(* 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, September 16, 2008, 11:08 a.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statement by the Minister
Measures for Strengthening Security Precautions by NGOs, etc. in Response to the Kidnapping of a Japanese National in Afghanistan
Securing the Unidentified Submarine
Japanese Surrogate Birth in India
Handling of India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)

1. Opening Statement by the Minister
Measures for Strengthening Security Precautions by NGOs, etc. in Response to the Kidnapping of a Japanese National in Afghanistan

Minister:
In order to further strengthen security precautions in response to an incident in which a Japanese national was kidnapped and murdered in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has invited a specialist from a risk management company to hold a "Workshop on Security Precautions" in Afghanistan. Also in Japan, similar specialists will be invited to conduct "Seminars on Overseas Safety for NGO Staff" for Japanese NGOs that are dispatching Japanese staff to dangerous areas. In addition, an NGO Overseas Safety Counseling Hotline is to be established. This will be a new safety measure allowing NGOs that are active in dangerous regions to receive counselling and obtain information on the safety of various areas over the telephone.

2. Securing the Unidentified Submarine

Question:
This question is regarding the intrusion into Japanese waters of an unidentified submarine, off the coast of Kochi Prefecture. Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have any information about this at this point? Also, Defense Minister Hayashi is indicating his intention to make inquiries with neighboring countries through diplomatic channels, but what response does the Foreign Ministry intend to take?

Minister:
I, at least, have not heard about that from Defense Minister Hayashi. It is possible, on the other hand, for the Defense Ministry to submit an inquiry to a country in the event that there is some degree of grounds for the inquiry. However, as far as I have heard from the Ministry of Defense at this point, there is currently no information that indicates a certain country. I intend to have the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs communicate on this matter a little further.

Question:
It has been pointed out that there was a delay in contacting the Prime Minister about this incident. What are your thoughts on this?

Minister:
That is in regards to the Ministry of Defense, so please direct that question to them. However, it relates to how much one should confirm before notifying others. I am not in a position to easily decide whether it was a little late or whether it was properly carried out.

3. Japanese Surrogate Birth in India

Question:
There has been a court ruling to the effect that the Indian Government should issue a travel permit to a child that was born by a Japanese via surrogate birth in India. The parents of the child and related parties wish for a travel permit despite the child's lack of citizenship so that they can bring the child back to Japan. I understand that this is directly related to the Ministry of Justice, but could we have your opinion as well?

Minister:
This issue is up to the Ministry of Justice. However, if there is anything that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs can do to help, we will do it.

4. Handling of India by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)

Question:
Today, the mayors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are to visit the Prime Minister's Office, and will later meet with the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, in search of an explanation regarding the Japanese Government's response to the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. There are rather strong protests coming from areas that were victims of atomic bombs. How do you respond to these protests?

Minister:
I will not be able to meet with them today because of scheduling difficulties. However, the Chief Cabinet Secretary has already provided a detailed explanation on the Government's position regarding the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. Japan is the one and only country to be a victim of atomic bombs, and I can really understand how the mayors of those areas would take such action in consideration of the feelings of their residents. However, in a broad sense, this is also a non-proliferation issue. Diplomatic issues cannot be decided from a single dimension alone. Decisions must be comprehensively made from various angles. In particular, the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) is structured in such a way that in the case of the conducting of a nuclear test by a country that is not authorized to possess nuclear capabilities, the Nuclear Suppliers Group will generally not extend any form of cooperation to that country, even if it is for peaceful use. In a way, there are two ways of thinking about this. There is the idea that cooperation would be okay if it was positively limited to peaceful use, and there is the punitive approach that holds it to be outrageous to provide cooperation even if positively limited to peaceful use. As a side note, in past instances where countries have done this, the Nuclear Suppliers Group has taken a punitive approach and not provided anything even if it is positively for peaceful use in order to maintain the NPT structure. The issue at hand is whether India will be treated as an exemption in the case that IAEA safeguards indicate that it is positively for peaceful use. No assistance will be provided to India for the development of nuclear weapons. The issue is whether it would be okay to cooperate in the event that there were complete measures to ensure that it would be only used for nuclear energy, or whether cooperation should not be provided as a rule even if for peaceful uses. Meanwhile, there is of course the view that it is necessary to take a punitive approach in order to maintain the NPT structure. I believe that it is completely understandable that Hiroshima and Nagasaki take that view. Nevertheless, there is, for instance, the present issue of global warming. India has a continually growing GDP and is an emerging country. There is also the view that if the use of oil and coal continues in large amounts in order to meet the demand for electricity, it will have a significant negative impact on global warming. There is also of course the importance of India as a country. Since its inception, India has maintained its democratic system without any military coup and has properly managed its nuclear resources. In addition, India falls under all of the IAEA safeguards and has clearly indicated that it will make further efforts to restrict use to peaceful purposes. What is more, there was a declaration by India to maintain the moratorium on nuclear tests. While these endeavors have won the consensus of the world, the decision to be made is whether Japan will protest so as to undermine that consensus because Japan is the only country to be victim to an atomic bomb. When considering the single point of maintaining the NPT structure, I can sufficiently understand the assertion to not allow an exception. However, when looking at the overall situation, India declared another moratorium on nuclear tests based on what we asserted. When comprehensively considering those facts, we did not go as far as to hinder the consensus of other nations. Nevertheless, we will hold to the position that India remain in the NPT structure and that it ratify a CTBT. I sincerely understand the feelings of those from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, both victims of atomic bombings, but the Japanese Government has made this decision taking into consideration all factors. Chief Cabinet Secretary Machimura has already commented on the thoughts of the Japanese Government regarding this issue in detail at the press conference.

Question:
United States media -- I believe it was The Washington Post -- has reported that a tacit understanding within the Nuclear Suppliers Group regarding not allowing sensitive technologies, such as those for uranium enrichment, to spill out to India was the reason for the decision, in addition to India's moratorium declaration. Was there some unspoken understanding?

Minister:
I am not allowed to comment on sensitive matters.

Related Information (Atomic Energy)

Back to Index