VZCZCXRO8940
PP RUEHFK RUEHKSO RUEHNAG RUEHNH
DE RUEHKO #4364/01 2150735
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 030735Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4974
INFO RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHAAA/THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/USDOJ WASHDC PRIORITY
RULSDMK/USDOT WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5//
RHHMUNA/HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
RHHMHBA/COMPACFLT PEARL HARBOR HI
RHMFIUU/HQ PACAF HICKAM AFB HI//CC/PA//
RHMFIUU/COMUSJAPAN YOKOTA AB JA//J5/JO21//
RUYNAAC/COMNAVFORJAPAN YOKOSUKA JA
RUAYJAA/COMPATWING ONE KAMI SEYA JA
RUEHNH/AMCONSUL NAHA 0069
RUEHFK/AMCONSUL FUKUOKA 7492
RUEHOK/AMCONSUL OSAKA KOBE 0800
RUEHNAG/AMCONSUL NAGOYA 7330
RUEHKSO/AMCONSUL SAPPORO 8607
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 3579
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 9722
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1440

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 TOKYO 004364 
 
SIPDIS 
 
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 08/03/06 
 
 
INDEX: 
 
(1) Editorial: Public understanding needed to strengthen alliance 
 
(2) "I feel responsible" for Futenma danger: US consul general 
 
(3) Thinking about Yasukuni Shrine: Yasukuni issue is a thorn in 
Japan's diplomacy, source of constitutional debate 
 
(4) Keidanren calls for abolition of FTC judge system, adoption of 
single set of court procedures; Also eyes maintenance of surcharge 
system only 
 
(5) Revision of Antimonopoly Law; Keidanren calls for integrating 
punishments into administrative surcharges alone, relegating appeals 
of administrative punishments from FTC-controlled system to court 
trials 
 
ARTICLES: 
 
(1) Editorial: Public understanding needed to strengthen alliance 
 
MAINICHI (Page 5) (Full) 
August 3, 2006 
 
"For future-oriented steady security": This is a subtitle from the 
cabinet-approved white paper for 2006 on the defense of Japan. 
 
In the 21st century, Japan's security policy is at a substantial 
turning point. "So," the white paper says, "Japan needs to 
strengthen its alliance with the United States for steady 
security." 
 
Its pillar is the realignment of US forces in Japan. Along with this 
realignment, the Self-Defense Forces and US Forces Japan will 
rapidly step up their bilateral cooperation. The SDF has expanded 
its stance of international cooperation with its sending of troops 
to Iraq and vessels to the Indian Ocean. In the wake of North 
Korea's recent missile launches, the SDF is also likely to expedite 
its introduction of a missile defense system. 
 
This year's white paper has a separate chapter regarding bilateral 
security arrangements. This is because the Defense Agency wanted to 
play up the importance thereof. 
 
Japan and the United States held intergovernmental talks over USFJ 
realignment in three stages: 1) setting common strategic objectives; 
2) sharing roles and tasks; and 3) realigning troop strengths. The 
Japanese and US governments identified security on the Korean 
Peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait as a common strategic objective 
and defined role- and task-sharing between the SDF and USFJ. Then 
the two governments sketched out a vision for the realignment of US 
military bases in Japan while making it a basic principle to 
maintain deterrent capabilities and alleviate the burden of 
base-hosting localities. Indeed, Japan has further solidified its 
defensive posture. 
 
The US Army, for instance, will move some of its command functions 
to USFJ bases, thereby strengthening inter-command cooperation. In 
addition, the SDF and USFJ will combine their bases for joint use 
and will also maximize their joint training exercises in order for 
Japan and the United States to prepare themselves for emergencies. 
 
 
TOKYO 00004364  002 OF 007 
 
 
The white paper also refers to the interoperability of tactics, 
hardware systems, and rear-echelon support between the SDF and USFJ. 
Japan will start its planned introduction of an MD system within the 
current fiscal year. In operating this MD system, Japan and the 
United States will need to work together for interoperability, 
including intelligence-gathering activities. 
 
The white paper expresses strong concern about North Korea's 
military-first politics, noting its deployment of Rodong and other 
ballistic missiles that can reach Japan. Pyongyang has also declared 
its acquisition of nuclear weapons. The white paper warns of North 
Korea's military modernization and China's intensified 
intelligence-gathering activities near Japan. In fiscal 2005, Air 
Self-Defense Force fighter jets made a total of 107 scrambles 
against Chinese aircraft, eight times the number in the preceding 
fiscal year. 
 
Needless to say, however, the act of invoking defensive power is the 
last resort for national defense. Moreover, Japan, basically with a 
defense-only posture, will use it only when Japan comes under attack 
from a foreign country. First of all, Japan should make diplomatic 
efforts to maintain its peace. 
 
Critics say Japan is attaching too much importance to its alliance 
with the United States in the process of carrying out USFJ 
realignment. There are also people who are concerned that the 
"Japan-US alliance in a global context" means blindly following the 
United States. The government must appropriately answer such 
critical views and misgivings. The Diet has yet to fully debate 
specifics about USFJ realignment. We want the ruling and opposition 
parties to enter into in-depth discussions. 
 
The government asserts that strengthening the Japan-US alliance will 
greatly contribute to Japan's national security in the future. If 
so, the government will have to make efforts to obtain public 
understanding not only from base-hosting local communities but also 
from the Japanese people. The government should not just strengthen 
the bilateral alliance. 
 
(2) "I feel responsible" for Futenma danger: US consul general 
 
OKINAWA TIMES (Page 2) (Full) 
August 3, 2006 
 
GINOWAN-Kevin Maher, the new American consul general at the US 
Consulate General in Okinawa Prefecture, called on Ginowan City's 
Mayor Yoichi Iha at his office. In their meeting, Maher, touching on 
the danger of Futenma airfield, said the US military should ensure 
safety. "I feel responsible," Maher added. With this, the new consul 
general indicated that he would coordinate the flight routes of US 
warplanes. 
 
Referring to the planned relocation of Futenma airfield, Maher 
stressed that the airfield should have been removed before the 
population of areas around the airfield increased. Maher also noted 
that US military bases situated south of Kadena Air Base would not 
be returned to Japan without Futenma airfield's relocation. "We need 
to relocate the airfield's functions within Okinawa Prefecture for 
stability in East Asia," Maher said. With this, he rejected the 
mayor's proposal to relocate the airfield's functions elsewhere 
outside Okinawa Prefecture. 
 
(3) Thinking about Yasukuni Shrine: Yasukuni issue is a thorn in 
 
TOKYO 00004364  003 OF 007 
 
 
Japan's diplomacy, source of constitutional debate 
 
TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 2) (Slightly abridged) 
August 2, 2006 
 
Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo is dedicated to praying for the souls of 
some 2.5 million persons who lost their lives in wars and other 
incidents since the Meiji Restoration in 1868. The shrine has now 
become the subject of controversy diplomatically and 
constitutionally. What are the basic problems associated with the 
shrine? Can they be resolved? Now that the memo indicating the late 
Emperor Showa's (Hirohito) words of displeasure about the shrine 
were disclosed recently, and the question of whether Prime Minister 
Junichiro Koizumi will visit the shrine on Aug. 15, the anniversary 
of the end of World War, is drawing public attention, the newspaper 
takes another look at the Yasukuni issue. 
 
Enshrinement of Class-A war criminals at Yasukuni is the cause of 
strained relations with China, South Korea 
 
China and South Korea have raised objections to the prime minister's 
visit to Yasukuni Shrine. This is the diplomatic aspect of the 
so-called Yasukuni issue. The shrine has enshrined Class-A war 
criminals. So neighboring countries interpret the prime minister's 
visit to the shrine as a manifestation of Japan's intention to 
justify the past war. Chinese President Hu Jintao says such a visit 
is viewed as an act to "injure the sentiments of the people who were 
the victims" of Japan's colonial rule and the war. 
 
Since normalizing diplomatic relations with Japan in 1972, China has 
stated, "A small number of militarists were responsible for the 
aggressive war, and the Japanese people were also the victims." 
China has made a clear distinction between the Japanese leaders and 
its people over its war responsibility and tried to minimize 
discontent at home with Japan. This theory, however, collapses once 
the prime minister, who is seen as representative of the victims, 
pays homage to the leaders responsible for the war. 
 
To counter oppositions from nearby countries, Prime Minister Koizumi 
has stated, "I am not visiting the shrine to pay respect to the 
Class-A war criminals but I am going to pay homage and express 
gratitude to the war dead"; and, "I can't understand why other 
countries' governments are making it a diplomatic issue by meddling 
in a matter of heart." Both sides have yet to reach any 
understanding. 
 
The view prevailing in Japan among those who favor the prime 
minister's visit to Yasukuni is that if Japan bows to their 
interference, it would be reduced to a country that is always 
subservient to China and South Korea. 
 
When the Law to Help the Wounded Soldiers and Bereaved Family of the 
War Dead was amended in 1953, the executed Class-A war criminals 
were treated as death by execution implemented in accordance with 
the ruling by the court of war criminals (homushi) (TN: homushi is 
different from the death of criminals by execution). Under the 
amendment, the decision was made to pay pensions to the bereaved 
families. In terms of domestic law, no one since then has been 
treated as war criminals. On the grounds of this amendment, some 
insist: "The prime minister's visit to the shrine presents no 
problem." 
 
Conversely, there are also strong calls on the government to improve 
 
TOKYO 00004364  004 OF 007 
 
 
relations with nearby countries. In May, the Japan Association of 
Corporate Executives (Keizai Doyukai) came up with a proposal 
advising the prime minister to refrain from visiting the shrine, out 
of concern over the possibility that Japan-China relations will turn 
from being cold on the political front but hot in the economic area 
to being cold on both sides. Koizumi, however, has dismissed this 
advice, citing the principle of separation of politics and the 
economy. He has stated: "Considering businesses, someone asked me 
'not to visit there any more,' but politics and the economy are two 
different things." 
 
In the precinct of Yasukuni Shrine stands a museum, "Yushukan." 
Films run by the museum and panels displayed there depict the war as 
a war for survival and self-defense, and explain that opening the 
Pacific War was an unavoidable choice for Japan because there was 
economic blockade set up by the US. 
 
In the Liberal Democratic Party, some members are beginning to 
express the concern that if the prime minister continues visiting 
Yasukuni, "the issue involving China and South Korea could turn into 
an issue involving the US." 
 
Unconstitutional judgment made twice on Prime Minister Koizumi's 
visit to Yasukuni in view of separation of politics and religion 
 
The prime minister pays homage at Yasukuni Shrine, but Isn't it a 
violation of the Constitution stipulating the separation of politics 
and religion? This is a constitutional aspect of the Yasukuni 
issue. 
 
The Constitution's Article 20 guarantees freedom of religion 
unconditionally to all the people, and prohibits the state from 
exercising any political authority on religious activities. In a 
comparison of Japan's Constitution and other countries', Japan may 
be portrayed as one of the countries that separates religion from 
politics strictly. 
 
The former Constitution of Japan recognized freedom of religion but 
attached the conditions of "not causing an obstruction to peace and 
order and not disregarding the duties of the subject." Consequently, 
religion was oppressed, and under the logic that Shintoism is not a 
religion, state-sponsored Shintoism appeared and was used for the 
advancement of the war. Reflecting on the past experience, the 
current Constitution stipulates the strict separation of politics 
and religion. 
 
If soldiers were killed in the war, they would be enshrined at 
Yasukuni Shrine as deities. Yasukuni Shrine became the backbone of 
the state-sponsored Shintoism. Now, the expenses for the prime 
minister to visit Yasukuni Shrine and to offer a sacred Shinto tree 
branch are paid from the national coffers. But some cast doubts on 
the use of public money for such purposes, arguing that doing so 
violates the separation of politics and religions as stipulated in 
the Constitution. A number of lawsuits of this kind have been filed. 
In 1991, the Sendai High Court handed down the ruling that it is 
unconstitutional for the prime minister and other officials to visit 
Yasukuni, a lawsuit called "Iwate Yasukuni case." 
 
Over Prime Minister Koizumi's visits to Yasukuni, lawsuits have been 
filed in various places across the country, such as Tokyo, Osaka, 
the Shikoku region, and Fukuoka. 
 
The court rulings so far have rejected the plaintiff side's claim 
 
TOKYO 00004364  005 OF 007 
 
 
for compensation, but most of them have avoided making a 
constitutional judgment. 
 
But there has been no ruling that judges Prime Minister Koizumi's 
visit to Yasukuni as constitutional. In contrast, the Fukuoka 
District Court and the Osaka High Court judged such a visit as 
unconstitutional in April 2002 and in September 2005 respectively. 
 
The Fukuoka District Court said: "Paying homage at Yasukuni Shrine 
is viewed as implementing his duties. Doing so comes under religious 
activities and violates the separation of politics and religion." 
The Osaka High Court stated: "(Visits to Yasukuni Shrine) give the 
impression that the state has given special assistance to the shrine 
and can be recognized as the state's helping and promoting a certain 
religion." 
 
(4) Keidanren calls for abolition of FTC judge system, adoption of 
single set of court procedures; Also eyes maintenance of surcharge 
system only 
 
NIHON KEIZAI (Page 5) (Slightly abridged) 
August 2, 2006 
 
Nippon Keidanren (Japan Business Federation) produced on August 1 a 
set of proposals in preparation for a revision of the Antimonopoly 
Law (AML). One of the plans is to abolish the Fair Trade 
Commission's (FTC) judgment system, a means to file complaints 
against administrative punishments, and adopt a single set of court 
procedures. The federation also called for maintaining the surcharge 
system (administrative punishments) by abolishing fines (criminal 
punishments). FTC Chairman Kazuhiko Takeshima rejected the idea, 
saying that the existing system is rational. The competitive policy 
debate is picking up momentum. 
 
Keidanren compiled the proposals in response to a solicitation of 
views by the Cabinet Office AML panel that has produced an AML 
review interim report. Keidanren intends to lobby the government and 
the ruling coalition intensively with an eye on a final report next 
June. 
 
The FTC makes judgments on AML violations, such as bid rigging and 
cartels, through examinations. Corporations that violate the law 
face administrative punishments, such as orders for corrective 
measures and surcharges. Companies dissatisfied with FTC decisions 
can appeal to a set of court procedures. 
 
Business circles are distrustful of the FTC, which has both 
examining and judging functions. "It is like a prosecutor serving as 
a judge at the same time," one said. Most examiners are 
dyed-in-the-wool FTC officials. In some cases, FTC officers who were 
involved in examinations of specific cases took part in making 
judgments. 
 
According to Keidanren, only twice did the FTC reverse examination 
results in its judgments over the last 40 years. 
 
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is also equipped with both 
examination and judgment departments. But its judges, called 
"administrative law judges," come from the Office of Personnel 
Management, a separate office, and their independence and status are 
guaranteed. "Unlike Japan's Fair Trade Commission, elite US FTC 
personnel do not shift from the examination department to the 
judgment department," a Keidanren official explained. 
 
TOKYO 00004364  006 OF 007 
 
 
 
Keidanren is calling for the abolition of the judge system and to 
leave objections to administrative punishments to a set of court 
procedures. The FTC thinks it would be difficult for district courts 
to assume the functions of the first trial, including the 
determination of facts. A spokesperson for Keidanren rebutted: "It 
is appropriate to nurture specialized judges in tandem with judicial 
reform." 
 
Violators face mostly fines in the United States and surcharges in 
European nations, while in Japan, they are slapped with both fines 
(up to 500 million yen) and surcharges (10% of sales in the case of 
violations by major manufacturers). 
 
A spokesperson for Keidanren criticized the system: "The government 
replied that surcharges were administrative sanctions. It is clearly 
a redundant structure." The business lobby is also calling for using 
the surcharge system alone as sanctions against corporate 
violations. Under the revised Antimonopoly Law that took effect in 
January, surcharges were increased while fines were left intact. 
This has spurred discontent among economic circles. 
 
Interview with FTC Chairman Kazuhiko Takeshima on review of 
Antimonopoly Law: "Existing system is rational" 
 
Q: Keidanren is calling for the abolition of the judge system. 
 
A: Under the present system, the FTC, which is familiar with 
economic and competition policies, conducts what corresponds to the 
first trial, and companies dissatisfied with FTC decisions can 
appeal to a high court. Such a system is rational. Of the seven 
judges, three are legal professionals, so independence from 
examinations and neutrality are maintained. 
 
I basically understand Keidanren's skepticism about the same 
organization conducting examinations and making judgments. But in 
the event the first trial is left to a court, practical questions 
remains, such as to what extent it can secure judges with expertise 
in such areas as competition law. I would like to see the Cabinet 
Office council discuss this thoroughly. 
 
Q: Keidanren has objected to a system that combines surcharges and 
criminal punishments. 
 
A: When the Antimonopoly Law was revised in January, the level of 
surcharges was raised, and its focus was shifted from the collection 
of unfair profits to administrative sanctions that can result in 
financial drawbacks, which is worse. Still, I am against the idea of 
eliminating criminal punishments. Criminal punishments are effective 
for severely condemning social violations. Administrative fines 
cannot replace this system. 
 
Criminal charges are filed in some European countries as well. The 
Japanese system is not unusual. Criminal charges are filed only 
against serious and vicious offenders. Criminal punishments must be 
maintained in order to curb violations. 
 
(5) Revision of Antimonopoly Law; Keidanren calls for integrating 
punishments into administrative surcharges alone, relegating appeals 
of administrative punishments from FTC-controlled system to court 
trials 
 
YOMIURI (Page 9) (Full) 
 
TOKYO 00004364  007 OF 007 
 
 
August 2, 2006 
 
The Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren) yesterday released 
a letter of opinion on the revised Antimonopoly Law (AML), which 
went into effect this January and is set to be revised again within 
two years. Regarding the filing of objections against administrative 
punishments the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) imposes on companies 
that violate the AML, the FTC itself judges the propriety of the 
appeals. The panel proposed abolishing this system and entrusting 
the regular court system with the task. The letter also proposed 
scrapping criminal penalties and keeping just the administrative 
surcharge system in place as a means to penalize companies that have 
violated the AML. 
 
The FTC defends the legitimacy of the current system, in which it 
passes judgment on punishments it has handed down itself, saying 
that there is a firewall between examiners who handle AML violation 
cases and examiners responsible for dealing with appeals. 
 
In its letter of opinion, Nippon Keidanren pointed out: "No matter 
how the firewall has been strengthened, there still exists distrust 
regarding whether a fair judgment can be ensured. The firewall does 
not essentially solve the problem." It called on the FTC to adopt a 
system in which district courts would handle appeals of FTC 
decisions, as is the case with other administrative lawsuits. 
Keidanren had previously sought the improvement of the judgment 
system. This is the first time for it to call for its abolition. 
 
It is common for companies that have violated the AML to pay both 
administrative surcharges and criminal fines if a criminal case is 
established and they are found guilty. However, some in business 
circles have pointed out that this may result in double jeopardy, 
which is prohibited under the Constitution. 
 
The letter of opinion called for the simplification of the penalty 
system, arguing: "A dual punishment system like this is unusual 
among industrialized countries. The punishment system for companies 
that have violated the AML should be unified into the administrative 
surcharge system, and criminal punishment should be scrapped." 
 
Experts are now discussing the AML at the Private Forum on Basic 
Problems With the AML established in the Cabinet Office (a private 
council reporting to the chief cabinet secretary). The panel mapped 
out an interim report that included key points on the proper nature 
of administrative surcharges on July 21 and now is inviting public 
opinion until early September. Nippon Keidanren sent its opinions in 
response. The panel plans to compile a final report possibly by June 
¶2007. 
 
SCHIEFFER