(* 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 20, 2010, 5:00 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) United Nations Security Council Public Debate
United Nations Security Council Public Debate
Memorial Mass for Polish President
Case of Chinese Vessels Navigating in Waters near Okinawa
US Military Realignment Issue
Japan-EU Regular Summit on Economic Relations
Publication of Information (Investigative Committee)
World's Biggest Lesson (Global Campaign for Education 2010)
Takeshima Issue
Japan-US Security Policy

1. Opening Remarks

(1) United Nations Security Council Public Debate

Minister Okada: I think that there is no need for me to repeat the report of my trip, but on the 16th I hosted a public debate on conflict peace-building at the UN Security Council. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is a member of the UN Security Council, as well as ministers from concerned countries – Afghanistan, Timor-Leste, and Sierra Leone – participated, and I think that we were able to have an interesting discussion. I hope that this will serve as an impetus to stimulate discussion of peace-building at the United Nations.
As it was also pointed out today in the Diet, participating directly at the political level in these types of international conferences was also excellent in the sense of indicating Japan's presence.

2. United Nations Security Council Public Debate

Iwakami, Freelance: I believe that you have already briefed the accompanying press corps on the details, but this is live broadcasting, so I would like you to address the general public, and describe personally and in detail the substance of the debate abroad, and so on. Thank you.

Minister: Specifically, we are already running late so I do not intend to speak at much length on this, but with countries that have been beset by conflict, although peace may come for a time, it is fairly common for them to return to a state of conflict. The topic of peace-building is how to prevent this from happening, given this reality. The idea is that you maintain peace with PKOs (peace-keeping operations) and the like, and then you have elections and so on, but that it does not end there; you have got to think about after that, about, shall we say, development – in particular, creating opportunities to work, especially for young people – and preventing the re-emergence of conflict by, for example, applying the rule of law for all of society, and creating functions to maintain security, and you have got to think of these things as a single package, rather than segmenting them.
We heard from Timor-Leste, Sierra Leone, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, based on each of their experiences. Japan has led a wide range of discussions on the issue of peace-building, and I think that this is an area were a renewed commitment will be needed, and an area where Japan is expected to be active. Japan has already experienced success once with Cambodia, so I definitely want to continue discussions, and for Japan to take the lead in peace-building, in the sense of not just maintaining peace but building it.
I am not talking here only of PKOs. A PKO is a beginning, and since we are speaking of the whole, I think that there may be a slight misunderstanding among some of the media, but it is not only PKOs.

3. Memorial Mass for Polish President

Shimada, Magazine X: On Sunday, a memorial mass was conducted in Tokyo for the President of Poland, but I heard from First Secretary Ludwig that not one person from the Japanese Government came. I would like to ask you why this was so, and these also makes me severely doubt what Prime Minister Hatoyama meant by the words "friendly and cooperative relations"; could you respond to this?

Minister: I was not here on Sunday, but I do not know to what scope (the mass) was made known. I personally cannot rightly recall whether I was told of it, and at any rate, I was not (in Japan), I returned to Japan on Sunday evening, so I personally did not attend.
Of course, House of Councilors President Eda was supposed to go to Poland, but he was not able to go there because no flights are able to take him there now.

Shimada, Magazine X: According to the Secretary, it was widely reported on Thursday in the media and other venues that there would be a mass. After that, since you returned to Japan, have you been informed of this, for example a report that this actually happened, or that a mass was actually held?

Minister: I have not heard anything in particular.

4. Case of Chinese Vessels Navigating in Waters near Okinawa

Saito, Kyodo News: I have a question about the issue of Chinese vessels navigating in waters near Okinawa.
It has now been confirmed that Chinese vessels navigated in waters near the main island of Okinawa, during which time a helicopter approached a Maritime Self-Defense Force vessel, and it has also been reported in the media, but in addition, some media have reported, and Parliamentary Secretary for Defense Nagashima responded this morning before the House of Councilors' Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense that Chinese vessels remain active in the sea to the west of Okinotori Islands, and that Self-Defense Forces maritime vessels and aircraft are maintaining a patrol readiness.
Has the Ministry of Defense contacted the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in relation to this matter? Also, please describe whether there are plans to inquire with the Chinese regarding the facts of the matter.

Minister: Word of this matter has not made it to me. However, international law permits vessels, or naval ships, to navigate the seas, including within territorial waters, so I think that it would be a mistake to say that this matter in and of itself is a violation of international law.
Of course, I believe that it is vital for Japan to closely watch these Chinese vessels, these naval ships.

Saito, Kyodo News: In relation to my question just now, but separately from this, there are also reports in the media that the government has made a factual inquiry via diplomatic channels regarding the actions of a Chinese naval destroyer aiming a rapid-fire cannon at a Maritime Self-Defense Forces P-3C patrol plane around 3:00 p.m. on the 13th. I would like to ask about the facts of this matter.

Minister: I am not aware of these media reports.

Saito, Kyodo News: I understand that you are not aware of the media reports. Could you tell me whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is actually involved in these media reports, or whether this exchange via diplomatic channels actually occurred?

Minister: It is my policy to not comment in detail on these types of matters.

Beppu, NHK: This is not directly related, but last month, I believe that the facts were confirmed via diplomatic channels regarding a shipboard helicopter approaching a Japanese vessel, but after that was there a reaction or the like from the Chinese? What happened in that case?

Minister: With regard to that matter, this in itself is a dangerous action, so as it was confirmed that a Chinese shipboard helicopter flew in close proximity in a manner that posed a danger for navigational safety, the Japanese government plans to continue to carefully monitor Chinese actions, including the actions of Chinese vessels, within Japan's national waters. We made a diplomatic address regarding this based on Japan's understanding.

Beppu, NHK: Has there been a reaction to this from the Chinese?

Minister: It is my general policy to not reveal details about those types of matters.

5. US Military Realignment Issue

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: My question is about the Futenma issue. I spoke the other day with House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Muneo Suzuki and People’s New Party President Shizuka Kamei, and they both appeared to be quite confident that the issue would be settled by the end of May. Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Suzuki said that he maintains contact with both Prime Minister (Yukio) Hatoyama and Foreign Minister (Katsuya) Okada. Please tell us how you feel about settling this issue by the end of May.

Minister: The government, for its part, is currently exerting efforts under a policy to settle the issue by the end of May.

Nishino, Kyodo News: During a session of the House of Councillors Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, Minister of Defense (Toshimi) Kitazawa stated that the government has a unified view, but at the same time, he indicated his view that as one who is directly involved in the negotiations, it is rather difficult because there is the other party (that is involved in the negotiations), and doing it (settling the issue) by the end of May would be difficult. What are your thoughts on this?

Minister: I heard Minister Kitazawa’s statement, but that is not my understanding. At the moment, we are acting under the Prime Minister’s understanding, and there are no differences (of opinion among the members) within the Cabinet.

Koyama, Freelance: Yomiuri Shimbun has reported that President (Barack) Obama said to Prime Minister Hatoyama that no progress has been made at all. Considering that the residents of Tokunoshima are very much opposed to (relocating Futenma Air Station to Tokunoshima), wouldn’t it be necessary to find another candidate relocation site as soon as possible? Has another candidate relocation site been selected already?

Minister: I cannot make any comments on specific matters, as it has not been disclosed yet as to what the government’s plan is. However, while Yomiuri Shimbun has carried such a report, we do not see it that way.

Tsuruoka, Asahi Shimbun: In that connection, with regard to the President’s comments, you made a refutation in response to interpellations at the Diet this morning, saying that based on confirmations that you have made, there were no such comments. How did you go about confirming this within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and if that was not the case (President Obama did not make such comments), can you tell us what kind of remarks the President made?

Minister: First of all, the Prime Minister himself has said that he will not comment on the President’s remarks. I believe that is an ordinary rule in diplomacy. What I confirmed is that, although I feel that I should not speak about specific things, I checked with a person who directly followed the President’s remarks.

Mizushima, Jiji Press: Today, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary (Kinya) Takino contacted the mayors of three towns in Tokunoshima in connection with the Futenma relocation issue and asked them to meet with the Chief Cabinet Secretary. I feel that perhaps this is a turning point, and with regard to negotiations with the United States in face of this turning point, do you feel that the negotiations will be conducted in the way that they have been conducted so far, or are they going to be conducted in a slightly different manner? Please tell us about your outlook on this matter.

Minister: First, I do not have any knowledge of what the Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary did today. Besides, there is no change in our basic policy to conduct talks with a certain degree of flexibility with the local communities and the United States simultaneously and in parallel based on our common understanding.

Nakaima, Ryukyu Shimpo: With regard to the fixed number of US Marines stationed on Okinawa, I believe that lawmaker Hiroshi Kawauchi, expressing doubts about the grounds for 18,000 being designated as the fixed number, submitted a request or proposal last week to State Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Koichi) Takemasa (to check into this matter). State Secretary Takemasa reportedly replied on the spot that he would look in to it. How has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to this since then?

Minister: State Secretary Takemasa has not reported back to me on the results yet.

Saita, Nishinippon Shimbun: Perhaps the sequence may be slightly reversed, but last week, there was a rally in Tokunoshima, where 15,000 residents gathered to lodge a protest against what is said to be a relocation plan. What is your opinion on this?

Minister: I said this at the Diet as well, but I feel that we must take very seriously the fact that so many people gathered. However, we, as the government, have not made any concrete decisions such as relocating (Futenma Air Station) to Tokunoshima or whatever, and therefore, I feel that it is very difficult to make any further comments.

Yamauchi, Nihon Keizai Shimbun: I recall that you mentioned earlier that at a session of the Committee (on Foreign Affairs and Defense), you commented on the subject of the local communities’ understanding and stated that simply saying that the understanding of the local communities cannot be gained will not put and end to it (the Futenma relocation issue), and therefore, the local communities’ understanding must be gained at all costs. Do you feel that in order to gain the understanding of the local communities, (the government) must continue making efforts even beyond the end of May?

Minister: Since your argument is based on an assumption that the issue will not be settled by the end of May, I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

Mekaru, Okinawa Times: Our newspaper has reported that the results of a public opinion poll conducted in Okinawa last weekend showed that 90 percent of those surveyed, regardless of age group and political party affiliation, favor relocation (of Futenma Air Station) to outside the prefecture or outside the country. In a poll conducted six months ago, the figure remained at 60 percent. Opposition to relocation within the prefecture has been intensifying among the people of Okinawa as a prefectural mass rally is to be held. In light of this, what points does the government plan to focus on in conducting negotiations, shall I say, or discussions toward the end of May? Please tell us about your thoughts on this.

Minister: I am not quite sure what the point of your question is. I do not see the connection between the fact that the number of people in Okinawa who favor relocation to outside the prefecture of outside the country is growing and your subsequent question.

Mekaru, Okinawa Times: First, I would like to hear how you feel about the figures. Then, please tell us about your thoughts on what the key points will be, and based on that, how the government intends to finalize the relocation site.

Minister: Since the figures have come out as the results of a survey, I feel that we must take them seriously. What we will do from here on is as I have always said. We, as the government, plan to exert utmost efforts to reach a conclusion by the end of May.

Iwakami, Freelance: My question is related to a matter on which I questioned you the other day. As mentioned by the reporter from Ryukyu Shimpo, who is sitting at the back, lawmaker Kawauchi has expressed doubts that 18,000 – the total number of Marines on Okinawa that has been consistently referred to from the past – is correct if a close examination is made. Earlier, I was thinking of asking this question, but you said that Secretary of State Takemasa has yet to report back to you on this, so I acknowledge that you have not received a report. However, please tell us about your thoughts at this point on this issue, the issue that the fixed number of 18,000 is doubtful and that it could be much lower.

Minister: Well, I think the first thing to do is to get the facts straight.

Iwakami, Freelance: The other day, I met with lawmaker Kawauchi and received a detailed briefing. I interviewed him, while looking at some files he provided. During the interview, he told me that he made an inquiry with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the helicopter unit in Iwakuni. In other words, he has thoroughly investigated and confirmed the locations, names, and sizes of all units in Japan, but when he made an inquiry with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs via Ambassador (Ichiro) Fujisaki regarding the size of the helicopter unit in Iwakuni, as one (among all the units in Japan), a response came back. However, it was decided among the three politically appointed positions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (the minister, state secretaries, and the parliamentary vice-ministers), including the Foreign Minister, that the information would not be disclosed because doing so may cause some kind of adverse effects on Japan-US relations. Please tell us why it was decided that the actual situation of the helicopter unit in Iwakuni would not be disclosed to lawmaker Kawauchi.

Minister: I do not understand the facts on which your question is premised. Even if lawmaker Kawauchi has been saying such things, I cannot recall any of those things at all.

Iwakami, Freelance: Do you mean what went on?

Minister: I am not aware at all that the three politically appointed (MOFA) officials decided not to disclose (the information).

Koyama, Freelance: Yomiuri Shimbun has reported that President Obama asked (Prime Minister Hatoyama) whether he would be able to follow through (with the Futenma relocation plan). Are you saying that you do not agree with that (the Yomiuri Shimbun report)?

Minister: I believe that it is not proper to speak about specific matters. However, Yomiuri Shimbun carried its report with an English text (of President Obama’s remarks), but my understanding is that such an English expression was not used (by President Obama).

Kajiwara, NHK: You said just a while ago that the government’s plan has not been decided, but have arrangements been made so that the government plan will be decided soon? Please tell us what you can about these arrangements.

Minister: It will be decided when we decide on it, so I do not think we should be talking too much about this beforehand.

Yoshinaga, Mainichi Shimbun: With regard to the earlier reference to Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Takino’s asking the three mayors of Tokunoshima to meet with the Chief Cabinet Secretary, the three mayors have held a press conference and announced that they rejected the request. The first point I would like to know is what you think of that, the second point is what reason was there that this took place at this time, and the third point is how this will affect future negotiations. Please tell us about your thoughts on these three points.

Minister: Perhaps I could (comment) if the government was saying anything specific with regard to the truth of that matter, but I am not aware of it and I cannot answer a hypothetical question at the moment.

Kamide, Freelance: People around me and also foreigners have been wondering why (Japan) has been thrown into confusion as a result of the government’s being so obsessed with (settling the Futenma issue) by the end of May – why it has to be by the end of May. I am posing this question again, but if you can send the people a message that can be easily understood by them regarding the key points explaining why it has to be by the end of May, I would like for you to tell us about it once again.

Minister: My understanding is that in December, (Prime Minister Hatoyama) spoke about it (settling the Futenma issue) in six months, so I think the end of May emerged as a result of that. At the same time, taking the US budget process into consideration, I believe that there was an understanding that that would be the time limit.

Nishino, Kyodo News: It appears that the government plan has yet to become clear, but on the other hand, if it (the Futenma issue) is to be settled by the end of May, there is very little time left. Additionally, while consistency is required to make things work out, I think that the timing for bringing things out in the open is also very important. First, there was the Nago mayoral election; then came the protest rally in Tokunoshima; and a protest rally is scheduled to be held in Okinawa on April 25th. All these things give me the impression that (the government) has been missing the proper timing or that it did a very poor job of determining the right timing. I think the answer lies in why the people feel they are being pushed around. What are your thoughts on this?

Minister: This is the result of our thinking about making a comprehensive judgment and compiling a robust government plan.

Shimada, Magazine X: Please pardon me for asking a belated question, but what is the definition of the understanding of the local communities? For example, does it suffice to obtain the approval of the heads of local governments or the approval of a certain percentage of the residents? Please tell us about this.

Minister: The understanding of the local communities is the understanding of the local communities. I feel that it is very difficult to define that in concrete terms. The important point is whether we can gain the understanding of the local communities.

Shimada, Magazine X: Do you mean that you do not have any numerical targets?

Minister: I think that it is rather difficult to say in general terms what percentage (of the approval of the residents) constitutes understanding.

Beppu, NHK: Putting aside the end of May issue, I cannot quite visualize what kind of deal with the United States you are aiming at. Is it going to be a written agreement, or are you planning to issue a communiqué? What are you aiming at that would constitute concluding a deal with the United States?

Minister: Since it has been decided that we would not speak about the details of our negotiations, I cannot answer your questions regardless of how you pose your questions.

Kajiwara, NHK: With regard to making a decision on the government’s plan, putting aside the question of timing, what format will the decision-making process take? Will the decision be made after going through the Ministerial Committee on Basic Policies and the like? Please tell us about these things.

Minister: I believe I said it some time ago, but a plan will become an official government plan following a Cabinet decision.

Iwakami, Freelance: Is the Futenma issue going to be treated as a single issue and resolved through negotiations with the United States, or is there a possibility that bargaining or something similar will be conducted with the Futenma issue being combined with other matters? I have heard that there is a possibility that the Futenma issue will be linked to negotiation issues with the United States that involve areas that are rather different from the Futenma issue, with one theory being that the Futenma issue may be linked to the beef import issue, with the easing of import restrictions on US beef used as a bargaining chip to gain some kind of concession from the US side over the Futenma issue. I am not quite certain whether it is a joke, but this matter has reportedly been abbreviated and referred to as “Beefutenma.” Is this a real possibility?

Minister: Are you questioning me based on the assumption that this could happen?

Iwakami, Freelance: It is because I do not know whether this is possible that I am asking you whether this could actually happen in reality.

Minister: I think you should question me after you are sure that there is a certain degree of probability. I cannot comment on matters that are infinitely possible. However, if I were to answer you question, I would say that that would not happen.

Kajiwara, NHK: Today, Minister of Defense Kitazawa said at a press conference after a Cabinet meeting that in the event that (the government) proposes (relocating Futenma Air Station to) Tokunoshima, it would be very difficult under the current circumstances. He indicated his view that gaining the understanding of the local communities would be difficult. Do you share this view?

Minister: I will keep repeating this, but I feel that we must take seriously the fact that so many people gathered in the rally. However, since the government’s plan has not been presented, I feel that perhaps (the residents) are becoming very anxious amid a situation in which it is unknown as to what form (the government’s plan) will take.

Iwakami, Freelance: About two months ago, I interviewed lawmaker Tomoko Abe of the Social Democratic Party, who is in charge of this issue. She favors a plan to relocate (Futenma Air Station) to Nagasaki. In her capacity, she asserts that the Nagasaki plan is very significant. However, she said that if a protest movement breaks out in Nagasaki, protest movements could break out in various places including Tokunoshima. She said that in that case, as candidate (relocation) sites pop up one after another in the main island of Okinawa and elsewhere in Okinawa, they (plans to relocate Futenma Air Station to these sites) would be crushed by protest movements, and after going through such a process, it will ultimately be concluded that finding a relocation site within Japan, either within Okinawa or a place other than Okinawa, is impossible. She spoke about her outlook that, as a result, it is likely that plans to relocate Futenma Air Station to Guam or wherever, or in other words, to a place outside the country, will inevitably re-emerge. Is this process – about which the people are saying various things such as that it is running astray – a process through which it will be clarified that there are no places, no local governments, and no local communities in Japan that are willing to accept the US Marine Corps, and subsequently clarified that after all, it (the relocation site) has to be Guam, it has to be outside the country. Is this where this process will eventually lead?

Minister: We are not thinking about that at all. If we think about the role that the US Forces in Japan play in ensuring the security of Japan itself, as well as the peace and security of the region, I feel that relocating it (Futenma Air Station) to a place outside of Japan is inconceivable.
I would like the Japanese people to definitely understand this, but when a US military base comes (to a certain community), it will certainly be accompanied by various burdens. At the same time, however, I would like people to definitely think about how the current peace and security of Japan is ensured. If we forget about the fundamental debate, I feel that the debate will indeed go astray.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Diet member Hiroshi Kawauchi of the DPJ’s Kagoshima Chapter has expressed his opposition and has responded in a newspaper interview. While he has spoken about procedural issues, if (other lawmakers) one after another similarly express opposition in the event that (Futenma Air Station) is to be relocated to their hometowns, a situation could emerge as Mr. Iwakami just mentioned in his question. The DPJ is a ruling party, and there are DPJ lawmakers in nearly all constituencies. Regardless of where (Futenma Air Station) is to be relocated, as long as it is within the country, DPJ lawmakers will be held accountable. In that sense, can it be understood that each and every DPJ lawmaker will have to be prepared for that?

Minister: I believe so.

Kajiwara, NHK: You said during a session of the House of Councillors Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense held today that the government will try to gain the understanding of the local communities by all means. Please explain this to us once again. In other words, does that mean that instead of just giving up on a candidate (relocation) site if there initially is opposition there, the government will persistently try to persuade (the local communities of that relocation site)? Please give us an explanation.

Minister: That applies to the current (relocation) plan on which Japan and the United States have agreed. The (relevant) local communities have not necessarily approved of the plan. They have not accepted the plan wholeheartedly. An agreement was once reached after going through various processes.

Iwakami, Freelance: My question is related to your opinion you indicated in response to my earlier question. You clearly said earlier that (relocating Futenma Air Station to a site) outside of Japan is inconceivable. Does that mean that the government has a plan in mind (fukuan) to build a replacement facility somewhere in Japan, including Okinawa and mainland Japan? This is for confirmation.

Minister: I do not quite understand what you mean by fukuan, but we are saying that the government, for its part, will firmly make a decision on the relocation site for Futenma Air Station.

Iwakami, Freelance: Is it going to be within the country?

Minister: Yes, within the country.

6. Japan-EU Regular Summit on Economic Relations

Suzuki, Jiji Press: With regard to the EPA with the EU, you said at the Japan-EU Business Round Table held yesterday that the government will exert efforts to work on this matter. Please tell us again about your enthusiasm or prospects, shall I say, with regard to starting negotiations (on the EPA with the EU) in view of the regular summit next week.

Minister: We are currently exerting diplomatic efforts, since we want to start up a joint research project during the Japan-EU Summit as a preliminary step to a Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement. As for the outlook at the moment, I feel that the situation is such that the outlook remains uncertain, with some countries in favor and some countries opposed. However, if Japan and the EU become linked as a single market, that would be very beneficial to both Japan and the EU, and while there are various debates on this, it has been said that it (the EPA) does not offer many advantages to the EU side. However, that is not the case, and since the larger the market the more beneficial it would be for both sides, and since that is what an EPA is, I would like people to look at it from a broader perspective rather than being concerned so much about individual points such as that it would affect automobiles and flat-panel television sets, for example. Of course, various problems including non-tariff barriers have been pointed out for Japan, too. While there are some things that have been pointed out for which we would like to present counter-arguments, we want both sides to move closer together to definitely start up this joint research project. There are EPAs not only with the EU but also with Australia and with the Republic of Korea (ROK), and in the case of the ROK, negotiations have taken very long and they have once been taken off the table in mid-course as a result. At the moment, we are exerting efforts to gain understanding that Japan’s basic stance has changed as a result of the change in government.

Murakami, Kyodo News: With regard to the Japan-EU EPA, which you spoke about earlier, the part on non-tariff barriers has become a very big problem. Can it be understood, for example, that talks with related ministries and agencies, such as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport, and Tourism, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, are already underway and that there is a possibility of some kind of deregulation in the part on non-tariff barriers?

Minister: Even with regard to non-tariff barriers, I believe that we must fully grasp each and every one of them. For example, the EU side has presented their opinion on railway vehicles. However, there are some countries in the EU where the EPA does not apply to (railway vehicles) of state-run railways in the first place. I believe that we must exert efforts under a basic policy that the two sides should mutually open up while properly working out arrangements for each and every one of those matters.
I have been speaking with the ministers concerned, and since this EPA will likely require internal coordination, I believe that such coordination will be conducted with Minister (Yoshito) Sengoku and his office likely playing the central role. Since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may have done a little too much in the past, I would like to gain his cooperation and promote internal coordination at all costs.

7. Publication of Information (Investigative Committee)

Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers: I believe that it will soon be two weeks since an investigative committee, headed by you, was formed over the issue of the finding that documents relating to secret agreements no longer exist. Please tell us, to the extent that you are aware, how far the hearings relating to the investigation have progressed, when approximately the investigation is scheduled to conclude, and also whether (the investigative hearing with) former Vice-Minister Yachi has concluded.

Minister: I will not say anything specific. What is written in the final report will be the conclusion, so I will not speak about the process under way. I would like to state, however, that steady progress is being made.

Higa, Kyodo News: I have a question about the Task Force Disclosure of Information. Nothing has been made public since the first time. I would like to ask again what kinds of things have been discussed, what kinds of milestones have been set, and when approximately the final report will be completed.

Minister: The report is not so far off. One topic is the ideal form of document management within the Ministry. Also, there are many documents that are 30 years old, and we are discussing what form to release them in, which we should publish first, and which we should handle first, based on the approach that in principle, everything will be made public. When we do get to that point, it will not be possible without people to do it, so we are holding concrete discussions on what kind of organization to create for this.

8. World's Biggest Lesson (Global Campaign for Education 2010)

Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun: You recently attended the World's Biggest Lesson, a program organized by NGOs to educate the children of the world. Please tell us your thoughts on the lesson, and also, after you attended, it was indicated to you that basic education makes up only a small portion of Japan's ODA spending; what was your response to that?

Minister: I think saying that basic education makes up a small portion (of ODA) is probably referring to when the total amount is taken into account, including Yen Loans and such. When you look at it in terms of grant aid and the like, I feel that this may not necessarily be the case. There is a wide range of programs in Japan, by not just the government but also NGOs, private companies, and others, such as building schools, or sending equipment. I do not believe that we must necessarily think only in terms of the government. I think that the question is what activities Japan as a whole is conducting. But as it was pointed out, education is the most basic element, and even as we speak of the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), I think that it is very important to focus strongly on education, and that along with health, education is one of the most important fields relating to children. When I recently went to Haiti, I was also told that although there are schools in Haiti, an extremely large number of children do not receive even primary education, and I thought that nation-building will be difficult without solid initiatives in this area.

Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun: What are your thoughts (on the lesson)?

Minister: I was hoping that I would not get any hard questions.

9. Takeshima Issue

Saito, Kyodo News: On the 16th of this month, I recall that in reaction to an announcement by Korea's government-run Ocean Research and Development Institute that it had begun a geological survey of the area around Takeshima Island, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that State Secretary Fukuyama lodged a protest with the Korean Ambassador to Japan. I would like to ask if the Koreans subsequently indicated that they would stop the geological survey, and if not, what the response will be.

Minister: I have nothing new to say on the reaction by the Koreans. I want to get a good grasp of the situation.

Saito, Kyodo News: In relation to this, the Website of the Speaker of Korea's National Assembly states that he visited Takeshima Island in person on the 18th. I would like to ask whether you have confirmed this, and what is the reaction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Minister: I am aware of such a media report.

Saito, Kyodo News: How will you respond to this?

Minister: It is rather difficult to respond when a somewhat delicate issue like this is included, because it is the National Assembly. But Japan's claim is that Takeshima is part of the territory of Japan.

Saito, Kyodo News: Just now, I asked about small, individual facts, but I would like to ask about the issue overall, from the perspective of the whole situation if you will. The Government of Japan has responded to the Diet on the issue of Takeshima Island many times, and I believe that I am also aware of the essentials of your responses on this matter. Leaving these responses aside, I would like to hear your views, from a broad perspective, on how the Government of Japan will resolve the issue of Takeshima, in what time span, and in what form.

Minister: Japan's stance is clear. However, it is not yet under our effective control. Consequently, I think that our two countries will have to discuss this thoroughly.

Asaka, Freelance: On January 15th, the owner of a large spa in the suburbs of Los Angeles put up a billboard along the freeway stating that Takeshima belongs to Korea. The Japanese Consulate General lodged a letter of protest over this on April 5th, after which the person who put up the billboard stated that he would extend (the billboard) until the end of May. Then on April 13th, the Korean Consulate General showed a determined response, and on April 16th, Koreans staged a protest in front of the Japanese Consulate General condemning Japan. Although this situation is expected to continue until the billboard is taken down at the end of May, what is the view of the Government of Japan on this? People of Japanese ancestry living in the area have a fairly high sense of danger over this, and an email by one of them that I have obtained states that there is an extremely high sense of both physical and mental danger.

Minister: I am not very sure what the words "sense of danger" mean here, but as Minister of Foreign Affairs, I would like to refrain from commenting on our responses to individual specific matters. I will state, however, that Takeshima is part of the territory of Japan.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: I think that the understanding of the Japanese people is vital in order for the Government of Japan to assert its position strongly. From what I have heard, in Korea everybody learns about Takeshima (what they call Dok-to) from the time they are in preschool. By this I mean that a weather forecast is shown every day on TV, and they grow up being imprinted by the idea that "Dok-to belongs to Korea." In contrast, I think that the measures by the Government of Japan to ensure that all of the Japanese people are made aware of Japan's claims are weaker than in the case of the Northern Territories. Please tell us your thoughts on initiatives moving forward.

Minister: I think that in general, Japanese textbooks also mention territorial issues, including Takeshima.

Asaka, Freelance: At a meeting of the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee, you stated that you would not use the words "illegal occupation" with regard to the status of Takeshima. What expression do you plan to use if the matter comes up for discussion at a foreign minister summit or the like?

Minister: As I have said many times, this is not only about Takeshima. The same thing applies to the Northern Territories. It is my personal intention as a negotiator to not use that expression. When you are trying to advance negotiations, you avoid provoking the other party more than necessary. This is my decision from the perspective of the national interest. If you are asking me what I will say, it is "Takeshima is part of the territory of Japan. However, we do not have effective control over it." This is what I have said before the Diet many times.

Saito, Kyodo News: I have brought this pamphlet here with me today. I believe that you have probably also had a look at it, Minister, but the title is "10 Issues of Takeshima," and it is very readable and easy to understand. It makes the clear conclusion that Korea's occupation of Takeshima is illegal from a historical perspective, and it is not in accordance with international law. This publication by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicates the fundamental stance of the government. Do you feel that this publication must be used widely to appeal to the Japanese people, and would you like the Japanese people to properly accept the contents (of this pamphlet)?

Minister: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs created that document precisely because this is what it thinks.

Saito, Kyodo News: May I interpret this as an indication that you would like to use this to appeal actively (to the Japanese people), to make it widely known?

Minister: Basically, I am not sure why this type of question would come up.

Nishino, Kyodo News: The reason why (this question) came up is because since the first printing, there have not been any additional printings, and there are almost no copies left to distribute. I believe that many people are studying the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' public-relations organization, including whether you have acted strategically, but can I interpret your view as being that this difference in approaches is part of a stance of classifying issues, and postponing what should be postponed?

Minister: I do not understand very clearly just by what you have said, but it goes without saying that we will budget for and properly implement what is required.

10. Japan-US Security Policy

Iwakami, Freelance: Former Japanese Ambassador to the United States and former Vice Minister Ryohei Murata has passed away, and a book has been published that he had personally regarded as a farewell note. Although it does not appear to be available yet for general sale, while Mr. Murata was alive he would personally give away complimentary copies to people. I have asked a person who read one of those copies about the contents, and that person said that the book goes into great depth, and makes allegations that he could not state until now. One of these was on the topic of a budget on host nation support for the United States military. He stated that covering 80% of the stationing costs was unconscionable, and that in Germany the rate was only 20%; and although there may be some slight errors with these figures, at any rate Japan is clearly shouldering a much larger share of the burden of the stationing costs than Germany, he stated that Japan was paying a sympathy budget to the United States military. The book states that this situation is an excessive burden on Japan, while saying that we are equal allies; it says that we must reduce this burden, that we must keep working hard, like the people of the Meiji era did to revise unfair treaties, or in other words, that we need to get away from the current situation of doing whatever the United States tells us, to establishing foreign relations that are more independent and autonomous. In its entirety, the book contains some extreme views, including increasing the weight of Japan's autonomous self-defense, but earlier you commented on Futenma that the base needs to be in Japan, but I think that it would be possible to consider that Japan could find an autonomous path; for example, that even if the United States military were to leave, Japan could fill that gap with its own self-defense efforts. I would like to ask you again for your views on this topic from a broad perspective.

Minister: Firstly, your statements just now mixed up the issues of the budget on host-nation support and Japan's share of the stationing costs, but I think that these issues should be properly separated. Next, I think that it is generally accepted that Japan's burden is higher than that of other countries. But if, as you have just indicated, Japan were to go by its own efforts, if it were to implement autonomous self-defense, then given the current international climate surrounding Japan, it goes without saying that significant military spending would be required. For example, it is currently less than 1% of our GDP, but looking internationally, we would need to spend 2%, 3%, or even more. I do not think that the Japanese people are prepared to bear that high of a burden; or even if we did go that route, we currently classify function as offensive or defensive; and if you ask me how many of the Japanese people would agree to giving the Self-Defense Forces offensive capabilities, I do not think that one would be able to get them to agree to this. Consequently, I think that the only answer is to ask the United States military stationed in Japan to serve a certain role, and to have a division of roles, as we do now.

Iwakami, Freelance: Your conclusion is that we have no choice but to rely on the United States military stationed in Japan, but does that apply to the current time, or to the near future, or do you believe that Japan must depend on the United States military over the medium to long term? Next, concerning your fundamental view, after Mr. Hatoyama became Prime Minister, he has made statements to the effect of withdrawing for the time being, or postponing it far into the future, but his original position was security without the stationing of US troops; I believe that his position was essentially that we would rapidly have the US military draw down its presence, and have Japan act autonomously. Are your views considerably different from these; or rather, aren't your views flatly opposed to these? I would like you to respond on these two points.

Minister: The word "dependence" has the nuance of "one-sided dependence," but we are interdependent. The bases in Japan benefit the United States military, the region as a whole, and the United States. I think that we must consider the current situation as having been formed through mutual dependence. I am aware that Prime Minister Hatoyama's original approach was security without presence, but when the present Democratic Party of Japan was formed some 10 years ago, I became responsible for bringing Mr. Hatoyama, Mr. Kan, and Mr. Yokomichi into the party at that time, and we created the DPJ's security policy. I believe that many people have seen it, but the approach of security without presence disappeared from this discussion completely at that time.

Back to Index