DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 06/19/07

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 10 TOKYO 002761 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 06/19/07 INDEX: (1) Poll on Abe cabinet, pensions fiasco (2) US to provide North Korea with 2 million dollars in aid in return for implementation of initial actions (3) Editorial: Is Kim laughing himself silly over US decision on money transfer? (4) Defense technologies: Japan, US agree on intercorporate technology transfer (5) Editorial: Diplomatic efforts necessary to prevent other countries from anticipating a spear as next step in missile defense (6) 2007 Upper House election (Part 5): LDP puzzled by New Komeito's eagerness to adjust votes (7) Total lifting of ban on US beef imports so quickly? - part 2: "The US has not changed the risk at all," says Food Safety Commission Chairman Yasuhiro Yoshikawa ARTICLES: (1) Poll on Abe cabinet, pensions fiasco YOMIURI (Page 2) (Full) June 19, 2007 Questions & Answers (Figures shown in % age. Parentheses denote the results of a survey conducted in May.) Q: Do you support the Abe cabinet? Yes 38.3 (49.6) No 50.6 (36.8) Other answers (O/A) 2.8 (3.5) No answer (N/A) 8.3 (10.1) Q: (Only for those who answered "yes" to the foregoing question) Give up to two reasons for your approval of the Abe cabinet. I can appreciate its political stance 30.8 (33.4) It's stable 11.8 (14.9) The prime minister is trustworthy 23.2 (23.2) There's a fresh image of the prime minister 34.8 (40.2) I can appreciate its economic policy 4.8 (6.2) I can appreciate its foreign policy 15.2 (15.2) Because it's a coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and the New Komeito 14.8 (10.7) It's better than its predecessors 11.9 (10.1) O/A+N/A 7.2 (4.8) Q: (Only for those who answered "no" to the foregoing question) Give up to two reasons for your disapproval of the Abe cabinet. I can't appreciate its political stance 45.9 (43.1) It's unstable 34.4 (24.9) The prime minister is untrustworthy 25.3 (25.2) The prime minister lacks political experience 14.4 (16.7) I can't appreciate its economic policy 22.9 (21.9) TOKYO 00002761 002 OF 010 I can't appreciate its foreign policy 6.8 (13.9) Because it's a coalition of the Liberal Democratic Party and the New Komeito 11.3 (14.2) It's worse than its predecessors 10.0 (7.5) O/A+N/A 3.9 (3.8) Q: Which political party do you support now? Pick only one. Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) 32.9 (38.5) Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ or Minshuto) 14.3 (11.1) New Komeito (NK) 4.0 (3.3) Japanese Communist Party (JCP) 2.4 (1.8) Social Democratic Party (SDP or Shaminto) 1.2 (0.9) People's New Party (PNP or Kokumin Shinto) 0.2 (0.3) New Party Nippon (NPN or Shinto Nippon) --- (0.1) Other political parties --- (---) None 44.4 (42.4) N/A 0.7 (1.6) Q: Do you appreciate the job performance of Prime Minister Abe and his cabinet so far on the whole? Appreciate very much 6.3 Appreciate somewhat 36.3 Don't appreciate very much 37.2 Don't appreciate at all 16.7 N/A 3.4 Q: If there is anything you can appreciate about what Prime Minister Abe and his cabinet have actually done, pick as many as you like from among those listed below. Relations with the US 9.5 Relations with China 14.7 Relations with South Korea 5.8 Efforts for the North Korea problem 31.1 Efforts for educational reform 15.3 Efforts for social divide 4.4 Efforts for the pension issue 12.7 Efforts for constitutional revision 6.8 Efforts to reform the government's public service personnel system 3.0 Response to the problem of politics and money, involving former Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Matsuoka 1.8 Response to cabinet ministers' gaffe, including Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Yanagisawa 1.7 O/A 0.3 Nothing in particular 38.3 N/A 1.7 Q: If there is anything you cannot appreciate about what Prime Minister Abe and his cabinet have actually done, pick as many as you like from among those listed below. Relations with the US 8.4 Relations with China 7.2 Relations with South Korea 4.7 Efforts for the North Korea problem 14.4 Efforts for educational reform 13.5 Efforts for social divide 25.0 Efforts for the pension issue 50.2 Efforts for constitutional revision 10.1 Efforts to reform the government's public service personnel system TOKYO 00002761 003 OF 010 9.0 Response to the problem of politics and money, involving former Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Matsuoka 49.4 Response to cabinet ministers' gaffe, including Health, Labor and Welfare Minister Yanagisawa 32.1 O/A 0.5 Nothing in particular 13.8 N/A 2.1 Q: Do you trust the government's pension system on the whole? Yes 7.6 Yes to a certain degree 15.7 No to a certain degree 26.8 No 48.7 N/A 1.3 Q: Concerning the government's pension record-keeping flaws, the government has worked out a plan to compensate unpaid pensions under a new law. At the same time, Prime Minister Abe has promised to check about 50 million pending cases within one year. Do you appreciate this government plan? Appreciate very much 12.5 Appreciate somewhat 33.9 Don't appreciate very much 27.7 Don't appreciate at all 24.2 N/A 1.6 Q: Do you think the government's plan this time will resolve the problem of missing pension records? Yes 26.6 No 66.8 N/A 6.5 Q: Which political party gave you a bad impression in view of moves in the Diet over the problem of missing pension records? If any, pick as many as you like from among those listed below. Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) 37.6 Democratic Party of Japan (Minshuto) 17.5 New Komeito (NK) 9.5 Japanese Communist Party (JCP) 5.9 Social Democratic Party (Shaminto) 5.9 People's New Party (PNP or Kokumin Shinto) 2.7 New Party Nippon (NPN or Shinto Nippon) 2.2 Other political parties 0.2 Nothing in particular 46.8 N/A 3.9 Polling methodology Date of survey: June 16-17. Subjects of survey: 3,000 persons chosen from among all eligible voters throughout the country (at 250 locations on a stratified two-stage random sampling basis). Method of implementation: Door-to-door visits for face-to-face interviews. Number of valid respondents: 1,837 persons (61.2 % ). (2) US to provide North Korea with 2 million dollars in aid in return for implementation of initial actions TOKYO 00002761 004 OF 010 MAINICHI (Top Play) (Excerpts) Evening, June 19, 2007 Toshihiko Kasahara, Washington The United States government has decided to provide North Korea with emergency humanitarian assistance worth 2 million dollars (approximately 230 million yen) if Pyongyang implements the initial steps that were stipulated in the six-party agreement in February, such as shutting down and sealing its nuclear facilities. Several US government officials disclosed this information to the Mainichi Shimbun yesterday. But Japan has taken the stance of not offering assistance unless negotiations on the abduction issue move forward. Should no progress be made in the six-party talks, the gap between Japan and the US, which is now positive about assistance to the North, will grow even wider. A joint statement on the February agreement stipulates that North Korea will receive 50,000 tons of crude oil in reform for implementing the initial steps. It has been decided that South Korea alone will offer 50,000 tons of oil independently. The aid planned by the US will be an additional contribution outside the framework of the agreement. (3) Editorial: Is Kim laughing himself silly over US decision on money transfer? NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full) June 19, 2007 The United States has finally started preparations to transfer approximately 25 million dollars (about 3 billion yen) of North Korea-related funds frozen at Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in Macao to North Korea via the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Bank of Russia. Hearing this news, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il might be laughing himself silly. Negotiators adopted a joint statement in the six-party talks that wrapped up on Feb. 13. The statement stipulated the initial steps North Korea should take toward nuclear disarmament and specific conditions for them, specifying that these actions should be taken within 60 days. Although the statement makes no reference to the BDA issue, Pyongyang put forth the issue as a condition for it to take the initial actions. Washington accepted the North's demand by unprecedentedly getting its central bank involved in it. The Nikkei has so far posed questions about Washington's conciliatory policy in its editorials titled: "America should maintain the basic principles of its policy toward North Korea;" and "Don't follow North Korea's pace." The US finally fell into the other side's pace and came up with the decision. It can hardly be conceivable that the US money-transfer decision will prompt the North to take actions to resolve the nuclear issue. Even so, we hope North Korea will return the "goodwill" of the US. North Korea must be savoring the effect of its nuclear test last year. This experience might have the North believe that if it continues to play for time by presenting new demands, the US government will make concessions in the end. In this light, the US approach might be taken as working only negatively. We interpreted the agreement stipulated in the Feb. 13 joint TOKYO 00002761 005 OF 010 statement as only one step toward North Korea's dismantlement of all its nuclear programs and weapons. On "the list of nuclear plans" in the joint statement, in particular, it will not be easy to move negotiations forward. There is leeway for North Korea to buy time, with so many loopholes in the joint statement, which is designed to have the North scrap all its nuclear weapons and programs. North Korea has extended an invitation to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),based on the judgment that the fund-transfer process is now in the final stage. Pyongyang intends to receive IAEA inspectors once the process is completed. However, it is uncertain to what extend the inspectors will be allowed to take action. Japanese harbor doubt and distrust of the US government's policy toward North Korea. The BDA decision by the US may be amplifying such feelings on the Japanese side. Unless North Korea makes a sincere response, the US government will be inevitably pressed to make a policy switch again. (4) Defense technologies: Japan, US agree on intercorporate technology transfer NIKKEI (NIHON KEIZAI) (Top play) (Full) June 17, 2007 Japan and the United States will introduce a scheme allowing their private-sector companies to directly share their technical data with each other or transfer such data to each other in their joint research and development of defense technologies. In the first place, the Japanese and US governments will apply this scheme within the month to the two countries' joint development of a missile defense (MD) system. This is aimed at shortening the period of time for joint development or streamlining joint development in the advancement of defense technologies. However, this scheme is also saddled with problems, such as how to handle confidential information and oversee the behavior of private businesses. In May this year, the Japanese and US governments held a two-plus-two foreign and defense ministerial meeting of their intergovernmental security consultative committee in Washington. In the two-plus-two ministerial, the two governments reached a basic agreement on a framework to promote technology transfer between the two countries' private businesses. The two governments will reach a formal agreement in their official notes to be exchanged this month. The Japanese and US governments are currently to conclude a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on each project for joint research and development. In principle, the Japanese and US governments exchange information just between themselves. Generally, the two governments take the form of providing their respective contractors with technical data for joint development. Japan and the United States therefore need to obtain each other's consent to technology transfer for each project. In the past, there were few problems about technology transfer. That is because basic research has been the mainstay of technology transfer. However, technical data will be massive in volume with the advancement of research, according to a senior official of the Defense Agency notes. The official added, "They will have to directly provide each other with their data, or they can't respond." The Japanese government also wants to improve the defense industry's technological capability through expanded exchanges. TOKYO 00002761 006 OF 010 For example, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Raytheon, a US major defense-related company, are expected to conclude a technical assistance agreement and directly access each other's database. MD-related research and development between Japan and the United States do not conflict with Japan's self-imposed three principles on weapons exports, so companies will be required to abide by information security regulations incorporated in their MOUs. For the present, Japan and the United States are working together to research and develop four components, including a "nosecone," which is to tip the Standard Missile 3 (SM-3),a next-generation missile to be launched from Aegis-equipped ships to intercept ballistic missiles. The two countries will also work together to research a new high-performance radar system that has a long detectable range. In addition, the two countries will also research an Aegis combat command system with its processing capacity enhanced with commercial-off-the-shelf products. The Japanese and US governments will consider expanding the scheme to joint research and development in non-MD areas. If Japan and the United States want to use each other's research results for other defense-related purposes in the future, the two countries can use them after notifying each other of specifics about their projects. In East Asia, the security environment has been intensifying further with North Korea's missile launches and other events. As it stands, the Japanese government wants to improve Japan's defense capability and streamline its budget through technical exchanges with the United States. However, there are concerns about the two countries' military integration. In addition, there are also voices pointing to the possibility of scrapping Japan's arms embargo policy. (5) Editorial: Diplomatic efforts necessary to prevent other countries from anticipating a spear as next step in missile defense MAINICHI (Page 5) (Full) June 19, 2007 The intensifying row between the United States and Russia over the deployment of a missile defense (MD) system in Eastern Europe brought to mind a Chinese researcher's words: "A person, who used a shield, might use a spear the next time." This is still a moderate criticism of MD. Having a shield is part of military strength. An increase in a country's defense capability means a decrease in the other party's strike capability. An arms race might follow a disturbance in balance of military strengths. President George W. Bush described the deployment of MD in Eastern Europe as a strictly defensive means. The logic is the same as the Japanese government explaining the deployed MD system as exclusively for self-defense. Such logic seems insufficient to contain criticism of MD and countermeasures, however. Winning support of neighboring countries takes constant diplomatic efforts and confidence building. The Antiballistic Missile Treaty concluded by the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1970s strictly restricted the two countries deploying antiballistic systems. The treaty came from the judgment that once intercepting enemy missiles became easier, countries would be tempted to launch a preemptive strike. Perceiving this treaty as a Cold War relic, the Bush administration declared in 2001 to withdraw from the treaty and started to pursue the development of MD. The decision might not be a total mistake. However, there is no TOKYO 00002761 007 OF 010 mistake that the full-fledged development of MD that started with a rejection of the Cold War mentality has amplified the confrontation between the United States and Russia, which is also referred to as a new Cold War, drawing strong protests from Moscow and Beijing. The Bush administration's multiple layered defense initiative has an aspect of defending US allies with MD while shielding the United States by using their defense zones. The system is intended to intercept launched enemy missiles at the boost phase and in mid-course. Integrating the Clinton administration's National Missile Defense (NMD) program and the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) program involving Japan into MD, the new system was born linking air defense systems of the world, including Japan and the United States. Washington could ask Tokyo to intercept a US-bound missile. Japan would find it difficult to cite the usual lack-of-interceptor explanation. The Defense Ministry has reportedly decided recently to study and develop the airborne laser (ABL) system apart from the interpretation of the right to collective self-defense. Laser weapons enables to intercept boost-phase missiles. Japan has been accused by China and other countries as having used a spear, while keep paying huge MD-related expenses in compliance with US requests. In the event 10 warheads were released over Japan, we do not know how many of them Japan and the US can intercept by using the current system. One nuclear warhead would be enough to deal a devastating blow to Japan. Some think that trying to shoot down fired missiles is better than doing nothing. Like Eastern Europe, there could be "political deployment" to regard the deployment of MD as proof of being US allies. Nothing is more fearful than an MD argument sidestepping limits to the intercept system, for such would prompt people to harbor illusions about their own security. (6) 2007 Upper House election (Part 5): LDP puzzled by New Komeito's eagerness to adjust votes NIKKEI (Page 2) (Abridged) June 18, 2007 Incumbent New Komeito Upper House lawmaker Tamotsu Yamamoto, attending a ceremony to open his campaign office in a central part of Nagoya on June 14, bowed his head deeply and said: "I am truly sorry. I should have been prepared to put everyone at ease." Aichi, which holds three seats, is one of the top priority districts for the New Komeito, which aims to get all eight proportional representation candidates elected and win the five electoral districts. New Komeito Representative Akihiro Ota kicked off his nationwide stumping tour with a press conference in Aichi on May 19 in which he declared: "Of all the electoral districts, the situation in Aichi is the most severe. Winning Aichi will result in our complete victory." In the election three years ago, two Minshuto (Democratic Party of Japan) candidates garnered a total of 1.41 million votes. Yamamoto won less than half a million votes in the race six years ago. If two Minshuto candidates win about the same number of votes in the upcoming election, Yamamoto would be no match for them. Setting a target of 600,000 votes, the Yamamoto camp intends to obtain votes from the Liberal Democratic Party, the New Komeito's coalition TOKYO 00002761 008 OF 010 partner. "Receiving rewards natural" New Komeito Aichi prefectural assemblymen and Soka Gakkai executives have repeatedly asked LDP lawmakers elected from Aichi to produce lists of individuals with substance from any part of the prefecture. They apparently think receiving rewards in return for their votes for LDP candidates in past Lower House and local elections is only natural. New Komeito Secretary General Kazuo Kitagawa held a meeting with his LDP counterpart Hidenao Nakagawa on June 14 in which they agreed that the New Komeito would cooperate for the LDP in Chiba and in return the LDP would assist the New Komeito in Aichi and Saitama. Many LDP lawmakers are wary of such arrangements. For instance, incumbent Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Seiji Suzuki garnered 970,000 votes in the election six years ago by riding on the coattail of popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, but he is now highly alarmed about the impact of the pension fiasco and other issues. Meanwhile, Minshuto, which will field two candidates, is struggling to evenly distribute votes to Ikuko Tanioka and Kohei Otsuka. In a gathering held on June 3 in Nagoya to support Otsuka, one alarmingly said, "Organizational votes might be absorbed by Tanioka." Minshuto's strategy is to let Otsuka collect 80 % of the Rengo (Japanese Trade Union Confederation) Aichi votes and Tanioka, a university president, to win support from unaffiliated voters. "We definitely don't want to see the two vie with each other over organizational votes," a senior Aichi chapter official said. In Saitama, maneuvering by the ruling and opposition camps is intensifying. Attending a gathering in Kawaguchi City on the night of June 10, Kitagawa highlighted the need for the party to win 13 seats in order for the ruling coalition to maintain a majority. The Minshuto candidates garnered a total of 1.2 million votes in the previous election. A half of that would be about the same as incumbent New Komeito lawmaker Hiroshi Takano collected six years ago when he won 560,000 votes. On June 10, LDP Lower House lawmaker Yoshitaka Shindo called on Takano at his campaign office in the city to offer his total support. "We want 30,000 votes from the LDP," a New Komeito Saitama chapter executive said. "We cannot afford to give votes to New Komeito candidate" Toshiharu Furukawa, the LDP's first-time candidate, could not conceal his shock when 19 incumbents failed to win seats in the prefectural assembly race in April. Secretary General Nakagawa visited Saitama on June 10 to brace up the prefectural chapter. "We cannot afford to donate votes to the (New Komeito) candidate," a senior LDP prefectural chapter official noted. Minshuto is endeavoring to evenly distribute party votes to two candidates -- incumbent Ryuji Yamane and newcomer Kuniko Koda -- based on the bitter lessons from the previous race. At that time, the party was able to get only one of two candidates elected due to the large gap in the votes between the two. (7) Total lifting of ban on US beef imports so quickly? - part 2: "The US has not changed the risk at all," says Food Safety Commission Chairman Yasuhiro Yoshikawa TOKYO 00002761 009 OF 010 TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 21) (Full) June 18, 2007 US beef was once a strong competitor of Australian beef on the Japanese market. Now, however, Japan imports less than 2,000 tons of US beef a month. Australian beef now commands nearly 90 % of Japan's imported beef market. While Japan sets no conditions on beef imported from Australia, where there have been no discoveries of BSE-infected cattle, US beef exported to Japan must be from cattle aged 20 months or younger. To meet this requirement, the US needs to select cattle for processing whose age can be identified. Some meat-processing plants set a specific day of the week to work on products bound for Japan. Operating plants in such a manner naturally drives costs higher. Given the trade statistics issued by the Department of the Treasury, US beef is nearly 30 % more expensive than Australian varieties. Some meat retailers said, "We cannot do business with such high prices, though consumers can feel a sense of reassurance about the product's safety." In order to solve the situation like this, the US places high expectations on the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), which has classified it as a country with a controlled BSE risk. This is the intermediate category out of three categories to be determined, based on such factors as whether BSE-infected cattle have been discovered in that country and measures that country takes to prevent BSE. Australia is categorized at one level higher. Though the OIE has not necessarily rated the US as a "country free of BSE," the arrangement is that countries in this category are not subject to trade restrictions, such as age limits, unless such restrictions are based on scientific grounds. Following the release of the OIE report, US Secretary of Agriculture Johanns released a statement that the US would use this international recognition in order to seek its trade partners to reopen their markets for all US beef products. Accordingly, the US has urged the Japanese government to revise its import conditions at an early date. Following the request, the Japanese government has drawn up a scenario of entering talks with the US possibly at the end of the month and inquiring the Cabinet Office's Food Safety Commission (FSC) to consider the propriety of easing import condition that limits beef eligible for exports to cattle aged 20 months or younger to cattle aged 30 months or younger, which is virtually a total lifting of the ban. It will then decide whether to totally remove the ban, following the panel's recommendation at the end of the year or early next year. A senior official of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) noted, "It is a hard job to reopen the market after a long hiatus, but the situation should be quite different if it is just to ease restrictions." Some view that procedures to ease the age restriction will go much more smoothly than the partial lifting of the ban the year before last. However, Tokyo University professor Yasuhiro Yoshikawa, chairman of the Food Safety Commission (FSC),a panel that holds the key to the issue, categorically said: "If you ask me whether it is all right to ease Japan's import conditions set on US beef, it is hard to say TOKYO 00002761 010 OF 010 that it is all right, because the background risk of US beef has not changed. It is illogical to ask and answer such a question." He is especially concerned about the fact that the US allows meat-and-bone meal made of burnt specified risk material (SRM) as feed for chickens and other animals. He noted: "Unless the feed restrictions are tightened, the infectious agents that cause BSE in cattle would continue circulate in the country. It is a major minus factor for the US that it did not strengthen the regulation due to opposition from the industry. The OIE has pointed out this concern in a footnote of its report." The panel's report that approved the partial lifting of the ban in Dec. 2005 called for strengthening the feed regulation and inspection. However, the US has instead reduced the number of cattle subject to inspection. Yoshikawa revealed the distress he feels, sandwiched between political moves and science: "Japan carries out thorough inspection and sets a feed regulation. Its approach to root out BSE is accurate, but it is not the case for the US. If this situation continues, Japanese and US scenarios in dealing with BSE will become wide apart." Toshinobu Kitabayashi heads the Agricultural Information Research Center, which has studied the BSE issue since the occurrence of BSE in Britain in 1986. He pointed out: "Both Japanese and European people have begun eating beef, trusting the efficacy of BSE preventive measures - removal of SRM, feed regulation and inspection." He then made a bitter remark on US beef: "I do not think the US is a high-risk country, but I do not think that US beef is safe, either. I cannot be sure about this, because there is no premise for judgment. A BSE-infected cow was discovered in the US, and yet, its BSE-preventive measures are less proactive than those taken by Japan and European countries. Unless it does what it can do, matters, including a boost to the consumption of its beef, will not move forward." SCHIEFFER