사진 출처 / 하버드대 학내신문 크림슨(thecrimson.com)
하버드 대학교 로스쿨의 마크 렘지어(J. Mark Ramseyer, 우측 사진)교수가 “위안부는 자발적 매춘부”라고 주장한데 대한 비난이 쏟아지고 있다.
이에 하버드 대학교 로스쿨의 한인학생회와 하버드 대학교 학부 한인학생회는 잇달아 규탄 성명을 발표했다. 로스쿨 한인학생회는 성명에서 렘지어 교수의 논문은 증거를 제시하지 않으면서 ‘강제성은 없었다’고 주장하며 논문작성시 반드시 첨가되는 자료출처도 명시되어 있지 않다고 지적했다.
한인학생회는 또 ‘위안부 피해자’는 일본 정부에 의해 강요, 납치됐다는 유엔 및 국제 엠네스티와같은 국제기구의 결론도 무시했으며 강압적인 성폭력의 역사적 내용은 삭제했다며 인권침해와 전쟁범죄를 고의적으로 왜곡하는 것을 강하게 비난했다.
하버드대 로스쿨 한인학생회는 “일본군은 한국 뿐만 아니라 중국, 대만, 필리핀, 말레이시아, 인도네이사, 네덜란드, 동티모르, 베트남, 태국, 미얀마에서 최대 20만 여명의 여성과소녀들을 강제성노예로 삼았고 성노예 피해자들은 일본 정부로부터 완전한 배상과 공식적인 사과를 받지 못했다”며 “일본 제국군이 저지른 잔학한 행위를 목격한 피해자들에게 고통과 모욕을 주는 행위를 강력하게 비난한다”고 규탄했다.
하버드대학교 학부 한인학생회도 로스쿨한인학생회에 이어 8일(월) 규탄 성명을 발표했다. 학부한인학생회는 렘지어 교수의 논문에 대해 “편향되고 신뢰성없는 근거를 바탕으로 만들어진 잘못된 결론이다. 전쟁중 성폭력 피해여성을 자발적 매춘부라며 그들의 인권을 무시했다”고 비난했다.
학생회는 또 “램지어 교수는 위안부 피해자들이 징집되는 과정에서 인신매매와 납치 등의 사례는 무시하며 극히 일부의 사례를 들어 징집과정이 합법적으로 이뤄진 것처럼 말하고 있다”며 “전범국가의 범죄행위를 옹호하고 일본군의 강제 위안부를 정당화하는 것”이라고 지적했다.
다음은 하버드 대학교 로스쿨 한인학생회 규탄성명 전문이다.
KAHLS Statement in Response to Professor J. Mark Ramseyer’s Article “Contracting for sex in the Pacific War”
Professor J. Mark Ramseyer, the Mitsubishi Professor of Japanese Legal Studies at Harvard Law School, recently published an article (“Contracting for sex in the Pacific War”) and accompanying editorial (“Recovering the Truth about the Comfort Women”), in which he describes the forced sex slavery organized by Japan during World War II as a consenting, contractual process. He claims, without sufficient evidence, that the Japanese military sex slaves were willing prostitutes who were able to “negotiate” for substantial wages in a consensual, contractual relationship. In his editorial, he also makes multiple assertions that the comfort women story is “pure fiction,” a revisionist claim that is recycled time and time again by neonationalist figures.
Professor Ramseyer’s arguments are factually inaccurate and misleading. Without any convincing evidence, Professor Ramseyer argues that no government “forced women into prostitution,” a contention he also makes in his editorial. Decades’ worth of Korean scholarship, primary sources, and third-party reports challenge this characterization. None are mentioned, cited, or considered in his arguments.
Professor Ramseyer’s deficient presentation of the historical record is demonstrated by his bibliography. Korean perspectives and scholarship, both rich sources of material on this topic, are almost completely absent in his work. Scholars studying history understand the possibility of post-hoc revisionism and bias. To counter such effects, they consult a wide-ranging set of materials from a variety of sources. Professor Ramseyer does not.
He also ignores expansive scholarship done by international organizations, such as the United Nations and Amnesty International, which has conclusively found that the “comfort women” were coerced, kidnapped, or forced by the Japanese government. After its independent inquiry, the Japanese government itself acknowledged as part of the Kono Statement that “the then Japanese military was, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment and management of comfort stations.”
As students of law and democracy, we are committed to a fair presentation of diverse perspectives. Our professors stress the fundamental importance of bringing multiple perspectives to a discussion. Again, Professor Ramseyer’s article falls short in this regard. He does not engage with the historically validated and important perspectives of scholars who have worked to amplify the testimonies of these women. To ignore this work is to create the false impression of a settled history of an imagined world where Korean comfort women were free to contract for higher wages paid at their preferred schedule.
Analytically, Professor Ramseyer takes these contracts as a given. He suggests comfort women “negotiated” their contractual terms. Such value-neutral language erases important historical context of coercive sexual violence. He assumes away important issues of consent, duress, and power dynamics. As law students, we study the doctrines and equitable principles that have developed to correct for these issues in our first-year curriculum.As future lawyers, we recognize that much is still to be done, that settlements and non-disclosure agreements can do much to obscure latent coercion. As citizens of a world where sexual violence, denialism, and slavery run rampant, we call attention to misleading histories and economic analyses that callously suggest that these women negotiated into their own sexual slavery.
We, and the undersigned, strongly condemn the deliberate erasure of human rights violations and war crimes. Up to 200,000 women and girls were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military, from not only Korea, but also China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Netherlands, East Timor, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, and Burma. We stand with the victims who have yet to receive full reparations and a proper, official apology from the Japanese government. We strongly condemn all actions that inflict pain and insult to the victims, who bear witness to the atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Army.
As students, we have the utmost respect for academic freedom, including that of Professor Ramseyer. But at the same time, we firmly believe that a sincere commitment to academic freedom is inseparable from the obligation of academic integrity as part of a genuine search for truth. Upholding these values requires that we shed light on the failings of misleading narratives that omit important voices and obscure critical histories.
February 4, 2021
Korean Association of Harvard Law School (KAHLS)
Harvard Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA)
Harvard Law School China Law Association (CLA)
Harvard Asia Law Society (HALS)
Harvard Law Entrepreneurship Project (HLEP), Board of Directors
La Alianza at Harvard Law School