(* 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 18, 2009, 3:00 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statements
- (1) The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Russia
- (2) The Ministerial Committee on Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization
The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Russia
Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping’s Visit to Japan
The Fiscal 2010 ODA Budget
The Treatment of the Entry of the North Korean Team for the East Asian Football Championship
The Fifteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15)

1. Opening Statements

(1) The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Russia

Minister:
I have two announcements for today. The first is my visit to Russia. I will be visiting Russia on the 27th and 28th, to be precise, I am scheduled to return in the morning of the 29th. I would like to hold a foreign ministers’ meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. There have been several meetings between Prime Minister Hatoyama and President Medvedev where the need for discussions between the foreign ministers has been raised. I would like to hold broad-based discussions on issues including the Northern Territories with Mr. Lavrov. We are still working to set up meetings with other leading figures.

(2) The Ministerial Committee on Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization

Minister:
Secondly, I will report on the second meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization held this morning. The second meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Economic Partnership Agreements and the World Trade Organization was held this morning, and was attended by Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Hirotaka Akamatsu, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Masayuki Naoshima, Senior Vice Minister of Finance Naoki Minezaki and other senior vice ministers concerned, although Minister of Finance Hirohisa Fujii was not present. On the agenda today was how to handle EPAs, especially those with Peru, India, and Australia, as well as future positions in the WTO Doha Round. The meeting lasted for about 30 minutes and I believe we were able to hold a very efficient and productive exchange of opinions.

Regarding Peru, we already have precedents in signing EPAs with Mexico and Chile, and we came to a consensus on the position that we should learn from these examples and firmly carry out negotiations. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries will make careful and detailed considerations on various points by our next meeting, which will be held at some point before the start of the ordinary session of the Diet.

As for India, we decided that we needed to organize our issues more, and while it has not been set yet, there will be a summit meeting soon, so we decided to work on making the issues clearer in order to be prepared for the summit meeting as well.

As for Australia, during my meeting with Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd as well as during talks between Prime Minister Hatoyama and Prime Minister Rudd, the topic of the possible developments in the negotiation of a Japan-Australia EPA came up. To be more specific, we exchanged opinions on how Japan would handle four items of interest to Australia, which is also something for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries to handle.

Lastly, regarding future negotiations in the WTO Doha Round, we concluded that we needed to better organize issues for the next meeting. Today was the second meeting, but I think the senior vice ministers were able to hammer out the issues to a great extent and that a structure for the ministers to thoroughly discuss the position we should take has been organized. These issues should be led by political leadership and I would like to continue to handle them firmly in this way.

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

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
Governor of Osaka Prefecture Toru Hashimoto made a proposal yesterday to the prefectural governors at the strategic meeting of the National Governors’ Association held in Tokyo calling for other prefectures to share the burden of the bases in Okinawa. Governor Hashimoto made a similar statement in the press conference and on other occasions, saying that he would be prepared to hold discussions in an earnest and forward-thinking manner should the Government make a request for relocating the base to Kansai International Airport. Could you please tell us again your thoughts on this?

Minister:
First of all, it is greatly encouraging that Governor Hashimoto proposed to share the burden of the bases nationwide rather than having Okinawa Prefecture shoulder it alone. Indeed, I think the issue should be shared by all the people of Japan. As long as Japan needs the deterrence of the US forces, it is appropriate to say that other prefectures should shoulder their share of the burden instead of just receiving benefits from it, and I welcome that Governor Hashimoto made this point clear. The idea of relocating the base to Kansai International Airport will probably be discussed from various perspectives, but meanwhile I hear there have been debates over the relationship among Kansai International Airport, Osaka International Airport, and Kobe Airport. The idea of letting the US forces use one of the runaways in Kansai International Airport apparently contradicts the idea of merging Osaka International Airport into Kansai International Airport. So I would like to hear details about the perception of Osaka Prefecture or Osaka's economic sphere in this regard. Although we would be grateful if they let us use the second runway for the US forces, there are, on the other hand, various issues including whether or not we can persuade the taxpayers, since the runaway has just been completed after investing so much tax money.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
In relation to Futemna Air Station, may I ask how you perceive the deterrence provided by the US forces in Okinawa? How many of the US Marines do you think are necessary? If they are necessary, I think there must first be a consensus on how many of them are needed. Otherwise, I don’t think the discussion will go forward, even though Prime Minister Hatoyama is instructing the ministers to look for other relocation sites. Could you please tell us your basic perception on this?

Minister:
I think it is very difficult to answer this question in a quantitative manner. It helps if you word your question in a more detailed manner.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
May I ask your basic perception as to whether or not the US Marines are necessary in Okinawa?

Minister:
Whether or not the US Marines are necessary in Okinawa; this is also a difficult question. I am not entirely clear what you mean exactly. Do you want to ask if I think they are necessary for Okinawa or for Japan? Since the US Marines are very mobile forces, there may be various opinions as to whether or not they should necessarily be stationed in Okinawa, but I think I can at least say they are necessary for Japan.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
Prime Minister Hatoyama said, “I would like to seek a relocation site other than Henoko. I intend to commit my full effort to create an environment that will allow this to happen,” during a regular doorstepping interview on December 15, if I remember the date correctly. Does this reflect a certain consensus shared within the Government including yourself?

Minister:
The decision made at the previous meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies was, as I explained in the last press conference, that the issue will be discussed among the three parties. I think the Chief Cabinet Secretary has made a similar statement, and as such the Cabinet shared the recognition that nothing more should be announced at this stage. Although some attendees of the meeting mentioned something besides this, about which I am slightly perplexed, the meeting in question confirmed that at this stage we should only announce that the issue will be discussed thoroughly among the three parties. Beyond this, although various discussions have been taking place, the Chief Cabinet Secretary is entrusted to determine the timing of making announcements, including announcements of decisions made internally at the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies. Therefore, I do not think it appropriate for me to partially reveal what has been discussed nor do I think it appropriate for me to make comments based on that piece of information. That said, I am confident that the policy will be announced before too long.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
Going back to the issue of deterrence, you said that there are various discussions as to whether or not the deterrence force needs to be stationed in Okinawa. In that sense, what do you think about the need to station the US Marines in Okinawa?

Minister:
Various answers may come up if you ask, for instance, if it would be better to have the bases in Kyushu instead of Okinawa. If you ask if the deterrence force needs to be stationed in Okinawa, perhaps it may not be absolutely necessary. That said, I think we can debate which option is better. Beyond this, it is rather difficult to answer in abstract terms. However, I think the US Marines are necessary if I take Japan as a whole into perspective.

Question (Ukai, Asahi Shimbun):
In this connection, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and others are proposing that all of the US Marines stationed in Okinawa should be relocated to Guam. By saying they are necessary for Japan as a whole, can we take that you are against their opinions?

Minister:
If I go that far, the whole discussion may become confused again, so I should not say too much about it. What I mean by “deterrence” with regard to the deterrence provided by the US Marines is the deterrence provided by the entire US forces in Japan. However, if one expects to benefit from the deterrence of the US Marines, I do not think it is very reasonable to ask them to leave Japan.

Question (Suid, Reuters):
Concerning Futenma, I think you just said that you are confident that the policy will be announced before too long. That said, before flying to Copenhagen, the Prime Minister said he would announce the policy soon, but the decision turned out to be that the issue will be discussed among the three parties. No decision has actually been made. I think the fact that the Prime Minister cannot make decisions, even though he says he will decide over and over again, is raising concern among the people as to whether or not this administration is capable of making decisions, which seems to be reflected in recent opinion polls. Would it be better to not say anything until a decision is made, or can this administration really demonstrate to the people that it is capable on making decisions on a range of various difficult issues including the relocation of Futenma Air Station?

Minister:
The policy has been confirmed at the previous meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies. However, we decided not to announce the whole policy immediately but to limit the announcement to the consensus that the issue would be discussed thoroughly among the three parties. Beyond this, since the Chief Cabinet Secretary will probably explain when he announces the policy, I think I should refrain from revealing them on my own volition. It is not that the government is incapable of making decisions, and I think one can assume that the basic policy has been settled and confirmed by now. It is up to the Chief Cabinet Secretary to determine when this should be made public. Also, what some media outlets mean by “determining the government’s policy” is different from “determining the relocation site,” but I think the two are somewhat mixed up. I must also say that I completely share the view of the Prime Minister on this issue, which we have been discussing continuously for the past two weeks.

Question (Kajiwara, NHK):
I think there was a meeting yesterday between the Prime Minister and the ministers involved in the Futenma issue, in which we know that Prime Minister Hatoyama clarified his intention to find a new relocation site other than Camp Schwab. Do you agree with the Prime Minister on that point?

Minister:
If I go into detail, I will end up making an announcement prematurely. I must say that we did not discuss anything new yesterday. There is already a consensus on the approach to be taken on this issue between myself and the Prime Minister as well as the relevant ministers. What matters is when this should be made public. We did not start a new discussion yesterday on the topic you just mentioned.

Question (Yamauchi, Nikkei):
My question somewhat overlaps some of the previous questions. As a head of state, the Prime Minister is saying that he will seek a place other than Henoko and that he will, by all means, prepare an environment to make a decision. You just said that you share the view with the Prime Minister on this issue. May I confirm how you perceive the possibility of settling the issue by adopting the current plan?

Minister:
As I have already explained, I will not comment on the Prime Minister’s comment. I would like to make my comments after the Chief Cabinet Secretary's announcement, since the Chief Cabinet Secretary will be announcing any decision made.

Question (Yoshida, Okinawa Times):
My question is on the US Navy’s assessment that the mayor of Ginowan City has repeatedly referred to. Your view seems to be in disagreement with the mayor’s view in that you presume the quorum for the Marines, which is 18,000, whereas the mayor presumes the actual number of the Marines stationed in Okinawa. In your view, the number of the Marines to be stationed in Okinawa, when the relocation plan to Guam is carried out, would be 18,000 minus 8,000, which is 10,000. Is that correct?

Minister:
I am not sure if the point you raised is the only reason why my view and the view of Mayor of Ginowan City Yoichi Iha are in disagreement. In any event, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense are currently conducting a close examination of the assessment on the relocation plan to Guam. I think it would be better if I wait for the result of the examination before officially answering your question. What I can say now in response to your question is that we would not be able to conduct discussions sufficiently if we were to take only the current situation as a precondition to discussions; the number of Marines may seem to be small now because some of them have currently been dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan, but they will be back when the situation stabilizes.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
You said that it had been agreed to only make public the fact that the three parties had determined the government’s policy, with other matters to be announced as appropriate...

Minister:
I said that it had been confirmed that the only facts to be made public were that the three parties had confirmed to cooperate with each other.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
Yes, but I am still wondering if there are other matters that have been determined. I thought what you meant to say in your previous press conference was that there had been a general agreement on the government’s policy that the three parties would consult with each other and that you had not given up on determining a more specific policy for other matters by the end of the year. Has the government already determined the specific policy for other matters but decided to limit the scope of what is to be announced? Or has it only been determined that the three parties have agreed to consult with each other? Please tell us which is true.

Minister:
This may illustrate how earnest and honest a person I am, but I think we could have a formal occasion for thoroughly making the determination. At the same time, it would take time. Therefore, my understanding is that there is a general agreement for the Chief Cabinet Secretary to make the announcement. At the time of my previous press conference, there was a possibility to have another occasion to make the determination, and we had also confirmed that the only thing that was decided was to make only the fact public that the three parties would closely consult with each other. What I stated last time was based on this confirmation. Currently, however, we started to think that it is unnecessary to convene another meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies to re-confirm what has been confirmed for the sake of formality. I may be the only person who exactly follows the policy that has been decided, given that many other people are expressing their views, one after the other.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
It seems that the government’s policy on the issue of Futenma Air Station has been generally agreed upon. The United States also has a strong interest in this issue, which is an important issue for Japan-US relations, which is also of importance. As the head of Japan’s diplomatic authority, are you hoping to meet with your counterpart in the United States to provide a thorough explanation once the government broadly determines its policy and announces it publicly?

Minister:
I can give a thorough explanation without actually meeting with my counterpart. I intend to give a thorough explanation, but that can be done without us meeting face-to-face.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
Earlier, you said that the government’s policy had been basically determined and the Chief Cabinet Secretary would probably announce the policy in the near future. You also said that to determine the government’s policy would not necessarily mean to determine the relocation site. The final decision which would draw the strongest public interest would be on the relocation site. What are the prospects of the government making that final decision?

Minister:
It goes without saying that sooner or later the relocation site must be determined.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
But the relocation site will not be announced in the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s next press conference. Is that correct?

Minister:
I have been consistent in using the expression “the government’s policy” whenever I speak at my press conference. I am not so optimistic as to think that we can determine the relocation site now.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
You said that it may not be necessary for the deterrence force to be stationed in Okinawa and that you had to consider which would be a better option. Does that mean that the better option will be to have the bases in Okinawa, although it may not be necessary for the deterrence force to be stationed there? Looking back, has the deterrence force been stationed in Okinawa, although it could have been stationed in other places, because it was a better option after taking various factors into account, including how the issue was to be settled politically?

Minister:
We are not discussing how it was in the past. Your question was very generic, so I was just giving my answer assuming a plain situation. We could say that it would be geographically better to have the deterrence force in Okinawa than to have it in Hokkaido or mainland Japan. In that sense, Okinawa is more advantageous from a strategic point of view. The other point that we must take into account is the fact that Okinawa has been hosting bases for some time. It will take a substantial amount of energy to relocate all the bases in Okinawa, which is another reason why it is more likely that the deterrence force will be stationed in Okinawa. We will discuss steps to be taken going forward, taking various matters into account, including the fact that there are too many bases in Okinawa.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
What kind of diplomatic efforts has the Japanese government made and will make to gain the understanding of the United States, the diplomatic partner for the issue of the government’s policy, which has already been determined but yet to be announced?

Minister:
I am not in a position to answer the kind of question that you have raised. I can say, however, that I am doing whatever I need to do.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
You said that Japan as a whole needs the Marines’ deterrence. Specifically, what do you think the Marines would deter?

Minister:
If you look at Japan’s security environment, we can say that the Marines, with their mobility and capabilities, can deter the occurrence of conflicts in the case of a contingency. There are other situations in which the Marines’ mobility is thought to benefit Japan’s security.

Question (Ishikawa, Yomiuri Shimbun):
You have been saying that you would visit Okinawa again to give an explanation once the policy is determined. Are you planning to visit Okinawa again if and when the Chief Cabinet Secretary announces the policy? The Japan-US ministerial level working group has been halted. How will you handle it?

Minister:
I am ready to go to Okinawa at anytime once the policy is announced. It is my job to give a frank explanation and listen to various opinions. At the same time, we need to get the division of roles straight. Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism Seiji Maehara is also serving as the Minister of State for Okinawa and Northern Territories Affairs, and Disaster Management. We will of course support Minister Maehara. Diplomatic negotiations are the duty of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, so I will be conducting negotiations on diplomatic matters. These are the roles of the respective ministers. The Chief Cabinet Secretary, who presides over all of this, fulfills the role of the control tower.

The current working group has been tasked with verifying the current plan; that is, the process in which the decision was made to relocate Futenma Air Station to Henoko. As such, the function of the working group would probably not be the same as it has been if the policy announced were not necessarily in agreement with the current plan. It is possible that the working group will continue discussions with an expanded task. Currently, ways to lessen the burden of Okinawa are discussed here and there, individually, but it would be good if a forum was established for Japan and the United States to discuss the issue thoroughly.

3. The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Russia

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
I would like to ask you about your visit to Russia. You told us that you wanted to exchange views on the Northern Territories and a variety of other issues. What do you want to confirm regarding the Northern Territories? In addition, I believe that there are economic relations and other issues; and I’d like to hear about your enthusiasm, hopes and objectives that you want to achieve, and the like in a little more detail, please.

Minister:
I think that it is better to not be too eager. I want to have a calm discussion. I do not believe that there will be dramatic developments in a short time, and that includes the Northern Territories. I think that the case is such that we should go on building bit by bit, and that there will be a need to hold many talks at the foreign ministers’ level, this occasion being the starting point for this.

Question (Sato, Hokkaido Shimbun):
With regard to your visit to Russia, I would like to ask for your understanding of the current situation regarding the issue of the Northern Territories. Prime Minister Hatoyama is showing a great desire for an early resolution. However, the current situation is such that the Russian side reacts negatively in response to Japanese statements, or the Russian side seeks economic cooperation on the four islands and the Japanese side says that it is difficult; there are a number of differences between the two states. How do you see the situation?

Minister:
There is much confusion before us, but from a broader perspective, there is the view in the Russian Far East that they would like to seek Japanese capital and technology if possible. In addition, currently, there is a relatively stable regime in place in Russia under President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin, which I think is basically a positive element when conducting all sorts of negotiations. That said, this is an issue that has been taking a lot of time, and there is the matter of popular sentiment in each country. In that sense, I think that the correct way to proceed is to deliberately go forward step by step, without being overly optimistic.

4. Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping’s Visit to Japan

Question (Asaka, freelance):
I have questions with regard to Vice President Xi Jinping’s visit to Japan. At the same time as Vice President Xi’s visit to Japan, President Tabaré Vázquez and the First Lady of Uruguay also visited Japan. Since on both occasions they were being hosted as working visits, there was no need for their national flags to be displayed along the street, yet while the flag of Uruguay, represented by its head of state, was not displayed, China’s, which was represented by its number six figure, was. What are the standards for this decision? Also, was there any, for example, advice or communication from China, a request to “please do something about this” or the like, with regard to this issue?

Minister:
As far as I am aware, there was not. With regard to why China and why not Uruguay, there are no rules regarding when we must display either of their flags. It is difficult to put it into words, but I, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, am not in a position to say which is acceptable and which is not. On the other hand, Japan and China are neighbors, and, after all, Mr. Xi Jinping is said to be a future leader, so I think those things were on their minds when acting within the range of discretion.

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
I would like to ask a question regarding the special meeting between Vice President Xi Jinping and His Majesty the Emperor. Is the act whereby His Majesty the Emperor gives an audience to a foreign guest an act in matters of state, or is it not an act in matters of state? I would like your answer on that point, and the reasons for it.

Minister:
The acts in matters of state are stipulated in the Constitution, so I do not think that it is an act in matters of state. I think that the normal interpretation is that it is a public act.

Question (Kamematsu, J-Cast News):
I understand that Vice President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Okada held a meeting on the 16th. Could you tell us what you talked about on that occasion, as well as your impressions of Vice President Xi?

Minister:
Vice President Xi had finished all his other meetings in Tokyo including those with all the political parties, so I asked his impressions about them. I also brought up several points on which I had to hold serious discussions as Foreign Minister. One, which we have taken up to some extent in our public communications as well, is the matter of the gas fields in the East China Sea. There were others that we did not take up in our public communications. There were many people on both sides, Japanese and Chinese, so the venue did not present an occasion for intensive consultations. We did go on to convey that Japan has shown strong interest in such issues, so I want to pursue them further, perhaps at a foreign ministers’ level or bureau director-general level.

When I said, “you, Vice President Xi, and I are the same age,” he said, “No, I am a month older,” so I thought that they had also been doing their homework. I understand that his birthday is June 16th. Mine is July 14th, so he is a month older. I think that Vice President Xi is an affable figure, someone easy to talk to. I sensed this pattern among Chinese leaders.

5. The Fiscal 2010 ODA Budget

Question (Nanao, Nico Nico Douga):
My question is on behalf of our users regarding the official development assistance (ODA) budget, which has been on a downward trend. The fiscal 2010 budget is the first fiscal year budget since the birth of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) administration. On December 16, some media outlets reported that the government was considering cutting the ODA budget by 6-7% compared to this year. Would you please tell us about your thoughts regarding the downward trend in the ODA budget in recent years and the effect it will have on diplomatic front?

Minister:
The 2010 fiscal budget is currently undergoing deliberation within the government and I do not intend to comment on the speculative reporting of some media outlets. Of course, there is a great difference in considering the ODA budget from a project cost perspective and a budget perspective. For example, at one time Japan’s ODA toward Africa was the most in the world and it is a fact that this is gradually decreasing now. I am aware that among the general public, there are those who question why we are providing so much assistance overseas when Japan itself is facing severe circumstances and there are many Japanese who are in difficult situations. However, I believe it is the nature of Japan to sympathize as fellow human beings with those who are in desperate situations due to illness and hunger, in Africa for example, and do what they can for them. I would like to try and convey this more thoroughly as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

6. The Treatment of the Entry of the North Korean Team for the East Asian Football Championship

Question (Iwakami, freelance):
I would like to ask you about the issue of the entry of North Korea’s women’s soccer team. With regard to this entry issue, there were some press reports that said that State Secretary Koichi Takemasa had requested that they “be allowed to enter,” and it is my understanding that Mr. Takemasa personally denied this at a press conference yesterday, saying, “That is different from the facts” with regard to the press reports. Yesterday, Senior Vice Minister Kouhei Otsuka also strongly denied it during a press conference at the Financial Services Agency, having been present at the Senior Vice Ministers meeting, saying, “There was absolutely no such statement whatsoever. This press report is a fabrication. I want to lodge a protest.” I think that this is quite a serious problem. I would like to hear your views on this matter.

Minister:
I do not attend the Senior Vice Ministers meetings, so I am not aware of what was said at that venue. In any case, this is an issue where if the Japan Football Association wishes to have such North Korean soccer players allowed into Japan, then its intentions must be taken up, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology should explain the matter within the government, and the decision must be made whether or not an exception to the sanctions could actually be made.

7. The Fifteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15)

Question (Suzuki, Jiji Press):
Please tell us your thoughts or policies toward the situation of negotiations currently underway in Copenhagen for the Fifteenth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP15).

Minister:
This morning I received a phone call from State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Tetsuro Fukuyama. While it was 4 a.m. for him, he said that they had been working through the night. The Prime Minister is scheduled to give a brief speech or explanation of his thoughts and with preparations for this as well I think that the situation is quite hectic. However, since leaders from around the world are gathering to discuss matters, I am certain that in the end they will come to some sort of a conclusion.

Related Information (Climate Change)

Back to Index