The subject of “comfort women” suffers a similar misrepresentation as the issue of climate change
The discussion gets repeatedly derailed by people that are uninvolved and simply misunderstand the issue. Personal opinions are being thrown around from people who are seemingly misinformed, just like the subject of climate science.
It could be argued that the Japanese government’s apologies started off as genuine, but the genuine nature of successive apologies seemed to have declined in time. Aside from initial efforts to compensate Korea’s war victims, when the true extent of this particular atrocity came to light the 1990’s, Japanese Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa apologised officially, both publicly and privately to the Korean President and the National Assembly. This sincerity was repeated in the 1994 by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama who wrote personal apologies to hundreds of victims. However, this was all undone in 2007 when Shinzo Abe questioned evidence of government involvement in the matter during his first term as Prime Minister.
However there is a problem, that as a historical issue where evidence is sometimes pieced together to gain a scale of the issue, it is up to some level of debate as to the scale of this crime, the official number is currently held anywhere between 50,000 and 200,000 women. Whereas climate change is a studied science it is inevitably being taken seriously by most people, and evidence will eventually become so strong and wide spread that it will unquestionable by anyone. However, with some uncomfortable historical truths there are always going to be some that doubt personal accounts from an ideological perspective.
Therefore, if the Japanese government are serious about solving this issue they should first put together an international and impartial group of historians, to decide and conclude the truth of what happened, and then act accordingly; apologise and compensate, to individuals, not to governments. Just as with climate science, the government should be putting themselves into the strong position of wanting to close any loopholes of thought and address the issue for what it is, not pander to any ideological notions of patriotism.