Cablegate: Daily Summary of Japanese Press 08/17/07

Published: Fri 17 Aug 2007 08:23 AM
DE RUEHKO #3812/01 2290823
P 170823Z AUG 07
E.O. 12958: N/A
(1) Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law: GOJ in defense mode against
the "Ozawa doctrine"; Little room for compromise in understanding UN
(2) DPJ's opposition to extending Anti-Terrorist Special Measures
Law increases level of danger for GSDF troops 3
(3) Analysis of war on terror, based on UN resolutions adopted since
Sept. 11 terror attacks
(4) Studies of DPJ: Criticism of Ozawa now quiet; Increasing unity
with eye political change
(5) Koike, Moriya to share pain: Final settlement on replacement of
vice defense minister to be reached as early as this afternoon;
Names of third candidates floated
(6) State of US beef consumption after import resumption
(9) Prime Minister's schedule, August 16
(1) Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law: GOJ in defense mode against
the "Ozawa doctrine"; Little room for compromise in understanding UN
MAINICHI (Page 2) (Abridged)
August 17, 2007
The extension of the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law, which is
set to expire on November 1, will be the main focus of the fall
extraordinary Diet session. Democratic Party of Japan President
Ichiro Ozawa has expressed his opposition to an extension of the law
based on his reasoning that there is no UN Security Council
resolution to support the war in Afghanistan. He plans to force the
government to change its policy on the issue. The ruling party and
the government are on the defensive, pointing out that Japan's
support of the international war on terrorism is highly valued, as
they try to combat Ozawa's position. It seems that Diet discussions
will be a battle between Ozawa's "principles" and the LDP's
"There is no (UN) Security Council resolution directly authorizing
the actions (of the US military and others)." In a meeting with US
Ambassador to Japan Schieffer on August 8, Ozawa expressed his
doubts this way about the interpretation of the UN Security Council
resolution, which the Japanese government uses as justification for
sending Maritime Self-Defense Forces to the Indian Ocean to assist
in refueling operations.
The Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) has been in the Indian Ocean
assisting the US Navy since November 2001. The MSDF is a part of
efforts to prevent the flow of terrorism-related materials from
being transported by sea. This operation is connected with the US
forces-centered Operation Enduring Freedom (OED), which is focused
on mop-up operations against terrorists in Afghanistan.
TOKYO 00003812 002 OF 010
The GOJ cites UN Security Resolution 1368, passed soon after the
9/11 terrorist attacks, as the basis for its actions. The resolution
calls on the international community to "redouble their efforts to
prevent and suppress terrorist acts including by increased
cooperation." (text taken from UN Security Resolution 1368
However Ozawa takes issue with the fact that OEF was not
specifically mentioned in the resolution. He insists that the
actions of either the US forces or the Self-Defense Forces cannot be
condoned. Ambassador Schieffer countered Ozawa by citing UN Security
Council Resolution 1746, passed in March 2007. This resolution
clearly mentions OEF, calling on "the Afghan Government, with the
assistance of the international community, including the
International Security Assistance Force and Operation Enduring
Freedom continue to address the threat to the
security and stability of Afghanistan posed by the Taliban (and)
Al-Qaeda." (text taken from UN Security Council Resolution 1746 resolutions07.htm)
Meanwhile, Ozawa showed some flexibility in his reference to the
ISAF, created in December 2001 as a result of UN Security Council
Resolution 1386, saying: "(The ISAF) was given the same attributes
as peacekeeping operations (PKO) and was directly authorized (by the
Ozawa has always asserted that the SDF's participation in
peacekeeping operations should be limited to UN operations. However,
the actions of the ISAF differ from those of a traditional PKO. In
the southern part (of Afghanistan), in particular, where the
situation is quite bad, the ISAF is basically engaged in combat
(2) DPJ's opposition to extending Anti-Terrorist Special Measures
Law increases level of danger for GSDF troops
Foresight (Page 29) (Full)
September 2007
With Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) President Ozawa's hardening of
his stance opposing the extension of the Anti-Terrorist Special
Measures Law that expires on Nov. 1, concern is growing inside the
Defense Ministry that it could lead to casualties among Ground
Self-Defense Force troops. The Anti-Terrorist Special Measures Law
has already been extended three times, and the Maritime Self Defense
Force (MSDF) is now in its sixth year of providing ship-to-ship
refueling service in the Indian Ocean. But the DPJ has consistently
been against the law and its extensions right from the start. This
time, it is inevitable that the bill will be rejected in the
DPJ-controlled Upper House. Although the ruling parties have more
than the two-thirds vote necessary in the Lower House to override
the Upper House's rejection, no one knows whether it can actually do
so in the fall session of the Diet.
Then why are ministry officials talking about casualties in the GSDF
if the law expires? A senior Defense Ministry official explained:
"The overseas operations of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) rest on
two pillars of support for the United States: air transport by the
Air Self-Defense Forces (ASDF) in Iraq; and the MSDF dispatch to the
Indian Ocean. If one of these efforts disappears, the US will not
TOKYO 00003812 003 OF 010
take it quietly. It will bring up again the possibility of
dispatching GSDF troops to Afghanistan, a request it had made in the
The dispatch of the GSDF troops to Afghanistan was considered by the
government prior to their being sent to Iraq. The dispatch was
withdrawn because under the current weapons-use criteria, they would
not be able to respond (if attacked). The same official said: "In
January this year, Prime Minister Abe during his European trip
expressed a desire to send the SDF to Afghanistan. The US and
European countries took this as an international commitment. If the
dispatch to the Indian Ocean ends, a request to send the troops to
Afghan would likely follow." The official continued, "If
Afghanistan proves to be impossible, then another choice would be
offered, sending troops for peacekeeping operations (PKO) to Darfur
in the Sudan."
Afghanistan, where NATO units have the lead, is a dangerous region,
where the number of battle casualties rivals that of Iraq. The
official continued: "The penalty for withdrawing from the Indian
Ocean will be the dispatching of the GSDF to a dangerous zone. There
have been no casualties for the SDF overseas for the past 15 years,
but that would end."
(3) Analysis of war on terror, based on UN resolutions adopted since
Sept. 11 terror attacks
YOMIURI (Page 11) (Excerpts)
August 16, 2007
By Hidemichi Katsumata, editorial board member
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) President Ozawa has expressed his
opposition to the government's plan to extend the Antiterrorism
Special Measures law, claiming: "The United States initiated the war
on terrorism without obtaining consensus from the international
community." Using as reference the UN resolutions adopted since the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the US in 2001, this article examines
if the ongoing war on terrorism in Afghanistan is a US war or a war
authorized by the United Nations or the international community.
International community supports US-led war
Period between the 9-11 and the start of air offensive by the US and
Britain on Afghanistan (Oct. 7)
Following the terrorist attacks on the US, which killed about 3,000
persons from about 60 countries, US President Bush decided to launch
retaliatory attacks on Al-Qaeda, an international terrorist group,
and the Taliban government in Afghanistan supporting Al-Qaeda. The
US launched the air offensive on the basis of the right to
individual self-defense provided for in Article 51 of the UN
The US worked on the UN Security Council (UNSC) to adopt a
resolution criticizing the act of terror. In response, the UNSC
unanimously adopted resolution 1368 on Sept. 12. The resolution
specified the council's readiness to take all necessary steps to
fight against threats to international peace and security. It also
allowed the use of the right to self-defense and the right to
collective self-defense.
TOKYO 00003812 004 OF 010
In order to build an international coalition against terrorism, the
US judged it necessary to obtain the "banner of the UN." Although
the resolution adopted when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 authorized
all UN members to take every possible step, resolution 1368 left
vague who are allowed to take all steps, so the common view is that
only the US is allowed to use the right to self-defense.
Upon holding an emergency summit meeting on Sept. 21, the European
Union (EU) announced a statement noting: "The EU members are ready
to work out antiterrorism measures, including military assistance."
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Australia, New
Zealand, the US Security Treaty (ANZUS), and the Organization of
American States (OAS) - composed of the US, Canada, and Latin
American countries - also decided to invoke the right to collective
self-defense if the US made the request.
The US obtained approval from Russia and China. The US then, in
cooperation with Britain, launched an air offensive (Operation
Enduring Freedom - OEF) on Oct. 7 against Afghanistan, based on the
right to collective self-defense. The US reported to the UNSC
chairman the same day on the start of military operations based on
the right to self-defense.
Looking back over the 26 days from the 9-11 attacks through the
start of the air strike, the US chose the right of self-defense out
of the two means to enable it to use armed force under international
law. Although the UNSC did not order the US to organize a
multinational force, the UN and the international community
supported the US choice in actuality.
On Sept. 12, the French newspaper Le Monde gave this prominent
headline to the 9-11: "We are all Americans." Many countries,
including those critical of US diplomacy, were shocked at the act of
terror, and they could not treat the incident as being nothing to do
with them. Although the war against Afghanistan was initiated under
the lead of the US, the US took no unilateral action, unlike the
case of the Iraq war.
UN adopts resolutions in succession to maintain security in
Period between the start of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
The Taliban government collapsed about two months after the air raid
by the US and Britain. But Osama bin Laden, the ringleader of the
9-11 attacks on the US, has yet to be captured. With terrorist
threats still existing, the Coalition of Willing - composed of
troops from the US, Britain, France and other countries - is still
engaged in operations to capture terrorists and their stronghold in
Afghanistan. Maritime Interdiction Operations based on the OEF are
going on in the Indian Ocean, joined by the Maritime Self-Defense
Force (SDF).
Besides the efforts to eradicate terrorists, the UN adopted a
resolution in December 2001 calling for dispatching an international
security-assistance force (ISAF) composed of about 5,000 persons to
Kabul to maintain security in its vicinity. In October 2003, the UN
adopted a resolution to expand the area covered by ISAF activities
to include the entire land of Afghanistan.
The UN also adopted resolutions 1707 and 1746 last September and
TOKYO 00003812 005 OF 010
this March, respectively. These resolutions call on the members of
the Coalition of Willing joining the OEF to train the new Afghan
national force in cooperation with the ISAF. They also specify the
necessity of overall support from the international community,
including the member countries of ISAF and OEF, to the Afghan
The OEF, which was launched with the US exercising its right to
self-defense, can be labeled, in the UN-authorized war on terror, as
important as ISAF activities based on a UN resolution. The war on
terror is going on, taking a stronger tinge of international
cooperation, that is, collective security as aimed at by the UN. As
long as terrorist threats are not removed, the war on terror must be
France and Germany have taken part in both the military operations
of the OEF and the ISAF, although they opposed the opening of the
Iraq war. Though this is cynical for the US, the international
community has supported the reconstruction of Afghanistan as a quite
contrary case to the Iraq war.
(4) Studies of DPJ: Criticism of Ozawa now quiet; Increasing unity
with eye political change
NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full)
August 16, 2007
Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan or DPJ) will cerebrate next
April the 10th anniversary of its founding. With political change
finally on the horizon, the unity of the DPJ members has
strengthened even more under the leadership of Ozawa. No party
members now have doubts about Ozawa's policy stance of going up
against the ruling coalition, forming a united front with other
opposition parties, and placing emphasis on regional economies. How
far will the solidarity continue? No one is now talking about
candidates to replace Ozawa.
"I don't want you to worry because I have said what I should say to
the appropriate person," said former President Seiji Maehara in a
party on the night of Aug. 7 of the Ryoun-kai, a group made of about
30 members. Maehara was talking about the distinction of his policy
from that of Ozawa regarding the question of whether to extend the
Antiterrorism Special Measures Law, which is set to expire on Nov.
Ozawa has expressed his opposition to the extension of the law, but
Maehara, who is regarded as an active leader of the anti-Ozawa
force, has advocated that the law should be extended. There was a
rumor in the largest opposition party that Maehara might break away
from Ozawa since the two have totally different views on national
security. Maehara apparently tried to dispel the rumor by his
In early this month, Maehara secretly called at Ozawa's office in
the Lower House members' office building, and exchanged views with
him for about 30 minutes. Maehara urged the party head to carry out
sufficient discussion in the party. Since Ozawa expressed his
understanding, Maehara reportedly accepted Ozawa's policy of
opposing the extension of the law.
The DPJ was formed in April 1998 by the merger of the former DPJ
founded by Naoto Kan and Yukio Hatoyama of the Sakigake Party and
TOKYO 00003812 006 OF 010
Takahiro Yokomichi of the Social Democratic Party of Japan, Minseito
(Good Governance Party), Shinto Yuai (New Fraternity Party), and the
Democratic Reform League. In 2003, the Liberal Party headed by Ozawa
joined the DPJ. There are several groups in the party, but they are
not like factions in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). A
number of DPJ lawmakers belong to more than one group. However,
there are constant intergenerational and policy conflicts.
At a Japanese style pub on the night of Aug. 9, Yoshihiko Noda, who
has distanced himself from Ozawa, told about 30 followers: "We
should fulfill our individual roles under the lead of President
Ozawa so that we will grab the reins of government." They have
agreed to let Ozawa head the party until the next House of
Representatives election.
Moves in the DPJ over the "post-Ozawa" issue will be quiet for the
time being. In the July Upper House election, former President
Katsuya Okawa, who is expected to become a successor to Ozawa,
"delivered campaign speeches across the nation for candidates as he
did so when he headed the party," his office said. Through his
campaign trail of speeches for the Upper House race, Maehara urged
new-face candidates to join his group, but he did no more than that.
A veteran lawmaker said positively: "They know how party members see
them. They have ambitions. They would openly take actions after the
next Lower House election." If the possibility of political change
moves closer to reality, differences in their views on individual
policy issues might be brought to light. They will visit Busan in
South Korea later this month to attend a forum sponsored by a
private organization.
(5) Koike, Moriya to share pain: Final settlement on replacement of
vice defense minister to be reached as early as this afternoon;
Names of third candidates floated
YOMIURI (Page 1) (Full)
Evening, August 17, 2007
The government has decided to hold a meeting of the cabinet council
personnel affairs review council as early as this afternoon to have
it discuss the replacement of the vice defense minister, an issue
over which there has been a continuing uproar, and reach a final
settlement. The government will approve the resignation of Vice
Defense Minister Takemasa Moriya, but will not allow Chief of
Secretariat Tetsuya Nishikawa, who hails from the National Police
Agency, to be promoted to vice minister -- both of which have been
called for by Koike. The government will also forgo the idea of
promoting a home-bred Shinshiro Yamazaki, director general of the
Bureau of Defense Operations Planning, who has spent his enter
career at the Defense Ministry, to vice defense minister as
recommended by Moriya.
The government had intended to get the situation taken care of by
having a new defense minister appoint a new vice defense minister
after a cabinet reshuffle on Aug. 27. However, it has decided to
settle the issue at an early date out of concern that the Abe
administrations power base could further decline, if the furor
continues. The names of Kohei Masuda, director general of the Bureau
of Personnel and Education, and Iwao Kitahara, director general of
the Defense Facilities Administration Agency, have been floated as a
possible successor to Moriya.
The defense minister has tried to have the replacement of Vice
TOKYO 00003812 007 OF 010
Defense Minister Moriya, who has been in the post for more than four
years, decided at a cabinet meeting on August 15. However, she did
not obtain approval from Chief Cabinet Secretary Shiozaki, a member
of the cabinet meeting personnel affairs review council. She also
did not inform Moriya of her decision to replace him, either.
It was decided in 1979 that personnel changes concerning senior
ministry and agency officials must be approved by the cabinet
meeting personnel affairs review council consisting of the chief
cabinet secretary and three deputy chief cabinet secretaries from
the perspective of ensuring politically-guided personnel selections.
Shiozaki and other government officials, therefore, fiercely opposed
Koike's move. Moriya opposed the promotion of Nishikawa, who hails
from the National Police Agency, citing the reason that
deliberations on the bill amending the Antiterrorism Special
Measures Law aimed at extending Maritime Self-Defense Force's
refueling operations in the Indian Ocean are to take place in the
fall extraordinary Diet session. The furor has been continuing with
Moriya rejecting the formal submission of a proposal for replacing
himself and promoting Nishikawa to the prime minister's official
residence (Kantei).
(6) State of US beef consumption after import resumption
TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 7) (Full)
August 16, 2007
The decision to resume imports of US beef was made at the end of
July last year. A year has passed since the arrival of the first
shipment in early August that year. Leading retailers at first took
a wait-and-see attitude due to consumer distrust, but they now at
last have begun to sell the meat on a full scale. Imports are
gradually recovering.
Recovery: High cost hampering imports from increasing
After hovering around 2,000 tons a month since last October, US beef
imports as of June this year now exceed 4,000 tons a month. Import
amounts reached 4,577 tons in July, indicating a recovery trend.
The increase is attributable to this being the high-demand season
for barbecue meat and the like. In addition, the all-box inspection
requirement to ensure that shipments had no specified risk materials
(SRM) was abolished.
The US Meat Export Federation is optimistic, with one official
saying, "Our aim is to export 40,000 tons this year."
However, some Japanese trading house sources are still negative,
noting that the price of US beef is 1.5-2.5 times higher than the
pre-ban level. The reason is owing to the extra cost needed to
comply with the import condition that only beef from cattle aged 20
months or younger is eligible for export to Japan. It is unlikely
that US beef imports will increase steadily unless such an import
condition is eased.
Sales: Stores dealing with US beef gradually increasing
For awhile after imports were resumed, only a limited number of
medium-size supermarkets and barbecue restaurants were featuring US
beef. Now, however, an increasing number of leading supermarket
chains are beginning to sell the US product.
TOKYO 00003812 008 OF 010
Seiyu started selling US beef at some of its outlets in March. The
prices are 30% -50% lower than domestic products. Since it received
a good customer response and the meat sold better than expected,
Seiyu has gradually increased the number of outlets handling US
beef. Three hundred and seventy-nine stores or almost all of its
outlets started selling the US product on August 10.
Ito-Yokado started selling at its 20 outlets in the Tokyo
metropolitan area in June. A company spokesman said, "Though you
cannot say that consumer anxieties have been completely wiped away,
US beef fans are gradually increasing." All of its 175 outlets
started dealing with US beef early this month.
Apita-Uny started test-sales of US beef in June. Now all of its
outlets deal with the US product. Daiei has decided to resume sales
of US beef on a once a month basis for the time being, starting on
Aug. 18.
Among restaurant chains, Yoshinoya D started serving beef-bowls in
September last year on a limited basis. It extended the beef-bowl
serving time to 13 hours from 11:00 to 24:00. As a result, customer
volume increased 30%.
In the meantime, many supermarket and restaurant chains are cautious
about selling US meat with an Aeon executive noting, "We give first
consideration to our customers. We have no plan to handle US beef
for the time being."
Easing of condition: Consumer distrust deep-seated
Though imports show an uptrend, the volume is a long way from
reaching the 200,000- ton level that existed before the total ban
that was imposed following the discovery of one BSE-infected cow in
the US in 2003. The US government has cited harsh import conditions
set by Japan as the main reason for the slow increase in beef
imports. It is mounting pressure on Japan to ease its import
In order to move toward easing the restriction, the two governments
held technical talks in June and August.
The US has called on Japan to scrap import conditions that include
such criteria as the age of the cattle. It presented the data used
by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) when it recognized
the US this May as a country that can export beef regardless of
cattle age.
Japan will decide whether to ease that condition before the end of
this month at the earliest and enter talks with the US. The
government will then consult with the Cabinet Offices' Food Safety
Commission and reach a final judgment on the propriety of easing the
However, there remains deep-seated distrust toward US beef among
consumers as a result of the discovery of SRMS in US beef shipments
due to human error. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries noted that it would be necessary to obtain understanding
from consumers through briefings and other efforts, when the
government decides to ease the condition.
TOKYO 00003812 009 OF 010
Asahi, Mainichi & Tokyo Shimbun:
Temperatures hit record 40.9C in Saitama, Gifu, marking highest ever
in 74 years of record keeping
Education panel to propose enhancing students' language skills
Mitsukoshi, Isetan to merge next spring into nation's largest
department store
DPJ asks for bureaucrats' cooperation on policymaking, representing
eagerness and uneasiness
National education gathering starts in Hiroshima
(1) Employ every means to protect the body from heat waves
(2) Government should set standards to determine level of
quake-caused damage
(1) Inability to settle feud over vice defense minister's post shows
weakness of government
(2) Don't use lenient precedent in punishing drug-use cases in
baseball world
(1) Is the Defense Ministry able to deal with a national emergency?
(2) Ishiya betrayed customers' trust by falsifying sell-by dates for
popular chocolate product
(1) Falling stock prices across world exposing problems hidden in
financial system
(1) Feud in Defense Ministry over personnel appointment must be
stopped quickly
(2) We expect IAEA report to work to expel rumors about radiation
Tokyo Shimbun:
(1) We must take the torrential heat this summer as a warning
(2) Government urged to review guidelines on safety of nuclear power
(1) Uncertainty over global stock markets: Some measures needed to
prevent speculative activities
(9) Prime Minister's schedule, August 16
NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full)
August 17, 2007
TOKYO 00003812 010 OF 010
Met at Kantei with LDP Policy Research Council Senior Deputy
Chairman Kawamura, followed by Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary
Met with deputy chief cabinet secretaries Shimomura and Suzuki and
Special Prime Ministerial Advisor Seko, joined later by Chief
Cabinet Secretary Shiozaki.
Met with Matoba.
Met with Deputy Foreign Minister Yabunaka and Southeast and
Southwest Asian Affairs Department Director General Atsumi, attended
by Shimomura.
Met Niigata Prefecture Association Chairman Tadashi Takahashi,
joined by Seko.
Dined with secretaries at the Japanese restaurant "Unkai" in the ANA
Continental Hotel Tokyo.
Returned to his official residence.
View as: DESKTOP | MOBILE © Scoop Media