Comments on: TPR News: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 - Business, Luxury, Elections, the A-Bomb in 3 Contexts, &, of course, the Gaffe http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/02/07/tprnews-020707/ Independent Podcasting from Tokyo. Featuring Seijigiri, a discussion of Japanese news and politics, as well as TPR News, our twice a week look at Japan's top stories. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:48:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: DeOrio http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/02/07/tprnews-020707/#comment-13026 Wed, 07 Feb 2007 03:05:22 +0000 http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/02/07/tprnews-020707/#comment-13026 Alex, the three plaintiffs had moved to Sao Paulo between 1955 and 1965 - before Directive 402 was issued in 1974. The benefit seems to work like a pension and is not all that large, so the plaintiffs probably weren't worried about it until they got older (they were all in their 20s or 30s when they moved to Brazil.) When they got older, it seems they realized they couldn't get their benefits. They returned to Japan to start the process, but it was cut off when they moved back to Brazil. A few years later, they sued. Directive 402 was repealed in 2003, thus making the plaintiffs eligible. However, Hiroshima prefectural pension and benefit rules only require the government to pay benefits for periods within five years of a claim being made. The prefecture paid them five years of back benefits, beginning from the time they sued. They won more on the grounds that the directive, which had prevented them from receving benefits in the first place, was illegal. In other words, if they had been illegally prevented from receiving benefits, time limits primarily designed for medical insurance should not apply. Ken, Japan's bilateral issues' appearance at the Six-Party Talks seems to be a byproduct of the way the Talks were set up, with subsidiary working groups to hammer out bilateral issues. I fully agree that anything that shifts focus away from denuclearization is a bad idea. However, outside of the Six-Party Talks, Japan would have even less of a guarantee that North Korea would negotiate in good faith and it is very likely that North Korea would simply refuse to meet Japan one on one. Second, I honestly wonder how big a distraction the abduction issue is in the Talks themselves. If Japan keeps it to the bilateral working group, I have substantially fewer problems with it than if Japan is trying to bring the main body of the Talks around to the issue. Alex, the three plaintiffs had moved to Sao Paulo between 1955 and 1965 - before Directive 402 was issued in 1974. The benefit seems to work like a pension and is not all that large, so the plaintiffs probably weren’t worried about it until they got older (they were all in their 20s or 30s when they moved to Brazil.)
When they got older, it seems they realized they couldn’t get their benefits. They returned to Japan to start the process, but it was cut off when they moved back to Brazil. A few years later, they sued.
Directive 402 was repealed in 2003, thus making the plaintiffs eligible. However, Hiroshima prefectural pension and benefit rules only require the government to pay benefits for periods within five years of a claim being made. The prefecture paid them five years of back benefits, beginning from the time they sued. They won more on the grounds that the directive, which had prevented them from receving benefits in the first place, was illegal. In other words, if they had been illegally prevented from receiving benefits, time limits primarily designed for medical insurance should not apply.

Ken, Japan’s bilateral issues’ appearance at the Six-Party Talks seems to be a byproduct of the way the Talks were set up, with subsidiary working groups to hammer out bilateral issues. I fully agree that anything that shifts focus away from denuclearization is a bad idea. However, outside of the Six-Party Talks, Japan would have even less of a guarantee that North Korea would negotiate in good faith and it is very likely that North Korea would simply refuse to meet Japan one on one. Second, I honestly wonder how big a distraction the abduction issue is in the Talks themselves. If Japan keeps it to the bilateral working group, I have substantially fewer problems with it than if Japan is trying to bring the main body of the Talks around to the issue.

]]> by: Ken http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/02/07/tprnews-020707/#comment-12999 Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:25:20 +0000 http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/02/07/tprnews-020707/#comment-12999 The Six Party Talks were set up and designed to be a vehicle to discuss the DPRK's nuclear program. The DPRK already has trouble seeing the difference between the nuclear and financial issues; that alone has stalled talks for months. I don't see this as Japan's forum to raise bilateral issues. It needs to be a big boy and show some diplomatic clout on its own...the US is not going to get behind Japan on this issue, in this forum. The Six Party Talks were set up and designed to be a vehicle to discuss the DPRK’s nuclear program. The DPRK already has trouble seeing the difference between the nuclear and financial issues; that alone has stalled talks for months. I don’t see this as Japan’s forum to raise bilateral issues. It needs to be a big boy and show some diplomatic clout on its own…the US is not going to get behind Japan on this issue, in this forum.

]]> by: Alex Pappas http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/02/07/tprnews-020707/#comment-12995 Wed, 07 Feb 2007 00:43:20 +0000 http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/02/07/tprnews-020707/#comment-12995 I'm confused about the A-Bomb survivors. They moved to Brazil correct so that's why the Government stopped payment? What was the rational with that? This issue has me rather confused. I’m confused about the A-Bomb survivors. They moved to Brazil correct so that’s why the Government stopped payment? What was the rational with that? This issue has me rather confused.

]]>