(* 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, July 15, 2008 10:20 a.m.
Place: Entrance Hall, Prime Minister's Office

Main topics:

Issue of Takeshima
North Korean Issues
G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit

1. Issue of Takeshima

Question:
Regarding the issue of Takeshima, I would like to ask your views on strong reactions both by the Government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and in Japan.

Minister:
Japan has its own particular circumstances and so does the ROK. Clearly it is necessary for both sides to express their respective positions calmly and to work to bridge the gap between those positions. The issue of Takeshima is not a matter that can be solved overnight, but I do believe that in any event, we must work to ensure a peaceful resolution for this issue. We should respond calmly so that it does not lead to a worsening of the overall relations between Japan and the ROK even though there are differences in our respective positions on this particular issue.

Question:
Regarding the way Takeshima has been described, some believe that it should have been stated that, "It is a part of Japan's sovereign territory." As for it, there are criticisms that the issue of the Northern Territories has been handled with a different expression compared to that of Takeshima. In those circumstances, there have been media reports to the effect that the Foreign Ministry requested that, "As much as possible, a non-controversial expression should be used." Please describe your views on that.

Minister:
It is natural that there are various criticisms expressed by people depending on their own positions. However, the Minister in charge, as the main person, I, the Chief Cabinet Secretary and others who are related, discussed this matter, examined from overall points of views and came up with a decision that this is the correct answer.

Question:
If you try to solve it as a territorial issue, why was this issue not brought up on the occasion of the Japan-ROK Summit Talks in April?

Minister:
I do not know whether or not this was discussed, but I suppose that some discussions on this did take place on various occasions.

2. North Korean Issues

Question:
Regarding the Six-Party Talks, there are media reports that a foreign ministers' meeting will be held in Beijing on 26 July. How have efforts proceeded in terms of the verification mechanism? Please describe whether or not the situation is such that it will be ripe to hold the meeting on 26 July.

Minister:
I have not been briefed on this matter, but at any rate, I believe that to a certain degree, an agreement has been reached on the overall mechanism. However, regarding the specific detailed verification measures, no agreement has been reached between North Korea and the other five parties. It is the role of a foreign ministers' meeting to evaluate everything that has been done until now after these specific details are more finely adjusted and decide on the basic stance on how we are to proceed forward from there. As such, I think there is a need for the finer details to be worked out and to start the verification process earlier.

Question:
In the Press Communique, for example, on "verification of facilities" the words "visits to facilities" are actually used. How do you think about that?

Minister:
Either of those words is fine. What is important is to create a mechanism that will in fact be useful for conducting actual verification.

Question:
Regarding the policy decision that some of the economic sanctions will be lifted together with the reinvestigation on the abductions issue, it appears that more than a half of the people do not make a favorable evaluation of that. What are your thoughts on this matter?

Minister:
If I am asked as to whether or not it would be good to lift a portion of these sanctions, then I would say that it would be better not to do that. However, the Japanese Government will lift a portion of economic sanctions in order to get North Korea to withdraw its stance by now that the abduction issue is "fully solved," and to reopen the investigation. Do you ask people the question in that way comparing cards to get and cards to give? If you ask people simply, "Which is better to remove the sanctions or not to remove the sanctions," then everyone would certainly say that the latter is better.

Question:
It would appear that very little progress has been made in advancing the reinvestigation. What are your thoughts on that?

Minister:
If there was absolutely no progress made then we would not have lifted any of the sanctions. Given that the basic premise is action for action, I think the sooner the investigation is reopened, the better. If results are steadily achieved, then from our side, we will be prepared to offer cards that are commensurate with those results. If we do not engage in negotiations then we will not be able to get the people back and therefore, in order to undertake negotiations, we must appropriately use our cards. The fact is that we must use the cards in a manner that is commensurate with the actions taken by the other party in these negotiations.

3. G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit

Question:
According to various public opinion surveys conducted by different companies, there is not a very good evaluation of the approach that was taken by the Prime Minister to the G8 Summit and his support ratings remain quite low. How do you view this?

Minister:
I believe that the evaluation is steadily going up. There are many people who say many things, but for example, a research group based at the University of Toronto, which is one of the most well-recognized and authoritative institutes for evaluating the G8 Summit, gave an 'A' score to the leadership displayed by Prime Minister Fukuda at this G8 Summit, which amounts to 85 points. In terms of its overall evaluation, the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit received a 'B+' or 78 points. Throughout all the G8 Summits that have taken place up until now, the University of Toronto research group gave a score of '80' or above to only two or three meetings and therefore, this G8 Summit comes in only after these few. This is the view taken by experts in this field. Still, some people tend to believe what they expect can be realized immediately, and so they may view the latest G8 Summit as having failed to meet their expectations. Still, I just would like to share with you an objective fact that from the perspective of experts in this field, the evaluation of this G8 Summit received the highest possible ranking.

Back to Index