>  ~ > I know the US doesn't have to issue contracts in languages other than
>  ~ > English,
>  ~
>  ~ Why not?
>  ~
>  ~ > but what would compel Japan to issue contracts in languages
>  ~ > other than Japanese?
>  ~
>  ~ The fact that Japan is for Japan and Japanese.
>  ~
>  ~ > Surely companies from English speaking countries can afford
translators?
>  ~
>  ~ So can Japan.
>  ~
>  ~ > Shouldn't that be part of the cost of doing business?
>  ~
>  ~ The same can be said of Japan.
>  ~
>  ~ > I agree that Japan uses a variety of hurdles as unofficial trade
>  ~ > barriers,
>  ~
>  ~ That is the point.
>  ~
>  ~ > and that this may be one of them.  But IMHO, this is the
>  ~ > wrong one to focus on since Japan can argue quite rightly that it's
>  ~ > just following the practices of the complaining countries.
>  ~
>  ~ Irrelevant.
>  ~
>  ~ Repeat: I am against restrictions on free trade. I don't care if it's
Japanese,
>  ~ Americans, or anyone else doing it.
>
> I agree with you, but until nations have free trade agreements in
> place, they're free to trade as they wish.  That's free trade, too.
>
> Verno

By your own argument the USA should issue tender documents in all languages
of the countries that may potentially wish to respond.  They do not, if a
Japanese company wants to submit a tender proposal they must engage
interpreters to translate the documents into Japanese at their own expense.
why should the Japanese accept the added expense to extend a service to
foreign companies when such is never extended to them?