The Japanese embassy in New Zealand has warned that the installation of a statue commemorating women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military during World War II could jeopardize diplomatic relations between the two nations. The bronze monument, which depicts a seated girl beside an empty chair, is proposed for the Korean cultural garden at Barry’s Point reserve in Auckland.
The dispute centers on a gift from the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance, a non-governmental organization dedicated to honoring survivors of wartime sexual violence. While the statue is intended as a memorial to human rights and survival, Tokyo views such monuments as politically charged tools that hinder reconciliation and stir unnecessary conflict.
The proposal has placed Auckland local authorities in a delicate position, balancing the desire for cultural expression and historical remembrance against the pressures of international diplomacy. A spokesperson for New Zealand’s ministry of foreign affairs noted that while the government acknowledges the sensitivity of the New Zealand ‘comfort women’ statue diplomatic relations issue, the decision regarding monuments in public spaces remains a matter for local government and community consultation.
A Local Decision with Global Implications
The proposal for the statue has sparked significant debate within Auckland’s diverse community. According to data from the Auckland council, the proposal drew 672 submissions. The feedback revealed a deeply divided public: 51% of individual submitters strongly opposed the installation, and 13 out of 21 contributing organizations were also against it.
The demographic breakdown of the submissions underscores the ethnic tensions at play, with New Zealand-based Japanese citizens accounting for 36% of the submissions and Korean residents making up 34%. Supporters of the monument argue that it serves as a necessary reminder of sexual violence in conflict, while opponents contend that the statue is too politically volatile for a public garden.
Japanese Ambassador Makoto Osawa expressed concern in a submission to the council that “needlessly stirring up interest” in the issue could burden not only the cooperation between Japan and South Korea but also the bilateral relationship between Japan and New Zealand. Osawa specifically pointed to the New Zealand government’s 2015 funding for water and electricity at the garden, suggesting that the statue’s presence could provide the impression of official state support for the installation.
The History of the ‘Comfort Women’
The term “comfort women” is a euphemism used by the Japanese military to describe women and girls forced or tricked into sexual slavery between 1932 and 1945. While the majority of the victims were Korean, historians estimate that as many as thousands of women from China, Southeast Asia, Europe, and Japan were also coerced into military brothels.
Survivors have provided harrowing testimony of their experiences, describing conditions where they were forced to serve dozens of soldiers daily in makeshift frontline facilities. These accounts detail a systemic lack of medical care, the reuse of condoms, and frequent forced abortions, leaving a legacy of physical and psychological trauma that persists decades after the war’s end.
For the Aotearoa New Zealand Statue of Peace committee, the monument is not about diplomacy, but about humanity. Rebekah Jaung, the committee’s chairperson, described the effort to block the statue as an attempt to “silence a monument honouring women on the other side of the world,” emphasizing that the project is about acknowledging the violence inflicted on young women and celebrating the activism of survivors.
A Cycle of Agreements and Dissolutions
The diplomatic friction over the “comfort women” is rooted in a long-standing disagreement between Tokyo and Seoul over whether the issue has been legally and morally settled. Japan maintains that all compensation claims were resolved under a 1965 bilateral peace treaty.
In 2015, then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-hye reached an agreement intended to settle the matter “finally and irreversibly.” As part of the deal, Japan provided 1 billion yen (approximately US$9 million) in humanitarian funds to a foundation for survivors, while South Korea agreed not to raise the issue in international forums.
However, the agreement was short-lived. In 2018, South Korean President Moon Jae-in effectively dissolved the fund, arguing that the deal had been made without sufficient consultation with the survivors themselves. This reversal reignited tensions, leading Japan to view subsequent “peace statues” erected globally as part of an “anti-Japan” movement rather than efforts toward reconciliation.
| Year | Event | Diplomatic Impact |
|---|---|---|
| 1965 | Bilateral Peace Treaty | Japan claims all compensation is settled. |
| 2011 | First Peace Statue | Erected in Seoul, sparking global movement. |
| 2015 | Abe-Park Agreement | 1 billion yen fund created for “final” settlement. |
| 2018 | Fund Dissolution | Moon Jae-in dissolves fund; ties with Japan strain. |
| 2018 | Osaka-SF Split | Osaka ends sister-city tie with San Francisco. |
The Precedent of Diplomatic Severance
Japan has a history of taking tangible diplomatic action against cities that host these monuments. In 2018, the city of Osaka ended its 60-year “sister city” relationship with San Francisco after the latter recognized a similar statue in Chinatown as public property. More recently, a peace statue was removed from Berlin in 2025 following a prolonged dispute.
A spokesperson from the Japanese embassy, speaking on condition of anonymity, warned that the Auckland statue could similarly create division within local Japanese and Korean communities and might lead Japanese cities to cut ties with New Zealand municipalities.
Despite these warnings, the New Zealand government has maintained that it cannot override the autonomy of local councils. The tension remains a microcosm of a larger geopolitical struggle: the clash between a nation’s desire to move past its wartime history and the survivors’ demand for an enduring, public acknowledgment of their suffering.
The final decision on the statue’s installation rests with local authorities, who are scheduled to meet on April 28 to determine if the proposal will be approved. This meeting will serve as the next critical checkpoint in determining whether Auckland’s garden becomes a site of remembrance or a catalyst for diplomatic friction.
We invite you to share your thoughts on the balance between historical remembrance and diplomatic relations in the comments below.
