VZCZCXRO3945
PP RUEHFK RUEHKSO RUEHNAG RUEHNH
DE RUEHKO #1289/01 1600715
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 090715Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3577
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 6802
RUEHFK/AMCONSUL FUKUOKA 4469
RUEHOK/AMCONSUL OSAKA KOBE 8271
RUEHNAG/AMCONSUL NAGOYA 2055
RUEHKSO/AMCONSUL SAPPORO 4998
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 9742
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL 5766
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 5489

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 13 TOKYO 001289 
 
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 06/09/09 
 
INDEX: 
 
(1) Editorial: It is only natural for U.S. to re-designate North 
Korea as terrorist sponsor (Nikkei) 
 
(2) Editorial: U.S. government should relist North Korea as 
terrorism-sponsoring country without hesitation (Sankei) 
 
(3) U.S. Consul General Maher dismisses Marine commandant's remarks 
on Futenma relocation, stresses "no renegotiation" (Ryukyu Shimpo) 
 
(4) True intent of senior U.S. military officer's testimony on 
"revising" USFJ realignment plans unclear (Ryukyu Shimpo) 
 
(5) Futenma Replacement Facility: Conclusion comes first for Futenma 
relocation to be completed in 2014; Gov't unveils more projects 
after showing blueprint, pushes ahead with environmental assessment 
(Mainichi) 
 
(6) LDP's Gen Nakatani, DPJ's Seiji Maehara on enemy base strike 
capability (Tokyo Shimbun) 
 
(7) Editorial: HNS must not be expanded by putting utmost priority 
on the military alliance with the United States (Akahata) 
 
(8) Draft "big-boned policies, 2009": Fiscal restructuring delayed 
to 2020; ratio of debt balance to GDP to be reduced (Nikkei) 
 
(9) Bill amending Child Pornography Prevention Law (Part 1) - 
Interview with LDP Lower House member Yasuhiro Hanashi: Banning 
simple possession necessary (Yomiuri) 
 
(10) Editorial: We should listen to international criticism over lax 
measures against child porn (Mainichi) 
 
ARTICLES: 
 
(1) Editorial: It is only natural for U.S. to re-designate North 
Korea as terrorist sponsor 
 
NIKKEI (Page 2) (Full) 
June 9, 2009 
 
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton announced that the U.S. had started 
looking into re-designating North Korea as a terrorist sponsor. That 
nation's provocative acts threatening the security of the 
international community and the region, including the second nuclear 
test, cannot be overlooked. It is only natural that the Obama 
administration had shifted its stance from holding dialogue to 
applying pressure. 
 
The former Bush administration in October last year removed the 
North from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. As reasons for 
that, it said that since the nation had moved ahead with efforts to 
disable its nuclear facilities in accordance with the agreement 
reached at the Six-Party Talks and had agreed to dismantle its 
nuclear weapons programs in a verifiable way, it would prompt the 
development of the nuclear issue to remove it from the list of state 
sponsors of terrorism. 
 
What is the reality then? North Korea declared that it will not be 
bound by the Six-Party Talks agreement. It appears that it is 
 
TOKYO 00001289  002 OF 013 
 
 
restoring disabled nuclear facilities and has resumed the 
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel rods. It has repeatedly 
test-fired missiles. It went ahead with the second nuclear test. The 
removal of that nation from the list of state sponsors of terrorism 
has thus produced no effects at all. On the contrary, it has 
encouraged it to commit rash acts. 
 
The prevailing view in Japan was against the U.S. removing that 
nation, which abducted Japanese nationals, from the list of state 
sponsors of terrorism. The blunder of the former Bush 
administration, which rushed to produce a diplomatic result, should 
be rectified. North Korea's nuclear ambition could pose a major 
obstacle to the diplomatic policy of the Obama administration, which 
is aiming at a world free of nuclear arms. Re-designating the North 
as a terrorist state to ban economic assistance to it would blow a 
major blow to it. We want to see the U.S. re-designate it as a 
terrorist nation. 
 
Coordination of views on the draft resolution condemning the North 
is under way at the UN Security Council. Member nations are in 
agreement on the policy of the international community taking a 
harsh stance toward the North. However, China is reluctant to impose 
harsh sanctions. 
 
Even if the resolution is adopted, to what extent, China, a major 
supplier of foods and energy to the North, will implement it is 
unclear. Pressure on North Korea would remain limited, if the 
resolution lacks efficacy. 
 
In order to rein in North Korea, the U.S. should strengthen its own 
sanctions in concert with Japan and South Korea. Financial sanctions 
are effective. 
 
The U.S. government in 2005 placed a freeze on funds in North 
Korea-related accounts at Banco Delta Asia in Macau, designating it 
as a bank suspected of being used for money laundering by the North. 
As a result, North Korea had difficulty procuring funds in dollar. 
Its administration also suffered a major setback. However, the 
financial sanctions were lifted in 2007 in order to accelerate the 
development of the nuclear issue. The frozen funds were also 
returned to North Korea. 
 
North Korea is suspected of having exported weapons of mass 
destruction as well as to have been engaged in illegal trade of fake 
dollars and drugs. 
 
What is of concern is the fate of two American female journalists 
detained by the North. North Korea's top court sentenced each of 
them to 12 years of reform through labor. That nation probably 
intends to make deals with the U.S. using them as bargaining chips. 
It is only right for it to release them immediately. 
 
(2) Editorial: U.S. government should relist North Korea as 
terrorism-sponsoring country without hesitation 
 
SANKEI (Page 2) (Full) 
June 9, 2009 
 
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has indicated that 
Washington has begun considering placing North Korea, which has 
repeatedly conducted nuclear and missile tests, back on the U.S. 
list of countries sponsoring terrorism. 
 
TOKYO 00001289  003 OF 013 
 
 
 
Designating North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism was the 
United States' powerful bargaining chip along with financial 
sanctions. The United States removed North Korea from its list in 
exchange for the North's empty promise of disabling its nuclear 
facilities. We hope the United States will swiftly relist North 
Korea to meet Japan's strong desire. 
 
Secretary Clinton's remarks came in response to a letter signed by 
eight Republican Senators calling for putting North Korea back on 
the list. The letter stated that North Korea has neither stopped 
sponsoring terrorism nor headed in the direction that former 
President George W. Bush had hoped for. 
 
Appearing on an American television program, Clinton said that she 
took the letter seriously and that North Korea was taken off the 
list for a purpose, but now that purpose is being thwarted by the 
North. She also indicated that the United States is shifting toward 
pressure tactics in its policy of dialogue and pressure. Her 
statement is in the right direction and Japan welcomes it. 
 
Intending to continue with the Six-Party Talks, the Obama 
administration was initially inclined toward dialogue. To their 
disappointment and distress, U.S. Special Representative for North 
Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth told the Association of the Families 
of Victims of Kidnapped by North Korea during the group's visit to 
the United States in April: "We are neither considering financial 
sanctions nor putting North Korea back on our list of countries 
sponsoring terrorism." 
 
This was followed by missile launches, a nuclear test, and other 
provocative acts by North Korea. This can explain why President 
Barack Obama had to declare, "Rules must be binding and violations 
must be punished," and to veer toward greater pressure. During his 
recent visits to Japan, South Korea, and China, Deputy Secretary of 
State James Steinberg also played up the need to take a resolute 
stance. 
 
It is good that the Obama administration has revised its view on 
North Korea. But what is important is to concretely translate it 
into effective action. 
 
It has already been two weeks since the North conducted its second 
nuclear test. Work to formulate a UN Security Council resolution has 
run into difficulties due to China which wants to avoid irritating 
the North. It is possible for the United States to unilaterally 
relist North Korea as a terrorism-sponsoring and to impose financial 
sanctions on that country. But such steps as cargo inspections and a 
weapons embargo would be ineffective unless other member countries, 
including China and Russia, remain aligned with the United States. 
 
The North subsequently demanded an apology of the UN Security 
Council and continued with what appeared to be preparing for 
launching more missiles. The country does not show any signs of 
reflecting on its own conducts. 
 
In order to have the North modify its behavior, the United States 
needs to persuade China and Russia in collaboration with Japan and 
South Korea and to formulate a strong sanctions resolution over 
time. Based on that, we hope to see the United States relist the 
North as a terrorism-sponsoring country, impose financial sanctions 
on that country, and demonstrate strong leadership in the 
 
TOKYO 00001289  004 OF 013 
 
 
international community. 
 
(3) U.S. Consul General Maher dismisses Marine commandant's remarks 
on Futenma relocation, stresses "no renegotiation" 
 
RYUKYU SHIMPO (Page 2) (Full) 
June 9, 2009 
 
U.S. Consul General in Okinawa Kevin Maher gave a speech at a hotel 
in Naha on June 8 where he commented on U.S. Marine Corps commandant 
Gen. James Conway's remarks at the Armed Services Committee of the 
U.S. Senate on June 4 regarding the possibility of reviewing the 
U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) realignment plans. Maher said: "I would 
like to emphasize that there has not been any proposal to the 
Japanese government for renegotiation," stressing that the U.S. 
government's position is that there is no room for revising the 
Futenma relocation plans. 
 
Conway told the Senate committee, "There are ideas for revision 
worth considering." But Maher said: "This is not only my personal 
opinion; the U.S. government reaffirms its commitment to 
implementing the 2006 road map for USFJ realignment as is. Since 
this is a bipartisan policy, the U.S. government's position remains 
unchanged even with a change of administration." He thus negated 
Conway's statement. 
 
Maher explained that the two goals of his Okinawa assignment have 
been to promote USFJ realignment and to instill a realistic thinking 
on security among Okinawa residents. He cited media reports of his 
statements that had given rise to criticism and said: "The 
prefecture needs to think seriously about the U.S.-Japan security 
arrangements. This alliance is indispensable for peace in Okinawa, 
Japan, and the Far East, and I have tried to explain this as clearly 
as possible." He admitted that he has been playing the "bad guy." 
 
Maher gave his speech at the monthly meeting of the Okinawa Keizai 
Doyukai (Association of Corporate Executives) for June. He looked 
back on his almost three years of assignment in Okinawa before 
moving on to become the Japan desk director at the Department of 
State in July. 
 
(4) True intent of senior U.S. military officer's testimony on 
"revising" USFJ realignment plans unclear 
 
RYUKYU SHIMPO (Page 2) (Full) 
June 9, 2009 
 
U.S. Marine Corps commandant Gen James Conway testified at the 
Senate Armed Services Committee that "there are ideas for revision 
worth considering" with regard to the U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) 
realignment plans, including the relocation of Futenma Air Station 
and the transfer of the marines to Guam. 
 
This is the first time that a top U.S. military leader has mentioned 
the revision of the agreement. His remarks are extremely important. 
It would be good if the proposed revisions will lighten the burden 
on Japan, but there are concerns that they will result in an even 
heavier burden. 
 
The Japanese and U.S. governments agreed in 2006 on the following 
USFJ realignment plans as one package: (1) relocation of Futenma to 
the coastal area of Camp Schwab; (2) transfer of some 8,000 marines 
 
TOKYO 00001289  005 OF 013 
 
 
in Okinawa to Guam: and (3) the return of U.S. military facilities 
south of Kadena Air Base. 
 
While the road map provides for the completion of these plans by 
2014, a deadlock continues on the question of Futenma relocation, 
the core issue. 
 
The two governments signed an agreement on the relocation of marines 
to Guam last February, which clearly stipulates the promotion of the 
realignment process and sets Japan's share of the relocation cost at 
2.8 billion dollars. 
 
While Conway has stated that the revisions will be studied under the 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) to be issued by next February, he 
had also testified at the House Appropriations Committee in May that 
"the current estimate of 4 billion dollars as the U.S.' share in the 
cost for Guam relocation will be insufficient." 
 
His latest testimony is a sequel to the May statement. The mention 
of "revisions" appears to be a pressure tactic to increase the 
Japanese side's share in the cost. 
 
With regard to Futenma relocation, Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) 
Secretary General Katsuya Okada has pointed out in an interview with 
the magazine Sekai: "We need to ask the U.S. to give some more 
thought and discuss this thoroughly," and, "Relocation outside 
Okinawa has been eliminated as an option from the beginning." There 
is also an opinion that Japan should indicate its intention to 
consider various candidate relocation sites, including those located 
outside Japan or Okinawa, and review the Henoko relocation plan from 
scratch. 
 
Under its plans to reduce military spending, the U.S. has begun to 
review its military bases at home and abroad. It is planning to 
close down its military base in Kirgiz in Central Asia and the 
Vieques naval training range in the U.S. commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, for instance. Yet, there has practically been no progress in 
the consolidation and reduction of U.S. bases in Japan. 
 
Conway's testimony must not be taken lightly as the statement of one 
senior officer. The government should query the U.S. government on 
the substance and true intent of the proposed "revisions" and 
initiate discussions on this promptly. 
 
(5) Futenma Replacement Facility: Conclusion comes first for Futenma 
relocation to be completed in 2014; Gov't unveils more projects 
after showing blueprint, pushes ahead with environmental assessment 
 
MAINICHI (Page 3) (Full) 
June 9, 2009 
 
Teruhisa Mimori 
 
Japan and the United States have concurred on relocating the U.S. 
Marine Corps' Futenma Air Station in Okinawa Prefecture's Ginowan 
City to a coastal area of Camp Schwab in the island prefecture's 
northern coastal city of Nago. On this issue, the Japanese 
government and Okinawa have become bogged down in their negotiations 
over the question of where to place the Futenma replacement's 
runway. However, the government is steadily pushing ahead with its 
assessment of the Futenma replacement's potential impact on its 
environs before relocating Futenma airfield. The Okinawa prefectural 
 
TOKYO 00001289  006 OF 013 
 
 
government's environmental assessment review panel will begin within 
the month to examine the Defense Ministry's preliminary report. 
Meanwhile, both inside and outside Japan, there are moves implying 
the need to reconsider the Futenma relocation itself. There is a 
conclusion to complete the relocation of Futenma airfield in 2014. 
The Mainichi Shimbun verifies the assessment procedures. 
 
In late May, the Okinawa Defense Bureau, an outlet in Okinawa 
Prefecture of the Defense Ministry, held a briefing on its 
preliminary report in a committee room of the Okinawa prefectural 
assembly. "The procedures should be redone in conformity with the 
assessment law's spirit," an Okinawa prefectural assembly member 
from an opposition party said at the meeting. This is because the 
Defense Ministry's replacement facility positioning plan had a 
description of four helipads that were not in its procedural report. 
"The government should remake the procedural report and conduct 
another survey based on that," the assembly member asserted. A 
senior official from the Okinawa Defense Bureau rejected this 
suggestion, saying, "There is no need to redo the procedures for 
this sort of revision." 
 
The government unveiled the helipad construction plan after having 
submitted its procedural report to the Okinawa prefectural 
government. Furthermore, the government later came up with its plans 
to set up additional facilities such as 1.3-kilometer aircraft 
approach lighting off the coast and aircraft washers. Such plans 
were shown four months after the procedural report was submitted to 
the prefectural government when the government held a meeting with 
officials from Okinawa's prefectural and municipal government 
officials to consult on Futenma relocation. 
 
The Environmental Impact Assessment Law allows base-hosting local 
residents to make suggestions on the government's procedural and 
preliminary reports. However, the government came up with additional 
plans after submitting its procedural report. As it stands, the 
government cannot be said to have provided enough information. This 
fails to meet the law's purport that is for consensus building with 
the participation of residents. Nevertheless, the Defense Ministry 
has refused to redo the procedures, because there is an 
intergovernmental agreement between Japan and the United States to 
complete the relocation of Futenma airfield in 2014. Kunitoshi 
Sakurai, a professor of environmentology at Okinawa University, hit 
the Defense Ministry hard, saying: "If the government is allowed to 
come up with anything later, environmental assessment makes no sense 
in itself. If the government does not redo the procedures, it is not 
an environmental assessment." 
 
There is another question of how to procure landfill soil for the 
Futenma replacement facility's construction site. In January 2008, 
the Okinawa Defense Bureau provided the Okinawa prefectural 
government's environmental impact assessment review panel with an 
additional explanation of its procedural report. In this 
explanation, the bureau estimates the necessary landfill soil at 
about 21 million cubic meters, showing a plan to gather 17 million 
cubic meters mainly from near Okinawa's main island. This is 14 
times larger than the annual amount of soil gathered from near 
Okinawa's main island. The review panel noted that this would have a 
serious impact on the environment. The bureau, in its preliminary 
report, added that the government would conduct specific studies, 
including the feasibility of soil procurement from outside Okinawa 
Prefecture, and that the government would make a careful decision. 
However, the review panel pointed to the potential impact on 
 
TOKYO 00001289  007 OF 013 
 
 
fisheries. In addition, Japan's mainland prefectures facing the 
Inland Sea have placed a total ban on soil gathering. As a result, 
it will not be easy to gather soil from outside Okinawa Prefecture. 
 
Ichiro Yuasa, 59, an advisor to the Inland Sea Conference 
specializing physical oceanography, pointed out a possible impact on 
ecosystems, saying: "In the Inland Sea, sand eels have lost their 
egg-laying grounds because sea sand has been gathered, and as a 
result, there are now fewer sea breams and Japanese Spanish 
mackerels." 
 
Focus on how to compromise 
 
There were 5,317 public comments on the government's preliminary 
report of its environmental assessment. The Okinawa Defense Bureau 
will present an outline of the public comments and its own view to 
Okinawa Prefecture Governor Hirokazu Nakaima possibly this fall. 
 
The review panel is expected to set forth severe views regarding the 
bureau's preliminary report. Gov. Nakaima adheres firmly to the plan 
of moving the newly planned replacement facility's runway to an 
offshore area. However, he has also said its location could be 
slightly moved. He is fairly positive about relocating Futenma 
airfield to a coastal area of Camp Schwab. 
 
The focus is how the governor will settle the pending issue of 
relocating Futenma airfield with the government and how he will 
explain it to the local population. 
 
(6) LDP's Gen Nakatani, DPJ's Seiji Maehara on enemy base strike 
capability 
 
TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 2) (Full) 
June 9, 2009 
 
In light of North Korea's nuclear test and launching of a long-range 
ballistic missile, there have been growing calls, especially in the 
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), for Japan to possess the capability 
to attack enemy bases with cruise missiles and other weapons. We 
asked one Diet member each from the LDP and the Democratic Party of 
Japan (DPJ) (who are defense specialists) whether such a capability 
is necessary, and whether this does not contradict Japan's 
exclusive-defense (senshu-boei) policy, and related issues. 
 
Gen Nakatani, chairman of the LDP Research Commission on Security: 
Real threats need to be dealt with 
 
-- Why is it necessary to possess the capability to attack enemy 
bases? 
 
Nakatani: The intent of North Korea has become clear with its 
possession of nuclear weapons and firing of long-range ballistic 
missiles. It is now inevitable that Japan should consider how to 
deal with this real threat. 
 
-- Isn't missile defense (MD) enough? 
 
Nakatani: MD has three stages: launch, flight, and fall. Japan is 
able to deal with flight and fall, but is unable to deal with 
consecutive launches. The capability to deter the launching of 
missiles is necessary. 
 
 
TOKYO 00001289  008 OF 013 
 
 
-- Is this constitutional? 
 
Nakatani: (With regard to enemy base attack capability,) Prime 
Minister Ichiro Hatoyama once stated in the Diet that, "To do 
nothing and wait for our own destruction is not the spirit of the 
constitution." Our options will be limited after North Korea fires a 
missile. In a case where a missile is certain to be launched, 
possessing the capability to strike the missile base is within the 
scope of self-defense. 
 
-- There has already been a government opinion half a century ago 
that the possession of such a capability is possible but not much 
discussion has ever taken place. 
 
Nakatani: This is because there has been no need to do so. I also 
believe that we should give importance to dialogue and seek a 
diplomatic solution. However, despite the goodwill of the 
international community, North Korea has gone ahead with developing 
a nuclear arsenal. An appropriate system is necessary to deal with 
this. 
 
-- Don't you think discussions like this will provoke North Korea 
instead? 
 
Nakatani: If North Korea did not possess nuclear arms, this 
discussion would not have taken place. 
 
-- How will the debate proceed from now on? 
 
Nakatani: The party has drafted a recommendation for the new 
National Defense Program Guidelines to be adopted in late 2009. We 
hope the people will also think about the defense of Japan in the 
future. The government should also listen carefully to the opinion 
of the people and other countries. 
 
(Interviewer: Shunsuke Shimizu) 
 
Seiji Maehara, DPJ vice president: Confirm the U.S.' expanded 
deterrence first 
 
-- There is a lively debate in the LDP on the possession of the 
capability to strike enemy bases. 
 
Maehara: First, I think this came too late. Prime Minister Ichiro 
Hatoyama once told the Diet in 1965: "When a third country is 
certain to fire ballistic missiles at Japan, it is not the spirit of 
the constitution that we just do nothing and wait for our own 
destruction. Attacking the bases from which the ballistic missiles 
are going to be fired is within the scope of the constitution." The 
basic assumption is that this is a debate allowed under the 
constitution. 
 
-- Do you think the debate itself is necessary? 
 
Maehara: We should talk about this and possess (the enemy base 
strike capability). Actually, this is not an issue to be dealt with 
in haste in the aftermath of the North Korean missile problem. 
 
-- How should we deal with a situation where the firing of missiles 
is imminent? 
 
Maehara: Even if Japan is to possess this capability in the near 
 
TOKYO 00001289  009 OF 013 
 
 
future, it does not have too many options. It does not have the 
equipment. This is not something that can be dealt with hastily. In 
dealing with North Korea, rather than talking about Japan possessing 
its own enemy base attack capability, it is more effective to 
confirm the United States' "expanded deterrence" - that if Japan is 
attacked by nuclear arms, the U.S. will invoke the right of 
collective self-defense and retaliate (against the DPRK). 
 
-- Are you saying that right now, it is more realistic to rely on 
the U.S.' expanded deterrence rather than Japan possessing enemy 
base strike capability? 
 
Maehara: Since Japan has relied heavily on the U.S., the U.S. is 
also the one that serves as the "spear" in the "spear and shield" 
combination. (In the future) Japan cannot rely entirely on the U.S., 
but U.S. cooperation is necessary in Japan's process of becoming 
self-reliant. 
 
-- What sort of discussions are taking place in the DPJ? 
 
Maehara: None at all. While there is discussion on remedial steps to 
be taken after something has happened, there has been no strategic 
vision or systematic discussion. 
 
(Interviewer: Takushi Soka) 
 
(7) Editorial: HNS must not be expanded by putting utmost priority 
on the military alliance with the United States 
 
AKAHATA (Page 2) (Full) 
June 8, 2009 
 
The new approach of financing the cost of building and relocating 
U.S. military facilities, which is supposed to be covered by Japan's 
host-nation support (HNS), with public works spending has become a 
topic of conversation. 
 
To begin with, what is necessary for the U.S. military's activities 
should be borne by the U.S. forces under the Status of U.S. Forces 
Agreement, and there is no logic for Japan to bear such a cost. The 
public in becoming increasingly angry with the enormous 200 
billion-yen-a-year HNS, while their living expenditures are being 
reduced. Maintaining the HNS by using the country's public works 
spending from a position of putting top priority to the U.S.-Japan 
military alliance runs counter to the public's wishes. 
 
To meet U.S. military demands 
 
HNS covers almost all matters related to U.S. military activities, 
such as U.S. military housing, including churches, fighter shelters, 
and training expense. (The HNS) is part of the country's defense 
spending under the jurisdiction of the Defense Ministry. A move has 
come to light recently to use the public works spending of the 
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) and 
the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) 
 
In Sasebo, Nagasaki Prefecture, 11 housing units - costing 250 
million yen per unit including the land development cost - have been 
built for U.S. military officers by using the MLIT's road-related 
tax revenues. The program was carried out in the pretext of 
compensating for relocating the U.S. military housing, which had 
been originally planned for by the U.S. military in 1990, due to a 
 
TOKYO 00001289  010 OF 013 
 
 
road construction project. It is the first case in which a ministry 
other than the Defense Ministry has born the HNS. 
 
In Ie Jima, Okinawa, a plan is under way to relocate old U.S. 
barracks as part of MAFF's national irrigation and drainage project 
for securing agricultural water. As the funding source, the MAFF 
budget is being considered instead of the HNS under the Defense 
Ministry. Because part of it overlaps with the U.S. base is an 
excuse; it's real aim is to have MAFF bear part of the HNS. 
 
Looming over the background is the necessity to reduce the HNS, 
although it has been kept at about 200 billion yen due to strong 
public reaction. HNS, including the Special Action Committee on 
Okinawa (SACO) expenses, for fiscal 2005 stood at 235.8 billion yen 
and for fiscal 2009 at 203.9 billion yen. Reacting strong to this 
slight reduction, the U.S. military has applied pressure for greater 
military spending. It is an unjust interference in Japan's domestic 
political affairs. 
 
The government is trying to make ministries other than the Defense 
Ministry bear HNS with the aim of deflecting such pressure. The 
government is trying to secure a level that can satisfy U.S. forces. 
It reflects the government's servile attitude of putting utmost 
priority on the military alliance (with the United States). 
 
Abolition of HNS a way to eliminate U.S. bases 
 
U.S. forces are stationed in Japan in line with the U.S.' military 
strategy and are not for defending Japan. The safety of Japanese 
people is threatened by them, including crimes committed by U.S. 
service members. There is no logic in the HNS. 
 
In 1995, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Joseph Nye said: 
"Japan bears 70 percent of the cost of U.S. armed forces in Japan, 
so stationing them in Japan is cheaper than keeping them in the 
United States." Johns Hopkins University Professor Ken Calder, who 
served as special advisor to the U.S. ambassador to Japan, also said 
in 2008, "If the HNS is eliminated, Japan would become less 
attractive as a country to host U.S. bases." 
 
HNS does more harm than good to the Japanese people. In order to 
build a peaceful Japan with no bases, HNS must be abolished. 
 
(8) Draft "big-boned policies, 2009": Fiscal restructuring delayed 
to 2020; ratio of debt balance to GDP to be reduced 
 
NIKKEI (Top play) (Abridged) 
June 9, 2009 
 
The contents of the draft "big-boned policies, 2009," which spells 
out the government's basic policy for economic and fiscal management 
have been disclosed. With regard to the key issue of target date for 
restoring fiscal health, a basic goal of "steadily lowering" the 
ratio of national and local government debts to GDP by the early 
2020s has been set. It also proposes to reduce the ratio of deficits 
in the primary fiscal balance to GDP "by half" before 2014. The 
previous target of achieving a surplus in the primary balance by 
FY11 has been postponed to "within 10 years." 
 
The government will submit the draft to the Council on Economic and 
Fiscal Policy (CEFP) chaired by Prime Minister Taro Aso on June 9, 
and the council will adopt this formally on June 23 after 
 
TOKYO 00001289  011 OF 013 
 
 
coordination with the ruling parties. This will be the first set of 
"big-boned policies" for the Aso administration and will be, in 
effect, its manifesto (set of campaign pledges) for the next House 
of Representatives election to be held by this fall. 
 
The main point of the draft is a review of the target date for 
fiscal restructuring. The reduction of the ratio of national and 
local debts to GDP is set as a central goal. Right now, the national 
debt is 170 PERCENT  of GDP, the highest among the industrialized 
countries. The draft calls for "stabilizing" this ratio by the 
mid-2010s and "reducing it steadily" by the early 2020s. It clearly 
sets a policy of controlling the unbridled ballooning of the fiscal 
deficit and reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio from 2020 onward. 
 
With regard to revenue reform, the draft stresses the steady 
formulation of concrete plans under the government's "mid-term 
program" for the implementation of drastic tax reforms, including a 
consumption tax hike, by the mid-2010s. It also calls for studying 
the introduction of "tax deductions with benefit payments" combining 
income tax cuts and social welfare benefits as part of steps to 
remedy the sagging birth rate and support low income earners. 
 
In terms of economic growth strategy, the government will promote a 
"low carbon society" through the utilization of environmental 
technology and support "health and longevity" through better medical 
and nursing care services. 
 
Regarding spending cuts, passages on "upholding the big-boned 
policies of 2006" and "maximum reductions" had been deleted at an 
early stage when the rough draft was being written, even before 
entering into coordination with the ruling parties. 
 
(9) Bill amending Child Pornography Prevention Law (Part 1) - 
Interview with LDP Lower House member Yasuhiro Hanashi: Banning 
simple possession necessary 
 
YOMIURI (Page 13) (Full) 
June 9, 2009 
 
-- Please explain about child prostitution and child pornography. 
 
First, attention was focused on child prostitution. In the early 
1980's, tours of Southeast Asian countries to buy prostitutes by 
Japanese men were planned and implemented. Such tours were sharply 
criticized as treating children as goods. Around that time, a little 
girl was abducted for the purpose of producing a porno image and was 
killed in Belgium. In reaction, about 300,000 Belgians staged a 
protest march. 
 
An increasing number of people mainly in the U.S. and European 
countries began to call for the need to protect children from sexual 
abuse. Many countries enacted laws to ban pederosis and child 
pornography. But Japan was slow to move so it was only 10 years ago 
when the law was enacted. 
 
-- Why did the government decide to amend the law now? 
 
Japan's regulations are far more lenient than those of other 
countries. Restricting child pornography is aimed to protect 
children, but the victims will continue to suffer trauma as long as 
their photographs exist. Because the nation's laws do not prohibit 
the possession of child porn, it is impossible to stop the 
 
TOKYO 00001289  012 OF 013 
 
 
distribution of such materials. 
 
To protect not only victims but all children, it is necessary to 
spread the view that treating children as materials for pederosis is 
an abuse. To that end, many countries have begun to set rules to 
make anime (animated cartoons) and games subjected to regulations. 
The ruling coalition recommends in its draft amendment to the law 
that the government should launch research and study to work out 
regulations for such materials. 
 
-- The ruling parties' draft amendment includes a measure to ban the 
possession of child porn. 
 
Although Japan first introduced required minimum regulations, child 
pornographic materials disappeared from the shelves of adult shops 
the under the effect of the law. Later, online child pornography 
became a major problem, but when the law was revised five years ago, 
a rule to prohibit online child porn and a stricter punishment was 
introduced. 
 
Reflecting the global trend of criminalizing even the simple 
possession of child pornography, Japan also should ban the simple 
possession of child porn. It is a serious problem to see children as 
sex objects. Even if a ban is placed on the sale and distribution of 
child porn, there must be loopholes in proliferating child porn on 
the Internet. As long as simple possession is allowed, such 
materials will continue to flow out of Japan forever. 
 
-- Some persons voice concern that if the nation prohibits the 
individual possession of child porn, that measure might be abused in 
investigation. 
 
I feel the administration of justice has not been fully trusted. 
Once it becomes clear what the law intends to protect, such a 
situation will never take place. 
 
-- The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) changed the name and 
definition of "child pornography" in its proposal. 
 
If the scope of subjects covered by the law is narrowed as a result 
of the definition changed, it will become impossible to punish what 
can be punished under the current regulations. Under the DPJ 
proposal, the images of naked children with their sex organs covered 
would not be designated as child porn. Under such a situation, I 
wonder if children can be fully protected. The DPJ draft reflects 
little awareness of the need to counter the social trend of 
regarding children as materials. 
 
Child pornography is an international common language. The DPJ's 
proposal for using the expression, "materials portraying sex acts 
with children," is tantamount to a declaration that Japan will move 
away from the international fight. 
 
-- The law should have been amended much earlier. 
 
Some people are opposing banning the simple possession of porn as an 
abuse of state authority. To prevent such a possibility, it is 
necessary to conduct discussion before the people. The DPJ has 
finally submitted its counterproposal, so we would like to openly 
discuss the two parties' drafts in the Diet. 
 
(10) Editorial: We should listen to international criticism over lax 
 
TOKYO 00001289  013 OF 013 
 
 
measures against child porn 
 
MAINICHI (Page 5) (Full) 
June 9, 2009 
 
A computer game sold in Japan -- in which players through computer 
graphics (CGs) rape girls and their mothers, make them pregnant and 
then force them to get abortions -- has been criticized overseas. A 
New York-based international human rights organization Equality Now 
asked its members in 160 countries to send letters of protest not 
only to the Japanese game maker that made the computer game, and 
companies that sold the game, but also to Prime Minister Taro Aso 
and his cabinet members. This kind of computer game is called 
"disgraceful computer software." In Japan, the computer game 
industry profits from games featuring sexual abuse and the child 
pornography market has swelled. This situation in Japan has come 
under fire. 
 
Following this, the Ethics Organization of Computer Software (EOCS), 
headed by Akihiko Suzuki, comprising about 230 makers, has decided 
to prohibit making "disgraceful games" depicting sexual abuse, as 
well as to establish and improve the criteria of such computer 
software. There are active moves abroad to regulate child porn. It 
has been pointed that Japan lags behind other industrialized 
countries in measures to control child pornography. The Third World 
Congress against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents, 
which took place last November, came up with an action plan to ban 
not only obtaining pictures but also browsing extreme animated 
images. Many industrialized countries have imposed certain legal 
restrictions on animated images and computer graphics. Even the 
Philippines, which was criticized as "a provider of child 
pornography," has deliberated on a bill prohibiting the possession 
and browsing of animated images. 
 
In Japan, however, the ruling parties last June submitted to the 
Diet a bill amending the Law for Punishing Acts Related to Child 
Prostitution and Child Pornography, designed to punish the 
possession of images. In March this year, the Democratic Party of 
Japan (DPJ) presented a bill to limit punishable subjects to the 
acts of purchasing and repeatedly using them. However, no 
deliberations on the two bills have carried out. Both the ruling and 
opposition camps does not mention that animated images and CGs 
should be included in the subjects to control. 
 
There is a possibility that if a person receives a child porn image 
sent with malicious intent, and the person is punished for 
possessing it, such will lead to abuse of police authority. Once 
animated images that do not harm children are restricted, freedom of 
expression might be endangered. Discussion on the issue should be 
deepened. 
 
Once an image is posted on the web, the image will be disseminated 
around the world. It is impossible to take it back. The serious 
effects of victimization by sex crime against children have become a 
problem in many countries. The child porn issue cannot be dealt with 
unless the international community cooperates. "Neglecting such 
crime is a shame to humanity," said Brazilian President Lula. 
Although we should pay attention to self-restrictions by industrial 
associations, it is not acceptable for Japan's Diet to neglect this 
issue. 
 
ZUMWALT