DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 09/06/07

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 TOKYO 004140 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 09/06/07 Index: (1) Loan problem involving environment minister's fund management body: No end to sloppy fund management cases caused by cabinet ministers (2) Editorial: Environment Minister must give full explanation on mistakes in political fund reports (3) Reading world by Hiroshi Yuasa: Antiterrorism Special Measures Law defends Japan's sea lane (4) Japan-US talks widely delayed, making it "unlikely" for Japan to relax its import conditions for US beef by the end of year (5) Interview with Masahisa Sato, who seems in favor of greater freedom in weapons use by SDF ARTICLES: (1) Loan problem involving environment minister's fund management body: No end to sloppy fund management cases caused by cabinet ministers MAINICHI (Page 3) (Excerpts) September 6, 2007 Following the revelation on Sept. 5 of discrepancies between the fund report filed by the fund management body of Environment Minister Ichiro Kamoshita and his political fund payment report over the loans that Kamoshita had extended, the shuffled ABE cabinet is facing yet another disturbing "politics and money" issue involving its minister. Prefacing his remark with "If I recall," Kamoshita explained that the case was a matter of an erroneous entry." Prime Minister SHINZO ABE and Chief Cabinet Secretary Kaoru Yosano accepted his explanation for the time being. However, there seems to be no end to sloppy fund management cases caused by cabinet ministers, as can be seen in the fact that State Minister in charge of Declining Birthrate has rectified her asset report. ABE tried to fend off pursuit by the opposition in the upcoming extraordinary Diet session with the resignations of Agriculture Minister Takehiko Endo and Upper House member Yutaka Kobayashi. However, ABE finds himself in a precarious situation with his intention already suffering a setback. The examination comp of the political fund report submitted by the New Policy Study Group (now Policy Paradigm Study Group), Kamoshita's fund management body, clearly shows discrepancies. The fund management body claimed that it borrowed from Kamoshita 2 million yen in 1996 and 10 million yen in 1997. However, the 1997 fund report claimed 10 million yen as outstanding loan balance. The 2 million yen entered in the previous year was missing. A new loan worth 3 million yen was recorded in the 1998 report. However, the outstanding loan balance in that year jumped to 23 billion yen for no given reason. Kamoshita during the press conference stressed that the borrowing incurred in 1996 was 2 million yen," saying that the 10 million yen reported until 2005 was an erroneous entry. He said that he would rectify the amount of outstanding loan balance accordingly. However, the grounds for that is his memory. He said that there were no documents endorsing the money borrowing and lending relationship TOKYO 00004140 002 OF 008 with the fund management body. As a matter of fact, the Political Fund Control Law does not mandate the attachment of such documents. Under the Political Fund Control Law, recording false information in fund reports is liable to imprisonment for no more than five years or a fine worth no more than 1 million yen. The amount entered as loans receivable in Kamoshita's asset report submitted to the Lower House speaker is completely different from the amount of borrowings entered in the political fund payment report. The Asset Disclosure Law, which was put into force in 1993, obligates the submission of asset reports. The standard of requirements attached to the asset reports is less strict than requirements attached to the political funds payment reports. The law requires the entry of the total amount of loans receivable, but no details or I.O.U. documents are required. Explanations given by Kamoshita are just excuses Hiroyuki Uewaki, professor of Kobe Gakuin University Graduate School and co-representative of the Political Fund Ombudsman: The Political Fund Control Law obligates politicians to keep an account book. If account books are inherited properly, a discrepancy worth 8 million yen would not have occurred, even if accounting clerks were replaced. Mr. Kamoshita's explanation sounds like an excuse. Prime Minister ABE said that cabinet ministers who are unable to explain problems pointed out should leave the post. However, if he accepts his explanation, people would think that the prime minister has moved back from that stance. It is highly risky for prime minister to defend Kamoshita; Likely to be held responsible, if another discrepancy is discovered The ABE administration is on the edge of a precipice. It could collapse, if another cabinet minister is forced to resign. However, Abe appears to have calculated that he can tide over the predicament this time. It was not Chief Cabinet Secretary Yosano but Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Matsushige Ono that listened to Kamoshita's explanation on the 5th. One member of the LDP leadership also indicated his perception that there would be no problem about his case. Provided that a new discrepancy crops up from Kamoshita's explanation, the prime minister is bound to be held accountable for his accepting his explanations temporarily. In that sense, it is a highly risky game for the Prime Minister's Official Residence to defend Kamoshita. Another politics and money scandal involving State Minister Kamikawa occurred on the 5th. She corrected her asset report. A senior Upper House member expressed concern about the situation in which four ministers of the reshuffled cabinet corrected their political fund reports and asset reports, noting, "I wonder the administration can endure opposition parties' attacks during Upper House deliberations." The opposition is determined to strengthen the pursuit of Kamoshita in place of former Agriculture Minister Endo in the extraordinary Diet session to be convened on the 10th, as they think that the explanation provided by Kamoshita is insufficient. Azuma Koshiishi, chairman of the DPJ caucus in the Upper House, noted, "This is a scandalous story. The public cannot understand why Kamoshita is unable to explain 8 million yen in loans he extended." TOKYO 00004140 003 OF 008 Japanese Communist Party General Secretary Tadayoshi Ichita criticized, "If he cannot give satisfactory explanations, he would have no other choice but to resign. We want to look into the possibility of submitting a censure motion against the environment minister at the most crucial timing." Social Democratic Party head Mizuho Fukushima said, "The ABE cabinet is a faulty new cabinet. The prime minister's responsibility for appointing Mr. Kamoshita is heavy." (2) Editorial: Environment Minister must give full explanation on mistakes in political fund reports MAINICHI (Page 5) (Full) September 6, 2007 What is happening with this administration? Following the resignation of farm minister Takehiko Endo, another money scandal involving Environment Minister Ichiro Kamoshita came to light yesterday. Prime Minister SHINZO ABE has said that Kamoshita need not quit his post since it was a book-keeping error. However, can Kamoshita's explanation convince the public? Kamoshita's fund management organization filed in its political fund report for 2005 that it had borrowed 10 million yen from Kamoshita in 1996, but according to its fund report for 1996, it had borrowed only 2 million yen that year. It failed to explain what happened with the remaining 8 million yen in its 2005 report. In his assets disclosure reports, which he is required to submit the speaker of the House of Representatives, Kamoshita reported that he had no loan as of January 1997. In his report for 2000, he filed 8.2 million yen in loans. He, however, filled no loan in his reports for 2004 and 2005. He failed to report money he loaned to his political fund management body. Kamoshita revealed on the afternoon of Sept. 5 that he had loaned 2 million yen in 1996, 10 million yen in 1997, and 3 million yen in 1998, to the fund management organization. He then said that he would correct his political funds and assets disclosure reports. He attributed the differences in the two separate reports to miscommunication between those who drafted the separate reports. Chief Cabinet Secretary Kaoru Yosano stated: "The drafters of the two separate reports might have made mistakes. We, humans often make clerical mistakes and create false impressions." If he believes so, he has a different sense of things than does the public. Filing a false political fund report is an illegal act. Huge amounts of tax money are offered to political parties. Many people have doubts about the fact that lawmakers think that they are forgiven if they only correct the mistakes. Prime Minister ABE is said to have taken much time to check candidates for his new cabinet as to how they managed political funds. If he screened Kamoshita's political funds reports, he would have easily found inconsistencies in his reports. The Prime Minister's Official Residence (Kantei) undeniably lacks a screening ability. Yoko Kamikawa, state minister in charge of declining birthrate, filed corrections yesterday for her asset disclosure reports, saying the reports did not include loans to her fund management organization. Yukiko Sakamoto quit her parliamentary secretary post TOKYO 00004140 004 OF 008 over the inclusion of fictitious meeting costs in her political activity spending. Former farm minister Tokuichiro Tamazawa left the LDP over the fake receipts scandal that the LDP chapter which he headed used the same receipts up to five times by changing dates. The public is beginning to think that there are few LDP lawmakers who accurately declare their political fund reports. The lawmakers should take it seriously. Secretary General Taro Aso has been negative about a revision of the Political Funds Control Law requiring politicians to attach to their political fund reports receipts for expenditures of one yen or more for office, utilities and miscellaneous expenses. It is said that there is a move in the LDP to oppose the trend of reinforcing the control. Have they already forgotten why they suffered a humiliating defeat in the July Upper House election? The opposition bloc appears to be submitting censure motions to the Upper House in the upcoming extraordinary session of the Diet. With the resignation of Endo, Prime Minister ABE has been forced to be in a tough position. (3) Reading world by Hiroshi Yuasa: Antiterrorism Special Measures Law defends Japan's sea lane SANKEI (Page 6) (Abridged) September 5, 2007 Frankly, I was under the impression that there was neither "mutual concession" nor "mutual respect" between Japan and China. I keenly felt that after a session of marine experts from Japan and China to discuss exploration of natural resources in the East China Sea. I do not intend to deny even "mutual benefit or reciprocity." The term "reciprocity" appeared when Prime Minister SHINZO ABE during his visit to China last year declared 'strategic reciprocity' together with his Chinese counterpart, so I may need to wait for this idea to take root. Both Japan and China agreed to the concept of strategic reciprocity during Abe's "ice-breaking tour" of China last fall, and during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's "ice-melting tour" of Japan this spring, the two countries were supposed to depart from their previous confrontation and to find common ground in foreign affairs. But development of natural resources in the East China Sea has been put aside in those two rounds of summit talks. During a Japan-China dialogue on marine security hosted by the Ocean Policy Research Foundation (chaired by Masahiro Akiyama),a Japanese expert in attendance noted with an amazed look: "I've lost hope to see the Chinese side insisting that the continent is superior to islands. It's nonsense that China regards the sea that is called the East China Sea by Japan and other countries as a Chinese territorial sea." These remarks came out in response to a Chinese researcher's remarks that: "The Japanese side insisted on the use of the median line, but there is a difference in status between the continent and islands. In short, Japan is geographically put in a disadvantageous situation in the East China Sea, so if Japan goes on insisting on the use of the median line, no agreement will be permanently reached between the two countries." This Chinese researcher also noted that as China possesses a "regal TOKYO 00004140 005 OF 008 presence of a big power," it responded to discussion of joint development of a disputed sea water area. The researcher was not a rabble-rouser but a leading marine researcher. Other Chinese researchers, as well, chanted the same view, leaving us under the impression that they simply obeyed the Chinese forces' views. It seems utterly impossible to pin hopes on even experts' conscience. For instance, one researcher, speaking of the case of China's Han class nuclear submarine's intrusion into Japan's territorial waters in November 2004, argued bluntly: "Japan refers to that water area as its territorial waters, and Japan describes the seven seas as if they are all Japan's territorial waters. If all the seas are ruled by Japan, no country can pass them through." China is granted the international right of transit passage around Ishigaki Island. But the area is within Japan's territorial waters. So, even submarines are required by international law to surface and navigate in the sea. What China is asserting is tantamount to declaring it is all right to ignore international rules if they do not serve its rights. This is a reality of China, which portrays itself a "regal presence of a big power." That is why Japan needs to resolutely deal with China if it ignores rules, or China will accumulate a number of faits accomplis and escalate its behavior. In fact, China used armed force to fight off Vietnamese from the Sprately Islands in 1988. Afterwards, China erected a military facility on Mischief Atoll of the Philippines and has put the area under its control. China appears to view seas as a place for it to acquire energy resources, as well as to help it to counter America's military power in connection with a reunification of China and Taiwan. For the Chinese Navy, its major objective is presumably to defend China's sea lane. In this dangerous sea area, no one can deny that Japanese and Chinese vessels may accidentally fight each other. Should Japan-China relations turn strained, Japan's sea lane in the South China Sea for the transportation of oil from the Middle East to Japan is more likely to be interrupted. Atsushi Kitamura, a technical advisor to the US Navy, explained: "It is therefore significant for the Maritime Self-Defense Force's (MSDF) supply ships to back up the multinational force under the Antiterrorism Special Measures Law." The open sea outside the Persian Gulf is China's sea lane for its oil supplies. If China prevents Japanese tankers from navigating in the South China Sea, then the multinational force can seize Chinese vessels in the Indian Ocean. Bearing this possibility in mind, China has restrained its action. The MSDF's participation in the multinational force in the Arabian Sea in this sense is beneficial to Japan because it defends Japan's sea lanes. (4) Japan-US talks widely delayed, making it "unlikely" for Japan to relax its import conditions for US beef by the end of year TOKYO 00004140 006 OF 008 SANKEI (Page 8) (Full) September 6, 2007 Prospects look uncertain in negotiations between Japan and the United States to ease Japan's import conditions for US beef. The uncertainty stems from the frequent replacements of Japanese agriculture ministers, as well as the gaps in standpoints between the United States, which calls for a full lifting of import conditions, and Japan, which is cautious about such. The relaxing of import conditions, expected by the end of the year, now seems unlikely. Japan and the United States commenced expert talks in June to reconsider import conditions. Judging from what was discussed there, the Japanese side analyzed that it was less likely that US cattle would be infected with BSE and set a policy course of easing the import condition, raising the cattle age limit from the current 20 months to an age limit of 30 months, as adopted widely in Europe. A final decision on this policy was expected by the end of the year if matters went smoothly after discussions by the Food Safety Commission concluded. However, since August, agricultural ministers have been replaced with bewildering speed, with Norihiko Akagi followed by Takehiko Endo followed by Masatoshi Wakabayashi. As a result, Japan and the US have yet to set up a meeting with US Agriculture Secretary Johanns to discuss easing import conditions. Meanwhile, calls for Japan's lifting its import conditions concerning the months of cattle are growing stronger in the US on the grounds that the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) has recognized US beef as safe to export regardless of the age of the cattle. The US meat industry at one point voiced understanding about Japan's delay, citing its domestic circumstances with the chairman of the US Meat Export Federation (USMEF) saying, "Japan will follow the procedures step by step," but now hard-liners are gaining momentum. (5) Interview with Masahisa Sato, who seems in favor of greater freedom in weapons use by SDF MAINICHI (Page 2) (Abridged) Evening, September 5, 2007 By Akio Fujiwara House of Councillors lawmaker Masahisa Sato, 46, a former Self-Defense Force (SDF) colonel who once led a contingent to Iraq, stirred up a controversy during an appearance on a recent television program when he said that SDF personnel should be allowed to use weapons more freely. Sato made the controversial remark in an August 10 TBS news program that reported on the Council for Rebuilding the Legal Foundation for National Defense, an advisory panel to Prime Minister SHINZO Abe. When the subject turned to use of weapons by SDF personnel engaged in peacekeeping operations, many indicated that in the event foreign troops in the same operations came under attack, SDF troops should be allowed to rush over to provide protection. Under the government's interpretation of the Constitution, such an act would violate the top law, for it does not fit any cases in which weapons use are now allowed, such as self-defense and avoiding immediate TOKYO 00004140 007 OF 008 danger. Sato, having actually served in Iraq, then stated: "If the SDF and the Dutch military had been carrying out activities in areas close to one another and if the SDF had failed to take some kind of action (such as returning fire),the SDF would have drawn criticism (from countries concerned)." The announcer commented: "Mr. Sato indicated that in order to guard the Dutch troops, he had intended to go over in the name of information-gathering and thus be dragged into the conflict." Sato continued: "We cannot create a situation of self-defense or avoiding immediate danger unless we become embroiled in a conflict. I think we would have gone (to defend) our friends when we saw they were in trouble under our nose. I would be happy to be tried under Japanese law as a result of (such an act)." Sato's comment eventually elicited an open letter from some 150 constitutional protectionists, including lawyers, saying, "What he said violates the Constitution and conflicts with civilian control." They called for Sato's resignation as a lawmaker. What was his true intention? I called on Sato at his office in the Dietmembers' Office Building in Nagatacho. "I was interviewed by the broadcaster a couple of days before that council meeting. I didn't expect the broadcaster to use my remarks in such a program. Although the program discussed the right to collective self-defense (which was supposed to be discussed by the council),I simply talked about use of weapons from a general viewpoint regarding the option of extending a helping hand and other situations. Various discussions have been held on SDF arms guidelines, and as a result, a commander is now allowed to issue an order to use weapons. Today, SDF personnel are allowed to use weapons in defending themselves or those under their control or to avoid immediate danger." Sato, who apparently thought that such was still insufficient, added: "But in reality, the SDF is not allowed to use weapons even if SDF troops or Japanese citizens are abducted. That's why we couldn't do anything when Japanese journalist and NGO workers were attacked in Samawah." Nevertheless, severe restrictions on use of weapons by the SDF on overseas missions are a manifestation of the national consensus. In fact, when a young Japanese traveler was killed in Iraq, there was hardly any call for allowing the SDF to use arms. Then why did Sato bring up such a hypothetical situation as defending the Dutch military and being tried under Japanese law at this point? According to Sato, the reason was because two different subjects were put into one story in the program. "Being tried meant a decision by a court of law. If we had used arms, the judiciary would have made a final decision. It certainly didn't mean that we were TOKYO 00004140 008 OF 008 willing to break law," Sato explained, adding: "If SDF troops used arms in Iraq, Cambodia, or elsewhere, a court of law would always come in to determine if they did so in self-defense. Many people are not aware of that." How was the SDF viewed in Iraq? I was in Samawah collecting information on the SDF in February 2004, during which I asked the Dutch commander: "If the SDF comes under attack, will Dutch troops help them?" In response, the Dutch commander said: "They (SDF) seem professional soldiers who are capable of defending themselves. It will not be necessary for us to assist them." Sato also noted: "The idea of troops of one country defending another country's troops is unacceptable internationally. In particular, if you compare the Dutch military with the SDF, the GSDF is superior in terms of arms efficiency and other factors, not to mention national strength. The Dutch Army and Navy were really small in scale." Although Sato stopped short of speaking his mind in the interview, he presumably wanted to say that the SDF should be allowed to engage in operations suitable to their level of equipment and that if they cannot use weapons, they should not be sent overseas. DONOVAN