(* 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 27, 2009, 3:00 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statements
- (1) Launching of the Headquarters for the Promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization Negotiations
- (2) Meeting of the Council of the Three-level Political Appointees
Headquarters for the Promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization Negotiations
Convening of a Nuclear Security Summit
The Issue of Replenishment Activities in the Indian Ocean
The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
Reports on the Belongings of Kenji Nagai
Testimony by Bunroku Yoshino, Former Director of the Former American Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
The Investigation into the Issue of the so-called Secret Agreements
Japan-Russia Vice-Ministers' Meeting
Perceptions of History by Japan and the Republic of Korea

1. Opening Statements

(1) Launching of the Headquarters for the Promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization Negotiations

Minister:
I have two announcements to make. The first announcement is on the establishment of the Headquarters for the Promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) Negotiations within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The decision to establish the Headquarters within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was made in order to promote, under political leadership, negotiations for EPAs and the WTO Doha Round. The first meeting is scheduled to be held today. I have learned that the traditional issue-resolving approach was to have discussions on specific issues at appropriate levels at each ministry or their bureaus. While I do not necessarily completely disagree with this approach, negotiations of this sort cannot move forward without political leadership. Japan is particularly slow when it comes to efforts for EPAs and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). It is against this backdrop that we decided to launch this organization within the Ministry, as a first step to remedy the situation.

Although I am not supposed to disclose what is discussed during a Ministerial Conference, I will, as otherwise I would not have anything to talk about. During today's Ministerial Conference, a proposal was made to establish a Ministerial Committee, comprised of the Ministers of four ministries which have been tasked with handling this issue: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. If the Committee is established, the Ministers will meet once or twice a month and investigate into the current progress being made at each ministry. How the Committee will be operated is subject to further discussion. The proposal met no opposition, so we will propose this to the Chief Cabinet Secretary in the near future in order for the Committee to be formally established.

Related Information (Press Release)

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

Minister:
The second announcement is on today's meeting of the Council of the Three-level Political Appointees. I will skip the details. Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Chinami Nishimura went to Paris and attended an international conference on international solidarity levies. International solidarity levies are a mechanism that the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has advocated to establish, although in which areas levies should be implemented is a separate issue for debate. I had a meeting with NGO members today to discuss global warming issues - some argue that an international solidarity levy should be used to fund efforts to tackle global warming. Others propose using it for activities addressing the poverty issue in developing countries. These matters included, we have made a proposal on international solidarity levies to the Tax Commission. The Council has reaffirmed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will make the international solidarity levy mechanism in Japan a priority task.

2. Headquarters for the Promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization Negotiations

Question (Higashioka, Asahi Shimbun):
I have a question on the Headquarters for the Promotion of Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization Negotiations. Will the issue of a Japan-US FTA, which was raised in the DPJ's Manifesto, be on the agenda of the Headquarters? As you said, Japan's efforts on EPAs lag far behind other nations. Agricultural, forestry, and fishery products are often said to be the obstacles to the successful enactment of trade agreements, but, in you opinion, why does Japan move slower than other nations in this regard?

Minister:
The agenda of the Headquarters will be decided after its establishment. For the time being, we will discuss ways to advance negotiations which have already started but are delayed. Going forward, we need to decide on areas of EPAs in which Japan will strategically focus its efforts, but this is not an issue that we will discuss in the immediate future. I think there are various reasons for delays. I will not identify specific areas now, but in general, Japan has pursued a bottom-up approach to negotiations, which has made it difficult to fully disseminate the message that the advancement of EPA negotiations will benefit Japan's national interests. The officials tasked with day-to-day negotiations may often have been bound by their immediate interests, and may not have always recognized the significance of advancing negotiations. I think this is one reason. We should not start discussions from scratch with a country whose neighbor has already concluded an EPA with Japan. Details are of course important; as we say, "the truth is in the details." I will ensure that we take a broader basic stance for the advancement of EPA negotiations.

Related Information (Press Release)

3. Convening of a Nuclear Security Summit

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Newspapers):
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration Thomas D'Agostino, who is visiting Japan, said today that a meeting for the nuclear security summit that US President Barack Obama has announced for next February will be held in Japan in December. Assuming that Japan will host the meeting, what is the significance and aim of the meeting?

Minister:
What meeting is Japan going to host?

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Newspapers):
My understanding is that a nuclear security summit will be held in Washington DC next February and that Japan will host a preparatory meeting this December.

Minister:
I have not heard anything about what you just said. In any event, the preparatory meeting has nothing to do with the significance of the summit.

4. The Issue of Replenishment Activities in the Indian Ocean

Question (Mizushima, Jiji Press):
Minister of Defense Kitazawa mentioned today that he was considering a plan to have the replenishment ship currently in the Indian Ocean diverted to Somalia to counter piracy. To what extent has this issue been considered within the government? Although counter-piracy measures in Somalia are significant in terms of international cooperation, what do you think about diverting the replenishment ship for this purpose, given that the primary mission of counter-piracy measures is to protect Japanese commercial ships? How do you think this will be evaluated internationally?

Minister:
I could not really get the last part of the question. What do you mean?

Question (Mizushima, Jiji Press):
The US seems to be requesting additional assistance for Afghanistan. Is there any meaning in diverting the ship to Somalia as an alternative to this?

Minister:
I do not think the plan was particularly positioned as an alternative to assistance for Afghanistan. I understand the issue of the refueling in the Indian Ocean and the issue off the coast of Somalia to be two entirely different things. As to how this will be regarded internationally, I must say we would not divert the ship to supply Japanese vessels near Somalia, as this is something we are already doing right now. The Minister of Defense must be thinking of a scenario to supply various countries. I think this is one possible form of international contribution, and I am aware myself that the Ministry of Defense has been considering that direction. That said, since we still need to revise the law and make other arrangements, and as I have not received a substantial explanation on the actual need and necessity for doing this, I shall refrain from making any comment on the matter.

5. The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan

Question (Sudo, Asahi Shimbun):
Regarding the Futenma Air Station issue, you previously stated that relocation within Okinawa [Prefecture] would be desirable. Prime Minister Hatoyama talked about moving the air station outside Okinawa at the very least during the Lower House elections. How do you plan to explain this to the people of Okinawa as well as the general public?

Minister:
There are no phrases such as "outside of Okinawa" or "outside Japan" in the Manifesto. However, I am thoroughly aware of what Prime Minister Hatoyama said at the time of the election. However, if asked whether campaign promises made during elections must be realized 100%, I think many people would say "not necessarily."

That said, the important thing is that we are making efforts to lessen the burden on Okinawa, and that we will put even more effort into this, and that in the end we will receive the understanding and satisfaction of many people in Okinawa. Additionally, if the relocation is delayed, this will mean that the current situation in Futenma will continue - an issue I emphasized last week. Underlying this whole discussion is the intent to do something about Futenma, first and foremost. That is why I stated last week that we should avoid considering a plan from scratch that would delay this unnecessarily.

Question (Higuchi, TBS):
I have another question regarding the Futenma issue. At your press conference last Friday, you stated that in reality you cannot consider relocation outside Okinawa as a possible alternative. Why are you saying this now? For example, up until now, you have been conducting verification into how we reached the current agreement jointly with US Government. Was it due to what you discovered? Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates of the United States stated during his talk with Minister of Defense Kitazawa that without Futenma realignment there would be no relocation to Guam or consolidation of forces. Have you received any decisive messages from the US side other than these external statements that made you decide to make your statement on Friday?

Minister:
There was no particular reason. However, I have been thinking about it for a long time and right now there is no concrete possible alternative outside of Okinawa. Given the circumstances, there is no doubt that to start discussions from scratch would take too much time. Additionally, I have been explaining for some time that we are reconsidering plans that we have considered in the past. I think that someone with good instincts would have already realized that relocation outside Okinawa would not be a possibility. I have been saying this indirectly. It was just by chance that it was Friday that I stated this directly. Since becoming Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have reorganized various possibilities in my mind and considered past plans one by one. It would be different if we had a longer time to decide on this issue, such as three years or five years. However, given that we must come to a conclusion in a limited period time, considering such issues as the agreement between Japan and the United States and the Futenma problem, I came to the conclusion that relocation outside Okinawa would not be a possibility. I believe it was the right thing to state this when I did. I thought it was best not to drag things out for too long.

Question: (Higuchi, TBS):
In relation to what you just said, you stated that you made this decision considering various past developments and reconsidering past plans. Was this influenced in any way by messages from the US side?

Minister:
I did talk about various things with Secretary of Defense Gates. These were all within my expectations.

Question (Oguri, Nippon Television):
I also have a question regarding Futenma. Today Minister of Defense Kitazawa stated after the Cabinet Meeting that even if Japan were to continue implementation in line with the current agreement between Japan and the United States, the DPJ's policy to aim for relocation outside of Okinawa or Japan would not change, and that there is consistency. Are you of the same opinion?

Minister:
I believe this is a rather difficult question. I believe that I would have said "yes" a few years ago. I think that at the stage of deciding on relocation to Iwakuni and relocation to Guam, we would have been able to realize a partial relocation outside Okinawa or Japan. However, the various things we have been saying continued on after the current package was decided on and announced. In this sense, logically speaking, I think this is a little difficult. I think that what Minister of Defense Kitazawa wanted to say was that we have been saying "relocation outside Okinawa or Japan," but you should also remember that the current package includes relocation to Guam and relocation to Iwakuni.

Question (Kaminishikawara, Kyodo News):
My question is also about Futenma. I believe your statement that we must move the Futenma Air Station as soon as possible and that this is the reason for relocation within Okinawa is actually what the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been arguing all along. Since 1995, there have been voices from inside and outside of Okinawa demanding relocation outside Okinawa. The LDP government has been consistent about relocation within Okinawa in order to resolve the dangerous situation at Futenma. Now that the DPJ is in power, if the same logic is used for relocation within Okinawa, I wonder how the people of Okinawa will feel about the significance of the transfer of power. What is your opinion on this?

Minister:
I believe this is a completely different issue. To start discussions from scratch and to come to a conclusion in a short span of time and on the basis of an agreement already in place are completely different situations. If we can start from scratch, of course we want to discuss relocation outside of Okinawa. However, the situation has developed this far already, and these are different circumstances from several years ago when we began to discuss the issue.

Question (Kaminishikawara, Kyodo News):
Last week you also mentioned consolidation with Kadena Air Base. This is also another issue that has been debated for a long time, with the local three cities and towns flatly opposing it and the US side clearly against it as well. Just now you stated that someone with good instincts would have already realized that there would be no relocation outside Okinawa. However, predicting this outcome, putting good or bad instincts aside, there are voices saying that Henoko, where Camp Schwab is located, is the only possible location for the relocation of Futenma Air Station. What is your opinion on this?

Minister:
This is another reason we are currently conducting investigations. Minister of Defense Kitazawa says that that verification at the Ministry of Defense has already been completed, and I would like very much to hear about this from the Ministry of Defense. However, we are still in the process of verifying the situation on our side, and I would also like to hear opinions from the US side. The opposition of the local people is of course one of the major factors that makes consolidation with Kadena Air Base impossible. However, I am not necessarily convinced of the other factors involved. So I would like more details on this. For example, there is the argument that operations would become difficult in the case of an emergency. I think we need more concrete discussion on whether this is really the case. Additionally, there is some concern over the Marine Corps and the Air Force being put together. Is this really completely unacceptable? Concern over helicopters and airplanes sharing space is another argument, but there are precedents for such situations. So I would like to delve into further details on this. If you have details on this, please let me know.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
On the same note, you gave your opinion on consolidation with Kadena Air Base last Friday. Having stated this, and now that some time has past, are you currently taking any action to bring together the Government's position toward a consolidation with Kadena, or to convince the local people? Additionally, please tell us when you decided to move forward with the consolidation with Kadena as your position.

Minister:
I do not think it is necessary to answer the question of when I made a decision. The content is currently being verified. In my opinion this is still only a choice we might make, and we are still in the process of verification. However, if I do end up deciding that consolidation with Kadena is better, I would like to persuade the Government to take this position. This is why I stated that this was just my opinion previously.

Question (Araki, Chugoku Shimbun):
Again on the Futenma issue, aside from the relocation of Futenma Air Station, the roadmap for the realignment of the US forces also includes the relocation of Carrier Air Wing Five (CVW-5) squadrons from Atsugi Air Facility in Kanagawa to Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Iwakuni in Yamaguchi. There are still deeply rooted objections to this from the local people. Since a reconsideration of this is stated in both the DPJ Manifesto and the Agreement for a Three-Party Coalition Government, will the relocation to Iwakuni be reconsidered as well?

Minister:
Member of the House of Representatives Mr. Hiraoka came to see me earlier and we discussed the MCAS Iwakuni issue at length. I myself have visited Iwakuni before to see the situation, and I highly question how much has been explained to the local residents regarding the issue of the consolidation of military bases. In the case of Iwakuni, despite the fact that the city hall is in the middle of construction, subsidies were suddenly cut. In other words, the situation was set up so that the people of Iwakuni would not receive money for the construction of the city hall if they did not agree to the relocation. In this sense, while Japan and the United States made an agreement, explanations to persuade the local residents were neglected, and now that the government has transferred, we are left with this problem. We have no immediate plans for Iwakuni, but I believe we will of course need to provide the residents with proper explanations and receive their understanding to an extent.

Question (Araki, Chugoku Shimbun):
Does this mean that you will investigate this situation after the Okinawa situation?

Minister:
I do not mean to say after Okinawa, but unfortunately the reality is that we are not capable of handling this situation right now.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
You just stated that you would like to hear opinions from the US side and that you must conduct concrete discussions. What kind of opportunities will you have, and how do you plan to discuss this, with the US side? Considering that it is a sensitive situation involving US military forces, I don't think it is of a nature that can be discussed over the phone.

Minister:
To a certain extent there are already director-level talks underway and I believe it is possible to elevate this to a higher level. I do not think it is necessary to answer when and how this will happen.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
Regarding the case of Iwakuni, you stated that no explanation or persuasion had been going on. Regarding relocation outside of Okinawa, you said something to the effect that someone with good instincts should already have known, and while I think that there are campaign promises that won't be realized, if they aren't, the responsibility to explain why the campaign promises weren't realized still remains. Do you have plans to do this for the people of Okinawa, to engage in political activities yourself?

Minister:
When the final decision has been made, I do see the need for this to happen. However, at the moment, saying that relocation outside of Okinawa is not a possibility is too abstract, and should just end there. When the plan is finalized, then I think there will be a need to gain understanding from the people of Okinawa to an extent. This, of course, is only natural.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
I understand that you are currently verifying the issue. Having said that, at this stage have you already taken, or are you currently taking, any approach toward reconsidering this issue? Additionally, the plan to consolidate Futenma Air Station with Kadena Air Base has come up as an alternative. From the viewpoint of lessening the burden on Okinawa, what do you currently think are the benefits of this plan as opposed to the Henoko plan?

Minister:
I have not used the term "reconsider." It is verification. We are in the process of verification. We are looking into why the Kadena plan was rejected and are thoroughly confirming whether Kadena can be considered an alternative. Kadena can be an alternative plan, but we need to conduct more detailed verification. This was my explanation. As for what benefits there may be, this will be verified as well, but at the least, I believe that two large military bases in Okinawa becoming one base could be a benefit. The current plan presents the problem of the possibility that two military bases will become fixed.

Question (Kawamura, TV Asahi):
In relation to the Futenma issue, there are records that during the Koizumi administration, the Bush administration proposed the Kadena consolidation plan to the Japanese side, and while it was not an official proposal, the US side said on two occasions that they agreed to the Kadena consolidation plan. Since you are saying now that there are director-level talks going on and that the US side said certain things in the past so this must be further looked in to, does this mean that you have already verified the developments on the US side and intend to go into negotiations from here on?

Minister:
What which side said in the past is unknown as I do not think there are written records. However, it is true that consolidation with Kadena Air Base was discussed. However, the current plan was deemed better at the time and this was the plan that was developed. I would like to verify the facts surrounding this as well. Even the current plan was originally supposed to be one in which the air station would float offshore, I believe. There was also a plan to build it on a hill. There are still areas that I do not fully understand or am not convinced by. The person who was central to these developments, political level aside, was someone who had been Vice-Minister at the Ministry of Defense for a long time. I do not know if I should ask him about the circumstances of that time, but I am still not completely aware of the developments and if Minister of Defense Kitazawa has already completed verification at the Ministry of Defense, I would most definitely like to hear about it.

Question (Murao, Yomiuri Shimbun):
On another Futenma-related question, I think that you have basically narrowed the possibilities down to two: relocation to the coast of Camp Schwab and consolidation with Kadena Air Base. As far as I can tell, it seems that you are more positive about the Kadena plan. Once verification has been completed, if you are satisfied with the reasons for rejecting the Kadena plan in the past as well as the objections from the local community, do you believe that the current Camp Schwab plan will become inevitable?

Minister:
If I inadvertently answered a question like that, I can just imagine the headlines; "Foreign Minister accepts current plan." I will refrain from answering.

Question (Niihori, TV Asahi):
President Obama's visit to Japan is drawing near. As Minister for Foreign Affairs do you have any plans to meet anyone, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States, prior to this or conduct some prior coordination related to the Futenma issue?

Minister:
Do you mean conduct prior coordination with Secretary of State Clinton? Currently, I do not have anything planned.

Question (Niihori, TV Asahi):
Since there is still some time before the visit, is there a possibility that something will be scheduled?

Minister:
That I do not know. There was a report by a media outlet previously that my request for a meeting was turned down, but since Secretary of State Clinton is a very busy person, flying around the world all the time, if our schedules do not match, there may be times when something like that happens. If and when something is scheduled, I will let you know. At the moment, I have not heard anything. Because of the schedule of the budget committee and the Diet, it is actually hard for me to find time as well.

Question (Nakaima, Ryukyu Shimpo):
I'm sorry, this is another question about Futenma. You stated that relocation outside Okinawa was difficult during your press conference last Friday and that you were looking into alternative locations from plans previously considered between Japan and the United States. In the ongoing verification process, have there been any plans for relocation outside Okinawa within the plans previously considered between Japan and the United States? What other plans were there that you are currently aware of?

Minister:
As far as I know so far, of course there were other plans, such as the plan for Iwakuni, but I do not believe there were any plans for the relocation of Futenma Air Station outside of Okinawa.

Question (Nakaima, Ryukyu Shimpo):
Over the course of our research, a plan about relocation to Hokkaido or Kyushu was uncovered during interviews with the personnel in charge of negotiations on both the Japanese and US side. This has already been reported in the news. Are you not aware of this?

Minister:
I understand that this plan was not really concretely considered.

Question (Ishikawa, Yomiuri Shimbun):
Today, Minister of Defense Kitazawa stated that the Cabinet should have a unified policy on what sort of message Prime Minister Hatoyama will convey when he meets with President Obama. While Minister Kitazawa accepted the current plan, you are still in the verification process because you are not satisfied with the results. There are only about two more weeks left until President Obama's visit. Do you plan to have the verification completed by then so that the Cabinet can have a unified position?

Minister:
I have talked about this issue several times already. We have conveyed to the US side that we are not in a situation to be able to present a conclusion by the time of President Obama's visit, whether it will be the current plan or completely different one. There is also the need to give a thorough explanation to the people of Okinawa on whatever plan we decide upon in order to receive their understanding to a certain extent, and I believe there is not enough time for that. What issues we will discuss with President Obama during his visit is something that we must talk about. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have already started talking with the Prime Minister about a rough outline. I do not fully understand Minister of Defense Kitazawa's statement. Generally speaking, it is hard to believe that we can put Futenma on the table for discussion and be able to produce an answer.

6. Reports on the Belongings of Kenji Nagai

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
A photograph has been released of the belongings of Mr. Kenji Nagai, who was shot dead two years ago in Myanmar while reporting on anti-government demonstrations. The fact that such a photograph was released suggests that it is highly probable that there some of his belongings still remain in Myanmar. Using this evidence, do you intend to push the Myanmar side further for the return of these items, during such occasions as the bilateral talks at the Japan-Mekong summit meeting? Do you intend to examine or investigate about the veracity of information by requesting the photo or through other methods?

Minister:
I did mention the issue of the photographer, Mr. Kenji Nagai, during the bilateral talks with Myanmar held on the sidelines of the Japan-Mekong Foreign Ministers' Meeting. Although I made a firm protest, I did not receive a concrete reply from them. There is the possibility that the issue will be brought up during the Japan-Mekong summit meeting later, especially if bilateral talks are to be held. However, I would rather not to be too assertive on this issue, since there is the risk that the bilateral meeting would be canceled. I will try to speak in a softer tone on this issue. As far as I have heard, the photograph discovered lately shows only the belongings that have already been returned to Japan. The video camera in the photograph is not the one that was allegedly lost when Mr. Nagai was shot - that camera was made by a different manufacturer. Parts of his camera and video camera were already returned, and I hear that the camera in the photograph is the one that was returned to Japan. If there is any evidence against the credibility of this information, I would have to make a further investigation. That is what I have heard so far.

7. Testimony by Bunroku Yoshino, Former Director of the Former American Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Question (Yanagawa, TV Tokyo):
Concerning the litigation against the secret agreement over Okinawa's reversion to Japan, which is currently under trial in the Tokyo District Court, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gave permission to Bunroku Yoshino, former Director of the former American Affairs Bureau, to testify in court. What is the reason for giving this permission? What kind of attitude do you expect from Mr. Yoshino when testifying?

Minister:
I think it is up to Mr. Yoshino himself to decide what attitude to have when testifying. What the Ministry can do here is to lift the embargo on information that was originally intended to be confidential. Since the trial is underway now, and as the court has requested to hear from Mr. Yoshino to confirm the facts, we have no intention of stopping him from showing up in the court and cooperating. I don't think we are supposed to make suggestions about the content of the testimony.

8. The Investigation into the Issue of the so-called Secret Agreements

Question (Kamematsu, J-CAST News):
I would like to ask you about your instruction to investigate into the secret agreements. One and a half months have passed since you issued your order, and we hear that a report is supposed to be submitted by the end of November. Have you received any progress reports at on this? If so, what kinds of reports have you received?

Minister:
I receive reports as necessary. I have nothing to say about the content since the work is still in progress.

9. Japan-Russia Vice-Ministers' Meeting

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
The Japan-Russia Vice-Ministers' Meeting was held today. This was the first vice-ministerial meeting in this century between Japan and Russia. While there are various issues to be resolved, including negotiations for a peace treaty, what developments for future bilateral relations with Russia do you think the meeting produced, considering its outcome?

Minister:
I have not yet received a report about what was principally discussed at the meeting today. A number of issues were discussed in the previous bilateral summit meeting held in New York. Among them, what you are most interested in hearing about probably is the issue of the Four Northern Islands, which I expect to be discussed at the ministerial level as well depending on how the situation progresses. I would like to confirm what kind of response was made by the Russian side on this issue, in other words, whether or not they presented a point substantial enough to talk about, or if the issue was brought up at all.

10. Perceptions of History by Japan and the Republic of Korea

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
Let me ask you about the issue of the perception of history by Japan and the Republic of Korea. This year marks the 100th year of the assassination of the first Prime Minister of Japan, Hirofumi Ito. Once again, a ceremony to commemorate the assassin, Ahn Jung-geun, was held in the ROK. For its part, North Korea has issued a statement in its media, renewing its thoughts toward the former imperial Japan and demonstrating its intent to protest Japan's unwillingness to reflect on historical issues. From your current position as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, please tell us what significance this incident of 100 years ago holds historically? What lessons do you think we, the Japanese, should learn from the incident? What points do you think we should reflect upon?

Minister:
It is difficult to answer your question properly. If I am to express my view as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, rather than my personal impression, then this is not the kind of issue where a single-word answer will do. I was interested in the book, Richo Houkai (The Collapse of the Yi Dynasty of Korea), recently on the airplane to Afghanistan and Indonesia. People of different positions have totally different perceptions of history. The way the assassination of Hirofumi Ito is commonly perceived in Japan or by many Japanese people differs completely from the view that the people in the ROK and North Korea have. I am not a historian and, therefore, I will refrain from stating with conviction what the truth is.

Back to Index