VZCZCXRO8094
PP RUEHFK RUEHKSO RUEHNAG RUEHNH
DE RUEHKO #2233/01 1370831
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 170831Z MAY 07
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3688
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 3558
RUEHFK/AMCONSUL FUKUOKA 1123
RUEHOK/AMCONSUL OSAKA KOBE 4681
RUEHNAG/AMCONSUL NAGOYA 0359
RUEHKSO/AMCONSUL SAPPORO 2013
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7042
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 3108
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 4283

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 10 TOKYO 002233 
 
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 05/17/07 
 
 
INDEX: 
 
(1) Panel on Asia gateway concept stops short of listing drastic 
air-liberalization measures in final report 
 
(2) Interview with National Defense Academy Professor Emeritus 
Masamori Sase on the right to collective self-defense 
 
(3) Laughing at constitutional protectionists' strange logic 
 
(4) Feature: Prime Minister Abe's words and action regarding the 
issue of his providing offering to Yasukuni Shrine 
 
(5) One year after Japan-US agreement on Futenma relocation plan 
 
(6) Japan being downgraded with 29-year-old woman named director for 
Asian Affairs at White House NSC 
 
ARTICLES: 
 
(1) Panel on Asia gateway concept stops short of listing drastic 
air-liberalization measures in final report 
 
NIHON KEIZAI (Page 3) (Full) 
May 17, 2007 
 
The government's Council on Asia Gateway Strategies issued a final 
report yesterday that proposed turning Haneda Airport into an 
international airport at an early date, with the aim of making Japan 
Asia's gateway. The report, though some progress is observed in it, 
stopped short of addressing fundamental issues that could undermine 
Japan's competitiveness, such as the shortage of capacity at 
airports in the capital sphere, listing only small-scale open skis 
measures. 
 
Haneda Airport will have its fourth runway in the fall, 2010. The 
strategic panel had initially called for initiating regular 
international flight services from and to Haneda even before the 
completion of the runway, but the panel decided to propose expanding 
chartered international flights by making use of the current landing 
and departure slots during early morning and nighttime hours. 
 
Regarding regular international flights to be operated starting in 
the fall, 2010, the panel agreed to take into consideration such 
factors as distance, demand, and the importance of routes. It paved 
the way for the flight course between Haneda and Beijing to be set. 
This route is longer than the longest domestic route of 1,947 
kilometers between Haneda and Ishigaki Island. For regular flights 
to Europe and the US, only Narita Airport is likely to be used. The 
report thus avoided reviewing the current framework of using Narita 
for international flights and Haneda for domestic ones. 
 
Japan Air Lines plans to increase the number of chartered 
international flights departing from Haneda Airport to 300 this 
fiscal year, up about 70%  over the previous year. All Nippon 
Airways (ANA) President Mineo Yamamoto also said: "We would like to 
offer services in a positive manner." The two companies are paying 
attention to how many landing and take-off slots will be allocated 
in the fall, 2010. As an ANA executive said, "There will be no 
change in our business plan for this fiscal year," cool views are 
dominant in the aviation industry. 
 
(2) Interview with National Defense Academy Professor Emeritus 
 
TOKYO 00002233  002 OF 010 
 
 
Masamori Sase on the right to collective self-defense 
 
ASAHI (Page 4) (Abridged slightly) 
May 17, 2007 
 
-- The government does not allow exercising the right to collective 
self-defense. 
 
Sase: The government's interpretation that the country has the right 
under international law but is not allowed to exercise it under its 
Constitution is defect. It is also a lie that the government cannot 
easily change the Cabinet Legislation Bureau's traditional theory. 
In Diet deliberations in 1960, then Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi 
replied: "Although Japan cannot exercise the collective defense 
right in a way to conduct core activities in the US mainland, it can 
exercise it in other parts." The wrong interpretation was 
established during the Cold War era of the 1980s, and it has run 
into cul-de-sac without any political decision. 
 
-- In your view, what prevented politics from making a decision? 
 
Sase: I recently asked former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, "Why 
didn't you say, 'I will make a decision' when you were prime 
minister?" In response, he said, 'Opening the door for exercising 
the right would have shorten the life of my administration. (As 
prime minister), I had to think of the survival of the 
administration." 
 
-- Do you think Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has decided to cut into 
the right? 
 
Sase: I don't know. I think he wants to make a decision to exercise 
it to some extent. But in view of such possibilities as the 
submission of a resignation by the Cabinet Legislation Office chief 
and turmoil in his administration, I don't know if he can stick to 
his conviction. 
 
-- Even some ruling coalition members are already voicing 
apprehensions about the future course of the blue-ribbon panel you 
are going to join. 
 
Sase: What I want to say is that being able to exercise the right 
under the Constitution and brandishing it are two different matters. 
Once a conclusion is reached to allow using it, we need to place 
substantially tight restrictions on it. 
 
-- Specifically what kind of restrictions? 
 
Sase: Perhaps a government statement - in a form similar to the 
three non-nuclear principles. A statement reading "Decisions will be 
made on a case-by-case basis in view of national interests and the 
situation at the time" would not cause other countries to harbor 
doubts. In that event, specific cases must not be mentioned because 
cases expected to require using the right would change with times. 
 
-- But isn't the panel going to discuss specific cases? 
 
Sase: Honestly speaking, I didn't want to become a panel member. The 
Kantei (Prime Minister's Official Residence) would present four 
types of situations, such as a US warship navigating alongside an 
SDF vessel being attacked. And what if I said, "The definition of 
the right to collective self-defense is absurd?" That would cause 
trouble for other members. Discussing restrictions something like a 
 
TOKYO 00002233  003 OF 010 
 
 
government statement would also be difficult. But now, I'm curious 
to hear other people's arguments. 
 
(3) Laughing at constitutional protectionists' strange logic 
 
SANKEI (Page 15) (Full) 
May 15, 2007 
 
Toshiyuki Shikata, professor at Teikyo University 
 
A national referendum bill got through the Diet yesterday, and Japan 
has now taken a step forward toward amending its postwar 
constitution. However, I was always irritated whenever I heard the 
opinions of constitutional protectionists. Many of them are opposed 
to bilateral defense cooperation between Japan and the United 
States. They insist that Japan should distance itself from the 
United States and should act on its own. However, they say it's 
taboo to advocate establishing a constitution on Japan's own. That's 
quite absurd. They also assert that the Constitution of Japan-even 
though the strategic environment changes-must not be amended because 
its ideas are lofty. 
 
To take a look at the written constitutions of major countries, the 
United States has upheld its constitution as is for the longest 
period of time, though with amendments. That is because the United 
States created its constitution on its own and has seen no change in 
its establishment. 
 
In the meantime, Marxism-Leninism, which once dominated the world, 
was the spirit of many communist nations' respective constitutions. 
In the changing times, however, almost all of their constitutions 
were amended. Their constitutions were modeled after the now-defunct 
Soviet Union's constitution, which was revised in 1993 and became 
Russia's new constitution. Even a constitution accepted by the 
people of a country when established is revised later with the 
changes of the times, as a matter of fact in history. The 
Constitution of Japan today came to us from the Occupation forces, 
and it came into effect with minor changes that Japan had begged for 
and the Occupation forces had allowed. Therefore, it's only natural 
to review this postwar constitution at some point. 
 
Meanwhile, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party was also too 
negligent. To recount the delay in constitutional revision, the LDP 
first said the time was not ripe. Next, the LDP said Japan has 
obtained something substantial with its interpretation. So saying, 
the LDP did not work to find the right time for constitutional 
revision. Prime Minister Abe, who is young, became the first LDP 
president to come into power under the slogan of constitutional 
revision. 
 
Japan created the Self-Defense Forces, and today, sends SDF 
personnel overseas to engage in United Nations peacekeeping 
operations and in humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. These 
facts are the results of reinterpreting Japan's postwar 
constitution. The LDP has said the SDF is not a military force 
because the Constitution rules out the right of belligerency. 
 
However, the SDF is an armed force of military troops in itself to 
any eye-not only to the eyes of the Japanese people but also to the 
eyes of the peoples of Japan's neighbors. We may well say a military 
force is a military force. This is not to blame in itself. There are 
some people refusing to call a military force a military force. That 
is to blame. I cannot think at all that the international community 
 
TOKYO 00002233  004 OF 010 
 
 
will recommend such a strange country to be seated on the United 
Nations Security Council as its permanent member. 
 
There is one more thing that I think is strange. Japan and the 
United States teamed up to impose economic sanctions on North Korea. 
In the six-party talks, however, the United States unilaterally 
relaxed its economic sanctions on North Korea and did not touch on 
that country's potential nuclear arsenal. Instead, the United States 
is poised to focus its efforts solely on stopping the North from 
developing nukes from now on. 
 
There are some people taking it as the United States' shrewd stand 
that runs counter to the policy of strengthening the Japan-US 
alliance. However, the United States eyes settling the Iraq problem, 
blocking Iraq's nuclear development, and reunifying the Korean 
Peninsula. Ultimately, the United States has its relationship with 
China in mind. As part of such a global-scale grand strategy, the 
United States is only dealing with the issue of North Korea's 
nuclear arsenal. 
 
In the meantime, North Korea is said to have 200 intermediate-range 
ballistic missiles, which can reach any of Japan's big cities in 10 
minutes or so. As it stands, Japan will have to intercept them 
within several minutes. For Japan, North Korea's nuclear arsenal is 
of a tactical nature that quite differs from that of the United 
States. 
 
Prime Minister Abe called the Japan-US alliance "irreplaceable." 
Even so, the United States takes several strategic and tactical 
counteractions, giving first consideration to its national 
interests. I take it for granted, and it is no wonder, that the 
United States does so. 
 
Similarly, Japan is also a country that will not try to do all it 
can to protect the United States' national interests. An alliance 
displays its power only when a country and another under that 
alliance almost concur in their respective interests. That is the 
limit of an alliance and the way realpolitik is in the world. 
 
Japan has depended on the United States' nuclear umbrella and has 
done nothing to provide against a nuclear attack. Japan has upheld 
its self-imposed three nonnuclear principles and has not legislated 
even for the capability of striking enemy bases. Lately, the 
government only began at long last to lay down a missile defense 
system and restudy exercising the right of collective self-defense. 
 
The United States provides its nuclear umbrella to Japan. Even so, 
there are some cases where we cannot find it effective to have a 
nuclear counterattack launched at once. Japan therefore should not 
spare its multifarious efforts to heighten its reliability. Japan 
should reduce its three nonnuclear principles to two. At the same 
time, Japan should immediately build early-warning systems against 
ballistic missiles and should also hurry to acquire the capability 
of striking enemy bases. 
 
Many of those constitutional protectionists espouse a Japan acting 
on its own. On the other hand, they believe that Japan is secure 
under the US nuclear umbrella. They have such a strange way of 
thinking. If they reject the US nuclear umbrella, there are only 
three options left. First, Japan closes its eyes to a nuclear 
arsenal and risk exposing the nation to a defenseless state. Second, 
Japan enters the nuclear umbrella of China or Russia. And third, 
Japan possesses its own nuclear weapons. All these options are 
 
TOKYO 00002233  005 OF 010 
 
 
unrealistic. 
 
In the end, many of the constitutional protectionists-when it comes 
to the nuclear problem-are in the habit of insisting on the 
necessity of eliminating nuclear weapons and trying to escape from 
reality. Idealism must depart from reality. 
 
(4) Feature: Prime Minister Abe's words and action regarding the 
issue of his providing offering to Yasukuni Shrine 
 
MAINICHI (Page 4) (Slightly abridged) 
Eve., May 10, 2007 
 
Yasuyoshi Nojima, Arisa Ota 
 
It became known recently that Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had sent an 
offering of a "sakaki tree" (valued at 50,000 yen) to Yasukuni 
Shrine for its spring festival (on April 21-23). But when asked 
about this by reporters, Abe said to them, "I refuse to answer that 
question." Even when further pressed to answer, he made this 
comment: "I hope the public will understand that." 
 
Main points of questions and answers exchanged between Abe and 
reporters 
 
The following are main points of Abe's remarks made on the night of 
April 8 in response to questions posed by reporters about whether he 
sent an offering to Yasukuni Shrine. 
 
-- With what feelings did you send an offering to the shrine? 
 
Abe: I want to keep on showing respect for those who fought for our 
country and died, and to pray for their souls. 
 
-- Did you send an offering, instead of visiting the shrine? 
 
Abe: Now that matters related to Yasukuni Shrine have become 
political and diplomatic issues, I decline to comment on whether I 
will visit the shrine or whether I sent the offering. 
 
-- Do you mean to say you deny the fact that you had sent an 
offering? 
 
Abe: I decline to comment on this question, either, as well as the 
question of whether to send it or not. 
 
-- Is that because if you make it clear, there may be an impact on 
relations with other countries? 
 
Abe: I've already made clear my standpoint. 
 
-- It's impossible to hide the fact that you sent an offering, isn't 
it? 
 
Abe: I don't deny it. I simply refuse to either confirm or deny it. 
 
-- Don't you think your attitude encourages a certain religious 
activity? 
 
Abe: I've already made clear my standpoint. 
 
-- China and South Korea have voiced concerns. 
 
 
TOKYO 00002233  006 OF 010 
 
 
Abe: I refuse to answer that sort of question, because if I do, my 
answer could give rise to a diplomatic issue. 
 
-- Do you think your attitude will win the public's understanding? 
 
Abe: I'd like to see the public, based on what I've said, understand 
my attitude. 
 
Comments by Ritsumeikan University Prof. Shoji Azuma: Abe evasive 
 
It is just like Abe to say "I decline to comment on whether I had 
sent an offering." It is also characteristic of Japanese politicians 
to comment in a way in which they evade, dodge or parry a question. 
Abe follows this sort of old-style political tradition. 
 
Abe often uses polite sentences ending with the polite verb, 
"gozaimasu," just as traditional politicians used to do. But this 
way of speaking has a bureaucratic flavor and gives an impression of 
his being subservient. Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who 
never used such polite endings, always spoke in a clear and firm 
manner. Compared to Koizumi, Abe's way of speaking seems ambiguous. 
 
Abe appears to be speaking to the public with sincerity, and this 
attitude is understandable. But his way of speaking gives the 
impression that he lacks self-confidence and the strength required 
of politicians. His speeches fail to come home to us. 
 
Why is this so? It is because Abe speaks like reporters setting out 
facts in an unconcerned manner. In this sense, he is in sharp 
contract to US Senator Barack Obama, who is winning popularity as a 
likely candidate for the next US presidential election. Obama often 
stresses this in his speeches: "This election is not mine but 
yours." He can employ words that come home to voters. Therefore, his 
popularity is going up. 
 
Politicians need to place emphasis on expressing their real feelings 
so as to deeply resonate with the public. This tendency is found 
around the world. What Japanese voters seek from politicians is also 
changing. Politicians are required to show a sense of fellowship and 
demonstrate a strong leadership. One example of this is the 
magnetism and strength of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka. Abe 
lacks both. 
 
When trouble occurs, politicians tend to take either of the two 
approaches: one is to face up to the problem and then resolve it; 
and the other to sidestep the problem and behave as if nothing 
happened. In most cases, Abe apparently has taken the latter 
course. 
 
This behavior of Abe can be politically called "avoidance strategy." 
In other words, it is an evasive strategy. This strategy is very 
common in Asia, but it is not acceptable in the United States. As 
his recent remarks on the wartime "comfort women" issue caused the 
American public to become aroused, Abe's way of speaking could be 
taken as "lying." Even if he makes efforts sincerely, the leader of 
a country is required to do more. 
 
Shoji Azuma: Born in Ishikawa Prefecture in 1956; graduated from 
Waseda University's School of Letters; serves as professor of the 
Language Education & Information Science of the Graduate School at 
Ritsumeikan University and also as professor of Language & 
Literature at Utah University 
 
 
TOKYO 00002233  007 OF 010 
 
 
Comments by journalist Shoko Egawa: Abe's remark "Private capacity" 
logic-chopping; He shouldn't take office as "prime minister" if he 
is unwilling to fulfill accountability 
 
I wonder which country Prime Minister Abe represents? I am concerned 
about Abe's lack of explanation to the public about the question of 
whether he had sent an offering to Yasukuni Shrine rather than that 
question itself. 
 
When it comes to the wartime "comfort women" issue, Abe said that 
there was no coercion by the former Imperial Japanese Army. This 
remark caused a controversy afterwards, but Abe failed to give a 
proper account about that to Japanese media, as well as to the Diet. 
Nonetheless, he was energetic about explaining it to President Bush, 
US lawmakers, and US media. Why didn't he do the same to Japanese 
journalists? I suspect that he thinks it is unnecessary to give an 
appropriate explanation to the Japanese public. 
 
I also suspect that he might have thought that his offering of a 
sakaki tree (priced at 50,000 yen) to Yasukuni Shrine was not a 
problem unless it was openly revealed to the public. If so, it would 
be unavoidable that what he is doing behind the scenes comes into 
public scrutiny. I am worried that other countries may consider 
Japan to be distrustful because of its top political leader's 
furtive behavior. 
 
Abe sent an offering to Yasukuni Shrine in the capacity of prime 
minister, didn't he? For the shrine, his title had a meaning, but 
Abe insisted that he did so as a private citizen. This is 
logic-chopping. Instead of explaining with his own words about this 
matter, Abe had the chief cabinet secretary explain it. Abe himself 
should explain with his own words. 
 
Politicians are supposed to bear a responsibility to do their best 
to explain things with their own words and persuade the public. 
However, (former Prime Minister) Koizumi got by with only one-phrase 
quips. In the case of the offering of a sakaki tree this time, Abe 
has refused to say anything, not even a one-phrase comment. It's 
deplorable. I wonder whether politicians have deteriorated that far. 
If he is unwilling to fulfill his accountability, he should not take 
office as prime minister. He should pay a visit or send an offering 
to Yasukuni Shrine as a private citizen, Shinzo Abe coming from 
Yamaguchi Prefecture, if he wants to do so. 
 
He has stated, "I refuse to say anything about the matter because 
this sort of thing has become a diplomatic and political issue." 
This means that he is aware that his behavior could create a 
diplomatic issue. If so, he should give a proper explanation, like 
his personal feelings that led to the offering, his position and his 
diplomatic consideration. This is the starting point of debate on 
the matter. If he thinks debating is unnecessary, that is a denial 
of democracy. 
 
Or does he think that if we the Japanese want a proper explanation 
from the Japanese prime minister, the first thing for us to do is to 
appeal to US lawmakers and journalists and ask them to have the 
prime minister explain? This is too sad a situation, isn't it? 
 
Shoko Egawa: Born in 1958; after working as a reporter of the 
Kanagawa Shimbun, became a free-lance journalist; is the author of 
many books; and was awarded the Kikuchi Kan Prize for her series of 
reporting on the Aum Shinrikyo cult. 
 
 
TOKYO 00002233  008 OF 010 
 
 
 (5) One year after Japan-US agreement on Futenma relocation plan 
 
YOMIURI (Page 13) (Abridged slightly) 
May 17, 2007 
 
By Yoshifumi Sugita, Political News Department 
 
Will the plan to relocate the US Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station 
(in Ginowan, Okinawa Prefecture) move forward now that the Japan-US 
defense chiefs have met in Washington, following the Upper House 
Okinawa by-election in April in which the ruling coalition-backed 
candidate was victorious? 
 
"It's important to implement the plan as is without making any 
changes." 
 
This comment came from US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at the 
outset of his meeting with Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma in 
Washington on April 30. Gates apparently intended to dampen the 
emerging moves to alter the Futenma relocation plan. On his way 
home, Kyuma stopped over in Brussels where he continued to hint at 
modifying the plan, saying: "Even if we make no major changes to the 
current plan, we still won't know if the United States is against 
shifting (the envisaged runways)." 
 
Tokyo and Washington agreed last May on a plan to build a V-shaped 
pair of runways on the coastline of Camp Schwab (in Nago) to 
relocate Futenma Air Station. But no progress has been made since 
then. The reason is because LDP-backed Hirokazu Nakaima won the 
Okinawa gubernatorial race last November, pledging to: (1) revise 
the government's plan, and (2) eliminate the dangerous nature of 
Futenma Air Station within three years. In addition, Okinawa had a 
by-election for the Upper House this April. 
 
The Futenma relocation council, which consists of representatives of 
the central, prefectural, and municipal governments, has not met 
since this January. The government's plan to send in March a set of 
documents on environment assessment methods to the prefectural 
government has also been stalled. 
 
Will the Japan-US agreement become reality with coalition-backed 
Aiko Shimajiri's victory in the Upper House by-election? 
 
On April 25, three days after the by-election, Kyuma told Gov. 
Nakaima: "We can now push ahead with the survey of existing 
conditions smoothly. Let us consult with each other closely in a 
businesslike manner before presenting the environmental impact 
assessment documents." Kyuma's comment followed a report to him that 
Nakaima would agree to the survey of existing conditions to be 
conducted independently by the government ahead of the environmental 
impact assessment. 
 
Although Gov. Nakaima has been lobbying the government to bring 
about his campaign pledges since taking office, talks with the 
government always broke off due to objections from Defense Ministry 
administrative officials. Against all odds, Kyuma takes a flexible 
stance toward revising the plan, as seen in his comment: "Any runway 
will do as long as it is acceptable to Washington, the affected 
municipalities, and Tokyo." Nakaima's recent cooperative posture is 
apparently ascribable to Kyuma's consideration to Okinawa. 
 
His consideration reflects the fact that under current law, 
landfills for airfield construction requires the governor's 
 
TOKYO 00002233  009 OF 010 
 
 
authorization. Legally speaking, Futenma Air Station cannot be 
relocated unless the governor authorizes landfills once the 
environmental impact assessment is over. 
 
The government intends to push the relocation issue forward by 
obtaining Okinawa's concurrence before long about presenting 
environmental assessment methods and resuming Futenma relocation 
council meeting. In late April, Kyuma told Nakaima: "You don't have 
to do anything. There is ample time before authorizing (landfills). 
Until then, let's find a settlement line." 
 
Base issues have repeatedly been put off because of elections. This 
year, the Upper House election is coming up in July. Some in the 
government and the ruling coalition are already calling for shelving 
the Futenma plan in deference to Okinawa residents and their 
sensitivity to base issues. But the situation is such that the 
government will have to mobilize Maritime Self-Defense personnel for 
setting up equipment for the survey of existing conditions at the 
cost of Okinawa's sentiments. 
 
What is Kyuma's settlement line? Uncertainties are looming over the 
Futenma relocation plan. 
 
(6) Japan being downgraded with 29-year-old woman named director for 
Asian Affairs at White House NSC 
 
SHUKAN BUNSHUN (Page 52) (Full) 
May 24, 2007 
 
"It must be a mistake. I wonder if Japan is being downplayed, " a 
senior Foreign Ministry official reportedly said when he received a 
cable from the Japanese Embassy in Washington informing him of the 
appointment of the new director for Japan and Korea at the National 
Security Council (NSC). 
 
The Foreign Ministry's North American Affairs Bureau, which is in 
charge of policy toward the US, and the Asian and Oceanian Affairs 
Bureau, which is responsible for Korean Peninsula policy, had been 
paying attention to who would succeed Victor Cha, after the scholar 
returned late last month to his former teaching position at 
Georgetown University. 
 
An international journalist said: 
 
"Cha, a Korean American, is a specialist in East Asian affairs. His 
predecessor, Michael Green, currently Japan Chair and senior advisor 
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a 
Japan expert who speaks fluent Japanese. Green has quite a few 
acquaintances in Japan's political, government and academic circles. 
So, the post of director for Japan and Korea at the NSC has always 
been served by experts on Japanese or Korean affairs." 
 
However, the person who was appointed as new NSC director for Japan 
and Korea was 29-year-old Katrin Fraser. "They must be kidding!" 
someone said. 
 
Fraser graduated from the Fletcher School at Tufts University in 
2001 and entered the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). After 
serving three years in Seoul, South Korea, she worked as an analyst 
for East Asian affairs at CIA headquarters. After that, moving to 
the State Department, she had served as special aide to the 
assistant secretary of state for international organization 
affairs. 
 
TOKYO 00002233  010 OF 010 
 
 
 
The international journalist commented: 
 
"It is true that she is a former CIA officer with a high scholastic 
standing. Since she lived in Japan when she was a child, she speaks 
a little Japanese. She is fluent in Korean. However, it is another 
problem whether she is suitable to serve in the post responsible for 
East Asia policy." 
 
In fact, Fraser will not assume the post of deputy US envoy to the 
six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue, although her 
predecessor Cha had served in that post. The White House seems to 
have known that she lacks ability to serve in that capacity. Some 
say that her appointment is evidence of the Bush administration 
becoming a lame duck. 
 
Fraser's Japanese counterparts are North American Affairs Bureau 
Director General Shinichi Nishimiya and Asian and Oceanian Affairs 
Bureau Director General Kenichiro Sasae. 
 
"Both Nishimiya and Sasae are in their mid-fifties. So the age gap 
alone between Fraser and them is enormous," the journalist said. 
 
SCHIEFFER