1 As of 1 August 2020, only 17 survivors remain out of the total 238 South Korean “comfort women” victims officially registered. In 2019 five victims and in 2020 already three victims have passed away. Ms. Jan Ruff O’Herne of the Netherlands, one of the only two publically-known former Dutch ‘comfort women’, also passed away in August 2019.

2 This Institute works to eliminate gender violence and to achieve gender equality.

3 The report of UNESCO’s expert body, the International Advisory Committee (IAC), stated in the section on assessment of nominations for the MOW International Register the following: “IAC reviewed the nominations for the MOW International Register. … while in another case it was recommended that because the issues raised in the nomination apply more widely to other countries, and because they merit full attention, the particular nomination will be deferred for the next nomination cycle 2016/2017. In the meantime, the IAC will exercise its discretion under Article 4.3.3 of the Guidelines to encourage additional nominations on the subject.” Final Report, 12th Meeting of the International Advisory Committee of The Memory of the World Programme, 4-6 October 2015, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, p. 13.

4 As a member of the convening organization from South Korea, the author was in charge of the Media Team, dealing with about 200 reporters from all around the world. We held two press conferences daily during the Tribunal, one in English and another in Korean. A total of 1,100 people participated, including 67 former comfort women. The final Judgment was delivered one year later in The Hague: Judgement, The Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal for the Trial of Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery, Case No. PT-2001-1-T, (The Hague: Delivered 4 December 2001).

5 The 6 organizations in South Korea are: Korean Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan; The House of Sharing; Busan Council for the Women Drafted for Military Sexual Slavery by Japan; Daegu Citizen Forum for Halmuni; Masan, Changwon, and Jinhae Civil Assembly for Japanese Military Sexual Slaves; and Tongyeong and Geoje Civil Assembly for Japanese Military Sexual Slaves.

6 In addition to the six Korean organizations, the initial members of ICJN were the Research Center for Chinese “Comfort Women” at Shanghai Normal University (China), Beijing Fangyuan Law Firm (China), Taipei Women’s Rescue Foundation (Taiwan), The Japanese Committee for Joint Nomination to the UNESCO MoW Register (Japan), The Foundation of Japanese Honorary Debts (Netherlands) and Lila Pilipina Lolas Center Inc. (Philippines). (Editor’s note: While the participating organizations from mainland China are presented as ‘civil society’ entities, in practice all such groups in China are closely state-supervised, requiring official approval to engage in collaboration with overseas NGOs.)

7 In Indonesia, the original organization working on the wartime ‘comfort women’ issue had ceased taking responsibility for archiving documents and I was referred to an individual researcher, who subsequently formed the Solidarity Network for Indonesian ‘Comfort Women’ with a Japanese researcher/supporter. In Timor-Leste, it proved difficult to communicate with the Hak Association either through e-mails or telephone calls.

8 The IAC is the body which advises UNESCO on the planning and implementation of the Memory of the World programme. See Note 3 above.

9 For more on the 2000 Women’s Tribunal, see Mina Watanabe and Norma Field, “Reopening the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, Fifty-Four Years Later: As Recorded in the Documentary Video, Breaking the History of Silence,” Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, (February 15, 2021), Volume 19, Issue 4, Number 1 (Article ID 5536).

10 Remarks at the Joint Press Conference, from the Korean Foreign Ministry’s website (edited by the author).

11 Editor’s note: The Korean authorities expected a reaffirmation from the Japanese side of the apologies issued by Japan in the 1990s (from which Abe and other leading Japanese politicians had appeared to recede). On this point, the wording of the final agreement was felt by many in Korea to be too vague.

12 Editor’s note: It should be noted that even this formal text left open the possibility that the Korean Government might fail to persuade ‘relevant groups’ to remove the statue. As Korean officials repeatedly stressed, the statue falls under the jurisdiction of the Seoul municipal authorities. The national government therefore does not have the authority to require the statue’s removal.

13 From the Korean Foreign Ministry’s website (in Korean).

14 In 2006, sixty-four ‘comfort women’ survivors filed a constitutional suit, and the decision came out on 30 August 2011. 2006Hun-Ma788, Challenge against the Act of Omission Involving Article 3 of “Agreement on the Settlement of Problem concerning Property and Claims and the Economic Cooperation between the Republic of Korea and Japan, Lee 0-Soo et al vs. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

15 Hankookilbo, reporting on the official start of the Research Association, 29 Jan. 2016. This Association published a book (in Korean) in June 2016, Kim Chang-rok et al, 2015 Agreement on ‘Comfort Women’ Should Not be Tolerated, Kyung-in Publishing Co., Seoul, 2016.

16 Donations from individuals were the only sources of financial support, while we also had to spend personal money. For example, the author traveled at her own expense to Canberra and to London in Feb. 2016 to secure approval for inclusion of the documents in the custody of the National Archives of Australia and the Australian War Memorial, as well as the Imperial War Museum London. The permissions were all granted.

17 This funding was from the Seoul Metropolitan City Government in Sept. 2016.

18 This was possible since our meeting was back-to-back with the Asian Solidarity Conference, in which our members had participated and their travel expenses were paid by its organizer. The Asian Solidarity Conference first held in Seoul in 1992 had been organized by the Korean Council, as a venue of discussion among civil society organizations which were working on the comfort women issue.

19 For the 2016-2017 cycle, the deadline was originally set for 31 March 2016 but postponed to 31 May 2016.

20 Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 17th session, Paris, 16 November 1972, available here; Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, adopted by the UNESCO General Conference at its 32nd session, Paris, 3 November 2003, available here.

21 Its objectives are: (1) to facilitate preservation of the world’s documentary heritage, (2) to assist universal access to documentary heritage and (3) to increase awareness worldwide of the existence and significance of documentary heritage. See here.

22 There are also Regional MoW Register and National MoW Register.

23 The letter dated 10 April 2016 was from Boyan Radoykov, Chief of Section, Universal Access and Preservation.

24 The original and revised version of section 5.2 World significance is as follows: “The ‘comfort woman’ system, which has become recognized through the gradual accumulation of fragments of evidence, is a wartime tragedy that caused the countless victims indescribable suffering and enduring humiliation.

25 The four nominators are: The Alliance for Truth about Comfort Women (JAPAN); The Study Group for Japan’s Rebirth (USA); The Institution of Research of Policy of Media and Broadcasting (JAPAN); and Japanese Women for Justice and Peace (JAPAN). According to their application, The Institution of Research of Policy of Media and Broadcasting has the copyright of the “Special Edition of the Bulletin of Showa Kenkyujo”, one of the nominated documents, and the other three nominators are dedicated to researching “Comfort Women” and Japanese Army discipline.

26 UNESCO Executive Board, Decision Adopted by the Executive Board at its 202nd Session (4-18 Oct. 2017), 202 EX/Decisions, Paris, 18 November 2017, p. 20, Agenda Item 15, Final report by the International Advisory Committee (IAC) on the review process of the Memory of the World Programme, available here.

27 The agenda of this 13th IAC meeting is available here. Consideration of nominations for the MoW International Register was scheduled for the whole day of 25 Oct. and the morning of 26 Oct. in a closed meeting.

28 In fact, the IAC meeting was supposed to be held in Canada, and we were ready to participate in it. However, it was not held in September, without any announcement or explanation. The Canadian government could not prepare the meeting since there was no information/communication from UNESCO MoW Programme secretariat.

29 Japan Times, “Suga says Japan may pull plug on financial contributions to UNESCO,” 12 Oct. 2015.

30 Japan Times, “Japan holding back payment to UNESCO,” 14 Oct. 2016.

31 UNESCO’s website on financial accountability.

32 UNESCO 2017, p. 151, Table on Assessed contributions to the regular budget: Top 25 assessments, 2017.

33 The same Table shows that the top 10 countries were: USA (22.000%, but withholding contributions), Japan (9.679%), China (7.920%), Germany (6.389%), France (4.859%), UK (4.463%), Brazil (3.823%), Italy (3.748%), Russia (3.088%) and Canada (2.921%).

34 Ibid, Figures on total revenue by nation, 2017 and revenue trend, 2013-2017, on p. 150.

35 Due to the financial crisis caused by USA’s pullout, 450 staff were laid off, including one South Korean who moved to Paris on a three-year contract but had to return to South Korea after only 6-months at the UNESCO headquarters.

36 The new top 10 countries and their contributions in percentages in 2019 are: China (15.493%), Japan (11.052%), Germany (7.86%), UK (5.894%), France (5.713%), Italy (4.268), Brazil (3.805%), Canada (3.528), Russia (3.104), and South Korea (2.926%), data from the Korean National Commission for UNESCO.

37 Japan Times, Editorials, “UNESCO and Japan,“ 26 Oct. 2016.

38 Mie, Ayako. “Japan holding back payments to UNESCO,” Japan Times, 14 Oct. 2016.

39 Final Report of the 12th Meeting of the International Advisory Committee of The Memory of the World Programme, 4-6 October 2015, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, CI/MOW- IAC/2015/4, October 2015, pp.16-17.

40 All documents concerning the comprehensive review are available here.

41 Available here.

42 Editor’s note: as noted above, the World Heritage Sites scheme, since it is governed by a diplomatic “convention”, is ultimately subject to oversight by member states - whereas the MoW Program, as originally designed, was meant to be more autonomous and “expert-led”.

43 See the Co-Chairs’ Report of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on the Examination of Other Concrete Suggestions for the Reform of the MoW Programme Beyond a Redrafting of the IAC Statutes and of the General Guidelines, available at UNESCO’s website on comprehensive review of MoW Programme.

44 “UNESCO’s Reform Delayed due to COVID-19” says Yomiuri, Report by a Korean news media, Newsis, on 24 July 2020, citing Yomiuri which reported about the delay citing the Japanese government as the source of information. See here.

45 Editor’s note: Many member states shared the Japanese government’s uneasiness with deference to experts on such sensitive matters, and the desire to ensure that expert recommendations could be overridden for “reasons of state”. Others, including some EU governments, may have been more concerned to placate the Abe administration in order simply to guarantee Japan’s continuing engagement with UNESCO, as a means of balancing increasingly strong Chinese influence over the organisation.

46 The Co-Chairs’ Report, in section 3.1.3. On the function and mandate of the Intergovernmental Body, “the OEWG agreed that such a body would … Endorse/Decide inscriptions for the MoW International Register on the basis of the IAC recommendations.”, p.5.

47 An expert who refused the offer told the author about it.

48 The author participated in the 2017 IAC meeting as an observer, with another staff from the ICJN Secretariat, as well as a Chinese member. On the 27th of October, the last day of the IAC meeting, the author asked for the floor and raised a question on the leakage of information by the IAC before the finalization of the decision. The response from the chair was that everything had been done according to the rules. The fact that I had raised the question was recorded at the end of the Report of 13th meeting of the International Advisory Committee (IAC), UNESCO, Paris, 24-27 October 2017, CI/MOW-IAC/2017/4, November 2017, p. 8, although the response from the Chair was altered in this formal report. See here. Indeed, there were many abnormalities observed from the start in the proceedings of the IAC meeting. For example, in the absence of the IAC Chair, a question was raised as to who among the three vice-chairs would act as chair. Also raised was the issue of election of the Bureau whose term was finished, although this was not included in the agenda. In front of the IAC members and observers, differences of opinions were exposed among the members of the UNESCO Secretariat.

49 The author was informed that Japan refused to engage in dialogue and that the facilitator was completely ignored or dismissed by Japan for her lack of knowledge of the Asian region.

50 Editor’s note: here the “other party” refers to the Japanese revisionist groups behind the rival comfort women-related application to the MoW Programme.

51 The section on “Questioned nominations” was already adopted at the UNESCO International Experts’ meeting held in March 2017 in Berlin, as explained in a footnote on p. 69 of the Revised General Guidelines.

52 See here.