(* 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, July 11, 2008, 10:55 a.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

North Korean Issues
Issue of Takeshima

1. North Korean Issues

Question:
This question is in reference to the Six-Party Talks that are underway in Beijing. I believe that the Six-Party Talks contain the two main issues of verifying the nuclear development plans and energy assistance. What is the Japanese Government's stance regarding these two issues? In regards to energy assistance, in particular, it is predicted that other countries will increasingly be inclined to push Japan to provide this assistance as well. How will the Government respond to this?

Minister:
The declaration must be verified strictly. Japan insists that verification must be made in the framework of the Six-Party Talks and in collaboration with the IAEA.

In regards to energy assistance, Japan's stance is that it cannot and will not provide energy assistance as long as there is no progress on the abduction issue. I believe that our stance is reasonably understood. I have heard that in response to Japan's assertion of this stance several countries other than Japan have voiced the need to advance Japan-North Korea relations and improve the environment. A policy of the Six-Party Talks is not to publicize which country says what, so I will refrain from doing that now. However, several countries have made such comments.

Question:
What position do you take in regards to the number of nuclear weapons?

Minister:
The Japanese Government maintains the stance that nuclear weapons must themselves be declared as well in order to consider the declaration to be complete and accurate. So, it would naturally be better if that information was included. Furthermore, the number of nuclear weapons must be declared at one point. There are various possibilities such as at the end of the second phase or after the third phase has begun. Our stance is that such a declaration must definitely be made at a certain point in the future. The bottom line is that the declaration must ultimately contribute to the objective of completely abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear plans. Therefore, I believe it is very reasonable for us to call for the declaration to include those numbers. However, there are various opinions concerning whether it would have been better to delay the declaration in pursuit of something more complete, or whether it is best to go ahead and have a declaration made at the present stage and then have additional declarations made in the future. Regardless, Japan has maintained a firm stance that the declaration must ultimately contribute to abandoning all nuclear weapons and plans.

Question:
You stated that there were various countries which understand Japan's stance that it cannot provide energy assistance unless there is progress on the abduction issue. On the contrary, was there any country other than North Korea which asserted that Japan should provide energy assistance?

Minister:
I have learned that no country had asserted that.

Question:
You say that Japan will consider energy assistance if there is progress on the abductions issue. Specifically, what form of progress are you envisioning?

Minister:
The consistent stance of the Government is that we will not provide a precise definition for concrete progress nor say what we will do when they perform a certain action. The Government is consistent in our position that we will observe how North Korea handles the abductions issue and then decide whether their response can be considered as concrete progress.

Question:
At the last Japan-China Summit Meeting, the Prime Minister noted that at the time there have been no developments on the reexamination issue despite a commitment by North Korea. In light of this, it is felt that there has been no response by North Korea although Japan appeals to negotiate for a reexamination. Is this the case?

Minister:
That is correct.

Question:
This means that North Korea is attempting to break its previous verbal commitment. Is that correct?

Minister:
Not necessarily. The situation is that if they break their promise then we will not fulfill our promise, and if they fulfill their promise then we will fulfill our promise. Therefore, I do not believe that they are sure to break their commitments.

2. Issue of Takeshima

Question:
In regard to the issue of Takeshima, I think that the Government is in the final stages of its decision as to whether or not the description "Takeshima is an integral part of Japan" should be included in a curriculum guideline for junior high schools. As the Foreign Minister, what are your thoughts on the issue in respect to whether this issue should be included in the guidelines?

Minister:
I am not the principal minister handling this issue, so it may not be advisable for me to comment personally. However, in a recent visit with Foreign Minister Yu Myung-Hwan we shared a discussion between the two of us without an interpreter. I did not intend to express the details voluntarily, however an announcement by the Republic of Korea side indicated that Foreign Minister Yu "communicated his country's serious concerns to Japan, and Foreign Minister Koumura responded that Japan had not made a decision yet." This announcement is not mistaken, but to add one further comment, I told the Foreign Minister that this was a matter to be decided by Japan.

Question:
I have learned that the Chief Cabinet Secretary and Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology had a prior discussion on the Government's internal stance on this issue. Are there going to be adjustments made within the Government, with a view to completing them by 14th July?

Minister:
If there are any adjustments, they will be led by the Chief Cabinet Secretary and not myself, so the question should be directed to the Chief Cabinet Secretary.

Back to Index