AMERICAN EMBASSY, TOKYO



AMERICAN EMBASSY, TOKYO

PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECTION

OFFICE OF TRANSLATION AND MEDIA ANALYSIS

INQUIRIES: 03-3224-5360

INTERNET E-MAIL ADDRESS: tokyoots@

DAILY SUMMARY OF JAPANESE PRESS

September 17, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX:

(1) Concern about criticism of Japan for not being able to take jointly meet the situation with the U.S.; Unilateral aspect of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty brought into foreground

(2) How far should Japan offer assistance as ally to the U.S. [hit by terrorist attacks]

(3) Aftermath of the devastating terrorist attacks on the United States; Unity of U.S. allies a key to the credibility of the superpower

(4) Editorial: Rushing into cooperation with U.S. in its retaliatory action is not wise

(5) Unavoidable collision between Foreign Minister Tanaka newly appointed Vice Minister Nogami

(6) Terrorism and San Francisco peace treaty: Unilateralist path is dangerous; Japan saved by Murayama statement

(7) 50th anniversary of San Francisco Treaty: U.S. calling for Japan's will

(8) Japan-U.S. security treaty after 50 years—San Francisco Peace Treaty: Interview with former Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, witness to San Francisco Peace Conference; Japan, U.S. share values; Separate peace intended to avoid occupation's continuation

(9) Simultaneous drops in stock markets around the world may affect the policy of capping government bond issuance at 30 trillion yen; New Komeito Secretary General: "Circumstances differ from before the terrorist attacks"

ARTICLES:

(1) Concern about criticism of Japan for not being able to take jointly meet the situation with the U.S.; Unilateral aspect of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty brought into foreground

SANKEI (Page 1) (Full)

Eve., September 13, 2001

[Washington, September 12, Yoshihisa Komori]

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has reached agreement in principle in a meeting of ambassador-level officials to allow it to exercise the right of collective self-defense and respond with armed force to the terrorist attacks on the nerve centers of the United States. NATO's decision, though, exposes the unilateral nature of the Japan-U.S. security arrangements regarding responses to the new brand of international terrorism. U.S. government officials have already expressed their concern about such a one-sided alliance.

Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed his gratitude to the NATO's resolution, stating, "The resolution itself does not mean to invoke Article 5. But if the resolution is adopted, and if the United States makes a decision to take (military action) against the terrorism, the path to invoke Article 5 will open automatically."

NATO has announced that it will act in concert with the U.S. in dealing with international terrorism by collective-defense means. The U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, however, allows Japan to take joint defense action only when Japan is attacked. Japan therefore has no obligation to cooperate with the U.S. even if the U.S. takes retaliatory action that is tantamount to a declaration of war against the terrorists.

A U.S. government-connected source familiar with the treaty stated:

"The U.S. government regards the recent terrorist attacks as act of war. It expects full cooperation from its allied nations in dealing with terrorism this time. Although our European allies are able to act in concert with the U.S. based on the principle of collective defense, Japan cannot offer such cooperation, as it is prohibited from exercising the right of collective self-defense."

The source added:

"I cannot predict what kind of action the Bush Administration will take, since it has yet to make clear its response toward the terrorist attacks. However, depending on its response, I worry that there might be a situation under which Japan will not be able offer sufficient cooperation to the U.S., even though it is an ally."

The source expressed concern that the unilateral aspect of the security arrangements with Japan would then be criticized.

(01091405kn)

(2) How far should Japan offer assistance as ally to the U.S. [hit by terrorist attacks]

SANKEI (Page 2) (Full)

September 14, 2001

|Ministry of Foreign Affairs hurriedly drawing up measures, aiming to serve as |

|coordinator to unify G-8, with experiences in Gulf war as a lesson |

In the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), Administrative Vice Minister Yoshiji Nogami and other senior members yesterday exchanged intelligence [of the terrorist attacks in the U.S.] and discussed what response measures Japan should take. MOFA intends to make all-out efforts to confirm the whereabouts of the Japanese nationals who are still unaccounted for in the wake of the territorial incidents and to work out measures to help their families. But since the eight major industrialized countries (G-8) are expected to shortly start coordination work, with retaliatory measures within their scope, Japan intends to adopt measures based on its stance of teaming up with the other G-8 nations.

A decision has already been made to cancel the United Nations Children's Special Assembly schedule for October 19 – 21 in New York due to the terrorist attacks in the U.S. But the general discussion and speech session of the UN General Assembly starting on the 24th and the G-8 foreign ministerial on the 27th will be held as scheduled.

The Foreign Ministry is hurriedly devising measures to counter terrorism, based on the judgment that the focus of UN diplomacy will be on "measures to prevent a recurrence of terrorism and to retaliate against the terrorists." The ministry will discuss financial and military assistance, if the U.S. decides to take retaliatory measures.

Regarding requests from the U.S, MOFA is ready to step up efforts to gather information and coordinate domestic views. A senior official stated: "There certainly are constitutional restrictions on the nation, but we should not allow other countries again to criticize our assistance as 'too little, too late,' as was the case in the Gulf war."

Prime Minister Koizumi in a telephone conversation on the 12th asked Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi to jointly support the U.S. The Prime Minister apparently wants to play the role of "coordinator" among the G-8 nations.

|Japan Defense Agency – Growing calls for tightened national security giving |

|impetus to legislation for territorial defense |

The Japan Defense Agency (JDA) is maneuvering to give impetus to discussions for the enactment of legislation for emergencies, including laws related to territorial defense aimed to combat terrorist acts by armed agent who had sneaked into the nation. The agency apparently keeps in mind growing calls among lawmakers, mainly ruling party members, for tightening national security in the wake of the simultaneous terrorist attacks on U.S. political and economic nerve centers.

There are three types of legislation that will be applied if Japan is attacked: (1) legislation related to acts by Self-Defense Force (SDF) personnel; (2) legislation related to acts by the U.S. forces in Japan; and (3) legislation linked to protecting the people's lives and assets.

Japan has so far studied only the SDF legislation, but in the wake of the "quite unexpected" (senior Japan Defense Agency officer) terrorist acts, heated debate can be expected on the enactment of emergency legislation.

Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has instructed Liberal Democratic Party Secretary General Taku Yamasaki to study the possibility of revising the SDF Law to enable the SDF to guard U.S. military installations, excluding facilities being jointly used by the U.S. forces and SDF. The SDF's guarding of U.S. military facilities are prohibited under the current legislation. The Prime Minister's instruction stems from the judgment that the police alone will not be able to satisfactorily combat "new types of threat in the post-cold war period," such as terrorist acts by armed spies.

In responding to the Prime Minister's proposal for an amendment to the SDF Law, such questions have been made as, "What about other important facilities?" or "How about the right to use weapons?" In addition, a former National Public Safety Commission suggested: "It is better to enact legislation to counter terrorism and to cover U.S. military bases."

But the JDA expects discussions on the revision of the SDF Law to accelerate debates on the enactment of legislation for territorial defense and emergency legislation. A senior official commented: "Such discussions will be significant in the meaning of deepening security ties between Japan and the U.S."

(01091404ys)

(3) Aftermath of the devastating terrorist attacks on the United States; Unity of U.S. allies a key to the credibility of the superpower

NIHON KEIZAI (Page 1) (Excerpts)

September 14, 2001

United States investigative authorities have identified most of those responsible for the simultaneous terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11. The incident that shook the world has now entered a new stage. President Bush declared on September 13 that he would lead the world to a victory in the war against terrorism. To what extent U.S. allies, such as Japan and European nations, can go along with the superpower's decision to fight the terrorists remains to be seen.

On September 12, White House Press Secretary Fleischer revealed that the highjacked plan that crashed into the Pentagon had originally targeted at the White House.

Those visiting at the White House at around 9:40 a.m., September 11 (10:40 p.m., September 11, Japan time), noticed growing tensions in the building. Soon after, they were all forced to relocate themselves to the shelter in the basement.

"The White House might be the next target," a security officer said in the tense atmosphere.

■ ■

The horrific terrorist attacks on Washington and New York, America's political and economic nerve centers, are believed to have claimed thousands of lives. The United States speedily began taking measures the day after the nation's worst nightmare.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is believed to have captured a number of suspects, Congress has adopted a resolution for "declaring war," and The Washington Post editorialized that the Untied States should fight back. President Bush has made it clear that the United States would punish those responsible and make no distinction between the perpetrators and those who harbor them. In the back of his mind at that moment might have been the memory of his father, Bush senior, taking command during the Gulf War that occurred ten years ago.

The Bush Administration has vigorously been setting the stage for retaliation. President Bush has directly asked by phone such world leaders as President Putin of Russia and President Jiang Zemin of China to jointly counter terrorism. Furthermore, Secretary of State Powell has asked for the cooperation of Pakistan, a country that has strong influencer over Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, which has been providing shelter to Osama bin Laden, an Islamic fundamentalist believed to be pulling strings behind the international terrorists.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) decided on September 12 to invoke Article V on "mutual defense" if there is a request from the United States. Labeling terrorism an "attack on all the free world," Washington is endeavoring to win non-allies' understanding toward the United States' decision to retaliate.

"As far as human and physical aspects are concerned, Japan might be the largest victim of this terrorist attack, of course that is after the United States," a U.S. Government official remarked on September 12.

New York's World Trade Center, which has crumbled away, housed a large number of Japanese firms, such as banks, insurance companies, and securities houses. Many Japanese businessmen still remain missing. The terrorist attack has left Japan with a deep scar as well.

■ ■

Prime Minister Koizumi indicated on the 12th that if the United States decided to take retaliatory action, Japan would support it. Tokyo's reaction to Washington's military action has always remained in the scope of expressing "understanding." So Prime Minister Koizumi's statement sounded especially encouraging to White House officials.

But on the 13th, a senior Foreign Ministry official commented:

"Japan is not allowed to exercise the right to collective self-defense. Japan will continue to voice its 'support' for the United States, but the debate will shift to specifically what Japan can do in the economic area."

Interpretation: Japan cannot assist the United States in the same way as NATO members, such as Britain and Germany.

There is a chance that in order to overcome this critical phase, the United States will ask for the assistance of its allies that will be greater than that during the Gulf War. Upper-house member Takeshi Kondo, who is staying in Washington and is familiar with Japan-U.S. relations, holds this view:

"The attacks on the United States have made it clear that global security cannot be maintained by the United States alone. U.S. allies, including Japan, need to play their due roles."

The global economy is on the verge of a recession triggered by terrorism, an unprecedented situation. The conference of the finance ministers and central bank governors of the Group of Seven (G-7) issued an emergency statement on the 12th vowing close cooperation for the stability of the global economy. How will Japan deal with the "logic of retaliation" at this point when its economy is in the doldrums? Japan will be pressed to face the highest hurdle ever in the post-cold war era.

[Masanori Matsui, Washington bureau chief]

(01091404st)

(4) Editorial: Rushing into cooperation with U.S. in its retaliatory action is not wise

ASAHI (Page 2) (Full)

September 14, 2001

Our hearts ache when we watch the television images showing the scenes of a series of terrorist attacks in the U.S. How many lives have been lost in that incident?

What can Japan do in dealing with this tragedy?

In a press conference, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi noted, "Our country firmly supports the U.S. and is resolved to render assistance and cooperation wherever necessary."

It is only natural for the Prime Minister to make such a statement. We should never ever permit such a despicable act. In order for the U.S. to hunt down the culprits of this evil act and take them to trial, our country should extend to that country as much cooperation as possible, including supplying relevant information.

Search and rescue operations at the scenes of the terrorism attacks are facing extreme difficulty. Although the government plan to send an international emergency assistance team has been put off for the time being, we would still like to render some assistance by collecting detailed information regarding the circumstances of the incident.

The terrorist attacks that targeted America the superpower were on a scale beyond anyone's imagination. For Japan this incident is not a fire on the other side of the river.

The system for preventing hijacks and terrorist acts seems flawed. Perhaps the police, Self-Defense Forces (SDF) and U.S. armed forces in Japan can consider how best to work in concert with each other so that such a situation as intrusions of foreign agents can be handled. In order that this not usher in excessive defense, there should be daily consideration given to such issues.

In so doing our country's basic foreign and security policy lines should not be neglected, overcome by feelings or sentiments due to the shock of these unprecedented terrorist acts. It is necessary for us to take a calm-headed approach.

Prime Minister Koizumi promptly announced his support for retaliatory measures the U.S. will probably take before long. We must say that his announcement was a rash response when the target and method of retaliation by the U.S. have yet to be made clear.

The involvement of Islamic radicals in the incident has been pointed out. Provided that this assumption is confirmed, chances are high that the U.S. will take thorough reprisal measures against the bases of those radicals, acting together with member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The situation now is clearly different from that during the Gulf war, which occurred in the early 1990s. During that conflict, the international community took united action to beat back Iraq, which had invaded Kuwait, and deployed multi-national forces led by the U.S.

Japan's security principles may be abandoned if it takes part in retaliatory operations by the U.S. whatever form such participation takes. It should also be prepared that if it does so, it will turn Islamic society into our enemy.

We wonder whether that is the way that serves the best interests of our country. We fully understand the anger of the U.S., which was struck by the tragedy all of a sudden. However, retaliation by armed forces will only give rise to another retaliation from the other side. The history of the morass of dispute between Israel and Palestine proves that. If the U.S. resorts to hard-line measures, it will have the reverse effect of undermining its leadership and prestige in the international community.

Rushing into cooperation with the U.S. without considering the consequences, urged by a sense of duty that Japan should do something as a U.S. ally is not being asked of Japan. Japan's duty as a friend of the U.S. is to repeatedly point out the futility of retaliation. This is a hard job but has to be done by a friend.

(01091404yk)

(5) Unavoidable collision between Foreign Minister Tanaka newly appointed Vice Minister Nogami

SENTAKU (Full) (Page 48)

September 2001

Only two weeks after the new lineup led by Administrative Vice Minister Yoshiji Nogami (MOFA class of 1966) was announced, an icy relationship has started to build between him and Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka. The discord between the two was not unexpected. As is generally known, Foreign Minister Tanaka wanted to promote then deputy minister (for political affairs) Ryozo Kato (class of 1965) to the administrative vice minister post and retained Ambassador to the United States Shunji Yanai (class of 1961) his post. Advised by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda, who accepted former administrative vice minister Yutaka Kawashima (class of 1964), the Prime Minister's Official Residence decided to appoint then deputy minister (for economic affairs) Nogami as vice minister and Kato as ambassador to the U.S.

It is no exaggeration to say that Nogami was awarded the vice minister's post with the aim in mind of having Foreign Minister Tanaka replaced. Nogami, who has a mustache and beard that Tanaka dislikes, has something of an air of the samurai about him. He is the most self-assertive of all the senior Foreign Ministry officials. In addition, he and Kawashima were classmates at Hibiya High School. They get along well. Nogami reportedly has claimed that his role is to settle old scores for Kawashima, whose plan was to unseat Foreign Minister Tanaka even though he might lose his own post. Nogami's determination to do the same was implied in his speech delivered when he assumed his current position.

Foreign Minister Tanaka, who either fiercely likes or dislikes people, is now relying on Deputy Vice Minister Kyoji Komachi (class of 1969), although she had previously turned to Foreign Policy Bureau Director General Shotaro Yachi (same class) to get his views on all issues. Komachi is an opinionated person just like Nogami. Continued discord between Foreign Minister Tanaka and the Nogami-Komachi team will occur without fail.

There are two factors to watch for in the skirmish that is likely between the two sides before the next extraordinary Diet session convenes on September 27. The first is how Foreign Minister Tanaka will treat former deputy vice minister Yutaka Iimura (class of 1969). Tanaka removed him because he had defied her. The second is what post she will give to Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau Director General

Kunihiko Makita (class of 1968), who will be replaced by Economic Affairs Bureau Director General Hiroshi Tanaka (class of 1968).

Iimura is respected by many ministry officials for sticking to his position of opposing Tanaka. The dominant view in the ministry therefore is that Iimura should succeed Toshiyuki Takano (class of 1967) as deputy minister for political affairs. Deputy Vice Minister Takano was the most likely candidate to be the next vice minister, but Tanaka reportedly plans to appoint him as ambassador to an African country. The Minister's Secretariat is looking for a way to appoint Makita as ambassador to a Southeast Asian nation. The Foreign Minister is considering sending him to an African country as ambassador instead. The wide fissure between Tanaka and the group of officials led by Vice Minister Nogami will continue to make the news for some time to come.

(01091106kn)

(6) Terrorism and San Francisco peace treaty: Unilateralist path is dangerous; Japan saved by Murayama statement

MAINICHI (Page 4) (Excerpt)

September 14, 2001

[Katsuyoshi Seimiya, North America Bureau]

The day America was shaken by a wave of terrorist attacks, I thought about what attitude a nation should take. An airliner hijacked by terrorists had slammed into the Pentagon, and when I walked by later, the building was enveloped in black smoke. The hideously ruined building before my eyes made me feel the vulnerability of a even a superpower with the world's strongest armed forces. And I wondered if an attitude of trying to use force would be effective for Japan.

I have had many opportunities these days to feel that former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama, who came out of Japan's introverted political dynamics, was a kind of savior for Japan in the international community. In his 1995 statement, he expressed for Japan the feelings of remorse and apology for its colonial rule [of Asian countries] and aggressions in the past. I feel that Japan has been truly saved by his statement. Three days before the terrorist attacks, a ceremony was held in San Francisco to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. On that occasion, Foreign Minister Makiko Tanaka, citing a passage from the Murayama statement, offered her apology for "the still unhealed scars left on many people, including former POWs." The foreign minister's apology there made me feel the same way.

The Japanese government looks insensitive, for it appears to be regarding historical perception as a problem only with such neighboring countries as China and South Korea. It also appears to think that the only thing Japan should do is preach about the importance of the bilateral security arrangements with the United States. In order to sound an alarm, the Mainichi Shimbun carried a series of articles in May on "postwar reparations and apologies—America's view of Japan." The series focused on reparations for former U.S. POWs. The Japanese government announced that the problem of compensation for former U.S. POWs had already been settled because the United States waived the right of claim to Japan under the peace treaty. But I still thought that the past history might still come back to haunt Japan.

Former Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, who is 81 years old, attended a symposium held in commemoration of the ceremony. He suggested the need for the Bush Administration to realize it would take time to persuade people to accept his missile defense initiative. He is a witness to history as he was one of former Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida aides at the San Francisco Peace Conference. The words in his address to the symposium carried weight, I think. China and South Korea, once invaded by Japan, were not invited to the peace conference, and the negative legacy in those days continues to be left unaddressed. The Bush administration—as seen from its missile defense initiative and its breakaway from the Kyoto Protocol—is prone to pursue a unilateralist path. I was feeling increasingly apprehensive about that trend, when the terrorist attacks occurred.

If Japan assumes an attitude of paying heed to its history without making light of the historical views of China, South Korea, and other countries in Asia, Japan then can responsibly tell America not to behave like a unilateralist. Such a national attitude might be important for Japan. I was convinced of that as I looked at the Pentagon on fire.

(01091403im)

(7) 50th anniversary of San Francisco Treaty: U.S. calling for Japan's will

By Toshio Mizushima, America bureau chief

YOMIURI (Page 1) (Full)

September 9, 2001

September 8 marked the 50th anniversary of signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty and the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. In San Francisco, a variety of events commemorating the signing of the two treaties are being carried out. I would like to first talk about a man living in Pittsburgh, who is fixing his eyes in a calm manner on this historic anniversary.

His name is Gary Davidson and his age is 51. In 1969, Davidson, who was a medical orderly of the United States Army, sneaked away from Camp Zama, refusing to fight in the Vietnam War. He hid out in the Tokyo area for two and a half years. While making his escape, Davidson continued to publish short stories in a leading Japanese literary magazine, using a pen name. Even after returning to the U.S., he lived in hiding. Granted an amnesty by President Carter, he was able to restore his life to normal and use his real name. He is now a physician living happily with his wife and their three children.

Davidson visited Japan in June after 30 years, staying there for two weeks. I asked him about his impressions. He told me:

"I finally was able to look at U.S.-Japan relations objectively. I was able to understand the meaning of the San Francisco Peace Treaty for the first time. I now consider it to be unnatural for Japan to have been dependent on the United States."

"I think Japan has not fulfilled its responsibility to the world, putting all its efforts into only economic development while under the U.S. umbrella."

He said to me that he had thought again about the uniqueness of the San Francisco Treaty, which emphasized the need for strategic stability. He the slowly said, "Japan has to respond realistically to international politics."

The recollections thirty years later of the man who had to live in hiding in Japan, which was under cold-war security arrangements with the U.S., indicate how times have changed.

Japan has indeed changed over 50 years. The structure of American society also has dramatically changed.

Fifty years ago, there still remained systemic racial discrimination against African-Americans. The United States later suffered a defeat in the Vietnam War. In the 1980s, when Japan was enjoying its economic bubble, the American people experienced for the first time in U.S. history the shock that their living standards had deteriorated to less than those of their parents. Feminist movements spread across the U.S. The restructuring of corporations was rapidly occurring.

While Japan pursued an economic growth policy line based on the "peace" guaranteed by the San Francisco Peace Treaty, the United States continued to develop its economy, particularly in the southern and southwestern states and California. Defense industries made up the bulk of the major companies in these states.

Japan then described the U.S. as "affluent America," "America in agony," and "America as a competitor." Now that ten years passed since the end of the Cold War, the argument has now risen in Japan on whether it should strengthen cooperative ties with the U.S. in the security and economic spheres, of if it should become more independent.

In a symposium the Yomiuri Shimbun sponsored in San Francisco on the 6th and 7th, Japanese and American lawmakers, scholars, and diplomats engaged in constructive debate. The participants pointed out the importance of Japan and U.S. continuing the alliance for the stability of the Asian region. They also expressed anxiety at and concern about the argument that Japan should be independent.

Japan has begun to waver back and forth on whether it should continue to place all of its eggs in the Japan-U.S. security basket, or whether it should go independent. Regarding this matter, Michael Green, Japan director of the National Security Council, stated in a crystal-clear manner: "Japan should pursue its own interests. The issue of whether it should be independent or depend on the U.S. is a story on a different plane. We will see whether Japan's foreign policy meets our national goal."

The U.S., having paved the way for Japan to return to the international community by signing the San Francisco Peace Treaty 50 years ago, has been watching whether Japan will become a partner able to express its own will, while maintaining the alliance.

(01091002kn)

(8) Japan-U.S. security treaty after 50 years—San Francisco Peace Treaty: Interview with former Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, witness to San Francisco Peace Conference; Japan, U.S. share values; Separate peace intended to avoid occupation's continuation

TOKYO SHIMBUN (Page 18) (Full)

August 31, 2001

-- Japan's public opinion was divided over the choice of separate peace or overall peace. In that situation, Japan chose a separate peace. Why?

Miyazawa: Japan, at that time, had no other choice but to do so. Otherwise, all Japan could do was only to remain under [American] occupation. If you don't realize how humiliating the occupation was, you can't understand it. There were directions after directions [from the occupation forces] to the government every day for years. Besides, a Diet affairs team of the occupation forces used to come to the Diet when there was something. They asked, "Is this democracy?" They meddled even in the nomination of a prime minister, and they purged people if there was something they didn't like…

-- How was the atmosphere of the Allied Powers occupying Japan in those days?

Miyazawa: Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) MacArthur started thinking early on that the disarming and democratization of Japan were generally getting under way, so there was no need to continue occupying Japan for a long time. However, U.S.-Soviet relations then were gradually going from bad to worse. So, the U.S. Army could not agree to a peace that may have let the Soviet Union occupy Japan.

-- Is that why Japan entered into the security pact with the U.S.?

Miyazawa: In the end, around 1949, Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida at that time probably thought that there would be no way but to propose something like the Japan-U.S. security treaty in order to end the occupation. The U.S. side could not propose stationing American forces in Japan under a bilateral security treaty after Japan became independent. Japan would say, "That's the same as occupation, isn't it?" So, Mr. Yoshida had to propose it at that time. The Department of State thought at that time that the Japanese people would oppose such an idea. But they later thought that since the prime minister of Japan was saying so, the United States could probably move forward. So, the United States began the move. It was in May 1950.

-- Do you think it was the right choice in the end?

Miyazawa: As for whether it would be better for an independent country to ask another country to ensure its national security, Mr. Yoshida, citing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as an example, used to say in those days that no country can protect its independence alone. Tokyo University President Shigeru Nambara voiced his opinion against that kind of national security. He said, "Such peace is not overall peace. It will harm Japan in the future." Then, Mr. Yoshida rebutted, "That's a scholar's empty theory that twists the truth for public consumption." Views differed.

-- What's the security treaty's significance today?

Miyazawa: Today, 50 years later, the Japan-U.S. security arrangements contains economic, cultural, and other aspects. Therefore, it's not just a security relationship, and I think it is becoming something like a community of shared values.

-- What's your view of collective defense?

Miyazawa: Supposing Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force is fighting against the enemy in waters off Sagami Bay and a U.S. battleship is coming close to that scene, a jurist may say that the MSDF should not be allowed to protect that U.S. battleship. That's strange. However, one may then ask what if the same situation breaks out in waters off California. It's strange to mix up such different situations. Anyone with common sense can figure it out. The former case is on an extension line of Japan's national defense. In the latter case, neither the United States nor Japan desires such a situation. It's not a matter of constitutional interpretation. The right of collective self-defense has nothing to do with the question of whether or not to change Article 9 of the constitution. Japan, as a matter of course, has the right of collective self-defense on an extension line of self-defense. The Japanese government can define that point sometime in the future.

-- Any way to resolve the problem of U.S. military bases in Okinawa?

Miyazawa: No one can tell when a war will break out. In such a situation, do you say the Marine Corps' young soldiers living in a community will never ever do anything wrong? That's difficult, I think. They're not to blame for that situation. Either of the two countries is not to blame. That's difficult. Both countries can think that way.

-- Now, what would you like to say to young people and politicians?

Miyazawa: Japan has grown into a country to this level even without arming itself unlike other military powers. In return for that, Japan, I think, should do its best to help developing countries. That's not enough for Japan to fulfill its obligations. But if Japan fails to do its best even in that area, we can't say Japan has fulfilled its obligations. Some may say Japan can cut back its official development assistance (ODA) budget. I don't think that's based on a profound idea. That's too selfish."

[Interview by Yoshikazu Imasato, editorial writer, and Masaya Takada, Political Section]

(01091001im)

(9) Simultaneous drops in stock markets around the world may affect the policy of capping government bond issuance at 30 trillion yen; New Komeito Secretary General: "Circumstances differ from before the terrorist attacks"

SANKEI (Page 2) (Full)

September 14, 2001

The terrorist attacks on U.S. political and economic nerve centers have brought about a serious impact on the world economy. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is now under pressure to make a difficult decision on whether to alter his policy of capping the issuance of government bonds at 30 trillion yen for fiscal 2001. Reflecting simultaneous falls in stock prices across the world, many have begun to call for economic stimulus measures. In addition, tax revenues will likely be less than expected.

The Prime Minister's stance of sticking to the "30 trillion yen cap" has evoked critical voices even from ruling party members. They cite the need to boost the economy and create more jobs." The recent terrorist attacks have aggravated the economic situation further. New Komeito Secretary General Tetsuzo Fuyushiba told reporters yesterday:

"The U.S. is unable to open the securities market in the wake of the terrorist attacks. In Japan as well, the key stock price index fell below 10,000. The situation differs from that before the incidents occurred."

Delivering a speech yesterday, Liberal Democratic Party Policy Research Council Chairman Taro Aso also stated:

"Japan will not be able to eliminate deflationary factors as long as its financial and fiscal policies have not worked well. Without being stick to the 30 trillion cap, the government should make use of public works effectively."

In response, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda in a press conference yesterday stated: "

"It is premature to think that the current slumps of the stock market will continue into the future … We have decided to place a (30 trillion yen) ceiling as a means to push ahead with the reform of the nation's economic structure. By pursuing this goal, I believe that Japan will be able to offer contributions to the world economy. At the present state, we have no intention to remove this cap. We would like to promote structural reform while maintaining this principle to the last."

(01091405ys)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download