Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09TOKYO2920
2009-12-22 07:36:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Tokyo
Cable title:
WHY JAPAN ABSTAINS ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGION
how-toVZCZCXRO2454 OO RUEHBC RUEHDBU RUEHDE RUEHDH RUEHKUK RUEHLH RUEHPW RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHTRO DE RUEHKO #2920 3560736 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 220736Z DEC 09 FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8361 INFO RUEHZJ/HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUCNISL/ISLAMIC COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 0354 RUEHFK/AMCONSUL FUKUOKA PRIORITY 8041 RUEHNH/AMCONSUL NAHA PRIORITY 0387 RUEHOK/AMCONSUL OSAKA KOBE PRIORITY 1853 RUEHKSO/AMCONSUL SAPPORO PRIORITY 8542 RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 3621 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 8501
C O N F I D E N T I A L TOKYO 002920
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/21/2019
TAGS: PHUM PREL KISL KDEM PGOV OPDC JA
SUBJECT: WHY JAPAN ABSTAINS ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGION
REF: STATE 128320
Classified By: Acting Pol M/C Joe Young per reasons 1.4 (b, d)
C O N F I D E N T I A L TOKYO 002920
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/21/2019
TAGS: PHUM PREL KISL KDEM PGOV OPDC JA
SUBJECT: WHY JAPAN ABSTAINS ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGION
REF: STATE 128320
Classified By: Acting Pol M/C Joe Young per reasons 1.4 (b, d)
1. (C) Following its normal practice, Japan once again
abstained on the Defamation of Religion resolution. According
to MOFA Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division Deputy
Director Makoto Tanabe, Japan thinks that the Defamation of
Religion resolution is "not a good resolution, but it is not
bad enough to vote against." Japan, he said, agrees with the
United States on the importance of freedom of expression, but
balances this with a concern about acts of religious hatred,
such as those which occurred recently in Europe. "In fact,"
he said, "we have also had some acts of religious hatred in
Japan, including the burning of a Koran and negative
depictions of Muslims in cartoons." In Japan these acts are
not criminalized but the government makes a point of holding
news conferences to condemn the acts when they occur. "We
feel," said Tanabe, "that we are in the middle. We don't
want to criminalize free expression, but we need to be
careful about the destructive potential of religious hate
speech."
2. (C) Tanabe went on to suggest that the United States
negotiate to achieve a text that was acceptable to all. He
pointed out that the "Freedom of Expression" resolution which
the United States offered in September included language that
clearly attempted to address the problems raised by religious
hate speech. Tanabe pointed to the 1999 Defamation of
Religion resolution which passed by consensus as an example
of what might be possible.
3. (3) Comment: Although Japan denies its abstention on this
issue is motivated in part by a desire to secure OIC support
for its own resolutions, some within the GOJ have also made
this observation. As a matter of policy, Japan seeks
consensus on resolutions, and, as such, on potentially
divisive issues it prefers to abstain. The Defamation of
Religion issue is not widely followed in Japan, and so an
attempt to motivate human rights NGOs or other elements of
civil society, while not impossible, would probably be
overwhelmed by concerns that are higher on their agenda.
MOFA remains the main player on this issue. The new
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)-led government has not
weighed in but at present MOFA career diplomats characterize
the new political leadership as moving cautiously on human
rights issues. End Comment.
ROOS
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/21/2019
TAGS: PHUM PREL KISL KDEM PGOV OPDC JA
SUBJECT: WHY JAPAN ABSTAINS ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGION
REF: STATE 128320
Classified By: Acting Pol M/C Joe Young per reasons 1.4 (b, d)
1. (C) Following its normal practice, Japan once again
abstained on the Defamation of Religion resolution. According
to MOFA Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division Deputy
Director Makoto Tanabe, Japan thinks that the Defamation of
Religion resolution is "not a good resolution, but it is not
bad enough to vote against." Japan, he said, agrees with the
United States on the importance of freedom of expression, but
balances this with a concern about acts of religious hatred,
such as those which occurred recently in Europe. "In fact,"
he said, "we have also had some acts of religious hatred in
Japan, including the burning of a Koran and negative
depictions of Muslims in cartoons." In Japan these acts are
not criminalized but the government makes a point of holding
news conferences to condemn the acts when they occur. "We
feel," said Tanabe, "that we are in the middle. We don't
want to criminalize free expression, but we need to be
careful about the destructive potential of religious hate
speech."
2. (C) Tanabe went on to suggest that the United States
negotiate to achieve a text that was acceptable to all. He
pointed out that the "Freedom of Expression" resolution which
the United States offered in September included language that
clearly attempted to address the problems raised by religious
hate speech. Tanabe pointed to the 1999 Defamation of
Religion resolution which passed by consensus as an example
of what might be possible.
3. (3) Comment: Although Japan denies its abstention on this
issue is motivated in part by a desire to secure OIC support
for its own resolutions, some within the GOJ have also made
this observation. As a matter of policy, Japan seeks
consensus on resolutions, and, as such, on potentially
divisive issues it prefers to abstain. The Defamation of
Religion issue is not widely followed in Japan, and so an
attempt to motivate human rights NGOs or other elements of
civil society, while not impossible, would probably be
overwhelmed by concerns that are higher on their agenda.
MOFA remains the main player on this issue. The new
Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)-led government has not
weighed in but at present MOFA career diplomats characterize
the new political leadership as moving cautiously on human
rights issues. End Comment.
ROOS