(* 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: Friday, May 7, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Report on Travel to South Africa and Tanzania
- (2) Situation in Myanmar
- (3) NPT Review Conference
Intensification of Survey Operations by Chinese Ships in East China Sea
US Military Realignment Issue
Situation in North Korea
Urgent Recommendation for Economic Recovery
Hague Convention
Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue
Development of Gas Fields in East China Sea
Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexico
Situation in Myanmar (Dissolution of NLD)
Dispatch of SDF Troops to Sudan Based on International Peace Cooperation Law

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Report on Travel to South Africa and Tanzania

Minister: My first announcement concerns my visit to Africa. I visited South Africa and Tanzania between the 28th (of April) and the 5th of May. I believe you are aware of the details, but first of all, I came to re-acknowledge that South Africa is in a very important position with regard to issues confronting Japan such as reform of the UN Security Council (UNSC) or climate change.
   It is clear from looking at developments at the previous G4 meeting that with regard to UNSC reform, how we carry on dialogue with Africa is extremely important. Amid this situation, South Africa, as a leading African country, has asserted that Africa as a whole should be allocated two permanent seats in the UNSC, but I have heard that various talks are going on among African countries. In conducting dialogue with Africa, I believe that South Africa holds a very important position as a country that leads Africa.
   With regard to climate change, COP 17 will be held in South Africa, following COP 16, which will be held in Mexico this year. Since countries in Africa will be affected the most by climate change, I believe that how we conduct dialogue with these countries is very important when it comes to creating an official framework. In that sense, I think that dialogue with South Africa is extremely important.
   With regard to TICAD IV (follow-up meeting), which was held in Tanzania, while this has been held once a year, I came to re-acknowledge that it is a meeting that the foreign minister should attend. TICAD is a package of efforts toward assistance for Africa, and the phrase TICAD IV is now being used after it first began in 1993. It is indeed an extremely important conference that should be properly followed up once a year to discuss progress in the process.
   Cabinet ministers from more than 30 countries gathered at the conference this time. I felt that the foreign minister should participate in this conference as much as possible. In addition to the conference, I held separate meetings for about 30 minutes each with the foreign ministers of nine countries and the vice chairperson of the AU Commission. I believe that I was able to conduct a very beneficial exchange of views with them in a short time.
   For example, China sends its foreign minister to Africa every January without fail, and in addition, its president, premier, vice president, and various officials visit Africa, one after another. I am not saying that the more you visit, the better, but I felt that it would be good, in a certain sense, if we made it a rule to have the foreign minister go to Africa at least once a year.
   Allow me to repeat this, but with regard to this climate change issue and the issue of becoming a permanent member of the UNSC, Africa is extremely important. As I constantly brought up talks on the global warming issue and UNSC reform during bilateral meetings, I believe that, in a certain sense, I was able to make a strategic move for the future – something like laying a groundwork. In addition, I had the opportunity to make substantial observations in the field, and I feel it was an extremely worthwhile week.

(2) Situation in Myanmar

Minister: My second announcement is about Myanmar. It is very regrettable that the NLD (National League for Democracy) has been automatically dissolved because the party did not complete registration procedures on the 6th (of May) for taking part in a general election. We plan to continue making approaches to the Myanmar Government to bring about open and fair elections and to call for the promotion of dialogue with Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD.
As I have heard that US Assistant Secretary of State Campbell is scheduled to visit Myanmar soon, we intend to continue exerting efforts to ultimately seek what can be assessed as an open and fair election by cooperating with neighboring countries and improving communication with the United States.

(3) NPT Review Conference

Minister: I had State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Fuyama attend the NPT Review Conference and deliver a speech. Negotiations toward drawing up concrete documents will now begin. Japan has made various efforts such as issuing a message together with Australia, so that, unlike the previous conference where opinions remained divided, agreements can be reached and put down in writing. I first expect MOFA officials work hard on the spot. If necessary, I may have to think about going there myself. At any rate, taking such things into consideration as well, Japan, for its part, intends to exert efforts so that they can come up with good, solid results.

2. Intensification of Survey Operations by Chinese Ships in East China Sea

Saito, Kyodo News: I would like to ask you about a series of problems in which China has been intensifying its activities in the East China Sea. Last month, 10 Chinese naval vessels navigated in waters near Japan, and during that time, a problem emerged in which a Chinese helicopter came close to a Japanese destroyer in two instances. We understand that in response, you expressed concerns to the Chinese side. However, shortly after that on the 3rd of this month, a Chinese marine survey ship affiliated with the State Oceanic Administration pursued a Japanese Coast Guard survey ship, resulting in our survey ship’s temporarily suspending its marine survey. You, as well as various government officials concerned, lodged a protest against China, but I have heard that in response, the Chinese side refuted the protest, saying that “the operation was totally proper and legitimate.” Why is China responding in this manner, and how should Japan take this? What effective measures do you think Japan can take in order to prevent recurrences? Please tell us about this.

Minister: Yesterday I summoned the Chinese ambassador and lodged a strong protest, but there was no response on the spot like the one you mentioned. I have not directly confirmed the response you just mentioned. As to what we should now try to do about this matter, I think that it is very important to discuss it thoroughly. In order to prevent such things from recurring, I believe that discussions should be held properly at the upper levels.

Saito, Kyodo News: My question is in connection with this. According to MOFA’s press release of yesterday, I believe that you protested that it was an obstructive act that violated Japan’s sovereign rights. Please explain in plain language what are the “sovereign rights that were violated” as you mentioned and how the latest incident undermined Japan’s national interests.

Minister: Since it occurred on the east side of the median line, I feel that obstructing a survey conducted by Japan within the exclusive economic zone that it claims would inevitably be considered a violation of Japan’s sovereignty.

3. US Military Realignment Issue

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: On the 4th (of May) the Prime Minister went to Okinawa to present the government’s views and faced voices of protest from the local people. Amid this situation, “deterrence” has been mentioned lately, as a matter of course. I would like to confirm your understanding in this regard. The Prime Minister said that with regard to the deterrence capability of the Marine Corps, his perception has changed from how he previously perceived it as he studied the matter more upon coming into power. He said during his last interview with reporters that he “came to realize that in thinking about the role of the Marine Corps among all the US forces stationed in Okinawa as a single package, deterrence can be maintained through collaboration.” I recall that when I interviewed you previously, you said, “The Marine Corps’ deterrence capability may not necessarily have to be in Okinawa.” The Prime Minister said that the reason that the Marines have to be in Okinawa is that their presence is necessary from the standpoint of an overall military balance of all US forces in Okinawa including the Navy and the Air Force. He says that this is why the Marines cannot be severed from Okinawa. However, that is the part that makes me feel that there is a slight gap between his and your previous theory on the Marine Corps’ deterrence capability, as I understand it. How do you feel about this?

Minister: I do not know the details about how the Prime Minister spoke about this, so I have no intention to make any interpretations here. What I said was that I would not speak only of Okinawa but I spoke of having this (deterrence) “in Japan.” I said “in Japan” at least in the context of my having determined that we should not speak so much about what has to be in Okinawa, when discussing military base relocation for reducing the burdens shouldered by Okinawa. I did not necessarily say that it does not have to be in Okinawa.

Okawa, Freelance: I have been doing onsite coverage of maritime engineering and shipbuilding technology. With regard to the Futenma Air Station relocation issue in Okinawa, as I think that the US forces will someday pull out from Okinawa, as a matter of course, do you have any plans to use Japan’s new, superior technology to build a base with a 4,000-meter (runway) based on the mega-float system, moving to Sasebo during a Korean contingency and returning to Okinawa during a Taiwan contingency? In other words, do you have any plans to build a base based on the mega-float technology, taking into consideration future plans after the US forces have pulled out? Please tell us about your thoughts.

Minister: I feel that I should not speak too much about specific matters. Since we, including the Prime Minister, have not been speaking about any concrete matters, I feel that under these circumstances, I have to refrain from speaking about such matters as whether the mega-float is good or bad.

Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers: During the last election, the Prime Minister spoke about (relocating Futenma Air Station to a site that is) “at least outside the prefecture.” However, when he visited Okinawa on the 4th, that was not the case, and he explained his perception that from the standpoint of deterrence, “the Marines are needed in Okinawa.” How do you assess the Prime Minister’s remarks on the Marine Corps’s deterrence capability? How do you assess such a change?

Minister: Since I am not in such a high position that I can evaluate the Prime Minister’s remarks, I will not comment on that in particular. However, I feel that the Prime Minister made candid remarks.

Inoue, Kyodo News: My question is about your earlier remarks on the Marine Corps in Okinawa. You said that you “did not say that they do not have to be in Okinawa.” May I take it that you believe that the Marines need to be in Okinawa?

Minister: I have been speaking while choosing my words very carefully, thinking that I should not speak about my personal views, as this matter is being discussed within the government at this very moment. However, when I spoke about this during a previous press conference here, I did say that “I do not think (relocating Futenma Air Station to a site) outside the prefecture is possible.” I believe that you can sense what is reflected there.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I was not able to quite understand what you just said. You said to the effect that I should be able to understand your feelings about what you really want to say, as you have previously said that relocation outside the prefecture would be difficult. Pardon me, although I do not intended to confirm that, and though you said that at the moment you will refrain from getting into the details, May I understand that, in discussing why the Marines have to be in Okinawa, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, during talks with the Prime Minister, exchanged views with him on deterrence or the Marines’ raison d’être, and the thoughts of MOFA or your own thoughts as the foreign minister were conveyed to the Prime Minister – have such discussions been conducted?

Minister: We have been conducting such discussions for quite a while.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: On deterrence, too?

Minister: Yes.

Kamide, Freelance: I feel that from the people’s perspective, the new administration was expected to squarely face the United States and come up with something different from what the Liberal Democratic Party has done. Regrettably, however, Prime Minister Hatoyama, although it all came too late, has said that he “had poor understanding of deterrence.” With regard to this matter, many people, especially the people of Okinawa, want the new government to present some new things that are worthwhile, something that is really in the proper form, without setting the end of May as a deadline. They want to somehow escape from a situation where the Japanese Government does as the United States says, but your perception is that you would rather refrain from speaking too much about specific matters. Nevertheless, please tell us about your straightforward perception on this matter. Please tell the people about this.

Minister: I believe that we absolutely do not do as the United States pleases. Additionally, the Prime Minister has just recently exerted substantial efforts to reduce Okinawa’s burdens, and I would like for you to acknowledge that he continues to exert efforts toward that end.

Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers: During the meeting between the Prime Minister and Governor Nakaima, the governor called on the Prime Minister to help reduce (US military-related) incidents and noise (problems) and review the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), and the Prime Minister said that he wanted to settle the burden-reduction issue as a package deal. Japan and the United States are currently holding working-level talks, but along with working out concrete arrangements with regard to the relocation site for Futenma, are discussions on burden reduction and the SOFA, such as how to eliminate noise, incidents and accidents, being held simultaneously within the working-level meetings?

Minister: I cannot speak about specific matters, but discussions are being held including those things.

Kajiwara, NHK: During a press conference after a cabinet meeting, (Financial Services) Minister Kamei said that it was improbable that “it (the Futenma Air Station relocation plan) will return to (the original plan of constructing a replacement facility in) the sea area off Henoko.” Minister Fukushima has said that she “is opposed to relocation within the prefecture.” In this way, voices of opposition to individual proposals have emerged within the Cabinet, and I feel that this could give an impression that the Cabinet is in turmoil. What is your perception of this situation?

Minister: I believe that once progress is made in the talks with Okinawa and with the United States and a single plan is basically worked out, it will inevitably become necessary to hold talks among the ruling coalition parties. I would like for you to acknowledge that we are not at that stage yet.

Higa, Kyodo News: With regard to the issue of burden reduction, the Prime Minister said yesterday that he intends to settle the matter by the end of May, but when that time comes, does he intend to present a convincing, concrete burden-reduction plan that would show how the burdens shouldered by the Okinawan people will be reduced?

Minister: I believe that as a matter of course, we cannot gain the understanding of the Okinawan people without presenting such a plan.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Pardon me for asking questions that are probably going back and forth, as I myself am confused. Again, with regard to deterrence, the Prime Minister, in the end, said yesterday that concerning the controversy over whether they (the Marines) have to be in Okinawa or they do not have to be in Okinawa, he intends to keep them in Okinawa and would ask Okinawa to continue bearing the burden. The fact that the Prime Minister has failed to completely fulfill his pledge to at least move (Futenma Air Station) off the prefecture indicates that now he is indeed thinking about bringing it back to Okinawa. Was the Prime Minister unable to completely move it out of the prefecture because the Marines have to be in Okinawa for military reasons, or was he unable to do this for political reasons, or in other words, he could not find any place outside the prefecture that would accept (the relocation)? What is your view on this?

Minister: I think that both reasons are valid. I believe that Okinawa indeed has locational advantage, shall I say. When it comes to the matter of simultaneous relocation, or in other words, relocating various functions in a bundle, including training ranges, there are unfortunately no municipal governments willing to accept this at the moment. There are both facets.

Kajiwara, NHK: With regard to settling the issue by the end of May, the Social Democratic Party apparently intends to strengthen its approaches within the government and the ruling coalition parties to assert that they should not be obsessed with the end-of-May settlement, considering that the possibility of settling on a revised version of the (original relocation) plan or on the plan with slight modifications would increase if they stuck to resolving the issue by the end of May. How do you feel about this?

Minister: Well, since the Prime Minister is saying (that he wants to settle this by) the end of May, I believe that the Cabinet, for its part, will aim at (a settlement by) the end of May.

Inoue, Kyodo News: With the Prime Minister planning to visit Okinawa again on the 15th (of May), Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirano has said that at that time, (the Prime Minister) will, as a matter of course, present a proposal on the relocation plan. In that case, does that mean that the Prime Minister will be taking that proposal to Okinawa on the 15th after an accord has been reached among the ruling coalition parties and a certain level of agreement has been reached with the United States?

Minister: First of all, I have not confirmed that (the Prime Minister’s visit to Okinawa) will be on the 15th. I have heard that he plans to go to Okinawa again, but I have not confirmed the date. Keeping this in mind, my thoughts are as I explained earlier. Therefore, as I explained earlier, the matter will be referred to the ruling coalition parties after the prospects become clear with regard to (gaining the understanding of) the United States and the local communities, including Okinawa.

Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers: At the moment, the three mayors from Tokunoshima Island are in a meeting with the Prime Minister at the Prime Minister’s Office. I have yet to receive any information on the outcome of the meeting, but all three mayors are opposed to the relocation plan. What kind of meeting are you hoping for at the moment?

Minister: Don’t you think that is a nonsense question? They are in a meeting right at this moment, and we will know about the outcome after the meeting is over, so I do not think I should be commenting on it right here.

4. Situation in North Korea

Nishioka, Mainichi Newspapers: My question is about the situation in North Korea. General Secretary Kim Jong Il held a conference with President Hu Jintao, during which he stated that he wanted to create favorable conditions with each relevant country for the resumption of the six-party talks. Again, please tell us your assessment of this statement, Japan's response following this meeting between China and North Korea, and your own thoughts on diplomacy with North Korea.

Minister: The rule is one question each, so I would like to answer just one of your questions, but what you have just said has become clear. I think it was good that there was a mention of the six-party talks. But actually, if you ask whether the conditions are suitable for moving forward with the six-party talks now, unless the issue of the South Korean vessel is clarified, then the conditions will not be suitable for moving forward. Viewing objectively, this is my understanding.

Saito, Kyodo News: This is a follow-on question. It is my understanding of the context of this visit that General Secretary Kim Jong Il visited Beijing and held a China-North Korea summit, when the results of the investigation of the sinking of the South Korean warship have still not been released. Although of course the results have not been released inside South Korea, as you informed us, the government, in the Diet debates, did not concede to the theory that North Korea was involved, but there is speculation in the Diet debates and in the media that the North Koreans were involved, and some believe that the Lee Myung-bak government is being pressed to make a fairly severe decision. I would like to know if amid these circumstances, the fact that General Secretary Kim Jong Il went to Beijing, and that China received North Korea at this time, will really contribute to the six-party discussions, or to peace and security in Northeast Asia. Or alternatively, if you have a view on the matter, I would like to hear your frank view on the timing of this summit between China and North Korea.

Minister: I do not know what China and North Korea discussed, or whether the talks involved the sinking of the South Korean vessel, or whether they actually had talks, so I would like to refrain from making comments lightly, but given this timing, I am aware that there are many views coming out of South Korea. And I think that I can understand why there would be such views coming out.

Mizushima, Jiji Press: Earlier, you said that the conditions will not be suitable to move ahead with the six-party discussions unless the issue of the South Korean vessel becomes clear. I think that the South Korean Government probably has the same view of the situation, but may I take it that Japan, the United States, and South Korea have the same view of this situation?

Minister: I will not say what kind of interchange is going on, but I think that a result will be released shortly. Depending on those results, it may not be the time to speak of having six-party talks. It is in this sense that I spoke.

5. Urgent Recommendation for Economic Recovery

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: The morning edition of today's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper made a proposal on the economy. Speaking specifically about matters relating to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the proposal called for the creation of a new commerce strategy partnering the public and private sectors, including using public finance and trade insurance, in order to win overseas contracts for nuclear power plants, high-speed railway system, and other infrastructure amid fierce international competition, or alternatively to expedite negotiations of EPAs (economic partnership agreements) with Asian countries; and additionally, outside the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well, in order to make companies more internationally competitive, it recommended that the effective corporate tax rate be set into the 20% range, or speaking of the Japanese economy as a whole, public investment was necessary in order to break out of deflation, and that public works was also necessary. Please state any views you might have on this.

Minister: Regarding EPAs, I think that a fair amount of progress will be made on an EPA with India, and with the EU, we also used a fair amount of diplomatic resources to explain to individual members. As a result, although it is not necessarily sufficient, I think that we have established the possibility for negotiating a future agreement. I think that one of the big changes since the change of administration has been the progress made on EPAs overall. I think we can say that negotiations have begun to move forward that had been stalled in the prior administrations. We would like to further accelerate these advances. Over the holiday break as well, Cabinet members took the lead in moving forward a number of projects, including nuclear power plants, water projects, and high-speed railway system. I also recently agreed to enter negotiations for an atomic energy agreement in South Africa. Additionally, the Japanese/Brazilian system of digital terrestrial broadcasting has had fairly broad uptake in South America, and we believe that there are also possibilities in Africa, and I also spoke with the South Africans about this. It is very important to do this sort of thing a little more systematically, and I believe that the Cabinet should set up an organization for this. What we must be a little careful of, however, is that although partnerships between the public and private sectors are good, we must have the private sector bear a certain level of risk; it will not do for the government to bear all of it. Alternatively, there has also been talk that South Korea has given a 60-year guarantee on the UAE nuclear power plant. But I do not see the motivation behind this. There is also a report that Russia is pitching a package to Vietnam including submarines. These are things that Japan cannot do, and ultimately, if you overdo it then ultimately the taxpayers will have to bear the whole burden, so you have also got to consider where to draw the line. And when doing so, even if the deal looks good from the incumbent government's perspective, we cannot have the people shoulder a huge burden 20 or 30 years in the future, so I think that you have got to balance these things. Internationally as well, going too far in these kinds of sales wars could cause safety to be lost, or lead to dumping wars, so I think that a certain level of rules are required.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: The Yomiuri Shimbun's economic proposals are extremely wide ranging, so there is the question of whether you have read the entire thing, but could you comment on whether you can rate the proposals highly in your role as Minister?

Minister: The proposals are wide ranging, so I do not think that it is appropriate to speak about them individually, but I rate it highly in the sense that I think it is wonderful for various media to make these kinds of specific proposals. I also think that it is of great benefit for forming various policy debate to have media make proposals to each other and discuss them. At the same time, when it comes to informing the public broadly, proposals of specific measures communicate to the readers, so I think that they are very useful in the sense of background briefing for understanding Japan's policies.

6. Hague Convention

Ito, Japan Times: I have a question about the Hague Convention. On the 5th, a draft resolution was introduced in the United States legislature demanding, among other things, that Japan immediately join the Hague Convention. Could you give us your reaction to this?

Minister: I am aware that the draft resolution was introduced, but although I will not comment directly since this is in the legislature, Japan is making an effort to resolve actual current issues, in cooperation with the Embassies of each country. We are also seriously considering the possibility of becoming a signatory to the Hague Convention.

Ito, Japan Times: This issue has also become a fairly big topic in the United States legislature; do you think that this issue could affect relations between Japan and the United States?

Minister: I am aware that this issue is very important. Secretary of State Clinton has also brought up this matter with me several times. This is particularly why we are considering this matter seriously now. Also, Japanese mothers and fathers have also had their children abducted, so in this sense Japan is facing both sides of the issue, and I think that we should accelerate the study for signing the Hague Convention. But this involves many parts of the Japanese legal system as well. This will require a fundamental debate, so I would like to advance proper discussions in collaboration with the Ministry of Justice and others.

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

Yamauchi, Nikkei Shimbun: I have a question about the suspicion that documents were discarded in relation to the issue of secret agreements. It has been about a month since the investigative committee was formed. In addition to former Vice Minister Yachi, the name of Ambassador to the United States Fujisaki was given as a successor to whom former Treaties Bureau Director-General Togo may have passed on the documents and the like. I would like to ask whether the hearings for this have concluded, and what the status is.

Minister: I do not think that I should state specifics. That said, a lot has been printed in the newspapers, and although this is an inconvenience for us, we are currently conducting necessary investigations energetically.

Yamauchi, Nikkei Shimbun: I would like to ask again when approximately you plan to make the investigation results public.

Minister: This is difficult to say. The pieces of the puzzle still do not fit together very well. That said, we cannot spend too much time on this, so we are doing our work energetically.

8. Development of Gas Fields in East China Sea

Saito, Kyodo News: On the subject of the development of gas fields in the East China Sea, I was told that a director-general level discussion was held in Beijing. I understand this as an extension to your long-standing statement that discussions should be conducted at a high level. As of the current time, regarding the progress – I have also been told that it is a quite difficult matter, but I would like to ask your frank view on the matter now, and your views on what the greatest challenge is now, and how it should be overcome.

Minister: The director-general level discussion has just begun, so I want the director-generals to discuss the matter thoroughly. This issue is often being reported incorrectly, but there are two issues. Shirakaba (Chunxiao) is being developed by the Chinese, with investment by Japanese companies being envisaged. It is not joint development. This is often confused. In the north, it is joint development. Discussions of these two topics are both being advanced, but rules are necessary for specific procedures, so we need to enable the discussions to take place soon. Unfortunately, however, the discussions are still in the beginning stages. But our respective national leaders are in agreement, so I definitely want to move forward on this issue quickly. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will also be coming here, and a bilateral meeting will also be held at the Japan-China-South Korea Trilateral summit, so I think that we should settle on a course of action by then. But there is another party to these discussions, and the discussions have taken considerable time up to now, so it is a fact that there are some areas that are proving difficult to move forward.

Saito, Kyodo News: Although I understand what you are saying now, precisely speaking, I believe the details are that China is welcoming the financing of the development of Shirakaba by Japanese companies, in accordance with Chinese domestic law. I believe that this may be the background behind why those of us in the Japanese media have reported this, rather than as joint development in the narrow sense, as developing (Shirakaba) together in the broad sense. The Chinese are apparently calling this "cooperative development," but I think that this is because we have not been all that sensitive to the matter. On this topic, the reaction by the Japanese public has cast a significant shadow over the cooperation. In other words, do the Chinese see the reporting by those of us in the Japanese media, and the understanding of the situation by the Japanese media, by the Japanese public, as having some sort of influence on Chinese public opinion, and on this series of events having a negative influence on the advancement of talks, or is there a concern that this is the case?

Minister: The Chinese have not explained the matter in so much detail, so I think it is best not to speculate too much. But the agreement between our leaders explicitly separates "joint development" from "financing," so I think that saying it is "joint development" in broad terms is a rough way of saying, and it should be communicated accurately to the Japanese people. I think that this is the third or fourth time that I have said this, but I have always said that there are two of them. I would be grateful if the media could report this.

9. Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexico

Nanao, Niconico Video: I have a question about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that occurred in Louisiana. It has been reported that the size of the ocean area into which oil has flowed is nearly five times larger than the area of Tokyo prefecture, and it has been said that this could turn out to be the worst case of its kind in history. President Obama said in a statement that BP is responsible, and BP will pay for the cleanup, but do you intend or plan to offer technical cooperation from a diplomatic perspective to restore the environment, or something similar?

Minister: I do not have any specific plans at this time. Now first, the spill has got to be stopped. Companies and the US Government are now doing their utmost to do this. President Obama also went to the scene and gave a speech on this, so I think that Japan should stand back and observe for now. But at the same time, if there is something that Japan can do, then we would like to offer support, for example by supplying materials and equipment, or leaving aside whether Japan has superior technology in this area, if there is something that Japan can do, then we want to do it. As of this time, we have not taken any concrete actions. At any rate, this is a huge disaster, much bigger than the one in which tanker ran aground in Alaska. And ocean development has expanded considerably, so I believe that this kind of thing needs to be doubly and triply safeguarded. I feel that this kind of discussion should also be made at the international level.

10. Situation in Myanmar (Dissolution of NLD)

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: Regarding Myanmar, amid the circumstances in which the dissolution of the NLD (National League for Democracy) has been decided, when you stated that you would exert influence in order to achieve fair and open elections, what specific kind of influence is it possible to exert, and what can the Government of Japan do? Could you please tell us about this a little more specifically?

Minister: This is a very troubling situation. It has also been argued widely within the Ministry that there are not many courses of action available, but even if the NLD (National League for Democracy) is dissolved, a new political party could be formed. I have also heard reports that some moves have already been made in this direction. Also, given the fact that there are other political parties in addition to the NLD, we have emphasized strongly to the Government of Myanmar that these elections as such could by no means be called fair and open, but I think we should exert influence in a wide variety of ways in order to convince the Government of Myanmar to, shall I say, change their way of thinking, to hold fair and open elections. We have also asked the views of the ASEAN countries through each diplomatic channel, and we have collected a considerable amount of information. I would also like to have a discussion with United States Assistant Secretary of State Campbell, and coordinate our actions as much as possible. Since there are no truly groundbreaking courses of action, I believe that our only path now is to exert influence to change the way of thinking of the Government of Myanmar.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: To follow up, I think that the decision by NLD leader Aung San Suu Kyi has played a role in the decision to dissolve the NLD, and although I think that it is extremely unclear whether Aung San Suu Kyi will be able to participate in the general elections, conversely, do you plan to exert influence not only on the Government of Myanmar, but also on Aung San Suu Kyi's side, for example to convince them to create a new party and participate in the general elections, or the like?

Minister: According to what we have confirmed, the Government of Myanmar is stating that Aung San Suu Kyi cannot participate in the elections in the present situation. Of course, this could change depending on the timing of the elections. I think that we must include this in the influence we exert on the Government of Myanmar, and to answer your question, we would also like to communicate our views to Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi or to the NLD side on their participating in the elections in some form.

Kamide, Freelance: I am speaking from the perspective of having interviewed Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi 20 years ago when she won the election, but until now Japan's approach of constructive engagement has differed from the stance of the United States. Now you say that you are going to coordinate your actions, but I think that this raises the issue of intervening in the internal affairs of other countries. There is worldwide anger at what the military junta is doing, but I would like to ask you personally, what you believe the Government of Japan can do in this regard, including specific influence exerted on Aung San Suu Kyi.

Minister: Firstly, regarding our relations with the United States, the policies of the United States have changed since President Obama came into office. They are now following a policy of engagement. Rather than relying solely on sanctions, they are also engaging, and this is precisely why United States Assistant Secretary of State Campbell visited Myanmar. In other words, as a result the policies of the United States and Japan have come near into line. As far as what we can do, of course there are limits, because they are a sovereign state, but we can do things like not provide economic assistance, or not resume it easily even if we originally intended to do so. In addition, we can convince them that the international community will not accept anything other than fair and just elections. These are naturally things that we can do. When I had a discussion with their Foreign Minister in January during his visit to Japan for FEALAC (the Forum for East Asia-Latin America Cooperation), my impression was that he was quite positive. When the summit meeting with ASEAN was held in Japan, their Prime Minister took a fairly hard line at the meeting, but I think that in my meeting with their Foreign Minister in January, we were able to reach a fair level of mutual understanding, so I think that this decision is extremely unfortunate. But this does not mean, however, that there is absolutely no room for discussion.

11. Dispatch of SDF Troops to Sudan Based on International Peace Cooperation Law

Mizushima, Jiji Press: My question is on PKO activities in Sudan. It appears that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, and the Cabinet Office will be sending a fact-finding mission. Please let us know your thoughts on the possibility of actually sending troops there and the significance of studying this matter.

Minister: Officials in charge are scheduled to depart on the 7th (of May), but since the government was not planning to publicize this information very much, I do not know why this has come out. They are going there to conduct a thorough onsite investigation in order to get a grasp of what kind of needs exist there. The government intends to determine what needs to be done upon hearing their reports. Generally speaking, I feel that Japan should proactively get involved in PKO activities. This is not the only option. As there is a number of other (PKO missions), we intend to determine which of those would be the most appropriate for Japan to participate.

Back to Index