(* 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, December 4, 2009, 2:50 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
Renewal of Passports by the Consulate-General of Japan in Shanghai
The Examination Committee for the So-called Secret Agreements
Assistance to Afghanistan

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

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
Concerning the relocation of Futenma Air Station, you have just explained that you were told by the Prime Minister to have a substantial discussion at today’s working group meeting. Considering your goal of coming up with a conclusion within the year, I suppose the verification process at the working group must be in its final stage. What are you going to tell the US side today?

Minister:
I have not commented about the content of the working group meeting. I intend to have our officials concerned hold a short briefing after the meeting. I think I should refrain from revealing any details now.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers):
Concerning the working group, the Prime Minister indicated his intention to postpone decision making on Futenma until after the beginning of the year. I recall that at the previous working group meeting, both the Japanese and US side agreed that a conclusion should be made as expeditiously as possible. Has there been a change regarding the policy to settle things expeditiously? Do they now intend to postpone decision making until after the new year?

Minister:
There has been no change to the working group’s policy to settle the issue as early and expeditiously as possible. I think the Prime Minister must have the same intention. I will not comment on whether or not this will be carried over into next year.

Question (Kajiwara, NHK):
I think it was yesterday that Minister Mizuho Fukushima from the Social Democratic Party (SDP) suggested in relation to the relocation of Futenma Air Station that she might be compelled to consider a withdrawal from the coalition government if it is decided that the station will be relocated to the site in the offing of Camp Schwab. How do you perceive her statement, which seems to influence the current verification process?

Minister:
The SDP has had a very strong opinion concerning the relocation of Futenma Air Station. I think that opinion was worked into the statement by her which you just mentioned.

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Newspapers):
Setting aside whether the Prime Minister will postpone the decision to next year or not, you have consistently sought an early conclusion from before due to budgetary concerns, and I think one of the reasons why you began to consider the integration plan with Kadena Airbase was because it would not take much time to carry out. In that sense, I remember you said, “a conclusion should be made by the end of the year; within the year is preferable,” and I suppose your intention is to come to a conclusion within this year. Meanwhile, I imagine that the US side has heard your intention and must be thinking that “it is preferable – indeed it is imperative – that we come to a conclusion by the end of the year.” Given the current situation, do you still desire to come up with a conclusion within this year? Please tell us your thoughts on this.

Minister:
When you are posing a question, you may want to quote people more accurately. What I have been saying is that it is preferable for us to come to a conclusion by the end of the year, but it is the Prime Minister who will make the final decision. I do not think I have phrased it as “it should happen by the end of the year.” Also, you said that the US side’s intention was to have a conclusion within this year, but I have not heard such a thing. Of course we do have a consensus on the opinion that an early conclusion is preferable.

Question (Higuchi, TBS):
As you just mentioned again, you have been repeating that it is the Prime Minister who will make the final decision. What, then, is the role of the working group? Or, if I may ask, what is your role as the Minister for Foreign Affairs?

Minister:
I think the Prime Minister has been saying that if a definite plan for a conclusion is proposed by the working group, he will take it seriously. That said, the working group is a ministerial-level body, in which the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defense from Japan take part in the discussion with the US side. This issue ultimately depends on the Prime Minister’s decision and approval by the Cabinet. I do not think there is any irregularity about the two ministers negotiating with the US side in advance.

Question (Ukai, Asahi Shimbun):
I would like to ask about the statement by SDP Chair Fukushima. I suppose the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has formed a coalition to maintain a majority within the House of Councillors, where the DJP does not have the numbers to secure a single-party majority. Given the political situation, do you think the SDP’s stance should be respected to the utmost extent? Or do you think a conclusion should be achieved through negotiation conducted mainly among the ministers of both countries, given the issue’s diplomatic nature? What are your thoughts?

Minister:
We must seek a solution that meets both requirements. We must avoid the breakup of our coalition government, since a minority government will not be able to establish policies. Therefore, our challenge is to find a way to satisfy both sides. And that is why we have been proceeding forward through trial and error.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
As you engage in diplomacy with the US, do you explain to the officials concerned about the framework of the coalition government in Japan, the fact that the DPJ has formed an alliance with political parties with strong opinions? Do you have a feeling that you have gained a certain understanding about the domestic political situation? Is it right to assume as such?

Minister:
I have been explaining the situation to the US side. From the start, I told both Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that we are in such-and-such a complicated situation. Of course, I also explained this to Ambassador John Roos. I do not remember if I told this to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, but I have always been saying that we must find a solution amidst this difficult situation.

Question (Tanaka, Nihon Internet Shimbun):
We hear about both public and behind-the-scenes movements toward a relocation to Guam. What do you think about the idea?

Minister:
I have not heard such a thing. I know that Defense Minister Kitazawa will visit Guam, but that has been decided from before.

Question (Tanaka, Nihon Internet Shimbun):
What about the plan to relocate the base to Guam?

Minister:
I have not heard such a plan.

Question (Takahashi, Jiji Press):
Concerning the position of the working group, I think your main work so far has been the verification of past process, in particular why the current plan came up, and why other plans considered in the past were turned down. The situation is changing everyday in various ways, and the Prime Minister, too, seems to be suggesting that if there are other options aside from the current plan, it may be preferable to consider them. Other than the verification of past processes, will the working group thoroughly consider new plans and roadmaps hitherto not considered? Can I confirm this point?

Minister:
You said that the Prime Minister has made such a suggestion, but my understanding is different, as I have just mentioned. The working group, as you just said, is for the verification of the process that led to the current plan. Whether or not there is a new potential site for relocation is clearly beyond the scope of this working group.

Question (Oguri, Nippon Television):
Amidst the challenge of succeeding at navigating both the coalition government and diplomatic negotiation, you said that you would prefer to draw a conclusion as early and expeditiously as possible. Specifically, what kinds of problems do you think will arise if the decision is postponed to next year?

Minister:
I am extremely concerned as the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
This morning at a press conference after the Cabinet Meeting, Minister of State for Okinawa and Northern Territories Affairs Seiji Maehara made a statement regarding the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station, commenting that “it is not necessarily the case that Henoko is the best choice and the shortest route to removing the dangers of Futenma.” You have always stated that relocation to Henoko should be implemented at an early stage in order to remove the dangers of Futenma and this seems to me a little different from what Minister Maehara said. What is your opinion on what Minister Maehara said?

Minister:
Which part is different?

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
The part where he said that Henoko is not the shortest route.

Minister:
Henoko is not the premise of our discussions, so from what I just heard I do not sense any discrepancy. I do not think it is strange that there is such an opinion.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
It was my understanding that until a few days ago the working group of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense had an extremely solid workflow which was moving toward coming to a conclusion by the end of the year. However, the situation seems to have changed quite dramatically in the past few days, resulting in the movement by the SDP. Can you give us your opinion on whether proper preparations for this had been made or had been coordinated within the government beforehand and whether such a situation was anticipated?

Minister:
I believe that it was known from before that the SDP had a considerably firm position on this matter, although how much the SDP intends to make it clear is another matter.

Question (Saita, Nishinippon Shimbun):
Regarding the Futenma issue, you told us that there might be concerns if a conclusion is prolonged until the new year. What kind of concerns would there be?

Minister:
This is exactly what we are discussing right now, so I do not intend to give too many details. One issue is, of course, the issue of the US Congress. There is the concern, as Prime Minister Hatoyama stated himself, that if the conclusion is prolonged until the new year and takes too much time, the realization of the relocation itself will be pushed back. In other words, the current dangerous situation at Futenma will continue on.

Question (Iwagami, Freelance):
A final assessment on the expansion of the US bases in Guam was issued. Mayor Iba of Ginowan City stated that he believed that it was well within the capacity of the existing facilities in Guam to accept the helicopter units and Marine Corps in Okinawa. He also stated that there would be sufficient possibility for Guam to be a recipient of the burden of the bases in Okinawa. Please give us your opinion on this.

Minister:
I would like to go to Okinawa and take some time to listen to what Mr. Iba has to say. To my understanding, the helicopters that are going to be transferred to Guam are from the Iwakuni base. I do not believe they are from the bases in Okinawa. Other than that, there may be transfers from other areas, such as from Hawaii for instance. As far as I know, the transfer of helicopters will not be from Okinawa.

Question (Shinbori, TV Asahi):
In relation to this, you just stated that you will conduct the same verification at the working group as you have been conducting so far. If this is the case, when considering a new candidate location, is there a possibility that you will consider options other than the working group or do you plan to consider options within the working group?

Minister:
The working group is the framework for Japan and the United States to hold discussions, and the purpose of this is to conduct verification. We are not currently considering whether the Japanese Government will conduct any other examination separately. I believe that the discussions in the working group will include whether such examination will become necessary. The working group is conducting verification on the current Futenma plan, so the premise of discussions would differ greatly in that case you mentioned. I believe that is an issue that would extend all the way to discussions on whether we need the working group.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
Many questions regarding Futenma have been asked at this press conference. You are going to Okinawa again and I hear that you plan to hold discussions with the local residents then. Please tell us your goals for your trip to Okinawa this time as well as what you want to discuss with the people of Okinawa and what kind of understanding you would like to reach with them.

Minister:
Basically, I intend to listen to what the people of Okinawa have to say. There is nothing in particular that the government has decided, no decision on policy, so I believe what I have to say will stay within a certain range. I would like to say the same kind of things in Okinawa that I say in these press conferences.

Question (Yoshida, Okinawa Times):
Regarding Futenma, if the conclusion is deferred, I believe there is a possibility that it will affect the agreement in the Roadmap to complete the relocation of Futenma by 2014. In your opinion, do you think it will become necessary to negotiate whether it would be possible to extend the deadline to 2015 or 2016 for example?

Minister:
I do not think I should give answers based on the premise that the conclusion will be deferred.

Question (Iwagami, Freelance):
As I stated at your previous press conference, the Governor of Osaka Prefecture stated on Monday in response to one of my questions that, "Should the national government make a formal request, Osaka would consider, in a forward-thinking manner, measures to reduce the burden placed on Okinawa which is being created by the bases.” Later, Governor Hashimoto repeated the same statement to other questions from the press, and at a meeting of the National Governors’ Association he even called upon the other governors, saying, “We should all consider and shoulder the burden caused by the bases in Okinawa.” At your press conference on Tuesday, you stated that if you had the opportunity, you would like to hear his opinions. The Governor is waiting for some kind of action upon this from the Government. Are you prepared as Minister for Foreign Affairs to call on Governor Hashimoto? Do you have any plans to do so? If you do, even if it is just to hear his opinions, when do you suppose this will take place?

Minister:
Basically, this is an issue of relocating a base domestically, which should be taken charge of by the Ministry of Defense. Therefore, after the previous press conference, I called Minister of Defense Kitazawa and requested that he handle the matter, advising him that he or the Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister for Defense listen to the Governor. I have also heard that Mr. Kitazawa also heard opinions from members of the House of Representatives, specifically Mr. Mikio Shimoji and Ms. Tomoko Abe, and that not only Kansai International Airport, but also Kobe have come up as candidate locations. Either way, although it would depend on what would be transferred, this is a matter involving not only airplanes, but 2,000 to 3,000 Marines and Air Force personnel, and I somewhat wonder to what extent this can be realized.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
Regarding the Kadena consolidation plan you are examining, assuming the possibility that the conclusion of the Futenma issue may be deferred, do you think that there is a possibility for the Kadena consolidation plan to be realized now that there is more time, or do you believe that with expectations within Okinawa that the air station will be relocated outside the prefecture heightening, the possibility seems more remote? Please give us your current impression of the situation.

Minister:
I believe it best not to comment on the details of this matter.

2. Renewal of Passports by the Consulate-General of Japan in Shanghai

Question (Kudo, Mainichi Shimbun):
It was reported that in 2004 the Consulate-General of Japan in Shanghai renewed the passports of two children without gaining prior consent from their mother, who held custody of the children. What is your understanding of this matter? How will the Ministry of Foreign Affairs respond to this?

Minister:
We are conducting an investigation into the facts now. It is a fact that the mother, who held custody of the children, had made some requests about this to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is also a fact that passports were issued, despite the mother’s requests and without gaining her consent. We are currently investigating what made these two elements co-exist.

3. The Examination Committee for the So-called Secret Agreements

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
I have a question on the secret agreements. Minister of Finance Hirohisa Fujii stated in his press conference after the Cabinet Meeting today that “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is carrying out various efforts. The Ministry of Finance too will make similar efforts,” expressing an intention to investigate into the secret agreements. Did you request cooperation? What is your take on Minister Fujii’s remarks?

Minister:
I did not request cooperation. I am not sure what Minister Fujii was referring to. Did he say that the Ministry of Finance would cooperate with us in our investigation into the four secret agreements?

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
I am afraid I have to say that I do not know. I thought some of the four orders you issued would relate to records presumably held by the Ministry of Finance.

Minister:
I see what you mean. I wonder if Minister Fujii perhaps meant that the Ministry of Finance, acknowledging secret agreements of their own, would conduct full investigation into those agreements?

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
He meant the secret agreements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Minister:
I see. I will confirm this matter.

4. Assistance to Afghanistan

Question (Nanao, Nico Nico Douga):
I will read a question sent by one of our users. President of the United States Barack Obama announced a new Afghanistan strategy the other day, stating that he is sending 30,000 more US troops in order to conclude the war. He also called on the international community to share responsibility for the stabilization of Afghanistan by requesting major European countries to increase the number of troops they have placed in Afghanistan. Is there any possibility for Japan to consider, in response to President Obama’s request, making a contribution of personnel in addition to the US$5 billion already promised as assistance to stabilize the livelihoods of Afghanis?

Minister:
We are not considering making such a contribution at this moment. Our new measure to provide US$5 billion has been evaluated highly in the international community, including by the United States.

Back to Index