(* 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, December 15, 2009, 3:35 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statements
- (1) The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament
- (2) The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament
The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
Vice President Xi Jinping’s Audience with His Majesty the Emperor of Japan

1. Opening Statements

(1) The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament

Minister:
Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd visited us this morning at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and I exchanged views on various matters with him for approximately 40 minuets. Then, Prime Minister Rudd and Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama held a summit meeting. Just prior to this press conference, the prime ministers attended a ceremony to receive member reports of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament from the Hon. Gareth Evans and the Hon. Yoriko Kawaguchi, former foreign ministers of their respective countries. I am sorry that I could not start today’s press conference on time as the schedule of events was behind, even though I left in the middle of the ceremony.

I told Prime Minister Rudd that the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament had compiled very good reports. While there were many discussions during the compilation process, I had strictly instructed the secretariat not to interfere with the contents of the reports since they are not government reports. I believe this instruction was duly observed. I also asked Co-chair Kawaguchi to go her own way, stressing that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would fully support this endeavor and not interfere with the contents. Looking at the outcome, I cay say that the Commission has compiled very good reports. I am aware that some take the reports as insubstantial, but I think it depends on the extent to which one expects the reports to take reality into account. To me, the reports seem to be very good in that they drew up concrete steps to be taken for the elimination of nuclear weapons in the form of a roadmap.

This is something I talked about with Prime Minister Rudd, and I must stress that this is not the government’s view, but the reports contain many points that the government should bear in mind. I also expressed my wish to Prime Minister Rudd for the governments of Japan and Australia – the home countries of the Commission's co-chairs – to examine, based on the reports, matters upon which the respective countries call on the world to take actions; and for Japan and Australia, possibly with the United States, to formulate, based on the reports, a new policy recommendation to realize “a world without nuclear weapons.”

April and May of next year will be eventful months, with the Nuclear Security Summit, which President of the United States Barack Obama will host, and an NPT Review Conference, planned for those two months, respectively. I told Prime Minister Rudd that Japan could host an international conference in the latter half of next year; that Japan intends to play a role in steadily moving forward with steps to eliminate nuclear weapons; and that in that respect Japan hopes to advance Japan-Australia bilateral cooperation and, possibly, Japan-Australia-US trilateral cooperation.

(2) The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan

Minister:
I am sure you have lots of questions on the Futenma issue today, but the ministers concerned with the issue had a meeting today. During the meeting, as the Chief Cabinet Secretary explained in his press conference, we confirmed that the three parties will cooperate in addressing the issue. I will not elaborate on the contents of what we discussed today. We will steadily proceed based on the point confirmed today.

2. The International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
My question is on the Kawaguchi-Evans committee. In the opening statement, you said that you told Prime Minister Rudd that you would like to bring about a new policy proposal in cooperation with Australia. Do you have any specific plan about it, such as establishing some kind of consultation body between Japan and Australia? That is my first question. Also, you have always been saying that a review is necessary for Japan’s nuclear policy. How are you going to apply the ICNND reports received today to the review of Japan’s nuclear policy? These are my two questions.

Minister:
The reports contain various details, so I would like to consider them thoroughly and then bring up points that can be agreed upon by both Japan and Australia. I have no intention to say anything more at this moment. It remains to be decided as to how we are going to examine the report. For the time being, it will be discussed with a view to the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Even after this, as I believe the next year will be an important year with regard to nuclear disarmament, I would like to make an approach to further reinforce this trend toward the second half of 2010. Also, there is the 2+2 dialogue between Japan and Australia involving the foreign and defense ministers. Since it has not met for a while, there was talk today between Prime Minister Hatoyama and Prime Minister Rudd that it should meet at some point. These kinds of meeting can also be utilized effectively for conducting substantial discussion on nuclear issues.

Question (Yamamoto, Nikkei):
In relation to this question, the policy on nuclear deterrence may become a subject of debate in the future as in the committee of outside experts is currently investigating the so-called secret agreements. Could you please tell us again your thoughts on the no-first-use policy?

Minister:
I have answered this question a couple of times at previous press conferences. It is quite difficult to convey exactly what I mean, but I perceive the no-first-use policy as a broad trend. That said, since this cannot be realized immediately, the specific measures that are practically available must be discussed between Japan and Australia, or among Japan, Australia, and the United States. For example, the ICNND reports includes recommendations that nuclear weapons should not be used against non-nuclear states and that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is just for deterrence against other nuclear weapons, and I think we should discuss in depth how these principles are practically applicable. Even in these reports, the no-first-use policy is treated as a goal for the second phase after 2012, and is not assumed to be achieved at once.

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
In relation to the Kawaguchi-Evans committee, could you please explain to us how you would like to make use of these reports in reviewing Japan’s nuclear policy?

Minister:
I would like to treat them as an extremely important reference. However, I must say that they were not compiled by any government and thus go two or three steps ahead of our official stances, a point on which Prime Minister Rudd concurred. Therefore, I do not think they will be directly incorporated into the Japanese government’s policy. That said, there are many things that we must refer to, including the roadmap, which are the result of intensive discussions between experts on this issue around the world. And I think the reports are receiving considerable appraisal in the US as well, although there must be various opinions inside. In this context, I want to see if the essence of the recommendations can be applied directly to Japan’s policies in some aspects.

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

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
I have a question relating to the Futenma issue. I heard that you met with US Ambassador to Japan John Roos yesterday and today. Can you tell us about what you talked about? What was his demeanor like at the time? Some media outlets reported that during your previous meeting with Ambassador Roos, he yelled at you until his face turned red with anger. Did anything like that happen this time?

Minister:
First of all, I ask you not to ask the same questions as I have answered at previous press conferences. It is absolutely false that he yelled at me until his face turned red.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
It did not happen this time either?

Minister:
Of course not.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
What did you talk about?

Minister:
I am not at liberty to say.

Question (Mizushima, Jiji Press):
Regarding the government’s policy on the Futenma issue, I understand that the decision on the relocation site has been pushed back quite a bit. I believe that this has given rise to views that due to this the current Henoko plan has become, in effect, difficult to implement or that it will lead to Futenma Air Station remaining where it is. What is your opinion on this?

Minister:
The three parties have not agreed on anything yet. There may be those who say various things on speculation, but from my perspective, nothing has changed today since yesterday.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
A policy was decided upon at a meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies today. As the minister in charge of diplomatic relations, how do you plan to advance discussions with the United States in the future?

Minister:
What we decided today was that the three parties should thoroughly discuss the issue. Nothing further was decided today.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
You just stated that the Committee decided that the three parties should thoroughly discuss the issue. Negotiations and discussions with the United States are still waiting to happen and the working group has been put on hold for the time being. Does this mean that you will continue discussions between the three parties just within Japan?

Minister:
In principle, yes. The working group was established for the purpose of verifying the developments that led to the current plan. Therefore, unless the three parties agree to go with the current plan, it would overstep the scope of the verification by the working group, as I have been saying from before.

Question (Ukai, Asahi Shimbun):
You stated that a decision was made to thoroughly discuss the issue between the three parties. However, the coalition had been in place since the inauguration of the new administration. Therefore shouldn’t this sort of agreement have been made at the start of the new administration? I think that the order in which things have taken place – to establish the working group and negotiate with the United States before coming to an agreement within the government – was wrong. What is your opinion on this?

Minister:
Your argument is about the order in which things should have been done. I think it is not unreasonable to have discussed the issue to a certain extent with the US side and then hold discussions with the other parties based on those discussions.

Question (Shinbori, TV Asahi):
I believe you have worked with the United States through the working group under the premise of reaching an agreement expeditiously. What does the timeline look like at this point or what do you have in mind as an aim?

Minister:
We have not come to a conclusion yet, so I do not think I should talk about this.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
You have continuously stated that you will aim to set a direction by the end of the year. Is it alright for us to understand that today a direction has been set, or do you prefer to come up with a different direction by the end of the year?

Minister:
All that was decided was that we would discuss the issue thoroughly among the three parties. I do not think this can be interpreted as a direction or policy having been decided upon.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
You previously expressed concern on the effect that postponing a conclusion on this issue may have on Japan-US relations. With this policy that the three parties will thoroughly discuss this issue, has your concern increased or decreased?

Minister:
We are still in the middle of discussions and I think it is difficult to comment on this until we have reached a decision.

Question (Kajiwara, NHK):
I believe it has been pointed out that the continual domestic political confusion stemming from the Futenma issue may have an adverse effect on Japan-US relations. What is your opinion on this at this moment?

Minister:
We are conducting discussions between the three parties in order to minimize these effects.

Question (Oguri, Nippon Television):
You just stated that a decision was made that the three parties would thoroughly discuss the issue and that a policy or direction has not been decided yet. Is there still some possibility that a direction or policy will be decided on before the end of the year?

Minister:
That is what I believe. Just discussing the issue among the three parties does not constitute a decision being made.

Question (Sato, Hokkaido Shimbun):
I believe that an awareness that things are progressing smoothly toward a conclusion by the end of the year has come up at discussions between relevant ministers. Does the conclusion presented today at the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies follow along these lines?

Minister:
We have not yet come to a conclusion. We are still at the middle stage. However, I optimistically think that the discussion is boiling down to a conclusion.

Question (Sato, Hokkaido Shimbun):
Does this mean a conclusion is coming soon?

Minister:
We are discussing many things. I believe there will be a tangible conclusion which can be announced.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
I believe that the United States is paying close attention to the discussions, or adjustments, being made within the Japanese government this time. However, the US side’s attitude remains consistent that somewhere along the coast of Camp Schwab is the only feasible choice and they would like this issue to be concluded by the end of the year. Do you think that if this issue were to be prolonged, it would send out a message to the United States that the government places more importance on the ruling coalition than Japan-US relations?

Minister:
No, I believe that the US side understands to an extent that it is not a matter of what the government places importance on.

Question (Tanigami, Minami-Nippon Shimbun):
I have a question about the low-level flight training of US military aircraft in Okinawa. Yesteday a seminar hosted by the Ministry of Defense was held in Fukuoka. During the seminar, US Deputy Chief of Mission in Japan James Zumwalt stated that low-level flight training in Kagoshima of US military aircraft belonging to military bases in Okinawa was being conducted as part of the relocation of US military training to the mainland in order to ease the burden of the people of Okinawa. He also stated that the US Air Force and Marines were conducting training in various locations in Kyushu. Kagoshima prefecture submitted a request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last month to prohibit low-level flight training. My question is whether this training is being conducted on the permission of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Please also tell us your opinion on this matter.

Minister:
I would like for you to confirm the facts beforehand instead of asking me for confirmation at my press conferences. I am not aware of the facts regarding this matter. However, I am aware that that this training at Kagoshima airport took place without the knowledge of the local community. Training in order to lessen the burden of Okinawa is not something that is done without permission, so I am having difficulty understanding what is going on. I would like to look into the matter.

Question (Kozuka, Nikkan Gendai):
You just stated that a decision was made that the three parties will thoroughly discuss the issue. However, since this administration is a three-party coalition to begin with, I think that it is only natural that the three parties discuss things thoroughly. For something like this to be announced makes it seem as if the government is stalling and can only send the public messages like this. I do not understand what kind of message the government is trying to send the public. Please tell us your thoughts on this.

Minister:
I think in short, the message is “please give us some more time.”

Question (Yamauchi, Nikkei):
Japan is, in regards to nuclear weapons, effectively protected by the US nuclear umbrella. The outcome and the timeline of the Futenma issue this time is also unclear. How do you think these situations will affect Japan’s nuclear deterrence?

Minister:
I do not think that it will directly affect nuclear deterrence, nor have I heard the topic come up before.

Question (Takahashi, Jiji Press):
I heard that during the meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies this morning, the government side had proposed to make a decision by May of next year, but no agreement was made due to opposition from the Social Democratic Party, among other reasons. Based on what grounds did the government think it necessary to spend five months? Five months from now would stride over the Nago mayoral election. What is your view on that?

Minister:
Your question is based on a speculation. I do not think the Chief Cabinet Secretary has stated in his press conference what you have described now.

Question (Hasegawa, AFP):
Going back to the previous question, Chair of the Social Democratic Party Mizuho Fukushima stated that there was a discussion on making a decision by May at today’s meeting and that she was against the idea of setting a clear deadline. There seems to be slight disagreement between what she said and what you said earlier.

Minister:
Your question should be addressed to Chair Fukushima. Those who attended the meeting today all agreed at its close that the three parties would cooperate with each other. If you hear someone expressing a different view, please ask that person for clarification.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
Let me go back to the Futenma issue. There seem to be many concerns over Japan-US relations. Do you have any plan to visit the United States in the near future to hold talks with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Minister:
There is no such plan at this moment.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
Some media outlets reported that you would visit the United States tomorrow, but in fact, you will not. Am I correct?

Minister:
I have no idea of the grounds on which some media outlets made that report. I will certainly visit the United States if there is a need to do so, but I do not see any need now.

Question (Sakamaki, Bloomberg News):
Earlier you said that there is a possibility for a decision on the Futenma issue to be made by the end of the year. It is thus not the case that the government gave up on making a decision by the end of the year, or that the government decided to postpone decision-making to next year. Is that correct?

Minister:
What I meant was that I have no intention of excluding the possibility of determining a policy by the end of the year.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
When you say “direction” or “policy,” do you mean to imply that you think it is preferable to make clear, by the end of the year, the government’s policy on the current Japan-US agreement; the deadline for deciding an alternative place, assuming that such decision would be made; and where the alternative place should be?

Minister:
I would rather not elaborate on specifics. What we have agreed upon now after having discussed various matters today is that the three parties would consult with each other closely. The direction, I hope, will be made clear once the discussion is boiled down to a conclusion. I do not think this is the right time to specify the specifics of the direction that will be taken.

Question (Nanao, Nico Nico Douga):
I will read one question from our users. Japan-US relations have been emphasized in the context of the issue of the relocation of Futenma Air Station. Do you think the issue will have impacts on Japan’s relations with its neighbors, such as East Asian countries and Russia?

Minister:
Yes, I think so. Take North Korean issues for example. US Special Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth, who visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the other day, has shared with us specific matters going on between the United States and North Korea. I believe that the Japan-US alliance is playing its role here. The Japan-US alliance plays an important role in a very wide range of areas in securing the peace and security of Japan as well as the stability of the Asia-Pacific region. That is it should be maintained. If Japan-US alliance became shaky, it would influence many issues, including, as I just brought up as an example, North Korean issues.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
You said that the message to the public on the Futenma issue – that the three parties would thoroughly discuss the issue – can also mean to ask the public for some more time.

Minister:
Perhaps, I simplified a bit too much.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
If you could clarify once again the message to the public, could you tell us approximately until when the people need to wait? Could you also clarify a project, a scope, and an issue that you are talking about? The people can view this press conference on-line, so it would be much appreciated if you could send the message directly to the public.

Minister:
Discussions among the three ruling parties are underway, and I ask the public to give us some more time until we have a clear picture of direction. No agreement was made today.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
Did you convey to the US side, or Ambassador Roos, what the three ruling parities had confirmed regarding the Futenma issue in their meeting today?

Minister:
All I can say is that the three ruling parties confirmed and decided to consult with each other closely.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
Did you explain that point to Ambassador Roos?

Minister:
Rather than explaining that point, I conveyed, in my own way, to Ambassador Roos the contents of our discussions.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
On a related note, do you not think merely explaining to the United States that the three parties would consider the issue thoroughly will not be persuasive enough given that the United States is the other party involved?

Minister:
That itself would not constitute an explanation. I explained to Ambassador Roos matters including the process in which the three ruling parties would consult with each other closely.

Question (Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun):
I have a question on the Futenma issue. You have always stated that you seek to resolve the issue as expeditiously as possibly – if possible, by the end of the year. The situation as of today, December 15, is that you still have to ask the people for some more time. You have also expressed a sense of crisis over the current status of Japan-US relations, which is becoming somewhat shaky. Is the sense of crisis getting stronger?

Minister:
Although no agreement was made today, I do not think it will take long for us to reach an agreement. I do not think my sense of crisis is getting stronger.

4. Vice President Xi Jinping’s Audience with His Majesty the Emperor of Japan

Question (Higashioka, Asahi Shimbun):
My question concerns the meeting between His Majesty the Emperor of Japan and Vice President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China. According to what MOFA explained yesterday at the foreign affairs committee of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), the Imperial Household Agency (IHA) made the first reply to MOFA on November 26 that the audience would be impossible this time, and after making an arrangement with the Prime Minister’s Office, MOFA notified the Chinese side on November 30 that the audience could not take place. Does this fact indicate that you, Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirano, and Prime Minister Hatoyama had accepted on one occasion that the audience would be impossible this time?

Minister:
Please ask the Prime Minister and the Chief Cabinet Secretary directly about their intentions at that time. I am in no position to speak about it. I was thinking that it would be difficult in light of the one-month rule.

Question (Kamematsu, J-CAST News):
Concerning the issue of the meeting between His Majesty the Emperor and Vice President Xi Jinping, DPJ Secretary General Ozawa spoke at a press conference yesterday where he criticized the Grand Steward of the Imperial Household Agency on constitutional grounds, as has been widely broadcasted in TV and other media outlets. Mr. Ozawa was saying “read the Constitution carefully,” so I consulted a textbook on the Constitution written by Nobuyoshi Ashibe, among other materials. According to the Constitution, “acts in matters of state” are performed based on “the advice and approval of the Cabinet,” which means that they are “public acts” strictly speaking. I think it is commonly accepted that meetings with foreign guests are therefore subject to control by the advice and approval of the Cabinet, but since General Secretary Ozawa is not a Cabinet member, one could say he went too far in doling out such harsh criticism from his position. Could you please tell us your thoughts on this?

Minister:
I think Mr. Ozawa was just answering the question posed to him. I am in no position to comment more on this.

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Shimbun):
In relation to the meeting between the Emperor and Vice President Xi Jinping, Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Maehara said today at his press conference after the Cabinet Meeting that the Chinese government made a request for an audience with the Emperor to the Japanese government because there was such a request from a former prime minister, in other words, from the LDP side. Are you aware of this?

Minister:
I do not have any direct knowledge about it. Although I have heard that various people made requests at various places, I have not heard anything specific myself. There are various rumors going around, but I do not know whether they are true or not.

Question (Higashioka, Asahi Shimbun):
Continuing on the issue of the meeting in question, you just mentioned that various people made requests at various places, but there have been criticisms from outside experts as well as from the LDP on the procedure that led to this meeting. Concerning the granting of exceptional treatment to Vice President Xi Jinping, do you think there are some points to correct, or do you think it is possible to allow such exceptions in the future?

Minister:
Since the decision was made by the Prime Minister’s Office, as I have mentioned before, I will not make further comments on this. It was ultimately a Cabinet decision, and I thus followed the Cabinet decision.

Back to Index