CLUSTER MUNITIONS: JAPAN'S POLICY OF AMBIGUITY

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 TOKYO 000804 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/24/2016 TAGS: PREL MOPS PARM JA NATO SUBJECT: CLUSTER MUNITIONS: JAPAN'S POLICY OF AMBIGUITY REF: A. 07 TOKYO 1716 ¶B. 07 TOKYO 2004 ¶C. TOKYO 0347 ¶D. TOKYO 0518 Classified By: Ambassador J. Thomas Schieffer. Reasons 1.4 (B) (D) ¶1. (S) Summary. This cable describes Japanese policy on cluster munitions (CM) and summarizes Tokyo's participation in both the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and the Oslo process. The Japanese Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) possess CM, and Japan has no intention of supporting a total ban. The Foreign Ministry has assured the United States that Tokyo opposes a ban on CM. However, Japan has participated in the Oslo process in order to influence any ""unrealistic"" proposals and to mute domestic public criticism that Tokyo has ignored the humanitarian aspects of the use of CM. Embassy Tokyo predicts that Japan will agree to placing limitations on CM in the Oslo process, but will oppose an outright ban. End Summary. -------------- Background -------------- ¶2. (C) The United States has clearly conveyed our concerns to Japan about the movement to develop a legally binding treaty to restrict the use of cluster munitions (CM) and Norway's decision to hold discussions of a treaty outside the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). In April 2007, the PM Bureau's acting Assistant Secretary Mull and acting DAS Ruggiero advised Japanese officials that Washington opposes a total ban on CM, citing the potential loss of military capability and the effects a ban would have on combined operations within NATO (Refs A, B). Assistant Secretary Mull stressed that CM are legitimate munitions that serve a crucial role in modern warfare. Mull and Ruggiero underscored the U.S. desire to see any discussion of CM balance security and humanitarian concerns. They promised to maintain the U.S. commitment to reducing the impact of CM that potentially threaten civilians and urged that CM discussion remain in the CCW. -------------- MOFA: Japan Opposes Ban -------------- ¶3. (C) Japanese Foreign Ministry officials, including Disarmament, Non-proliferation and Science Department Deputy Director-General Masatoshi Shimbo, have consistently expressed to Embassy Tokyo strong opposition to the CM ban being considered under the Oslo process, and have promised that Japan would not agree to any treaty that negatively impacts U.S.-Japan security arrangements (Ref A). At the same time, Shimbo advised Embassy Tokyo that Japan feels compelled to participate in the Oslo process meetings in order to influence any ""unrealistic"" proposals, maintain positive and growing relations with European nations, and to counter domestic public criticism that Tokyo has ignored the humanitarian aspects of CM. MOFA officials have expressed the need for close U.S.-Japan coordination on CM and have asked the United States to make progress on negotiations under the CCW. -------------- Defense Ministry Concerns -------------- ¶4. (S) On March 18, Ministry of Defense officials expressed concern that, acting under political pressure, Japanese representatives will in fact sign an agreement under the Oslo process to ban CM at the May Dublin conference. MoD U.S.-Japan Cooperation Division Director Serizawa told USFJ that, while the final Japanese government position is ""not yet decided, politicians are reviewing the pro's and con's"" of joining the Dublin arrangement. According to Serizawa, MoD is concerned that many politicians will insist that Tokyo join the ban. Foreign Ministry personnel have approached USFJ with similar concerns. ¶5. (C) On March 18, MOFA Conventional Arms Division Director Ryuichi Hirano categorically rejected any suggestion that Tokyo would consider joining an Oslo process ban on CM, noting that Japan's views remain unchanged from positions previously outlined to Embassy Tokyo (Refs C, D). -------------- Japan Likely to Support Limited Ban -------------- ¶6. (S) Japanese officials may agree to place some type of limitations on CM at Dublin. As noted in Ref C, MOFA has worked hard to soften the language so that, after signing a modified agreement, Tokyo can argue it will not be too onerous and will not affect the United States-Japan security relationship. Japan's position within the Oslo process has largely been driven by public opinion, the media, and politicians - including the ruling LDP's pacifist coalition partner New Komeito Party - who have demanded that Tokyo adopt a humanitarian approach to CM. JSDF operational needs for CM will prevent Japan from supporting a CM ban. But it is possible Japan will make an effort to head off domestic critics by agreeing to a compromise proposal at Dublin. End Comment. SCHIEFFER