RA Yu-shin I Lecturer, GPB College & Member, the Korea Verband, Germany

Session 3. Backlash of Historical Denialism

Analysis of Difficulties in Statue of Peace Establishment in Germany and Proposal for Future Japanese Military ‘Comfort Women’ Movement

RA Yu-shin I Lecturer, GPB College & Member, the Korea Verband, Germany

Introduction

After Kim Hak-soon’s testimony on August 14 1991, the Japanese military “comfort

women” movement gains a huge momentum. The subsequent testimonies by the victims

revealed the truth that could not be resolved by legal regulations, political relations, and academic theories, and gained public sympathy. The victims’ accusations eventually led to

the adoption of the Coomaraswamy report by the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 1996 and the McDougall report by the UN Human Rights Subcommittee in 1998. As observed from such cases, the international community shared a common viewpoint on the human rights violation and sexual violence in armed conflict against women that the “comfort women” case revealed, and in 2018, the UN Committee on

Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended Japan to take a victim-centered approach, taking steps in line with the victim’s perception.

However, on the other hand, there exists a very different reality in the international community. A representative example of this is the conflict over the establishment of the Statue of Peace abroad. In many cities in the United States, including Washington, and in Germany, such as Berlin, there had to be a long tug-of-war with the relevant authorities until the statue was established. In not a few cases, the authorities did not approve the establishment itself or it was finally rejected in public places. Why is the establishment of the statue not welcomed even though it is a symbol of the universal values of fighting against sexual violence against women that the international community all sympathizes with? In such reality, what strategies should the “comfort women” movement take? This

paper aims to answer such question.

349

Difficulties in Statue of Peace Establishment – Freiburg and Berlin

There is no doubt that Japan’s opposition is the biggest reason why the establishment

of the Statue of Peace is not welcomed by the international community. In each area where the Statue of Peace is established, such as Glendale, San Francisco, and Washington, Japan has actively challenged the community at both government and private levels, which has actually exerted considerable influence. For example, the city of San Francisco had to make sacrifices to end its 60-year partnership with the city of Osaka in exchange for the establishment of Statue of Peace. Every time there were attempts to establish the Statue of Peace in Germany, there were challenges. It is surprising to see that Germany, which has developed a sense of human rights and is referred to as an exemplary example in liquidating the past, seems to be supporting Japan at a distance from Korea. Above all, the fact that Japan and Germany have close friendship in political, economic and historical aspects is largely responsible for this. Both countries are increasing their co-op as “Valuepartner (Wertepartner)” for security in Indian-Pacific.1 Based on this close cooperative relationship, Japan is aggressively preventing the establishment of the Statue of Peace at the state and private levels. Nevertheless, it is necessary to find out if there are any other reasons to oppose the establishment of the Statue of Peace in the region other than the direct cause of Japan’s deterrence. The exploration of this question will help the

international community better judge the view of the Statue of Peace, which will eventually contribute to the establishment of the Statue of Peace in the future. Below, we will focus

on the two cases of Freiburg and Berlin in Germany.

In 2016, Freiburg City and Suwon City signed a sisterhood relationship, and Mayor Dieter Salomon of Freiburg, a member of the Green Party, readily accepted Suwon Mayor’s

proposal to present the Statue of Peace. However, Japan found out later and said that if the Statue of Peace was established in Freiburg, they would end the sisterhood relationship between Freiburg and Matsuyama. The Mayor of Freiburg rejected the Statue of Peace, which eventually failed to step on the city of Freiburg.

Mayor Salomon decided to reject the statue in September 2016, saying he had made

1 German Foreign Office website, April 13 2021. “Japan: Wertepartner im indopazifischen Raum

Veröffentlichungsdatum” https://www.bmvg.de/de/aktuelles/japan-wertepartner-indopazifik5054598

350

mistakes and misunderstood the culture (“Kulturelles Missverständnis”). This doesn’t mean

he didn’t know what the Statue of Peace meant. He saw the statue when he visited Korea

in March 2016, and said in a personal letter to Suwon City that he is “willing to accept the proposal to establish the Statue of Peace, a symbol of freedom and especially for eradication of violence against women.”2 German media reports also confirm that Mayor Salomon knew about the meaning of the Statue of Peace. Mayor Salomon thought it would be fine to establish the Statue of Pease in Freiburg because he knew about the 2015 “comfort women” agreement and understood it as an apology from Japan. He didn’t think

there would be any problem honoring the victims of wartime sexual violence, especially given the German memory culture.3

Then what “mistake” did he make? The mistake he referred to was that he thought

the Statue of Peace was a symbol of universal value, but did not know that there was another purpose, namely, to pressure Japan externally.4 He said he thought the Statue of Peace was only a memorial to the victim, but he didn’t think it had an aspect that accused

the perpetrator. Because of this, he even felt as if he had been used by (instrumentalisiert) Korea. 5 In terms of understanding the Mayor’s position, he was in favor of the

establishment of the Statue of Peace from a humanitarian point of view, but unintentionally became one with Korea and was involved in the conflict between Korea and Japan, and was belatedly warned by Japan. In other words, he agreed to the universal value of the Statue of Peace, not to press Japan, but found himself in a position to press Japan without

2 Segye Ilbo, “자유의 상징 ‚소녀상‘ 독일에 세우겠다” September 6 2016. https://www.sedaily.com/NewsVIew/1L1AU1LV1X 3 Badische Zeitung , September 23 2016. “Bronzefigur löst diplomatischen Ärger mit Japan aus” https://www.badische-zeitung.de/bronzefigur-loest-diplomatischen-aerger-mit-japan-aus-127585959.html 4 Badische Zeitung , September 24 2016. “Salomon sieht Statuen-Streit als "kulturelles

Missverständnis" https://www.badische-zeitung.de/freiburg/ob-salomon-ueber-den-wirbel-deneine-statue-ausgeloest-hat 5 Badische Zeitung , September 23 2016. “Bronzefigur löst diplomatischen Ärger mit Japan aus” https://www.badische-zeitung.de/bronzefigur-loest-diplomatischen-aerger-mit-japan-aus-127585959.html; taz, October 5 2016, “Keine Erinnerung an “Trostfrauen“,” https://taz.de/Kriegsverbrechen-Denkmal-in-Freiburg/!5341049/ In an interview, Mayor Salomon described that it was “misused (missbraucht)” (Badische Zeitung ,

September 24 2016”Salomon sieht Statuen-Streit als "kulturelles Missverständnis" https://www.badische-zeitung.de/freiburg/ob-salomon-ueber-den-wirbel-den-eine-statueausgeloest-hat)

351

even realizing it. Stuttgarter Zeitung analyzed that Mayor Yeom Tae-young was a little “tricky.” The paper assumed that Mayer Yeom was aware of the fact that the Statue of Peace was a “double-sided coin” since the Mayor worked previously as a human rights

activist, and knew that there was a movement after the 2015 “comfort women” agreement

to pressure Japan on an international level.6

Taz, one of Germany’s leading daily newspapers, also diagnosed the Statue of Peace

as a means of putting moral pressure on Japan, saying that Suwon City used the sisterhood relationship as a means of putting pressure on Japan.7 Zöllner, a professor of Japanese studies at Bonn University, opposed the establishment of the Freiburg Statue of Peace, saying that it had the meaning of a moral conviction against Japan.8

In short, the Mayor of Freiburg’s view was that he was unaware of the controversies surrounding “comfort women” issue, symbolized as the Statue of Peace, in two countries

and only thought of liquidation of Germany’s past, which led to a cultural

misunderstanding and made a mistake in being unaware of the pressure Statue of Peace has on Japan. On top of that, Korea presented the Statue of Peace that clearly would lead to controversies.

Similar situations were initially developed during the establishment of the Berlin Statue of Peace. The Berlin Statue of Peace was installed at the entrance of an alley in Mitte, Berlin on September 28, 2020. The Korea Verband, an NGO group, submitted an application for the establishment of the statue to the related Commission on City, Architecture, and Arts (Kommission Kunst im Stadtraum/Kunst am Bau).The next day, on September 29, Japan demanded the removal of the Statue of Peace at the federal and state levels. On October 7, two district officials visited the Korea Verband to deliver a letter of withdrawal of the permission to establish the Statue of Peace and ordered it to be

6 Stuttgarter-zeitung, October 3 2016, “OB opfert Trostfrau für Japan,” https://www.stuttgarterzeitung.de/inhalt.freiburger-partnerschaften-ob-opfert-trostfrau-fuer-japan.51c9a970-2c78-486dbeff-681ecc2ea086.html 7 taz, October 5 2016, “Keine Erinnerung an “Trostfrauen“,” https://taz.de/Kriegsverbrechen-

Denkmal-in-Freiburg/!5341049/ 8 DW , September 21 2016, “Freiburg und die Trostfrau,” https://www.dw.com/de/freiburg-und-dietrostfrau/a-19563885 Zöllner changed his position to supporting the establishment of Statue of

Peace, after the Satue of Peace exhibition in Japan. (Mainichi, April 11 2021,

“少⼥像はドイツで受け⼊れられたのか 疑問の先に ⾒えてきたもの” https://mainichi.jp/premier/politics/articles/20210329/pol/00m/010/006000c) 352

removed at their own expense by October 14. According to the Taz report, the official letter contains an expression that gives the impression that the “Korea Verband deceived

the district office.”9 According to the official letter, the Korea Verband did not notify the government of the inscription, which is likely to be a problem, and as a result put a serious strain on diplomatic relations between Germany and Japan. The problem raised was that wartime sexual violence was committed by Germany and has been practiced in various regions to date, but only Japan was mentioned in the inscription of Statue of Peace, which was “aiming at Japanese politics from a South Korean perspective.” The argument is that

contrary to the expectation that the Statue of Peace inscription will describe “violent

conflict regardless of the time, place, and motive,” it focused solely on Japan and opposed

Japan. They also refused to unilaterally “instrumentalize (Instrumentalisierung)” public

places to oppose Japan using the Statue of Pease, stressing that Berlin-Japan relations are very tight.10

In response, the Korea Verband claimed that it has never caused confusion to the government office, saying it clearly stated that Japan would oppose the establishment of the statue in the application form submitted to the relevant department.11 Also, if the inscription is so important to the district office, the Korea Verband asked them why they did not want to see it in advance.12 The Korea Verband countered the district office’s

criticism that they should have been aware of the Statue of Peace is about crimes committed by the Japanese Imperial Army, as the same inscription was in the application for the establishment of the statue.13

In fact, the Korea Verband’s application for the establishment of the Statue of Peace stated that the statue is aimed at preventing the recurrence of wartime sexual violence

9 taz, October 8 2020, “Berlin-Mitte kuscht vor Tokio” https://taz.de/Gedenken-an-

Trostfrauen/!5719024/ 10 Widerruf der Ausnahmegenehmigung vom 06.07.2020 zum Aufstellen von Gegenständen, hier:

“Die Friedensstatue,” in der Bremer Str./Ecke Birkenstr. in Berlin-Mitte (07.10.2020) 11 Berliner Woche , October 16 2020, “Statue kann vorerst bleiben” https://www.berlinerwoche.de/moabit/c-politik/statue-kann-vorerst-bleiben_a290347 12 taz, October 8 2020, “Berlin-Mitte kuscht vor Tokio” https://taz.de/Gedenken-an-

Trostfrauen/!5719024/ 13 Berliner Woche , October 16 2020, “Statue kann vorerst bleiben” https://www.berlinerwoche.de/moabit/c-politik/statue-kann-vorerst-bleiben_a290347 353

and promoting victims’ demands for reparations and apology from the perpetrators.14 It also devoted a separate explanation to the expected opposition from Japan. In the end, Mitte District Mayor von Dassel apologized by sending a letter to the Korea Verband on March 30 2021, that he did not intend to give any impression that there was nontransparency during the Korea Verband’s application for the statue.15 However, the issue of inscription remains open to controversy. This will be explained again below.

The inscription was also problematized with the Wiesent Statue of Peace. In March 2017, the Statue of Peace was erected in a Nepal Himalaya Pavillon in Wiesent, a town outside Regensburg. Originally, the Statue of Peace was to be accompanied by an inscription containing the historical background, future direction, and meaning of the statue. However, after strong protests from the Japanese side, only the Statue of Peace was erected without an inscription.16 In this way, the Statue of Peace remains only one of the exotic sculptures for those who lack political and historical context and who do not know the context.

There is room for debate whether the Mayor of Freiburg is telling the truth and whether his feeling is justified. According to Korean media reports, he was warned in advance that Japan would interfere with the establishment of the statue, and Salomon replied that he would sternly deal with it.17 There are also opinions that as a Mayor, he should have learned more about Korea and Japan’s historical background in advance. In

the process of establishing the Berlin Statue of Peace, it can be pointed out that even though the Korea Verband warned of Japan’s response in advance and included its aim to

demand Japan’s apology in the application, the district office responded with complacency

and even proceeded to give an implication that the Korea Verband went through non-

14 Korea Verband application for special use for art in urban space (Antrag auf Sondernutzung für

Kunst im Stadtraum) 15 Letter from Mitte District Mayor von Dassel to Korea Verband representative Han Jung-hwa,

March 3 2021 16 Yonhap News, April 20 2018, “독일 여성박물관에 '평화의 소녀상' 세운다…유럽서 두번째” https://www.yna.co.kr/view/AKR20180430063800371 17 “Mayor Yeom delivered that ‘there were organized interference from Japan against establishment of Statue of Peace across the world including U.S. and Australia’ to the Mayor of

Freiburg. The Freiburg Mayor showed his firm determination not to be afraid of opposition or pressure from the Japanese government or rightwing organizations.” (JoongAng Daily,

September 5 2016, “獨 프라이부르크에 '평화의 소녀상' 건립…염태영 수원시장 제안” https://news.joins.com/article/205505511)

354

transparent procedures for the establishment. But as discussed in this paper, I would like to focus more on looking at what logic is being developed locally around the Statue of Peace than criticism of Germany’s way of responding.

Discussions surrounding the establishment of the Statue of Peace.

First, what can be seen in the two cases above is that the purpose of the Statue of Peace is recognized separately into two. One is to prevent the recurrence of wartime sexual violence against women and the other is to urge Japan to apologize and make reparations, which is recognized as diplomatic pressure on Japan. From the perspective of Korea, this purpose, which is not separated in principle, is recognized separately overseas. However, this separation occurred with Japan’s involvement, and until Japan raised the issue, the

above two purposes of the statue were not recognized as separate. Especially in German society, which was relatively successful in liquidating the past, there was no sense of problem with the establishment of a statue commemorating the crimes committed during World War II and the particular perpetrator being revealed there. This can be seen from the fact that including the above cases, attempts to establish the Statue of Peace and to hold exhibitions in other parts of Germany did not encounter opposition until the Japanese side raised the issue.18 However, with Japan’s opposition, the perception that the Statue

of Peace is an object that does not match its nominal and practical purpose is born. And a certain logic unfolds: when the Statue of Peace is considered to represent the universal value of opposition to wartime sexual violence, there is no problem; if it intends to pressure Japan externally, it becomes not acceptable.

What is the problem when the Statue of Peace is a means of pressuring Japan? The first answer to this question, of course, – Japan’s perspective – should be put in parentheses here and focus on the logic of the German perspective. Japanese military “comfort women”

itself is not a problem for the Germans. The Mayor Salomon pointed out that “’comfort

women” history is not “such as Internet conspiracy theories,” and that Japan apologized

18 Korea.net, August 16 2019, “Die Friedensstatuen in Deutschland” https://german.korea.net/NewsFocus/HonoraryReporters/view?articleId=174302 355

and constructed a compensation fund.19 In short, in his point of view, Japan has admitted their wrongdoings. He also concluded throughout the incident that little progress in clearing up the dark past of Japanese society was made. Nevertheless, he believes that Germany cannot intervene as a third country in the way Japan liquidates its past. This is a matter that Japan must learn on its own. Berlin Mitte district does not question the historical facts of “comfort women.” The reason why Mitte district takes issue with the

inscription is because the inscription contains Japan’s criminal facts (only). They are not necessarily in opposition with the establishment of a statue to oppose wartime sexual violence. However, if Germany recognizes the Statue of Peace as a means of pressuring Japan, but allows it, it will be in a position to consider the issue of diplomatic neutrality as a third country. In response, Mladenova of the Department of Japanese Studies at Leipzig University pointed out that Germany is diplomatically becoming another battleground for the “history war” between Korea and Japan, and notice the logic of maintaining neutrality in opposition to the establishment of the Berlin statue. According to this logic, relations between countries can only involve the parties in order to respect the sovereignty of the country, so the intervention of a third-party Germany in the Korea-Japan issue is diplomatically undesirable, and Germany must abide by the non-intervention principle. In this regard, the fact that statues such as the Statue of Peace are placed on the streets close to the administration is a “violation” of the principle of neutrality and opposing Japan

at the national level.20

Zöllner was also in this position until recently. He opposed the establishment of the

statue when controversy arose over the Statue of Peace in Freiburg, arguing that building the Statue of Peace would be standing by South Korea’s side at a time when reconciliation

between Korea and Japan has not ended.21 The Berlin Mitte District Mayor also said in a city notice that the inscriptions on “Statue of Peace” and “Statue of Peace” deal with

19 Stuttgarter-zeitung, October 3 2016, “OB opfert Trostfrau für Japan,” https://www.stuttgarterzeitung.de/inhalt.freiburger-partnerschaften-ob-opfert-trostfrau-fuer-japan.51c9a970-2c78-486dbeff-681ecc2ea086.html 20 Mladenova, Dorothea (2020): Was bedeutet es eigentlich, dass in Berlin eine Friedensstatue in

Form einer “Trostfrau” aufgestellt wurde? (https://japanologie.gko.uni-leipzig.de/news/wasbedeutet-es-eigentlich-dass-in-berlin-eine-friedensstatue-in-form-einer-trostfrau-aufgestelltwurde/) 21 DW , September 21 2016, “Freiburg und die Trostfrau,” https://www.dw.com/de/freiburg-unddie-trostfrau/a-19563885

356

burdensome and complex political and historical conflicts between the two countries, and this is not a good topic for Germany’s past liquidation, and will not be taking a specific

side on this issue.22

Wagner, who has long served as an Asian correspondent at Spiegel and published books on Japan, says he understands the German authorities’ position that they do not

want to get involved in sensitive diplomatic and political issues in other countries. 23 However, he points out that when authorities gave permission, they should have kept in mind that they would be involved diplomatically from the beginning. He argues that we shouldn’t try to solve the problem by removing the Statue of Peace, because it became

“troublesome.”

Zöllner points out another problem that arises when the Statue of Peace is perceived as a means of putting moral pressure on Japan. He called attention to why the application for the establishment of the statue was rejected in Strathfield, Australia, and said that the Statue of Peace was a “national slur on the Japanese people,” which is unacceptable for a

society to maintain peace.24 Von Dassel, Berlin Mitte District Mayor, also made remarks to the effect that the presence of the Statue of Peace could jeopardize the peaceful coexistence of people of various nationalities.25

It can be summarized that if Germany approves the Statue of Peace at the government level, it will officially side with Korea in the conflict between Korea and Japan, which will undermine neutrality as a third country and support its critical stance on Japan, which is why it is opposed to the Statue of Peace. Also, the Statue of Peace includes the criticism of Japan, which can have a negative impact on the peaceful coexistence of multicultural communities. Korea has been working on constructing overseas Statue of Peace to

22 Bezirksamt Mitte hebt Genehmigung für “Friedensstatue” auf. Pressemitteilung Nr. 363/2020 vom 08.10.2020(https://www.berlin.de/bamitte/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2020/pressemitteilung.1001656.php) 23 Tagesspiegel, October 31 2020, “Deutschland ist die Erinnerung an Japans Sexsklavinnen nur lästig“ https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/berlin-tokio-und-der-streit-ueber-das-trostfrauen-denkmaldeutschland-ist-die-erinnerung-an-japans-sexsklavinnen-nur-laestig/26575642.html 24 DW , September 21 2016, “Freiburg und die Trostfrau,” https://www.dw.com/de/freiburg-unddie-trostfrau/a-19563885 25 Bezirksamt Mitte hebt Genehmigung für “Friedensstatue” auf. Pressemitteilung Nr. 363/2020 vom 08.10.2020 (https://www.berlin.de/bamitte/aktuelles/pressemitteilungen/2020/pressemitteilung.1001656.php) 357

pressure Japan in resolving the “comfort women” issue. However, following Germany’s

logic, the “comfort women” issue must be resolved before Statue of Peace can be

established overseas.

In this paper, we will not discuss whether not authorizing the establishment of the Statue of Peace for is to preserve Germany’s neutrality as a third country or whether the

Statue of Peace really harms the peaceful coexistence of multicultural communities. However, I would like to briefly introduce the behind-the-scenes situation of withdrawing the establishment permit for the Berlin Statue of Peace. After the decision to remove the Statue of Peace was made public in Berlin, the Tagesspiegel asked if the Berlin City government had been involved in the removal of the statue in Mitte District, and the city said it was up to the district office. However, Tagesspiegel found out that after the statue was erected in Berlin, the Berlin City, Japanese Embassy and Mitte District had discussed it.26 According to the media, Zimmer, a protocol officer in Berlin, thanked Mitte in a letter to the Mayor of Mitte District that “welcomed” Mitte District’s decision to withdraw the

permission to install the Statue of Peace and inscription. He noted that “the ‘comfort

women’ issue is very sensitive in relations between the two countries Korea and Japan, and Berlin and Tokyo, furthermore Berlin and Japan’s relationship is likely to be endangered by

this issue.” Pointing out that South Korea and Japan reached a “final and irreversible”

agreement on the issue in 2015, he also commented that it is crucial for East Asian Security and the German Federation to play a role in the East Asian region despite its burdensome past history. He said German Foreign Office feels the same way, adding, “We will be able

to find another way to deal with the important issue of wartime sexual violence in an appropriate way.”

On the other hand, in addition to urging Japan to apologize, the Statue of Peace also has a universal meaning against wartime sexual violence, and there are many positions in Germany that view the statue from this perspective. Mladenova also points out that more and more people are paying attention to the rights of women and the meaning of human

26 Tagesspiegel , October 25 2020, Senatskanzlei drängte auf Abbau der Berliner “Friedensstatue“ https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/verantwortung-fuer-die-sicherheitslage-in-ostasiensenatskanzlei-draengte-auf-abbau-der-berliner-friedensstatue/26305734.html 358

rights that the Statue of Peace is about.27

This is also confirmed by the Berlin District Council. The District Council is a representative institution of district residents and may give recommendations to the District Office, although it is not a voting institution. The resolution to maintain the Mitte District Statue of Peace for 1 year was first proposed by the Pirate Party and voted in November 2020 with 27 votes in favor and 9 votes against it. The approval came from the Social Democratic Party, the Left Party, the Green Party and the Pirate Party, while the Christian Democratic Union Party and the Liberal Democratic Party voted against it. Council cited the fact that the “Statue of Peace contributes productively to the past liquidation and

debate of wartime sexual violence” as the reason for its resolution. However, the Social

Democratic Party said it voted in favor of the Korea Verband’s application for the

establishment of the Statue of Peace because the contents of the inscription were not fixed. The Left Party demanded the permanent retention of the Statue of Peace. However, the Left Party also saw the need to supplement the inscription on Japan’s crimes, as the

Statue of Peace should not be limited to the issues between Korea and Japan. The Christian Democratic Union Party said it opposes the installation of the Statue of Peace because it is a matter of two countries between Korea and Japan, and called for the removal of the inscription, although the Statue of Peace is fine. It also argued that only then the Statue of Peace can be accepted by the wider public. There were also objections to Berlin’s

possible involvement in diplomatic difficulties. A Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker also said the Statue of Peace has a good meaning, but it is a tool used as a diplomatic tool in conflict with other countries.28

The Statue of Peace was once again put on the agenda in the District Council by the motion of the Left Party in December, this time to decide on its permanent retention. At the meeting, the resolution was passed by a vote of 24 in favor and 5 against. The Left Party, who suggested the agenda, argued that the “comfort women” issue is a historical

fact that Japan admitted themselves, and will function as a catalyst for discussion on

27 Mladnova, Dorothea (2020), Was bedeutet es eigentlich, dass in Berlin eine Friedensstatue in

Form einer “Trostfrau” aufgestellt wurde? In: https://japanologie.gko.uni-leipzig.de/news/wasbedeutet-es-eigentlich-dass-in-berlin-eine-friedensstatue-in-form-einer-trostfrau-aufgestelltwurde/ 28 taz, November 6 2020, “BVV für Trostfrauenstatue“https://taz.de/Streit-um-Mahnmal-in-

Berlin/!5723468/

359

wartime and daily sexual violence, and thus must remain in Berlin.29 In addition to the Left Party, the Green Party and the Social Democratic Party voted in favor of the statue. The Christian Democratic Union Party finally voted against the inscription, arguing that wartime sexual violence is a crime in many countries, and it is not right to focus only on the examples of Korea and Japan. In addition, the Christian Democratic Union Party also expressed its opinion that the Statue of Peace has nothing to do with Berlin. Instead of opposing the Statue of Peace, the Liberal Democratic Party proposed to build a new statue on the theme of sexual violence against women in wartime. An independent lawmaker voted in favor of the Statue of Peace, pointing out that Germany and Japan were allies during World War II. As a result, the three parties, who voted in favor of the Statue of Peace, agreed that the statue should be refined under consultation with the Korea Verband. It is interpreted that the inscription of the statue can be modified or supplemented.

Considering the above, it can be seen that the Statue of Peace is thought separately in two contexts: a context that symbolizes universal value and a context related to the history of Korea and Japan. The proposition and opposition to the establishment of the Statue of Peace differ depending on which side is seen as more important. It is confirmed that the majority do not disagree with the installation of the Statue of Peace when evaluated only by the former perspective. In addition, some show reserved attitudes appear when pointing to Japan as the perpetrator. Some also view the statue as irrelevant to Berlin, as they limit the Statue of Peace to Korean and Japanese issue.

Suggestion for the Japanese military “comfort women” issue movement in the future.

Japan’s acts to stop the Statue of Peace continues regardless of the public and private

sectors. It is surprising and worrisome that such pressure from Japan could actually change local administrative decisions overnight. What is more worrisome, however, is that Japan’s

protests and pressures result in shaking the status of universal values held by the Statue of Peace. Regardless of the authenticity of the content, Japan’s protest has the effect of

29 BVV proposal from the Left Party in Berlin Mitte, October 26 2020, “Friedensstatue bewahren –

Gedenken an Opfer sexualisierter Gewalt ermöglichen” https://www.linksfraktion-berlinmitte.de/drucksachen/detail/news/friedensstatue-bewahren-gedenken-an-opfer-sexualisiertergewalt-ermoeglichen/

360

stealing the universality that transcends time and space from the Statue of Peace and highlighting the context of political and historical conflicts between Korea and Japan. As a result, a perception is formed that the Statue of Peace may appear to promote universal value, but in fact is a means to win the fight against Japan, and that the “comfort women”

issue is no longer an issue of justice, truth, and moral values, but a regional conflict based on national pride. Not a small amount of media are unwittingly using this Japanese military “comfort women” issue in such frame. For example, a reporter from a liberal media Taz

also compared the relationship between South Korea and Japan to that of Israel Tel Aviv and Iran’s Isfahan.30 It only considered the conflict, not taking into account the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized. In this light, the Statue of Peace is not a moral issue on liquidation of the past, but only in the context of political issues. It is natural that this raises the question of why Germany should intervene in other countries’ political affairs.

This is why the Christian Democratic Union Party considered that the Statue of Peace had nothing to do with Berlin, and not a few Germans questioned what it had to do with Germany.

How should we respond to this? So far, Korea’s main “strategy” has emphasized the

universal value of preventing the recurrence of sexual violence in wartime, and it is true that the Statue of Peace needs to be established in Berlin because of the sexual violence

in Germany and other countries. But this logic on its own does not respond to the suggestion to make a statue with more universal and global context], which the Liberal Democratic Party suggested.31 In addition, there is no justification to oppose the logic of removing inscription so that Japan does not appear on the surface. Mayor von Dassel said that he expects a monument commemorating the victims of wartime sexual violence that

30 taz October 5 2016, “Keine Erinnerung an “Trostfrauen“,” https://taz.de/Kriegsverbrechen-

Denkmal-in-Freiburg/!5341049/ Meanwhile, Berthold Seliger criticized that the expression

“conflict between Korean and Japan” itself is problematic, and emphasized that it is not a mere conflict but a conflict rising from war crimes (Junge Welt, Nr. 241, October 15 2020, p.3). 31 Another example is in 2018, when a women’s museum in Bonn’s plans to exhibit Statue of

Peace was interfered by pressure from Japan and another statue against wartime sexual violence was exhibited instead of Statue of Peace. (Süddeutsche Zeitung, August 13 2019, “Japanische

Reflexe” https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/kriegsverbrechen-japanische-reflexe-1.4562767) 361

contributes to the liquidation of German history, not limited to Korea and Japan.32 In the face of such wish, what kind of answer should the Statue of Peace give? How can the Statue of Peace persuade the legitimacy of its existence when it tries to stand the way it is?

First, it is necessary to examine the purpose of the Statue of Peace from the perspective of the international community. As currently stated on the Korea Council for Justice and Remembrance for the Issues of Military Sexual Slavery by Japan website, the purpose of the Statue of Peace is to stop sexual violence and prevent recurrence, and its imagery expresses “anger against the Japanese government’s avoidance of responsibility.”

In this regard, the main purpose of the Statue of Peace is the universal value of stopping sexual violence and preventing recurrence in wartime. Nevertheless, it is true that in the international community, it is overshadowed by the shadow of the conflict between Korea and Japan, despite the Korean side’s emphasis that the Statue of Peace is not anti-Japanese. Above all, the “comfort women” issue is yet to be resolved and Japan repeatedly interferes

with the movement. Thus the claim that the purpose of Statue of Peace is to promote universal value cannot be accepted plainly.

In this regard, it is worth considering the idea of placing the inscription on the Statue of Peace in a more general context by supplementing it. This is because it is not just an opinion that came out under pressure from Japan. All the lawmakers who expressed their opinion in the District Council are in a position to criticize the city of Berlin for “kneeling

down to Japan’s pressure.” Such people agreed to maintain the Statue of Peace

permanently but also agreed that inscription needs to be “refined.” This can be interpreted

as suggesting that the statue can be better settled in other cultures with such a supplement. Secondly, it is necessary to highlight more strongly the Statue of Peace’s context

against the historical revisionism. Fortunately, there are critical positions in Germany that note and criticize Japan’s historical revisionist attempts. Some argue that Japan is not the

only country that committed wartime sexual violence and thus the Statue of Peace can be replaced with another statue. According to Werthmann, a district lawmaker of the Green Party, the Statue of Peace contains a message that it is not only wartime sexual violence

32 News von Dassel -Dezember 2020, In: Newsletter des Bezirksbürgermeisters von Mitte. (https://www.berlin.de/ba-mitte/politik-und-verwaltung/bezirksamt/stephan-vondassel/newsletter/newsletter.1029898.php)

362

but also a criticism of historical revisionism. However, this view is not often seen in German media. Therefore, it is necessary to actively inform that the Statue of Peace has a meaning against historical revisionism. Germany has experience in responding to historical revisionist challenges such as Holocaust negativity, so it will be easy to understand historical revisionist attempts. Even this may lose its light in the face of the cold logic of power, but no one will be able to deny the legitimacy of the Statue of Peace.

Finally, it is necessary to place the statue in the context of post-colonialism. Surprisingly, many Germans know that Japan initiated the war, but don’t know that it also

had colonies. For instance, a student who attended a demonstration in Berlin to mark the 1,500th Wednesday Demonstration confessed that s/he had never known such a fact before. Interest in post-colonialism is growing in Germany. In 2018, the coalition government of the Christian Democratic Union Party/Christian Social Union Party and the Social Democratic Party signed an agreement to liquidate the colonial past, and recently decided to return some of the collections from the colonial past to their homeland with the opening of the national museum, Humboldt Forum. In fact, not many European countries have seriously considered colonialism as an object of past liquidation. According to American philosopher Neiman, only 19 percent of the British think there is something to apologize for in British imperialism.33 Germany, however, has promised to apologize and compensate for the genocide in its colonies, and became the first to do so from the Western society. This year, Germany and the Namibian delegation concluded a six-year long investigation into the genocide on the Namibian and Herero tribes living in Namibia. But this agreement exposes many limitations. It turns out that some of the victims of the Namas and Hereros were excluded from the negotiations and that Germany limited its apologies and compensation to moral and political responsibility and drawing a line that it was not legally responsible.34 However, it is clear that the topic of colonialism is drawing public attention across all societies.

At the same time, there is an ongoing debate in academia over whether the Holocaust

33 DIE ZEIT, Nr. 22/2021, May 7 2021, “Ignoranz aus Scham von Susan Neiman,” https://www.zeit.de/2021/22/von-den-deutschen-lernen-susan-neimanvergangenheitsaufarbeitung-antisemitismus 34 DW, May 28 2021, “Deutschland erkennt Kolonialverbrechen in Namibia als Völkermord an” https://www.dw.com/de/deutschland-erkennt-kolonialverbrechen-in-namibia-alsv%C3%B6lkermord-an/a-57695319

363

can be compared to colonialism. There are conflicting views that the Holocaust is a unique event that cannot be compared to other historical events, such as colonialism,35 and that it is in line with colonialism and Genocide in other regions,36 and that violence that Europe has committed to other races before that.37 The latter believes that memory culture in Germany is only focused on Holocaust criticism, but brutal anti-humanitarian acts in the colonies should also be subject to memory culture.

In such backgrounds, the Statue of Peace needs to highlight the context of women victims of colonialism. It should induce a change of perspective to see the relationship between Korea and Japan in a structure called post-colonialism, not just a conflict between the two countries. It is ultimately to protect life, human rights, and peace that Germany declares the Holocaust as a crime against humanity that cannot be compared to anything else and introduces the concept of liquidation of the past so that such crimes do not occur again. This historical consciousness should be extended and applied not only to antiSemitism criticism but also to the history of anti-racism and anti-colonialism. With the Statue of Peace, symbolizing the Japanese military “comfort women” can also be

recognized from that point of view. Liquidating the anti-humanitarian past is a matter of civil society members as well as the governments of the countries concerned, 38 and furthermore, it is a matter for the international community to pay attention to. Germany’s

definition of Holocaust criticism will be achieved when it tries to correct its anti-

humanitarian activities, oppression and exploitation of other peoples and races, not just because history only in Germany is set right. Moreover, the Korea’s Japanese military

“comfort women” movement should appeal that it aims for such goals as well.

35 There are researchers such as Götz Aly, Volkhard Knigge, and more who hold such view. 36 There are researchers such as Dirk Moses, Jürgen Zimmerer, Felix Axster, and more who hold such view. 37 Michael Rothberg (2009): Multidirektionale Erinnerung: Holocaustgedenken im Zeitalter der

Dekolonisierung, Berlin: Metropol, 2021. 38 Social Democratic Party press release on October 12 2020, “SPD Mitte fordert den Erhalt und eine transparente Diskussion über die Friedenstatue in Moabit” https://www.spd-berlinmitte.de/meldungen/wir-fordern-den-erhalt-und-eine-transparente-diskussion-ueber-diefriedensstatue-in-moabit/

364

365