The Task of an Activist: “Imagined Communities” and the “Comfort Women” Campaigns in Australia

Abstract

From 2006 to 2010, I was an activist who organised grassroots campaigns about the so-called “comfort women” in Australia. During the course of these campaigns, this issue was framed in different ways by the Asian diaspora and feminist communities who supported the cause. Beginning with the premise that the human rights activist community is not harmonious or homogenous, nor is it organically formed, I ask the question: what is the task of an activist when faced with diverse and disconnected sources of support for our shared cause? I draw on adaptations of the concept of “imagined community” (Anderson, 1983, p. 7) by Ien Ang and Chandra Talpade Mohanty to discuss this question. I conclude that an activist must not be guided by an emotive and broad sense of “justice” alone. Rather, his or her key task is to seek localised and interdisciplinary knowledge and identity from the particular location of activism in order to mediate between the different “frames of meaning” in diverse communities.

Keywords:

• human rights activism
• “comfort women” and Australia
• Asian diaspora
• “imagined communities”
• women’s human rights
• Korean nationalism and feminism
• third world feminism
• Japan

Acknowledgments

I thank Jan Ruff O’Hearne, Gil Won Ok, Vivian Pak and Yoon Mee Hyang for their dedication on the “comfort women” issue, each in her own way. I’m grateful to Vera Mackie for her tireless academic mentorship and editorial contributions to this article. I also thank Erik Ropers and Wallace Stark for their support and friendship throughout this process.

Notes

1. The 1993 Kōno statement was made by the then Chief Cabinet Secretary Kōno Yōhei. This was the first statement from the government of Japan to acknowledge military involvement and the use of coercion in recruiting women for the “comfort women” system. There is an on-going dispute about whether this statement constitutes a formal government apology because the expression of remorse and apology in the statement is attributed to Secretary Kōno himself rather than to the government of Japan. For arguments regarding the questionable legitimacy of the Kōno statement as a formal government apology, see Mindy Kotler’s testimony at the US Congressional hearing, accessible at <http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/kot021507.htm>, accessed 15 April 2012. For the English translation of the statement, see <http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/women/fund/state9308.html>, accessed 15 April 2012. It should be noted here that some survivors received a letter of apology from the Japanese Prime Minister (co-signed by the Chair of the Asian Women’s Fund) at the time of their receipt of funds from the Fund. The Asian Women’s Fund was established as a “national atonement” project for Japan as a nation and attracted contributions from citizens, corporations and government (Soh, 2008, p. 210), but this letter only went to those victims who accepted support from the Asian Women’s Fund. Furthermore, the Fund is the government of Japan’s expression of “moral responsibility”, and not an acknowledgment of political or legal responsibility. Thus, the Asian Women’s Fund is not generally perceived by victims or activists to be a just resolution. The Japanese Prime Minister’s signature on the letter was an action taken in his administrative role in the Fund, rather than as the head of government. Furthermore, due to many protests by survivors and activists, very few survivors chose to accept assistance from the Fund.

2. For example, in the USA, grassroots campaigning was coordinated actively via the Korean American Civic Empowerment (KACE) group. In Canada, the Canada Association for Learning and Preserving the History of World War II in Asia (ALPHA) contributed to the campaign while also highlighting the more general suffering of the Chinese people under Japanese rule and other war crimes.

3. The US Congressional hearing on the “comfort women” was held on 15 February 2007. For a transcript of the hearing, see <http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=763>, accessed 15 April 2012.

4. The Dokdo Island issue refers to disputes between the South Korean and Japanese governments over the ownership of two tiny rock islets in the Sea of Japan. To the Japanese, these rocks are known as Takeshima, and to the Koreans, Dokdo. To neutral observers they are called the Liancourt Rocks. This issue has been in dispute for decades but recently overseas Koreans took up the cause of raising awareness outside Korea. The National Association of Korean Americans held a “Dokdo Day” event in 2009 on the anniversary of Dokdo Island becoming part of Korean territory on 25 October 1900. The Association’s aim was to use this event “to educate the Korean community as well as the non-Koreans about Dokdo to create a public opinion that Dokdo is a part of Korea”. For details, see <http://www.naka.org/news/whatsnew.asp?prmno=132>, accessed 15 April 2012. For an overview of this issue, see Fern (2005. pp. 78–89).