ABE AND ASO SAY CLASS-A WAR CRIMINALS NOT

C O N F I D E N T I A L TOKYO 000823

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/15/2016
TAGS: PGOV PREL CH KS JA
SUBJECT: ABE AND ASO SAY CLASS-A WAR CRIMINALS NOT
CRIMINALS UNDER JAPAN DOMESTIC LAW

Classified By: Political Minister Counselor Mike Meserve.
Reasons 1.4 (b/d).


1. (C) Summary. Opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)
leaders grilled Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe and Foreign
Minister Aso in the Diet on February 14, regarding World War
II and the War Crimes Tribunal. Although both Abe and Aso
acknowledged the official line that the war was an act of
aggression and that the Tokyo Trials were valid, both Abe and
Aso stated that the Class-A war criminals were not considered
criminals under Japanese domestic law. In pursuing this line
of questioning the DPJ was seeking to paint the DPJ as more
sympathetic to Japan's neighbors than Abe and Aso's Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP). End Summary.


2. (U) During a Lower House Budget Committee session on
February 14, 2006 opposition Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)
leader Seiji Maehara and former leader Katsuya Okada peppered
Chief Cabinet Secretary Abe and Foreign Minister Aso with
questions on World War II and the War Crimes Tribunal. Both
Mainichi and Sankei newspapers gave inside play to the
stories in their February 15 editions.


3. (U) When asked if WWII was a war of aggression, Abe
avoided a direct answer while Aso toed the government's line.
Aso, said "it is an undeniable fact that the war in part was
a war of aggression," and "the Murayama statement (in 1995
that expressed self-reflection on (Japan's) colonial rule and
aggression) is the government view...the foreign minister's
view conforms to it." Asked to evaluate the Tokyo Trials,
Aso noted that the Japanese government accepted the San
Francisco Peace Treaty, "and that's all there is to it/and
that's that." The newspapers characterize Abe as providing a
more emotional response, saying that the government had to
accept the peace treaty in order to become independent, and
that accepting the Treaty was an "agonizing decision" for
Japan. When asked about the validity of the International
Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo War Crimes Trials),
both Aso and Abe said that the Class-A war criminals were not
considered criminals under Japanese domestic law.


4. (C) This line of questioning is consistent with the DPJ's
strategy of painting the DPJ as more sympathetic to Japan's
neighbors than Abe and Aso's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP).
Goshi Hosono, a third-term Lower House politician, and young
leader in the DPJ told a U.S. Embassy Political Officer on
February 10 that the DPJ wants to fashion itself as a friend
of Asia and planned to expose the LDP's conservative views of
history and foreign policy leanings.


5. (C) Comment. Abe and Aso's responses in the budget
committee meeting reinforce their conservative images. Their
comments have received some press exposure, but we have yet
to see a backlash from the usual countries, China and South
Korea. The U.S. press has already fired two shots at Aso
this month, first criticizing his remarks about China and
then criticizing his view of history. This could prove
damaging since prime ministerial contenders are usually
expected to deftly manage the U.S.-Japan relationship. If
Aso's ability to manage the alliance is seen as eroding due
to media criticism of him in the United States, he may find
it even harder to win support for his bid. So far, the
media's criticism has been limited to Aso but given Abe's
comparatively more aggressive remarks in the Diet session
yesterday, we will watch for signs that the media is
expanding its attack to include Abe, as well.
SCHIEFFER