(* 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: Friday, November 27, 2009, 4:00 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statements
- (1) The Fourth FEALAC Foreign Minister’s Meeting
- (2) The First Round of the Meeting of the Expert Committee on the so-called Secret Agreements
- (3) The Council of the Three-level Political Appointees of the Foreign Ministry
The Investigation into the Issue of the So-called Secret Agreements (the Expert Committee, etc.)
The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
The Government Revitalization Unit (the Scrutinizing of Public Projects)
Climate Change (COP15)

1. Opening Statements

(1) The Fourth FEALAC Foreign Minister’s Meeting

Minister:
There are a number of things I would like to announce. First of all, I would like to report on the hosting of the fourth Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation (FEALAC) Foreign Minister’s meeting. The fourth FEALAC Foreign Minister’s meeting will be held in Tokyo next year on January 16 and 17. FEALAC is an international association comprising a total of 33 countries: 15 countries from Asia and 18 countries from Latin America. In principle, foreign minister’s meetings are held biannually, and at the previous meeting held in Brazil in 2007, a decision was made to hold the next meeting in Japan on January 16 and 17, 2010. At the meeting we plan to look back on activities of FELAC, which has been active for 10 years and discusses the issues concerning the environment and sustainable development, the global financial crisis, and economic disparity improvement. We will also discuss the future promotion of exchange between Asia and Latin America within the framework of FEALAC. The third meeting of the Japan-Viet Nam Cooperation Committee and a Japan-Latin America Foreign Ministers’ meeting are also scheduled to be held around the time of the FEALAC meeting. Of course, I would also like to have some bilateral Foreign Ministers’ meetings during this time as well.

(2) The First Round of the Meeting of the Expert Committee on the so-called Secret Agreements

Minister:
Second, the first meeting of the expert committee on the issue of the so-called secret agreements – chairman of the committee, Professor Shinichi Kitaoka is scheduled to give a press conference later and I would like you to hear about this topic from him at that time. Basically the committee will examine the investigation results which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has compiled up until now. I just discussed with Professor Kitaoka about how long the committee will hold meetings. While I hope the committee’s examination will be finished by mid-January, it may continue until the end of January but I asked that they schedule things accordingly and not continue on until February. This will not be simply an examination of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ investigation results. I have also requested that they include an evaluation of the historical background in which these issues developed, interview people connected to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including former Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials, as needed, and make a proposal on the manner in which diplomatic documents should be disclosed in the future. Currently, the committee is expected to meet about five times. As I just told the committee members the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been preparing a place on its premises for the members to look over relevant documents at any time 24 hours a day.

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

Minister:
At the Council of the Three-level Political Appointees, I reported on the Cabinet Meeting, and on an unofficial exchange of opinions with ministers related to climate change before the Cabinet Meeting regarding future prospects. Additionally, I reported on the committee of outside experts on the issue of the secret agreements and the telephone conference with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of the United States last night. Regarding the results of the scrutinizing of public projects by the Government Revitalization Unit, I issued instructions to review them and consider how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should handle them. State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Takemasa reported on his attendance to the seventh WTO Ministerial Conference and Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Kira reported on the meeting of ambassadors to Latin American and Caribbean countries. Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Nishimura reported on the meeting of the Council for Gender Equality. Additionally, I believe discussions will be held at the Tax Commission regarding an international solidarity levy. We decided that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would confirm its position on this anew and submit a proposal to the meeting of the Tax Commission today.

2. The Investigation into the Issue of the So-called Secret Agreements (the Expert Committee, etc.)

Question (Ukai, Asahi Shimbun):
With the expert committee having been established, what will happen to the investigation team consisting of 15 persons? Will they continue to be involved in the examination on the administrative side?

Minister:
At least a few people are needed for administrative purposes. It does not necessarily have to be all the members. Some of them will continue to be involved as a team established to respond to the various needs of the expert committee.

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Newspapers):
Concerning the secret agreements, I hear that you have requested that the expert committee consider not only facts but the historical significance, assessment, historical background, and reasons for the secret agreements, as you mentioned again today. Could you please tell us in more detail why you are making such a request?

Minister:
The so-called secret agreements may have been made due to the demands of the time they were made in, for reasons considered understandable back then. I requested the committee also consider such aspects. I will not be fulfilling my responsibilities as a Minister by just exposing a few facts and leaving the issue open. My intention is to clarify what kind of decision the prime minister of the time made given the historical context, and whether or not it was an agonizing decision.

Question (Hayashi, Hiroshima Chugoku Shimbun):
Concerning the research into the issue of the secret agreements, searching the past, including the historical background, may be important, but how do you intend to link this to Japan’s foreign affairs and non-nuclear policies in the future? Also, do you think revelations of the truth behind the secret agreements will influence the Japan-US relationship?

Minister:
There is of course the possibility that we will need to consult with the US side in the course of examining the secret agreements. In any case, I try not to worry too much about the issues ahead. What is important is to first spell out the facts and then examine them. It will suffice to consider the steps ahead after these processes are complete. That is my basic conception.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi):
My question is about the secret agreements. You attended the first expert committee held today and I presume that you participated in a couple of discussions. Could you please tell us, as far as permissible, your impression of the first meeting and future prospects? On the latter, given the request to analyze the historical background, do you ultimately intend to use the recommendations made by the committee to help the current administration build its nuclear policy in the future?

Minister:
The mission of the expert committee is as I have just explained. I do not think at this stage that the scope of examination includes future matters. I did attend the expert committee meeting today, and I delivered an address there, but it does not mean that I took part in the discussion, and I rather listened to the discussion. The committee members are all leading figures in Japan on this issue, and I was impressed by some of the remarks they made which I would not come up with myself. Given the enthusiasm of each member of the committee, I am looking forward to seeing fruitful discussions.

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

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers):
Bureau chiefs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense came back to Japan yesterday. I believe that they made a report on the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station to the respective ministers. This afternoon, four ministers relevant to the issue convened a meeting. You have been saying that you wish for a conclusion to be made by the end of this year. Was there any significant, tangible advancement this time toward a conclusion?

Minister:
First, I have to stress that it is my wish for the conclusion to be made by the end of this year; however, it is the Prime Minister who will make a final decision. I am not allowed to refer to what the Prime Minister will decide. I also think it is inappropriate for me to make comments now, when the working group is deliberating this issue.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers):
On a related note, once the conclusion is made, do you have an intention to go to Okinawa again to explain to the people of Okinawa the conclusion that the government reached, and the direction in which it intends to proceed?

Minister:
Having not reached a conclusion yet, I have not planned what I will do once the conclusion is made. I would certainly like to visit Okinawa again if there is a chance, regardless of this issue.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
In your last press conference, Mr. Iwagami stated that according to a book written by a journalist from the Okinawa Times, the US Department of Defense had once proposed Saga airport to the Japanese side but the plan was eventually dismissed. He asked if you had intention of examining this matter and you answered that you seemed to have no such intention, saying that you do not believe that confirming this matter is the direct purpose of the working group. In the further previous press conference, you outlined what the working group would examine and said that the working group will consider is the process which has directly resulted in the current Japan-US agreement and that you 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. It suggests the possibility of a “V-shaped examination” which would cover not only agreements on the realignment of the US forces in Japan but also matters further in the past. I was wondering if you would examine any potentially better plans, including the Saga airport plan. I strongly hope that they will also be examined.

Minister:
First of all, the working group's overall schedule is just as I explained earlier.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
What about the content of the examination?

Minister:
While no specific date is set in the schedule as to when to reach a conclusion, the basic assumption is that a conclusion will be reached expeditiously. I doubt if we could, for example, both bring up completely new matters and gain a broad understanding on them from local residents in a short term.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
I am not asking about the possibility of completely new matters being brought up. I am asking if those plans that, according to my sources, had once been talked about between Japan and the United States – including the Hokkaido plan – will be examined.

Minister:
What you are referring to may have been talked about before, but I do not think the relocation of Futenma Air Station to such places would offer prospects in the short term.

Question (Nezu, NHK):
You have been expressing the view that the relocation of Futenma Air Station to outside of Okinawa Prefecture or Japan is becoming increasingly difficult. The Ministry of Defense seems to hold a similar position. On the other hand, other ruling parties, namely, the Social Democratic Party and the People's New Party, are still strongly calling for a relocation to outside of Okinawa Prefecture or Japan. Now that a conclusion needs to be reached as soon as possible, please tell us once again what your take is on this and how you will respond to the current situation.

Minister:
We must also take the budget for the next fiscal year into account, and that is partially why I say that we must reach a conclusion as soon as possible. We must move things forward in a manner that will enable us to respond to this matter as well. That is my understanding.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
I also have a question on the issue of Futenma Air Station. In an interview with the Asahi Shimbun, Governor Hirokazu Nakaima of Okinawa Prefecture stated that a part of the runway would have to be moved further from the land if the current plan were to be accepted. What do you think of the Governor's view?

Minister:
We are still in the process of examining the situation. I will refrain from making comments on individual matters.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
When you said that integration with Kadena Airbase was an alternative, I guess you took the costs of the current plan, either monetary or environmental, into consideration. I thought the current plan, which reclaims land from the sea off the coast of Camp Schwab in Nago, will cost a significant amount of money, such as hundreds of billions of yen, despite the current severe fiscal condition. Further, if the runway is redesigned to move closer to the sea, which could take place in theory, it will cost more. What do you think are the merits and demerits of the plan to build a base off the coast of Camp Schwab?

Minister:
I will have to be careful in making comments on each of these plans, otherwise it might cause a misunderstanding that we are examining the plan. As I stated before, the most advantageous point of this plan is that it will not take much time to be carried out, as we would not need to build something from scratch. Although the plan would naturally require some kind of supplemental construction work, it would take less time to implement, helping to extricate Futenma from a prolonged and dangerous situation. The most advantageous point of the current plan agreed upon between Japan and the United States is that it has already been agreed upon between the two countries. I am aware that the mayor of the local municipality and the Governor of Okinawa Prefecture are not necessarily welcoming the plan, but this is the only plan that they said they would accept, though not willingly, when the plan to relocate outside of Okinawa Prefecture became impossible. Now, this does not mean that I am saying that I have preconceptions about which plan is better. I have just described the things objectively.

Question (Takahashi, Jiji Press):
I remember you saying that you would seek to develop a common understanding among the Cabinet members on the plan to integrate Futenma Air Station with Kadena Airbase when you first expressed your intention to examine the plan. I have been following the remarks that Minister Kitazawa of the Ministry of Defense made during the Diet deliberations and on other occasions in the last few days, and I noticed that he was not necessarily sticking with the current plan. Specifically, during the Diet deliberations today and yesterday, Minister Kitazawa made some remarks implying an understanding of your Kadena plan. Do you think your persistent effort to gain understanding of the Kadena plan among Cabinet members has gradually started to come to fruition?

Minister:
The purpose of our verification is to identify the issues involved in each plan, rather than to determine which plan is good and which is bad. The sharing of opinions is, I believe, something that will be done once the result of the examination is unveiled. The remarks that Minister Kitazawa made during the Diet deliberations are probably made while thinking of me.

Question (Yamauchi, Nikkei):
The representatives of the Social Democratic Party and the People’s New Party met today and expressed their wish to take part in, along with the Democratic Party of Japan, discussions on the Futenma issue. Specifically, they stated that they had decided on a policy to request the establishment of a three-party consultative body to be positioned under a Ministerial committee. What is your view on this? Now that there is a coalition government, how will you build consensus within the government?

Minister:
We have not yet built a consensus among the ministers concerned. We will probably consult with other coalition partners along with the consensus building being in the process. In any event, I believe the Chief Cabinet Secretary is responsible for deciding the timing for government action.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
Earlier, in response to a question from Mr. Takimoto of the Ryukyu Shimpo, you said it would be difficult to relocate Futenma Air Station to mainland Japan in a limited amount of time. What if it is a function of the base, rather than the base itself, that is to be relocated? For example, the number of landings and takeoffs that foreign training aircrafts make a year amounts to approximately 30,000 arrivals or departures. Do you think it is possible to reduce the burden on Okinawa by relocating a function like this to an airport in mainland Japan? Likewise, do you think there will be any chance for the working group to examine such possibilities? I have one more question. In relation to the plan to integrate with Kadena Airbase, a plan has been suggested which calls for the use of an airport in Ieshima Islands. Will this plan be examined?

Minister:
I will not elaborate on the specifics. The relocation of a part of the functions of the base is an idea consistent with what the Kadena plan aims to achieve, and so we are not excluding that possibility. What we need to consider, however, is whether such a plan can be carried out in a short term.

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

Question (Kamematsu, J-CAST News):
Concerning the scrutinizing of public projects, you said at the last press conference that you encouraged Mr. Yukio Edano [a member of the House of Representatives] to scrutinize projects thoroughly. It seems that the Unit discussed foreign missions and foreign service allowances. Could you tell us your impression of the process in light of this?

Minister:
I think they did their job thoroughly. This does not mean that we are going to accept all their decisions as they are. We need to consider them carefully, and some of them we may accept but some others we may find difficult to accept. I would like to straighten out our responses in the days ahead.

Question (Kamematsu, J-CAST News):
In relation to this, some TV commentators and others have pointed out that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff should have explained things more tactfully, although I think they answered questions sincerely. How do you judge the explanations made by the Ministry staff?

Minister:
I cannot comment on this since I did not see it myself.

5. Climate Change (COP15)

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
I would like to ask about climate change. I hear that relevant ministers met before the Cabinet Meeting this morning to exchange views on this topic. What themes were discussed? Also, the US and China have announced their national emission reduction targets recently. Some may argue that Japan’s target is far too high in comparison. I would like to hear about what actions you think Japan should pursue in order to take the lead at COP15, in consideration of the point I just made.

Minister:
The ministers met today to confirm the Government’s approach on this issue in consideration of COP15, which will take place soon. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs briefed those gathered on the current progress on this issue, and we discussed various matters about which Minister of Environment Ozawa in particular expressed his opinions.

I appreciate that the US and China specified numerical targets. Concerning the composition of the numerical targets, I would like to refrain from commenting since this issue will be discussed in future negotiations.

Looking back at the situation at the beginning of September, I think many were profoundly pessimistic, believing that a consensus would not be reached in December. Against this situation Prime Minister Hatoyama delivered a speech at the UN General Assembly, which became a turning point for reviving the momentum toward discussion and motivated the US and China to set numerical targets. The nature of the numbers aside, the two countries agreed to sit down at the negotiating table. Therefore, I perceive Japan’s presence – or Japan’s leadership in this respect – to be quite profound, in both the official and unofficial discussions that Japan took part in. I think the Prime Minister’s speech served as a catalyst for the great momentum on this issue. I also believe that we now have a more positive outlook for the achievement of a consensus at the end on the issue of climate change – although I am by no means optimistic about the situation. By “positive,” I mean compared to early September when there was no such hope at all. I welcome the changes from that time.

As I told other ministers today, there are many items left to be discussed. Although other countries have now proposed national targets of their own, discussions are needed on various issues. Therefore, I think the ultimate outcome of COP15 is not something to be optimistic about. As far as our side is concerned, I will negotiate with a firm resolve that we should absolutely avoid ending the meeting with only a non-binding agreement and leaving the rest to the extended Kyoto Protocol.

Related Information (Climate Change)

Back to Index