Top > Announcement > Press Conference by Foreign Minister > November 24, 2009

(* 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 24, 2009, 3:00 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

  1. Opening Statements
    • (1) Kidnapping of a Japanese National in Yemen
    • (2) Inauguration of the Expert Committee on so-called Secret Agreements
    • (3) Council of the Three Political-level Appointees of the Foreign Ministry
  2. The Research into the so-called Secret Agreements
  3. Nuclear Umbrella (The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States)
  4. The Government Revitalization Unit (the Scrutinizing of Public Projects)
  5. The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
  6. The Ministerial Committee on the Development of Defense Capabilities

1. Opening Statements

(1) Kidnapping of a Japanese National in Yemen

Minister:
I have three announcements today. First, Mr. Takeo Mashimo, who was kidnapped in Yemen, was released safely in the evening of November 23. I would like to share my heartfelt delight with Mr. Mashimo and his family, as well as those who strove for Mr. Mashimo’s release. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Yemeni government for their utmost efforts in negotiating with the kidnappers. I have sent a letter of appreciation to Minister of Foreign Affairs Abubakr Al-Qirbi, Minister of Interior Mutahar Rashad Al-Masri, and Governor of Sanaa Numan Duid. Mr. Mashimo’s safe release is the result of the Yemeni government’s negotiating with the kidnapper strenuously and resolutely, while giving top priority to ensuring Mr. Mashimo’s safety. I hold the Yemeni government’s response in high regard. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan will continue its efforts to ensure the safety of Japanese nationals abroad.

(2) Inauguration of the Expert Committee on so-called Secret Agreements

Minister:
The second announcement is about the so-called secret agreements, which recently has attracted much attention from media. The investigation into the secret pacts, which I instructed Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Mitoji Yabunaka to commence on September 16, has been carried out smoothly. A third-party committee of experts, which I said would be established once the investigation had advanced to a large degree, will convene its first meeting at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs this Friday, November 27. The committee is comprised of six members. Mr. Shinichi Kitaoka is a professor at the University of Tokyo and he will chair the Committee. Ms. Yasuko Kohno, professor at Hosei University, is an expert who has published many papers on politics and diplomacy regarding Okinawa. Mr. Kazuya Sakamoto is a widely known professor at Osaka University who has also published many papers on the Japan-US alliance. We also have Mr. Takuya Sasaki, professor at Rikkyo University; Mr. Sumio Hatano, professor at the University of Tsukuba; and Mr. Mikio Haruna, who was a reporter for Kyodo News and is currently a professor at Nagoya University. As I have explained a number of times, the committee will re-examine the results of the research by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and produce an evaluation which takes into account the time when the agreements were made. Including the result of the re-examination and the evaluation, they will compile a report with recommendations for future policy regarding the disclosure of diplomatic documents. This report will be submitted to me by around mid-January of next year. The submission of the report by mid-January is just a goal at this moment; it is difficult to say anything definite until work actually starts. In addition to convening meetings, we will spare a room at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs so that the members of the committee can come, with prior notification, to the Ministry any time day or night to read through any documents they need to see. Through this system, the committee will conduct a thorough examination and compile recommendations.

(3) Council of the Three Political-level Appointees of the Foreign Ministry

Minister:
Third and last, I will touch upon today’s meeting of the Council of the Three Political-level Appointees of the Foreign Ministry. I have nothing to report on the Cabinet Meeting held before the Council meeting. During the Council meeting, I received a report on the current situation, as of this morning, of the scrutinizing of public projects, which started today and will also be conducted tomorrow. It was decided that APEC-related expenditures would be reduced by 20% and subsidies to the Japan Institute of International Affairs will be abolished. Grants for the operation of the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) will be discussed this afternoon. I just happened to see Mr. Yukio Edano [a member of the House of Representatives] as I was getting on a taxi yesterday in Tokyo station, and I encouraged him to assess our projects pertinently, although the final decision will be made by the politicians who attend Cabinet Meetings. I have not had a chance to see the details, but I will take the Government Revitalization Unit’s decisions seriously and respect it as much as possible. Moreover, the members of the Cabinet, including Minister of State for Government Revitalization Yoshito Sengoku, will come up with better plans for those matters that lacked sufficient discussions in the scrutinizing process by exchanging views in Cabinet Meetings. Finally, on a different note, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Tetsuro Fukuyama reported on his attendance at the inauguration ceremony of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan.

2. The Research into the so-called Secret Agreements

Question (Ukai, Asahi Shimbun):
I would like to ask about the third party committee for the investigation into the issue of the secret agreements. You said previously that you were contemplating conducting hearings with former Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials as well as an investigation in the US. Can I assume that this third party committee will assume these responsibilities?

Minister:
I think this understanding is basically fine. How far the committee goes will be decided based on the opinions of the committee members. The basic function of the committee will be to hear from former Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials and conduct an investigation in the US as needed – although it will be the Ministry’s job to negotiate with the US side in that regard. The committee will do all of this while clarifying its own roles.

Question (Mizushima, Jiji Press):
In relation to the secret agreements, if the existence of such agreements is acknowledged, the consistency with the principle of the Three Non-nuclear Principles, “not permitting the introduction [of nuclear weapons into Japan],” will probably be called into question. What do you think about this?

Minister:
I think this question, as well, has been asked a couple of times at previous press conferences. What is important right now is to clarify the facts first. I do not think it is appropriate to mention the steps ahead based on assumptions.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
My question concerns the relationship between the third party committee and the overall research into the secret agreements. I think you have just said that the third party committee will submit recommendations. Will they immediately be treated as a report of the secret agreements research started on September 15? Or will the Ministry of Foreign Affairs be compiling an investigation report within a larger framework based on the recommendations? Could you please tell us the relationship between the committee and the investigation?

Minister:
As I have just said, the fact-finding investigation within the Ministry is almost complete. The investigation itself will also be examined by the third party committee. Ultimately, I think the final output will be a combination of two documents: one is a report and set of recommendations by the expert committee; and two is a factual report consisting of research results compiled by the Ministry – although the latter must go through an examination by the committee. I would also like to remind everyone here that each member of the expert committee will be bound by confidentiality obligations as civil servants.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
In relation to the Ministry’s third party committee, you have just mentioned about receiving a recommendation on how diplomatic documents should be disclosed. There is always the possibility of confidential matters or secret agreements arising at a stage prior to disclosure within the course of diplomatic relations. It is quite strange to talk about a procedure for concluding secret agreements, but will the committee also be considering rules for making agreements prior to disclosure, things such as how to treat these matters and how to preserve relevant documents and evidence properly?

Minister:
That will be the case if specific problems are noted. I think it is natural that there are various secrets in the world of diplomacy that cannot be made public immediately. However, it is a problem if these are not readily disclosed even after a certain period of time. It of course depends on the content of the secret, but I think the basic stance should be to disclose information after a certain number of years. For information that cannot be disclosed even then, I think there must be a set rule about why it cannot be disclosed. And I think we need to have the capacity to judge this objectively. I am looking forward to receiving recommendations from the expert committee on many matters, including the ones I just mentioned, as well as what rules should be established and what kind of structure is appropriate for diplomatic agreements.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
Concerning secrets that cannot be readily closed, because there are such secrets, some have been suggesting recently that perhaps these secrets are in fact being destroyed before disclosure. If there is any move in the future to destroy documents or otherwise completely obliterate their existence, what kind of penalty should be imposed, and how should an investigation into this be conducted? Although this should not happen, what about making rules for a such case?

Minister:
Official documents cannot be destroyed without permission. If the law is breached in this regard, the offender must be dealt with according to the law.

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
I would like to confirm one thing. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release issued today on the establishment of the expert committee specifies four secret agreements under points A, B, C, and D. Can I assume that the Ministry has identified all four issues in the research so far, or is it the case that these issues were already identified? In which way should I understand this?

Minister:
Both understandings are completely incorrect.

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
This press release says that identified documents and related documents can be viewed at the Ministry. Doesn’t this mean that sufficient materials have been collected, more or less?

Minister:
I do not quite understand what you mean. What we say is that we have identified several hundred or more files related to the four secret pacts. We are referring to all the surrounding documents – by saying “identified” we do not mean to indicate the existence of the said agreements. On this my statement is neutral and I have not specified anything. I hope you listen to my words more accurately.

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
So the press release refers to all relevant documents that have already been released, which does not mean that they were narrowed down from the three thousand and some several hundred files. Does that mean that what is indicated here are the several thousand files already examined by the investigation team that you mentioned at your inaugural press conference on September 17?

Minister:
If you are referring to the press conference on September 17, and if I take your words verbatim, this would mean that the files were already identified at the time I assumed office. I want you to listen to my words a little more carefully. There is no way that the documents were identified two months ago.

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
That is not what I mean. I just want to ask if the “documents” specified here refer to those narrowed down after some screening.

Minister:
The press release refers to the whole set of documents.

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
I understand.

Question (Murao, Yomiuri):
You said in your opening statement that the investigation has been carried out very smoothly. Can I assume that analysis, meaning the objective review of files and similar processes, has been completed as planned? Or do you mean that the investigation is producing the results that you initially expected?

Minister:
I am tackling this research without any preconceptions. I only meant that the review process has been going smoothly, and that this process is nearing completion.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
I may be jumping ahead here, but in relation to the disclosure policy, I do not think any decision has been made on the public release of the third party committee’s recommendations. Do you think it will be possible for us to view the recommendations by submitting a disclosure request?

Minister:
How public we make the recommendations will be a subject of future consideration.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
Concerning the secret agreements, you have issued an order to examine the files kept within the Ministry. However, it has been said that a considerable portion of the documents relating to the return of Okinawa, for instance, were received by the Prime Minister and special envoy Kei Wakaizumi. Is there the possibility that the scope of the investigation will be expanded to include the stock room within the Prime Minister’s Office and documents preserved at other ministries? Are you going to make such a proposal?

Minister:
I can order an investigation within the Ministry on my own, but considerable coordination will be needed concerning the method and scope of the investigation if it were to expand outside the Ministry. The documents filed in other ministries should be in the Ministry to begin with. At this moment, I have no intention of expanding the scope of the investigation. The current investigation will take a considerable amount of time. I think it will be sufficient if persuasive recommendations are made as a result of this examination process, although I cannot talk about recommendations before seeing the investigation results from inside the Ministry.

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Newspapers):
What is the reason for examining the documents up to 1989? Does this relate to the possibility that some of the documents might have been destroyed?

Minister:
I think up to the 1970s would suffice for an ordinary investigation. However, this time we decided to expand the scope of the investigation to 1989, right before the end of the Cold War. What the Ministry has been investigating is basically the documents concerning the four secret agreements indicated in points A, B, C, and D within the press release. Please think of the fact that we are looking at documents up until 1989 as an expansion of the scope of investigation. This is based on requests from the experts who suggest the possibility of secret agreements.

Question (Hasegawa, AFP):
Have you personally taken a look through the documents concerning the four secret agreements? Could you please tell us your impression of them if possible?

Minister:
I have not read all the files word-by-word, as there is an enormous amount. I was briefed on the documents that are more likely closely related with the four secret agreements. I cannot reveal the content of these documents at this stage.

3. Nuclear Umbrella (The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States)

Question (Kanazaki, Chugoku Shimbun, Hiroshima):
Since yesterday certain media outlets have been reporting that [before the transfer of political power] the Japanese Government had told the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, a committee established within the US Congress, that it would like to be consulted ahead of any decision on the US side to acquire low-yield nuclear earth penetrators or retire the nuclear-tipped Tomahawk Land Attack Missile. Do you have any plans to investigate the truth of this matter?

Minister:
I do. This is a matter that concerns the previous administration. However, as the current Minister for Foreign Affairs, I would like to, in my own way, understand the truth of what was said.

Question (Kanazaki, Chugoku Shimbun, Hiroshima):
In your opinion, do you think that low-yield nuclear earth penetrators, tactical nuclear weapons, tomahawks, and so forth, are unnecessary elements of the US nuclear umbrella which protects Japan? Can you tell us what kind of opinions you have, such as whether these weapons help to strengthen Japan’s nuclear umbrella, or if you think these weapons possess more negative aspects than positive ones?

Minister:
I would like to thoroughly confirm the facts first. If I make comments beforehand, it will lead to speculation.

Question (Kanazaki, Chugoku Shimbun, Hiroshima):
The Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States itself was a commission established by Congress to help formulate Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). A review on the US nuclear position is scheduled to be submitted at the end of this year. What kind of schedule do you think the review will have?

Minister:
I am sure that the US side realizes that Japan also had a change of the administration and that the situation has changed. We need to have our own firm position and we should not pursue discussions based on speculation. Therefore, I will think about how to proceed after having confirmed the facts.

4. The Government Revitalization Unit (the Scrutinizing of Public Projects)

Question (Higashioka, Asahi Shimbun):
I have some questions on the scrutinizing of public projects. First, what is your take on the two decisions made this morning? One is to reduce APEC 2010-related expenditures by 20% and the other is to abolish subsidies to the Japan Institute of International Affairs. Second, I hear people often say that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not an public office that merely implements domestic projects, and that relations with other countries must be taken into account as far as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is concerned. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, what are your views on the scrutinizing of public projects?

Minister:
I am aware of various discussions. I consider it valuable for the Government Revitalization Unit to point out a wide range of matters from an unconventional perspective. Whether we will find their decisions convincing or not is a different issue. That said, I welcome the opinion exchange, because discussion will start from there. I would rather not speak on individual cases now, for fear that the Government Revitalization Unit may find it difficult to express their views if each minister takes the time to make comment on each and every decision the Unit makes. I want them to first express their views completely.

Question (Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun):
As you explained, Official Development Assistance (ODA) will be scrutinized this afternoon. A decision to substantially reduce the ODA budget, if made as a result of the scrutinizing of public projects, would be inconsistent with the policy of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, who has just announced in the general assembly of the United Nations in September that Japan would double its efforts and strongly promote ODA. I know you said that politicians will make the final decision, but I would still like to know if you, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, think a proposal for a universal and substantial reduction in the ODA budget by the Unit will be significantly influential?

Minister:
If it is proposed that the entirety of the budget should be cut, then it will be something to be discussed at a policy level. What is expected of the Government Revitalization Unit, however, is to identify waste in the budget, or operations which could be enhanced efficiently through the help of the private sector, for example. We intend to work on these points as well. The broader policy that Prime Minister Hatoyama has raised as a commitment of the Cabinet will not change easily. It will not change unless something extreme happens. If the details of the policy contain problems, naturally they will be corrected.

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

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
The first meeting of the working group on the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station was held. Can you tell us about the schedule, and other details such as the administrative meetings which seem to be scheduled as well?

Minister:
I believe it best not to say anything on the details of individual meetings and schedules. The Japanese side and the US side will conduct an examination as quickly as possible and the working group will keep things moving steadily along.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
What exactly do you mean when you say “examination”? What is your definition of the word? Does this mean it is not a review?

Minister:
I believe you can understand this by looking at the agreement between Ambassador Roos and I; it is no more and no less than what is stated there. It is an examination of the relocation of Futenma Air Station, on why the matter has developed in the way it has.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
I understand that the Ministry of Defense plans to discuss measures to reduce the burden on Okinawa at the working group as well. However, I believe that this is something that should be taken up by the Japan-US Joint Committee separately. I am sure that one can argue that this matter might as well be discussed at the working group because it is an occasion of meeting anyway, but I understand that the working group was established solely for the purpose of carrying out a review? Is this correct?

Minister:
That is the purpose originally. While, I myself have heard about the situation in Okinawa from various people, and since the opportunity exists, I do not think that it is a bad thing for this issue to be put on the table for discussion as well. I think it better to hold discussion from the viewpoint of moving things along as quickly as possible, rather than letting time pass by as each matter is discussed at separate meetings.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
What concrete measures will you enter into negotiations on? Will they include lessening the burden on Kadena and reducing noise pollution, which are the issues you have heard the local people say that they want resolved?

Minister:
I cannot tell you details like that.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
Did you confirm Minister of Defense Kitazawa’s comment as I requested during the previous press conference?

Minister:
Please remind me what it was?

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
I asked about Minister of Defense Kitazawa’s statement at a press conference that took place on the morning of the same day as your previous press conference. The comment was in reference to the working group, and he stated that he “submitted the Ministry of Defense’s proposal to the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” You responded that you would like to confirm this comment yourself.

Minister:
I have not confirmed it.

Question (Iwagami, Freelance):
I have a question regarding the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station. In a book written by a journalist from the Okinawa Times, it says that while US diplomats and military officials were inspecting Saga airport, they called it a “nice location,” noting that it is close to the Korean Peninsula with no private houses in the vicinity. It then became a candidate for relocation. Do you know why this plan was dismissed and the developments leading to the dismissal? Additionally, do you plan to examine this matter? Is there any possibility that Saga airport will come up again as a candidate for relocation in order to reduce the burden on Okinawa by transferring part of the base’s functions there?

Minister:
I have not confirmed whether the airport you just mentioned was a candidate brought up by the US side. I do not know if this is a fact, and so I am unable to make a comment on this.

Question (Iwagami, Freelance):
Is there any possibility that you will confirm and examine this in the future?

Minister:
At the moment, we are examining the developments that led to the current plan. I do not believe that confirming this matter is the direct purpose of the working group.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
In relation to the Futenma issue, with the transfer of political power, there are many in Okinawa and other places that say we should find an alternative to the current plan. You have stated your opinion that due to time constraints, it would be difficult to start from scratch and come up with a location outside Okinawa or Japan. You have also mentioned the Kadena consolidation plan. If this were to be considered the second option, would it be correct to understand that you are seeking for a third option – yet another option which is not the current plan?

Minister:
We are currently discussing various things. It is not yet the time to tell you the details.

6. The Ministerial Committee on the Development of Defense Capabilities

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
I attended a press conference by a certain minister. That minister said that you made remarks on PAC3 in a meeting of the Ministerial Committee on the Development of Defense Capabilities. As this is something that has been revealed by another minister, I would like to know exactly what you said. Now that we know for a fact that you made some remarks, please tell us the content of those remarks.

Minister:
I will not elaborate on what I said. Ministers are not supposed to reveal who said what during those meetings and, as such, I have nothing to say. However, generally speaking, PAC3 costs a large amount of money and represents a significant portion of defense-related budgets, and I made a comment to the effect that the efficacy of PAC3 must be explained in a way that the people can fully understand it.

Back to Index