DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 10/20/09

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 15 TOKYO 002417 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 10/20/09 INDEX: (1) Editorial: Taking advantage of U.S. defense secretary's visit to Japan today, government urged to settle bilateral issues to maintain alliance (Sankei) (2) Gov. Nakaima negative about settlement of Futenma relocation by just moving new facility offshore (Okinawa Times) (3) Why isn't the Futenma relocation plan moving forward? (Asahi) (4) New and previous governments' procedures for receiving petitions/requests (Nikkei) (5) Government plans to submit 11 bills to extraordinary Diet session; child allowance bill not included (Jiji Com) (6) "Seiron" column: The Hatoyama administration's misunderstanding of the Japan-U.S. relationship (Sankei) (7) Poll on Hatoyama cabinet, political parties (Mainichi) (8) Poll: Hatoyama cabinet at 1 month since its debut (Yomiuri) (9) Trouble over custody of children in failed international marriages: Japanese mother indicted in U.S. on suspicion of abduction of her own children (Mainichi) (10) Editorial: Disputes arising from international divorces: Discussions on parental and visitation rights needed (Asahi) ARTICLES: (1) Editorial: Taking advantage of U.S. defense secretary's visit to Japan today, government urged to settle bilateral issues to maintain alliance SANKEI (Page 2) (Full) October 20, 2009 U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert will visit Japan on Oct. 20-21 to hold talks with senior Japanese government officials, including Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. In the planned meetings, the focus of attention is likely to be on the planned relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Ginowan City, Okinawa Prefecture. Besides the Futenma issue, the Hatoyama administration has been saddled with numerous issues that affect the Japan-U.S. alliance fundamentally, such as alternative contributions to the ongoing Maritime Self-Defense Force's refueling mission in the Indian Ocean and what to do about the U.S. nuclear umbrella. To prevent the Japan-U.S. alliance from being put at risk, Hatoyama is urged to make realistic judgments in a bid to resolve Futenma and other pending. Ahead of the defense secretary's visit to Japan, a senior U.S. Defense Department official indicated that the U.S. would approve the proposed plan to move the construction site for the alternative runways further offshore (in Nago City, Okinawa Prefecture). Last week, Okinawa Governor Hirokazu Nakaima had said that the Okinawa government would approve the relocation of the Futenma facility within the prefecture based on the existing plan, on the condition TOKYO 00002417 002 OF 015 of moving the site into the sea. Apparently in response to the governor's flexible stance, the U.S. official took a concessionary approach, saying that "it is possible to make a compromise if the plan is altered only slightly." The local communities concerned and the U.S. government have thus begun to take joint steps. Despite this progress, senior government officials, including Prime Minister Hatoyama, have indicated that the government would put off a final decision until the middle of next year, citing the need to probe the will of the people in the prefecture. Probably the officials are bearing in mind the Democratic Party of Japan's campaign pledge for the latest general election to relocate the Futenma air station out of the prefecture, as well as the upcoming Nago mayoral election in January and the Okinawa gubernatorial election in November of next year. Showing such an (indecisive) posture is a problem. The Futenma issue, however, has been left pending between Japan and the U.S. for the 14 years since the U.S. agreed in 1996 to return the Futenma air station to Japan. The existing plan is an indispensable part of the planned global-scale realignment of U.S. forces. A further delay in implementing the agreed plan might constitute a serious hindrance to the U.S. military's strategy for the entire Asia-Pacific region and the joint deterrence setup of Japan and the U.S. Focusing on expectations among the residents and the request by Japan's ally, Hatoyama should quickly demonstrate his leadership. The Hatoyama administration plans to halt the refueling mission in the Indian Ocean, citing the reason that the Afghan government has not eagerly called on Japan to continue the mission. But the government has yet to work out any alternative assistance measures. Regarding the U.S. nuclear umbrella as well, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada has called on the U.S. to come up with the policy of no-first-use of nuclear weapons and suggested holding a discussion between Japan and the U.S. But the U.S. nuclear umbrella is the most reliable tool to ensure Japan's security in preparations against such threats as China's military expansion and North Korea's nuclear and missile development. Given this, the appropriateness of the call for relinquishing the deterrence capability of Japan's ally, the U.S., is questionable. The concept of an East Asia Community proposed by Hatoyama also makes some persons worried that it might exclude the U.S. Although Hatoyama has advocated the slogan of establishing a close and equal partnership between Japan and the U.S., his concept might make the U.S., Japan's ally, distrustful of Japan. Taking advantage of Gates' visit to Japan, Japan and the U.S. should work hard to dissolve such doubts and pending issues. The prime minister is urged to make specific decisions and take decisive action in order to strengthen the bilateral relationship of trust. (2) Gov. Nakaima negative about settlement of Futenma relocation by just moving new facility offshore OKINAWA TIMES (Page 2) (Full) October 20, 2009 With regard to the relocation of the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station, a high U.S. Defense Department official said that if the TOKYO 00002417 003 OF 015 Japanese government proposes that runaways be moved farther offshore than currently planned, the United States will "consider" this proposal. Okinawa Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima lauded the U.S. official's remarks, saying: "Because I wrote in a position paper on the preparatory documents for the environmental impact assessment (of the site of the replacement facility for Futenma Air Station) that (a new military airfield) should be moved farther offshore, it would be good if a conclusion is arrived in line with that direction." When asked whether the Futenma relocation issue would move toward a conclusion if the hurdle of moving the alternative facility further offshore is cleared, Nakaima expressed a negative view, saying, "It is not that moving the military facility offshore is the only obstacle." Meanwhile, citing the enforcement of the Environmental Assessment Law as an example, Vice Governor Zenki Nakazato expressed his view for the first time, noting, "If the purpose is to reduce the impact on the environment, the relocation site will move 100 meters or 200 meters, as far from the coastline as possible." Both Nakaima and Nakazato were speaking to reporters at the prefectural government building. Referring to his position paper on the preparatory documents on the environmental impact assessment, Nakaima said: "It is not only me. As many as 500 residents in the prefecture, the Environmental Assessment Council, and the heads of municipalities have expressed their opinions. It is not just moving the facility further offshore; a variety of issues raised by them must be overcome." Asked about the option of moving the facility 50 meters farther offshore than the existing plan, Nakaima said, "It is a matter that engineers should decide on. It is not appropriate for a person at the political level to make a suggestion." Regarding the idea of moving the facility by 50 meters offshore, Nakazato said: "A judgment should be made in relation to the environment. It is presupposed that building a reclaimed base in that region will destroy the natural environment." He stressed: "The government is a contracting party for the replacement facility requiring the environmental impact assessment. Procedurally the governor has to express his opinion." (3) Why isn't the Futenma relocation plan moving forward? ASAHI (Page 2) (Abridged slightly) October 20, 2009 Takateru Doi Kobukuro: What is the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station in Okinawa all about? Answer: Futenma Air Station is a U.S. Marine Corps base. It sits in a densely populated residential area in the city of Ginowan. Concerned about noise and safety, the prefectural and city have long been calling for the return of the air station. A local schoolgirl was gang-raped by U.S. service members in 1995 and that exacerbated the sentiments of people in Okinawa. In 1996, the governments of Japan and the United States reached an agreement to return Futenma Air Station in five to seven years' time on the condition that its functions are relocated to a new site within the prefecture. TOKYO 00002417 004 OF 015 Ko: That was 13 years ago. Why hasn't the relocation plan moved forward? A: Although it accounts for less than 1 percent of Japan's land mass, Okinawa hosts 75 percent of the U.S. bases in Japan. People in Okinawa raised strong objections to relocating the Futenma facility to a site within the prefecture, and it took a long time to decide on the relocation site. In 2002, the central, prefectural, and city governments agreed on a plan to reclaim a site off Henoko in Nago, but the plan made little progress due to backlash from local residents. The Japanese and U.S. governments re-discussed the matter and decided in 2005 to relocate the Futenma functions to the coastal area of Camp Schwab in the Henoko district. The plan was revised again in 2006. Japan successfully convinced the United States, saying, "(The replacement facility) can be constructed without fail in this off-limits area." The talks were held only between Tokyo and Washington, and local residents criticized the decision as a deal made behind their back. Ko: Can't (Futenma Air Station) be moved outside Okinawa? A: Futenma Air Station plays the role of a helicopter base for transporting the Marine Corps' ground troops of other bases in the prefecture. The U.S. military has insisted that the relocation site must be close to where the ground troops are located. In 2008 the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) produced its "Okinawa Vision," which called for the relocation of (Futenma Air Station) out of Okinawa or even out of Japan. Meanwhile, in its manifesto for the general election this year, the DPJ pledged to move "in the direction of reexamining" the realignment of U.S. forces and the modalities of U.S. bases. Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said: "The project is already underway, so searching for a new path would be quite difficult. It would take a lot of time to find a relocation site outside the prefecture or outside the country. Ko: It's a difficult problem. A: In an Asahi Shimbun opinion poll conducted in May, some 70 percent of people of Okinawa expressed opposition to relocating (Futenma functions) to a site within the prefecture. The relocation is falling behind schedule. In the meantime, in 2004 a U.S. military helicopter crashed into the campus of the university adjacent (to Futenma Air Station). Gov. Hirokazu Nakaima has accepted relocation within the prefecture because he thinks the danger of Futenma Air Station must be eliminated promptly. The plan is a package deal that also includes the relocation of U.S. Marine Corps from Okinawa to Guam and the return of other bases in the prefecture. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has expressed his intention to postpone the conclusion until next January when the Nago mayoral election will be held. But he will still be pressed to make a tough decision (next January). (4) New and previous governments' procedures for receiving petitions/requests NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full) October 17, 2009 (Chart not available) (5) Government plans to submit 11 bills to extraordinary Diet session; child allowance bill not included TOKYO 00002417 005 OF 015 JIJI.COM (Full) October 14, 2009 The government decided on Oct. 14 to submit 11 bills to the extraordinary Diet session opening in late October and has notified the ruling parties of this. The government and the ruling parties will give priority to formulating the FY2010 budget before the end of 2009 and plan to schedule the extraordinary Diet session to close by the end of November. The number of bills to be submitted has been narrowed down, and the bills for the child allowance and abolishing the provisional tax rates for gasoline, among others, will be deferred to the regular Diet session next year. Among the major bills to be submitted are a "bill on prevention of credit crunch and loans recalls," providing for a repayment moratorium on loans incurred by small and mid-sized businesses, and a bill to freeze the planned sale of the shares of Japan Post group companies. There will also be five bills to ratify treaties and approve previous cabinet decisions, including a decision made last June regarding a complete ban on exports to North Korea. Other bills to be submitted are: ? Amendment to the law on the salaries of rank-and-file civil servants ? Amendment to the law on the salaries of civil servants in special service ? Amendment to law on civil servants' childcare leave ? Amendment to law on salaries of judges ? Amendment to law on salaries of prosecutors ? Amendment to law on childcare leave for judges ? Bill on measures to deal with new-strain influenza ? Bill on the independent administrative agency Organization for the Promotion of Regional Medical Services ? Amendment to law on salaries of Ministry of Defense employees (6) "Seiron" column: The Hatoyama administration's misunderstanding of the Japan-U.S. relationship SANKEI (Page 7) (Full) October 20, 2009 James Auer, director, Center for U.S.-Japan Studies, Vanderbilt University Result of "typically Japanese" decision New administrations have been launched both in Japan and the United States, and the fate of the bilateral relationship is in the limelight. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama advocates a more equal relationship between Japan and the U.S. However, as far as I can remember, over the past 45 years the U.S. has consistently asked Japan to "speak out more positively." So I'm not clear what Mr. Hatoyama means by "equal." I think Mr. Hatoyama is laboring under misapprehensions about the Japan-U.S. relationship. I would like to discuss four points that come to mind. I hope those who have pinned hopes on a change of administration will bear them in mind. The first misunderstanding is that Japan has been in a servile TOKYO 00002417 006 OF 015 position in its relationship with the U.S. from 1945 until present. It is a fact that during this period the U.S. wielded several times the military clout as Japan. However, Japan was not asked to share the fate of the United States. Japan of its own volition chose to enter into an alliance with America after the U.S. occupation. It was a question of choice made by Japan itself. In fact, as the Japanese economy recovered and its competitiveness increased, until 1970 many members of the U.S. Congress had begun to complain that the Japan-U.S. alliance was unequal in favor of Japan. Japan could have parted ways with the U.S., but did not. Japan remained with the U.S. not because the U.S. ordered it to do so, but because it made a "typically Japanese" decision very much to its advantage at its own discretion. Alliance unequal for the U.S. The second misunderstanding is that the Japan-U.S. relationship impedes the deepening of Japan's relations with the Asian countries. This also requires careful consideration. In the 20 years until the end of the Cold War, Japan faced a dangerous military threat from the former Soviet Union, which counted more than 100 submarines in its Pacific fleet alone. For sure, even after the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the threat of the former USSR, Japan is still threatened by the unpredictable dictatorial regime in North Korea. There are also serious concerns about the future direction of China. Japan has apologized repeatedly to Korea, its former colony, and to China, and made a great effort to get along with them. Yet its effort has not been rewarded. In China in particular certain elements carry out highly biased anti-Japanese education and criticize Japan for not having sufficiently apologized. What's more, such criticism is used to divert attention from government corruption. What would happen if Japan were to cease relying on the U.S. for its security and make an effort to provide for its national defense on its own? Asian countries would probably ratchet up their criticism of Japan's defense policy. To think Asian countries would welcome Japan's distancing itself from the U.S. would be the height of naivet. The third misunderstanding is that the burden on Japan will be reduced if its relations with the U.S. become more equal. Why is this also wrong? Often cited as proof of inequality are the hard-to-overlook pollution at several U.S. bases in Japan and the fact that U.S. soldiers guilty of crimes are not handed over to the Japanese police before indictment. But in my opinion these are trivial matters, especially in comparison with the inequality in the operation of the Japan-U.S. alliance. Through this alliance, the U.S. keeps an eye on the nuclear powers in Japan's vicinity and provides continuous security to prevent military attacks on Japan and disruptions of the sea lanes in the Indian Ocean and southwest Pacific. The U.S. does not want to emphasize China and ignore Japan, a major democratic power embracing a free market economy. Therefore, the argument that Japan is not needed is wrong. If Japan makes little or no effort to place its TOKYO 00002417 007 OF 015 relationship with the U.S. on a more equal footing, the U.S. will only look beyond Japan. Japan has been engaged in the refueling mission in the Indian Ocean since the second half of 2001. While this is not a dangerous operation, the U.S. appreciates Japan's efforts. At least Japan is doing "something." Yet, the Hatoyama administration is saying the mission will be discontinued without even offering any alternative proposals. Fulfillment of role and obligations is the issue The fourth misunderstanding is that reducing its support for the alliance will enable Japan to reduce its expenditure for security without weakening it. For sure, the alliance is no longer as important to the U.S. as it was during the Cold War. If Japan were to demand U.S. Forces relocate out of Japan, the U.S. would comply, albeit with reluctance. In such a case, however, it is unlikely that North Korea or China would also reduce their military strength. Japan's military spending is just 1 percent of GNP in spite of its being situated in a dangerous part of the world. Japan is only able to enjoy peace and prosperity because of its security arrangements with the U.S. Clearing up the above four misunderstandings leads to the conclusion that if Japan now makes a greater effort to fulfill its role and obligations, it will be able to have a more equal relationship with the U.S. Let me reiterate that it is up to Japan to decide whether or not it wants to do so. Just as previous Japanese governments have done of their own volition, I hope that the Hatoyama administration will with wisdom ponder what is in Japan's national interest. (7) Poll on Hatoyama cabinet, political parties MAINICHI (Page 3) (Full) October 19, 2009 Questions & Answers (T = total; P = previous; M = male; F = female) Q: Do you support the Hatoyama cabinet? T P M F Yes 72 (77) 75 69 No 17 (13) 16 19 Not interested 10 (9) 9 11 Q: (Only for those who answered "yes" to the above question) Why? T P M F Because the prime minister is from the Democratic Party of Japan 1 (3) 2 1 Because something can be expected of the prime minister's leadership 4 (4) 2 6 Because something can be expected of the prime minister's policy measures 16 (15) 15 17 Because the nature of politics is likely to change 78 (77) 81 76 Q: (Only for those who answered "no" to the above question) Why? T P M F Because the prime minister is from the Democratic Party of Japan 8 TOKYO 00002417 008 OF 015 (8) 8 8 Because nothing can be expected of the prime minister's leadership 12 (9) 6 15 Because nothing can be expected of the prime minister's policy measures 57 (58) 61 54 Because the nature of politics is unlikely to change 21 (23) 23 20 Q: Which political party do you support? T P M F Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ or Minshuto) 40 (45) 45 37 Liberal Democratic Party (LDP or Jiminto) 14 (12) 13 14 New Komeito (NK) 4 (4) 4 5 Japanese Communist Party (JCP) 4 (3) 2 5 Social Democratic Party (SDP or Shaminto) 1 (2) 1 1 People's New Party (PNP or Kokumin Shinto) 0 (0) 0 0 Your Party (YP or Minna no To) 2 (3) 2 2 New Party Nippon (NPN or Shinto Nippon) 0 (0) 0 0 Other political parties 1 (1) 1 1 None 32 (27) 30 34 Q: Do you think people's lives will improve or worsen with the DPJ running the government? T P M F Improve 43 (47) 50 39 Worsen 10 (6) 11 10 Remain unchanged 45 (44) 39 50 Q: The Hatoyama cabinet is trying to make policies under the initiative of politicians, with its ministers and subcabinet-level political appointees giving directions to bureaucrats. Do you approve of this? T P M F Yes 80 85 76 No 17 13 21 Q: The former Aso cabinet adopted a supplementary budget totaling over 14 trillion yen for the current fiscal year. On this extra budget, the Hatoyama cabinet has decided to suspend spending on 2.9 trillion yen on budgeted projects. Do you approve of this? T P M F Yes 71 76 68 No 26 23 28 Q: Land, Infrastructure and Transport Minister Maehara has clarified his intention to call off the construction of Yamba Dam in Gumma Prefecture. This is a policy measure based on the DPJ's manifesto for this summer's election for the House of Representatives. However, there are also calls from among local communities for the continued construction of this dam. Do you think this dam construction should be suspended? T P M F Yes 58 62 55 No 36 35 38 Q: Prime Minister Hatoyama has set forth a policy goal of reducing Japan's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 PERCENT from 1990 levels by TOKYO 00002417 009 OF 015 2020, and he declared this at the United Nations. Do you approve of this? T P M F Yes 79 (69) 79 80 No 17 (25) 20 16 Q: The DPJ falls short of a majority in the House of Councillors, so the DPJ has formed a coalition government with the SDP and the PNP. Would you like to see the DPJ form a single-party government after next summer's election for the House of Councillors? T P M F A single-party DPJ government 36 (33) 41 31 A DPJ coalition with the SDP and the PNP 32 (34) 30 34 A DPJ coalition with other political parties 27 (25) 26 29 Q: The LDP has elected Mr. Sadakazu Tanigaki as its new president. Do you have high expectations for him? T P M F Yes 40 42 39 No 55 56 55 Q: The LDP has become an opposition party as a result of this summer's election for the House of Representatives. Would you like the LDP to reconstruct itself? T P M F Yes 59 (56) 66 54 No 38 (41) 33 42 (Note) Figures shown in percentage, rounded off. "0" indicates that the figure was below 0.5 PERCENT . "No answer" omitted. Figures in parentheses denote the results of the last survey conducted Sept. 16-17. Polling methodology: The survey was conducted Oct. 17-18 over the telephone across the nation on a computer-aided random digit sampling (RDS) basis. A total of 1,669 households with one or more eligible voters were sampled. Answers were obtained from 1,067 persons (64 PERCENT ). (8) Poll: Hatoyama cabinet at 1 month since its debut YOMIURI (Page 11) (Full) October 18, 2009 Questions & Answers (Figures in percentage) Q: There will be an election for the House of Councillors next summer. Which political party are you going to vote for in your proportional representation bloc, or which political party are you going to vote for? Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ or Minshuto) 35 Liberal Democratic Party (LDP or Jiminto) 18 New Komeito (NK) 3 Japanese Communist Party (JCP) 1 Your Party (YP or Minna no To) 1 People's New Party (PNP or Kokumin Shinto) 0 TOKYO 00002417 010 OF 015 New Party Nippon (NPN or Shinto Nippon) 0 Other political parties 0 Undecided 39 No answer (N/A) 1 Q: It has now been nearly a month since Prime Minister Hatoyama came into office. What's your impression of Prime Minister Hatoyama? Pick only one from among those listed below on the following points. Leadership Very much 15 Somewhat 59 Not very much 16 Not at all 4 N/A 6 Reform Very much 37 Somewhat 45 Not very much 11 Not at all 3 N/A 4 Public accountability Very much 12 Somewhat 46 Not very much 29 Not at all 7 N/A 6 Q: The Hatoyama cabinet is a tripartite coalition of the DPJ, SDP, and PNP. Looking back on the past month, do you think this three-party coalition has been functioning well? Yes 33 No 53 N/A 14 Q: What would you like the Hatoyama cabinet to tackle on a priority basis? If any, pick as many as you like from among those listed below. Economic stimulus measures 73 Job security measures 47 Fiscal turnaround 23 Tax reform, including consumption tax 20 Healthcare reform 41 Pension reform 49 Low birthrate, childcare support 31 Japan-U.S. relations 8 North Korea policy 14 National security 13 Public service reform 16 Public investment review 19 Postal privatization review 8 Decentralization 8 Agriculture 16 Greenhouse gas emissions cut 14 Other answers (O/A) 1 Nothing in particular (NIP) + N/A 2 TOKYO 00002417 011 OF 015 Q: What do you think divides the tripartite ruling coalition of the DPJ, SDP, and PNP? If any, pick as many as you like from among those listed below. Economic stimulus measures 10 Job security measures 5 Fiscal turnaround 11 Tax reform, including consumption tax 6 Healthcare reform 4 Pension reform 5 Low birthrate, childcare support 9 Japan-U.S. relations 18 North Korea policy 5 National security 21 Public service reform 3 Public investment review 7 Postal privatization review 15 Decentralization 2 Agriculture 3 Greenhouse gas emissions cut 2 Other answers (O/A) 1 NIP+N/A 39 Q: In the past, the government and the ruling parties used to plan national policies separately. The Hatoyama cabinet, however, is trying to unify this bipolar policymaking process into its government. Do you think this effort is going well? Yes 36 No 43 N/A 21 Q: Do you think politicians should play the role of making decisions on national policies, or do you otherwise think central government bureaucrats should do so? Politicians 63 Central government bureaucrats 6 Can't say which 28 N/A 3 Q: Do you think politicians are taking the lead in making policy decisions for Japan, or do you think central government bureaucrats are taking the lead in doing so? Politicians 30 Central government bureaucrats 42 Can't say which 25 N/A 4 Q: Do you think politicians should have the capability of controlling bureaucrats instead of confronting bureaucrats? Yes 87 No 9 N/A 4 Q: Do you think it would be better for Japan to have a single-party government, or do you otherwise think it would be better for Japan to have a multiple-party coalition government? TOKYO 00002417 012 OF 015 A single-party government 33 A coalition government 58 N/A 10 Q: There is an opinion saying a coalition government will unnecessarily take much more time in its process of making policy decisions. Do you think this is true? Yes 74 No 21 N/A 6 Q: There is an opinion saying a coalition government can reflect various opinions among the people in its policies. Do you think this is true? Yes 60 No 32 N/A 8 Q: Generally speaking, do you think it would be better to see a change of government at times? Yes 75 No 19 N/A 6 Q: (Only for those who answered "yes" to the foregoing question) Why? Pick up to three reasons from among those listed below. Policy course changes 45 Political structure changes 31 Political corruption hardly occurs 63 Interparty policy debate kicks off 44 Bureaucrats' influence weakens 21 O/A 1 No particular reason 2 N/A 0 Q: (Only for those who answered "no" to the foregoing question) Why? Pick up to three reasons from among those listed below. Policies lack consistency 71 Government gets confused 58 Political corruption persists 9 Elections tend to court public favor rather than to focus on policies 29 Bureaucrats' influence grows 12 O/A 2 No particular reason 3 N/A -- Q: Do you think political parties should translate their manifestos into action without any modifications when they win an election for the House of Representatives and take the reins of government, or do you otherwise think they may modify their manifestos as needed? Translate their manifestos into action without any modification 21 Modify their manifestos as needed 76 O/A 0 N/A 3 TOKYO 00002417 013 OF 015 Q: What do you think Japan's political parties will need in particular? If any, pick up to three from among those listed below. Political ethics 25 Policyplanning capability 19 Policy implementation 55 Human resources development 21 A party head's leadership and accountability 29 Public sensitivity 59 Coordination 11 Transparency 25 O/A 0 NIP+N/A 3 Q: Would you like to see the existing political parties break up or join for the so-called "political realignment"? Very much 13 Somewhat 24 Not very much 37 Not at all 21 N/A 6 Polling methodology Date of survey: Oct. 10-11. 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: 1,801 persons (60 PERCENT ) Breakdown of respondents: Male-46 PERCENT , female-54 PERCENT ; persons in their 20s-8 PERCENT , 30s-14 PERCENT , 40s-16 PERCENT , 50s-19 PERCENT , 60s-25 PERCENT , 70 and over-18 PERCENT ; big cities (Tokyo's 23 wards and government-designated cities)-21 PERCENT , major cities (with a population of more than 300,000)-18 PERCENT , medium-sized cities (with a population of more than 100,000)-26 PERCENT , small cities (with a population of less than 100,000)-23 PERCENT , towns and villages-11 PERCENT . (Note) In some cases, the total percentage does not add up to 100 PERCENT due to rounding. "0" denotes percentages less than 0.5 PERCENT . "--" denotes that no respondents answered. (9) Trouble over custody of children in failed international marriages: Japanese mother indicted in U.S. on suspicion of abduction of her own children MAINICHI (Page 31) (Full) October 20, 2009 Lately, reflecting a spike in broken international marriages, there has been a succession of cases in which a parent removed a child from the care of their ex-spouse. A Japanese fiftysomething woman living in Greater Tokyo who was indicted in the U.S. for allegedly abducting her own children gave an interview to the Mainichi Shimbun. In the U.S. and Europe there is the view that such incidents frequently occur because Japan has not yet signed the Hague Convention, which provides rules for the settlement of disputes arising from international marriages. However, women (married to TOKYO 00002417 014 OF 015 foreigners) hope that the government will take a cautious stance toward this issue. As the woman noted, "My children dislike their father. If Japan signs the convention, they might be taken away to the U.S." In the 1980s, this woman married an American man, whom she met while studying in the U.S. She gave birth to two children. The family started living in Japan in 1992. However, she and her husband fell out with each other over differences in customs and his use of abusive language. Subsequently the woman walked out of the marriage and sued her husband for divorce. She also filed a lawsuit seeking a provisional injunction for denying her ex-husband access rights to the children. She won both cases. The couple formally divorced in ¶1999. Her ex-husband returned to the U.S. before the divorce was approved. In the meantime, her ex-husband, after returning to the U.S., filed a report of damage with a public prosecutors office in the U.S., noting that his ex-wife is retaining their children in Japan, intentionally obstructing his exercising legal custody of them." The U.S. grand jury indicted her on a charge of abducting the children from the U.S. The woman was never given an opportunity to refute the charge. The woman employed an attorney in the U.S., paying more than 5 million yen. Later, she was surprised to learn that Interpol regards the children as "missing persons" and is looking for them. Because this woman has not violated any Japanese law, she will not be arrested as long as she does not leave Japan. Some Japanese parents of children who have been taken away from Japan are calling for Japan's early signing of the Hague Convention. However, this woman is cautious toward the idea. "If Japan signs the convention," she said, "the children will be returned to their fathers against their will. I might be held criminally responsible. I would like the Japanese government to decide whether or not to sign the convention after carefully considering what will make children happy." (10) Editorial: Disputes arising from international divorces: Discussions on parental and visitation rights needed ASAHI (Page 3) (Full) October 20, 2009 The Western countries are complaining that more than 100 children have been "abducted" to Japan. This is not a made-up story. Problems pertaining to Japanese parents who have taken their children away from their country of residence illegally after the failure of their international marriages are becoming an international issue. There have been over 110 such cases in the U.S., the UK, Canada, and other countries. There have even been extreme criticisms that Japan is a country that "encourages" the abduction of children. There has also been an incident in which an American ex-husband was arrested for trying to reclaim his children forcibly from his ex-wife who returned with them to Japan. The background behind this issue is the different rules governing the handling of children in international divorces. Under the Hague TOKYO 00002417 015 OF 015 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Abduction of Children, which has 81 signatories, when children are taken away to another country, they should basically be brought back to their country of residence, and parties to the convention are obliged to cooperate in returning them. Japan and Russia are the only G-8 nations that are not signatories to the Convention, and numerous disputes have arisen between signatory and non-signatory countries. International pressure continues to rise, with U.S. Ambassador to Japan John Roos and ambassadors of other Western countries asking the justice minister to sign the Convention on Oct. 16. Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada has stated in a news conference that: "We would like to consider this positively. However, there is also the question of how the public will react to this." How should disputes regarding parental rights and custody after a divorce be settled between countries with different cultures and legal systems? The argument that the Hague Convention should be observed as a common rule is persuasive. Under the present situation, when children are taken away from Japan to a foreign country, the only way to get them back is through independent efforts. The number of Japanese marrying internationally is increasing steadily, exceeding 40,000 cases annually. It is not realistic to avoid signing the Convention any longer. On the other hand, there are also numerous issues that need to be resolved. Right now, problems with the Western countries mostly involve cases where the mother is Japanese. Many of them have fled to Japan complaining of domestic violence by their ex-husbands. How to help mothers and children driven into a difficult situation in a foreign country is a serious question. There is also a gap between the Western countries and Japan in terms of laws and customs. In the U.S. and other countries, there are strict regulations on the parents' rights of visitation after a divorce, while there are no such provisions in Japan's civil code. "Joint parental rights," under which both parents each have parental rights are not allowed in Japan. The tendency is to give preference to the mother in determining custody. It is also very rare for the courts to be involved with the compulsory handover of children. Japan's joining the Hague Convention under the present condition will give rise to serious contradictions. It must be remembered that the basic principle is that the welfare of the children should be given top priority. How can their right to continue to maintain their bonds with both parents after a divorce be respected? This is an issue that has long been neglected in general, not only in the case of international marriages. It is time to give some serious thought to the happiness of children who are faced with the divorce of their parents, not only in Japan, but also in foreign countries. ROOS