense (sic), Kono’s statement doesn’t admit there was any. Therefore, Abe agrees with the Kono statement.
This may be revision without revision. That is to revise the meaning, but not the exact words.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Here is the Kono statement.
A yomiuri editorial strongly suggests that the Kono statement was a deal with Korea to close the comfort woman issue forever. http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/editorial/20070307TDY04005.htm
If this is true then they would want to revise the Kono statement formally since Korean activists brought the dispute all the way to Congress, the Kono statement is the only piece of evidence besides the testimonies that the House Committee has considered.
March 8th, 2007 at 12:56 am
good lord…. That did not work out at all. Matt, can you rescue the above post?
March 9th, 2007 at 9:21 am
The New York Times now has a new story regarding Abe’s statement and the comfort women. It seems more comprehensive and carefully worded than the first story. A big improvement. It is by the same author as the first, Norimitsu Onishi.
Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/world/asia/08japan.html
March 9th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Thanks for the follow up.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Hi Matt,
PM Abe complained about being misquoted.
“Japanese leaders apologized in 1993 for the government’s role, but the apology was not approved by the Diet. Japanese officials have said the government will not issue a fresh apology and that the issue has been blown up by the U.S. media.
“Our view is that the media reports are being made without an appropriate interpretation of the prime minister’s remarks,” chief Cabinet spokesman Yasuhisa Shiozaki said. “We are considering appropriate measures, such as putting out a rebuttal to reports or comments that are not based on facts or that are based on incorrect interpretations.”
He did not cite any specific reports.
“My remarks have been twisted in a sense and reported overseas which further invites misunderstanding,” Abe said. “This is an extremely unproductive situation,” he said.”
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/national/news/20070308p2a00m0na023000c.html
March 13th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Matt,
I am behind the curve here, as usual, so sorry for taking so long to respond to these comments.
The honest truth of the matter is I’ve never carefully studied this issue, so feel hesitant to say much here.
Looking at some of your specific comments:
“That small fact changes the meaning of the comfort woman from one that was for most people a completely and legal system of prostitution with a number of cases of genuine abuses, to one where every single woman was kidnapped by the Japanese army and forced into sexual slavery.”
I am at least open to the idea of legalized prostitution up to and only to the extent that it might help many unfortunate women gain rights. However, regardless of that view, I think whatever may be said about the comfort women, the system deserves universal condemnation. It’s at least conceivable to me that some of the people doing the condemning might have political agendas, some might conceivably even be hypocrites. Okay, so? Clearly whatever else one may say about this system, it was horrid. It was wrong. I don’t think that can be stated enough.
“The other problem is that yes, there WERE women that were forced to have sex. Not really sex slaves, since they were paid, but yes, the system was set up in a way that did not respect individual and female rights.”
The term sex slaves is very *loaded*. Here’s what the UN Special Rappoteur’s stated about the term sex slave in her report:
This sounds well thought out and reasonable so at least for now, until I’ve seen sufficient criticism of this, I think I too will adopt the term “military sexual slaves”.
You stated:
“However, it would also be wrong to impose the present societal attitudes in judging the past. Both Korean and Japanese people have a long history, up until after the second half of the 20th century, of selling their female family members. So yes, in that sense it is wrong. On the other hand, Koreans did not respect their women either, so it is not right for them to attack Japan unilaterally on this issue.”
This is clearly a well thought out, well intended argument. However, as far as I understand it, I disagree. I don’t have a monopoly on truth or on what’s correct. However, I’m not relativist either. Morals and rights matter. We have an obligation to judge as best we can about the actions of those who have gone on before us. We might get it wrong just like they did, but in the process of judging and criticizing, I genuinely believe we can make moral progress. This is a largely philosophical issue, and I have a dialog on-line concerning it.
You said:
“The US House Resolution has strawmanned the comfort woman controversy to death by asserting that every single one of the 200,000 mostly Korean comfort women (and that number is a matter of disputation) was forced into it by the Japanese army and their agents, and that the women were sex slaves, and that all this could be kept a secret until the 1980s. 200,000 missing women would have been a story of undeniable historical significance, and it would have been known from the moment that women started to be kidnapped. The claim that 200,000 women were kidnapped by the Japanese army and their agents takes place in a historical void. No contempory document, diary, newspaper, or anything else even mentions it. It simply did not happen.”
Compare this to the recent essay at Japan Focus:
Japan’s ‘Comfort Women’: It’s time for the truth (in the ordinary, everyday sense of the word)
By Tessa Morris-Suzuki
While I’m not sure I understand the politics behind America condemning Japan, the specific criticism you raise seems to be answered here.
Best,
Matt Dioguardi
March 13th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
More on this issue:
March 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Debito now has a long blog entry on this including many excerpts from articles, links, and comments; well worth checking out!
March 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Hi Matt,
“This is clearly a well thought out, well intended argument. However, as far as I understand it, I disagree. I don’t have a monopoly on truth or on what’s correct. However, I’m not relativist either. Morals and rights matter. We have an obligation to judge as best we can about the actions of those who have gone on before us. We might get it wrong just like they did, but in the process of judging and criticizing, I genuinely believe we can make moral progress. This is a largely philosophical issue, and I have a dialog on-line concerning it.”
I do not intend that the conduct of the Japanese army should be ignored because of societal attitudes at the time, just that if we are to talk about the rights of women then it is a bad idea to place all the blame on the Japanese army and then pretend that the issue has been solved. As far as I am concerned, there is plenty of soul searching to distribute in the comfort women issue, and so far the Japanese have done some, but no one else has done anything at all, except attempt to assign blame. It could be that the Japanese goverment will become the sacrificial lamb for this, and people will then be able to ignore fundamental womens issues because the problem had been ’solved’.
Any discussion of comfort women should also involve comfort women supplied to the US soldiers after WW2, often Korean and Japanese comfort women.
The Coomaraswamy report is very problematic. I think it is poorly written and poorly sourced. I am in the process of writing a post about comfort women that will also deal with the Coomaraswamy report.