(* 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, April 13, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Statement
- (1) Japan-EU (European Union) Regular Summit
- (2) Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue
- (3) Visit to New York
United Nations Security Council Public Debate
Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue
Meeting with (Sergey Yevgenyevich) Naryshkin, Chief of the Presidential Administration of Russia
Japan-China Summit Meeting (East China Sea Gas Field Development)
Case of Chinese Vessels Navigating in Waters near Okinawa
US Military Realignment Issue
Japan-EU Regular Summit
US Nuclear Policy
Meeting with Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission
Death of a Japanese Journalist in Thailand
Others

1. Opening Statement

(1) Japan-EU (European Union) Regular Summit

Minister Okada: Regarding the Japan-EU (European Union) Regular Summit, the 19th Japan-EU Regular Summit will be held in Tokyo on Wednesday, April 28th. From the Japanese side, Prime Minister Hatoyama is scheduled to attend the summit, and European Council President Van Rompuy and European Commission President Barroso are scheduled to attend from the EU side. This is the first Japan-EU Regular Summit since the EU's new organization after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. The leaders from Japan and the EU, who share fundamental values and have to take the initiative in resolving issues facing the international community, are scheduled to exchange views on a wide range of issues, including political and economic relations, climate change, and nuclear disarmament.

(2) Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue

Minister: The second topic concerns responses approved today by the Cabinet, to the written questions submitted to the Cabinet regarding the issue of the "secret agreements."
The theme of a question concerns whether there are any documents relating to exchanges between Japan and the United States on the court decision on the Sunagawa Case. As stated in the response approved today by the Cabinet, relevant documents had not been discovered until the thorough investigation was conducted as part of our recent investigation into the issue of the so-called "secret agreements," and we feel it is regrettable that the government had responded that (these documents) did not exist in response to demands of information disclosure. The response document contains statements to this effect.
The theme of the other two questions concerns the responsibility of the former Prime Ministers, the former Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and others for the responses prepared by the previous governments regarding. the secret agreements on introducing nuclear weapons into Japanese territory in the revision to the Japan-US Security Treaty in 1960, and on subrogating restoration costs during the reversion of Okinawa to Japan in 1972. With regard to this matter, the Cabinet's responded that we do not believe that there is a need for the government to take any action against these individuals, leaving aside the possibility that these individuals may make explanations voluntarily.

(3) Visit to New York

Minister: The third topic is my visit to New York. I will visit New York in the United States from Thursday, April 15th, until Sunday the 18th. My visit will start on the night of the 15th. On the morning of the 16th (Friday) (local time), I will chair the public debate in the United Nations Security Council on the topic of post-conflict peace-building. General Secretary of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon and Afghan Minister of Foreign Affairs Zalmai Rassoul are among those scheduled to attend this public debate. I am going to meet several ministers and the other parties, such as Afghan Minister of Foreign Affairs Zalmai Rassoul, Foreign Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina Sven Alkalaj.

2. United Nations Security Council Public Debate

Nezu, NHK: This question is concerning your third topic, namely attending the UN Security Council. Again, this is the first time for a Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs to attend it. Could you please tell us about the significance of this; also, the Foreign Minister of Afghanistan will also be attending; could you also tell us about how you plan to proceed in the debate taking advantage of Japan's experiences with civilian support in Afghanistan and the like?

Minister: As you know, the UN Security Council chair rotates among the member countries on a monthly basis. When they chair the UN Security Council, most countries hold topic-specific UN Security Council public debates, chaired by a cabinet minister, on a foreign-relations topic that the country wishes to advance. This is the first time for Japan that a Minister of Foreign Affairs will be chairing a topic-specific UN Security Council public debate. Regarding the extremely important topic of peace-building, Afghanistan is truly in this process now, so I want to debate a better vision for post-conflict peace-building, based also on the views of representatives of countries that have been involved in conflict, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina.

3. Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue

Kamide, Freelance: This is in relation to the verdict on the issue of "secret agreements." This verdict was covered on the front pages of the three major newspapers, and I believe that it was a significant and historic verdict for the Japanese people. One of the plaintiffs also said that it is the responsibility of the media to correct the lies of the government. Ordinary citizens cannot participate here. I will ask a question from the standpoint of such citizens in Japan. This was a groundbreaking verdict in terms of the people's original right to know and information disclosure, and I believe that naturally, the DPJ should use it as an asset to respond to many issues moving forward. Meanwhile, I was honestly disappointed by your statement Friday that there was a possibility of an appeal, which appeared to be taking the side of the officials of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Do you not think that this groundbreaking verdict should be used effectively, should be used constructively, sharing with the Japanese citizens?

Minister: The text of this verdict does not include the results of the thorough investigation that has been conducted since I was appointed (Minister). As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as the Government, we have explained that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is conducting an investigation since the third oral arguments made in October. In particular, during the fourth oral arguments made on December 1st, we explained that the Expert Committee was verifying (the results), and that we wished to establish allegations after the results of the investigation were made public, but the judge stated that the court had no intention of waiting for the results of the investigation, and instructed us to submit our final briefs based on allegations made to date, and the closing oral arguments were set for February 11th of this year. I think that the Ministry of Finance has also conducted a thorough investigation. So, we have conducted a thorough investigation with the first team of its kind and do not understand why did the court make the verdict. neglecting the results of this investigation. For this reason, although I can agree with a significant portion of the plaintiffs' views on making information public, I have studied a bit of law, but I am left wondering at why this verdict was made without incorporating the results of such a thorough investigation. Additionally, the verdict orders that documents be made public. After a thorough investigation, we are confident that the documents do not exist. I can find no way to respond when I am ordered to go publish with something that does not exist. Moving forward, I plan to discuss what to do with this verdict within the government, but accepting this verdict would mean submitting something that does not exist, which would mean being forced to do the impossible.

Iwakami, Freelance: The verdict and the press conference for it were on Friday. On Saturday, you went to Yokosuka, and I also asked a question at that time. Then on that day, Saturday evening, former Mainichi Newspapers journalist Takichi Nishiyama gave a lecture that overlapped with your briefing in reaction to this verdict. At the lecture, and the party afterward, I spoke with Mr. Nishiyama until late at night, and he spoke to me on many topics. Although it is by no means my intention to imitate Mr. Nanao of Nico Nico Douga, there is something that I would like to ask you in the stead of Mr. Nishiyama, who cannot come to this place. Mr. Nishiyama's view is as follows. Although Minister of Foreign Affairs Okada first created an Expert Committee, he did not step in to direct its actions. Isn't this a failure? In other words, by not taking the lead in the investigation, (the investigation) went just how the diplomats, and scholars who are extremely friendly with the diplomats, wanted. In contrast, Minister of Finance Kan also investigated the issue of the secret agreements, but he led the investigation. The three top parliamentary officials commanded the bureaucrafts directly, and commanded every step of the investigation. In fact, their attitude in the investigation was that if the government has been wrong until now, then let us show clearly that it was wrong, and the difference (with your Ministry) was remarkable. That was what he told me. His actual words were somewhat harsher, but I have softened them here. Could we get your response to this?

Minister: It is not my place to comment on the investigation by the Ministry of Finance. But it is a fact that it did not turn up anything. As a result of our investigation, a large number of documents were made public. Of these, the documents that were subsequently made public on March 9th included a fair number of documents that the front pages of the papers have reported as being released recently. This is actually because we have conducted a search the likes of which have not been seen before. We assigned 15 people full time to search thoroughly, throughout the entire Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I received reports continually, so it is not that I did not give any instructions. I instructed the Administrative Vice Minister in accordance with the law. This is enforced by legal penalties. In this process, we have turned up this many documents. This was the most thorough investigation I have ever seen, and I have trouble understanding how there could have been a problem with these results. What I would like to say to the Japanese people here is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducted a thorough investigation. Everyone assigned to this investigation took it very seriously, and as a result, we turned up a significant amount of documents; of course some are missing. Although the reasons why they do not exist remain to be debated, this is the first time that documents like these have been turned up, and they were all published on our website, something that we have never seen from the government until now, so I would like this to be evaluated reasonably. I would like to ask this of the Japanese people.

Iwakami, Freelance: In the same vein, I have a question based on my conversation with Mr. Nishiyama. He believes that the Minister has probably read this verdict in careful detail. Certainly, since the changing of the government, the Minister has conducted a thorough investigation, and although this is praiseworthy, the verdict itself is that until now the government's stance has made light of the people's right to know. Mr. Nishiyama lauded the significance of making this information public, and said that it is not against the Democratic Party Government as a whole, not Minister Okada nor the Democratic Party Government nor the fact that the DPJ raised the flag high, and that there is probably nothing in this verdict to be dissatisfied with. Finally, although there may be some procedural arguments as you have just mentioned, he says that if you deny this verdict and appeal, that the Democratic Party Government would collapse; what are your thoughts on this opinion?

Minister: I think that there are probably many different views, but as I just stated, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has conducted a thorough investigation since September, and I frankly question why a decision was made without including this. If, after a proper evaluation, one says that there were still inadequacies, then although this could probably be debated, if one takes this investigation, the likes of which have never been seen, and puts it completely aside and comes to a foregone conclusion, then I see a problem with this, not only as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but as someone who has studied a bit of law.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: The written questions submitted to the Cabinet decided upon today include the following passage. It asks, "Former Mainichi Newspapers reporter Takichi Nishiyama attempted to reveal the secret agreement at that time, and as a result of attempting to take information from the government, was run out of his job, and suffered a major social blow. With regard to the above, what is the view of Minister Okada?" I had the sense, however, that the response that was decided on today dealt only with the facts of the case. Specifically, the response stated, "Regarding the noted matter of Mr. Nishiyama, we are aware that in the course of investigations relating to negotiations for the reversion of Okinawa to Japan, Mr. Nishiyama incited a national public official to leak confidential information, and for these investigative actions he was found guilty of exceeding the reasonable bounds of journalistic investigation, and that this verdict was finalized and continues to the present day." I feel that this focuses only on the facts of the matter, but if you personally have any thoughts on Mr. Nishiyama, please tell us.

Minister: I also said this before, but I think that it is regrettable that although he is a talented journalist, he left the front lines (of journalism) as a result of this incident. At the same time, however, debate remains over the appropriateness of his investigative methods, as noted in the verdict by the Supreme Court. This is something that has been determined by a verdict from the Supreme Court. Other than that, I think that although Mr. Nishiyama has his own views, I have a little trouble understanding why he did not comment on the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducted a thorough investigation. Also, the earlier statement that I had delegated the investigation completely is a preposterous mistake of fact.

Kamide, Freelance: In relation to your statement just now, although I understand your position in the conduct of the proceedings, isn't making this your only message to the Japanese people just too desolate? This verdict takes the same course that the DPJ originally sought. I have been hoping that someone, somewhere would give a constructive message. Mr. Edano said something somewhat like this, but regarding the significance of this verdict and so on, the DPJ, including Prime Minister Hatoyama, have taken the same line regarding the verdict of "from bureaucrat-led to government-led." I would like someone to give us a message. Could you do this?

Minister: So, there is a lot written in this verdict, but in the investigation by the experts, a significant amount was done, including hearings. We are doing something that has never been done before, so in this sense, our course is the same as what the verdict is saying. But we are the party to this case; we are the Government, so when thinking from the perspective of the Government, I do not think that we can be satisfied with what is written in this verdict, which overlooks the results of various investigations which we accomplished, just as the verdict is asking us to do; we are left wondering how such a verdict could have been made. Of course, I understand that most of the plaintiffs are doing this because they think that information disclosure needs to be advanced further, and I share this view, but I just cannot be satisfied with the verdict itself.

Sato, Tokyo Shimbun: You just said that debate remains over why the documents disappeared. Do you plan a follow-on investigation of why the documents noted in the verdict disappeared?

Minister: We are talking about something that happened quite a long time ago, and firstly, it is a fact that the documents did not exist. In relation to this, the verdict orders that we submit these documents, on the assumption that they do exist, so although I do not understand the intention of your question just now very well, the verdict says that they exist, so all that we can say to that is that they do not exist.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: At the meeting of the committee investigating the issue of missing foreign diplomatic documents, there was a question about whether in addition to Ambassador Fujisaki, Mr. Yachi was also a subject of the investigation, but they avoided a clear statement as to whether Mr. Yachi was included, stating that persons involved were questioned and the like after careful examination of reports, questioning of witnesses, and so on, and that they planned on making this public shortly. Could you comment on this point?

Minister: I plan to publish the results of the investigation immediately once the investigation has ended, but I cannot say ahead of time what the scope of the investigation will be.

Tsuruoka, Asahi Shimbun: This is a question relating to the Sunagawa Case, which you mentioned in your opening statement. Official US documents and the like have already noted pressure from the Ambassador regarding a so-called jumping appeal, which is a jokoku appeal that leapfrogs directly to the Supreme Court, but how aware was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of this pressure of a jokoku appeal?

Minister: This topic is also something that came out of the documents from our investigation of the secret agreements. As you will understand from viewing these documents, there was an exchange of views between, I believe it was the Ambassador and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but as I think you will understand once you have read the documents, their contents were not what you are saying now. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not have any documents besides these ones. The Ambassador was said to have met with a Supreme Court Justice, but of course there can not be such documents at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and even if there were, I believe that there would be in the Ministry of Justice or in the Supreme Court.

Nakai, Ryukyu Shimpo: I believe that there was also an exchange today at the committee meeting, but documents relating to the relinquishment of jurisdiction came out from the series of investigations into secret agreements, and there were some who pointed to this as a secret agreement. What is your reaction to this, and what is your reaction to the fact that documents of this sort were found, and that there was this sort of agreement, or should I say discussion, between Japan and the US?

Minister: These documents are also something that came out of our investigation of the secret agreements. I think that this is an example of the many things that have come out of it. I still cannot accept that the verdict put these things aside, but be that as it may, as I stated today at the Diet, the documents themselves were not found, but rather documents were found that made mention of those documents. Since these documents have come out, it is conjectured that the documents themselves also exist, but as of this time we do not know whether those documents actually existed. This was also debated today at the Diet, but in principle we will make documents public after 30 years, and we will put out a lot of documents going forward. But there are a lot of documents, so we have to prioritize the order in which to make them public and we need a lot of people for that. We have to build up a system for this, then, we start considering what to make publish. I think that this incident is one piece of evidence for prioritizing the publication of documents relating to the Status of Forces Agreement and Administrative Agreement from that time. But there are many voices saying that some other thing should be made public sooner, so I plan to consider the prioritization with an internal Ministry committee, of which I will be the chair.

Iwakami, Freelance: I believe that, as you say, it is extremely difficult to prove that the documents you say do not exist actually do not exist. I think that proving that something does not exist probably falls into the category of a probatio diabolica, but rather than proving that something does not exist, it is possible to prove that they did exist, but they no longer exist. They do not exist because they were disposed of. Someone, some time, disposed of these documents systematically, and because they were disposed of, they no longer exist. Consequently, they do not exist now. In other words, I think that it would be possible to show that there was a systematic disposal of documents, and although I think that this would be highly illegal, it would be possible to show that Foreign Ministry officials did this, and show where the responsibility lies. Although I will not venture to take up the intent of the court, I think that they may have been demanding that this be shown, and I also think that this is what the people want. Please tell us your views on this.

Minister: Whether or not these (documents) actually existed is also an issue for debate. There is a signed document in the United States, and Bunroku Yoshino acknowledged it was without doubt his own signature. It is not clear whether there was one copy, or whether two copies were made and they were shared between them. This was a useful document for the United States, so it is also possible that they had Mr. Yoshino sign it, and then secured it. Alternatively, it is also possible that they made two copies, and shared them between them. But this is also not clear, so I think that presuming that this document existed would be making an assumption. In any case, what is clear is that the documents currently do not exist within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As I stated earlier, 15 people searching with sincere devotion and commitment have failed to turn them up. I trust in the employees who conducted the search, and I am well aware that they performed their search seriously, so I can say with confidence that they are not at the Ministry.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: Regarding the issue of the secret agreements, written questions were submitted repeatedly to the Cabinet of the former government, with the Cabinet's response that they did not exist. I think that in a sense, the Cabinet has an obligation to tell the truth to the people. What are your thoughts on the view that since Foreign Ministry officials do not have such an obligation, this is a matter of obstruction of duty, of fraudulent obstruction of one's duties?

Minister: Regarding the results that have come out of our proper and thorough investigation, I think that there is a qualitative difference between something that was looked for at the time but not found, and something that was hidden. I therefore think that it would be impossible to construct things as you have done.

4. Meeting with (Sergey Yevgenyevich) Naryshkin, Chief of the Presidential Administration of Russia

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: I believe that after this press conference, you are to meet with the chief of the Presidential Administration of Russia. Let me ask some questions concerning that meeting. The first question is whether you have some topics you would like to take up during the meeting, and the second question is whether you intend to touch on the issue of the Northern Territories.

Minister: I think the territorial issue will be also on the agenda. It was on the agenda when I met him in Moscow. At the same time, I would like to exchange opinions with him on Japan-Russia relations in general, i.e., economics and politics, which are the two wheels of one cart.

5. Japan-China Summit Meeting (East China Sea Gas Field Development)

Saito, Kyodo News: The Prime Minister (Yukio Hatoyama) met with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Washington. I would like to ask you a question on the assumption that you have been informed to a certain extent on what was discussed at the meeting. With regard to the East China Sea gas field development issue, I have heard that the Prime Minister conveyed the Chinese side his understanding that (Japan and China) should promptly step up negotiations toward concluding a necessary treaty as a premise to joint development of the gas field. At a briefing, I also heard that the Prime Minister made a rather strong assertion. In response, President Hu Jintao, while indicating a certain level of understanding, reportedly made a statement to the effect that it was still necessary to work on building a conducive environment. Did the exchanges that took place here remain within the framework of the Japan-China East China Sea gas field talks that have been held so far, or did they produce results that move the issue a step forward from the accumulation of discussions that evolved from foreign ministerial talks held so far? Please tell us about your opinion on this point.

Minister: I have not received a detailed briefing yet, so it is rather difficult for me to answer your question. However, I feel that it was very good that the two leaders came to share a mutual understanding regarding the importance of this issue. I think that the two countries will further talk about individual and specific substance of this issue at the Foreign Minister’s level.

6. Case of Chinese Vessels Navigating in Waters near Okinawa

Saito, Kyodo News: My question is related to China. A while ago, the Ministry of Defense announced that Chinese vessels were cruising between the main island of Okinawa and Miyako Island, although it happened on the high seas. Do you plan to confirm the facts via diplomatic channels in the future, or have you already done that? Additionally, is there any problem with this navigation in light of international law or some kind of bilateral provision, etc.?

Minister: Can you tell me the facts again?

Saito, Kyodo News: Well then, let me say it accurately. Today, the Joint Staff made the following announcement. Around 8:00 p.m. on 10 April, the Maritime Self-Defense Force’s “Suzunami” confirmed a total of 10 vessels of the Chinese Navy off the Southwest Islands around 140 kilometers west-southwest of the main island of Okinawa proceeding from the East Chinas Sea toward the Pacific Ocean. These vessels were also confirmed to have conducted refueling at sea in waters south of Okinawa on 11 April. This is the Joint Staff’s announcement. Please tell us your opinion on this.

Minister: I cannot make any comments because from that alone, I cannot really determine even a fundamental thing such as whether they passed through Japan’s territorial waters. I would like to comment after I have properly confirmed the facts.

Yamauchi, Nihon Keizai Shimbun: During a press conference, the Defense Ministry side has said that it has confirmed the facts via diplomatic channels of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Have you acknowledged it?

Minister: No, I have yet to acknowledge it.

Yoshino, TV Asahi: This is in regard to the matter in question, but the facts that the Ministry of Defense announced were that 10 vessels passed between Okinawa and Miyako Island; a Chinese helicopter passed near a Japanese ship at a distance 90 meters away and 30 meters above it as the vessels were passing through; and that distance, for the Japanese ship, was very close. This has reportedly been confirmed with the Chinese side through diplomatic authorities. Can you tell us whether this is true?

Minister: I have yet to acknowledge it. If the facts are still in the process of being confirmed, I believe that it is natural that the matter has not been reported to me yet.

7. US Military Realignment Issue

Beppu, NHK: With regard to the informal exchange of opinions over the Futenma issue between Prime Minister (Yukio) Hatoyama and (US) President (Barack) Obama, Prime Minister Hatoyama has said that he sought President Obama’s cooperation for settling the issue in May. Although I do not know what kind of report has been received and how detailed it is, do you consider that the outcome of this informal exchange of opinions was satisfactory from your point of view?

Minister: While the value judgment with regard to whether it was satisfactory depends on the criteria that were applied, I can understand that it may seem questionable from your viewpoint. I have been saying from the past that the Futenma issue will not be discussed in depth between them, but they will likely touch on it. I believe that the Prime Minister spoke about it along that line.

Koyama, Freelance: From watching television, etc., I get the impression that you and the US Ambassador are in charge of selecting the base (where Futenma Air Station is to be relocated). In cases such as this, however, the matter is normally handled by the commander of the US Marine Corps in Okinawa and uniformed officials, rather than the US Ambassador, for the US side and by the Defense Ministry’s internal bureau and uniformed officials for the Japanese side. In particular, if pilots, who are experts, are not included in the negotiations, there are very many technically delicate issues involved in the selection process – for example, there are various things that only experts know about, such as storage areas for tanks or that the parking area for an Osprey helicopter must be of a certain size in diameter – and therefore, although it may be rude to say this, since I think that you and the US Ambassador have not seen an Osprey helicopter, I feel that the two of you cannot come up with good results regardless of how long you conduct discussions.

Minister: Well, specific matters will be taken back, and US Ambassador to Japan Roos will be holding consultations and bringing back the answers. That is the way things are moving now.

Yamami, Nippon Television: While you and US Ambassador to Japan Roos apparently held talk on Friday, I get the impression that at the moment, negotiations over the Futenma issue are rather stalled. Please tell us from your standpoint what the Japanese side is lacking with respect to its approach toward the US side over this issue, what has yet to be done toward the Okinawa side, and what has yet to be done toward the local communities of the relocation site.

Minister: That is a very vague question, so it is not easy to answer that, but we are making efforts to work out arrangements with the United States and with the local communities.

Koyama, freelance: The local residents of Henoko are in favor of US military base construction, but what is your reason for opposing that?

Minister: I will not comment on individual matters. I feel that it is open to debate as to whether what you just said is true.

Koyama, freelance: At least, that is the perception of the US side. If that is not correct, then I think you should explain that to the US side.

Minister: I will not make any comments, including whether I am against it. Let me just say that the entire government is working on it -- the five ministers concerned are working on it.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: I went to Okinawa on Friday and Saturday in connection with the Futenma issue. I felt that the people of Okinawa were enraged, shall I say, or disappointed to a much greater degree than it is believed here (in mainland Japan). As I think that it is indeed necessary to give serious consideration to the feelings of the Okinawan people, how often do you receive reports concerning the feelings of the Okinawan people from the Ambassador in Charge of Okinawan Affairs? How do you feel about those reports?

Minister: I contact the Ambassador in Charge of Okinawan Affairs as necessary, but the reports do not necessarily keep coming in on a daily basis. Since I believe that the feelings of the Okinawan people are very important, I feel that we must exert further efforts so that Prime Minister Hatoyama’s intention to reduce Okinawa’s burdens will be properly conveyed.

Nakaima, Ryukyu Shimpo: The Social Democratic Party and the People’s New Party held talks at noon today and they apparently agreed to go to the US Embassy to seek an explanation on the thoughts of the US side with regard to engaging in negotiations with Japan now that the negotiations between the Japanese Government and the United States will go into full swing. What do you think of the fact that these two parties, which are members of the ruling coalition, are approaching the US side, shall I say, unilaterally?

Minister: Since both of them are political parties, I feel that it cannot be helped if that was an official decision they made as political parties.

Nishino, Kyodo News: I believe that it is true, as has been reported, that in-depth discussions were not conducted during an informal meeting held this morning, Japan time, during which Prime Minister Hatoyama and President Obama exchanged opinions. However, since it is already April, and if it (settling the Futenma issue) has to be done by the end of May, this is a time when an in-depth exchange of opinions must be conducted, and I feel that there have emerged various instances in which explanations on various matters should be given to the local communities. As it is said that you are currently conducting negotiations with United States with Ambassador to Japan Roos serving as the liaison for the United States, what is your perception of the time frame, and based on that perception, how do you intend to proceed with the negotiations?

Minister: I do feel that we should step up the pace as much as possible. That is why I met (with Ambassador Roos) on Friday, not to mention that I have been doing this rather frequently in the past. I will continue to do so in the future, as well.

Iwakami, freelance: My question is related to the Futenma issue. In March, Mr. Muneo Suzuki presented a set of written questions asking whether 18,000 – the number of US Marine Corps personnel stationed on Okinawa – is truly an accurate figure. The government replied on 2 April that this is based on the figure that the government presented in 2006, when Mr. (Fukushiro) Nukaga served as the director-general of the Defense Agency. However, Mainichi Newspapers reported on 8 April that when Hiroshi Kawauchi, a member (chairman) of an informal panel of lawmakers on issues related to US military bases on Okinawa, etc., met with (Robert) Eldridge, Deputy G-5, Marine Corps Bases Japan on Okinawa, and questioned him about the grounds for this figure, Deputy Eldridge said, “That is not a figure released by the US side. It is a figure that the Japanese side started to speak about, so it is not our responsibility.” In other words, it appears that Deputy Eldridge himself has refuted a passage in a government statistics document that partially included an explanation (concerning the18,000 Marines) by the US side. I confirmed this by directly interviewing a member of the informal panel of lawmakers on issues related to US military bases on Okinawa, etc. If 18,000 is not a correct figure, and considering that there also exists a figure based on the number of Marines permanently deployed on Okinawa and the number of those on rotation, I doubt whether it will be possible to draw the proper relocation program, shall I say, or a roadmap. Perhaps Japan should re-negotiate properly after getting a grasp on this matter. While this overlaps with the assertions of the informal panel of lawmakers on issues related to US military bases on Okinawa, etc., please tells us about your thoughts and explanation on the fact that such questions are being raised.

Minister: What you just spoke about -- what sort of conversation went on between Japanese and US officials -- is just hearsay, and I do not have any direct knowledge of that. However, there is no mistake that 18,000 is not the existing number of Marines, but it is rather a number of fixed cap. If many Marines are deployed elsewhere at a certain time, it is natural that there will be fewer Marines actually stationed on Okinawa at that time. It is my understanding that 18,000 is a fixed number, or in other words, the maximum number. If there are any doubts about that, then I think it needs to be confirmed. Since I believe that lawmaker Kawauchi is scheduled to meet with State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Takemasa, I intend to ask State Secretary Takemasa to thoroughly look in to what has been going on.

Nishino, Kyodo News: My question is related to what I asked earlier. I believe you said that you should step up the pace as much as possible. As it has been reported that you made a number of requests to Ambassador to Japan Roos, is there anything you can tell us, putting aside specific things, regarding what sort of requests that the Japanese side has made to the US side?

Minister: I cannot speak about what we discussed. This is a pledge.

Beppu, NHK: This is in relation to my earlier question. With regard to the informal exchange of opinions between Prime Minister Hatoyama and President Obama conducted today, the Japanese side asked for cooperation toward settling (the Futenma issue) by the end of May. Was the reaction of the US side such that Japan’s requests were conveyed? In other words, was Japan successful in its approach? Please tell us how you feel about this.

Minister: I will not be making any comments, as the Prime Minister has said that he will not speak about what President Obama said.

8. Japan-EU Regular Summit

Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun: My question is about the Japan-EU Regular Summit, which you spoke about in your opening statement. Responding to questions in the Diet the other day, you said that you wanted to start up an inter-governmental joint research project during the upcoming meeting in order to promote an EPA between Japan and the EU. On the other hand, it is my understanding that the EU side is not very enthusiastic about concluding an EPA with Japan because there are not many advantages to it. Please tell us about your outlook on whether, amid this situation, Japan will actually be able to reach an agreement with the EU concerning the joint research project, as well as what kind of strategy Japan has with regard to changing the EU’s passive stance so that the EU will be more willing to conclude an EPA with Japan.

Minister: We want to start up the joint research project this time, but we cannot do it alone, so I frankly do not know whether it will happen. Of course, we are in the process of preparing various suggestions regarding what the Japanese side can do in response to the EU’s assertions, such as the issue of nontariff barriers, for example. We are currently exerting diplomatic efforts and making approaches to the EU side toward starting up the joint research project.

9. US Nuclear Policy

Nanao, Nico Nico Douga: My question is on behalf of our users. This is about last month, about the NPR (Nuclear Posture Review). There was a report that on March 29 at the US Department of Defense, you received an hour-long briefing on the NPR from (James N.) Miller, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. May I understand this as the United States giving consideration to Japan, which has been protected under the US nuclear umbrella, over the sense of insecurity that it may feel as a result of the new US policy that includes scrapping Tomahawk missiles? In other words, as there have been reports that it is unusual for the US Government to present in advance to another country a domestic document to be presented to Congress, please tell us how this came about.

Minister: I am not in the position to speak in detail about what went on at the meeting. We discussed various topics. Those discussions include exchanging opinions on passive security assurances and the “sole purpose” concept.

10. Meeting with Xie Zhenhua, Vice Chairman of China’s National Development and Reform Commission

Suzuki, Jiji Press: With regard to the exchange of opinions you just had with Mr. Xie Zhenhua of China, please tell us about the points on which you agreed and points on which you remained apart. If prospects toward COP16 have brightened, please tell us about that, too.

Minister: I have held discussions with him many times, so we were able to conduct a frank exchange of opinions. However, I do not feel that it is appropriate to speak about what we discussed. He is now scheduled to meet over dinner with State Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Tetsuro) Fukuyama and Director-General for Global Issues (Shinsuke) Sugiyama. Therefore, in order to kick things off, I made some rather frank comments to him on such matters as last year’s COP15.

11. Death of a Japanese Journalist in Thailand

Isabel Reynolds, Reuters: Have any new reports come in from the Thai Government, etc. concerning the recent incident in Bangkok?

Minister: I would like to express my sincere condolences for the death of Mr. Hiroyuki Muramoto. I have heard that Mr. Muramoto’s family members traveled to Bangkok on April 11, left there late on the night on April 12 after seeing Mr. Muramoto’s body on the morning of the same day, and returned to Japan on the morning of April 13. I understand that the Thai Government conducted an autopsy of Mr. Muramoto’s body on the morning of April 12, and the body is scheduled to arrive in Japan this afternoon after leaving Bangkok in the morning. In addition to gathering information from local authorities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for its part, has provided necessary and possible assistance from the standpoint of protecting Japanese nationals, including contacting the family and helping them during their stay in Bangkok, via the Japanese Embassy in Thailand. I understand that the police, too, will conduct necessary investigations in the future. I do not have detailed information such as the details of the investigation, but while the Thai Government has indicated that it intends to make efforts to clarify the facts, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would like to pay close attention to make sure that the Thai Government will do so. We intend to exert diplomatic efforts.

12. Others

Okawa, freelance: While you are to speak in New York on post-conflict peace-building processes in Afghanistan as well as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, you expressed concern during the previous press conference that Hospitals without Borders, which would follow Doctors without Borders, could be very costly. However, I actually went to the disaster site during the earthquake in Niigata, and I have heard from shipbuilding engineers that ro – ro [ roll – on roll – off ] ships can be converted into hospital ships at very low costs just by refurbishing old ships, etc. and that they can even be modified so that aircraft can take off from and land on these ships if the need arises. It is also possible to solicit donations from financial groups, so I believe that tax issues can also be cleared up. Currently, there are physicians from Iraq pursuing medical studies in Japan. If, during peacetime, hospital ships go to places that used to be conflict regions or places where post-conflict peace-building processes are going on, it would be possible for a large number of physicians to come there for training or to learn medical techniques inside those hospital ships. You also said that it would take time for ships to go (to disaster sites), and in fact, there are hospital ships in Europe and they certainly are not very fast. However, taking Japanese technology into consideration, do you have any intention to have Japan suggest (using) high-speed vessels? Please tell us you thoughts on this.

Minister: That is a suggestion, and I feel that it would be fine to conduct some discussion on that within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, I regrettably cannot seem to get very enthusiastic about that.

Back to Index