否认强征“慰安妇”是挑战国际基本共识（国际论坛）

Core Viewpoint - The article critiques Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's stance on historical issues, particularly regarding the "comfort women" controversy, highlighting her attempts to downplay Japan's wartime responsibilities and promote a narrative that challenges the post-war international order [1][2][3]. Group 1: Historical Revisionism - Takaichi's characterization of the "Taiwan contingency" as a potential "survival crisis" for Japan reflects her confrontational attitude towards post-war international norms and historical accountability [1]. - Her approach to the "comfort women" issue is marked by a refusal to engage in genuine reflection, instead opting for a combative stance that seeks to delegitimize the narratives of historical accountability from China and South Korea [1][2]. - Takaichi has been involved in efforts to revise Japan's historical narrative since at least 1997, advocating for a "correction" of what she perceives as a self-deprecating historical view [1]. Group 2: Rhetoric and Responsibility - Takaichi employs two main rhetorical strategies regarding the "comfort women" issue: one that disputes the terminology used and another that denies the existence of state responsibility for the coercive nature of the system [2]. - The term "comfort women" has been established in academic discourse to refer specifically to women forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese military, despite Takaichi's attempts to redefine it [2][3]. - The "Kono Statement," which acknowledges the Japanese military's involvement in the "comfort women" system, is a critical document that Takaichi's narrative seeks to undermine, as it contradicts her claims of non-coercion [3]. Group 3: International Response - The article calls for regional countries and the international community to uphold historical justice and the post-war international order in response to Takaichi's dual revisionism [4]. - There is an emphasis on the need to counter any attempts to glorify aggression or justify war through factual evidence and international law [4].