This essay examines the political responsibility behind the decision to end a sister-city relationship over the comfort woman statue issue.
It highlights the duty of elected leaders to defend civic interests and act on principle despite criticism.

As expected, I have received a great deal of criticism from comfort woman support groups as well as members of the Constitutional Democratic Party and the Communist Party.
2018-01-19
The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
—I understand very well.
Yoshimura.
Another important point concerns the role entrusted to me as mayor.
With San Francisco, currently in a sister-city relationship with Osaka, having erected a comfort woman statue, it is necessary to judge whether it is right to continue the current relationship and whether it is appropriate to use Osaka citizens’ tax money under such circumstances.
Certainly, many people may choose to do nothing because they dislike friction, confrontation, or criticism and find it burdensome.
However, if we tacitly accept San Francisco’s decision or merely express the usual “regret,” as long as the sister-city relationship continues, it will inevitably be seen as Osaka having accepted the installation of the comfort woman statue.
Therefore, although it was a difficult political decision for me, if I cannot say “what is wrong is wrong,” I am not worthy of the title of a mayor elected by the people.
Since tacit acceptance is unacceptable, I judged that continuing a relationship in which trust has been broken would be more problematic and thus announced its termination.
As expected, I have received much criticism from comfort woman support groups and from members of the Constitutional Democratic Party and the Communist Party, but receiving criticism is also part of my role, and even so I will say what must be said and take the actions that must be taken without hesitation.
To be continued.