(* 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, November 17, 2009, 4:45 p.m.
Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statements
- (1) Japan-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting
- (2) The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Okinawa
The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
Japan-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting
US-China Relations
Kidnapping of a Japanese National in Yemen
Japan-Russia Relations
The Investigation into the Issue of the Secret Agreements
Regional Cooperation in Asia
The Issue of Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

1. Opening Statements

(1) Japan-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting

Minister:
Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi of the People’s Republic of China is scheduled to visit Japan from November 19 to November 22 as a guest of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and we are scheduled to hold a foreign ministers’ meeting on November 19. We have had in-depth discussions in Shanghai and in Beijing. This time, for Minister of Foreign Affairs Yang Jiechi’s visit to Japan, I am planning to hold a meeting with the Minister, and I will have him meet with a wide range of people. I am looking forward to discussing various issues with him, including Japan-China relations.

(2) The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Okinawa

Minister:
I visited Okinawa yesterday and the day before. While the visit was only for a short time, I was able to hold a meaningful exchange of opinions with the Governor of Okinawa and others concerned. My visit this time was more for the purpose of listening to what they had to say, although I did share some of my own opinions as well. If I have the opportunity to go there again, I would like to make another visit. I do not have any specific timeline for this.

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

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Newspapers):
I have a question on how you characterize the working group on the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station. The working group will come to a conclusion sometime in the future, although exactly when that will be, I believe, remains to be seen. Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirofumi Hirano has indicated that the Prime Minister will make a final decision with consideration for the working group’s conclusion, though the conclusion will be that of a ministerial-level working group, as this issue relates to Japan-US relations. How is the working group’s conclusion being positioned within the Japanese government? In other words, will the working group’s conclusion basically be the Japanese government’s conclusion? Considering this point as well, will the Prime Minister consider making a different decision? Please tell us how the working group’s conclusion will be handled.

Minister:
First of all, we need to be aware of clarify what the working group will discuss. As I have said in my previous press conferences, US Ambassador to Japan John Roos and I have agreed that the working group would verify the process in which the Japan-US agreement was made. At what level within the government the working group’s conclusion will be positioned, as you asked, is a matter of a different dimension. The working group will carry out an verification.

Question (Ukai, Asahi Shimbun):
On a related note, you stated this morning at a meeting of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Security that the foreign and defense ministers of Japan and the United States would agree on and confirm the final conclusion. Do you mean that you intend to find a direction for policy within the result of the working group’s examination?

Minister:
I meant the result of the verification. It is not necessarily to make it clear whether or not the foreign and defense ministers of the two countries will make a further considered conclusion based on the verification result and report the decision to the respective countries. The working group is not envisaging such a process.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers):
Until the working group was established, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were carrying out examinations individually. You also conducted hearings with a US commander. I believe that the reason why the joint examination became necessary was because something was insufficient about the examinations conducted individually. Could you identify the insufficient areas?

Minister:
In order to answer your question, I would need to reveal the details of examination thus far, and I have no intention of revealing them now. The fact is that the hearings with the US Ambassador and a commander, among other US officials, were conducted jointly by the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that the examination was carried out “individually.”

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
While stressing that it was your personal view, you indicated in Okinawa a plan to integrate Futenma Air Station with Kadena Airbase. On the other hand, some in the United States think that integration with Kadena Airbase, which would mean integration of the Marines with the Air Force, will make responses to emergencies difficult. What do you think of this view?

Minister:
The integration with Kadena Airbase is just one of the plans to be examined. I am not insisting that the plan should be adopted by all means. The integration plan was proposed by both Japan and the United States a number of times in the past. We also discussed this issue at today’s meeting of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Security. I am aware of the view that having airplanes and helicopters in one base is risky from an operational perspective. It is true that the base will be required to carry out more careful operations, but whether or not this constitutes a major reason for why the plan cannot go forward is subject to further discussion. I have some difficulty in understanding the logic by which some people refute the plan, saying that having the Marines and the Air Force share a base would be inadequate. This is also something that we will examine.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
This is a question on the Okinawa base. Has the option to relocate outside of Okinawa Prefecture been dropped completely? It could be an inaccurate report, but today’s Nikkan Gendai newspaper stated that the government was considering an option to relocate Futenma Air Station to Kansai International Airport. Mr. Mikio Shimoji, a Diet member and a member of the People’s New Party, also reportedly expressed a similar view during Diet deliberations. It seems to me that the option of relocating to Kansai International Airport is a completely new idea. Is a replacement facility outside of Okinawa Prefecture but inside of Japan still a valid option?

Minister:
If you are asking about the possibility of relocating outside of Okinawa Prefecture, then I would say that we are not excluding such a possibility. My rough estimation is that it would be difficult, but that is merely my personal view. Minister of Defense Toshimi Kitazawa and other people may think otherwise. It is reasonable for the government to consider various plans first, rather than having the working group promptly study feasibilities all at once. I will refrain from naming the candidate locations for the relocation of Futenma Air Station.

Question (Nakaima, Ryukyu Shimpo):
About the Futenma-related working group, you said that they would examine the process in which the Japan-US agreement was made. Will the group examine the 2006 Japan-US agreement, or will the examination cover the entire process from 1995, when, I believe, the discussion of this issue started? Could you please clarify once again the time period and object the working group will examine?

Minister:
What the working group will consider basically, I believe, is the process which has directly resulted in the current Japan-US agreement. We may make case-by-case judgments as to whether or not to examine proposals made prior to the agreement, as there is no need for us to exclude a potentially better plan.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
You have maintained your wish for the Futenma issue to be settled expeditiously, by the end of this year if possible. My understanding is that when you visited Okinawa Prefecture, the three local municipalities made it clear that they would not accept the integration plan with Kadena Airbase. Is the integration plan still a realistic plan for you?

Minister:
I had a chance to exchange views with the heads of the three municipalities, including the Mayor of Kadena Town. The mayors explained to me that their people had been exposed to intense noise and that the noise problem was getting worse recently. It was not the first time for me to explain that a reduced noise level would be a condition for the integration with Kadena Airbase. We will verify whether or not the noise can be reduced promptly, among other issues.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
I have a question on today’s meeting of the working group. Japan’s position is that the working group is tasked with carrying out an “verification,” as you explained here and elsewhere. On the other hand, President Barack Obama of the United State stated the other day when he delivered an address at Suntory Hall that they would seek to “implement” the current Japan-US agreement through the working group. The positioning of the working group thus seems to differ slightly between Japan and the United States. How does Japan intend to work with the United States to achieve a mutual understanding about the working group?

Minister:
I will make a confirmation of that at the beginning of the meeting of the working group today. The basic position of the working group is as agreed upon between Ambassador Roos and I.

Question (Kamematsu, J-CAST News):
This is quite a similar question to the previous one, but President Obama made it clear twice – during the joint Japan-US leaders’ press conference and at Suntory Hall – that the “implementation of the agreement” was the purpose of the working group. Does this mean there is a gap between the President’s understanding and the actual situation?

Minister:
As far as I remember, the expressions the President used in his remarks during the press conference and in his address at Suntory Hall were different. I can only assume what President Obama’s intention was in using different expressions. In any event, what Ambassador Roos and I agreed upon constitutes an agreement between the United States and Japan. As I have been explaining in my press conferences, Ambassador Roos stressed that the US stance of considering the current plan as the only plan remained unchanged and, that said, he also agreed to carry out an examination. What the President intended beyond that is, as I said, a matter to be confirmed at today’s meeting.

Question (Ukai, Asahi Shimbun):
I have one more question regarding the working group. When you met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States in Singapore, I think you talked about the schedule, and concluded that it was not something that should be allowed to go on for weeks. By when do you wish for the working group to come to a conclusion?

Minister:
I am sorry, but I do not recall if I actually said that we should not spend a few weeks on this. What we have confirmed is that we will proceed “as early and expeditiously as possible.” We have not confirmed any specific amount of time.

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
May I please confirm one thing about the working group? You and Ambassador Roos have established the working group to examine the Japan-US agreement. Does the examination cover the Futenma issue only? Or will the working group expand the scope of examination to include matters related to the realignment of the US Forces in Japan?

Minister:
The Japan-US agreement is not only for the Futenma issue but also the relocation to Guam and the subsequently return of bases to Japan. The examination will cover the Japan-US agreement as a whole.

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
Will they examine the Japan-US alliance as well?

Minister:
No. They will examine the Japan-US agreement specifically. I have found many newspaper articles recently that do not accurately convey this point. Some reporters seem to misunderstand that the working group will cover the Futenma issue only, which is not true. It is the process in which the Japan-US agreement was made that the working group will examine.

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Newspapers):
Although the working group is termed “ministerial,” since it is practically difficult to have four ministerial-level officials meet in one place, this time Ambassador Roos and Assistant Secretary of Defense Wallace C. Gregson will represent the US side. I understand that this step is being taken in order to speed up the process. Is that the case? Also, I request that since this is an important meeting and also formally a ministerial meeting – and I think there have been a few such occasions before – would you please spare us some time for a short doorstepping interview afterwards on the topics discussed?

Minister:
Although the meeting is supposed to be ministerial, Ambassador Roos and Assistant Secretary Gregson will attend as representatives today for the reason you have just pointed out. It is quite difficult for the two Japanese ministers to frequently visit Washington, D.C., and likewise it is difficult for the state and defense secretaries of the US to frequently visit Tokyo. That said, since the working group is positioned within a ministerial framework, when final confirmation is needed, or when certain examination processes are completed or an agreement is reached, there should really be the involvement of ministerial-level officials. As for answering questions after the meeting today, since I will have no time afterward, I will have someone who attended the meeting give a briefing.

Question (Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun):
Concerning the timetable of the working group, you have been repeating “as early and expeditiously as possible.” Can I assume that you have not changed your intention to have the process completed and concluded by the end of the year?

Minister:
I have to be careful with my wording. Otherwise, we may end up being scrutinized again by the media for verbal inconsistency within the Cabinet. I am recently giving a second thought as to how far I should go when making statements. My intention, which I have been repeating, has not changed. As I have always said, the ultimate decision will be made by Prime Minister Hatoyama, or officially speaking, by the Cabinet. Therefore, since I cannot decide the matter alone, I will keep my personal feelings to myself, and will refrain from specifying a deadline for the Cabinet.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
On the working group, in the press conference on November 10, in regard to the topic of discussion, you said, “We have established a working group in order to verify Futenma Air Station… the working group is not intended to consider and discuss a broad range of issues.” Just now, you mentioned the overall Japan-US agreement. Does that mean that there has been a change in the subject matter for discussion?

Minister:
I am not sure if I used such an incorrect phrase. I said “Futenma” to mean the specific Japan-US agreement. I did so since there are actually two processes taking place which may be confused. There is an another “2+2” meeting to be held separately in order to deepen the Japan-US Alliance as we reach the 50th anniversary of the Japan-US Security Arrangements. This is completely different from the meeting we are talking about now. That is why I said “Futenma,” to make the meaning clear, but the correct way of saying it is “the Japan-US agreement.” What I meant at the previous conference in question was that the new working group would be an entirely different process from the other “2+2” process for the 50th Anniversary of the Security Arrangement next year.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
In relation to the “2+2” process for the 50th Anniversary, is this a new “2+2” framework with a different goal? Could you explain about this?

Minister:
It is a little confusing, but I think that the process will be headed by the defense and foreign ministers of Japan and the US. Nothing specific has been decided on this. Since we have the Futenma-related working group before us now, I think it will be difficult to move on to another process unless certain progress is seen in the current process. Instead of trying to do everything at once, which will really invite confusion, I think we should address the issues one by one.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
Regarding the working group, I would like to confirm about the difference in understanding on the Japanese and US sides. You said that the position of the working group was agreed upon with Ambassador Roos, who was entrusted to represent the US side. Right after this, however, President Obama revealed in his speech, which was broadcasted around the world, his understanding that the working group would focus on the “implementation” of the security agreement. What is your take on this?

Minister:
Just as I said earlier, I would like to confirm the President’s intention. I am supposing that the President spoke in consideration of what I agreed with Ambassador Roos, but that could also just be an interpretation of the English.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
I hear that the process so far will be examined and some agreement may be reached at today’s meeting. If that becomes the case, can we expect that you and Defense Minister Kitazawa, as the ministers directly in charge, will establish a consensus on this issue, which will then be forwarded for the Cabinet decision?

Minister:
I cannot tell right now how the specific process will be – we may be working concurrently. Ultimately, the matter should be decided by the Cabinet, instead of a situation in which the ministers decide individually.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers):
I would like to confirm about the topics to be covered by the working group. Since the Japan-US agreement does not only mention Futenma, could you explain to us again how far the scope of discussion will be extended?

Minister:
The Japan-US agreement concerns not only Futenma but also deals with the relocation to Guam and the accompanying reduction of bases, among other issues, and these are all written into the agreement. The basic step to be taken is to examine the process leading up to the agreement. As I said in response to an earlier question, we will be bringing up previous agreements and discussions, and this may result in substitutions to the current plan as necessary.

Question (Kamematsu, J-CAST News):
The Japan-US agreement you just mentioned – do you mean the “United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation” announced on May 1, 2006?

Minister:
That is basically what I meant.

3. Japan-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
In relation to the Japan-China foreign ministers’ meeting to be held on November 19, I have heard that Japanese and Chinese diplomatic authorities have discussed a visit to Japan at an early date by Vice President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China. Will a visit by Vice President Xi Jinping be a possible topic for discussion during this foreign ministers’ meeting?

Minister:
Nothing has been decided yet regarding this matter. As for whether this will be a topic for discussion, the subject will come up, but of course this visit is not for the express purpose of discussing this matter.

4. US-China Relations

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
I have another question. President Obama is currently visiting China, and a US-China summit meeting has been held. I think that the United States and China’s advance toward each other, or shall I say “the strengthening of their ties,” is gathering much attention from the international community. From your perspective, how do you see the US-China summit meeting held this time? Please give us your impression.

Minister:
China is a significant economic and political presence, and so is, of course, the United States. I believe that it is a good thing for the world and Japan that the United States and China deepen their mutual understanding.

5. Kidnapping of a Japanese National in Yemen

Question (Nezu, NHK):
I think you have heard about the Japanese national who was kidnapped in the Republic of Yemen in the Middle East. Can you give us the latest information on the well-being of the kidnapped individual?

Minister:
It is true that a kidnapping occurred. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is handling the matter appropriately in Yemen. Regarding any details, I would like to refrain from making any comments as a final resolution has not been reached yet.

Question (Fujii, Kyodo News):
Could you please tell us why you will not give us the latest information on the well-being of the Japanese national who was kidnapped in Yemen?

Minister:
Since this is a kidnapping incident, I will refrain from making any comments as it involves the safety of the kidnapped person. If there is a need, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will issue updated information on this matter.

6. Japan-Russia Relations

Question: (Sato, Hokkaido Shimbun):
I would like to ask about the Japan-Russia summit meeting. At the summit meeting held in Singapore, Prime Minister Hatoyama made a statement to the effect that he could not understand the idea of returning only two islands [of the Northern Territories]. In response, President Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev of the Russian Federation said that progress would have to be made while the Hatoyama administration was in power. However, I heard that no concrete plan was proposed. During the meeting, it seems that the subject of you making a visit to Russia at an early date came up again. Please give us your opinion on the results of this summit meeting.

Minister:
The Japan-Russia summit meeting was not held just for discussing the Northern Territories issue. It is meaningful in various ways for the leaders of Japan and Russia to meet. Regarding the Northern Territories issue, this is an issue which has not yet been resolved to this day, so of course it is not a simple one. However, the Russian expectations toward Prime Minister Hatoyama are high. I believe this meeting was meaningful in the sense that we were able to glimpse their motivation to come to a resolution.

Question: (Sato, Hokkaido Shimbun):
What about your visit to Russia?

Minister:
This is something that I must discuss thoroughly with the Prime Minister, but I would like to quickly consider and find an opportunity to visit Russia at an early date.

7. The Investigation into the Issue of the Secret Agreements

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
I would like to ask about the issue of the secret agreements between Japan and the United States. At your inaugural press conference, you stated that you would like to come to a conclusion in two months and that in November you would establish a committee of outside experts to consider the issue from a wide perspective, including the background of the era when the agreements were made. You also stated that the committee would interview former Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials. I understand that you are busy with various issues, but could you give us an update on the schedule for this matter?

Minister:
I think it is important to quote what I said correctly; I did not say I would give a conclusion in two months. I believe what I said was that I would spend two months conducting verification within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The verification process is progressing smoothly. Regarding the establishment of a committee of outside experts, I am currently considering this. I would like to establish one before too much time has elapsed.

8. Regional Cooperation in Asia

Question (Nanao, Nico Nico Douga):
I will read aloud an e-mail from one of our users. “Some are of the view that the US and China are each seeking to take the initiative in the Asian region under different frameworks, with the US proposing entry into a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) and China promoting ASEAN+3. Which framework will Japan commit to? Or will Japan separately seek to demonstrate leadership in Asia centered on the East Asian Community (EAC)? Could you please tell us your thoughts?”

Minister:
There are various initiatives being discussed. For example, the latest leaders’ meeting was held last weekend. APEC was essentially launched by Australia and Japan 20 years ago. The US is of course part of it. In addition to this, there is ASEAN+3 and the idea of the East Asian community. I think it is fine that several initiatives advance in their own way, and I think that it is not absolutely necessary to consider what country will lead what initiative. Nevertheless, since APEC is an initiative or a body that overarches the Pacific and therefore includes Latin America and the US as well as Asia, and as Japan will host the APEC meeting next year and the US will hold the meeting the year after, I proposed to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when I met her in Singapore recently that our two countries should carry out an in-depth discussion about setting a new goal for APEC in its 20th year and the way meetings should be conducted, and this direction was confirmed by both sides. No matter what the framework, I think Japan should fully utilize it to achieve its goals.

9. The Issue of Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
My questions are a little philosophical and concerns US President Barack Obama’s proposal to “realize a world without nuclear weapons” and steps the Japanese Government is taking in harmony with this initiative. I think “a world without nuclear weapons” and “a world with less nuclear weapons” are wholly different. Although the current initiative is being framed as “a world without nuclear weapons,” its content is actually nuclear arms reduction in the US and Russia and nuclear non-proliferation and so forth. All of this seem to stop at reducing the number of nuclear weapons, instead of actually eliminating all nuclear weapons without a single exception from the face of the Earth. I am not playing with words or being sarcastic. I really want to know what the Japanese and US governments are realistically aiming at in harmonizing their steps politically. Do the countries intend to truly and completely eliminate all nuclear weapons, or will they just realize a world with less nuclear weapons? To put it simply: few or nothing?

Minister:
I can only imagine what the two leaders are thinking. In any case, even if we are aiming for a society without nuclear weapons, we need to first bring about a society with less nuclear weapons, since we cannot eliminate all nuclear weapons at once. In that sense, I think the US and Russia are discussing reduction as they are the major holders of nuclear weapons. I expect the next step will include other nuclear states like China, France, and the UK, and that they will also discuss overall reduction. No matter what the process is, since the weapons cannot be eliminated all at once, I think the only possible way forward is to steadily reduce nuclear weapons step-by-step in practice while envisioning the ultimate goal of a nuclear-free world.

Back to Index