VZCZCXRO1558
PP RUEHFK RUEHKSO RUEHNAG RUEHNH
DE RUEHKO #1072/01 1090808
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 180808Z APR 08
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3566
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/USFJ //J5/JO21//
RUYNAAC/COMNAVFORJAPAN YOKOSUKA JA
RUAYJAA/CTF 72
RUEHNH/AMCONSUL NAHA 9724
RUEHFK/AMCONSUL FUKUOKA 7346
RUEHOK/AMCONSUL OSAKA KOBE 1018
RUEHNAG/AMCONSUL NAGOYA 5750
RUEHKSO/AMCONSUL SAPPORO 7940
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 2883
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 8905
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 9422

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 09 TOKYO 001072 
 
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 04/18/08 
 
INDEX: 
 
(1) Nagoya High Court finds Iraq airlift mission to be 
unconstitutional; Decision casts pall on Japan-U.S. integration 
policy; Unannounced conditions mentioned; May affect Indian Ocean 
refueling operation as well (Tokyo Shimbun) 
 
(2) Editorial: Discussion of right to collective defense now 
necessary (Nikkei) 
 
(3) Editorial: Court rejects peace cooperation? (Sankei)  4 
(4) Revisions to SOFA not in sight; Municipalities dissatisfied with 
improved administration (Asahi) 
 
(5) Okinawa Prefecture asks U.S. Marine Corps to remove dropped 
bombs and suspend drill (Okinawa Times) 
 
(6) Editorial: President Bush can't read global trend on fight 
against global warming (Asahi) 
 
(7) UNICEF Japan calls for revision of child pornography law 
(Mainichi) 
 
ARTICLES: 
 
(1) Nagoya High Court finds Iraq airlift mission to be 
unconstitutional; Decision casts pall on Japan-U.S. integration 
policy; Unannounced conditions mentioned; May affect Indian Ocean 
refueling operation as well 
 
TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 3) (Abridged slightly) 
April 18, 2008 
 
The Nagoya High Court ruled yesterday that part of the Air 
Self-Defense Force's airlift mission in Iraq is a breach of Article 
9 of the Constitution. The decision threw cold water on Japan's 
security policy of promoting SDF integration with the U.S. military 
and shifting weight to overseas missions. Touching on some 
activities that have not been revealed by the government, the court 
determined that the ASDF's mission to airlift armed U.S. troops 
constitutes the "use of force." This has put a question mark over 
the overseas dispatch of the SDF, which have been providing 
rear-area support to the U.S. military under the Iraq Special 
Measures Law, the Antiterrorism Special Measures Law, and the 
Japan-U.S. agreement on U.S. force realignment. 
 
80 PERCENT  of flights for U.S. military 
 
Some 210 ASDF personnel and three C-130 cargo planes are now 
stationed in Kuwait. They fly four to five times a week to southern 
Iraq, Baghdad, and Arbil in the north. Over 80 PERCENT  of the 
flights are for airlifting U.S. military personnel and supplies, and 
only once a week for the UN, which is engaged in reconstruction 
assistance in the country. 
 
The government has insisted that the ASDF activities are 
constitutional by indicating that they are mostly for humanitarian 
and reconstruction assistance without revealing their specific 
activities and by explaining that the airports and flight paths are 
in noncombat zones, despite the deteriorating security situation in 
Baghdad. 
 
 
TOKYO 00001072  002 OF 009 
 
 
The court ruled that the airlifts are largely security support 
activities (that constitute rear-area support for the U.S. 
military), a decision contradictory to the government's view. The 
court also determined that the mission is a breach of Article 9 of 
the Constitution, which prohibits the use of force, concluding that 
airlifting armed soldiers to Baghdad, a combat zone, is an act 
integral to the use of force. 
 
Flights often cancelled 
 
In reaction to this ruling, a senior Defense Ministry official 
noted: "The overall security situation in Baghdad is irrelevant. The 
airport and flight paths are in noncombat zones." Administrative 
Vice-Defense Minister Kohei Masuda categorically said: "We will not 
review the activities." 
 
When the ASDF's C-130s flew over Baghdad from last year through this 
year, alarms often rang out indicating that missiles were targeting 
them. Calling off a flight due to worsening security is not 
uncommon. 
 
In light of (the Nagoya court's decision that) airlifting military 
personnel and supplies to a combat zone is unconstitutional, it is 
inevitable that the Maritime Self-Defense Force's refueling mission 
in the Indian Ocean under the Antiterrorism Special Measures Law, 
whose term once expired, will also be found unconstitutional. Before 
the House of Representatives Budget Committee on October 10, 2007, 
Foreign Minister Masahiko Koumura admitted that MSDF fuel had been 
used in the war, saying, "(The MSDF also provided fuel) to U.S. 
vessels that staged air strikes in Afghanistan." 
 
Review of SDF overseas missions inevitable 
 
In the talks on U.S. force realignment held in May 2006, Japan and 
the United States agreed to expand the close cooperation between the 
U.S. military and the SDF to a global level under the banner of 
improving the international security environment, going beyond the 
defense of Japan and responses to contingencies in areas surrounding 
Japan. In December 2006, the SDF Law was amended and the SDF's 
overseas activities were upgraded to primary duties, paving the way 
for integration of the U.S. military and the SDF in various parts of 
the world. 
 
(The Nagoya court's) decision that found the ASDF's logistical 
support to U.S. forces in combat zones to be unconstitutional is 
likely to press the government for a review of the SDF's overseas 
activities. Although joining UN peacekeeping operations in 
compliance with UN requests may cause only a few problems, Japan is 
required to use extra caution in providing effective support to the 
U.S. military, such as the Iraq mission, which Japan has notionally 
carried out independently. 
 
(2) Editorial: Discussion of right to collective defense now 
necessary 
 
NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full) 
April 18, 2008 
 
The Nagoya High Court said in its ruling that some Air-Self Defense 
Force's (ASDF) airlifting activities conducted in Iraq violated the 
Constitution. 
 
 
TOKYO 00001072  003 OF 009 
 
 
The above account was given when the court explained the reasons for 
its verdict on an appeal filed by some 1,100 plaintiffs across the 
country demanding an injunction against the Self-Defense Forces' 
(SDF) dispatch to Iraq. The plaintiffs claimed that the SDF's 
activities in Iraq violated Article 9 of the Constitution. The 
judgment rejected all claims filed by the plaintiffs, and it does 
not legally restrict the SDF's activities now going on in Iraq. 
 
The court's ruling this time is noteworthy in terms of pointing to 
ambiguity in the definitions of a combat zone and a noncombat zone, 
as well as on the government's far-fetched interpretation of the 
Constitution over the question of the right to collective 
self-defense. 
 
The court said that the SDF's airlifting of armed soldiers in the 
multinational force to Baghdad is unconstitutional. 
 
So far the government has noted that the region where the ASDF 
operates in Baghdad is a noncombat zone, but the ruling, judging 
from reports on the current situation in Iraq, recognized "Baghdad 
as a combat zone as defined under the Iraq Special Measures Law." It 
concluded that transport of armed soldiers to a combat zone comes 
under "cooperation that could be identified as being involved in the 
use of force by other countries," an act that is not allowed 
constitutionally. 
 
Our position has been that the SDF should broadly take part in 
logistic support for United Nations peacekeeping operations (PKOs) 
or peace-building activities by a multinational force, but that the 
SDF should not participate in combat operations. 
 
That is why we have insisted on the need for the government to shift 
its previous interpretation of the Constitution over the right to 
collective self-defense. 
 
The reason the government had to leave the definitions of a "combat 
zone" and a "noncombat zone" ambiguous was because it had to allow 
the SDF to be engaged in their missions in Iraq without violating 
the government's interpretation of the Constitution. Former Prime 
Minister Shinzo Abe, who was aware of the need to make this point 
clear, established a panel of advisors to do so. The panel is headed 
by former Ambassador to the United States Shunji Yanai. 
 
The panel has never met, however, since Yasuo Fukuda took office as 
prime minister. Fukuda appears to have in effect suspended debate on 
the matter. Meanwhile, Fukuda has instructed his staff to draft 
permanent legislation intended to allow the government to dispatch 
the SDF abroad as needed, and make preparations in the ruling bloc 
so that the bill will be submitted to the current session of the 
Diet. 
 
If permanent legislation of this kind is established without 
touching on the government's previous interpretation of the 
Constitution regarding the right to collective self-defense, the 
confusion will continue. The Nagoya High Court's verdict may be a 
criticism of the Fukuda administration's incoherent stance. 
 
(3) Editorial: Court rejects peace cooperation? 
 
SANKEI (Page 2) (Full) 
April 18, 2008 
 
 
TOKYO 00001072  004 OF 009 
 
 
A high court ruled yesterday that the Air Self-Defense Force's 
mission in Iraq is unconstitutional. The court ruling, however, is 
extremely questionable, since it denigrates the ASDF's activities in 
Iraq for peace building and reconstruction assistance. 
 
The Nagoya High Court has rejected the plaintiffs' demand to suspend 
the SDF deployment to Iraq. The high court sided with a district 
court's rejection of claims for an injunction against the SDF 
dispatch and demands for compensation. However, the court ruling 
said the ASDF's airlifting of U.S. troops and other multinational 
forces violated the first paragraph of Constitution Article 9. 
 
The plaintiffs have decided not to appeal the ruling, so the state 
cannot appeal. It is the first court ruling to find the SDF dispatch 
to Iraq unconstitutional, and the decision will be finalized. This 
court judgment of unconstitutionality was shown in an obiter dictum 
that has nothing to do with the text of judgment. 
 
The high court raised a question in an obiter dictum. This deviates 
from constitutional law litigation. 
 
Moreover, the state, which is a defendant, is blocked from making a 
final appeal to the Supreme Court. We must point out that this 
denies Japan's court system of determining constitutionality, for 
which the Supreme Court serves as a court of last instance to judge 
constitutionality under Japan's three-instance judicial system. 
 
The high court judgment of unconstitutionality is also questionable 
in itself. The court ruling said the ASDF's airlifting of 
multinational force troops to Baghdad is an act integral to other 
countries' use of force and can unavoidably be taken as being 
tantamount to its own use of force. 
 
A Kuwait-based ASDF detachment has been tasked with airlifting 
troops and goods, including Ground Self-Defense Force members, to 
Iraq's southern districts on its C-130 transport planes. After the 
GSDF's pullout two years ago, the ASDF extended the scope of its 
airlifting activities to cover Baghdad and other localities in that 
country. The ASDF is currently engaged there in the task of 
airlifting personnel and supplies for the United Nations and 
multinational forces. The government maintains that Baghdad meets 
the Iraq Special Measures Law's requirement of SDF activities to be 
carried out outside a combat zone, and the ASDF has been only 
carrying out backup activities. 
 
We must not forget that the ASDF's Iraq mission is also based on a 
U.N. Security Council resolution on the stationing of multinational 
forces. 
 
Japan thereby shares the international community's determination not 
to let Iraq become a breeding ground for terrorists. 
 
The "threat or use of force," which is prohibited in Constitution 
Article 9, can be interpreted to refer to a war of aggression. The 
court ruling takes the position that Japan's international 
cooperation for peace is unconstitutional. This judgment is hard to 
understand when considering the international surroundings of 
Japan. 
 
The SDF was once ruled unconstitutional in a court judgment 35 years 
ago. This judgment, however, was dismissed in a higher court's 
ruling. The court ruling this time is probably aimed at overruling 
 
TOKYO 00001072  005 OF 009 
 
 
the theory of governing, namely, a high-level political act 
pertaining to the fundamentals of government is beyond the power of 
court judgment. An obiter dictum is not legally binding. 
 
The government says it will continue the ASDF's Iraq mission. We 
take that for granted. 
 
(4) Revisions to SOFA not in sight; Municipalities dissatisfied with 
improved administration 
 
ASAHI (Page 3) (Abridged slightly) 
April 17, 2008 
 
In the wake of a string of incidents committed by U.S. service 
members in Japan, the governments of Japan and the United States 
have drawn up a set of measures to improve the administration of the 
Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Although the two 
governments are already in accord on having the United States 
provide Japan with the number of U.S. military personnel living 
off-base and information on deserters, Tokyo and Washington had 
aimed from the beginning at settling the matter by just improving 
the administration of the SOFA instead of making revisions to it. 
Base-hosting municipalities are dissatisfied with such a stance. 
 
 
Limited effects expected from notification of deserters 
 
Foreign Minister Masahiko Koumura announced on April 11 that Japan 
and the United States would share information on deserters. He 
said: 
"In the event the U.S. declares a service member as a deserter, it 
immediately will ask prefectural police departments for 
(cooperation) in arresting him. This applies to all deserters. At 
the same time, the U.S. will notify the Japanese government." 
 
A taxi driver was killed in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture (on March 
19). A U.S. sailor has been arrested on charges of murder and 
robbery. He was a deserter. Criticism erupted about the fact that 
the U.S. did not notify Japan about him before the incident 
occurred. Taking this seriously, the governments of Japan and the 
United States repeatedly discussed the matter and made the 
announcement speedily just eight days after his arrest. 
 
U.S. Forces Japan Commander Maj. Gen. Edward Rice, who took command 
this past February, shortly before the incident occurred, 
commented: 
 
"An agreement has been reached with the Japanese government. What 
was specifically determined will be announced in the near future. I 
think this is good news for the two countries." 
 
Effects of the measures are likely to be limited, however. According 
to the Foreign Ministry, a U.S. deserter is defined as any missing 
service member: (1) whose clear intent is to abandon the military; 
or (2) who has left his or her post for 30 days or more. In the case 
of (2), there is a possibility that a person might commit a crime 
before being declared as a deserter. 
 
Heads of base-hosting municipalities and others are calling for 
stronger measures. Kanagawa Governor Shigefumi Matsuzawa said: "We 
have repeatedly called for tighter discipline among U.S. service 
members, a review of educational programs and other measures, but 
 
TOKYO 00001072  006 OF 009 
 
 
there has been no end to heinous crimes by U.S. service members." He 
has also called for a revision of the SOFA to establish a 
consultative council involving local governments under the 
Japan-U.S. Joint Committee, a consultative body based on the SOFA. 
 
But neither Japan nor the United States has considered revisions to 
the SOFA. Their view is that improved administration will be 
sufficient. A U.S. service member was arrested in connection with a 
case in Okinawa in which a local girl was allegedly sexually 
assaulted in February. (The accusation was later withdrawn.) This 
has led to the improved SOFA operation of annually notifying via the 
Japanese government the base-hosting municipalities of the number of 
personnel connected with the U.S. military and of service members 
living off-base. The U.S. also decided to hand the suspect of the 
Yokosuka murder case over to the Japanese side as soon as Japan made 
a request. 
 
After the Yokosuka incident, U.S. Ambassador to Japan J. Thomas 
Schieffer told the press: 
 
"If you look at the record of the investigation into this case, you 
will see that the United States and Japan have cooperated fully and 
that the SOFA functioned extremely well. I don't think the SOFA 
needs to be revised at this point." 
 
(Japan-U.S. SOFA) more advantageous to host nation than pacts with 
other countries 
 
USFJ Commander Rice said on April 14: "The accord is advantageous to 
the host nation (Japan) in comparison with similar documents (SOFA) 
with other countries." 
 
Foreign Minister Koumura noted on February 15: "In light of global 
standards from the U.S. side, Japan is somewhat advanced." 
 
True, Japan is the only country to which the United States has 
agreed to hand over suspects before indictment. Still, the steps are 
confined to improved administration of the SOFA, not revisions to 
it. 
 
Following the schoolgirl rape in Okinawa in 1995, the governments of 
Japan and the United States agreed to improve the SOFA's 
administration. The United States decided to give "sympathetic 
consideration" to Japan's requests for pre-indictment handover of 
suspects "in heinous crimes, such as murder and rape." Based on this 
agreement, Japan has made requests in six cases, and the United 
States complied with them in five. The United States did not accede 
to the request in an attempted rape that occurred in Okinawa in 
November 2002. Although the United States did not provide clear 
reasons for refusing the request, there might have been such 
circumstances as that: (1) the U.S. service member, the suspect, 
strongly denied the charges (saying that the conduct was 
consensual), and (2) the U.S. side decided that there was 
insufficient evidence to indict him. 
 
The SOFA concluded in 1960 between Japan and the United States was 
modeled after the SOFA (general agreement) concluded in 1951 between 
the United States and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 
members. In Germany, investigations into crimes committed by U.S. 
service members and trials for U.S. military personnel are governed 
by the Germany-NATO treaty and the Bonn supplementary agreement. But 
in most cases, Germany has abandoned primary jurisdiction. 
 
TOKYO 00001072  007 OF 009 
 
 
 
What about South Korea? Before the U.S.-ROK SOFA was revised in 
2001, South Korean authorities were allowed to take into custody 
U.S. suspects only after their sentences are determined. Today, they 
can have the custody of any U.S. military personnel suspected of any 
of 12 designated crimes, such as murder, kidnapping and arson, at 
the point of indictment. 
 
The United States originally concluded SOFAs soon after the end of 
WWII when the host nations' legal systems were still insufficient 
with the aim of defending the rights of U.S. service members who 
became suspects in those countries. 
 
Surugadai University Professor Emeritus Hiroshi Honma, who is 
well-versed in SOFAs, pointed out: "Japan's system to respect human 
rights is no less inferior to that of the United States. The time 
has come to fundamentally review the SOFA." 
 
In some aspects, the Japan-U.S. SOFA is lagging behind those with 
Germany and South Korea when it comes to what is agreed upon on the 
use of bases. Under the Bonn supplementary agreement revised in 
1993, the armed forces stationed in the country are required to 
conduct environmental assessments on their bases. An agreement was 
also reached in 2003 with Seoul requiring the United States to clean 
up the environment when returning its bases to South Korea. 
 
The council of the governors of 14 prefectures hosting U.S. bases 
presented to the government last year a petition calling for a SOFA 
specifying the application of domestic laws, such as the Air 
Pollution Control Law and the Clean Water Law, to U.S. bases in 
Japan. 
 
In the Japan-U.S. SOFA, there are no agreements on environmental 
matters. Chances are high that once Futenma Air Station and other 
bases are returned to Japan with the advancement of the realignment 
of U.S. forces in Japan, environmental conditions surrounding U.S. 
bases will become a focal point. The governments of Japan and the 
United States must earnestly address tasks that cannot be resolved 
with the U.S.'s "sympathetic consideration" alone. 
 
(5) Okinawa Prefecture asks U.S. Marine Corps to remove dropped 
bombs and suspend drill 
 
OKINAWA TIMES (Page 2) (Full) 
April 17, 2008 
 
A U.S. Marine Corps AV-8 Harrier fighter dropped 500-pound bombs in 
waters outside the designated zone for the Torishima firing range in 
Kumejima Town. In this regard, Akira Uehara, the public relations 
officer of the Okinawa prefectural government, on April 16 made an 
oral request to the U.S. Marine Corps in Japan for the speedy 
removal of dropped bombs and the suspension of the AV8 Harrier 
fighters' drill until there has been an investigation to determine 
the cause. 
 
Speaking of the incident of a taxi driver being robbed and injured 
in Okinawa City, Uehara asked Kadena Air Base to take disciplinary 
steps and preventive measures. On the U.S. side, public affairs 
officers handled Uehara's claims. The Okinawa government intends to 
seek a reply from the U.S. side. 
 
Pointing out the delay in the U.S. military's report of the dropped 
 
TOKYO 00001072  008 OF 009 
 
 
bombs, as well as mistakes in the initial report, Uehara called on 
the U.S. side to clarify reasons for the confusion. He told the 
Marine Corps public affairs officer: "It goes without saying that 
sufficient consideration was not given to public safety, as well as 
to the anxiety of prefectural residents." 
 
Uehara also demanded that the U.S. take all possible measures to 
 
SIPDIS 
prevent a recurrence of similar incidents by creating a 
communication system and toughing safety control. 
 
Uehara told the Kadena Air Base public affairs officer: 
 
SIPDIS 
 
"It is a serious issue that a military police officer in charge of 
discipline of military personnel and maintenance of order was 
involved in the robbery while the Japanese and U.S. governments are 
studying preventive measures." 
 
Uehara made similar oral requests to the U.S. Consulate General in 
 
SIPDIS 
Okinawa, the Foreign Ministry's Okinawa Office, and Okinawa Defense 
Bureau. 
 
(6) Editorial: President Bush can't read global trend on fight 
against global warming 
 
ASAHI (Page 3) (Full) 
April 18, 2008 
 
The contents of the measures announced by U.S. President Bush were 
hard to believe. We wonder what he is thinking. 
 
President Bush said: "The U.S. will by 2025 halt the growth of 
emissions" of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases that 
cause global warming. This can be taken, however, as a declaration 
that it will be unavoidable for the U.S. to continue to increase 
emissions for the next 17 years. 
 
Since the U.S. withdrew its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, which 
mandates industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions, it has yet to set any target for emission cuts. Maybe the 
U.S. wants to say that revising such a stance is significant. 
 
Nonetheless, the international community has already presented 
targets for stopping the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. 
 
In the session of the Conference of the Parties to the United 
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held late last year, 
discussion was conducted on plans to "turn the growth of 
global-scale gas emissions to the minus column within 10 to 15 
years," and to "reduce gas emissions by the industrialized countries 
by 25 to 40 PERCENT  from 1990 levels by 2020." These figures are 
based on an estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change (IPCC). Although they did not become official targets, they 
are now important standards to be used in working out measures to 
curb global warming. 
 
What startles us is that the president is ignorant of such a 
direction of discussions. 
 
The U.S. is foremost among the industrialized countries. That is not 
all. The U.S. is the world's largest CO2 emitter (according to 
statistics in 2005). It is unbelievable that such a country has no 
intention to meet the target for the industrialized countries and 
 
TOKYO 00001072  009 OF 009 
 
 
might continue to discharge an increase amount of greenhouse gases 
for 15 years from now, until when the international community has 
decided to have the growth of its emissions fall in negative 
territory. 
 
Don't forget that these targets are based on what was discussed in 
the G-8 Summit last year. In the Summit, the leaders agreed to look 
into the goal of "halving the world's greenhouse gas emissions by 
2050" in a serious manner. The standards are a milestone on the road 
to achieving the goal. 
 
The U.S. government played a role in bringing about the agreement. 
It also revised its stance to join talks under the United Nations on 
forming a new framework following the 2012 expiration of the Kyoto 
Protocol. There are now strong doubts about whether the government 
was really serious about tackling this challenge. 
 
A matter of serious concern in discussion on a post-Kyoto scheme is 
whether China and India, major emitters, will join the new 
framework, although the two countries are not obligated to cut 
emissions as they are considered developing countries under the 
Kyoto Protocol. It is undesirable that the U.S. indicated this 
negative stance at such a time, because it will become difficult to 
call on China and India to share in the burden. 
 
There are high hopes that the U.S. will change after the end of the 
Bush administration early next year. The three presidential 
candidates certainly appear to be more eager to fight global warming 
than the incumbent. 
 
Even so, we cannot afford to waste time. How about inviting the U.S. 
presidential candidates to the Lake Toya Summit, in which the issue 
of global warming will take center stage? 
 
(7) UNICEF Japan calls for revision of child pornography law 
 
MAINICHI (Page 3) (Full) 
April 18, 2008 
 
The Japan Committee for UNICEF presented to six ruling and 
opposition parties a petition with some 21,000 signatures calling 
for amendments to the Law Punishing Acts Related to Child 
Prostitution and Child Pornography. The petition calls for 
criminalizing "simple possession" of pornographic images and 
pictures of children under the age of 18, as well as animated 
cartoons of sexual abuse. The ruling parties plan to criminalize 
simple possession of images and pictures, excluding cases in which 
such pornographic material was sent unsolicited, and forgo 
criminalizing possession of cartoons. 
 
SCHIEFFER