Recently a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, for whatever reasons, decided to formally back those who complain about the forced servitude of "comfort women" and other atrocities attributed to Japanese troops during World War II. While I don't disagree that such evils occurred, I don't think it is wise for America, or any other third-party nation, to jump on the bandwagon and choose sides on the matter at this point.

For the United States especially, this strategy is ill-advised because of the current security treaty and long-standing economic/political partnership with Japan. It basically would amount to the U.S. turning its back on an important ally. Since the U.S. and many other Western states did not officially lodge protests immediately after the war, to do so now would be unfair to modern Japanese who, like the victims, must also live with the memory of their military's regrettable wartime policies. We would, in effect, be holding an entire generation accountable for war-crime debts that were paid at the 1946 Tokyo Tribunals.

Furthermore, to demand a firm apology and compensation from the Japanese government only opens the door for other victims to demand similar closure. Why shouldn't the U.S., for example, apologize to Native Americans for stealing their land, to Latin Americans for intervening in their affairs, to the Philippines for colonizing "our little brown brothers," and even to the innocent victims of America's aerial bombing campaigns during the Tokyo raids or of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings that ended the war?

For me, the issue that hits closer to home is slavery. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both have gone on record saying slavery was bad, but neither has come right out and apologized to African-Americans for its legacy. Since the world is now poised to hear sincere apologies, perhaps the U.S. House should vote on the slavery matter too, thereby laying it to rest.

maurice dudley