Paul Gaysford, in his March 21 letter, "Qualifying Japan's flexibility" (which commented on my March 13 article, "Flexibility key to resolving Japan's territorial disputes"), correctly suggests that Japan has been a bit too "flexible" in the handling of those disputes, and that more "truth, integrity and honor" are needed.
But I was hoping that readers would also realize the complicated postwar situations that Japan inherited in each of these disputes, leading Japan to take positions that others might regard as excessively flexible.
And that, in turn, implies that those positions, where mistaken, can also be reversed with a little bit more flexibility.
The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect the policies of The Japan Times.