(* 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 Seiji Maehara

Date: Tuesday, October 26, 2010, 9:20 a.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Visit to Vietnam
TPP
Japan-India Summit
Realignment of US Forces in Japan
The Northern Territories Issue

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Visit to Vietnam

Minister Maehara: I have one announcement.
Following my visit to Hawaii starting on the 27th, I will be visiting Vietnam from October 29 to the 31st to meet with the foreign ministers of ASEAN and other countries as well as to accompany Prime Minister Kan on his official visit to Vietnam. I hope to strengthen relations and enhance communications through exchanging views with the foreign ministers of the various countries.

2. TPP

Nanao, Nico Nico Douga: During your press conference on the other day, you spoke about the necessity of TPP. On the 24th, Prime Minister Kan commented that agriculture and preservation of national land 10 years from now and the opening up of the country are compatible.
With regard to announcing participation in TPP, there are views that the announcement would be made at, as an example, the APEC Summit in mid-November.

Minister: Cabinet ministers conducted intensive debate on Sunday. A significant part of the discussions were held on how free trade ought to be, including TPP. The common understanding there was that regardless of whether there will be free trade, Japanese agricultural policy is at a complete standstill. Therefore, the situation is undoubtedly such that we must make a fundamental shift in our agricultural policy. This was the common understanding.
   With that as a premise, many Cabinet ministers, however, commented on the need to join this free trade agreement.
   Although I believe that Japan should join TPP, I did not comment on my views at that time and what I spoke about were the facts.
   First of all, the door to TPP is about to close. From here on, significant internal discussions will be held among nine countries. Consequently, if Japan shelves the issue, there would soon emerge a situation in which it would be barred from joining the talks even if it comes up with a decision to join the TPP. Therefore, I said that the situation is such that Japan would not be allowed to shelve the issue politically.
   There are about seven meetings set to be held until the APEC conference scheduled to be held next year in the United States. In that sense, if we are to work together on making the rules, the door is closing and such political shelving of the issue will not be permitted.
   Secondly, a ministerial meeting on the TPP will be held on the occasion of the APEC conference in November. Prior to that, however, those countries that have expressed interest in the TPP have been called on to participate in a meeting. The countries being invited are Canada, the Philippines, Japan, and China. These four countries have been called upon. I believe that Japan will likely be participating in the meeting to exchange views prior to the ministerial meeting.
   What I spoke was about that, and the rest is that if total liberalization is to be implemented in the APEC region under the FTAAP in 2015, there is the issue of the ASEAN’s integrity or unity, or the ASEAN + 3 and ASEAN + 6, but in reality, what is moving forward right now is the TPP. Therefore, I said that among particular processes that would best function in working out the FTAAP, there is the TPP, and I spoke about that as a fact.

Suzuki, Jiji Press: I wanted to make a confirmation with regard to the TPP issue. You mentioned participating in a meeting of relevant ministers, but is it all right to understand that there will be a meeting to exchange views before this meeting of relevant ministers?

Minister: I have heard that a meeting of relevant ministers of nine countries that have announced their intention to participate in the TPP will be held in Yokohama on November 9 (*). I have been briefed that prior to that, there will be a hearing of opinions from interested countries or an exchange of views. There are four countries that have been called upon. (* This meeting is to be held on November 11.)

Suzuki, Jiji Press: Is it going to be held on the same day, the 9th?

Minister: No, I think it will be held two or three days before.

Suzuki, Jiji Press: Who is going to participate in it from Japan?

Minister: I think it will be a staff of the Economic Affairs Bureau.

Suzuki, Jiji Press: Do you mean officials in charge?

Minister: Officials in charge will attend.

Yamaguchi, Asahi Shimbun: In your opening remarks, you said that you plan to meet with various foreign ministers in Hanoi. I noticed that you did not mention meeting your Chinese counterpart. What kind of briefing have you received with regard to the latest situation of coordination on a meeting between the Japanese and Chinese foreign ministers or a Japan-China summit? Also, one more thing – with regard to the TPP, you said earlier that Japan’s agricultural policy is at a complete standstill, but from the standpoint of opening up the country, Japan has to open the door to the TPP.

Minister: No, those issues are not linked. What I said was that aside from whether we will participate in free trade, upon coming to a common understanding that Japan’s agricultural policy is at a complete standstill, the Cabinet ministers share the understanding that Japan needs to shift its agricultural policy.

Yamaguchi, Asahi Shimbun: Perhaps what you just said may have answered my question, but on the other hand, those in charge of agricultural policy have their own standpoint. Please tell us how you believe the Kan administration as a whole should keep a balance between the two issues – joining the TPP and what to do about agricultural policy, which has come to a standstill.

Minister: Regarding the question of what kind of summit meeting or a foreign ministerial meeting should be held and with which countries we should hold such meetings, we are currently working out arrangements for bilateral meetings with not only China but also a number of other countries.
   Additionally, with regard to the latter half of the question you just asked, I keep saying this, but Japan’s food self-sufficiency ratio is 40%, the lowest among the industrialized countries in terms of calorie intake. The average age of farmers, who have been protected by high tariff rates, is currently 65.8 and has been steadily rising. Moreover, 80 percent of them have another job in non-agricultural sector. If we think about that, while the Kan administration seeks to turn agriculture into an industry, especially transform it as the 6th industry, I believe that it will require a drastic shift in our agricultural policy if we are to bring about this transformation into the 6th industry and create a situation in which – while we also will have to provide support here – high value-added products can be promoted overseas, or in other words, exported, although some Japanese agricultural products are selling very well overseas even now.
   Mr. Matsushita, a self-proclaimed lawmaker representing agricultural interests who had been in the Liberal Democratic Party for a long time and currently serves as a senior vice- minister of economy, trade, and industry told us a very convincing story.
   What he said was that, during the time of the Hosokawa administration, there was the Uruguay Round, under which Japan accepted the concept of minimum access. At that time, it was decided that 6.01 trillion yen – although there is debate on whether this money is separate from the agricultural budget – would be used in about five years. A substantial amount of this money was used in agricultural engineering projects, and as a result, this did not lead to human resources development or competitive agricultural administration. Senior Vice-Minister Matsushita expressed his view that Japan should do some serious soul searching over this. A lot of people nodded in agreement, and I even applauded him for his comments. We should not make the same mistakes as we did with the Uruguay Round. Of course, I believe that budget allocation is important, but how should the budget be allocated so that the self-sufficiency ratio would rise and Japanese agriculture would become competitive once again? In addition, local employment will become a big issue. In the past, we relied on public works projects, but if we look at the reality of Japan’s current social security and fiscal situation from a broader perspective, the amount of spending on pubic works projects has to be reduced – it cannot be increased that much. If we think about that, the primary industry is prospective as the basis of employment, but Cabinet ministers, one after another, commented that it would be necessary to use the money properly or shift agricultural policy to make this happen. As I said at the beginning, rather than linking this to TPP or free trade, I believe that there is a common understanding that an extension of the current agricultural policy would not allow us to envision a bright future for Japanese agriculture.

Hashimoto, Kyodo News: In relation to your earlier comment on the TPP, you said that Japan would not make the same mistakes as it did with the Uruguay Round.

Minister: I said that Senior Vice-Minister Matsushita said so.

Hashimoto, Kyodo News: There currently is talk about restoration of agricultural land improvement projects. How do you feel about TPP in relation to this?

Minister: Matters are not so extreme. We, especially myself as the Minister of Land, Infrastructure, Transportation, and Tourism, cut the budget by 15.3%, but putting it in another way, we left the remaining approximately 85% for use in a focused and selective manner on necessary public works projects. We also reduced land improvement projects, but it is true that there were some that were necessary. It is also true that there has been a delay in places where farming could have been done properly if land improvement had been carried out. Therefore, I believe that it is important to make decisions while examining the whole budget, but if we think about Japan’s current fiscal situation as well as the aging population combined with the diminishing number of children, there should be more focus on countermeasures against the declining birthrate, measures for children, enhancement of education, and restoration and enhancement of the social welfare system. I believe that we need to maintain the position of placing the budget under close scrutiny while securing a certain amount of budget in terms of carrying out public works projects that are truly necessary.
Let me say a few words as if I were in my previous post, but there are talks that I may have changed my thinking about the concept of “from concrete to people”. However if you consider that we reduced public works spending by 18% and that became the basis for the budget request being made for the next fiscal year, if the change in government brought about an 18% cut in public works projects and if you think that this will basically continue, reducing public works spending by 18% year after year would eventually lead to the disappearance of public works projects. Therefore, I feel that it runs contrary to the fact to say that we changed our thinking about the concept of “from concrete to people” just because we did not reduce it that much this time. I would like to say that we will continue to carry out public works projects in a selective and focused manner in the future.

3. Japan-India Summit

Nishioka, Mainichi Newspapers: You were apparently present at the Japan-India summit meeting held yesterday, but on that occasion, it is said that there was an exchange of views with the Indian side with regard to the situation in China and that there was a briefing by the Indian side concerning the current state of India-China relations. Please tell us whether after listening to the briefing by the Indian side, you got the impression that India has concerns or feels a sense of caution about China.

Minister: I did attend the Japan-India summit meeting, but although I was scheduled to meet with Prime Minister Singh in the morning for 30 minutes we ended up talking for 45 minutes. We exchanged views on China on that occasion.
The impression that I got during that meeting is that although India has a border issue with China, they are managing that well and are trying to promote China-India or India-China relations. There was a comment that their trade relations are expanding and that India intends to continue building good relations with China.
I think that Prime Minister Singh was frequently using the expression “rising peace power.” In other words, he was suggesting that we should aim at emerging as a peaceful nation as a common goal. I told him that I totally agree, but looking at today’s newspapers, I feel that the reports somewhat appear to be focused excessively on cautiousness toward China, even though I believe that we managed to reach quite fruitful agreements including the Japan-India EPA, rare earths, and the nuclear energy cooperation agreement. In that sense, we talked about aiming at building a more independent form of Japan-India relations. As one aspect of that, we also talked about making joint efforts to seek China’s emergence as a peaceful nation.

4. Realignment of US Forces in Japan

Deguchi, Kyodo News: A subcommittee of the Okinawa Policy Council met yesterday; At the Japan-United States Foreign Ministers' meeting to be held the day after tomorrow, do you intend, or is it scheduled to discuss such topics as reducing the burden of the bases on Okinawa?

Minister: I cannot go into details, but we have agreed to a basic package including the relocation of MCAS Futenma, the transfer of Marines headquarters personnel, military families, and military employees and dependents to Guam, and the reversion of facility zones south of Kadena, in accordance with the Japan-US agreement of May 28th. Although the major points of this framework have not changed at all, we have discussed whether it would be possible to revert any of the base land earlier, while staying on the fundamental course. For example, we have the Hotel-Hotel issue, and we have discussed whether it would be possible with this issue.
It has not yet been determined, however, whether this specific topic will be brought up at the Foreign Minister’ meeting. At any rate, I intend to confirm thoroughly on the agreement between Japan and the United States, and the agreement on the direction to take, with regard to efforts to reduce the burden on Okinawa.

5. The Northern Territories Issue

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: Last week, it was found that Japanese citizens had traveled to the Northern Territories after acquiring a Russian visa. This was just recently after the agreement at the Cabinet meeting on requesting Japanese citizens to voluntarily refrain from traveling was communicated widely in early September. Please tell us your reaction to this situation, and if you intend to implement any measures to prevent this from happening again.

Minister: It is a fact that two people from Hokkaido acquired Russian visas and then visited Kunashiri (Island). As you stated in your question just now, this goes against the Cabinet meeting approval on September 19th, 1989, and we have lodged a strenuous protest. We have also made statements so that this situation is not repeated. We have heard from the individuals that they were visiting the grave of an acquaintance. Their reaction was that they were very sorry for what they had done, and that they would never visit the four Northern Territory Islands again with a visa. Both of them said that they had not known about the Cabinet meeting approval. I am informed that they visited the grave of a Russian citizen who was a resident of Kunashiri Island, and who passed away in September of last year. We intend to make the Cabinet meeting approval universally known, in order to prevent a recurrence.

Back to Index