JAPANESE VIEW OF ANNAPOLIS, PARIS DONORS CONFERENCE

C O N F I D E N T I A L TOKYO 005482 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT PASS TO NEA/IPA FOR BELGRADE, EEB/IFD/ODF FOR DEMARCELLUS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/04/2017 TAGS: PREL EAID XF WE IS GZ KWBG KPAL JA SUBJECT: JAPANESE VIEW OF ANNAPOLIS, PARIS DONORS CONFERENCE REF: A. STATE 163377 ¶B. STATE 163955 Classified By: Ambassador J. T. Schieffer for reasons 1.4(b) and (d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: Japan considers the Annapolis Conference a great success, terming it an "historic opportunity" to advance the Peace Process. Unfortunately, Japan was not represented at the ministerial level. Separately, given budgetary constraints, the issue of whether Japan can contribute to the Palestinians at the December 17 donors conference is not yet determined. Officials in the Middle East and African Affairs Bureau at MOFA realize that if Japan is to be taken seriously, it must attend critical meetings at the ministerial level and make contributions when needed. Unfortunately, the Diet schedule - particularly during these politically tumultuous times - and budgetary realities interfere. END SUMMARY. -------------- ANNAPOLIS CONFERENCE -------------- ¶2. (C) Japan considered the November 26-27 Annapolis Conference a great success due to the achievement of the Joint Understanding and to the large turnout, particularly that of the Saudis and Syrians, according to a December 5 readout by Akihiro Tsuji, Principal Deputy Director of MOFA's First Middle East Division. In a statement issued November 28, Foreign Minister Masihiko Koumura called the conference an "historic opportunity" and paid "the highest tribute to the initiative of President George W. Bush" in hosting the meeting and in obtaining the Joint Understanding. ¶3. (C) Tsuji said efforts had been made to have FM Koumura attend, but in the end this was not possible due to the Diet schedule. He acknowledged that the Prime Minister's office was concerned after the fact about the lack of ministerial representation, confiding to Embassy Tokyo Political Officer that following the conference, Chief Cabinet Secretary Machimura called in Vice Minister Shotaro Yachi to ask why Koumura had not attended. Tsuji also revealed that Ambassador Tatsuo Arima, Japan's Special Envoy for Middle East Peace - who led Japan's delegation to Annapolis - has yet to have an opportunity to brief FM Koumura on the conference. Tsuji said he hopes Arima will get in to see Koumura on December 6 but didn't sound convinced this would happen. -------------- PARIS DONORS CONFERENCE -------------- ¶4. (C) With regard to the upcoming December 17 Paris Donors conference, Shinsuke Sugiyama, Deputy Director General of MOFA's Middle Eastern and African Affairs Bureau, will represent Japan at the December 7 preparatory meeting. Tsuji said there is currently a debate raging within MOFA about whether Japan will be in a position to make additional financial contributions to the Palestinians. The Middle East and African Affairs Bureau is strongly advocating on behalf of making additional contributions, and Arima will also push this position when he sees FM Koumura. But the Economic Cooperation Bureau is pushing back, taking the position that Japan's current financial situation will not allow it to make additional funds available. ¶5. (C) Even if the Middle East Bureau's position wins out, MOFA will still have to convince the Ministry of Finance to make funds available, and with less than two weeks remaining before the conference, time is running out. Tsuji termed the whole situation very frustrating. He pointed out that Japan counts itself as the second largest bilateral donor to the Palestinians, having contributed nearly USD 1 billion since ¶1993. He acknowledged, however, that if Japan wants to be considered a "serious player" in the Peace Process, it needs to attend key meetings at the ministerial level and make contributions when critically needed. Embassy Tokyo will present a demarche on the December 17 donors conference per ref B and will report outcome septel. -------------- JAPAN AND THE PEACE PROCESS -------------- ¶6. (C) The three pillars of Japan's approach to the peace process, explained Tsuji, are to 1) encourage political dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians and other Arab neighbors, 2) provide economic assistance to the Palestinians, and 3) facilitate confidence building measures between the parties. Japan's Corridor for Peace and Prosperity (CPP) initiative represents efforts in the economic and confidence building realms. Tsuji said a very successful expert-level CPP meeting had taken place on December 3 in which officials from Israel, Palestine, Jordan and Japan drove around the West Bank together in a single mini-bus touring the site identified for the construction of the initiative's agro-industrial park. ¶7. (C) Getting back to the Annapolis Conference, Tsuji wondered what role the people in Gaza would play in the unfolding process, expressing his opinion that a final peace settlement cannot be reached without them. Embassy Tokyo Political Officer assured him the U.S. will not abandon the people of Gaza. Providing assistance to the Palestinian Authority so it can increase its capacity to govern and provide security is critical to restoring the confidence of the Gazans in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. Once this is accomplished, it is hoped the people of Gaza will see clearly that a brighter future of peace and prosperity lies with supporting those who support a peaceful settlement, rather than those who espouse violent resistance and practice acts of terror. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶8. (C) Tsuji seemed embarrassed by the fact that Japan was not represented at Annapolis at the ministerial level. Japan says it wants to play a major role in the Peace Process and often complains that it is not adequately consulted. Yet according to ref A, of the 45 countries in attendance, Japan was one of only two not represented at the ministerial level, the other being Sudan. Hopefully, they will make a better showing at Paris, although we judge it as doubtful Japan will make much in the way of a financial contribution, citing tough financial times and the fact that they made a USD 20 million contribution to the Palestinians last August. We will report the outcome of our demarche on the need for Japan to attend the Paris meeting at the ministerial level and to make a significant contribution. END COMMENT. SCHIEFFER