(* 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: Friday, June 20, 2008, 9:54 a.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Ministerial-level meeting of the Four-Party Consultative Unit for the "Corridor for Peace and Prosperity"
North Korean Issues
Assistance for Afghanistan

1. Ministerial-level meeting of the Four-Party Consultative Unit for the "Corridor for Peace and Prosperity"

Minister:
On 2 July, I will chair a ministerial-level meeting of the Four-Party Consultative Unit for the "Corridor for Peace and Prosperity." From the Palestinian Authority, Prime Minister Salaam Fayad will attend, as well as Dr. Samir Abdullah, Minister of Planning, and from Israel, Mr. Gideon Ezra, Minister of Environment Protection, and from Jordan, Mr. Al-Bashir, Foreign Minister will attend as well as others. Regarding the construction of an agro-industrial park on the West Bank of the Jordan River, which will allow for enhanced and expanded exports through Jordan and will promote self-sufficiency of the Palestinian economy, Israel is also proactively supporting this and we intend to advance this going forward. Given that there are also positive trends, including the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, Japan intends to provide this kind of peripheral support to the Middle East peace process.

2. North Korean Issues

Question:
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in regards to North Korea that if a declaration is submitted then in return, North Korea could be removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. In response to that, some people are saying that the delisting is now inevitable, but yesterday a meeting was held among the Heads of Delegations of Japan, the US and the Republic of Korea (ROK) for the Six-Party Talks. Does Japan intend to call on the US not to remove North Korea from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism unless there is some solid progress made on the abductions issue or did you already ask that yesterday?

Minister:
The US has maintained a consistent position stating that whether or not North Korea is removed from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism depends on whether or not North Korea advances denuclearization. The US has stated that still, when the delisting occurs, it would consider the progress that has been made in Japan-North Korea relations. Furthermore, on that point the US has stated that it would maintain close coordination with the Government of Japan. The US has been consistent in all of these matters.

Regarding the nuclear declaration, given that North Korea is late in submitting the declaration, Secretary of State Rice said recently that it really is a matter of how much progress North Korea makes in moving forward with denuclearization. In fact she placed the focus squarely on that point and called straight forwardly on North Korea. In her speech she said very clearly that if North Korea wants to be removed from that list then it should quickly submit that declaration. It was not the case that anybody asked her in that context whether or not, "Relations between Japan and North Korea were not going to be considered." That is why in the speech Secretary of State Rice expressed one of the main topics she has been focused on and which she has consistently maintained a steady stance on, and she called on North Korea to take action. As such, my understanding is that nothing has changed in the position of the US.

Whether or not to keep North Korea on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism is itself not the objective. The US has listed North Korea on the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and the US is encouraging North Korea to proceed with denuclearization using the removal from the list as a diplomatic card. The US has maintained it as a consistent policy. This is a diplomatic card that the US possesses and as a good ally of the US, Japan wants it to agree that Japan also uses the card to promote advances in Japan-North Korea relations, including on the abductions issue. That is our position that has been consistently maintained.

From Japan's perspective, the Japan-North Korea consultations were held and in that context, a certain degree of promise was achieved. Therefore, we would say that to some degree that the card was effectively used and we would like to express gratitude to the US for the card. However, we have added that sufficient progress has not been achieved. We are thus calling upon the US for further use of the card. This is not just for the abductions issue, but for the nuclear declaration issue which the US views as a major element. We asked the US whether a sufficient declaration will really be submitted, and whether it is really sufficient for the US to accept the declaration, although the declaration assured to be submitted has only limited contents. Indeed, the Government of Japan has expressed various remarks to the US both regarding the nuclear issue and the abductions issue. And as a result of that, we have agreed to maintain close consultations. This is the way I see things and that is how I understand them to be. I expect to receive a detailed briefing from Mr. Akitaka Saiki, Director-General for Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau and even if my understanding is not exactly on the ball, I do not think that it is very far off.

Question:
Would you say that as a result of the Japan-North Korea consultations, partial lifting of the economic sanctions and handing over of the Yodo-go hijackers has lowered the hurdle for the US to remove North Korea from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and it makes Secretary of State Rice easy on delisting?

Minister:
I believe that the US itself takes pride in the fact that it cooperated in helping to hold the Japan-North Korea consultation. Still, that is not the point; what is the point is how much more this card can be used. Japan believes it could be used even more both for the nuclear issue and the Japan-North Korea consultations, or the abductions issue. Going forward, we intend to hold close consultations with the US on this matter.

Question:
You will meet with Secretary of State Rice some time next week. Will you bring that up with her once again?

Minister:
I believe that Secretary of State Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill are both very well aware of Japan's position. Still, naturally when I see them, I will bring this up.

Question:
Regarding the content of the declaration at the meeting of the Heads of Delegations of Japan, the US and the Republic of Korea (ROK) for the Six-Party Talks yesterday, there are some media reports saying that agreement was reached to allow the declaration not to include nuclear weapons. I understand that as far as Japan is concerned, it has long since consistently maintained the position that all nuclear weapons must be included. Is there any truth to those media reports?

Minister:
It is absolutely not a fact that at the current time the Government of Japan has made any statement to the effect that nuclear weapons do not need to be included. In other words, the goal is not to have North Korea make a declaration, the goal is denuclearization and complete abandonment of the nuclear programs. The position of the Government of Japan is that a stead-fast declaration is necessary to continue to make progress toward complete abandonment of the nuclear programs. It is not necessarily that only the US considers that even if that point is a little vague, in order to achieve the goal of denuclearization perhaps it might be better to proceed further in this stagnant situation and take a tough stance later in the next stage. That is one way of thinking and on that point we intend to continue to engage in close consultations. In any event, the question is which way is better for the final goal of denuclearization. Japan holds the position that even if this stagnant situation continues, we will completely implement this second phase. However, that is just a process and Japan, the US and the ROK must first of all address which way is best to achieve the ultimate goal and along the way must include China and Russia, and at the very end, must include North Korea. These are negotiations and therefore the question is how they go in the future. At any rate, we intend to have close consultations amongst Japan and the US; and then Japan, the US and the ROK; and finally with China and Russia as well.

Question:
Currently amongst the various possible methods, is Japan maintaining a relatively stringent position?

Minister:
The Japanese position has not weakened. The situation is that all five nations concerned must join together and urge North Korea to take action. At first Japan and the US, and Japan, the US and the ROK must work together, to call on North Korea for the ultimate goal to lead to denuclearization and abandonment of nuclear programs. We will hold close consultations to decide which way is better for achieving that goal.

Question:
I suppose that last night in the Diet, discussions were focused on the timing for the removal of economic sanctions. Is there a possibility that if North Korea's cooperation on the Yodo-go hijackers advanced but no progress was made concerning the reinvestigation of the abductions, a portion of the sanctions would be lifted on the grounds that North Korea has demonstrated concrete actions in relation to the Yodo-go hijackers?

Minister:
Regarding lifting of Japan's sanctions, North Korea has now promised two things: to launch an investigation and cooperate in handing over the Yodo-go hijackers. In return, we have made a promise to lift some of the sanctions. Both sides have made verbal promises at this phase. As such, based on the principle of action for action, first of all, we must see that North Korea takes concrete action to implement an investigation. We must also see North Korea actually begin cooperation to hand over the Yodo-go hijackers. Of course it may take some time to conduct this investigation but at the very least, we want to know that North Korea has at least started the investigation and in the event that the Japanese side is able to make the determination that North Korea is seriously undertaking an investigation and that investigation is an earnest one being aimed at discovering survivors and returning them to Japan, then we can actually lift some of the sanctions. In the event that we made such a decision but the reality was different, if the North Korean side takes a big step forward, we can also take a big step forward. If the North Korean side takes a small step forward, then we will take a small step forward. In the event that we believed that they had taken a small step forward but in fact they had not, it is still fully possible for us to revert back to the prevailing situation before we took the small step forward. That is the approach that we will take.

Question:
In the event that progress is not made on reopening the investigation, is it correct to assume that partial lifting of the economic sanctions will not occur?

Minister:
It would be quite difficult for us to lift sanctions if we were still at the phase where actual implementation of the reinvestigation had not occurred.

Question:
What would be the case if only progress was made regarding the Yodo-go incident?

Minister:
They both are necessary. This will only be effective when both take effect.

Question:
Regarding the reopening of the investigation that would lead to the return of any survivors to Japan, when you speak about survivors, amongst the 12 abductees, seven have still not been found. Are you referring to these seven people or do we expand the range of specific missing persons even though such expansion of the range could be endless. When you talk about survivors, exactly who are you referring to?

Minister:
I am referring to all those people who have been abducted, even though we have not been able to confirm all of them. Amongst those regarded as missing persons, there may be some who were abducted and there may be some who were not. At the current time, the private investigation group has said that it has not yet accessed any accurate information concerning this point. We must have all surviving abductees returned to Japan. In the event that the Government of Japan is able to come to a determination that North Korea has earnestly initiated an investigation in that regard, Japan will, on its part, be able to lift some of the sanctions. As you are all very well aware, the portion of sanctions to be lifted is such that would have a minor effect.

Question:
Would such lifting require the discovery of any abductees or launch of a substantial reinvestigation?

Minister:
The Government of Japan will examine the methodology of the investigation and in the event that the Government of Japan is able to determine that it is an earnest investigation which aims to identify and return survivors, then at the phase it may be possible to lift some of the sanctions. However, as I just said, in the event that we do come to that view but then in fact it appears that that is not the case, it is possible that the step forward may actually result in a step back. When I refer to a step back I am talking about reinstating sanctions that is entirely at the discretion of the Government of Japan to do.

Question:
If North Korea has only said that it has begun an investigation then I think it may mean a kind of investigation. But wouldn't it be difficult on that basis alone to make a determination that it has made a real step forward?

Minister:
That is a matter of how the Government of Japan will make its decision and therefore that is something that we will assess.

Question:
Will the methodology of the investigation, is this something that will be determined from now on?

Minister:
In determining the methodology of the investigation, it is important to get the impression that North Korea is serious about it. Even if we have the impression, such impression may turn out to be incorrect. If our impression is completely different from reality and if it turns out that it is a matter of verbal promises in order to have the sanctions lifted then it is very possible that we will revert back to the previous situation.

Question:
There were some media reports to the effect that the representative from the ROK side proposed that Japan should get involved in the energy assistance efforts in the Japan-US-ROK Trilateral consultations yesterday. Has Japan's position on this matter changed?

Minister:
Japan's position on this matter is that North Korea takes concrete action so that Japan can take a stance of being able to participate in the energy assistance. It is all up to North Korea. Japan's stance at this time is that the necessary environment has not been established for that to happen.

Question:
Did Japan convey the view to the other parties of the consultations?

Minister:
I think that it was conveyed. By that I mean that later I will receive a detailed briefing on exactly what happened.

3. Assistance for Afghanistan

Question:
Regarding the situation in Afghanistan, according to the announcement of the Government, the investigation team has returned to Japan. I believe that in addition to the capital provided now, the team has verified the need for personnel contributions. At this time, what kind of possibilities do you envision?

Minister:
It is not always the case that what we try to do and what we can do are the same. Ultimately what the Government does is the final decision of what the Government thinks must be done within the context of what can be done. That is why I believe that we need to spend a little more time to seek to identify exactly what we can do. Still what we can and cannot do is naturally, fundamentally a question of the Constitution. At the same time, we intend to consider what we can do including a decision which must be taken in the Diet and a decision must be taken by the ruling parties before any decision is taken in the Diet. Therefore all of that must be factored in and I intend to give consideration as to what we can do in this regard. Concerning those plans that would be ideal to be launched it may not be very good to refer to such plans at a very early stage for the sake of materializing them and therefore I must refrain from commenting on this matter at the moment.

Back to Index