(* 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 22, 2009, 3:00 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
Research on the So-called Secret Agreements
Deportation of Uygur Refugees by the Cambodian Government
US-Russia Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations

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

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called Japanese Ambassador to the United States Ichiro Fujisaki to the State Department to discuss Japan-US relations. This is an unusual turn of events. What has Secretary of State Clinton said on this matter?

Minister:
I am not in a position to talk about the details of the discussion. I am aware that Secretary of State Clinton talked about the importance of the issues between Japan and the United States, especially the issue of bases in Okinawa. I do not believe any new topic was discussed.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
In relation to your answer just now, you stated that they discussed the importance of the issue of bases in Okinawa. How in particular was this issued described as important during the meeting?

Minister:
I am not in a position to talk about the specifics of individual discussions. The US side has consistently argued that the agreement between Japan and the United States is important regarding the relocation of Futenma and I assume that similar things must have been said at the meeting, although I should refrain from making a conclusive statement.

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Shimbun):
In relation to this issue I would like to ask a holistic question rather than one that pertains only to this individual discussion. Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama stated himself that he and Secretary of State Clinton spent a rather long time discussing various matters at a banquet in Copenhagen. At this time, Prime Minister Hatoyama said to the press that he “received Secretary of State Clinton’s understanding,” which I believe he meant in a broad sense. Right after this took place, Secretary of State Clinton called the Japanese ambassador to the US to convey the US side’s intentions. Individual discussions aside, I have the impression that communications on small details are not going well between Japan and the United States. What is your opinion on this?

Minister:
I do not understand your reason for deciding that communication is not going well.

Question (Sudo, Mainichi Shimbun):
Right after the Prime Minister and Secretary of State Clinton had their discussion, Secretary of State Clinton called the Japanese ambassador to a meeting during heavy snowfall to press her point. I think that Secretary of State Clinton was trying to say, in response to the Prime Minister’s statement to the press that he had received the US side’s understanding, that this was not the case. I believe that perhaps Secretary of State Clinton was trying to emphasize that while she understood that Japan-US relations were important, she did not accept the new relocation site for Futenma, and I feel that this shows that there is poor communication on the details. I have the impression that there is a gap in understanding between Japan and the United States. What are your thoughts on this?

Minister:
This is based on a hypothetical situation and I am not even sure what that hypothesis is based on so I have no way to answer your question.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
Member of the House of Councillors Tamon Hasegawa, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), resigned from the party. This is the second member of the House of Councillors to do so. The number is small, but I believe it will have a huge effect on the political situation. The Futenma issue in particular, which is in a diplomatic stalemate due to the coalition joint policy agreement, will be affected by numbers when making an important decision. What are your thoughts on this?

Minister:
I do not know the details of the circumstances which led Mr. Hasegawa to leave the LDP. Additionally, I think it best not to make any statements regarding the effect it may have without careful consideration.

In your question you said “diplomatic stalemate due to the coalition joint policy agreement.” As you can see from the coalition joint policy agreement, it is a rather abstract statement on the matter and I do not really understand what you mean by “stalemate.” I believe the agreement is worded to have a quite wide interpretation. I myself was a party involved in these negotiations and I would just like to say that with all the tangible issues at hand, this was the wording we settled on.

Question (Saita, Nishinippon Shimbun):
Just for confirmation, you stated that you were not in a position to talk about the details of the discussion between Secretary of State Clinton and Ambassador Fujisaki, but have you received a report regarding what was discussed from the ambassador?

Minister:
Yes, of course.

Question (Saita, Nishinippon Shimbun):
So you are aware of the contents of the discussion, but you cannot talk about the details here?

Minister:
I believe it to be unusual for someone to talk in detail about an exchange of opinions on diplomatic matters between high-level officials based on mutual trust.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
To add to the previous question, you stated that you cannot discuss the meeting in detail from your position. However, from a third party perspective, it is extremely unusual for Secretary of State Clinton to go through the trouble of summoning the ambassador when traffic has stopped due to an extreme cold wave right after the Prime Minister told the press that he received understanding on the base issue after talking to the Secretary at a banquet in Copenhagen. How do you see this action on the part of the United States?

Minister:
Secretary of State Clinton did not summon the ambassador; she requested a meeting with him, and whether this had anything to do with her talk with the Prime Minister after having been seated next to each other by chance at the banquet is speculation. I do not even know if the two matters have anything to do with each other. However, I think that what Secretary of State Clinton was trying to do was to convey some kind of position of the US side in response to the Japanese government’s decision, by which I mean the official decision that the three parties will thoroughly discuss the matter.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
Do you plan to engage in any opportunities to explain this newly to the US side?

Minister:
From what I understand, it does not seem that such an explanation is requested or even necessary.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
In relation to this, concrete details of the government’s policy, which you just brought up, have yet to be announced. Given the responses from Secretary of State Clinton and the US side, how is the Japanese government planning to move forward?

Minister:
As I spoke about previously, I believe that an agreement between the three parties has in fact been made at the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies and it is the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s decision when to make an announcement.

Question (Oguri, Nippon Television):
Returning to the matter of Secretary of State Clinton and Ambassador Fujisaki’s meeting, I believe that the fact that Secretary of State Clinton made a point of having a meeting with Ambassador Fujisaki around this time is of course an indication that she felt some specific need to do so. Do you think this was in response to the decision of the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies, or can you not comment on this?

Minister:
It is not my place to make a conclusive statement on what the United States does, but I think that basically she talked about the response of the US government to the Japanese government’s decision this time. Communication between Japan and the United States is very frequent including communications between Ambassador Roos and I, and I believe the response was in part based on these communications.

Question (Sato, Hokkaido Shimbun):
Regarding the Japanese government’s policy, you stated that when to make an announcement was the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s decision. Given the exchange between Ambassador Fujisaki and Secretary of State Clinton, do you have any thoughts on possible changes to this government policy?

Minister:
Not in particular. What I meant by “it is the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s decision” was that it is his decision when to announce the agreement of the three parties.

Question (Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun):
In relation to the Futenma issue, you stated that you could not divulge details of what Secretary of State Clinton said to Ambassador Fujisaki. However, the Secretary of State called the ambassador to convey the US side’s thoughts around a time that is highly unusual from an objective point of view. Additionally, you stated previously that Japan-US relations are becoming shaky. In your opinion, is this shaky situation continuing and do you feel concern over the situation?

Minister:
It is not as if the situation has been resolved by this, so in that sense I believe that we still need to pay close attention to the situation. However, I do not believe that the fact that Ambassador Fujisaki was called to the State Department itself is a situation that causes further concern. I believe that in the end the US side’s opinion on Japan’s decision will be conveyed through the ambassador, by a telephone conference or by a meeting between Secretary of State Clinton and myself. I have been prepared for the US government to convey their thoughts on this in some way, so this situation is within the scope of my expectations.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
It was announced that a decision has been made at the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies for the three parties only to thoroughly discuss the issue. If so, I think that you cannot ignore the opinions of the Social Democratic Party and the People’s New Party. Chairman of the Policy Research Council of the People’s New Party Mikio Shimoji has given December 25 as the date up to which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Japanese government should continue negotiations.

Minister:
It wasn’t December 18?

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
He said December 25.

Minister:
It has been set back one week then.

Question (Iwakami, freelance):
I am not exactly sure as I have not read the entire lecture record, but perhaps what he was trying to say was that you should continue negotiations to the very last minute until the Christmas holidays begin in the United States. What is your opinion on his thoughts that you should continue to advance the negotiations as much as possible?

Minister:
The three parties confirmed the policy at the previous meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies. I cannot comment on the contents of the meeting because this was the decision we made. We made a decision to calmly proceed along this policy. Mr. Shimoji was present at the meeting, so of course he must have agreed to this as well.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
My question is on the US’s reaction toward the Japanese government’s decision, in particular the reaction of Secretary of State Clinton when she spoke to Ambassador Fujisaki. You previously mentioned your concern about the Japan-US relationship. Do you think the concern is bound to heighten, or do you think that is not necessarily the case?

Minister:
These were all within the scope of my expectations. I am not being optimistic, and I think we must respond sincerely given that it is an extremely important issue. I do not at all perceive the meeting between the Secretary of State and the Ambassador as leading to a new, unexpected course of event. By the way, I received a telephone call from Ambassador Fujisaki yesterday night. He asked my advice on various points upon meeting the Secretary of State, and I told him my opinion. The Ambassador met the Secretary of State after that.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
Although the specific details cannot be given at present, you just suggested that Secretary of State Clinton told the Ambassador that the US’s stance remains consistent, that the Japan-US agreement is important concerning the relocation of Futenma Air Station. You said that was within your expectations. While the US side seems to maintain the stance that the current plan originally agreed upon between Japan and the US should be implemented, the Japanese side has decided to settle the issue through consultations among the three ruling parties. At the base of this decision, as we understand, is the Prime Minister’s intention to consider all possible options including alternative relocation sites, which has been repeatedly mentioned. Therefore, we assume that the consultation will be oriented toward seeking a way other than the current plan. If that is the case, I think Japan and the US will continue to walk in different directions. What are you going to do about it? Will you give a separate purpose to the bilateral working group apart from the three-party consultation within Japan? Please tell us how you are going to advance the negotiations with the US.

Minister:
The US’s idea of reducing the burdens is based on the current Japan-US agreement. In that sense, I do not expect an early resumption of the working group meeting in the current state. As I have mentioned before, the story will be different if the working group assumes roles other than the current one. At this moment, since the US side has not changed their mind, and that the reduction of burdens has been proposed on the premise of implementing the current plan, it is unlikely to see quick progress within the working group.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
In a previous response, you said “I am not optimistic,” and “we must respond sincerely,” which I think expresses your sense of responsibility as the person in charge of foreign affairs. What are your thoughts about the content of a “sincere response”?

Minister:
It is very difficult to tell right now. There has been no official announcement about what agreement was reached among the three parties. Since the Prime Minister has revealed his intention to seek new candidate sites for relocation, I think that aspect needs to be addressed expeditiously.

Question (Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun):
Concerning this issue on Futenma Air Station, you are saying “we still need to pay close attention to the situation,” and “I am not optimistic,” which in some sense reflects your recognition of the difficult situation. Does that mean that your recognition of the situation has not changed since before, when you said that the Japan-US relationship was “somewhat shaking,” now that you are saying that the bilateral relationship “is shaking” although that is within your expectation?

Minister:
The relationship can be shaken in various ways. Whatever that is, the situation calls for full caution.

Question (Nishisato, ZDF):
I think there are two issues or angles concerning the relocation of Futenma Air Station, one being reduction of the burden on Okinawa and another being creation of a Japan-US relationship that is more equal. Under the LDP rule, Japan was sometimes called a “dependent nation,” especially by the foreign people, because of the way the Japan-US relationship was, more so than the way individual issues were handled. In that sense, is it correct to assume that the current state of Japan-US relations is one indication of the creation of a more equal bilateral relationship?

Minister:
I think the relocation of Futenma Air Station involves the issue of reducing the burden on Okinawa and the issue of maintaining deterrence for Japan. As for a more equal Japan-US relationship, I think that is an issue of a different angle. It is very difficult to tell whether this issue will lead to the creation of more equal bilateral relationship. I personally have not really considered the issue from such a perspective.

Question (Oguri, Nippon Television):
I would like to confirm one thing. As Prime Minister Hatoyama has been saying, you mentioned finding new candidate sites for relocation. What if an appropriate site is not found after consideration? Is there still it an option or a possibility to revert to the Henoko Plan, even though an expectation for relocation outside the prefecture is heightening in Okinawa?

Minister:
Since the Prime Minister has just made this decision, it is better that I don’t answer this kind of question prematurely. That said, since other ruling parties are suggesting that there are better plans, I think what is required now is to consider these possibilities in depth. Right now, I will refrain from speaking about the next step by anticipating the result.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
In response to my previous question, you said that the US’s stance is that the current plan for reducing the burden is based on the implementation of the current agreement. What reduction plan are you referring to exactly? The relocation of the US Marine Corps to Guam included in the 2006 United States-Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation is also a reduction of the burden of Okinawa. The same thing can be said of the return of the base in the south central part of the main island of Okinawa. Is there any plan for reduction besides the ones included in the Roadmap? Do you mean that the US side is proposing a new plan for further reduction at the working group in return for accepting the current Japan-US agreement?

Minister:
They said that such a possibility could also be considered. There are a couple of possibilities such as changing the location for drills, for instance. The US side’s stance is that these possibilities will be considered on the premise of implementing the current Japan-US agreement. I will not reveal the details, but I personally think that there is room for discussions if this is absolutely the case. For example, some of the issues associated with the relocation can be dealt with in the working group consultation without working on the premise of the Japan-US agreement. For example, current noise levels at Futenma Air Station, and problems associated with drills and exercises can be dealt with from the perspective of eliminating current hazards. The same goes for noise problems at Kadena Airbase. I would like to treat them as separate issues from the agreement, and would like to make this proposal in the bilateral dialogue after a brief pause.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
You have not made such a proposal yet?

Minister:
I think I must wait until the idea is little more consolidated.

Question (Kaminishikawara, Kyodo News):
Next year is the 50th anniversary of signing of the US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, which as I remember was signed on January 19. You said before that the discussion on security agreements cannot really be advanced unless the Futenma issue is settled. As far as we know now, it seems that the Government will be seeking new candidate sites over the next few months. Do you think the security discussion will be put to a standstill in the meantime?

Minister:
I would like to move the discussion forward if possible. However, since this is not what we can decide by ourselves, I would like to talk about this after some pause. We need to work on Futenma and the 50th anniversary in parallel to some extent, otherwise we would not be able to have any other dialogues while we work on Futenma. I would like to negotiate with the US if it is possible to advance the two discussions in parallel. However, I think some more time is needed.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
You previously said that the policy has already been decided upon among the three parties, but that it needs a little more time before announcements are to be made. On the other hand, you say that you have been maintaining close contact with the US. As you continue having discussions with the US side, including Ambassador Roos, have you already informed the US side about the policy or direction agreed upon by the Cabinet? Are you only telling the people to wait, or are you also telling the US side to wait without letting them know of the policy decided by the Government?

Minister:
Given the intensity of communication, I think our basic stance has been communicated to the US side.

Question (Iwakami, Freelance):
Does that mean that the only party that has been left without any idea what is going on is the people of Japan? When will they be informed about this?

Minister:
For that, please ask the Chief Cabinet Secretary.

2. Research on the So-called Secret Agreements

Question (Miyai, Yomiuri Shimbun):
Concerning the examination into the secret agreements, it has been learned through a Yomiuri Shimbun investigation that the secret agreement on the occasion of the return of Okinawa concerning the introduction of nuclear weapons has been held in the custody of the family of former Prime Minister Eisaku Sato. Please tell us whether you have plans to conduct henceforth an investigation into the document taking this fact and our news report into consideration, and also how this will affect the future of the investigation..

Minister:
Is this a recent report? Is it in today’s evening edition? I am not aware of it yet. With regard to how it will be treated, the issue of the secret agreements has left the hands of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and is now in the hands of the research committee, so I think that the issue is now what Professor Kitaoka and the other members of the research committee will make of it. I do not think that I should be making any presumptive comments about the matter.

3. Deportation of Uygur Refugees by the Cambodian Government

Question (Tanaka, Japan Internet News):
My apologies for changing the subject to Cambodia, but last Saturday, on the 19th, there was an incident where the Cambodian government deported 20 Uygurs who had sought refuge from China. It may be easy to dismiss this by saying that it is a matter between Cambodia and China, but the Japanese government has been one of the main sponsors of the resolution on human rights in Cambodia by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Moreover, since UNTAC's arrival in Cambodia in 1992, Japan has had a longstanding relationship with Cambodia through official development assistance; I was there on the ground as well. Isn’t the Japanese government going to take any action regarding this human rights issue? Please give us your views.

Minister:
Concerning the matter of the deportation of 20 Uygurs, the Japanese government has conveyed our view and expressed concerns to the Cambodian government that there is a possibility that the lives and the safety of these Uygurs will be endangered by such a measure and that the measure cannot be said to have been appropriate in light of the philosophy of the convention relating to the status of refugees and from a humanitarian perspective and is regrettable.

4. US-Russia Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations

Question (Nanao, Nico Nico Douga):
I would like to read a question on behalf of one of our users. Today’s question concerns the US-Russia nuclear disarmament negotiations. With regard to a treaty to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I (START I), which expired on 5 December, there was a meeting between President Obama and President Medvedev in Copenhagen on the 18th, but it is my understanding that they did not reach an agreement. I assume that they both have their own concerns, but do you think that there is something that Japan can do on its part towards the realization of a world without nuclear weapons?

Minister:
I am not that pessimistic. I think that an agreement between the United States and Russia will eventually be achieved. After the United States and Russia have achieved a certain level of reductions, then the issue will be the number of nuclear weapons in the world overall, including among the other nuclear weapons states, like the United Kingdom, France and China, and of course also including countries for which it is not clear that they are not nuclear weapons states—that will be the next step. I think that it is very important to go ahead while clearly laying out the road ahead to that point. President Obama also said that America seeks “a world without nuclear weapons,” and I am optimistic that an appropriate conclusion will be reached, including Russia, even though each side will have its own calculation method and will want to keep as many as possible. And I think that it must be as so.

Back to Index