Dissolution of the Asian Women's Fund
NISHIKAWA Megumi / Journalist
May 16, 2007
The Asian Women's Fund (formally: the Asian Peace Fund for Women) was dissolved at the end of March 2007. Established in 1995 at the time of the Murayama Cabinet based on a Cabinet decision, the Fund had been engaged in "atonement activities" for women formerly known as "comfort women." While this fund played a certain part, it naturally had a limitation to what it could accomplish. It should be noted, however, that because of this fund, Japan can say to the world "she has not made light of the historic issues."
The Fund had so far provided 364 women from Korea, the Philippines, the Netherlands, and Taiwan who were allegedly forced to serve during the war as "comfort women." with atonement money as well as medical and welfare support. The "atonement money, totaling 565 million yen, was contributed by the Japanese people, while the medical and welfare assistance accounting for 750 million yen was provided by the government. Each and every former "comfort woman" received a personal letter of apology from the Prime Minister as well. In terms of money, it was from 1.2 million to 5 million yen per person. (In addition, in Indonesia, 69 welfare facilities for the aged were constructed in accordance with the wishes of the Indonesian government.)
To our deep regret, however, the people of Japan know little of the atonement work. There are several reasons for this. Since the time the Fund was inaugurated, it had been tossed around by various civil organizations in Japan and the other countries concerned. These civil groups firmly maintained their position that "personal indemnity should be made by the state" and severely criticized it stating that the "atonement work would make the government's responsibility unclear." They cared too much about ethical aspects rather than what the alleged victims really wanted: "Can money buy forgiveness?" "Restoration of dignity is more important than monetary compensation," and the like. This fact made the effect of the "atonement work" unclear and dispersed the people's attention.
For this, the mass-media, where I myself work, should be to blame to a large extent. At the time of fund-raising, they criticized the fund on the side of civil organizations. But as the public attention waned, the newspaper reporting also ebbed like the tide. The media did not report on how the "atonement work" was actually being conducted. It is only natural that people's understanding did not get promoted.
Another reason for the lack of the people's understanding of the "atonement work" is to be found in the insufficiency of the government's moral support for the Fund after it was established. The government was slow in backing the project, perhaps because it was regarded as "a project launched by the initiative of the socialist Premier Tomiiti Murayama's administration." Consequently, most of responsibility and burdens of work were borne by the group of people who actually undertook the "atonement work." In this respect, I strongly regret that the Fund was not based on a Diet resolution.
Generally speaking, however, in contrast to Korea and Taiwan, where the Fund was violently jostled by civil organizations, it played a meaningful role to some extent in the Philippines and the Netherlands. For example, in the case of 79 former Dutch "comfort women," only two persons refused to accept the indemnity. Those responsible for the NGOs of the latter countries who were intermediaries paid more serious consideration to the wishes of the women concerned rather than their own logic, saying that "it should not be we but the women themselves who could decide whether to accept the indemnity or not." This pragmatic attitude helped the "atonement project" in these countries.
Professor Yasuaki Ohnuma of the University of Tokyo, who was one of the directors of the Fund, rightly accepts that there were certain things that the Fund could not achieve in spite of the Fund's qualified achievements. He, nevertheless, points out that the "atonement work" was a new form of indemnity shared by the Japanese government and its people.
At the moment, a draft-resolution on the "comfort women" is being discussed in the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. There are some extreme views in parts of U.S. Congress and international community that the Japanese government has done nothing about the "comfort women issue." The "atonement work" of the Fund shows that this is not quite so. It also seems to indicate that "historical issues" are something that cannot be redeemed in a black and white manner.
The Writer is Senior Staff Writer at the Mainichi Newspapers.
The Fund had so far provided 364 women from Korea, the Philippines, the Netherlands, and Taiwan who were allegedly forced to serve during the war as "comfort women." with atonement money as well as medical and welfare support. The "atonement money, totaling 565 million yen, was contributed by the Japanese people, while the medical and welfare assistance accounting for 750 million yen was provided by the government. Each and every former "comfort woman" received a personal letter of apology from the Prime Minister as well. In terms of money, it was from 1.2 million to 5 million yen per person. (In addition, in Indonesia, 69 welfare facilities for the aged were constructed in accordance with the wishes of the Indonesian government.)
To our deep regret, however, the people of Japan know little of the atonement work. There are several reasons for this. Since the time the Fund was inaugurated, it had been tossed around by various civil organizations in Japan and the other countries concerned. These civil groups firmly maintained their position that "personal indemnity should be made by the state" and severely criticized it stating that the "atonement work would make the government's responsibility unclear." They cared too much about ethical aspects rather than what the alleged victims really wanted: "Can money buy forgiveness?" "Restoration of dignity is more important than monetary compensation," and the like. This fact made the effect of the "atonement work" unclear and dispersed the people's attention.
For this, the mass-media, where I myself work, should be to blame to a large extent. At the time of fund-raising, they criticized the fund on the side of civil organizations. But as the public attention waned, the newspaper reporting also ebbed like the tide. The media did not report on how the "atonement work" was actually being conducted. It is only natural that people's understanding did not get promoted.
Another reason for the lack of the people's understanding of the "atonement work" is to be found in the insufficiency of the government's moral support for the Fund after it was established. The government was slow in backing the project, perhaps because it was regarded as "a project launched by the initiative of the socialist Premier Tomiiti Murayama's administration." Consequently, most of responsibility and burdens of work were borne by the group of people who actually undertook the "atonement work." In this respect, I strongly regret that the Fund was not based on a Diet resolution.
Generally speaking, however, in contrast to Korea and Taiwan, where the Fund was violently jostled by civil organizations, it played a meaningful role to some extent in the Philippines and the Netherlands. For example, in the case of 79 former Dutch "comfort women," only two persons refused to accept the indemnity. Those responsible for the NGOs of the latter countries who were intermediaries paid more serious consideration to the wishes of the women concerned rather than their own logic, saying that "it should not be we but the women themselves who could decide whether to accept the indemnity or not." This pragmatic attitude helped the "atonement project" in these countries.
Professor Yasuaki Ohnuma of the University of Tokyo, who was one of the directors of the Fund, rightly accepts that there were certain things that the Fund could not achieve in spite of the Fund's qualified achievements. He, nevertheless, points out that the "atonement work" was a new form of indemnity shared by the Japanese government and its people.
At the moment, a draft-resolution on the "comfort women" is being discussed in the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. There are some extreme views in parts of U.S. Congress and international community that the Japanese government has done nothing about the "comfort women issue." The "atonement work" of the Fund shows that this is not quite so. It also seems to indicate that "historical issues" are something that cannot be redeemed in a black and white manner.
The Writer is Senior Staff Writer at the Mainichi Newspapers.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
アジア女性基金の解散
西川 恵 / ジャーナリスト
2007年 5月 16日
アジア女性基金（正式名称「女性のためのアジア平和基金」）が３月末で解散した。１９９５年、村山内閣の時に政府決定に基づき設立され、元慰安婦の女性を対象に「償い事業」を行ってきた。この事業は一定の役割を果たした一方、広がりには限界があった。ただこれがあったからこそ、日本は「歴史問題をないがしろにはしてない」との論拠を持ち得ていることはもっと注目されていい。
同基金は、韓国、フィリピン、オランダ、台湾の元慰安婦の女性３６４人に「償い金」を支給し、医療・福祉支援を行ってきた。「償い金」は国民の募金（５億６５００万円）から、医療福祉支援は政府拠出金（７億５０００万円）でまかない、元慰安婦１人１人に総理大臣のお詫びの手紙とともに手渡した。金額にして１人あたり５００万円から１２０万円だった（なおインドネシアでは、同国政府の要望に基づき、高齢者福祉施設69軒が建設された）。
ただ残念なのは、「償い事業」が日本国民にもあまり知られなかったことである。いくつか理由がある。まず同基金が発足時から、日本と関係国の市民団体に翻弄されたことだ。これらの市民団体は「国家による個人補償をすべきだ」との立場を譲らず、「償い事業」を「政府の責任をあいまいにする」と批判した。そして当の元慰安婦が何を望んでいるかよりも、過度の倫理主義（「お金で許しを請うのか」「お金より尊厳の回復を」といった論理）に走った。このため「償い事業」の輪郭がぼやけ、国民の関心が拡散してしまった。
これについては私自身もその一員であるメディアの責任もある。基金設立時は市民団体の側の論理に立って基金を批判し、関心がなくなると潮を引くように報道は影をひそめ、実際にどのように「償い事業」が進行しているのか伝えなかった。これでは国民の理解が深まりようがない。
基金設立後の政府の精神的支援が不十分だったことも、「償い事業」が国民に浸透しなかった理由だった。「社会党の村山首相のイニシアチブで始まった事業」との思いがあったからだろうか、政府としてバックアップする姿勢に欠けた。そのためしわ寄せは「償い事業」を実際に担った基金の人々が負った。この点で、私は同基金の設立が国会決議に基づかなかったことを残念に思う。
ただ大きく分けると、市民団体に揉まれた韓国、台湾に対して、フィリピンとオランダではそれなりに役割を果たした。例えばオランダでは79人の元慰安婦のうち、受け取りを拒否したのは２人だけ。事業の仲立ちをした両国のＮＧＯ責任者は「償い金を受け取るかどうかを決めるのは私たちでなく、元慰安婦の女性」との立場から、市民団体の論理でなく、当事者の女性の気持を優先した。このプラグマティックな精神が「償い事業」の追い風になった。基金理事の大沼保昭（おおぬま・やすあき）・東大教授は「出来たことと、出来なかったことがある。ただ『償い事業』は日本の政府と国民が、ともに過去の責任を分かち合うという、新しい補償の形だった」と指摘する。
いま米下院外交委員会で慰安婦問題をめぐる決議案が審議されている。米議会や国際世論の一部に「日本政府は慰安婦問題で何もやってこなかった」との極論があるが、決してそうではないこと。また歴史問題は白か、黒か、で割り切れるものではないこと。このことを基金の「償い事業」は示している。
（筆者は毎日新聞社 専門編集委員。）
同基金は、韓国、フィリピン、オランダ、台湾の元慰安婦の女性３６４人に「償い金」を支給し、医療・福祉支援を行ってきた。「償い金」は国民の募金（５億６５００万円）から、医療福祉支援は政府拠出金（７億５０００万円）でまかない、元慰安婦１人１人に総理大臣のお詫びの手紙とともに手渡した。金額にして１人あたり５００万円から１２０万円だった（なおインドネシアでは、同国政府の要望に基づき、高齢者福祉施設69軒が建設された）。
ただ残念なのは、「償い事業」が日本国民にもあまり知られなかったことである。いくつか理由がある。まず同基金が発足時から、日本と関係国の市民団体に翻弄されたことだ。これらの市民団体は「国家による個人補償をすべきだ」との立場を譲らず、「償い事業」を「政府の責任をあいまいにする」と批判した。そして当の元慰安婦が何を望んでいるかよりも、過度の倫理主義（「お金で許しを請うのか」「お金より尊厳の回復を」といった論理）に走った。このため「償い事業」の輪郭がぼやけ、国民の関心が拡散してしまった。
これについては私自身もその一員であるメディアの責任もある。基金設立時は市民団体の側の論理に立って基金を批判し、関心がなくなると潮を引くように報道は影をひそめ、実際にどのように「償い事業」が進行しているのか伝えなかった。これでは国民の理解が深まりようがない。
基金設立後の政府の精神的支援が不十分だったことも、「償い事業」が国民に浸透しなかった理由だった。「社会党の村山首相のイニシアチブで始まった事業」との思いがあったからだろうか、政府としてバックアップする姿勢に欠けた。そのためしわ寄せは「償い事業」を実際に担った基金の人々が負った。この点で、私は同基金の設立が国会決議に基づかなかったことを残念に思う。
ただ大きく分けると、市民団体に揉まれた韓国、台湾に対して、フィリピンとオランダではそれなりに役割を果たした。例えばオランダでは79人の元慰安婦のうち、受け取りを拒否したのは２人だけ。事業の仲立ちをした両国のＮＧＯ責任者は「償い金を受け取るかどうかを決めるのは私たちでなく、元慰安婦の女性」との立場から、市民団体の論理でなく、当事者の女性の気持を優先した。このプラグマティックな精神が「償い事業」の追い風になった。基金理事の大沼保昭（おおぬま・やすあき）・東大教授は「出来たことと、出来なかったことがある。ただ『償い事業』は日本の政府と国民が、ともに過去の責任を分かち合うという、新しい補償の形だった」と指摘する。
いま米下院外交委員会で慰安婦問題をめぐる決議案が審議されている。米議会や国際世論の一部に「日本政府は慰安婦問題で何もやってこなかった」との極論があるが、決してそうではないこと。また歴史問題は白か、黒か、で割り切れるものではないこと。このことを基金の「償い事業」は示している。
（筆者は毎日新聞社 専門編集委員。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟