(* 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 29, 2009, 4:00 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statements
- (1) Foreign Minister’s Visit to Russia
- (2) The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Turkey
The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Russia
Prospect of Foreign Minister’s Visit to the United States
First 100 Days Since the Change of Government and Next Year’s Resolution
The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
The Research into the Issue of the So-called Secret Agreements
Concerning Capital Punishment
The Situation in Myanmar
The FY2010 Budget Proposal (Reduction in the ODA Budget)

1. Opening Statements

(1) Foreign Minister’s Visit to Russia

Minister:
This is the last press conference for this year, which is about to end of this year. I have two announcements to make.

The first is my visit to the Russian Federation. The itinerary was already explained. I held a joint chairs meeting of the Japan-Russia Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Issues with Minister of Industry and Trade of Russia Mr. Viktor Borisovich Khristenko. The discussion lasted about two and half hours, with a meal in between. One of the topics discussed was the “List of Projects for Prospective Cooperation with Japan in the Far-East and East-Siberia Region.” The list, which was initially mentioned by Prime Minister Putin during his last visit to Japan, was rearranged by the Japanese side and was presented once again at the meeting. We have thereby agreed to establish a vice-ministerial-level subcommittee on trade and investment as a platform to discuss the list in a focused manner. We have confirmed our intention to further deepen at a higher level and in a specific manner the discussion on projects in the Far-East and East-Siberia Region that seem promising in terms of mutual cooperation.

The following day, I held talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia Mr. Sergei Lavrov, for more than two hours. We were supposed to have a discussion and then a press conference before a meal, but the discussion which was initially scheduled to be an hour long lasted about 90 minutes, during which we mainly discussed the territorial issue. The newspapers issued today are giving varied reports, we confirmed that there is a considerable difference in the claims of the two countries. Concerning the territorial issue, Foreign Minister Lavrov holds the basic stance that the issue needs to be addressed in light of international law and the outcome of World War II. He said there was essentially no change in this stance, but noted that he did not intend to delay a resolution and that there was political will on the Russian side to resolve the issue. Since this seemed slightly different from the stance shown by President Medvedev at the summit meeting, I focused on that point during the discussion. We discussed separately what is specifically meant by “international law or the outcome of the World War II,” which resulted in an intensive exchange of views. From my side, I stated – while referring to progress in Japan-Russia relations based on the Japan-Russia Action Plan, which is mainly focused on the aforementioned economic front – that “The problem is that there has been no visible progress on the issue of territorial attribution. The economy and politics are said to be two wheels of one cart. Without a steady progress on the political front, in particular the territorial issue, the two wheels will stop turning.” Then I proposed, “Now is a great chance to move this issue forward, with three leaders – President Medvedev, Prime Minister Putin, and Prime Minister Hatoyama taking initiative. If we miss this chance, the issue may become more difficult to resolve.” The discussion in itself resulted in “no progress,” but given that I will be meeting Foreign Minister Lavrov a number of times going forward, I think the meeting was valuable as a first exchange. I suppose that we acknowledged each other as capable for substantial discussion, as negotiators on equal terms.

Then I held talks with Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office of Russia Mr. Sergey Yevgenyevich Naryshkin, with whom I concurred on the necessity of accelerating the negotiations of the territorial issue under the leadership of the heads of state of the two countries. From my side, I quoted a line from the late Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who advocated a resolution of the territorial issue between Japan and Russia, and asked him to forward the message to President Medvedev.

This was my third visit to Russia, and my first in 13 years. I told Foreign Minister Lavrov, “This visit to Russia marks the start of our discussion. In tandem with the summit-level discussions held in various venues, it is our duty and responsibility as Foreign Ministers to incorporate these discussions into foreign ministers’ dialogue and substantiate their proposals.”

(2) The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Turkey

Minister:
I will visit the Republic of Turkey from January 3 to 4, 2010. During my visit, I will be paying a courtesy call to His Excellency Dr. Abdullah Gül, President of Turkey, and holding talks with Dr. Ahmet Davutoglu, Minister of Foreign Affair of Turkey. I will also attend the opening ceremony of “Japan Year 2010 in Turkey.”

Turkey is geopolitically an extremely important nation and is also currently a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and a G20 member, playing a vital role in international political and economic issues. I intend to take this ceremony as an opportunity to substantially deepen our bilateral relationship.

2. The Foreign Minister’s Visit to Russia

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers):
At the Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Russia, you mentioned that Foreign Minister Lavrov said, “The issue needs to be addressed in light of international law and the outcome of World War II.” I do not believe that such an expression was used during the meeting between President Medvedev and Prime Minister Hatoyama. How do you interpret Foreign Minister Lavrov’s statement?

Minister:
I perceive it as an expression of the traditional Russian stance. I think this was not the first time Foreign Minister Lavrov mentioned this, which seems to have been his long held stance. That said, given that President Medvedev has warned against taking an extreme stance, I proposed to discuss what Foreign Minister Lavrov meant more specifically word by word.

Question (Yamamoto, Nikkei):
In relation to the previous question, by saying there was no change from the traditional stance, do you mean that there was no new proposal this time, such as an “original approach” advocated by Russia?

Minister:
There was no new proposal, although some media outlets might be suggesting that there was such a move.

Question (Sato, the Hokkaido Shimbun Press):
At the joint press conference after the Foreign Ministers’ meeting, Foreign Minister Lavrov said that Russia is prepared to propose an original approach. He also said that this was also brought up in the meeting that day. What kind of discussion took place during the meeting concerning this original approach?

Minister:
We have not discussed what they specifically meant by “original approach.”

Question (Sato, the Hokkaido Shimbun Press):
Concerning the Japan-Russia Foreign Ministers’ meeting, on a number of recent occasions, including higher-level official meetings, the Russian side has approached the Japanese side with a proposal for joint economic activities involving the Four Northern Islands. Was this idea discussed during the meeting yesterday? Regardless of whether this was mentioned in yesterday’s meeting, what do you think of the idea of engaging in joint economic activities with Russia in the Four Northern Islands before resolving the issue of their attribution?

Minister:
There was no such talk yesterday. I think it is in no way desirable to let such a move proceed while the issue of the attribution of the territories remains unresolved.

3. Prospect of Foreign Minister’s Visit to the United States

Question (Murao, Yomiuri Shimbun):
There was some talk here and there saying that before the ordinary Diet session starting in the New Year you might pay a visit to the United States. Please tell us whether you have such plans and what the prospect of realizing such a trip is.

Minister:
I don’t know anything yet. I will let you know when something has been decided, lest the press write that the trip has been cancelled. My schedule is blank at the moment.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
Do you intend to make a visit if your schedule permits and talk to the US side? What do you want to discuss with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the moment?

Minister:
I will not say anything until a visit has been confirmed.

4. First 100 Days Since the Change of Government and Next Year’s Resolution

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
You have been very active as the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Looking back, how do you reflect upon the past year? Also, how would you like the year 2010 to be?

Minister:
It is just 100 days or so since I assumed the office of Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I have been tackling various issues during that period. As I became the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon the change of administration, I have been realizing that it is particularly challenging to maintain a focus between the need on domestic matters for changing conventional methods and the need for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to engage as much as possible in dialogues directly with people abroad. This was also the case with my visit to Russia, but I realized that actually going to a foreign country helps me develop a much better understanding of the country, moving things forward. When I say moving things forward, I do not necessarily mean to say that we have moved issues forward toward resolution. Rather, I mean to say that by getting to know each other as people in charge, we can lay the groundwork to move forward in the future. In that sense, I reaffirmed my wish to go abroad as much as possible.

I presented three issues that I would like to focus my mind on when I assumed my office. Among these three issues, I believe that Japan has made responses to the issue of Afghanistan to some extent. The issue of climate change, an issue postponed, should I say, at COP15, remains a major issue moving toward COP16. We also have outstanding issues for Japan-US relations. I am determined to exert my utmost efforts in tackling these issues. Moreover, I am resolved to spare no expense in addressing a wider range of issues, including poverty and human rights. It will require extra efforts to go abroad in the first half of the next year or in the first eight months, because we will have a Diet session and also an election in the House of Councillors. Yet, I came to understand after making the visit to Russia that I can get a substantial amount of work done within 24 hours. So I am eager to make overnight trips or three-day trips with one night spent on the ground, mainly on weekends. If I leave Japan on Friday evening or Saturday, I can come back on Monday morning. I think this works well. It is good that I can come back to Japan before adjusting myself to local time. Once the Budget Committee is closed in April, I want to make a good use of these trips to fulfill my duty.

Question (Yamamoto, Nikkei):
When you assumed office, you said there were issues to be tackled in 100 days, and those to be tackled in 300 days. I am afraid that efforts to address some of the issues that you stated that you would tackle in 100 days have not necessarily produced satisfactory results. What issues do you have in mind that you will tackle in the coming 300 days ?

Minister:
When I said 300 days, I meant the period from the day of assuming my office to the day of the election in the House of Councillors. Now I have less than 200 days left. We have the issue of the realignment of the US forces in Japan on the one hand, but what I am hoping to realize on the other hand, in the context of Japan-US relations, is a well-established, sustainable Japan-US alliance. In that respect, I believe we can start off our efforts at an appropriate time. As I said earlier, I want to make sure that Japan’s diplomacy steadily responds to global issues such as COP negotiations, global warming, and poverty. I think I can say that Japan’s diplomacy toward Asia has made great progress in the past 100 days. The Prime Minister himself, too, has exerted his initiative to build relations with the Republic of Korea, China, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and India. The next step is to strengthen those relations. There is indeed much work to do when it comes to the Northern Territories issue and the North Korean issues. While it seems to be extremely difficult to resolve these issues within the remaining 200 days or so, I am still resolved to keep working hard to move things forward, no matter how slow progress may be.

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

Question (Shinbori, TV Asahi):
I believe that you met with Japanese Ambassador to the United States Ichiro Fujisaki just now after returning. Can you tell us what he reported to you and what you talked about?

Minister:
I do not think I am in a position to tell you the details of what we talked about. Ambassador Fujisaki reported on the current situation in the United States from his perspective.

Question (Shinbori, TV Asahi):
Did you discuss anything tangible on issues such as the Futenma relocation issue?

Minister:
I will not disclose any details.

Question (Takahashi, Jiji Press):
Yesterday, consultations among the government’s ruling parties started. During a meeting between the Secretary-General of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) Ichiro Ozawa and Chairman of the House of Representative Committee on Foreign Affairs Muneo Suzuki, Mr. Ozawa said that “we must firmly listen to the voice of Okinawa. We must not dirty the beautiful blue waters” in reference to the waters of Henoko. The DPJ won a victory at the elections based on its principle of “from concrete to people” From this perspective, I believe Mr. Ozawa’s words fit this principle. Looking at the issue from the perspective of the DPJ’s basic principle of “from concrete to people,” rather than from the viewpoint of the political situation which dictates that it cannot be Henoko because the Social Democratic Party (SDP) says so, Mr. Ozawa’s words are extremely significant. What is your opinion on this statement?

Minister:
I have not confirmed the statement by Secretary General Ozawa. It may have been in some article, but I cannot comment on it since I must first confirm that his statement was reflected correctly in it. Generally speaking, of course protecting the natural environment is important. I feel the same way on this. Other than that, we have made arrangements for finding a new location and discussions for it have just begun. I believe it is not good for me to say too much under these circumstances.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
My question is also related to the Futenma issue. Prime Minister Hatoyama expressed his opinion on the new relocation site for Futenma yesterday to the press in India, which he is currently visiting, stating that he would like to come to a conclusion within the Japanese government and come to an agreement with the United States based on that conclusion by May. Please give us your opinion on what you think is essential in order to receive the understanding of the US side.

Minister:
Can you be more specific about “an agreement with the United States,” as I am not aware of this statement?

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
A journalist said that even if an agreement is made within the government, the United States has its own opinion. In response to that, the Prime Minister said “when coming to an agreement among the ruling parties, of course we must have discussion between Japan and the United States.” When the journalist pressed further asking whether the May deadline was for Japan and the United States to come to an agreement on the whole, the Prime Minister answered that of course it was.

Minister:
Reaching a conclusion by May means the Japanese government will reach a conclusion and I believe that what the Prime Minister meant was: whatever conclusion we reach, we will reach it by May.

Question (Uchida, Asahi Shimbun):
What is your opinion on the part where he commented on coming to an agreement with the US side by May?

Minister:
I do not know the way in which the Prime Minister expressed this. However, the Japanese government will come to a conclusion. I am not really sure about the part about the agreement with the US side so I would like to confirm the Prime Minister’s intent and then talk to you about it.

Question (Shinbori, TV Asahi):
Regarding the issues to be tackled in 300 days, which you just talked about, you said that you hoped to be able to start working on making Japan-US relations more well-established and sustainable. Do you mean that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will work separately at the same time as the ruling parties’ discussions on Futenma which have just begun, to deepen Japan-US relations?

Minister:
The job of the committee that started yesterday is to consider the Okinawa bases issue and find a new location. Therefore it is a completely different issue from that of Japan-US relations. I think I have said this many times before at my press conferences, but I believe it would be difficult for the US side to enter into serious discussions unless the Japanese side has reached some sort of a conclusion. How we come to terms with this is the issue.

Question (Kaminishigawara, Kyodo News):
I have one more question in relation to Futenma. Currently the government and the ruling parties are looking for a new relocation site. However an important issue here, I believe, is why it cannot be Henoko, in other words, a situation that the local community has accepted and that the US side has agreed on. I believe that you have been conducting verification activities with the working group, but the results of those activities have not been clearly announced or reported in the media yet. Please tell us your opinion on why Henoko cannot be used and a new location must be found.

Minister:
It was the SDP and the People’s New Party that insisted that Henoko cannot be used, and the search for a new location is based on that argument. I believe it is a fact that there are various problems with the current Henoko. One of the problems is an environmental one which I just mentioned and it is also a fact that if a new large facility is to be constructed, it will take up a lot of tax money. If there is a location that would cause fewer problems, I believe it is worth considering. However, it is not the case that the current Henoko plan is no longer one of the possibilities. Of course if there is a better option, we should go with that location, but it is my understanding that if no better possibility emerges, the current Henoko plan is still valid.

6. The Research into the Issue of the So-called Secret Agreements

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
A document on the secret agreements was found in the house of a family member of the deceased ex-Prime Minister Eisaku Sato – I think you mentioned this at the press conference on December 25 last week. Given that an official document was found in a private house, will there be a protest or investigation by MOFA or the government?

Minister:
By protest, to whom and for what reason are we going to protest? I do not quite understand.

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
I am talking about the fact that a classified government document – they say it is not a MOFA document – was taken out. Is there the possibility of renewing the investigation into the issue of the secret agreements in the form of investigating the route through which the document was taken out?

Minister:
On the issue of the secret agreements, as I have probably said before, various discussions are underway now in the committee established to verify the truth, and I am leaving everything regarding the issue up to that committee. It is not even clear whether or not the document was actually “taken out.” According to the memoir written by Kei Wakaizumi, the two leaders of the time co-signed the document in a separate room in the White House, where no one else was present. I imagine we cannot even tell how the document was handled afterwards, whether it was at once returned to MOFA or kept by ex-Prime Minister Sato in a private capacity and held in custody thereafter in his home.

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
Do you intend to investigate about it? I think it is an abnormal state of affairs that an official document was kept in a private residence for 30 years.

Minister:
I think the document was official in the sense that it was signed by the Prime Minister, but we are not even certain whether it was treated as such. I do not think ex-Prime Minister Sato signed it in a private capacity, but it is not certain to what extent this fact had been shared and to whom. I do not think we can find out about it by asking the family members of the deceased ex-Prime Minister Sato. In any case, the issue is currently entrusted to the expert committee, and I intend to leave them to take the primary initiative. Rather, I would like to express my respect for the family members of the deceased ex-Prime Minister for releasing such a delicate document. The fact that they released this document despite the risk of altering the evaluation on the deceased ex-Prime Minister Sato indicates their positive stance toward clarifying the truth. I would like to appreciate that point.

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
The expert committee you have established is supposed to submit a conclusion or a midterm report next month. With regard to the secret agreements, we are talking about the ones in 1967, but the US side has announced that there were also ones in 1969, 1970, and 1971. Do you intend to expand the scope of the investigation or launch a separate investigation team to cover these agreements?

Minister:
We are currently investigating the four secret agreements. Beyond that, nothing has been decided as of now.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
There has just been a reference to the “scope” concerning the secret agreements. If you are going to research them thoroughly on this occasion, some committee members are indicating that they may not meet the January deadline for making an announcement. Is the end of January the final deadline? Or do you think that it is acceptable to carry on the research thereafter, depending on how it turns out? Could you tell us your prospects for this?

Minister:
The committee members, including Professor Kitaoka, are extremely enthusiastic about conducting hearings and discussions. In the context of deepening discussions, I am receiving some opinions that a little more time may be needed to complete the research. Since it is the experts in the committee and not us who are doing the discussions, we cannot unilaterally call it quits. Although we have indicated a target deadline, if they cannot meet that deadline, I think we need to let them discuss until they are satisfied, instead of telling them to stop in the middle of the process. The professors gathered at the investigation committee are all experts in this area. Since we have extremely competent members, I expect them to compile a comprehensive report from a mature, professional perspective on the issue of the secret agreements, which has also been a major issue of Japan’s foreign affairs. These professors will be busy from February – since most universities are holding the entrance exam in February. Since I have also been told that February and March are hectic months, I am consulting them about how to balance this with the research.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
Is there some possibility that the investigation will continue beyond April this year?

Minister:
If we say “beyond April,” it will be quite an extension. Therefore, I am currently consulting the members right now about the timetable. That said, the basic fact is that we are not the ones conducting the research. Although we are expecting it to be concluded at the earliest possible date, I think some delays are emerging in reality.

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
Concerning the secret agreements, you have just said that you would like to appreciate and express your respect for the family members of the deceased ex-Prime Minister Sato for releasing the document found in his house, which is currently a residence of Mr. Shinji Sato. If we look at it the other way round, this could be interpreted as a cover-up since they have been hiding the document for 30 years knowing its importance. What do you think of this point?

Minister:
I can only say that then Prime Minister Sato signed the document and did not make it clear to the people around him.

Question (Uesugi, Freelance):
Mr. Shinji Sato, who is the second son of the deceased ex-Prime Minister Sato, found the document inside a desk drawer 30 years ago, but opted to not publicize it despite knowing its importance. From the perspective of the public, this could be viewed as a cover-up since the fact was not revealed, although his intention could have been to keep the document in his custody. I am asking you about the possibility of his action being interpreted as a cover-up if looked at in a different way.

Minister:
Mr. Shinji Sato has not been involved in the agreement. Nor was he involved in the negotiations for the return of Okinawa. I imagine he must have had various emotional struggles. The deceased ex-Prime Minister Sato was acknowledged for bringing about the return of Okinawa without dropping the request for “nuclear-free, mainland status,” which was probably the major reason of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize. In that context, Mr. Sato must have felt tormented when he came across the evidence which could contradict this “nuclear-free, mainland status” principle. That is understandable. Also, there is a report that Mr. Sato initially asked a MOFA official to keep it in custody there instead. Although I have not confirmed about it with him personally, I imagine the reaction of the said MOFA official when he was shown this “private document” was something like: “We are in trouble by this document. Such a thing is not supposed to exist.” I guess Mr. Sato then ended up keeping it himself, not knowing what to do. He could have chosen to keep it in his house even today, and I think it is commendable that he decided to bring it to light in consideration of the weight of history, the importance of clarifying the truth.

7. Concerning Capital Punishment

Question (Hasegawa, AFP):
A UK national who was arrested in China for possessing illegal drugs was executed today. Although Japan also endorses capital punishment, what do you think of this case?

Minister:
Individual nations are primarily responsible to determine the appropriate punishment for a crime. As such, there is no particular comment I should make. Some countries impose very heavy punishment for illegal drug offenses, and such countries are not few. Therefore, it is possible that Japanese nationals end up with such heavy punishments overseas, which should not be taken lightly. Of course illegal drug trafficking is a crime in Japan as well, but I would like the people to be aware that there are many countries that impose extremely heavy punishment against it.

8. The Situation in Myanmar

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
I would like to ask about the situation in Myanmar. A few days ago, Mainichi Shimbun reported on the possibility of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi being released before next year’s general election. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs, how do you analyze the situation in Myanmar and the prospects for the release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi? Is the Japanese government considering taking some kind of action, for example, having you visit the country early in the coming year?

Minister:
What was reported on was a possibility, not something that has been determined. That is my understanding. The Japanese government has already requested that the government of Myanmar free Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We have expressed our view to the Myanmar government that freeing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi before the election would be a concrete step to realize a fair and open election. I myself have had in-depth discussions with the government of Myanmar when the Prime Minister of Myanmar visited Japan recently. I believe that the Prime Minister of Myanmar understood the Japanese government’s view. We have also made follow-up efforts, including having the Director-General of the Southeast and Southwest Asian Affairs Department visit Myanmar. I sincerely hope that the government there will make steady efforts to ensure openness and fairness in next year’s election.

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
Do you have any plan to visit Myanmar?

Minister:
I would be happy to go to Myanmar if there is some significance to the visit. We will have to make it clear beforehand regarding whom I will meet and what kind of discussions we will have in order to make the visit a significant one. I have already met with the Prime Minister of Myanmar.

9. The FY2010 Budget Proposal (Reduction in the ODA Budget)

Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
The ODA budget has faced its third sharpest drop, a 7.9% reduction compared to the previous fiscal year, in the government’s budget proposal, which the Cabinet decided upon last week. We know that the ODA budget had been declining under previous governments – it was cut by 4% three years in a row – yet the amount of ODA budget decided to be reduced this time is quite large. Meanwhile, the scale of the FY2010 budget as a whole positions it as the largest one ever formulated. Do you think the ODA budget will keep shrinking in the future? You stated that you wished to thoroughly re-examine ODA activities next year. Do you think a reduction in the ODA budget is unavoidable?

Minister:
I strongly hope to secure as much money for ODA as possible. We need to consider utilizing new fiscal resources to that end, including an international solidarity levy and other sources of funding currently discussed in the international community. We should not overlook the fact, however, that, while the general budget for the next fiscal year shows a drop in the ODA budget, a substantial amount of money has been allocated for ODA in the supplementary budget. Therefore, we can say, viewing the total amount, that the ODA budget has not necessarily been reduced significantly. What is important is the way the budget is used. It is important that we secure the budget, and it is equally important that the budget be used in a meaningful way. I intend to rigorously advance discussions on a comprehensive reform of ODA. It will be a major theme of discussions for the first half of the next year. This is something that I stated at today’s meeting of the Council of the Three-level Political Appointees of the Foreign Ministry, that I intend to focus my energy on the re-examination of ODA and on the identification of a new path for non-nuclear policies.

Back to Index