Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Work smarter with a Pro licence Learn More



Cablegate: Daily Summary of Japanese Press 02/16/10

DE RUEHKO #0305/01 0472308
P 162308Z FEB 10




E.O. 12958: N/A



Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

Are you getting our free newsletter?

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.

(1) The fiction of "non-introduction of nuclear weapons" (Sankei)
(2) Government agonizing over Hague Convention concerning child
custody after failed international marriages; Japan under growing
pressure from U.S. and European countries to accede to convention
(3) Reasons for Ozawa's obsession about visit to U.S. (Nikkei)
(4) Will Ozawa's leadership be undermined? Part 3: First-term
lawmakers at a loss (Nikkei)
(5) National Public Service Law draft amendment: Vice minister and
department director general-class officials to be treated equally
(6) Publication of Gaiko Forum to be suspended (Yomiuri)


(1) The fiction of "non-introduction of nuclear weapons"

SANKEI (Pages 1, 8) (Full)
February 15, 2010

Yoshihisa Komori in Washington

The Japan-U.S. alliance is in flux. While the drifting of the new
administration in Japan appears to be the cause, there has also been
a subtle change in the U.S. position from past administrations. This
year marks the 50th anniversary of the revision of the Japan-U.S.
security treaty, which is the basis of the bilateral alliance, or
the signing of the treaty in its present form. Since alliances
cannot remain unchanged forever, it is quite natural for changes and
reviews to take place. Yet what benefits have the alliance brought
to the two countries in the first place? It is impossible to project
into the future without examining the past and the present. This
reporter would like to review the Japan-U.S. alliance based on his
long involvement with actual developments in the bilateral

"I think it is now time for the Japanese people, as well as the
Japanese government, to admit this fact frankly."

Former U.S. Ambassador to Japan Edwin Reischauer made the above
statement emphatically several times when he revealed the fiction
about the U.S.'s "non-introduction of nuclear weapons" into Japan.

In May 1981, I interviewed Reischauer at his home in the suburbs of
Boston. During the conversation on Japan-U.S. security that lasted
for two hours, he clearly stated in response to my questions that
despite the Japanese government's three non-nuclear principles of
"not possessing, producing, or introducing" nuclear weapons, for
many years, U.S. naval vessels with nuclear arms on board had
actually passed through Japanese territorial sea and called on
Japanese ports.

I was then a Mainichi Shimbun reporter who was sent to the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace as a senior research fellow and
was doing research on issues relating to the Japan-U.S. alliance.

The Reischauer residence was the picture of serenity in the bright
May sun. A black dog was running in the yard, and Mrs. Haru
Reischauer was cradling a relative's baby in her arms in the living

TOKYO 00000305 002 OF 008

Reischauer, who had just retired from Harvard University, made
serious statements in a soft tone in that cozy environment.

He said: "The U.S. side's understanding was that the introduction of
nuclear weapons, which the Japanese side translated as mochikomi,
meant putting nuclear weapons ashore or installing them. Carrying
them aboard ships was not included. However, the Japanese government
adopted the interpretation that the passage of vessels with nuclear
arms aboard through Japanese waters was also included and asserted
that the U.S. forces' nuclear weapons had never passed through its
territorial seas or been brought into its ports."

The acceptance of this difference in interpretation became a secret
agreement between the two countries, and Reischauer said that the
Japanese government was fully aware of this.

However, why did Reischauer, fully aware he could expect strong
criticism from both governments, reveal this "secret" at that time?
Looking back, I think the main reason was he was enraged and thought
that "the lies should stop." For sure, Reischauer did not use such
rude language, but he did say: "This would mean that the Japanese
government is lying to its people."

While Reischauer indicated his understanding of the Japanese
people's rejection of nuclear weapons due to their experience with
the atomic bombings, he also pointed out the fact that under the
bilateral alliance, Japan relies on the U.S. nuclear deterrence
through the "nuclear umbrella" for its security. He further asserted
that accepting nuclear deterrence while maintaining the fiction of
"non-introduction" of nuclear arms under the three non-nuclear
principles was very self-contradictory and hypocritical. In the
first place, unlike today, the Soviet Union was building up its
nuclear capability in its confrontation with the U.S. and areas
around Japan were saturated with Soviet nuclear arms at that time.

However, Reischauer's prediction and hope that the Japanese people
and government would drop the fiction and admit the fact never came
to pass. Although a series of opinion polls showed that the majority
of the people believed Reischauer's words, the government
consistently said this was not true. Its position has remained
unchanged for nearly 30 years.

At present, under the new Hatoyama administration of the Democratic
Party of Japan, an official process to reveal the truth about the
Japan-U.S. "secret agreements," including the one disclosed by
Reischauer, has been launched. This effort to rectify an abnormal
situation in which national defense and security is built on lies
seems to have come too late. For us, who have consistently advocated
dropping the fiction ever since the Mainichi Shimbun prominently
reported on Reischauer's statements, this is a very welcome

However, what is the Hatoyama administration planning to do after
disclosing the truth about the Japan-U.S. "secret agreements" and
proving that Reischauer's statements were true? Will it maintain the
position of previous Japanese governments on the "introduction" of
nuclear weapons and ban U.S. military vessels carrying nuclear arms
from passing through Japanese waters and calling on Japanese ports?
Or will it accept the longstanding interpretation of the U.S. side,
allow passage and port calls, and carry on with "2.5 non-nuclear

TOKYO 00000305 003 OF 008

U.S. forces have stopped carrying tactical nuclear weapons on
aircraft carriers and cruisers as revealed by Reischauer after the
communist regime collapsed in the USSR in 1991. Therefore, there is
an opinion that the "introduction" of nuclear arms is no longer an
issue. However, it is unpredictable how the nuclear situation in
areas near Japan will change in the future. It is extremely
self-contradictory for Japan to ban even the passage of nuclear
weapons through its territorial waters as long as the U.S.'s nuclear
deterrence is a component of Japan's national defense.

(2) Government agonizing over Hague Convention concerning child
custody after failed international marriages; Japan under growing
pressure from U.S. and European countries to accede to convention

NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full)
February 14, 2010

The issue of parental child abductions after international marriages
end in divorce is emerging as a new source of conflict between
Japan, the United States, and European countries. The United States
and European countries are urging Japan to swiftly accede to the
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction, which stipulates a set of rules for settling disputes. In
reality, it is difficult for Japan to accede to the convention due
to the need to take necessary legislative measures, the differences
in views on families, and other factors. Japan is under growing
pressure from other countries. The matter might escalate into a
major diplomatic issue.

International marriages have been on the rise in recent years, and
there have been numerous cases in which children are taken to Japan
after marriages end in divorce, making it extremely difficult for
other parents to see their children. In many cases, victims have
asked their governments for solutions and their governments in turn
have pressed Tokyo to take adequate measures.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband had a telephone
conversation with Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada on Feb. 10 during
which Miliband asked for Japan's cooperation, saying: "We attach
importance to the issue of parental child abduction. We ask for your
continued cooperation for resolving this problem." Meanwhile, U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, who visited Japan for
talks on the Japan-U.S. alliance, said emphatically during a press
conference on Feb. 2: "(The issue of child abduction) might escalate
into a major concern between Japan and the United States."

Eighty-one countries are signatories to the Hague Convention. The
convention requires the country to which a child is taken to to
return the child to the country of his or her habitual residence if
such a request is received from the parent from whom the child has
been taken. The United States and European countries are calling for
the cooperation of the Japanese government in resolving child
abduction cases, while pressuring it to swiftly accede to The Hague
Convention, saying that if Japan remains outside the convention,
similar cases will continue to occur.

The government, led by the Foreign Ministry and Justice Ministry,
has been discussing measures to deal with this situation. The
Foreign Ministry held a briefing on Feb 10 that brought together the
representatives of 13 embassies in Tokyo, in addition to setting up
forums for discussions with the U.S. and French embassies.

TOKYO 00000305 004 OF 008

Procedures for returning a child require legislative measures. Given
the situation that child custody is normally awarded to mothers in
Japan, there are major obstacles to acceding to the convention.

"In English, the words used for the act (of removing a child) are
'child abduction,'" a senior Foreign Ministry official said." "Japan
is likely to come under greater pressure from the United States and
European countries."

(3) Reasons for Ozawa's obsession about visit to U.S.

NIKKEI (Page 2) (Slightly abridged)
February 14, 2010

Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) Secretary General Ichiro Ozawa will
likely visit the U.S. during the Golden Week holidays from late
April to meet influential U.S. government officials. Ozawa, who is
critical of the foreign policy of the previous governments led by
the Liberal Democratic Party as blindly following the U.S, has not
visited Washington in recent years, although he has visited the U.S.
for grass-roots exchanges.

Why has Ozawa been obsessive about visiting the U.S.? When Assistant
Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met with Ozawa on Feb. 2, he asked
him to visit the U.S. Initially, a meeting with Ozawa was not
included in Campbell's itinerary, but the meeting was suddenly
arranged as Ozawa agreed to meet him.

This is not the first plan for Ozawa to visit the U.S. since the
Obama administration was launched in January of last year.

According to DPJ Diet Affairs Committee Chairman Kenji Yamaoka, the
party under the lead of Ozawa last spring made this request to the
U.S. government: "The party will seize the reins of government
without fail, so Mr. Ozawa will visit the U.S. to discuss future
Japan-U.S. relations with U.S. government officials. We would like
you to arrange an official meeting with Secretary of State Clinton
and an unofficial meeting with President Obama."

Yamaoka stated: "There was considerable progress in coordination
work, but because a new strain of influenza began to rage throughout
the U.S., the plan was not translated into action." Another informed
source pointed out: "Since a meeting with President Obama was not
arranged, Ozawa dropped the plan."

At the end of last year, too, the government was about to look into
a visit to the U.S. by Ozawa again, but no specifics were discussed
at that time.

There were such moves in the past, so it is not true to say that the
plan of Ozawa's U.S. tour came out of the blue. The U.S. side must
be aiming at significantly moving forward the relocation the U.S.
Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station through Ozawa's visit to the U.S.

Meanwhile, Ozawa has openly asserted regarding the presence of U.S.
forces in the Far East region: "The U.S. Navy's 7th Fleet should be
sufficient," and has called for an equal relationship between Japan
and the U.S. This view might have been reflected in his reply to
Campbell's invitation: "If I make the trip, I would be put out if
President Obama doesn't take sufficient time (to meet with me)."
Even so, Ozawa has said that he would not engage in the policymaking
process, so it remains uncertain what Ozawa is willing to talk about

TOKYO 00000305 005 OF 008

with President Obama.

Many lawmakers in the ruling and opposition camps take this view:
"He might be aiming to demonstrate his extensive personnel ties with
key figures in the U.S. government and regaining his grip on the
party, which has weakened due to his fund-raising scandal." Ozawa
probably judges that if he can prove himself a key person amid
strained Obama-Hatoyama relations, he will find it easier to contain
growing calls for him to step down as party secretary general.

In addition, behind his eagerness for a meeting with President Obama
might be his mixed feelings of love and hatred for the U.S.

"In that case, relations with the U.S. will be ruined." In 1990,
when the government was mulling a dispatch of Self-Defense Force
personnel on the occasion of the Gulf crisis, Ozawa, who was
secretary general of the LDP at that time, scolded Foreign Ministry
officials who were not positive about dispatching SDF troops. Ozawa,
however, gradually came to harbor wariness toward the U.S.

Some point out that he began to be wary of the U.S. when he
accompanied then Vice President Shin Kanemaru on his tour of America
in 1992. Kanemaru visited North Korea in 1990, and this visit
incurred the U.S.'s strong displeasure. The government managed to
arrange a meeting between Kanemaru and then President George H. W.
Bush (Bush senior), but Washington's treatment of him was cool.

An informed person said: "He was received at an entrance that is not
used for guests to the White House and was shown to a room for
family members of the President. He was apparently given a cold
reception." Some observers see Ozawa's eagerness to hold a meeting
with President Obama as mirroring his mixed feelings toward the U.S.
based on this past experience.

The DPJ unofficially asked the U.S. last week to send a letter of
invitation for an Ozawa-led delegation of DPJ lawmakers. This may
seem a trifle, but for Ozawa, who still remembers Washington's
inhospitality in 1992, it might be negotiating with the U.S.

(4) Will Ozawa's leadership be undermined? Part 3: First-term
lawmakers at a loss

NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full)
February 7, 2010

It has been said that the Democratic Party of Japan's structure is a
uni-polar system led by Secretary General Ichiro Ozawa. However, the
situation in the party has begun changing.

Sensitive to local opinions

On Feb. 3, when Ozawa's exemption from indictment by public
prosecutors became certain, Masanao Shibahashi, a first-term
lawmaker, was asked by one of his supporters at a Setsubun
(traditional end of winter) festival held in Gifu City about the
problem involving Secretary General Ozawa. "He has been giving
explanations in such venues as press conferences," Shibahashi
answered. "However, even we don't know what really happened."

Shibahashi is one of the graduates of the Ichiro Ozawa Institute of
Politics. However, he flatly said: "I have no intention of defending
Mr. Ozawa over this issue. I think most first-term lawmakers are

TOKYO 00000305 006 OF 008

taking a neutral stance."

Shibahashi's rival in this single-seat constituency is former Postal
Minister Seiko Noda of the Liberal Democratic Party. If the next
election is taken into consideration, all 143 first-term lawmakers
have no other choice but to be sensitive to the trends in their
local constituencies and in public opinion. Tsutomu Takamura, who
was defeated by former Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura in the
Yamaguchi Constituency No. 1 but later secured a seat in the
proportional representation segment, said: "I feel most embarrassed
when I come to think that people may suspect we too might be
falsifying our political fund reports (because of the incident this

In late January, at a Japanese-style pub near the Diet Building,
about 10 first-term DPJ lawmakers, joined by customers, held a
discussion. "Both Mr. Ozawa and Mr. (Naoto) Kan may not be in
political circles in 10 years' or 20 year's time," said one of the
lawmakers. "I must seriously consider whom I should follow." The
fate of the so-called Koizumi children is not a matter of
indifference to them (nearly all the freshman candidates elected in
the 2005 postal election lost their seats in the Lower House
election last year).

The Ozawa leadership told the 143 first-term lawmakers: "Your job is
to win the next election. The election takes priority over
policies"; "There is no need for you to be in Tokyo"; and, "Group
activities are prohibited." Their obedience to those orders has now
been undermined. They are now beginning to act on their own or hold

Five first-term lawmakers, who previously worked with investment
banks or securities houses, met in a room in the Diet Members'
Building. The lawmakers, who call themselves "finance boys," are
aiming at proposing such policies as a review of the method of
managing the pension reserves before the end of this fiscal year.

Attachment to Ozawa leadership still strong

There is also a group named "Retsu-no Kai." It is a group of
first-term lawmakers who have their seats in the same row in the
Lower House floor of a plenary session. They circulate a piece of
paper during a plenary session to adjust their schedules for a
meeting. The group is characterized by their holding meetings at any
time without the involvement of secretaries.

Even so, many first-term lawmakers are strongly attached to the
Ozawa leadership, because they feel uneasy about their election
base. The 143 first-term lawmakers, who occupy nearly half of the
Lower House seats, are torn between whether they should go their own
way or should follow Ozawa.

(5) National Public Service Law draft amendment: Vice minister and
department director general-class officials to be treated equally

NIKKEI (Page 3) (Full)
February 16, 2010

The government is set to submit a bill amending the National Public
Service Law to the current session of the Diet. In this connection,
it has decided to make changes to the original plan, which divided
senior positions into two groups - vice ministers or bureau

TOKYO 00000305 007 OF 008

directors and department director general-class officials - and
unify the two groups into one. As a result, it will become possible
to handle the transferring of a vice minister to a department
director general-class position not as a demotion, a personnel
change regarded as a special exception, but as a regular transfer.
Since a review of the government employees' remuneration law is to
be postponed, even if such a transfer is treated as a regular
transfer, the transferred official's salary would be cut
substantially. As such, some take the view that it would be
difficult to put the revised plan into practice.

Referring to the revised bill, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama on the
15th stressed: "Transferring a vice minister to a department
director general-class position is not a demotion. The revision is
designed to enhance the freedom (of personnel changes)." The prime
minister told this to the press corps at the Prime Minister's
Official Residence (the Kantei). The government plans to adopt the
revised bill at a cabinet meeting as early as the 19th.

According to the existing amendment bill, two cross-sectional lists
of candidates were to be drawn up and personnel changes for demotion
were to be made within the two groups. Demoting vice ministers or
bureau directors general to department director general-level
positions is regarded as an exceptional case. To implement such
demotions, conditions such as that the work performance of the
official in question was substandard had to be met.

The revised plan stipulates that the two lists are to be unified
into one and positions of officials from vice ministers down to
department director general-level officials are to be regarded as
management positions with different grades. Officials in the unified
list can be demoted or appointed flexibly.

However, the remuneration law that states remunerations for senior
public servants and the National Personnel Authority's regulations
will not be reviewed this time. Even if the revised National Public
Service Law stipulates that vice ministers and department director
generals will be treated equally, their treatment under the
remuneration law will be substantially different. If a vice minister
is transferred to the position of a department director general, his
or her annual income could be lowered by about 8 million yen from
about 23 million yen to about 15 million yen.

National government employees can register complaints with the
National Personnel Authority if they are demoted against their will.
Under the existing law, demotions are unlikely to be approved except
for in cases in which their work performance is poor or they have a
health problem. Their position is thus guaranteed.

There is a strong possibility that depending on the specifics of the
revised bill, even if national government employees file complaints
against their transfer (within the same list), which is effectively
a demotion, their complaints might not be addressed for the reason
that their previous and new positions are both management positions.
However, regarding the issue of a substantive drop in annual
remunerations, some government officials have pointed out that it
would be difficult to implement the revised bill, because it lacks
specifics. Even if the revised bill is passed into law during the
current Diet session, the government is bound to be pressed to look
into amending the remuneration law in the process of drastically
reforming the public servant system, including basic labor rights
for government workers, slated to occur this fall.

TOKYO 00000305 008 OF 008

(6) Publication of Gaiko Forum to be suspended

YOMIURI (Page 35) (Full)
February 16, 2010

It was learned yesterday that the publication of Gaiko Forum, a
monthly journal on foreign affairs (Toshi Publishing Company), will
be discontinued after the April issue, which will go on sale on
March 8. Of a circulation of 30,000, about 9,000 copies are
purchased by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA). However, as a
result of its budget screening, the Government Revitalization Unit
decided to discontinue the purchase of the journal. As such, it has
become difficult for the company to continue publishing the

Gaiko Forum was first published in 1988. It is the only Japanese
monthly foreign policy journal in which Japanese and foreign
academics and diplomats publish essays. MOFA has been distributing
copies of the foreign policy journal to domestic and foreign experts
and others. Following the government's decision to stop purchasing
the journal, University of Tokyo Professor Shinichi Kitaoka and
other experts on international affairs issued an emergency statement
last December opposing the discontinuation.


© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
World Headlines


Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.