With the initiative to set up a foundation for “comfort women” victims being set in motion, the newly created preparation committee appears to be already in the hot seat, fanning controversy over its membership, compensation plans and decision-making processes involving Japan.
Tuesday’s launch came in the face of resistance from many victims. Of the surviving 42, 29 filed a constitutional appeal last March, saying their basic rights were violated by the Dec. 28 agreement between Seoul and Tokyo.
Under the deal, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe offered an apology, conceding to the government’s responsibility for its military sex slavery during World War II and pledging 1 billion yen ($9 million) from state coffers to establish the foundation.
A group of university students protest the first meeting of the prepartory committee for for a foundation to support South Korean sex slavery victims during World War II in Seoul on Tuesday morning. The foundation has been garnering controversy over its membership, conmpensation plans and decision-making processes involving Japan. (Yonhap)
Flouting calls for more efforts to convince the opponents and their advocacy groups to help steer the foundation, Seoul formed the 11-member panel mostly with former and incumbent senior diplomats, Japan experts and attorneys, all of whom have favorable views toward the settlement.
The committee’s head, Kim Tae-hyun, and other officials argue that the civic groups -- the Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan, and the House of Sharing -- are denying them access to speak with the victims. The two organizations provide housing to 10 and three women, respectively.
“In fact, we have visited those living on their own many times and explained about the agreement, and they were positive about the foundation plans,” said Kim, a professor emeritus in social welfare at Sungshin Women’s University in Seoul, at a news conference.
“The organizations should reconsider (their opposition), from the point that the average age of the survivors is 89.4, and we don’t know when they will pass away. Isn’t it the humane thing for them to let go of remorse, accept the apology and take financial support?”
A senior Foreign Ministry official also expressed frustration, saying, “Think about it, would those who oppose the foundation plan be willing to join it?”
“We’re open to their participation, and we want to meet with each and every single victim and listen to their thoughts, whether they live on their own or at a shelter of activist groups. We’re trying and continue to do so, but practically it’s just not working well.”
While remaining steadfast in its rejection of the plan, the council’s president Yoon Mi-hyang has also lambasted the panel’s decision to set the legal status of the foundation as private, not as a state entity as enshrined in the deal.
“Even if the foundation were to be launched, the government is supposed be its driver according to the agreement with Japan. Isn’t it to evade mandatory parliamentary discussion?” she said in a media interview on Monday, suggesting that the decision is aimed to evade mandatory parliamentary discussion required of a new state organization.
Since the compromise, the opposition parties has been vocal in calling for its nullification. The Minjoo Party of Korea, the main opposition with the largest stake in the 300-seat National Assembly, vowed to reopen negotiations in the run up to the April 13 general election. Rep. Nam In-soon, a Minjoo lawmaker and former women’s rights activist, proposed a resolution on Monday, urging a halt of the foundation project and a restart of negotiations.
Rep. Chun Jung-bae, a cohead of the third-largest People’s Party, has also called for declaring the agreement “null and void.”
Adding fuel to the flame is Kim, the committee chief and the most likely candidate for the foundation president.
The professor, who earlier kindled controversy by flip-flopping on the organization’s potential project lineup, made a series of conflicting statements during the news conference, describing the 10 billion yen to be provided by Japan as “healing costs,” not “compensation.”
Her definition runs counter to the government’s interpretation that the money constitutes de facto reparations given that Tokyo made an apology and acknowledged its responsibility.
As her “healing costs” remarks triggered a chain of follow-up questions, Chung Byung-won, director-general for the Foreign Ministry here, who is also a member of the panel, stepped in and paused her for a few seconds, apparently to correct her explanations.
Back on the podium, Kim said, “I should leave space for other opinions on the part that the money is not for compensation.”
She then stirred up another storm by saying the foundation’s to-be-created board of directors will “completely, independently decide on which programs to initiate, without the involvement of Japan in its operation.” Yet the two countries have agreed to “cooperate” on the implementation of the funding.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho June-hyuck reaffirmed the settlement during a press briefing later in the day.
“Details on future programs will be finalized after the launch of the foundation based on the victims’ opinions. But there may be areas where consultations with the Japan side are necessary, so the two governments will work together in line with the Dec. 28 agreement,” he said.
By Shin Hyon-hee (heeshin@heraldcorp.com)