DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 08/03/06

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 TOKYO 004364 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 08/03/06 INDEX: (1) Editorial: Public understanding needed to strengthen alliance (2) "I feel responsible" for Futenma danger: US consul general (3) Thinking about Yasukuni Shrine: Yasukuni issue is a thorn in Japan's diplomacy, source of constitutional debate (4) Keidanren calls for abolition of FTC judge system, adoption of single set of court procedures; Also eyes maintenance of surcharge system only (5) Revision of Antimonopoly Law; Keidanren calls for integrating punishments into administrative surcharges alone, relegating appeals of administrative punishments from FTC-controlled system to court trials ARTICLES: (1) Editorial: Public understanding needed to strengthen alliance MAINICHI (Page 5) (Full) August 3, 2006 "For future-oriented steady security": This is a subtitle from the cabinet-approved white paper for 2006 on the defense of Japan. In the 21st century, Japan's security policy is at a substantial turning point. "So," the white paper says, "Japan needs to strengthen its alliance with the United States for steady security." Its pillar is the realignment of US forces in Japan. Along with this realignment, the Self-Defense Forces and US Forces Japan will rapidly step up their bilateral cooperation. The SDF has expanded its stance of international cooperation with its sending of troops to Iraq and vessels to the Indian Ocean. In the wake of North Korea's recent missile launches, the SDF is also likely to expedite its introduction of a missile defense system. This year's white paper has a separate chapter regarding bilateral security arrangements. This is because the Defense Agency wanted to play up the importance thereof. Japan and the United States held intergovernmental talks over USFJ realignment in three stages: 1) setting common strategic objectives; 2) sharing roles and tasks; and 3) realigning troop strengths. The Japanese and US governments identified security on the Korean ;Peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait as a common strategic objective and defined role- and task-sharing between the SDF and USFJ. Then the two governments sketched out a vision for the realignment of US military bases in Japan while making it a basic principle to maintain deterrent capabilities and alleviate the burden of base-hosting localities. Indeed, Japan has further solidified its defensive posture. The US Army, for instance, will move some of its command functions to USFJ bases, thereby strengthening inter-command cooperation. In addition, the SDF and USFJ will combine their bases for joint use and will also maximize their joint training exercises in order for Japan and the United States to prepare themselves for emergencies. TOKYO 00004364 002 OF 007 The white paper also refers to the interoperability of tactics, hardware systems, and rear-echelon support between the SDF and USFJ. Japan will start its planned introduction of an MD system within the current fiscal year. In operating this MD system, Japan and the United States will need to work together for interoperability, including intelligence-gathering activities. The white paper expresses strong concern about North Korea's military-first politics, noting its deployment of Rodong and other ballistic missiles that can reach Japan. Pyongyang has also declared its acquisition of nuclear weapons. The white paper warns of North Korea's military modernization and China's intensified intelligence-gathering activities near Japan. In fiscal 2005, Air Self-Defense Force fighter jets made a total of 107 scrambles against Chinese aircraft, eight times the number in the preceding fiscal year. Needless to say, however, the act of invoking defensive power is the last resort for national defense. Moreover, Japan, basically with a defense-only posture, will use it only when Japan comes under attack from a foreign country. First of all, Japan should make diplomatic efforts to maintain its peace. Critics say Japan is attaching too much importance to its alliance with the United States in the process of carrying out USFJ realignment. There are also people who are concerned that the "Japan-US alliance in a global context" means blindly following the United States. The government must appropriately answer such critical views and misgivings. The Diet has yet to fully debate specifics about USFJ realignment. We want the ruling and opposition parties to enter into in-depth discussions. The government asserts that strengthening the Japan-US alliance will greatly contribute to Japan's national security in the future. If so, the government will have to make efforts to obtain public understanding not only from base-hosting local communities but also from the Japanese people. The government should not just strengthen the bilateral alliance. (2) "I feel responsible" for Futenma danger: US consul general OKINAWA TIMES (Page 2) (Full) August 3, 2006 GINOWAN-Kevin Maher, the new American consul general at the US Consulate General in Okinawa Prefecture, called on Ginowan City's Mayor Yoichi Iha at his office. In their meeting, Maher, touching on the danger of Futenma airfield, said the US military should ensure safety. "I feel responsible," Maher added. With this, the new consul general indicated that he would coordinate the flight routes of US warplanes. Referring to the planned relocation of Futenma airfield, Maher stressed that the airfield should have been removed before the population of areas around the airfield increased. Maher also noted that US military bases situated south of Kadena Air Base would not be returned to Japan without Futenma airfield's relocation. "We need to relocate the airfield's functions within Okinawa Prefecture for stability in East Asia," Maher said. With this, he rejected the mayor's proposal to relocate the airfield's functions elsewhere outside Okinawa Prefecture. (3) Thinking about Yasukuni Shrine: Yasukuni issue is a thorn in TOKYO 00004364 003 OF 007 Japan's diplomacy, source of constitutional debate TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 2) (Slightly abridged) August 2, 2006 Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo is dedicated to praying for the souls of some 2.5 million persons who lost their lives in wars and other incidents since the Meiji Restoration in 1868. The shrine has now become the subject of controversy diplomatically and constitutionally. What are the basic problems associated with the shrine? Can they be resolved? Now that the memo indicating the late Emperor Showa's (Hirohito) words of displeasure about the shrine were disclosed recently, and the question of whether Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi will visit the shrine on Aug. 15, the anniversary of the end of World War, is drawing public attention, the newspaper takes another look at the Yasukuni issue. Enshrinement of Class-A war criminals at Yasukuni is the cause of strained relations with China, South Korea China and South Korea have raised objections to the prime minister's visit to Yasukuni Shrine. This is the diplomatic aspect of the so-called Yasukuni issue. The shrine has enshrined Class-A war criminals. So neighboring countries interpret the prime minister's visit to the shrine as a manifestation of Japan's intention to justify the past war. Chinese President Hu Jintao says such a visit is viewed as an act to "injure the sentiments of the people who were the victims" of Japan's colonial rule and the war. Since normalizing diplomatic relations with Japan in 1972, China has stated, "A small number of militarists were responsible for the aggressive war, and the Japanese people were also the victims." China has made a clear distinction between the Japanese leaders and its people over its war responsibility and tried to minimize discontent at home with Japan. This theory, however, collapses once the prime minister, who is seen as representative of the victims, pays homage to the leaders responsible for the war. To counter oppositions from nearby countries, Prime Minister Koizumi has stated, "I am not visiting the shrine to pay respect to the Class-A war criminals but I am going to pay homage and express gratitude to the war dead"; and, "I can't understand why other countries' governments are making it a diplomatic issue by meddling in a matter of heart." Both sides have yet to reach any understanding. The view prevailing in Japan among those who favor the prime minister's visit to Yasukuni is that if Japan bows to their interference, it would be reduced to a country that is always subservient to China and South Korea. When the Law to Help the Wounded Soldiers and Bereaved Family of the War Dead was amended in 1953, the executed Class-A war criminals were treated as death by execution implemented in accordance with the ruling by the court of war criminals (homushi) (TN: homushi is different from the death of criminals by execution). Under the amendment, the decision was made to pay pensions to the bereaved families. In terms of domestic law, no one since then has been treated as war criminals. On the grounds of this amendment, some insist: "The prime minister's visit to the shrine presents no problem." Conversely, there are also strong calls on the government to improve TOKYO 00004364 004 OF 007 relations with nearby countries. In May, the Japan Association of Corporate Executives (Keizai Doyukai) came up with a proposal advising the prime minister to refrain from visiting the shrine, out of concern over the possibility that Japan-China relations will turn from being cold on the political front but hot in the economic area to being cold on both sides. Koizumi, however, has dismissed this advice, citing the principle of separation of politics and the economy. He has stated: "Considering businesses, someone asked me 'not to visit there any more,' but politics and the economy are two different things." In the precinct of Yasukuni Shrine stands a museum, "Yushukan." Films run by the museum and panels displayed there depict the war as a war for survival and self-defense, and explain that opening the Pacific War was an unavoidable choice for Japan because there was economic blockade set up by the US. In the Liberal Democratic Party, some members are beginning to express the concern that if the prime minister continues visiting Yasukuni, "the issue involving China and South Korea could turn into an issue involving the US." Unconstitutional judgment made twice on Prime Minister Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni in view of separation of politics and religion The prime minister pays homage at Yasukuni Shrine, but Isn't it a violation of the Constitution stipulating the separation of politics and religion? This is a constitutional aspect of the Yasukuni issue. The Constitution's Article 20 guarantees freedom of religion unconditionally to all the people, and prohibits the state from exercising any political authority on religious activities. In a comparison of Japan's Constitution and other countries', Japan may be portrayed as one of the countries that separates religion from politics strictly. The former Constitution of Japan recognized freedom of religion but attached the conditions of "not causing an obstruction to peace and order and not disregarding the duties of the subject." Consequently, religion was oppressed, and under the logic that Shintoism is not a religion, state-sponsored Shintoism appeared and was used for the advancement of the war. Reflecting on the past experience, the current Constitution stipulates the strict separation of politics and religion. If soldiers were killed in the war, they would be enshrined at Yasukuni Shrine as deities. Yasukuni Shrine became the backbone of the state-sponsored Shintoism. Now, the expenses for the prime minister to visit Yasukuni Shrine and to offer a sacred Shinto tree branch are paid from the national coffers. But some cast doubts on the use of public money for such purposes, arguing that doing so violates the separation of politics and religions as stipulated in the Constitution. A number of lawsuits of this kind have been filed. In 1991, the Sendai High Court handed down the ruling that it is unconstitutional for the prime minister and other officials to visit Yasukuni, a lawsuit called "Iwate Yasukuni case." Over Prime Minister Koizumi's visits to Yasukuni, lawsuits have been filed in various places across the country, such as Tokyo, Osaka, the Shikoku region, and Fukuoka. The court rulings so far have rejected the plaintiff side's claim TOKYO 00004364 005 OF 007 for compensation, but most of them have avoided making a constitutional judgment. But there has been no ruling that judges Prime Minister Koizumi's visit to Yasukuni as constitutional. In contrast, the Fukuoka District Court and the Osaka High Court judged such a visit as unconstitutional in April 2002 and in September 2005 respectively. The Fukuoka District Court said: "Paying homage at Yasukuni Shrine is viewed as implementing his duties. Doing so comes under religious activities and violates the separation of politics and religion." The Osaka High Court stated: "(Visits to Yasukuni Shrine) give the impression that the state has given special assistance to the shrine and can be recognized as the state's helping and promoting a certain religion." (4) Keidanren calls for abolition of FTC judge system, adoption of single set of court procedures; Also eyes maintenance of surcharge system only NIHON KEIZAI (Page 5) (Slightly abridged) August 2, 2006 Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) produced on August 1 a set of proposals in preparation for a revision of the Antimonopoly Law (AML). One of the plans is to abolish the Fair Trade Commission's (FTC) judgment system, a means to file complaints against administrative punishments, and adopt a single set of court procedures. The federation also called for maintaining the surcharge system (administrative punishments) by abolishing fines (criminal punishments). FTC Chairman Kazuhiko Takeshima rejected the idea, saying that the existing system is rational. The competitive policy debate is picking up momentum. Keidanren compiled the proposals in response to a solicitation of views by the Cabinet Office AML panel that has produced an AML review interim report. Keidanren intends to lobby the government and the ruling coalition intensively with an eye on a final report next June. The FTC makes judgments on AML violations, such as bid rigging and cartels, through examinations. Corporations that violate the law face administrative punishments, such as orders for corrective measures and surcharges. Companies dissatisfied with FTC decisions can appeal to a set of court procedures. Business circles are distrustful of the FTC, which has both examining and judging functions. "It is like a prosecutor serving as a judge at the same time," one said. Most examiners are dyed-in-the-wool FTC officials. In some cases, FTC officers who were involved in examinations of specific cases took part in making judgments. According to Keidanren, only twice did the FTC reverse examination results in its judgments over the last 40 years. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is also equipped with both examination and judgment departments. But its judges, called "administrative law judges," come from the Office of Personnel Management, a separate office, and their independence and status are guaranteed. "Unlike Japan's Fair Trade Commission, elite US FTC personnel do not shift from the examination department to the judgment department," a Keidanren official explained. TOKYO 00004364 006 OF 007 Keidanren is calling for the abolition of the judge system and to leave objections to administrative punishments to a set of court procedures. The FTC thinks it would be difficult for district courts to assume the functions of the first trial, including the determination of facts. A spokesperson for Keidanren rebutted: "It is appropriate to nurture specialized judges in tandem with judicial reform." Violators face mostly fines in the United States and surcharges in European nations, while in Japan, they are slapped with both fines (up to 500 million yen) and surcharges (10% of sales in the case of violations by major manufacturers). A spokesperson for Keidanren criticized the system: "The government replied that surcharges were administrative sanctions. It is clearly a redundant structure." The business lobby is also calling for using the surcharge system alone as sanctions against corporate violations. Under the revised Antimonopoly Law that took effect in January, surcharges were increased while fines were left intact. This has spurred discontent among economic circles. Interview with FTC Chairman Kazuhiko Takeshima on review of Antimonopoly Law: "Existing system is rational" Q: Keidanren is calling for the abolition of the judge system. A: Under the present system, the FTC, which is familiar with economic and competition policies, conducts what corresponds to the first trial, and companies dissatisfied with FTC decisions can appeal to a high court. Such a system is rational. Of the seven judges, three are legal professionals, so independence from examinations and neutrality are maintained. I basically understand Keidanren's skepticism about the same organization conducting examinations and making judgments. But in the event the first trial is left to a court, practical questions remains, such as to what extent it can secure judges with expertise in such areas as competition law. I would like to see the Cabinet Office council discuss this thoroughly. Q: Keidanren has objected to a system that combines surcharges and criminal punishments. A: When the Antimonopoly Law was revised in January, the level of surcharges was raised, and its focus was shifted from the collection of unfair profits to administrative sanctions that can result in financial drawbacks, which is worse. Still, I am against the idea of eliminating criminal punishments. Criminal punishments are effective for severely condemning social violations. Administrative fines cannot replace this system. Criminal charges are filed in some European countries as well. The Japanese system is not unusual. Criminal charges are filed only against serious and vicious offenders. Criminal punishments must be maintained in order to curb violations. (5) Revision of Antimonopoly Law; Keidanren calls for integrating punishments into administrative surcharges alone, relegating appeals of administrative punishments from FTC-controlled system to court trials YOMIURI (Page 9) (Full) TOKYO 00004364 007 OF 007 August 2, 2006 The Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren) yesterday released a letter of opinion on the revised Antimonopoly Law (AML),which went into effect this January and is set to be revised again within two years. Regarding the filing of objections against administrative punishments the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) imposes on companies that violate the AML, the FTC itself judges the propriety of the appeals. The panel proposed abolishing this system and entrusting the regular court system with the task. The letter also proposed scrapping criminal penalties and keeping just the administrative surcharge system in place as a means to penalize companies that have violated the AML. The FTC defends the legitimacy of the current system, in which it passes judgment on punishments it has handed down itself, saying that there is a firewall between examiners who handle AML violation cases and examiners responsible for dealing with appeals. In its letter of opinion, Nippon Keidanren pointed out: "No matter how the firewall has been strengthened, there still exists distrust regarding whether a fair judgment can be ensured. The firewall does not essentially solve the problem." It called on the FTC to adopt a system in which district courts would handle appeals of FTC decisions, as is the case with other administrative lawsuits. Keidanren had previously sought the improvement of the judgment system. This is the first time for it to call for its abolition. It is common for companies that have violated the AML to pay both administrative surcharges and criminal fines if a criminal case is established and they are found guilty. However, some in business circles have pointed out that this may result in double jeopardy, which is prohibited under the Constitution. The letter of opinion called for the simplification of the penalty system, arguing: "A dual punishment system like this is unusual among industrialized countries. The punishment system for companies that have violated the AML should be unified into the administrative surcharge system, and criminal punishment should be scrapped." Experts are now discussing the AML at the Private Forum on Basic Problems With the AML established in the Cabinet Office (a private council reporting to the chief cabinet secretary). The panel mapped out an interim report that included key points on the proper nature of administrative surcharges on July 21 and now is inviting public opinion until early September. Nippon Keidanren sent its opinions in response. The panel plans to compile a final report possibly by June ¶2007. SCHIEFFER