(* 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 Katsuya Okada

Date: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, 3:05 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statements
- (1) Meeting of the Council of the Three Political-level Appointees
Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
Visit to Japan by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates of the United States
Disclosure of Information regarding Diplomatic Documents
Policy on North Korea (Act for Special Measures on Cargo Inspection of North Korean Ships, etc.)
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
Assistance to Afghanistan
The Hague Convention
Policies to implement ODA
Issue of the Northern Territories
International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament

1. Opening Statements

(1) Meeting of the Council of the Three Political-level Appointees

Minister:
We had a meeting of the Council of the Three Political-level Appointees of the Foreign Ministry today. I will make a brief report of it first. I gave a report on a Cabinet Meeting and a meeting of the Ministerial Conference. During the meeting of the Ministerial Conference, we agreed that Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Chinami Nishimura and the Parliamentary Secretary for Justice would exchange views in giving consideration to the Hague Convention. This agreement was made in response to the Minister of Justice's proposal to strengthen our system.

As I mentioned during my press conference the other day, one issue that failed to be given sufficient consideration within the limited timeframe for discussing the budget proposal for the next fiscal year is the issue of allowances for overseas assignments. In response - and this is also something that I touched upon during my press conference - we have decided to organize a team, comprised of State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Koichi Takemasa, Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Shuji Kira, and the director in charge from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to give consideration to the issue.

We also decided to scrutinize once more the role of public-service corporations that fall under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including the Japan Foundation. I am not sure if we can call this a team but a group of officials, headed by State Secretary Takemasa and Parliamentary Vice-Minister Kira, will give consideration to this matter.

2. Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan

Question (Sudo, the Mainichi Newspapers):
I have a question on the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station. During a press conference held at the outset of your assumption of Foreign Minister's office, you stated that you wished to come to a decision in 100 days, specifying the Futenma issue as an issue to be concluded - to a large extent - by the end of the year. Prime Minister Hatoyama, on the other hand, recently expressed his view that the situation was changing given the next year's mayoral election in Nago City and the gubernatorial election [in Okinawa Prefecture]. This could be interpreted that the decision may not be made until next year. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates of the United States, who is now visiting Japan, requested in an interview and on other occasions that the plan should be carried out as agreed and suggested, out of concern that the delay in decision-making would make the relocation to Guam - a related matter - difficult and implied his hope for a prompt decision. What is your current view? Do you think the decision should be made by the end of the year, or do you think it does not necessarily have to be this year?

Minister:
My explanation then was that if this issue involves a budget request, we would like to find a direction before then. This position remains unchanged.

Question (Sudo, the Mainichi Newspapers):
Would you elaborate a little more, please? Your assumption - "if this issue involves a budget request" - may have been valid at a time when you made the remarks initially. What concerns the Prime Minister and Defense Secretary Gates now, however, must be the time for a decision for the Futenma issue as a whole to be made, not a budgetary issue. From that standpoint, I do not see any reasons why the decision must be made this year. What do you think?

Minister:
There certainly is a way to address [this issue] by using a supplementary budget or a reserve budget. In any event, budget appropriation is a normal procedure and this point must be taken into account. Depending on the circumstances, we could, as I just said, use a reserve budget or a budget with similar purpose.

Question (Sudo, the Mainichi Newspapers):
Does that mean you seek as much as possible to make a decision this year?

Minister:
That is the direction in which we are moving.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
I want to confirm one thing about the Futenma issue. I think this is going to be a tough negotiation, but the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) indicated in the DPJ Okinawa Vision (2008) that they would seek the relocation to outside Okinawa Prefecture/Japan. Prime Minister Hatoyama also stated during the election campaign that [Futenma Air Station] must at least be relocated to outside Okinawa Prefecture. Without doubt, these statements, if not committed in the Manifesto, gave hope to the people of Okinawa. Furthermore, the Governor, while accepting an offshore option, expressed his hope for the relocation to outside Okinawa Prefecture. Has the DPJ conducted tangible research or work to justify such remarks and statements indicating the need to relocate to abroad and outside Okinawa Prefecture?

Minister:
I am not aware of the work done in compiling the Okinawa Vision because I was not involved in it. One thing for sure, though, is that starting discussions from scratch would take substantial time, keeping Futenma in a dangerous situation. We need to keep that in mind. In that sense, it is no good to spend too much time to reach a resolution.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
Without any concrete plan at hand, you have no way but to move forward with the current plan. Am I correct?

Minister:
I will refrain from making further comments. I have just outlined our basic position.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
On a related note, have Japan and the United States started consultations on the Futenma issue? You said that you would like a direction to be set this year, but you have to take the other party, the United States, into account as well in order to set the direction. Will the direction be set upon the completion of consultations with the United States? Or is Japan just hoping for such consultations to take place?

Minister:
I will answer the latter part of your question first. Whether we can make it or not, our ultimate goal is to set a direction in December. The answer to your question "whether or not consultations have begun" will depend on what you meant by "consultations." This is a vague word and therefore I need to speak carefully, but I never stated that we will conduct a "re-examination." What we are doing now is a verification on what has been done. Each of Japan and the United States is verifying how the current plan came about.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
You said that you wished for a direction to be ultimately set by the end of December. With the mayoral election in Nago City scheduled for next January, I think Prime Minister Hatoyama's intention is to wait to see the wish of Okinawa. How can the final direction be made compatible with the will of the people of Okinawa? This is my first question. Totally unrelated, but my second question is what is the timeframe for assistance measures for Afghanistan and Pakistan that are under consideration now?

Minister:
We are giving consideration so as to provide assistance measures to Afghanistan and Pakistan as soon as possible. Could you repeat your first question?

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
You said that you wished for a direction to be ultimately set by the end of the year, whereas Prime Minister Hatoyama mentioned a consensus of the people of Okinawa, which will be made clear following the mayoral election in Nago City next January. How will these two different timetables be made compatible?

Minister:
Naturally, we will make the final decision acceptable to Okinawa Prefecture and the people of Okinawa.

Question (Takahashi, Jiji Press):
I need a clarification, on the Futenma issue. You said that you were verifying how the current plan came about and that what you were conducting is not a re-examination. No matter what you say, it is clearly stipulated in the Agreement for a Three-Party Coalition Government that "[The three coalition parties will] move in the direction of re-examining the realignment of US forces." How can this be made consistent with your view? Will the re-examination start once the current verification is over? Please clarify if your view is consistent with the Agreement.

Minister:
Just as you said, we will start the re-examination based on the verification result.

Question (Takahashi, Jiji Press):
A supplementary question, but do you think the goal of setting the final direction this year can be achieved when taking such steps?

Minister:
While I wish to set a basic direction this year, we may not be in time for it.

Question (Nakaima, the Ryukyu Shimpo):
You said that the final decision of the Futenma issue will be made acceptable to Okinawa Prefecture and the people of Okinawa. Assuming that a plan will be drawn after re-examining [the current plan to relocate to off the coast of] Henoko and taking into account your explanation to leave the decision up to Okinawa Prefecture and the people of Okinawa, is your position that relocation within Okinawa Prefecture is understandable but relocation to outside Okinawa Prefecture or Japan would not be considered?

Minister:
No, that is not what I said. Relocation of Futenma Air Base will naturally create unemployment and, as such, there are various views within the people of Okinawa. What I meant was that we need to seek to attain a certain degree of acceptance and understanding from the people of Okinawa in making the decision.

Question (Nakaima, the Ryukyu Shimpo):
Do you still aim for the relocation to outside Okinawa Prefecture or Japan?

Minister:
I will not make comments further than what is written in the Agreement for a Three-Party Coalition Government.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
Going back to our previous talk, my understanding is that the verification is conducted by both Japan and the United States. The re-examination will likewise involve the other country, but is there a Japan-US agreement on it? Is it more accurate to say that Japan wishes to start re-examination after the completion of the verification by both countries or that Japan will convey to the United States when the verification is finished that it will start a re-examination?

Minister:
It all depends on the verification result. In theory, a satisfactory result could terminate the process. That is why I will refrain from making any comments which would lead to various speculations. I will just say that the verification is currently underway.

3. Visit to Japan by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates of the United States

Question (Ukai, Asahi Shinbun):
Defense Secretary Gates arrives in Japan today. Regarding the destination for the relocation of Futenma under the current plan, the US side has expressed its position that an offshore move under the current plan would be okay but major changes are unacceptable. What is your view on this? What kind of issues do you intend to raise in today's meeting with Defense Secretary Gates?

Minister:
I have no intention of commenting on the contents of the meeting. There are a variety of views on what Defense Secretary Gates said. We hear that he was questioned quite a number of times and responded at the end and we do not have a good sense of what the current situation is, so I have no intention of commenting on any statement that Defense Secretary Gates made publicly.

Question (Okazaki, NHK):
In your meeting with Defense Secretary Gates, are you planning to explain what you were saying before, that the situation is such that a legislative bill to extend the refueling [operations] cannot be submitted in the upcoming Diet session?

Minister:
I have no intention of commenting on individual meetings at this point.

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shinbun):
I have heard that you recently held some consultations in the Prime Minister's Office with Defense Minister Kitazawa and the Chief Cabinet Secretary. Were those consultations held with regard to US Defense Secretary Gates' visit to Japan? I would like to hear what you talked about, to the extent that you see appropriate.

Minister:
Since Defense Secretary Gates is coming to Japan and the Defense Minister Kitazawa, the Prime Minister and I are the ones meeting him, we did a little exchange of views, since we must conduct it properly on the basis of a good mutual understanding. I cannot tell you the substance.

4. Disclosure of Information regarding Diplomatic Documents

Question (Iwagami, freelance reporter):
You have been saying that you will undertake the disclosure of information from the past with zeal, such as with regard to the "secret agreements"; do you have plans, or intentions, to disclose information on the particulars of the negotiations between Japan and North Korea concerning the abduction issue? In particular, on the occasion of Prime Minister Koizumi's trip to North Korea in 2002, I do not know if there had been a mutual misunderstanding at the beginning then, but we have heard a story that it was promised that 10 billion [US] dollars would be paid, that economic cooperation would be extended, not at the time when the abduction issue would be resolved but when the state of their well-being, their situations would be made clear. Even last year, at a meeting of the association of the families [of the abductees], North Korean defector Chang Chul-hyun visited Japan and testified that there had been such talks on that occasion. If there had been a mutual misunderstanding, this may be one cause of the deadlock, so I would like to have you give your views as to whether or not this may be disclosed with the change in administration.

Minister:
I think many rumors will fly, but the point is what it is based on. It would be one thing if that North Korean defector had been at the center of the regime and was present at the meeting between former Prime Minister Koizumi and Secretary Kim Jong Il, but rumors breed more rumors so I have no intention of taking them up one after another. With regard to the disclosure of information, essentially, regarding the secret agreements, this is a matter of the period between the 1950s and 1960s, so we are examining this matter closely. It is on that basis that we would like to clarify whether or not there had been "secret agreements." Generally speaking, the rule at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as I recall, is to disclose all documents in principle after 30 years. However, I think there is a problem in that this rule of disclosure in principle is being applied restrictively. With regard to items under the 30-year threshold, if there is a request under the general Act on Access to Information, we will disclose [the information] after deciding that it is appropriate. Basically, since it is a matter where there is the other party involved and there is the diplomatic relationship of mutual trust, I think it is unavoidable that there is much under the 30-year threshold that cannot be disclosed.

5. Policy on North Korea (Act for Special Measures on Cargo Inspection of North Korean Ships, etc.)

Question (Kasahara, Sankei Shinbun):
I would like to hear again what your views are on the legislative bill on the Act for Special Measures on Cargo Inspection of North Korean Ships. And I have the impression that the opinions within the administration have not been consolidated, so how will coordination within the administration proceed, with the convocation of the extraordinary session of the Diet only a week away? I would like to hear from you on these two points.

Minister:
As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, since this is a legislative bill to implement measures that were agreed upon as a UN Security Council resolution, I wish to have it enacted expeditiously. However, what I have told the Chief Cabinet Secretary - something that I have said before in this venue - is that the matter of which and how many laws we will introduce in the next Diet session is a major political decision so I will leave it ultimately to the discretion of the Prime Minister's Office. That said, we need to enact it soon. I have heard that there is talk in some quarters that it could be pushed back since there are currently signs of a little softening on the part of North Korea. But I have been saying that the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is that this is a different matter; we are merely putting into practice what has been decided (by the UN Security Council), so, although we do not know whether or not there is a softening, choosing to postpone after looking at North Korea's current posture would be wrong.

Question (Yamaguchi, NHK):
Japanese diplomacy has tackled denuclearization (on the peninsula), but that has been difficult to achieve. What do you think is the reason for this?

Minister:
This is quite a difficult question; since one must guess at how others are thinking, I, as Foreign Minister, cannot be rash in answering it. One item on the agenda that was loudly proclaimed during the Bush administration was that the regime would be changed. If that is the case, it will not lead to negotiations, so I think that we must conduct affairs while sending the message to North Korea that if it gives up nuclear weapons, then it will be accepted by the international community - of course in Japan's case, there are not only nuclear weapons but also missiles and abductions - and that in such a situation there will be corresponding benefits. Another thing I think is that the transition from the Bush administration was imminent, that there were such considerations. In that sense, I think the North Korean side saw value in waiting till that occurred. Now that the Obama administration is installed and there are reports of a variety of health issues, I think that it is the North Korean side, which is in a race against time, so I think we should settle down and not be impatient as we negotiate.

Question (Yamaguchi, NHK):
Up to now, I think there was a tendency for coordination between Japan and the United States, more or less, to be insufficient. How do you intend to cooperate with the Obama administration?

Minister:
On this, there is talk about US-North Korea consultations, and we are saying that it's okay if it is within the Six-Party Talks framework. The United States has been transmitting a variety of information concerning North Korea, and communication has been very good. Therefore, I want to make absolutely sure that there will not be a lack of communication that leads to exactly what North Korea wants, that it can manipulate the United States and Japan separately; I think that currently, communication is very good.

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
I would like to ask a question concerning matters about the inspection of North Korean cargo. If this legislative bill is not enacted quickly and cargo inspection cannot be conducted soon, what kind of disadvantages will accrue to Japan, Asia, and the international community?

Minister:
More as a matter of posture than as an issue of substance, since it was decided by the (UN) Security Council with Japan playing a central role, it is certain that it is an undesirable state of affairs to be unable to implement it.

6. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

Question (Hu, Singapore Press Holdings):
Mr. Okada, before you became Minister, you came to Singapore and met Singapore's Foreign Minister. It is our understanding that you attach importance to the APEC meeting in Singapore next month. Since Japan will be the chair next year and the United States will be the chair the year after that, what is your aim as next year's chair country, such as what Japan and the United States can do between the two?

Minister:
When I met Singapore's Prime Minister in Tokyo the other day, I asked him to pass on their experience as APEC chair to Japan, which is next year's chair. Between this year's Singapore, next year's Japan, and the United States the year after that, I think many things can be done in the APEC forum during this period. I feel that we must coordinate effectively among us to that end.

7. Assistance to Afghanistan

Question (Niibori, TV Asahi):
State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Japan, Tetsuro Fukuyama, indicated yesterday in his speech and also to reporters that MOFA was jointly considering with the Ministry of Defense (MOD) measures to support Afghanistan. Are we correct to envision any involvement of the MOD or Self-Defense Forces (SDF) in future assistance to Afghanistan? This issue can be related to the question of the simple extension, as you have earlier referred to, and also to the resumption of the refueling mission. Please give us your ideas about this point.

Minister:
MOFA is considering the issue of supporting Afghanistan not only on its own but also jointly with the MOD. Having said that, I find it slightly over the top to expect any concrete involvement by the SDF.

Question (Niibori, TV Asahi):
Have you begun any specific consideration in this regard?

Minister:
No we have not.

Question (Sato, the Hokkaido Shimbun):
As for assistance to Afghanistan, we have earlier talked briefly about Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, who had in the past implied that civilian assistance alone would not be sufficient. He even indicated his intention to personally consider the use of the SDF. You, on the other hand, earlier showed rather negative or inactive views about the dispatch of the SDF, citing various difficulties on TV programs and during G8 meetings and other occasions. Please tell us your current view on the issue of sending the SDF, apart from the refueling mission.

Minister:
I have never heard about any specific ideas from either the MOD or Minister Kitazawa.

Question (Sato, the Hokkaido Shimbun):
Do you personally consider the dispatch of the SDF as a possible option?

Minister:
I have no specific consideration in this regard at the moment.

8. The Hague Convention

Question (Kudo, the Mainichi Newspapers):
Let me refer to children's human rights, as laid out in the Hague Convention. There apparently are considerable cases of abduction of children and having children abducted, although little of the reality has come to light on this issue. Some of the people involved complain that their claims were not seriously handled at Japan's diplomatic missions overseas or at MOFA, despite their repeated pleas for consultation. Based on these cases, please tell us if you have any plan to survey the current situations through these diplomatic entities? If you do, please tell us any specific direction being considered.

Minister:
This issue depends on countries. In countries that have signed the Hague Convention, any Japanese persons are found guilty if they bring their children out to Japan. This regulation remains unchanged whether or not a Japanese embassy is involved in the case. That is rule of law.

9. Policies to implement ODA

Question (Tanaka, Japan Alternative News for Justices and New Cultures (JANJAN)):
Let me ask you a question about ODA. Japan is the largest ODA donor for certain countries, which I rather refrain from naming, even though their records of actions include: house-arresting of a Nobel Peace Prize winner; alleged development of nuclear weapons; and the detention of 250,000 people of the Tamil ethnic minority in relocation camps that the country claims to be refugee facilities. Do you have any plan to reconsider these aspects of Japan's ODA?

Minister:
We must consider each case based on the specific circumstances it is in. For example, I think the last instance refers to Sri Lanka, which has gone through a complicated path toward peace. Many people have become refugees now and their homecoming is an imminent issue. Given that, I find significance in Japan's efforts thus far for arbitration, based chiefly on the initiatives of Mr. Yasushi Akashi representing the Government of Japan. And now that the country has come to a conclusion in this regard, I believe it is necessary for Japan to engage in economic cooperation with the country. We must constantly review our commitments to each country. Nevertheless, as you have referred to the case of Sri Lanka, I do not mean to say every single action we took was right. But we have been committed to each country based on the very needs that arose there. I do not plan to review our activities all together.

Question (Tanaka, JANJAN):
What about Myanmar?

Minister:
Japan does not support the country in terms of infrastructure. While there are various criticisms about the country from the West, Japan has been basically committed to civilian assistance via channels of non-government organizations (NGOs). After years of engaging in harsh criticism, the West, in particular the United States, has recently changed its tone toward Myanmar. In my understanding, their approaches have become closer to that of Japan's. That underpins the importance of fostering the efforts of dialogue, instead of merely driving the country into a corner. I see these recent changes as the very fruit of Japan's long, enduring commitments to Myanmar.

Question (Tanaka, JANJAN):
In Sri Lanka, I stayed with local families while covering events as a reporter. There I saw Japan's ODA hardly benefitting the ethnic minorities. It only served the interests of Japan's general contractors and other certain groups of people.

Minister:
I think there are various views in this regard. Of course, we cannot justify all past records of Japan's ODA. Again, we need constant review in this respect.

Related Information (Japan's ODA)

10. Issue of the Northern Territories

Question (Sato, the Hokkaido Shimbun Press):
Let me ask about the issue of the Northern Territories. Minister in charge of Okinawa and the Northern Territories, Seiji Maehara, said that Japan's Northern Territories were illegally occupied, during his tour to observe the territories from Nemuro, Hokkaido the other day. His remark has met with a denouncing statement by Russia's Foreign Ministry. As a minister overseeing foreign affairs, how do you perceive the comment by Minister Maehara and response by Russia's Foreign Ministry?

Minister:
This is a highly sensitive matter. Of course, we call for the return of the islands, claiming our sovereignty over them and citing legal grounds to that effect. However, Russia sees it otherwise. That makes it inevitable that our views are at odds with each other's. At issue then is what degree of intensity we employ to push for our claims. As the one assuming the top responsibility for diplomacy, I will forge this issue in view of what we need to advance the negotiations.

11. International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament

Question (Sudo, the Mainichi Newspapers):
About the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), or the so-called Kawaguchi-Evans committee, the members apparently have two major different opinions about the no-first use (NFU) policy of nuclear weapons. Some members see it as a short-term goal to have the United States pledge NFU as the largest nuclear power. Others call on every nuclear power to pledge NFU over the next 25 years as a long-term goal. While the wording of these two opinions may appear similar, I expect significant difference in the actual effects arising from the two. Before assuming the ministerial post, I remember you were appealing for a clear stance to call on the United States to adopt a NFU policy. In the current position, how would you accurately maintain this view?

Minister:
First, what I have been appealing for was not the demand for the United States. What I suggested instead was that the concept of NFU should be a norm, to be followed not only by the United States, but also by all other nuclear powers. In addition, since before assuming this post, I have been questioning the stance of Japan to ask the US to refrain from pledging NFU. Now the ICNND is still working on its report. At this stage, I find it inappropriate for me to comment on it, including whether or not the view that has just been raised is based on the right way to read the report. What I have particularly noted about the ICNND is that it is not run by governments but instead created by third parties. It is my hope that the ICNND will engage in discussions independent from government views. I have conveyed this to ICNND co-chair, Ms. Yoriko Kawaguchi, adding that MOFA would not intervene. I asked her to participate in the discussions and lead them to a consensus, all out of her own will. Separately, I also said at a dinner I hosted for the ICNND members and others the other day that I hoped for the ICNND to present initiatives that go several steps ahead of the moves of existing governments. I told them that ICNND initiatives would mean rather little if they were barely different from those of governments. That is all.

Back to Index