VZCZCXRO7824
PP RUEHFK RUEHKSO RUEHNAG RUEHNH
DE RUEHKO #2194/01 1362336
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 162336Z MAY 07
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3620
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//
RUALSFJ/COMUSJAPAN YOKOTA AB JA//J5/JO21//
RUYNAAC/COMNAVFORJAPAN YOKOSUKA JA
RUAYJAA/CTF 72
RUEHNH/AMCONSUL NAHA 3536
RUEHFK/AMCONSUL FUKUOKA 1100
RUEHOK/AMCONSUL OSAKA KOBE 4652
RUEHNAG/AMCONSUL NAGOYA 0341
RUEHKSO/AMCONSUL SAPPORO 1993
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7021
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 3084
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 4262

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 TOKYO 002194 
 
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 05//07 
 
 
INDEX: 
 
(1) China developing missile to attack US flattops 
 
(2) Lawyers for plaintiffs in Tokyo District Court hearing say 
forcing foreigners to become comfort women was national crime 
 
(3) Rereading needed for collective self-defense: Sakamoto 
 
(4) Editorial: Extension of Iraq Special Measures Law under 
discussion, while Japan's assistance not clear 
 
(5) Editorial: Chrysler must not lead to a Japan-US dispute 
 
ARTICLES: 
 
(1) China developing missile to attack US flattops 
 
SANKEI (Page 1) (Abridged) 
May 16, 2007 
 
The Chinese military has modified its tactics toward US forces, 
sources familiar with military affairs in Japan and Taiwan revealed 
yesterday. China will now set about developing an antiship ballistic 
missile, which is intended to attack US aircraft carriers, and will 
also introduce supersonic long-range bombers from Russia, according 
to the sources. In its tactics, the Chinese military lays emphasis 
on launching attacks against US forces and the Self-Defense Forces 
from outside the range of their intercept weapons. The Chinese 
military's tactical revision appears to be intended to block a US 
carrier task force in the event of an emergency in Taiwan. 
 
If such a revision of the Chinese military's tactics goes well, it 
will be difficult for a US carrier task force to near the Taiwan 
Straits. Accordingly, the US military will need to review its 
tactics toward China. In addition, the SDF's current equipage cannot 
defend against the newly emerging threat. The Chinese military's 
tactical revision is therefore likely to have a great impact on East 
Asia's security as well. 
 
According to the sources, the Chinese military has now set about 
remodeling the Dongfeng-21, an intermediate-range ballistic missile 
with a range of 1,500-2,500 kilometers. The Dongfeng-21 can attack a 
US aircraft carrier, if the missile is equipped with an infrared 
seeker designed to detect a moving target. The Dongfeng-21 can be 
tipped with a nuclear warhead, and China has already deployed nearly 
100 Dongfeng-21 missiles. China employed a remodeled version of the 
Dongfeng-21 in its test to attack a satellite in January this year. 
 
In addition, China is expected to buy 10-20 supersonic long-range 
bombers from Russia this year or produce them under license. They 
are codenamed the Tu-22M Backfire. The Tu-22M has a cruising radius 
of about 4,000 kilometers and can be loaded with up to 3 AS-4 
air-to-ship missiles that have a range of 500 kilometers. The United 
States feared the Tu-22M Backfire that is capable of bombing the US 
mainland. In the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT-II), the 
United States agreed to its counterpart's possession of Tu-22Ms. 
Instead, however, the US side made it a precondition for the weapon 
to get rid of its aerial refueling device. 
 
US forces have means to intercept antiship ballistic missiles and 
AS-4s. However, the US military has yet to be fully prepared. 
 
 
TOKYO 00002194  002 OF 006 
 
SUBJECT:  DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07 
 
(2) Lawyers for plaintiffs in Tokyo District Court hearing say 
forcing foreigners to become comfort women was national crime 
 
AKAHATA (Page 15) (Full) 
May 16, 2007 
 
The Tokyo District Court (presiding judge Hamano) held the first 
hearing of a lawsuit filed by eight Chinese women (two deceased 
represented by their families) from Hainan Island against the 
Japanese government. The plaintiffs demand compensation and an 
apology from the government claiming they were sexually abused by 
the Japanese military on the island, which was occupied by Japan 
during the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45. A group of lawyers for the 
plaintiffs demanded relief measures for the victims. 
 
Lawyer Toshitaka Onodera pointed out: 
 
"The common perception in the international community is that the 
so-called comfort women system is a national crime. International 
opinion has urged Japan to offer a sincere apology and compensation 
to the wartime comfort women." 
 
Lawyer Onodera criticized Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for his remark 
that: "There is no evidence that women were forced to become sex 
slaves by the Japanese army in the narrow sense." The lawyer said: 
"The prime minister's remarks were taken challenge to such 
international opinion." 
 
The lawyers pressed the court hard to make clear Japan's 
responsibility, noting, "We would like the court to aim at arriving 
at an unique ruling to relieve the victims." 
 
Lawyer Sadahiko Sakaguchi stressed: 
 
"The suit demands compensation from the Japanese government for the 
damages of having been forced to be sex slaves during wartime, as 
well as for failing to take proper measures to help restore their 
honor." 
 
Another lawyer explained posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) cases, 
saying, "They are still suffering." 
 
The Tokyo District Court acknowledged in August 2006 that the 
comfort women suffered during the war and are still suffering from 
nightmares, palpitations, and fear even now. The court, however, 
rejected the plaintiffs' claims. 
 
(3) Rereading needed for collective self-defense: Sakamoto 
 
SANKEI (Page 15) (Full) 
May 11, 2007 
 
Kazuya Sakamoto, professor at Osaka University 
 
Prime Minister Abe has advocated making Japan into a "beautiful 
country." To do so, this country will have to clear up various 
matters scattered here and there that are not so beautiful. 
 
Speaking of areas that are not beautiful in security affairs, the 
government's way of interpreting Japan's postwar constitution on the 
right to use collective self-defense is one of them. The government 
says Japan has the right but cannot exercise it. This interpretation 
cannot be called beautiful, not by any standard.  It is as if the 
 
TOKYO 00002194  003 OF 006 
 
SUBJECT:  DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07 
 
government is saying that Japan may ask other countries for help 
because they have the right to use collective self-defense but Japan 
cannot help them because it cannot use that right. This is not 
beautiful. 
 
By most definitions, we should either be saying that Japan can be 
involved in collective self-defense because it has the right, or 
that it cannot be involved because it does not have the right. 
However, Japan will never be able to enter into a security pact with 
any foreign country should it say it does not have this right. A 
security treaty is based on the right of collective self-defense in 
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. 
 
If it cannot conclude a security treaty, Japan would be in trouble, 
so the government takes the position that Japan has the right to 
collective self-defense under international law. At the same time, 
however, the government states that Japan is constitutionally not 
allowed to exercise that right. This is why there is a gulf between 
Japan and the United States, a country that can exercise the right. 
 
Actually, the gulf is filled. That is because Japan lets the United 
States use bases in Japan. Mentally, however, the gulf cannot be 
filled. That is because Japan its telling the US: "You may use the 
bases, and we leave it to you for the rest." In the long term, such 
an attitude would jeopardize any friendship, to say nothing of an 
alliance. 
 
The government knows that, so the government needs a smokescreen. 
One example is the case where the Self-Defense Forces acts in 
concert with US Forces Japan under Article 5 of the Japan-US 
Security Treaty in the event of an armed attack on a USFJ facility. 
 
In this case, the government should have accounted for the SDF's 
action as an act of exercising the right of collective self-defense 
to defend US forces. That would be natural. However, the government 
explains that the act of defending the USFJ is within the scope of 
exercising the right of individual self-defense because an attack on 
USFJ is an attack on Japan. According to one official, what can be 
explained to the Japanese people as an act of exercising the right 
of individual self-defense looks like an act of exercising the right 
of collective self-defense in the eyes of the United States. The 
official recalled that this was the key point of such an 
explanation. 
 
After the Cold War ended, the SDF agreed to back up US forces 
outside Japanese territory, as well. The government explained that 
the SDF's backup of US forces was not an act of exercising the right 
of collective self-defense because the SDF's backup of US forces is 
not linked with their use of armed force. For example, the 
government says the SDF's logistical support of US forces-if 
conducted on the high seas demarcated from a combat area-is not an 
act of exercising the right of collective self-defense. 
 
In the Diet, however, the government could hardly explain its 
standpoint as it was grilled by the opposition bench with questions 
asking whether it were possible to draw a line on the seas to tell 
where a combat area was, when combat in present-day warfare may 
suddenly takes on a different aspect at any moment. In a 
parliamentary discussion, the government was also asked about the 
case where a US naval vessel refueled by an SDF vessel launched a 
cruise missile. In its Diet reply, the government even said if the 
launched cruise missile does not change course and flies to the 
target, the launching point is a combat area, and if that cruise 
 
TOKYO 00002194  004 OF 006 
 
SUBJECT:  DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07 
 
missile is artificially guided in a different direction, then the 
launching point is not a combat area. The government also said it 
could not say anything definite since Japan has no cruise missiles. 
 
I think it would be better for the government to change its 
interpretation if the government has to give such replies. However, 
that is not so easy because the government is reluctant to change 
what it has said for a long time. One government official even says 
changing the government's conventional interpretation would end up 
damaging the Constitution's prestige. 
 
Such statements are ridiculous. The government worries about 
damaging the Constitution's prestige while upholding an 
interpretation that is not beautiful. If there is anything that can 
be hurt as a result of reinterpreting the Constitution, that is the 
government's prestige, not the Constitution's prestige. 
 
Of course, what has been long been continued carries some weight. It 
is not good for the government to easily change its constitutional 
interpretation. However, what if the government cannot change its 
constitutional interpretation because it has been long continued? 
Should it become a principle, Japan's vitality would be dangerously 
on the wane. The government's constitutional interpretation may 
outlast the land. 
 
I think the government must change its constitutional interpretation 
of the right of collective self-defense. I would like the government 
to take the position that Japan can basically exercise the right it 
has. However, constitutional protectionists may say reinterpreting 
the Constitution to that effect makes light of the Constitution. 
They would point to its consequences, fearing that this kind of 
reinterpretation would result in expanding Japan's use of armed 
force to a boundless extent. It is therefore necessary to define 
specific areas and preconditions in a law for Japan to exercise its 
right of collective self-defense. 
 
For example, how about the idea of creating a law that limitedly 
allows Japan to exercise its right of collective self-defense in 
Japanese territory and also in international waters, as well as in 
airspace over international waters? In international waters, Japan's 
role may be centered on logistical support and missile defense. This 
can avoid using armed force overseas (i.e., in foreign territorial 
soil, waters, and airspace) while improving the capability of 
responding to crises under the Japan-US alliance, which is an 
alliance between two seafaring countries. 
 
(4) Editorial: Extension of Iraq Special Measures Law under 
discussion, while Japan's assistance not clear 
 
TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 5) (Full) 
May 16, 2007 
 
Deliberations in the Lower House on a bill extending the Iraq 
Special Measures Law lacked heat. The factors necessary for making 
the right decision have hardly been exhausted. The lack of heat must 
be blamed on both the government, which has not revealed Japan's 
detailed assistance, and the opposition parties that repeatedly 
asked similar questions. 
 
The bill extending the Iraq Special Measures Law has been sent to 
the House of Councillors following its clearance of the House of 
Representatives. The revision consists of only seven lines in two 
parts pertaining to the current legislation's expiration date. 
 
TOKYO 00002194  005 OF 006 
 
SUBJECT:  DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07 
 
 
The Lower House committee deliberated on the bill for a total of 
about 17 hours. Although the bill looks simple, that does not mean 
deliberations should also be concise. When enacting the current law, 
which has opened a new way for the overseas deployment of the 
Self-Defense Forces and assistance to multinational forces, people 
raised questions about its consistency with the pacifist 
Constitution. The legislation needs an overhaul instead of partial 
amendment in order to meet subsequent changes to the basic 
conditions, such as the justification of the war and the situation 
in Iraq. 
 
Lower House deliberations seemed insufficient. The legislative 
branch has failed to fulfill its responsibility. 
 
Concluding that the use of force against Iraq was unjust and the 
current law is problematic, the main opposition Minshuto (Democratic 
Party of Japan) made a counterproposal intended to withdraw the SDF. 
Should the SDF continue its activities in Iraq or leave the country? 
If the two conflicting bills had been discussed simultaneously, 
heated debate could have taken place. 
 
The argument that Japan must assist Iraq's reconstruction efforts 
from its guilt for supporting (America's decision) to launch the 
Iraq war sounds reasonable. People expected to see serious 
discussions on various matters, including as the appropriateness of 
the framework of the law now in force. 
 
In reality, opinions in the Lower House did not mesh with each 
other, leaving people frustrated. The government did not offer any 
apologetic words for the sequence of events leading up to its 
support for the Iraq war, failing to initiate the discussion. 
 
The government needs to make certain that the Air Self-Defense 
Force's airlift mission does not violate the Constitution. The 
government's limited information disclosure for security reasons 
also prevented in-depth Diet debates. 
 
The opposition camp is not blameless, either. For instance, some 
opposition members took up diplomatic issues that were irrelevant to 
the Iraq mission and repeatedly asked similar questions apparently 
because they did not have any new ammunition. Instead, they should 
have employed new approaches, such as soliciting views by inviting 
unsworn witnesses to the Diet. 
 
We expect the two sides to lock horns on key points in the Upper 
House. The clear presentation of materials for the right decision 
would help voters' make up their minds for the upcoming Upper House 
election. 
 
(5) Editorial: Chrysler must not lead to a Japan-US dispute 
 
TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 5) (Full) 
May 16, 2007 
 
A US fund will purchase Chrysler, one of the Big Three. A sale to 
another automaker or restructuring for rebuilding the firm is 
expected to follow. The developing situation requires close 
attention so as not to rekindle a dispute between Japan and the 
United States. 
 
Cerberus Capital Management LP, a major US private equity investment 
fund, has announced that it would buy a majority stake in German car 
 
TOKYO 00002194  006 OF 006 
 
SUBJECT:  DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS 05//07 
 
firm DaimlerChrysler's ailing US Chrysler arm for about 900 billion 
yen (7.4 billion dollars). 
 
Although the two firms merged nine years ago to create 
DaimlerChrysler with the aim of producing 4 million cars annually, 
slow production and sales forced the automaker to sell its US arm. 
 
A fund's acquisition of a corporation is nothing new. But in many 
cases, corporations recovered their investments by selling 
themselves after building profit-making systems by making 
restructuring efforts, such as closing down money-losing plants or 
eliminating jobs. 
 
Cerberus is also expected to balance things out comprehensively by 
eliminating 13,000 jobs out of 80,000 and combining the profit of a 
financial firm it is going to purchase at the same time. 
 
Although the UAW is determined to stage sit-ins to block 
restructuring, various steps seem inevitable for reshaping the 
firm. 
 
Once Chrysler successfully rebuilds itself and becomes a mid-level 
automaker producing 2.6 million cars annually, like GM did last 
year, chances are slim for it to cause a friction with Japanese 
automakers that have been enjoying large sales. 
 
The company's failure might result in strong criticism of Japanese 
rivals and Japan's weak-yen policy. As was the case with GM, 
Japanese automakers are urged to show some consideration so as not 
to fuel excessive competition. 
 
In the event rebuilding efforts made smooth progress, the question 
of to what country and what maker the fund is going to sell the firm 
requires close attention. Sale to GM might threaten Toyota's status 
as the world's number one automaker. 
 
In order for Chrysler to establish a profit-making system, it must 
develop high performing, fuel-efficient, selling cars that can meet 
the demands of the times. Developing environmental technology 
leading to clean diesel, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles would be too 
costly for any single company to undertake. Chrysler is urged to 
speedily determine its partners and specific factors. 
 
Chrysler is too dependent on the North American market. Another 
point is that sale of the company to South Korea's Hyundai or 
China's FAW might disturb the Japanese automakers' North American 
and Asian markets. 
 
SCHIEFFER