(* This is a provisional translation by an external company for reference purpose only. The original text is in Japanese.)

Press Conference by Minister for Foreign Affairs Masahiko Koumura

Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2007, 9:48 a.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Cabinet Meeting
North Korean Issues
Summoning of Former Vice Minister of Defense Moriya as a Sworn Witness
Party Leaders Meeting
Kim Dae-jung Incident

1. Cabinet Meeting

(See Japanese version)

2. North Korean Issues

Question:
There have been media reports that unofficial consultations will be held this week between Japan and North Korea. What is the outlook for the overall negotiations between Japan and North Korea, including the discussions of the Working Group for the Normalization of Japan-DPRK relations?

Minister:
Nothing has been decided yet.

Question:
Regarding progress on the abduction issue, last week you stated that if some of the abductees were to return to Japan, then it would represent progress. When you stated that, did you clearly intend to indicate that there has been a change in the policy to refuse to clearly define the progress, which was maintained by the Abe Cabinet?

Minister:
That is absolutely not the case. I merely responded based on common sense sticking to the line that we have followed until now.

Let me add that not until all abductees have returned home will we be able to say that we have resolved the abduction issue. When we say "progress," we mean that we have moved forward in the direction of the resolution. This is the definition of "progress." I did not in any way change the definition. Mr. Shinkun Haku, a Diet member of the Democratic Party of Japan asked at the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense of the House of Councillors whether or not the return of the criminals involved in the Yodo-go incident to Japan would represent progress and whether or not only some of the abductees returning would represent progress. Regarding the definition of the word "progress," I stated that I did not think it would amount to progress if the criminals involved in the Yodo-go incident would to return to Japan. Furthermore I stated that if several of the abductees were to return it possibly could be regarded as "progress." I believe that those statements are reflected almost verbatim in the meeting minutes of the Committee. Then the other day during my press briefing when I was asked to confirm that, I stated that indeed that was the case. In addition, at that time when somebody asked the question as to whether or not if "progress" were made we might ease sanctions or provide humanitarian assistance, I did not respond directly but rather stated that in accordance with the degree of "progress" made, we would take action on our part. I believe that what I said is basically accurate and that is how I responded. I think that it was a fairly common sense-based response.

Furthermore, and just to make sure, let me tell you that on Friday night last week, I received a phone call from Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura and he explained clearly that although there was a possibility that the following morning the newspapers may print an article alleging that he had criticized the Foreign Minister, he had not said anything critical at all. As such, as far as I am concerned this matter is behind us.

Question:
At the Committee on Cabinet, Chief Cabinet Secretary Machimura stated that he did not have any intent to discuss the return of how many people could represent "progress." It seems that there would be some discord with the statements that you just made.

Minister:
I am not in a position to interpret the statements of Chief Cabinet Secretary Machimura but I believe that when he stated that "I do not have any intent to discuss the return of how many people could represent progress," perhaps what he meant was that we should not say that one person would not be "progress" while two people would be "progress," or that a certain number would be "progress" or anything to that effect. However I really do not know. What I did precisely state at the Committee is clearly written in the meeting minutes and you can clearly see that I said that if several of the abductees were to return it might just amount to progress.

3. Summoning of Former Vice Minister of Defense Moriya as a Sworn Witness

(See Japanese version)

4. Party Leaders Meeting

(See Japanese version)

5. Kim Dae-jung Incident

Question:
Regarding the report on the Kim Dae-jung incident, please tell us what the outlook and expectation are for receiving an explanation from the ROK side?

Minister:
I do not know whether or not this has been completely decided, but I understand that the Ambassador will come today at 5:30 p.m.

Question:
If it becomes clear that there was an infringement of sovereignty, what kind of response will you take?

Minister:
I believe that it is already clear that there was an infringement of sovereignty. I intend to listen to what the ROK's side has to say about that.

At the meeting between Senior Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs Hitoshi Kimura and ROK Ambassador to Japan Yu Myung-hwan a question was posed as to whether or not the ROK Government shared the position on the conclusions of the Committee and the response was made to the effect that the ROK Government did share the same view and that there was a clear infringement of sovereignty. Today when the Ambassador from ROK comes to see me, I intend to ask him about that.

Back to Index