Just two comments - not too brief, I fear.
First, the whole question of the “supply” of “sexual services” to armies - in peace but, more especially, in war - raises many sad and difficult issues. I am sure that this has been true since the Pharoah Narmer led his troops against the Libyans (5,000 years ago), and remains true to this day. How much “free choice” is involved in this area, even in peacetime, is still a debated and disputed matter. However, the Japanese system, in their WW2, of organising brothels in which large numbers of Chinese, Korean and South East Asian women were confined and compelled to “service” Japanese servicemen without real remuneration (unless one counts the food needed to keep them alive) and, above all, against their will is, if not unique, certainly exceptional in the entire period of human history. It is mind-boggling that a civic leader of a large Japanese community in this day and age should offer a justification of this on the basis of “necessity”. This is not a relative matter. The Japanese practice referred to was a truly dreadful offence against human dignity and human rights. No doubt, explanations for this can be found in interpretations of Japanese culture as it stood in the mid-20th century. However, these explanations are equally ugly; for example, if one regards Koreans as essentially slaves, and Chinese as sub-human, this is supposed to justify this infamous practice ? Well, perhaps I am being unhistorical in saying so, but that degree of “contextualisation”, in this case, does not work for me.
Second - and I hope this will not be interpreted as “thread jacking” - the honorable Mayor’s view of Japanese responsibility, not only for all that rape, but for Japanese responsibility for the Far East war in general - is to say the least remarkable. It seems to amount to this - "because we lost the war, we (maybe) should apologise for pursuing a programme of aggression that resulted in enormous destruction and the death of millions of people (mainly sub-people, of course, but one cannot make wasabi omlettes without breaking eggs). And, as far as the comfort women issue is concerned, this is (of course) subsumed in the same general question; the whole thing was a wartime necessity, we lost the war, therefore we should make a gentle, dignified apology (no talk of compensation for survivors and their families). At the same time, there is no accepted “academic” definition of "aggression - so we may not have anything to apologise for, after all. "
There is a maxim in the Common Law - “res ipsa loquitur”, meaning “the facts speak for themselves”. Even allowing the fact that the Japanese imperialists considered themselves to be in a forced position in 1941, if what had been happening in China and Korea even before that date, and what happened thereafter in the eastern Pacific and South-East Asid did not amount to “aggression”, then I am the Mikado’s uncle.
Clearly, I am very far from being Japanese. Fine. However, living in the present real world, I find the continuing Japanese unwillingness to face up to the wartime responsibility of their government for “Japanese aggression”, and all that flowed from it - without resort to double-talk and moral evasions - quite incomprehensible. I should emphasise that I would in no way condemn any living Japanese person for personal responsibility. But what was, was. For all the occasional absurdities of the German response to a similar problem, overall, the response of the German State and people to the situation has been admirable. If Japan could do the same, I am sure it would be much admired, and in no way stigmatised. Does not seem be be possible in the context even of current Japanese culture, apparently - is the fear of losing face so great ? Anyway, I will not be holding my breath, waiting for a real apology, let alone a process of reconciliation. Best regards, JR.