VZCZCXRO7824
PP RUEHFK RUEHKSO RUEHNAG RUEHNH
DE RUEHKO #2194/01 1362336
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 162336Z MAY 07
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3620
INFO RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHAAA/THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/USDOJ WASHDC PRIORITY
RULSDMK/USDOT WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5//
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHMHBA/COMPACFLT PEARL HARBOR HI
RHMFIUU/HQ PACAF HICKAM AFB HI//CC/PA//
RUALSFJ/COMUSJAPAN YOKOTA AB JA//J5/JO21//
RUYNAAC/COMNAVFORJAPAN YOKOSUKA JA
RUAYJAA/CTF 72
RUEHNH/AMCONSUL NAHA 3536
RUEHFK/AMCONSUL FUKUOKA 1100
RUEHOK/AMCONSUL OSAKA KOBE 4652
RUEHNAG/AMCONSUL NAGOYA 0341
RUEHKSO/AMCONSUL SAPPORO 1993
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7021
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 3084
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 4262
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 TOKYO 002194
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR E, P, EB, EAP/J, EAP/P, EAP/PD, PA
WHITE HOUSE/NSC/NEC; JUSTICE FOR STU CHEMTOB IN ANTI-TRUST DIVISION;
TREASURY/OASIA/IMI/JAPAN; DEPT PASS USTR/PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE;
SECDEF FOR JCS-J-5/JAPAN,
DASD/ISA/EAPR/JAPAN; DEPT PASS ELECTRONICALLY TO USDA
FAS/ITP FOR SCHROETER; PACOM HONOLULU FOR PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ADVISOR;
CINCPAC FLT/PA/ COMNAVFORJAPAN/PA.
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: OIIP KMDR KPAO PGOV PINR ECON ELAB JA
SUBJECT: DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07
INDEX:
(1) China developing missile to attack US flattops
(2) Lawyers for plaintiffs in Tokyo District Court hearing say
forcing foreigners to become comfort women was national crime
(3) Rereading needed for collective self-defense: Sakamoto
(4) Editorial: Extension of Iraq Special Measures Law under
discussion, while Japan's assistance not clear
(5) Editorial: Chrysler must not lead to a Japan-US dispute
ARTICLES:
(1) China developing missile to attack US flattops
SANKEI (Page 1) (Abridged)
May 16, 2007
The Chinese military has modified its tactics toward US forces,
sources familiar with military affairs in Japan and Taiwan revealed
yesterday. China will now set about developing an antiship ballistic
missile, which is intended to attack US aircraft carriers, and will
also introduce supersonic long-range bombers from Russia, according
to the sources. In its tactics, the Chinese military lays emphasis
on launching attacks against US forces and the Self-Defense Forces
from outside the range of their intercept weapons. The Chinese
military's tactical revision appears to be intended to block a US
carrier task force in the event of an emergency in Taiwan.
If such a revision of the Chinese military's tactics goes well, it
will be difficult for a US carrier task force to near the Taiwan
Straits. Accordingly, the US military will need to review its
tactics toward China. In addition, the SDF's current equipage cannot
defend against the newly emerging threat. The Chinese military's
tactical revision is therefore likely to have a great impact on East
Asia's security as well.
According to the sources, the Chinese military has now set about
remodeling the Dongfeng-21, an intermediate-range ballistic missile
with a range of 1,500-2,500 kilometers. The Dongfeng-21 can attack a
US aircraft carrier, if the missile is equipped with an infrared
seeker designed to detect a moving target. The Dongfeng-21 can be
tipped with a nuclear warhead, and China has already deployed nearly
100 Dongfeng-21 missiles. China employed a remodeled version of the
Dongfeng-21 in its test to attack a satellite in January this year.
In addition, China is expected to buy 10-20 supersonic long-range
bombers from Russia this year or produce them under license. They
are codenamed the Tu-22M Backfire. The Tu-22M has a cruising radius
of about 4,000 kilometers and can be loaded with up to 3 AS-4
air-to-ship missiles that have a range of 500 kilometers. The United
States feared the Tu-22M Backfire that is capable of bombing the US
mainland. In the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT-II), the
United States agreed to its counterpart's possession of Tu-22Ms.
Instead, however, the US side made it a precondition for the weapon
to get rid of its aerial refueling device.
US forces have means to intercept antiship ballistic missiles and
AS-4s. However, the US military has yet to be fully prepared.
TOKYO 00002194 002 OF 006
SUBJECT: DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07
(2) Lawyers for plaintiffs in Tokyo District Court hearing say
forcing foreigners to become comfort women was national crime
AKAHATA (Page 15) (Full)
May 16, 2007
The Tokyo District Court (presiding judge Hamano) held the first
hearing of a lawsuit filed by eight Chinese women (two deceased
represented by their families) from Hainan Island against the
Japanese government. The plaintiffs demand compensation and an
apology from the government claiming they were sexually abused by
the Japanese military on the island, which was occupied by Japan
during the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45. A group of lawyers for the
plaintiffs demanded relief measures for the victims.
Lawyer Toshitaka Onodera pointed out:
"The common perception in the international community is that the
so-called comfort women system is a national crime. International
opinion has urged Japan to offer a sincere apology and compensation
to the wartime comfort women."
Lawyer Onodera criticized Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for his remark
that: "There is no evidence that women were forced to become sex
slaves by the Japanese army in the narrow sense." The lawyer said:
"The prime minister's remarks were taken challenge to such
international opinion."
The lawyers pressed the court hard to make clear Japan's
responsibility, noting, "We would like the court to aim at arriving
at an unique ruling to relieve the victims."
Lawyer Sadahiko Sakaguchi stressed:
"The suit demands compensation from the Japanese government for the
damages of having been forced to be sex slaves during wartime, as
well as for failing to take proper measures to help restore their
honor."
Another lawyer explained posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases,
saying, "They are still suffering."
The Tokyo District Court acknowledged in August 2006 that the
comfort women suffered during the war and are still suffering from
nightmares, palpitations, and fear even now. The court, however,
rejected the plaintiffs' claims.
(3) Rereading needed for collective self-defense: Sakamoto
SANKEI (Page 15) (Full)
May 11, 2007
Kazuya Sakamoto, professor at Osaka University
Prime Minister Abe has advocated making Japan into a "beautiful
country." To do so, this country will have to clear up various
matters scattered here and there that are not so beautiful.
Speaking of areas that are not beautiful in security affairs, the
government's way of interpreting Japan's postwar constitution on the
right to use collective self-defense is one of them. The government
says Japan has the right but cannot exercise it. This interpretation
cannot be called beautiful, not by any standard. It is as if the
TOKYO 00002194 003 OF 006
SUBJECT: DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07
government is saying that Japan may ask other countries for help
because they have the right to use collective self-defense but Japan
cannot help them because it cannot use that right. This is not
beautiful.
By most definitions, we should either be saying that Japan can be
involved in collective self-defense because it has the right, or
that it cannot be involved because it does not have the right.
However, Japan will never be able to enter into a security pact with
any foreign country should it say it does not have this right. A
security treaty is based on the right of collective self-defense in
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
If it cannot conclude a security treaty, Japan would be in trouble,
so the government takes the position that Japan has the right to
collective self-defense under international law. At the same time,
however, the government states that Japan is constitutionally not
allowed to exercise that right. This is why there is a gulf between
Japan and the United States, a country that can exercise the right.
Actually, the gulf is filled. That is because Japan lets the United
States use bases in Japan. Mentally, however, the gulf cannot be
filled. That is because Japan its telling the US: "You may use the
bases, and we leave it to you for the rest." In the long term, such
an attitude would jeopardize any friendship, to say nothing of an
alliance.
The government knows that, so the government needs a smokescreen.
One example is the case where the Self-Defense Forces acts in
concert with US Forces Japan under Article 5 of the Japan-US
Security Treaty in the event of an armed attack on a USFJ facility.
In this case, the government should have accounted for the SDF's
action as an act of exercising the right of collective self-defense
to defend US forces. That would be natural. However, the government
explains that the act of defending the USFJ is within the scope of
exercising the right of individual self-defense because an attack on
USFJ is an attack on Japan. According to one official, what can be
explained to the Japanese people as an act of exercising the right
of individual self-defense looks like an act of exercising the right
of collective self-defense in the eyes of the United States. The
official recalled that this was the key point of such an
explanation.
After the Cold War ended, the SDF agreed to back up US forces
outside Japanese territory, as well. The government explained that
the SDF's backup of US forces was not an act of exercising the right
of collective self-defense because the SDF's backup of US forces is
not linked with their use of armed force. For example, the
government says the SDF's logistical support of US forces-if
conducted on the high seas demarcated from a combat area-is not an
act of exercising the right of collective self-defense.
In the Diet, however, the government could hardly explain its
standpoint as it was grilled by the opposition bench with questions
asking whether it were possible to draw a line on the seas to tell
where a combat area was, when combat in present-day warfare may
suddenly takes on a different aspect at any moment. In a
parliamentary discussion, the government was also asked about the
case where a US naval vessel refueled by an SDF vessel launched a
cruise missile. In its Diet reply, the government even said if the
launched cruise missile does not change course and flies to the
target, the launching point is a combat area, and if that cruise
TOKYO 00002194 004 OF 006
SUBJECT: DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07
missile is artificially guided in a different direction, then the
launching point is not a combat area. The government also said it
could not say anything definite since Japan has no cruise missiles.
I think it would be better for the government to change its
interpretation if the government has to give such replies. However,
that is not so easy because the government is reluctant to change
what it has said for a long time. One government official even says
changing the government's conventional interpretation would end up
damaging the Constitution's prestige.
Such statements are ridiculous. The government worries about
damaging the Constitution's prestige while upholding an
interpretation that is not beautiful. If there is anything that can
be hurt as a result of reinterpreting the Constitution, that is the
government's prestige, not the Constitution's prestige.
Of course, what has been long been continued carries some weight. It
is not good for the government to easily change its constitutional
interpretation. However, what if the government cannot change its
constitutional interpretation because it has been long continued?
Should it become a principle, Japan's vitality would be dangerously
on the wane. The government's constitutional interpretation may
outlast the land.
I think the government must change its constitutional interpretation
of the right of collective self-defense. I would like the government
to take the position that Japan can basically exercise the right it
has. However, constitutional protectionists may say reinterpreting
the Constitution to that effect makes light of the Constitution.
They would point to its consequences, fearing that this kind of
reinterpretation would result in expanding Japan's use of armed
force to a boundless extent. It is therefore necessary to define
specific areas and preconditions in a law for Japan to exercise its
right of collective self-defense.
For example, how about the idea of creating a law that limitedly
allows Japan to exercise its right of collective self-defense in
Japanese territory and also in international waters, as well as in
airspace over international waters? In international waters, Japan's
role may be centered on logistical support and missile defense. This
can avoid using armed force overseas (i.e., in foreign territorial
soil, waters, and airspace) while improving the capability of
responding to crises under the Japan-US alliance, which is an
alliance between two seafaring countries.
(4) Editorial: Extension of Iraq Special Measures Law under
discussion, while Japan's assistance not clear
TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 5) (Full)
May 16, 2007
Deliberations in the Lower House on a bill extending the Iraq
Special Measures Law lacked heat. The factors necessary for making
the right decision have hardly been exhausted. The lack of heat must
be blamed on both the government, which has not revealed Japan's
detailed assistance, and the opposition parties that repeatedly
asked similar questions.
The bill extending the Iraq Special Measures Law has been sent to
the House of Councillors following its clearance of the House of
Representatives. The revision consists of only seven lines in two
parts pertaining to the current legislation's expiration date.
TOKYO 00002194 005 OF 006
SUBJECT: DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07
The Lower House committee deliberated on the bill for a total of
about 17 hours. Although the bill looks simple, that does not mean
deliberations should also be concise. When enacting the current law,
which has opened a new way for the overseas deployment of the
Self-Defense Forces and assistance to multinational forces, people
raised questions about its consistency with the pacifist
Constitution. The legislation needs an overhaul instead of partial
amendment in order to meet subsequent changes to the basic
conditions, such as the justification of the war and the situation
in Iraq.
Lower House deliberations seemed insufficient. The legislative
branch has failed to fulfill its responsibility.
Concluding that the use of force against Iraq was unjust and the
current law is problematic, the main opposition Minshuto (Democratic
Party of Japan) made a counterproposal intended to withdraw the SDF.
Should the SDF continue its activities in Iraq or leave the country?
If the two conflicting bills had been discussed simultaneously,
heated debate could have taken place.
The argument that Japan must assist Iraq's reconstruction efforts
from its guilt for supporting (America's decision) to launch the
Iraq war sounds reasonable. People expected to see serious
discussions on various matters, including as the appropriateness of
the framework of the law now in force.
In reality, opinions in the Lower House did not mesh with each
other, leaving people frustrated. The government did not offer any
apologetic words for the sequence of events leading up to its
support for the Iraq war, failing to initiate the discussion.
The government needs to make certain that the Air Self-Defense
Force's airlift mission does not violate the Constitution. The
government's limited information disclosure for security reasons
also prevented in-depth Diet debates.
The opposition camp is not blameless, either. For instance, some
opposition members took up diplomatic issues that were irrelevant to
the Iraq mission and repeatedly asked similar questions apparently
because they did not have any new ammunition. Instead, they should
have employed new approaches, such as soliciting views by inviting
unsworn witnesses to the Diet.
We expect the two sides to lock horns on key points in the Upper
House. The clear presentation of materials for the right decision
would help voters' make up their minds for the upcoming Upper House
election.
(5) Editorial: Chrysler must not lead to a Japan-US dispute
TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 5) (Full)
May 16, 2007
A US fund will purchase Chrysler, one of the Big Three. A sale to
another automaker or restructuring for rebuilding the firm is
expected to follow. The developing situation requires close
attention so as not to rekindle a dispute between Japan and the
United States.
Cerberus Capital Management LP, a major US private equity investment
fund, has announced that it would buy a majority stake in German car
TOKYO 00002194 006 OF 006
SUBJECT: DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07
firm DaimlerChrysler's ailing US Chrysler arm for about 900 billion
yen (7.4 billion dollars).
Although the two firms merged nine years ago to create
DaimlerChrysler with the aim of producing 4 million cars annually,
slow production and sales forced the automaker to sell its US arm.
A fund's acquisition of a corporation is nothing new. But in many
cases, corporations recovered their investments by selling
themselves after building profit-making systems by making
restructuring efforts, such as closing down money-losing plants or
eliminating jobs.
Cerberus is also expected to balance things out comprehensively by
eliminating 13,000 jobs out of 80,000 and combining the profit of a
financial firm it is going to purchase at the same time.
Although the UAW is determined to stage sit-ins to block
restructuring, various steps seem inevitable for reshaping the
firm.
Once Chrysler successfully rebuilds itself and becomes a mid-level
automaker producing 2.6 million cars annually, like GM did last
year, chances are slim for it to cause a friction with Japanese
automakers that have been enjoying large sales.
The company's failure might result in strong criticism of Japanese
rivals and Japan's weak-yen policy. As was the case with GM,
Japanese automakers are urged to show some consideration so as not
to fuel excessive competition.
In the event rebuilding efforts made smooth progress, the question
of to what country and what maker the fund is going to sell the firm
requires close attention. Sale to GM might threaten Toyota's status
as the world's number one automaker.
In order for Chrysler to establish a profit-making system, it must
develop high performing, fuel-efficient, selling cars that can meet
the demands of the times. Developing environmental technology
leading to clean diesel, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles would be too
costly for any single company to undertake. Chrysler is urged to
speedily determine its partners and specific factors.
Chrysler is too dependent on the North American market. Another
point is that sale of the company to South Korea's Hyundai or
China's FAW might disturb the Japanese automakers' North American
and Asian markets.
SCHIEFFER