DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07

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