DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 02/19/10

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 10 TOKYO 000332 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 02/19/10 INDEX: (1) DM Kitazawa positive on Futenma relocation to land area of Camp Schwab; other ministers also make comments (Asahi) (2) Nago municipal assembly fails to pass resolution against current Futenma relocation plan (Ryukyu Shimpo) (3) Survey: 15 governors say Okinawa's base-hosting burden should be lessened, but no governors are willing to host bases (Asahi) (4) Editorial: Confusion over Futenma issue serious (Mainichi) (5) Interview with U.S.-Japan Foundation President George Packard: There had been even more serious crises in Japan-U.S. relations in the past (Asahi) (6) Discussion on "money and politics" scandals gets nowhere in Hatoyama's first debate with opposition leaders (Nikkei) ARTICLES: (1) DM Kitazawa positive on Futenma relocation to land area of Camp Schwab; other ministers also make comments ASAHI (Page 9) (Full) Evening, February 19, 2010 Cabinet ministers gave their comments on the Hatoyama cabinet's beginning to study a proposal to relocate the U.S. forces' Futenma Air Station (in Ginowan City, Okinawa) to the land area of Camp Schwab (in Nago City) at their news conferences held after the cabinet meeting on Feb. 19. Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said: "(The land relocation plan) consists of relocation within bases. In the past, when the Sobe Communication Facility (in Yomitan Village, Okinawa) was moved to Camp Hansen (in Kin Town, Okinawa),there was no serious protest. We can learn something from history," indicating a positive attitude. He also stated: "If (the Okinawa base issues examination committee of the government and the ruling parties studying the relocation sites) decides on it, I will consider it seriously." Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism Seiji Maehara (concurrently Okinawa affairs minister) gave the following comments: "The land proposal had been investigated a long time ago. The problem was that the flight route would pass over civilian housing. It is a possible option if such issues can be resolved," stressing that issues standing in the way of realizing the relocation should be tackled one by one. Meanwhile, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano said, "We are starting from scratch," while State Minister for Financial Affairs and Postal Reform Shizuka Kamei (leader of People's New Party) stated: "Now is the time for all of us to contribute our ideas and look at the options. This is not a time for each party to say this or that," reiterating his oft-repeated position on this issue. State Minister for Consumer Affairs and Declining Birthrate Mizuho Fukushima (leader of Social Democratic Party) questioned the land relocation proposal, stressing that "of course, the closure and return of the Futenma base is important, but I seriously doubt if TOKYO 00000332 002 OF 010 the construction (of a new base) in Camp Schwab will reduce the burden on the Okinawan people." (2) Nago municipal assembly fails to pass resolution against current Futenma relocation plan RYUKYU SHIMBUN (Page 3) (Abridged) February 19, 2010 Yoshihiro Kinjo Nago - Mayor Susumu Inamine of Nago City, who was elected on a platform opposing the relocation of the U.S. forces' Futenma Air Station to the city, is having difficulty passing a resolution asking (the government) to drop the plan to relocate the Futenma base to Henoko, which he has been asking the municipal assembly to act on. The ruling parties in Nago had originally planned to submit the motion to an ad hoc session of the assembly on Feb. 23, but this was met by negative views from the opposition parties, which claim that the move is "premature" and that "it is necessary to study further the impact of opposition to the relocation plan." Thus, the drafting process could not even start, and efforts to pass the resolution have hit a snag. The municipal assembly had also planned to pass a resolution demanding the relocation of the Futenma base out of Okinawa or out of Japan during its regular session last December. However, coordination between the ruling and opposition parties on the draft of the resolution failed, resulting in the plan being dropped. (3) Survey: 15 governors say Okinawa's base-hosting burden should be lessened, but no governors are willing to host bases ASAHI (Page 34) (Abridged) February 12, 2010 In connection with the pending issue of relocating the U.S. military's Futenma airfield facility from its current location in Okinawa Prefecture's central city of Ginowan, the Asahi Shimbun conducted a questionnaire survey of the governors of the nation's 46 prefectures, excluding Okinawa Prefecture, to probe their thoughts about the current state of Okinawa Prefecture, which is home to 74 PERCENT of all U.S. military facilities in Japan. In the survey, a total of 15 governors answered that Okinawa's base-hosting burden should be mitigated. However, none of the governors who responded to the survey said that they are willing to host a new U.S. military base. Furthermore, 29 governors, or more than 60 PERCENT of the surveyed governors, did not answer any questions, maintaining that diplomacy and defense are state affairs. The survey was started on Feb. 1 after Susumu Inamine won the recent mayoral election in Okinawa Prefecture's northern coastal city of Nago based on his opposition to the planned relocation of Futenma airfield to his city. Answers were obtained orally or in written form by Feb. 8. In addition to the 15 governors who insisted on the necessity of alleviating Okinawa's base-hosting burden, there were also some governors who indicated their understanding of the necessity to do so. The governor of Nagasaki Prefecture said, "I'm concerned about the heavy presence of (U.S. military) bases concentrated in Okinawa." The governor of Ibaraki Prefecture said, "I understand the TOKYO 00000332 003 OF 010 necessity of lightening the burden on Okinawa." The governor of Kyoto Prefecture said, "Japan, as a whole, must seriously consider this issue." Asked whether they were willing to host a new base, nine governors gave definite negative answers. The governors of Tokyo, Kanagawa Prefecture, and Shizuoka Prefecture, where U.S. military facilities are already located, answered that it would be difficult for them to accept an additional base since their burden is heavy already. In the breakdown of reasons given by the governors of prefectures hosting no U.S. military bases for their refusal to host a base, the governors of Toyama Prefecture, Tottori Prefecture, and Tokushima Prefecture said that is because "there is no appropriate place" in their prefectures, and the governor of Hyogo Prefecture noted that it would not be possible to obtain the local population's understanding for hosting a base. The governor of Saitama Prefecture gave no answer to the question of whether or not it would be willing to accept a new base but instead wrote that if and when there is a request from the government, the governor will handle it in a steady manner from the standpoint of protecting the security and safety of local people. Okinawa governor: It's not a matter of concern to only one locality Okinawa Prefecture's Governor Hirokazu Nakaima, in a written comment on the results of the questionnaire survey, expressed his understanding to a certain extent for the responses of governors, saying, "It's difficult for the governor of each prefecture to come up with an idea when the government is discussing how to mitigate Okinawa's base-hosting burden." He added: "The issue of hosting U.S. military bases is not a matter of concern for only one locality like Okinawa but is really a national problem from the perspective of how to think about our nation's diplomacy and security and the like. I would like each governor to take an interest in the problem of bases in Okinawa." In reference to the fact that many of the governors did not respond to the survey, Nago City's Mayor Inamine commented: "We're facing base issues around the clock, so there is a huge perception gap." Prefectures whose governors answered that Okinawa Prefecture's burden of hosting U.S. military bases should be lessened: Hokkaido, Aomori, Miyagi, Tokyo, Kanagawa, Ishikawa, Shizuoka, Hyogo, Tottori, Yamaguchi, Kagawa, Ehime, Kochi, Oita, and Miyazaki. Main points from the comments of governors Hokkaido Gov. Harumi Takahashi: It's necessary to realign and reduce the presence of bases in Japan, including Okinawa Prefecture, and also necessary to take such steps as expediting the return of base land and revising the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement. Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara: There are many bases in Okinawa because of its geographic conditions and historic circumstances, and the burden on Okinawa should be lightened. Kanagawa Gov. Shigefumi Matsuzawa: The heavy presence of military bases in a specific locality is a big problem. The government should take every possible measure to relocate bases, return the land of unused bases, and scale back on the functions of bases. TOKYO 00000332 004 OF 010 Aichi Gov. Masaaki Kanda: As far as Japan's national security is concerned, the people benefit equally from the presence of U.S. military bases in Okinawa. The government, of course, and all of us in Japan should think of the base issue as our own problem. Osaka Gov. Tohru Hashimoto: The issue of realigning U.S. forces in Japan is a matter under the cabinet's exclusive jurisdiction. But when considering Okinawa's history and its difficult situation, I wonder if it's all right for us to remain indifferent. Nagasaki Gov. Genjiro Kaneko: Sasebo City already hosts a U.S. naval base. We have yet to hear anything from the government, so I'd like to reserve my answer. But I think it would be difficult (to take on a further burden),judging from the sensitivity of local people in my prefecture, which is an atomic-bombed city. (4) Editorial: Confusion over Futenma issue serious MAINICHI (Page 5) (Full) February 18, 2010 How long will the confusion in the government over Futenma relocation go on? The government committee examining a relocation site for the U.S. Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station (in Ginowan City, Okinawa Prefecture) has postponed the planned submission of proposals for the relocation site of the Futenma base. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano chairs the committee. Can the Hatoyama administration really reach a conclusion by the end of May as Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has repeatedly said? In the Social Democratic Party (SDP),one of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan's coalition partners, there are calls for moving the Futenma base to the U.S. territory of Guam, Tinian in the U.S. territory of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, or the Kyushu region including the Maritime Self-Defense Force's Omura Air Base (in Omura City, Nagasaki Prefecture). The People's New Party (PNP),the other member of the DPJ-led ruling coalition, intends to propose relocation to the inland area of Camp Schwab (in Nago City, Okinawa),as well as the integration of Futenma with the U.S. Kadena Air Base (in Kadena Town, Okinawa). However, the scheduled submission of proposals was suddenly postponed. The reason for the postponement was apparently that the three parties were concerned that disarray in the ruling coalition would be questioned by the opposition camp, resulting in a negative impact on Diet deliberations on the budget for fiscal 2010. However, this reason lacks logic. It had already been assumed that the three parties would come up with different proposals in the process of narrowing down the options for possible relocation sites. The ruling coalition also postponed the submission of proposals from the end of January to mid-February, so this is the second time they have put it off. After consultations in the committee, might problems arise as the three ruling-coalition party heads try to reach an agreement through discussions? For fear of debate at the Diet, they are apparently waiting to submit their proposals until the budget clears the House of Representatives. In other words, they are just killing time. The SDP proposed postponing the submission of Futenma relocation plans. One of the reasons for the SDP proposing the postponement was apparently discord in the party over whether to stipulate in its TOKYO 00000332 005 OF 010 proposal "relocation out of Okinawa," to which strong reactions from possible relocation sites are expected. However, since more than one and a half months have passed since the examination committee was established, it is too late to put it off. Some people believe that another reason for the SDP's proposal for the postponement is that the SDP is becoming increasingly doubtful and suspicious about whether the Kantei and the PNP are trying to reach an agreement on the plan to relocate Futenma to the inland area of Camp Schwab. This is just political maneuvering in the ruling coalition and lacks validity. An agreement with the U.S. government will be absolutely necessary for the conclusion the prime minister has promised. If Futenma is moved to somewhere else in Japan, coordination with the relocation site will be indispensable. It will be difficult to find a relocation site that satisfies both requirements. This is because the U.S. government has called for moving Futenma to the Henoko district in Nago City as Tokyo and Washington agreed, but the Japanese municipalities that have been named as possible relocation sites are against hosting the Futenma base. There is little time left for the government to make a decision by the end of May, so the ruling parties must not waste time. Meanwhile, Hirano has finally announced his intention to submit the DPJ's relocation plan to the examination committee at the request of the SDP and PNP. This is only natural. The government and ruling parties have revealed their faulty decision-making process through this series of recent events. We have doubts about the political sense of the ruling coalition, which has postponed the submission of the parties' relocation proposals. This is serious confusion. (5) Interview with U.S.-Japan Foundation President George Packard: There had been even more serious crises in Japan-U.S. relations in the past ASAHI (Page 15) (Full) February 17, 2010 Toshihiro Yamanaka in New York What is the ideal form of the Japan-U.S. relationship, which is currently strained over the issue of the relocation of the Futenma Air Station? U.S.-Japan Foundation President George Packard, 77, who served under former U.S. Ambassador to Japan Edwin Reischauer for many years, says: "Compared with the many serious crises faced by the Japan-U.S. alliance in the past 50 years, the Futenma issue is minor." We interviewed Mr. Packard on his thoughts as we also looked for clues from his recent book "Raishawa no Showa Shi (Edwin O. Reischauer and the American Discovery of Japan)." Overreacting to the Futenma issue is undesirable Q: The Japan-U.S. relationship is in disarray over the Futenma issue. Packard: There has been too much unnecessary controversy over the Futenma issue; it has been disproportionate to the actual problem. Futenma is nothing compared to the serious crises in the Japan-U.S. alliance in the past, such as (the protests against) the security treaty in 1960 and the Vietnam War. While this is an urgent issue TOKYO 00000332 006 OF 010 for U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ),it is a minor problem in the overall Japan-U.S. alliance. Yet the two governments have made mistakes in handling this issue, blowing it up into a big problem. Q: What went wrong? Packard: The Obama administration sent Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Tokyo last autumn. That was clearly a mistake. He pressed for relocation to waters off Henoko in accordance with the existing agreement and demanded immediate relocation. Such high-handed behavior is very harmful to the Japan-U.S. alliance. The U.S. government should respect the outcome of the Nago mayoral election as the popular will expressed in a democratic election. For now, the U.S. should patiently wait for Japan to make a decision by May. Q: What do you think of Japan's response? Packard: Japanese people outside Okinawa are still unable to grasp the problem in its entirety. Japanese on the mainland should engage in further discussions on what is to be done about the military bases in Okinawa if Japan wants to continue to enjoy prosperity as an economic power under the Japan-U.S. security arrangements. Is it necessary to have that many bases in Okinawa right now? Who is the hypothetical enemy? How is North Korea predicted to behave? What about China? The problem will never be solved by simply citing alternative relocation sites, whether they are remote islands or existing bases; in-depth discussions are necessary. Q: According to the book you published, Mr. Reischauer was deeply involved with Okinawa. "Even after the end of the occupation, the U.S. forces regarded the Japanese archipelago as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the containment of the Soviet Union and Communist China, and Okinawa was the anchor for this carrier. Reischauer single-handedly challenged the U.S. forces that continued to rule Okinawa with such a mindset. He even began to persuade senior U.S. military officers to return Okinawa." (summarized from Raishawa no Showa Shi) If he were the ambassador to Japan today, how would he deal with the Futenma issue? Packard: If he were alive today, he would probably say without hesitation: I can understand that U.S. forces need an operational base in the Far East, but is it necessary to maintain such huge military bases in Japan? This was his longstanding position. After he took up his post in Tokyo in 1961, he realized immediately that the U.S. Army lieutenant general ruling Okinawa at the time behaved like a feudal lord and imposed an abnormal dictatorial regime. He was convinced that if the U.S. forces continued to rule with such an attitude, Okinawa would unmistakably trigger a crisis that would shake the Japan-U.S. relationship. The rape incident by U.S. soldiers in 1995 undoubtedly proved that he was right. Q: At that time what did the ambassador do to prevent the eruption of anti-base protests? Packard: He went to Okinawa even though the U.S. forces did not welcome him, built personal relationships with the USFJ commanders, and made the Department of Defense soften its demands on Japan. He convinced them that changes in USFJ troop deployment required prior notification to the Japanese side. This was because he believed that a Japan-U.S. alliance that forced Japan into subservience to the U.S. would eventually fall apart. TOKYO 00000332 007 OF 010 The Japanese should drop the theory of their uniqueness Q: Your book talks about the inequality Mr. Reischauer felt before he became ambassador. "The ambassador's main goal was to eliminate racial discrimination and wartime hatred from the Japan-U.S. relationship and purge the sense of inequality between the two countries. Considering the position of the two countries at that time, that was a remarkable idea. Toward that goal, he strove to eradicate the occupation force mentality among Americans in Japan." What did you mean by occupation force mentality? Packard: I first came to live in Tokyo in 1956, and I came back in ¶1963. At that time, the occupation force mentality was quite strong not only among American soldiers, but even among expats working for U.S. companies and American newspaper reporters. They hired Japanese as maids and indulged in luxuries like hotels and golf, which they had not experienced in America, thanks to the fixed exchange rate of 360 yen to the dollar. None of them had any intention to make friends with the local people in Japan. I wondered how long this inequality would continue. Q: Perhaps this could not be helped due to the difference in military and economic power. Packard: Both Mr. Reischauer and I felt that this inequality went too far. Personally, I think that even today some Americans still look at Japan from the standpoint of an occupier. In a way, the Japanese still have the mindset of a people under occupation. When Japan talks about its alliance with the U.S., its posture is always passive and weak. Why was Japan unable to voice its opposition to the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq like France and Germany? Why did it send as many as 600 Self-Defense Force troops to support Bush's war? Q: Probably the problem was with the political leadership at that time. Packard: No, I think it was a problem with the Japanese people as a whole. It is a fact that there have not been any capable political leaders - and I am not only talking about recent prime ministers - and there have been no consistent goals in Japan's foreign policy. I think Japan is at risk if it does not become a country with a large number of leaders in various sectors who can with confidence hold discussions in English on the global stage. Q: You also wrote about the lack of English proficiency in Japan in your book: "One of the main regrets of Mr. Reischauer after he resigned as ambassador was his plan to send American English teachers to every corner of Japan was not implemented owing to the opposition of the Japanese government." Did he see that as such a serious problem? Packard: In the books that he wrote after he retired as ambassador, he clearly stated that while the Japanese had a high level of technical skill in many fields, they were remarkably poor at learning foreign languages. Since they lived within the walls of the Japanese language, other people were unable to learn about what they were thinking. Therefore, it would be impossible for Japan to become a world leader. I agree with him completely on this point. We are not forcing English on Japan just because it is America's official language. We want Japan to use English, the common language of the world, as a tool. TOKYO 00000332 008 OF 010 Q: Apparently, Mr. Reischauer kept saying the Japanese people should begin to graduate from theories of their uniqueness (Nihonjinron). Packard: Apart from the issue of English, Mr. Reischauer often said that the Japanese had to an abnormal degree the misconception that their country is unique. The Japanese people were no better or worse than any other nationality. Yet, the Japanese were obsessed with the preconceived notion that Japan is a unique country. That is why Mr. Reischauer wrote that he wished the Japanese would discard theories of their uniqueness. Thoughts on the future of East Asia Q: Mr. Reischauer was also a scholar of China. Packard: Originally, he was not a scholar of Japan, but an expert on the Tang and Song dynasties. He did not withdraw into the scrutiny of ancient documents, but started to voice strong criticism of the U.S. government's policy toward China in the 1950s. He urged the U.S. government to recognize Communist China as a state at an early stage. Q: How did he look at Japan and China? Packard: He did not look at the Japan-U.S.-China relationship as a triangular relationship in which close relations between any two countries would mean the isolation of the other one. He regarded all of East Asia as a whole including Japan, China, and South Korea. No westerner at that time had such a profound understanding of the Chinese cultural sphere. He looked at East Asia from a broad perspective and thought about the U.S.'s national interest as an American. I think he clearly foresaw the present day Japan-U.S.-China relationship. Q: How will the rise of China today impact the Japan-U.S. relationship? Packard: Closer relations between Japan and China are in the U.S.'s interest, and a closer China-U.S. relationship is in Japan's interest. This is because drawing China, which has so far been a distant country because of its different political regime, closer to the side of Japan and the U.S. in various areas, including trade, markets, human rights, and intellectual property rights, will have a positive effect on both countries. Q: How will China's rise affect the presence of U.S. military bases in Okinawa? Packard: In the first place, one reason why the U.S. built military bases in Okinawa was to defend Taiwan from Communist China. However, in reality, China has not launched any armed invasion and Taiwan has not rushed to become independent. In the future, if the distance between Japan and the U.S. on the one hand and China on the other is reduced, and they fall in step on policy toward North Korea, tension in the Far East might quickly ease. In that case the USFJ would no longer have any need to maintain the present large military bases in Okinawa. Q: The investigation of the experts' panel of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs into the secret agreements is in its final stage. The secret agreement on the introduction of nuclear weapons, which TOKYO 00000332 009 OF 010 Mr. Reischauer was involved with, will be made public. Packard: Mr. Reischauer would have been dismayed if he knew that the secret agreement he left behind is still treated as secret. He died with the belief that the secret agreement between the Japanese and U.S. governments on port calls by U.S. vessels carrying nuclear arms was no longer secret and was public knowledge. Q: Your book related that "in April 1963, Reischauer invited Foreign Minister Masayoshi Ohira to the embassy in secret. He explained the U.S.'s concerns about the Japanese government's posture (of responding in the Diet that vessels with nuclear arms on board had not entered Japanese ports, which was different from the U.S. side's understanding)." Packard: Shortly before that, Mr. Reischauer had planned to expose the introduction of nuclear weapons in Japan since the U.S. forces would not have offloaded such weapons each time a U.S. vessel entered a Japanese port, and it would have been impossible to do so. He thought that keeping the introduction of nuclear arms secret from the Japanese people was dangerous. Therefore, he asked permission from the State Department to make this public before his meeting with Mr. Ohira. However, permission was not granted. The State Department was worried about a repeat of the violent anti-U.S. protests against the security treaty in 1960. Q: Mr. Reischauer held a news conference in 1981 and disclosed the secret agreement personally. Why did he do that? Packard: As a historian, he did not want to die with a lie on his conscience. He wanted to set the record straight in diplomatic history. I arranged that news conference. He was ill and spoke in a soft voice, but he tried very hard to articulate his convictions. He appeared to be relieved by revealing the truth. He would not have expected that the Japanese government would continue to conceal the secret agreement even after that. He is probably relieved now that 20 years after he passed away, history is finally going to be rewritten correctly. (6) Discussion on "money and politics" scandals gets nowhere in Hatoyama's first debate with opposition leaders NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full) February 18, 2010 In the first Diet debate, held yesterday, between Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and opposition leaders since the launch of the Hatoyama administration, the largest share of time was devoted to "money and politics" scandals. The leaders of the Liberal Democratic Party and the New Komeito focused their attack on Hatoyama's alleged false donation scandal, while the prime minister merely repeated with contrition his previous explanation. The discussion got nowhere. Hatoyama shies away from lenient approach LDP President Sadakazu Tanigaki started with questioning about Hatoyama's funding scandal. Upon saying that tax offices began receiving income tax returns on Feb. 16, he criticized Hatoyama, who filed revised tax forms and paid a gift tax, saying: "It is a tragicomedy for 'the king of tax dodgers in the Heisei era' to ask the people to pay taxes." TOKYO 00000332 010 OF 010 Usual replies In response to the criticism, Hatoyama said with a meek look on his face: "I feel really sorry." But asked about the funds in question from his mother, he gave his pet reply: "I swear by the gods of heaven and earth that I did not know" (my mother had provided my office with money). On the other hand, Tanigaki quoted a lot of expressions that former Finance Minister Kaoru Yosano had used in an earlier House of Representatives Budget Committee meeting. Tanigaki also stressed that three persons involved in the case, including the first of Hatoyama's former state-funded secretary, should be summoned as witnesses before the Diet, but he did not obtain a pledge from Hatoyama, showing that he failed to follow through. In the debate, Tanigaki touched on the consumption tax, fiscal, and other issues as well, but Hatoyama's replies consisted of nothing but criticism of the previous LDP governments. Hatoyama claimed: "The previous governments spent too much money wastefully;" and "we urged the previous government to work out emergency economic measures, but it ignored our advice, so tax revenues decreased." After the party head talks, Tanigaki grumbled: "He gushed illogical replies." Meanwhile, Hatoyama went to a Japanese-style pub in Tokyo with first-time-elected House of Councillors members last night and told them: "I was prepared to answer questions about our policies, but such questions were not asked." Regarding the donation scandal, Hatoyama said: "I could avoid the issue, but based on the judgment if I do so I will be criticized later for having tried to avoid it, I responded." Consideration for New Komeito Hatoyama, however, responded to questions by New Komeito President Natsuo Yamaguchi in a different manner. The prime minister expressed for the first time his support for the party's proposal for setting up a panel of the ruling and opposition parties tasked with discussing a revision of the Political Funds Control Law. Yamaguchi welcomed the prime minister's support, remarking: "The people were waiting for you to show courage." The prime minister thus indicated his consideration for the New Komeito, which for a change could hold a casting vote in the political situation depending on the outcome of the House of Councillors election this summer. ROOS