ハーバード大ラムザイヤー教授の「慰安婦論文」批判への反論
ようやく崩れ始めた「慰安婦強制連行説」の虚構
李宇衍（『反日種族主義』共同執筆者）
ラムザイヤー教授は「慰安婦と慰安所は相互の思惑」を一致させる契約に基づく関係にあったということを論理的、実証的に明らかにする論文を「インターナショナル・レビュー・オブ・ロー・アンド・エコノミックス」誌（電子）に掲載しました。韓国系団体をはじめ学者からも激しい抗議が起こされ、一時はプリント版への掲載が見送られそうな状況になりました。しかし、ハーバート大学学部長、雑誌編集者はこれに屈せず、予定通りプリント版が今月発行されます。
こうした批判に対して、『反日種族主義』の共同著者の李宇衍さんは徹底的な反論を書いております。研究者らの批判の中核は、契約関係を立証する契約書がないではないかということです。しかし、李宇衍さんは欧米と違って合意内容を必ず文書に残すよりも口頭契約依存度の高かった韓国との違いを理解していないと批判する。
また、批判者たちは、自分たちの確信の根拠は山ほどあるというのだが、実は突き詰めると、ごくわずかな被害者の「証言」しかないというのが真相なのです。いまだに、「吉田清治」のウソ話、吉見義明が発見したという軍関与文書、河野談話、クマラスワミ報告書などが彼らの根拠になっている有様です。吉見の文書は、軍が悪質業者を取り締まったものであり、強制連行などの証拠では全くありません。河野談話など政治談話であり、強制連行の証拠には全くなっていません。クマラスワミ報告に至っては、吉田清治のウソ＋北朝鮮などのウソ宣伝をそのまま根拠にしたものにすぎません。
実は、元慰安婦の証言自体も、殆ど根拠薄弱なものばかりであり、信じるに値しないものなのです。
しかも、慰安婦になるためには、当時様々な公的文書が必要とされていました。本人意思の確認も行われていたのでした。
結局のところ批判者たちは、何一つ実際に強制連行が行われた証拠を提示することはできないということなのです。
李宇衍論文日本語版(JBpress)：http://hassin.org/01/wp-content/uploads/Atlong.pdf
〃 英訳文： http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/AtlongE.pdf
令和3年３月１２日「史実を世界に発信する会」会長代行 茂木弘道拝
http://hassin.org
The fable of “forced abduction of comfort women” is finally imploding.
The reality of the comfort women was that they were ordinary sex workers.
Lee Woo-yeon, co-author of Anti-Japan Tribalism
Professor Mark Ramseyer at Harvard University made explicit in his article, “Contracting for sex in the Pacific War,” in the International Review of Law and Economic, that the relationship between comfort women and comfort stations was contractual. A group of American and South Korean scholars have rebuked Professor Manseyer’s article since its publication. At the core of their criticism is that there were no concluded indenture contracts or “paper” to verify the contractual relationship. Underlying their criticism though is the fact that they do not understand the difference in contractual cultures between that of European and American countries, where concluded contracts written, and that of Korea, where people tended to depend on verbal or oral contracts.
Critics say that there is a “mountain of evidence” that supports their contention—”testimonies from victim former comfort women”; “confession by perpetrator Yoshida Seiji”; a document of the Japanese Army instructing “forcible abduction”; the Kono Statement, which expressed “remorse”, by the Japanese Government in 1993; the Coomaraswamy Report issued by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and other reports presented by Amnesty International, International Commission of Jurists and other NGOs. However, among these “mountains of evidence,” only testimonies of former comfort women have some “valid.” The rest turned out to be false or based not tangible primary sources but on the stories of the comfort women.
So how much are we to believe of their stories, that “they were forcibly abducted to be made comfort women”? When former comfort women came out in the early 1990s, their stories mentioned nothing about “forced abduction.” They said that they were deceived by Korean brokers or sold by their parents and became comfort women. The greatest drawback of former comfort women’s “testimonies” is the lack of consistency as this episode illustrates.
Moreover, a serious problem is that there is no objective means to verify their stories. Any official document stating that Japanese authorities were involved in “forcible abduction” has yet to be uncovered. Records left by a third party, including civilians, who might have witnessed coercion or testimony to that effect has also not been uncovered.
URL: http://www.sdh-fact.com/essay-article/1652/
PDF: http://www.sdh-fact.com/CL/AtlongE1.pdf
MOTEKI Hiromichi, Acting Chairman
for KASE Hideaki, Chairman
Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact