DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 06/09/09

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 13 TOKYO 001289 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 06/09/09 INDEX: (1) Editorial: It is only natural for U.S. to re-designate North Korea as terrorist sponsor (Nikkei) (2) Editorial: U.S. government should relist North Korea as terrorism-sponsoring country without hesitation (Sankei) (3) U.S. Consul General Maher dismisses Marine commandant's remarks on Futenma relocation, stresses "no renegotiation" (Ryukyu Shimpo) (4) True intent of senior U.S. military officer's testimony on "revising" USFJ realignment plans unclear (Ryukyu Shimpo) (5) Futenma Replacement Facility: Conclusion comes first for Futenma relocation to be completed in 2014; Gov't unveils more projects after showing blueprint, pushes ahead with environmental assessment (Mainichi) (6) LDP's Gen Nakatani, DPJ's Seiji Maehara on enemy base strike capability (Tokyo Shimbun) (7) Editorial: HNS must not be expanded by putting utmost priority on the military alliance with the United States (Akahata) (8) Draft "big-boned policies, 2009": Fiscal restructuring delayed to 2020; ratio of debt balance to GDP to be reduced (Nikkei) (9) Bill amending Child Pornography Prevention Law (Part 1) - Interview with LDP Lower House member Yasuhiro Hanashi: Banning simple possession necessary (Yomiuri) (10) Editorial: We should listen to international criticism over lax measures against child porn (Mainichi) ARTICLES: (1) Editorial: It is only natural for U.S. to re-designate North Korea as terrorist sponsor NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full) June 9, 2009 U.S. Secretary of State Clinton announced that the U.S. had started looking into re-designating North Korea as a terrorist sponsor. That nation's provocative acts threatening the security of the international community and the region, including the second nuclear test, cannot be overlooked. It is only natural that the Obama administration had shifted its stance from holding dialogue to applying pressure. The former Bush administration in October last year removed the 
North from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. As reasons for that, it said that since the nation had moved ahead with efforts to disable its nuclear facilities in accordance with the agreement reached at the Six-Party Talks and had agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs in a verifiable way, it would prompt the development of the nuclear issue to remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. What is the reality then? North Korea declared that it will not be bound by the Six-Party Talks agreement. It appears that it is TOKYO 00001289 002 OF 013 restoring disabled nuclear facilities and has resumed the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods. It has repeatedly test-fired missiles. It went ahead with the second nuclear test. The removal of that nation from the list of state sponsors of terrorism has thus produced no effects at all. On the contrary, it has encouraged it to commit rash acts. The prevailing view in Japan was against the U.S. removing that nation, which abducted Japanese nationals, from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. The blunder of the former Bush administration, which rushed to produce a diplomatic result, should be rectified. North Korea's nuclear ambition could pose a major obstacle to the diplomatic policy of the Obama administration, which is aiming at a world free of nuclear arms. Re-designating the North as a terrorist state to ban economic assistance to it would blow a major blow to it. We want to see the U.S. re-designate it as a terrorist nation. Coordination of views on the draft resolution condemning the North is under way at the UN Security Council. Member nations are in agreement on the policy of the international community taking a harsh stance toward the North. However, China is reluctant to impose harsh sanctions. Even if the resolution is adopted, to what extent, China, a major supplier of foods and energy to the North, will implement it is unclear. Pressure on North Korea would remain limited, if the resolution lacks efficacy. In order to rein in North Korea, the U.S. should strengthen its own sanctions in concert with Japan and South Korea. Financial sanctions are effective. The U.S. government in 2005 placed a freeze on funds in North Korea-related accounts at Banco Delta Asia in Macau, designating it as a bank suspected of being used for money laundering by the North. As a result, North Korea had difficulty procuring funds in dollar. Its administration also suffered a major setback. However, the financial sanctions were lifted in 2007 in order to accelerate the development of the nuclear issue. The frozen funds were also returned to North Korea. North Korea is suspected of having exported weapons of mass destruction as well as to have been engaged in illegal trade of fake dollars and drugs. What is of concern is the fate of two American female journalists detained by the North. North Korea's top court sentenced each of them to 12 years of reform through labor. That nation probably intends to make deals with the U.S. using them as bargaining chips. It is only right for it to release them immediately. (2) Editorial: U.S. government should relist North Korea as terrorism-sponsoring country without hesitation SANKEI (Page 2) (Full) June 9, 2009 U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has indicated that Washington has begun considering placing North Korea, which has repeatedly conducted nuclear and missile tests, back on the U.S. list of countries sponsoring terrorism. TOKYO 00001289 003 OF 013 Designating North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism was the United States' powerful bargaining chip along with financial sanctions. The United States removed North Korea from its list in exchange for the North's empty promise of disabling its nuclear facilities. We hope the United States will swiftly relist North Korea to meet Japan's strong desire. Secretary Clinton's remarks came in response to a letter signed by eight Republican Senators calling for putting North Korea back on the list. The letter stated that North Korea has neither stopped sponsoring terrorism nor headed in the direction that former President George W. Bush had hoped for. Appearing on an American television program, Clinton said that she took the letter seriously and that North Korea was taken off the list for a purpose, but now that purpose is being thwarted by the North. She also indicated that the United States is shifting toward pressure tactics in its policy of dialogue and pressure. Her statement is in the right direction and Japan welcomes it. Intending to continue with the Six-Party Talks, the Obama administration was initially inclined toward dialogue. To their disappointment and distress, U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth told the Association of the Families of Victims of Kidnapped by North Korea during the group's visit to the United States in April: "We are neither considering financial sanctions nor putting North Korea back on our list of countries sponsoring terrorism." This was followed by missile launches, a nuclear test, and other provocative acts by North Korea. This can explain why President Barack Obama had to declare, "Rules must be binding and violations must be punished," and to veer toward greater pressure. During his recent visits to Japan, South Korea, and China, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg also played up the need to take a resolute stance. It is good that the Obama administration has revised its view on North Korea. But what is important is to concretely translate it into effective action. It has already been two weeks since the North conducted its second nuclear test. Work to formulate a UN Security Council resolution has run into difficulties due to China which wants to avoid irritating the North. It is possible for the United States to unilaterally relist North Korea as a terrorism-sponsoring and to impose financial sanctions on that country. But such steps as cargo inspections and a weapons embargo would be ineffective unless other member countries, including China and Russia, remain aligned with the United States. The North subsequently demanded an apology of the UN Security Council and continued with what appeared to be preparing for launching more missiles. The country does not show any signs of reflecting on its own conducts. In order to have the North modify its behavior, the United States needs to persuade China and Russia in collaboration with Japan and South Korea and to formulate a strong sanctions resolution over time. Based on that, we hope to see the United States relist the North as a terrorism-sponsoring country, impose financial sanctions on that country, and demonstrate strong leadership in the TOKYO 00001289 004 OF 013 international community. (3) U.S. Consul General Maher dismisses Marine commandant's remarks on Futenma relocation, stresses "no renegotiation" RYUKYU SHIMPO (Page 2) (Full) June 9, 2009 U.S. Consul General in Okinawa Kevin Maher gave a speech at a hotel in Naha on June 8 where he commented on U.S. Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Conway's remarks at the Armed Services Committee of the U.S. Senate on June 4 regarding the possibility of reviewing the U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) realignment plans. Maher said: "I would like to emphasize that there has not been any proposal to the Japanese government for renegotiation," stressing that the U.S. government's position is that there is no room for revising the Futenma relocation plans. Conway told the Senate committee, "There are ideas for revision worth considering." But Maher said: "This is not only my personal opinion; the U.S. government reaffirms its commitment to implementing the 2006 road map for USFJ realignment as is. Since this is a bipartisan policy, the U.S. government's position remains unchanged even with a change of administration." He thus negated Conway's statement. Maher explained that the two goals of his Okinawa assignment have been to promote USFJ realignment and to instill a realistic thinking on security among Okinawa residents. He cited media reports of his statements that had given rise to criticism and said: "The prefecture needs to think seriously about the U.S.-Japan security arrangements. This alliance is indispensable for peace in Okinawa, Japan, and the Far East, and I have tried to explain this as clearly as possible." He admitted that he has been playing the "bad guy." Maher gave his speech at the monthly meeting of the Okinawa Keizai Doyukai (Association of Corporate Executives) for June. He looked back on his almost three years of assignment in Okinawa before moving on to become the Japan desk director at the Department of State in July. (4) True intent of senior U.S. military officer's testimony on "revising" USFJ realignment plans unclear RYUKYU SHIMPO (Page 2) (Full) June 9, 2009 U.S. Marine Corps commandant Gen James Conway testified at the Senate Armed Services Committee that "there are ideas for revision worth considering" with regard to the U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) realignment plans, including the relocation of Futenma Air Station and the transfer of the marines to Guam. This is the first time that a top U.S. military leader has mentioned the revision of the agreement. His remarks are extremely important. It would be good if the proposed revisions will lighten the burden on Japan, but there are concerns that they will result in an even heavier burden. The Japanese and U.S. governments agreed in 2006 on the following USFJ realignment plans as one package: (1) relocation of Futenma to the coastal area of Camp Schwab; (2) transfer of some 8,000 marines TOKYO 00001289 005 OF 013 in Okinawa to Guam: and (3) the return of U.S. military facilities south of Kadena Air Base. While the road map provides for the completion of these plans by 2014, a deadlock continues on the question of Futenma relocation, the core issue. The two governments signed an agreement on the relocation of marines to Guam last February, which clearly stipulates the promotion of the realignment process and sets Japan's share of the relocation cost at 2.8 billion dollars. While Conway has stated that the revisions will be studied under the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to be issued by next February, he had also testified at the House Appropriations Committee in May that "the current estimate of 4 billion dollars as the U.S.' share in the cost for Guam relocation will be insufficient." His latest testimony is a sequel to the May statement. The mention of "revisions" appears to be a pressure tactic to increase the Japanese side's share in the cost. With regard to Futenma relocation, Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) Secretary General Katsuya Okada has pointed out in an interview with the magazine Sekai: "We need to ask the U.S. to give some more thought and discuss this thoroughly," and, "Relocation outside Okinawa has been eliminated as an option from the beginning." There is also an opinion that Japan should indicate its intention to consider various candidate relocation sites, including those located outside Japan or Okinawa, and review the Henoko relocation plan from scratch. Under its plans to reduce military spending, the U.S. has begun to review its military bases at home and abroad. It is planning to close down its military base in Kirgiz in Central Asia and the Vieques naval training range in the U.S. commonwealth of Puerto Rico, for instance. Yet, there has practically been no progress in the consolidation and reduction of U.S. bases in Japan. Conway's testimony must not be taken lightly as the statement of one senior officer. The government should query the U.S. government on the substance and true intent of the proposed "revisions" and initiate discussions on this promptly. (5) Futenma Replacement Facility: Conclusion comes first for Futenma relocation to be completed in 2014; Gov't unveils more projects after showing blueprint, pushes ahead with environmental assessment MAINICHI (Page 3) (Full) June 9, 2009 Teruhisa Mimori Japan and the United States have concurred on relocating the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture's Ginowan City to a coastal area of Camp Schwab in the island prefecture's northern coastal city of Nago. On this issue, the Japanese government and Okinawa have become bogged down in their negotiations over the question of where to place the Futenma replacement's runway. However, the government is steadily pushing ahead with its assessment of the Futenma replacement's potential impact on its environs before relocating Futenma airfield. The Okinawa prefectural TOKYO 00001289 006 OF 013 government's environmental assessment review panel will begin within the month to examine the Defense Ministry's preliminary report. Meanwhile, both inside and outside Japan, there are moves implying the need to reconsider the Futenma relocation itself. There is a conclusion to complete the relocation of Futenma airfield in 2014. The Mainichi Shimbun verifies the assessment procedures. In late May, the Okinawa Defense Bureau, an outlet in Okinawa Prefecture of the Defense Ministry, held a briefing on its preliminary report in a committee room of the Okinawa prefectural assembly. "The procedures should be redone in conformity with the assessment law's spirit," an Okinawa prefectural assembly member from an opposition party said at the meeting. This is because the Defense Ministry's replacement facility positioning plan had a description of four helipads that were not in its procedural report. "The government should remake the procedural report and conduct another survey based on that," the assembly member asserted. A senior official from the Okinawa Defense Bureau rejected this suggestion, saying, "There is no need to redo the procedures for this sort of revision." The government unveiled the helipad construction plan after having submitted its procedural report to the Okinawa prefectural government. Furthermore, the government later came up with its plans to set up additional facilities such as 1.3-kilometer aircraft approach lighting off the coast and aircraft washers. Such plans were shown four months after the procedural report was submitted to the prefectural government when the government held a meeting with officials from Okinawa's prefectural and municipal government officials to consult on Futenma relocation. The Environmental Impact Assessment Law allows base-hosting local residents to make suggestions on the government's procedural and preliminary reports. However, the government came up with additional plans after submitting its procedural report. As it stands, the government cannot be said to have provided enough information. This fails to meet the law's purport that is for consensus building with the participation of residents. Nevertheless, the Defense Ministry has refused to redo the procedures, because there is an intergovernmental agreement between Japan and the United States to complete the relocation of Futenma airfield in 2014. Kunitoshi Sakurai, a professor of environmentology at Okinawa University, hit the Defense Ministry hard, saying: "If the government is allowed to come up with anything later, environmental assessment makes no sense in itself. If the government does not redo the procedures, it is not an environmental assessment." There is another question of how to procure landfill soil for the Futenma replacement facility's construction site. In January 2008, the Okinawa Defense Bureau provided the Okinawa prefectural government's environmental impact assessment review panel with an additional explanation of its procedural report. In this explanation, the bureau estimates the necessary landfill soil at about 21 million cubic meters, showing a plan to gather 17 million cubic meters mainly from near Okinawa's main island. This is 14 times larger than the annual amount of soil gathered from near Okinawa's main island. The review panel noted that this would have a serious impact on the environment. The bureau, in its preliminary report, added that the government would conduct specific studies, including the feasibility of soil procurement from outside Okinawa Prefecture, and that the government would make a careful decision. However, the review panel pointed to the potential impact on TOKYO 00001289 007 OF 013 fisheries. In addition, Japan's mainland prefectures facing the Inland Sea have placed a total ban on soil gathering. As a result, it will not be easy to gather soil from outside Okinawa Prefecture. Ichiro Yuasa, 59, an advisor to the Inland Sea Conference specializing physical oceanography, pointed out a possible impact on ecosystems, saying: "In the Inland Sea, sand eels have lost their egg-laying grounds because sea sand has been gathered, and as a result, there are now fewer sea breams and Japanese Spanish mackerels." Focus on how to compromise There were 5,317 public comments on the government's preliminary report of its environmental assessment. The Okinawa Defense Bureau will present an outline of the public comments and its own view to Okinawa Prefecture Governor Hirokazu Nakaima possibly this fall. The review panel is expected to set forth severe views regarding the bureau's preliminary report. Gov. Nakaima adheres firmly to the plan of moving the newly planned replacement facility's runway to an offshore area. However, he has also said its location could be slightly moved. He is fairly positive about relocating Futenma airfield to a coastal area of Camp Schwab. The focus is how the governor will settle the pending issue of relocating Futenma airfield with the government and how he will explain it to the local population. (6) LDP's Gen Nakatani, DPJ's Seiji Maehara on enemy base strike capability TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 2) (Full) June 9, 2009 In light of North Korea's nuclear test and launching of a long-range ballistic missile, there have been growing calls, especially in the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP),for Japan to possess the capability to attack enemy bases with cruise missiles and other weapons. We asked one Diet member each from the LDP and the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) (who are defense specialists) whether such a capability is necessary, and whether this does not contradict Japan's exclusive-defense (senshu-boei) policy, and related issues. Gen Nakatani, chairman of the LDP Research Commission on Security: Real threats need to be dealt with -- Why is it necessary to possess the capability to attack enemy bases? Nakatani: The intent of North Korea has become clear with its possession of nuclear weapons and firing of long-range ballistic missiles. It is now inevitable that Japan should consider how to deal with this real threat. -- Isn't missile defense (MD) enough? Nakatani: MD has three stages: launch, flight, and fall. Japan is able to deal with flight and fall, but is unable to deal with consecutive launches. The capability to deter the launching of missiles is necessary. TOKYO 00001289 008 OF 013 -- Is this constitutional? Nakatani: (With regard to enemy base attack capability,) Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama once stated in the Diet that, "To do nothing and wait for our own destruction is not the spirit of the constitution." Our options will be limited after North Korea fires a missile. In a case where a missile is certain to be launched, possessing the capability to strike the missile base is within the scope of self-defense. -- There has already been a government opinion half a century ago that the possession of such a capability is possible but not much discussion has ever taken place. Nakatani: This is because there has been no need to do so. I also believe that we should give importance to dialogue and seek a diplomatic solution. However, despite the goodwill of the international community, North Korea has gone ahead with developing a nuclear arsenal. An appropriate system is necessary to deal with this. -- Don't you think discussions like this will provoke North Korea instead? Nakatani: If North Korea did not possess nuclear arms, this discussion would not have taken place. -- How will the debate proceed from now on? Nakatani: The party has drafted a recommendation for the new National Defense Program Guidelines to be adopted in late 2009. We hope the people will also think about the defense of Japan in the future. The government should also listen carefully to the opinion of the people and other countries. (Interviewer: Shunsuke Shimizu) Seiji Maehara, DPJ vice president: Confirm the U.S.' expanded deterrence first -- There is a lively debate in the LDP on the possession of the capability to strike enemy bases. Maehara: First, I think this came too late. Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama once told the Diet in 1965: "When a third country is certain to fire ballistic missiles at Japan, it is not the spirit of the constitution that we just do nothing and wait for our own destruction. Attacking the bases from which the ballistic missiles are going to be fired is within the scope of the constitution." The basic assumption is that this is a debate allowed under the constitution. -- Do you think the debate itself is necessary? Maehara: We should talk about this and possess (the enemy base strike capability). Actually, this is not an issue to be dealt with in haste in the aftermath of the North Korean missile problem. -- How should we deal with a situation where the firing of missiles is imminent? Maehara: Even if Japan is to possess this capability in the near TOKYO 00001289 009 OF 013 future, it does not have too many options. It does not have the equipment. This is not something that can be dealt with hastily. In dealing with North Korea, rather than talking about Japan possessing its own enemy base attack capability, it is more effective to confirm the United States' "expanded deterrence" - that if Japan is attacked by nuclear arms, the U.S. will invoke the right of collective self-defense and retaliate (against the DPRK). -- Are you saying that right now, it is more realistic to rely on the U.S.' expanded deterrence rather than Japan possessing enemy base strike capability? Maehara: Since Japan has relied heavily on the U.S., the U.S. is also the one that serves as the "spear" in the "spear and shield" combination. (In the future) Japan cannot rely entirely on the U.S., but U.S. cooperation is necessary in Japan's process of becoming self-reliant. -- What sort of discussions are taking place in the DPJ? Maehara: None at all. While there is discussion on remedial steps to be taken after something has happened, there has been no strategic vision or systematic discussion. (Interviewer: Takushi Soka) (7) Editorial: HNS must not be expanded by putting utmost priority on the military alliance with the United States AKAHATA (Page 2) (Full) June 8, 2009 The new approach of financing the cost of building and relocating U.S. military facilities, which is supposed to be covered by Japan's host-nation support (HNS),with public works spending has become a topic of conversation. To begin with, what is necessary for the U.S. military's activities should be borne by the U.S. forces under the Status of U.S. Forces Agreement, and there is no logic for Japan to bear such a cost. The public in becoming increasingly angry with the enormous 200 billion-yen-a-year HNS, while their living expenditures are being reduced. Maintaining the HNS by using the country's public works spending from a position of putting top priority to the U.S.-Japan military alliance runs counter to the public's wishes. To meet U.S. military demands HNS covers almost all matters related to U.S. military activities, such as U.S. military housing, including churches, fighter shelters, and training expense. (The HNS) is part of the country's defense spending under the jurisdiction of the Defense Ministry. A move has come to light recently to use the public works spending of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) In Sasebo, Nagasaki Prefecture, 11 housing units - costing 250 million yen per unit including the land development cost - have been built for U.S. military officers by using the MLIT's road-related tax revenues. The program was carried out in the pretext of compensating for relocating the U.S. military housing, which had been originally planned for by the U.S. military in 1990, due to a TOKYO 00001289 010 OF 013 road construction project. It is the first case in which a ministry other than the Defense Ministry has born the HNS. In Ie Jima, Okinawa, a plan is under way to relocate old U.S. barracks as part of MAFF's national irrigation and drainage project for securing agricultural water. As the funding source, the MAFF budget is being considered instead of the HNS under the Defense Ministry. Because part of it overlaps with the U.S. base is an excuse; it's real aim is to have MAFF bear part of the HNS. Looming over the background is the necessity to reduce the HNS, although it has been kept at about 200 billion yen due to strong public reaction. HNS, including the Special Action Committee on Okinawa (SACO) expenses, for fiscal 2005 stood at 235.8 billion yen and for fiscal 2009 at 203.9 billion yen. Reacting strong to this slight reduction, the U.S. military has applied pressure for greater military spending. It is an unjust interference in Japan's domestic political affairs. The government is trying to make ministries other than the Defense Ministry bear HNS with the aim of deflecting such pressure. The government is trying to secure a level that can satisfy U.S. forces. It reflects the government's servile attitude of putting utmost priority on the military alliance (with the United States). Abolition of HNS a way to eliminate U.S. bases U.S. forces are stationed in Japan in line with the U.S.' military strategy and are not for defending Japan. The safety of Japanese people is threatened by them, including crimes committed by U.S. service members. There is no logic in the HNS. In 1995, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph Nye said: "Japan bears 70 percent of the cost of U.S. armed forces in Japan, so stationing them in Japan is cheaper than keeping them in the United States." Johns Hopkins University Professor Ken Calder, who served as special advisor to the U.S. ambassador to Japan, also said in 2008, "If the HNS is eliminated, Japan would become less attractive as a country to host U.S. bases." HNS does more harm than good to the Japanese people. In order to build a peaceful Japan with no bases, HNS must be abolished. (8) Draft "big-boned policies, 2009": Fiscal restructuring delayed to 2020; ratio of debt balance to GDP to be reduced NIKKEI (Top play) (Abridged) June 9, 2009 The contents of the draft "big-boned policies, 2009," which spells out the government's basic policy for economic and fiscal management have been disclosed. With regard to the key issue of target date for restoring fiscal health, a basic goal of "steadily lowering" the ratio of national and local government debts to GDP by the early 2020s has been set. It also proposes to reduce the ratio of deficits in the primary fiscal balance to GDP "by half" before 2014. The previous target of achieving a surplus in the primary balance by FY11 has been postponed to "within 10 years." The government will submit the draft to the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy (CEFP) chaired by Prime Minister Taro Aso on June 9, and the council will adopt this formally on June 23 after TOKYO 00001289 011 OF 013 coordination with the ruling parties. This will be the first set of "big-boned policies" for the Aso administration and will be, in effect, its manifesto (set of campaign pledges) for the next House of Representatives election to be held by this fall. The main point of the draft is a review of the target date for fiscal restructuring. The reduction of the ratio of national and local debts to GDP is set as a central goal. Right now, the national debt is 170 PERCENT of GDP, the highest among the industrialized countries. The draft calls for "stabilizing" this ratio by the mid-2010s and "reducing it steadily" by the early 2020s. It clearly sets a policy of controlling the unbridled ballooning of the fiscal deficit and reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio from 2020 onward. With regard to revenue reform, the draft stresses the steady formulation of concrete plans under the government's "mid-term program" for the implementation of drastic tax reforms, including a consumption tax hike, by the mid-2010s. It also calls for studying the introduction of "tax deductions with benefit payments" combining income tax cuts and social welfare benefits as part of steps to remedy the sagging birth rate and support low income earners. In terms of economic growth strategy, the government will promote a "low carbon society" through the utilization of environmental technology and support "health and longevity" through better medical and nursing care services. Regarding spending cuts, passages on "upholding the big-boned policies of 2006" and "maximum reductions" had been deleted at an early stage when the rough draft was being written, even before entering into coordination with the ruling parties. (9) Bill amending Child Pornography Prevention Law (Part 1) - Interview with LDP Lower House member Yasuhiro Hanashi: Banning simple possession necessary YOMIURI (Page 13) (Full) June 9, 2009 -- Please explain about child prostitution and child pornography. First, attention was focused on child prostitution. In the early 1980's, tours of Southeast Asian countries to buy prostitutes by Japanese men were planned and implemented. Such tours were sharply criticized as treating children as goods. Around that time, a little girl was abducted for the purpose of producing a porno image and was killed in Belgium. In reaction, about 300,000 Belgians staged a protest march. An increasing number of people mainly in the U.S. and European countries began to call for the need to protect children from sexual abuse. Many countries enacted laws to ban pederosis and child pornography. But Japan was slow to move so it was only 10 years ago when the law was enacted. -- Why did the government decide to amend the law now? Japan's regulations are far more lenient than those of other countries. Restricting child pornography is aimed to protect children, but the victims will continue to suffer trauma as long as their photographs exist. Because the nation's laws do not prohibit the possession of child porn, it is impossible to stop the TOKYO 00001289 012 OF 013 distribution of such materials. To protect not only victims but all children, it is necessary to spread the view that treating children as materials for pederosis is an abuse. To that end, many countries have begun to set rules to make anime (animated cartoons) and games subjected to regulations. The ruling coalition recommends in its draft amendment to the law that the government should launch research and study to work out regulations for such materials. -- The ruling parties' draft amendment includes a measure to ban the possession of child porn. Although Japan first introduced required minimum regulations, child pornographic materials disappeared from the shelves of adult shops the under the effect of the law. Later, online child pornography became a major problem, but when the law was revised five years ago, a rule to prohibit online child porn and a stricter punishment was introduced. Reflecting the global trend of criminalizing even the simple possession of child pornography, Japan also should ban the simple possession of child porn. It is a serious problem to see children as sex objects. Even if a ban is placed on the sale and distribution of child porn, there must be loopholes in proliferating child porn on the Internet. As long as simple possession is allowed, such materials will continue to flow out of Japan forever. -- Some persons voice concern that if the nation prohibits the individual possession of child porn, that measure might be abused in investigation. I feel the administration of justice has not been fully trusted. Once it becomes clear what the law intends to protect, such a situation will never take place. -- The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) changed the name and definition of "child pornography" in its proposal. If the scope of subjects covered by the law is narrowed as a result of the definition changed, it will become impossible to punish what can be punished under the current regulations. Under the DPJ proposal, the images of naked children with their sex organs covered would not be designated as child porn. Under such a situation, I wonder if children can be fully protected. The DPJ draft reflects little awareness of the need to counter the social trend of regarding children as materials. Child pornography is an international common language. The DPJ's proposal for using the expression, "materials portraying sex acts with children," is tantamount to a declaration that Japan will move away from the international fight. -- The law should have been amended much earlier. Some people are opposing banning the simple possession of porn as an abuse of state authority. To prevent such a possibility, it is necessary to conduct discussion before the people. The DPJ has finally submitted its counterproposal, so we would like to openly discuss the two parties' drafts in the Diet. (10) Editorial: We should listen to international criticism over lax TOKYO 00001289 013 OF 013 measures against child porn MAINICHI (Page 5) (Full) June 9, 2009 A computer game sold in Japan -- in which players through computer graphics (CGs) rape girls and their mothers, make them pregnant and then force them to get abortions -- has been criticized overseas. A New York-based international human rights organization Equality Now asked its members in 160 countries to send letters of protest not only to the Japanese game maker that made the computer game, and companies that sold the game, but also to Prime Minister Taro Aso and his cabinet members. This kind of computer game is called "disgraceful computer software." In Japan, the computer game industry profits from games featuring sexual abuse and the child pornography market has swelled. This situation in Japan has come under fire. Following this, the Ethics Organization of Computer Software (EOCS), headed by Akihiko Suzuki, comprising about 230 makers, has decided to prohibit making "disgraceful games" depicting sexual abuse, as well as to establish and improve the criteria of such computer software. There are active moves abroad to regulate child porn. It has been pointed that Japan lags behind other industrialized countries in measures to control child pornography. The Third World Congress against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents, which took place last November, came up with an action plan to ban not only obtaining pictures but also browsing extreme animated images. Many industrialized countries have imposed certain legal restrictions on animated images and computer graphics. Even the Philippines, which was criticized as "a provider of child pornography," has deliberated on a bill prohibiting the possession and browsing of animated images. In Japan, however, the ruling parties last June submitted to the Diet a bill amending the Law for Punishing Acts Related to Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, designed to punish the possession of images. In March this year, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) presented a bill to limit punishable subjects to the acts of purchasing and repeatedly using them. However, no deliberations on the two bills have carried out. Both the ruling and opposition camps does not mention that animated images and CGs should be included in the subjects to control. There is a possibility that if a person receives a child porn image sent with malicious intent, and the person is punished for possessing it, such will lead to abuse of police authority. Once animated images that do not harm children are restricted, freedom of expression might be endangered. Discussion on the issue should be deepened. Once an image is posted on the web, the image will be disseminated around the world. It is impossible to take it back. The serious effects of victimization by sex crime against children have become a problem in many countries. The child porn issue cannot be dealt with unless the international community cooperates. "Neglecting such crime is a shame to humanity," said Brazilian President Lula. Although we should pay attention to self-restrictions by industrial associations, it is not acceptable for Japan's Diet to neglect this issue. ZUMWALT