Considering our current situation, we should address the tensions between Japan and South Korea over the issue of "comfort women" beginning with its origins.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has said that the "comfort women issue" was his motivation for visiting the Takeshima islets. The Japanese government's subsequent waffling has dissatisfied South Korea and the Japanese public. The view that the institution of comfort stations was a barbaric one unique to the Japanese military is spreading internationally. Efforts must be made to understand what led to this current state of affairs, and to clear up any misconceptions.

"Ianfu to senjo no sei" (Comfort women and sex in war), published in 1999 by contemporary historian Ikuhiko Hata, helps sheds light on the source of the problem. The book contains an encyclopedia-like collection of facts on comfort women and international comparisons, but the first chapter is the most important.

Hata is seen as a conservative polemist, a right-leaning critic. But in essence, he's a positivist. In his most recent book, "Inbo shikan" (Conspiracy theory), he meticulously dismantles the right-wing theory that the Huanggutun Incident -- the 1928 death of the Manchurian warlord Zhang Zuolin commonly attributed to a bomb planted by the Japanese Kwantung Army -- was a conspiracy hatched by Stalin. Hata does so through an elaborate corroboration process, showing little ideological motivation.

Hata, whose resume includes a stint as head of the financial history office of the Ministry of Finance, followed by a visiting professorship at Princeton University in the U.S., and the Kikuchi Kan Prize for his book, "Showa-shi no nazo o ou" (Pursuing the mysteries of Showa history), argues that it is Japan that has caused increased tensions over the issue of comfort women since the 1990s.

In January 1992, a front-page headline reported a Japanese researcher's discovery of papers corroborating the Imperial Japanese Army's recruitment of comfort women. The news caused a sensation. Other news outlets followed up on the scoop and the public in both Japan and South Korea went abuzz.

Then-Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, who visited South Korea soon thereafter, was forced under the circumstances to offer an apology and promise to "get to the bottom of the matter." The Japanese government followed up with an investigation, on which then-Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono based his 1993 statement on comfort women.

In the statement, Kono apologized for the Japanese military's recruitment of comfort women, many of whom were from the Korean Peninsula, adding, "It is incumbent upon ... the Government of Japan, to continue to consider seriously, while listening to the views of learned circles, how best we can express remorse."

However, compensation issues between the two countries had officially been resolved with the June 1965 signing of the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. In other words, despite having made a decision in 1965 not to offer any further compensation, Kono's statement was phrased in such a way that it raised hopes that there could be more.

As a consequence, Japan established the semigovernmental Asian Women's Fund to pay "atonement money" to former comfort women, and successive prime ministers offered apologies, but to no avail; compensation demands escalated. When Lee called on Japan to resolve the comfort women issue at a meeting in May, Noda responded by offering that they put their heads together to come up with a solution. Tensions just got worse.

Understandably, a review of the 1993 Kono statement is being widely debated now in Japan. I, personally, side with a revision of the statement, but there appears to be strong support for the statement as well. It would be a shame if national consensus were to disintegrate simply because discussion was reduced to one about whether or not to uphold the Kono statement.

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs refers to the women at the center of the conflict as "comfort women," but most foreign media call them "sexual slaves." The 1996 United Nations Human Rights Council report called them "sexual slaves," and we must understand why. Hata's book "Ianfu to senjo no sei" takes an empirical approach in discussing the problems that arise in translation.

The root of the problem lies with Japan. Instead of waiting to see what steps South Korea takes, Japan must take steps to first dispel any misunderstandings. Why not start by creating a precise, high-quality English translation of Hata's book for the world to read? (By Takao Yamada, Expert Senior Writer)