Friday, February 5, 2016

The Not-So-Comforting State of the Filipino Comfort Women

War always calls to mind destruction and chaos. At the very mention of the word, one would immediately think of screaming masses running in terror and confusion, millions of bloody corpses littering the streets, great cities laid in burning ruin. Formidable battalions, ballistic missiles, and atomic bombs strike fear into the hearts of less militarily capable nations. But 89-year old Hilaria Bustamante, and many other women like her, have been scarred by perhaps a more damaging, yet   understated weapon of war— rape and sexual slavery.

Bustamante was among the thousands of “comfort women” forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II. Seventy three years ago, Bustamante, who was then 16, was abducted by Japanese soldiers, beaten, made to wash clothes and cook, and was repeatedly raped for 15 months.[1] Prompted by the formal agreement made by Japan with South Korea over comfort women in December 2015, Bustamante and her fellow survivors are now asking for a similar public apology and reparations from Japan. Several quiet protests were staged during the five-day state visit to the Philippines of Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko.

In 2010, these sentiments for justice was translated into a petition filed with the Supreme Court charging the Executive Department with grave abuse of discretion for its refusal to espouse the comfort women’s claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan. Petitioners also assail the validity of the Treaty of Peace with Japan, arguing that brutal rape and enslavement constituted crimes against humanity, and the Philippine government’s waiver of the victims’ claims constitute a breach of its legal obligation not to afford impunity for such crimes.[2]

Although the Court correctly ruled that the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners' claims against Japan, Vinuya v. Romulo exposes the weakness of the position of individuals as subjects of international law. A national, in order to file a case against a foreign state, must course it through his or her country.  And it is not unlikely that a country may choose to forego justice in the interest of peace. Such prerogative is a matter of foreign policy, a political question that is beyond the realm of courts. In this case, the “Executive Department has already decided that it is to the best interest of the country to waive all claims of its nationals for reparations against Japan in the Treaty of Peace of 1951.”[3] Economic reparations to the comfort women will be made through the Asian Women’s Fund established by the Japanese government. Should the Filipina victims want a formal apology and acknowledgement from the Japanese government, as in the case of South Korea, the only remedy left to them is an appeal to the executive department to take up their case.

On the other hand, there are developments in international law regarding rape and sexual slavery. The comfort women of the Japanese are not alone in their plight. Throughout history, when hostilities occurred, women suffered similar ordeals— the Rape of Nanking, brothels in the concentration camps of Germany, the systematic rape of women in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This increase in rape cases and sexual abuse during war led to a change in perspective in international humanitarian law. Rape is no longer viewed as a mere incidence of war, but may also be a strategic weapon to cripple and subjugate the enemy.

In her paper Rape as a Weapon of War and its Long-term Effects on Victims and Society, Clifford (2008) viewed rape as not just an attack on an individual but also on the society the individual belongs to. She goes on to quote Nordstromm (1991), stating that, “Rape, as with all terror-warfare, is not exclusively an attack on the body— it is an attack on the ‘body-politic’. Its goal is not to maim or kill one person but to control an entire socio political process by crippling it. It is an attack directed equally against personal identity and cultural integrity”.[4] This new treatment of the role of rape in war is epitomized in the momentous case of Dragoljub Kunarac et al.[5], the first case at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavoia (ICTY) in which the accused were convicted of rape as a crime against humanity, marking the first time that an international tribunal had prosecuted sexual slavery. In 2008, the United Nations Security Council passed UN Resolution 1820 which stresses the need for “the exclusion of sexual violence crimes from amnesty provisions in the context of conflict resolution processes”, and which calls upon member states to comply with their obligations to prosecute those responsible for such crimes, and emphasizes “the importance of ending impunity for such acts.”[6]

Optimistically, the growing recognition of the international community of rape and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity will influence states to strongly condemn such acts, and pressure violating states to make reparations, acknowledge their wrongdoings, issue formal apologies to the victims, and make commitments to never repeat such heinous offenses. Peace is not only achieved through the cessation of hostilities. The devastation within the individual, the emotional and psychological trauma suffered by the victims also warrants our attention. Hilaria Bustamante, along with the countless others who lost a part of themselves during the war, deserves to be free from the terrible nightmare that haunts them for most of their lives.



[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/world/asia/japan-philippines-comfort-women-emperor-akihito.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=article
[2] Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230. April 28, 2010
[3] Id.
[4] Clifford, Cassandra. 2008. Rape as a Weapon of War and its Long-term Effects on Victims and Society. Retrieved September 19, 2010 from www.interdisciplinary.net/ptb/hhv/vcce/vch7/Clifford%20paper.pdf
[5] “Kunarac, Dragoljub”. 2010. The Hague Justice Portal. Retrieved September 18, 2010 from http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/eCache/DEF/6/082.html
[6] United Nations Human Rights: Office of the High Commissioner. 2008. Rape: Weapon of War. Retrieved February 5, 2016 from http://www.ohchr.org/en/newsevents/pages/rapeweaponwar.aspx

No comments:

Post a Comment