(* 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, May 11, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

US Military Realignment Issue
Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting
Reducing Burden of Bases in Okinawa
Postal Reform Bill
Japan-China Relations
Japan-United States Working Level Talks
Japan's Security Policy
Japan-US Working Level Talks
US Military Realignment Issue
Construction of SDF's Own Base in Djibouti

1. US Military Realignment Issue

Nishino, Kyodo News: This is in relation to the Futenma issue. I have been told that Prime Minister Hatoyama plans to visit Okinawa again on the 23rd, and meet again with concerned parties in Okinawa. Do you have any views on actions of this form to gain the understanding of Okinawa, while moves are underway to resolve the issue by the end of May?

Minister Okada: I am not aware if the schedule of the 23rd has been decided. The fact that this story is circulating among journalists, as pointed out at a press conference by the Chief Cabinet Secretary, but I do not think that the Chief Cabinet Secretary has said this. At any rate, we are moving forward with the aim of (resolving the issue) by the end of May, so as the Prime Minister has also stated, I think that each member of the Cabinet must work together and strive to gain the understanding of all concerned parties by the end of May.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Although I understand the position you stated at the end, that all members of the Cabinet must strive, Minister Fukushima has stated that she planned to put all her efforts into not building at Henoko. Viewed objectively, it is difficult to say that everyone in the Cabinet is in step as you aim at the end of May. What are your views on these movements within the Cabinet?

Minister: The end of May is approaching, so I think that we have to hold, shall I say a meeting of the relevant members of the Cabinet, or shall I say a Basic Policy Committee.
Today as well, when I sat next to the Prime Minister in the main chamber of the Diet, I advised him to explain the matter fully to Mr. Kamei and Ms. Fukushima. As for myself, during our round-table discussions of Cabinet ministers, I sometimes tell Ms. Fukushima that she should not tell against the cabinet in public when everyone in the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, is making efforts.

Mizushima, Jiji Press: My question is also related to the Futenma issue. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that if all of the local community, the United States, and the ruling coalition decide to move in a common direction, it is a resolution. Speaking of negotiations between Japan and the United States, will it be possible to make an agreement between Japan and the United States, even if it is just on the general direction to head?

Minister: If that is what the Prime Minister said, then that is exactly my answer. As a Cabinet Minister, I proceed in accordance with the basic views of the Prime Minister, so I have nothing in particular to add to this.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: My question is in regard to deterrence. Yesterday, you referred to deterrence when you discuss whether it (the US Marine or its facilities) should be in Okinawa at the Committee on Okinawa and Northern Territories Affairs. I also asked you this last time, but I would like to confirm with you again your views on whether it must necessarily be in Okinawa.

Minister: I stated that when considering deterrence, the Marines must essentially be in Japan. The reason I spoke in this way, which I believe I explained here before, is because when we discuss reducing the burden that the Marines bring to Okinawa, if you say that they have got to be in Okinawa, then this will not reduce the burden.
However, it would be extremely difficult to take all the Marines out of Okinawa, or in other words take them to someplace else in Japan. Also, there are also the geographical conditions of Okinawa, so I think that I should say that while endeavoring to reduce the burden to a greater degree, a certain-sized presence is, however, necessary.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: From what you have just said, it would be extremely difficult to move them to somewhere in Japan outside Okinawa.

Minister: All of them, yes.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: You said, all of them. I believe that this is because there are no localities that would accept them due to political considerations. This time it is not the United States military realignment, but the possibility of relocating the base to other prefectures than Okinawa that the Hatoyama government is considering. The government should have known the difficulty of the relocation of all the Marines in advance, as the LDP and Komeito governments suffered the same difficulty for a long time, including the Koizumi Administration. I believe that Prime Minister Koizumi said, "They agree to it in general, but not in the specifics." I understand that when the Hatoyama government tries to move them to somewhere specific in Japan other than Okinawa, it is very difficult to gain the acceptance of the local community, but I would like to ask if there was some sort of sounding out, or what actual actions were taken.

Minister: There are two meanings when I state that it would be difficult to move all of them. The first is that there is no place that will accept the entire Marine contingent, and the other is that the United States have reiterated that separating the training grounds, and moving the functionality other than training, or in other words the air station functionality, would extremely damage their operational efficiency.

2. Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting

Saito, Kyodo News: My question concerns the Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. This meeting is to be held in the ROK shortly, and I believe that currently, there are various issues confronting Northeast Asia. What kind of results does the Government of Japan, for its part, or you as the Foreign Minister, expect from this meeting?

Minister: The purpose of the Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting is to sort out matters that will be discussed at the Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Summit, which will be held two weeks later. The three countries will hold discussions on such matters as the economy, for example, a possible FTA among the three countries toward forming an (economic) community in the future, as well as security issues common to the three countries. In addition, in the case of Japan, I will be holding bilateral talks with the Foreign Ministers of China and the ROK, respectively. There are many things we have to discuss. While there will be trilateral issues, I believe that substantial debates must be held between Japan and China and between Japan and the ROK.

Shimada, Magazine X: With regard to a community in the future consisting of Japan, China, and the ROK, the EU is currently facing huge difficulties over Greece. Despite that, do you still think that an economic community or something similar is necessary in this region?

Minister: We are not thinking about reaching the level of the EU right away because our political systems are different within this region. I feel that we are quite far from any forms of integration, that could substantially lead to limiting sovereignty such as currency unification.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: Turning to the issue of the perception of history, as this year marks the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation of Korea, a group of Japanese and South Korean intellectuals issued a joint statement yesterday, the 10th. Haruki Wada, a professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo, is among those who initiated and helped organize the statement. In the joint statement, there is a passage that reads, “The treaty on (Japan’s) annexation of Korea was illicit and unjust, just as the process leading to the annexation was illicit and unjust.”
While an explanation is included in the joint statement, it is stated here that “the Japanese Government considers that the draft annexation treaty was concluded on equal terms and based on free will and shall come into effect at the time of its conclusion," etc., and I will skip the rest. It is also stated in the joint statement that in reviewing the (annexation) process, it is reasonable to determine that the Korea annexation treaty itself was illicit and unjust, just as the ROK side has asserted until now.
The statement has also been signed by Taichiro Mitani, who served as the chairman for the Japanese side at the first meeting of the Japan-ROK Joint History Research Committee. In that sense, although this year marks the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation of Korea, I feel that you cannot abruptly make a decision, but do you have any plans to study the possibility of reviewing the position that the government has so far maintained on this issue?

Minister: With regard to this point, it has already been confirmed in Article 2 of the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the ROK that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void. This is the view of the governments of the two countries.

Saito, Kyodo News: I feel that the ROK patrol ship sinking incident will likely be one of the topics on the agenda at the Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting. With regard to this incident, I recall that during your previous press conference, you said very simply that you “can understand” the so-called North Korean involvement theory, over which there is a big argument in the ROK at the moment, while, of course, acknowledging that the ROK Government has yet to make an official announcement.

Minister: Did I say “I can understand?”

Saito, Kyodo News: (You used) the word understand; you said that you “can understand.” The “North Korean involvement theory” is a term that I used in my question, and you did not say (use the term) North Korean involvement theory. In replying to my question, you said, “I can understand the moves within the ROK, the reactions themselves.” There is no question about that. If you say that you do not remember that, it will be difficult for me to pose further questions, but I wanted to confirm whether it is because you yourself have a certain view of the sinking incident based on your analysis of various information (you have obtained) so far that you said “I can understand” In addition, please tell us whether you intend to exchange various views on such matters during the Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting.

Minister: This is a very important issue. Since many people have been killed and it very likely was not an accident, this is a very serious issue, and I think that it will also be discussed at the Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Foreign Ministers' Meeting. However, I think it will be discussed at the meeting at a time when an official conclusion has yet to be drawn. Currently, people from a number of countries centering on the ROK and including the United States and Sweden are conducting investigations, and therefore, I feel that discussions should basically be conducted upon properly studying the results of the official investigations, and we should refrain from making decisive remarks beforehand.

3. Reducing Burden of Bases in Okinawa

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: This is not related to the Futenma issue, but in the context of reducing the burden of the bases on Okinawa, noise from Kadena Air Base is also a problem, and I think that there is a problem with Kadena Air Base itself as it is now, but even given this, recently aircraft from outside the base have been flying in. In these circumstances, the local community has continually passed resolutions opposing it and the like, but I think that the context in which the Hatoyama government speaks of reducing the burden on Okinawa is not just moving Futenma, but reducing the burden of the bases on Okinawa as a whole. In this sense, when outside aircraft come in amid these circumstances, I would like to hear your views on the fact that the local community keeps saying "no," the fact that the reaction to this, without ever getting a consistent answer, shows that there is no foreseeable fruit from these efforts.

Minister: As far as I confirmed when I went to Kadena, the aircraft belonging to Kadena itself are actually observing the time (limits), and refraining from taking off or landing at night or early in the morning. But aircraft belonging to other bases fly into Kadena even in those hours.
Reducing the noise at Kadena is also a vital topic in the regard of reducing the burden on Okinawa, so although of course it is not limited to this, I think that thorough discussions of this type of issue are needed between Japan and the United States.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: In relation to this issue, as I said earlier, local government assemblies and others take actions such as the passage of a resolution calling for the halt of the in-flight and transfer of outside aircraft, as they think it is not tolerable that aircraft come from outside and increase the noise, when the burden is already large.
They try to hand these resolutions to the local commander, to the Kadena commander in a letter of protest, however Kadena's Air Force commander is said to refuse to receive it, although they are people in charge of each command. They have continually been trying to hand these sorts of resolutions to them, but neither the local governments nor the local community understand why they would refuse to even receive it. I would like to ask if you have heard of this situation, and whether you plan to take any action regarding this situation.

Minister: I am not aware whether they refuse to receive them. But in light of what base staff told me when I went there, I think this is probably because it would exceed the authority of the responsible person, the command at the base. In other words, he does not have the authority to decide whether and when outside aircrafts come to Kadena's airport, and this must be discussed at a higher level. In this sense, I think that this topic must be discussed between the two governments.

Shimada, Magazine X: Regarding the burden of the bases, to my understanding, taking Futenma Air Base for example, when it was first built, there was almost no one living around it; then, as time passed, this area became established as an economic sphere. Even if the base were moved to an uninhabited island, it is possible that an economic sphere will develop there, and the number of residents would increase. Do you have any plans or the like for urban planning at the safe location that the base is moved to?

Minister: In the case of Futenma, it is my understanding that the base was built afterward, and it was not that nobody was living there. There were also schools and so on from the start, and although some things may have come after, it is a fact that there were schools at a fairly early stage. So considering your point, I think the idea is to as much as possible avoid building in places where people are likely to live. I think that the current plan was designed in line with this idea, but I would like to refrain from commenting beyond that at this time.

4. Postal Reform Bill

Kamide, Freelance: I think this is connected to Japan-US relations. I attended Financial Services and Postal Reform Minister Kamei’s so-called second press conference today. I will not directly quote it. because it would be too explicit, but during the press conference, he thought of the overall Japan-US relations and said that “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has reduced itself into becoming an external bureau of the United States.” He said something harsher, but in addition to this, he commented on various other issues such as the Futenma issue. Please tell us about your views, to the extent that you can, on the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with regard to these issues, including how Minister Kamei was actually commenting.

Minister: Today, before the Cabinet meeting began, Minister Kamei and I were sitting next to each other and we talked a little about the Futenma issue. Therefore, if he has something to state about the postal issue, I think he should have spoken to me directly at that occasion.

Kamide, Freelance: Have (the two of) you ever talked about that?

Minister: Today, we talked about the Futenma issue, but he never said anything like “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does as the United States says.” If he had said that, I believe I would have explained it properly, as a matter of fact. I do not think you should look at things with a certain mind set as such. If we did as we were told by the United States, we would not have all this fuss.

Iwakami, Freelance: Please allow me to pose a question in connection with the question that Mr. Kamide just asked. Being a modest person, Mr. Kamide did not provide a detailed explanation, but I was also present at Minister Kamei’s press conference. To put it accurately, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reportedly applied a lot of pressure on Senior Vice Minister Otsuka with regard to a series of tasks involved in (implementing) postal reform. Even the director-general of the International Legal Affairs Bureau came and said, “At this rate, Japan-US relations will be in a serious state. Specifically, postal reform is currently being promoted, and if (Japan) moves in that direction, it would be oppression against private businesses, including foreign-affiliated firms.” In this way, various senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reportedly came over again and again to apply pressure, calling for refraining from (implementing) postal reforms. Minister Kamei felt very angry about this and used words with strong nuances to express his anger, saying, “Which country does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs belong to? It is kind of like a branch office of the (US) State Department. It must be representing the national interests of the United States and the interests of foreign-affiliated firms.” He went on to say something like, “I will resolutely deflect (such pressure) until I get assassinated by the CIA.” Those are specifically the words that he used. Nevertheless, he boldly expressed his concerns and clearly spoke about senior MOFA officials, going as far as to mention the Director-General of the International Legal Affairs Bureau, at a place where could be freely accessed and could carry live broadcasts with reporters of Internet madia. Please tell us whether such a high-ranking official actually applied negative pressure, shall I say, or lobbied against postal reform, and how you feel about that.

Minister: First of all, almost two months ago, I gave internal instructions to properly follow up on the postal reform bill, in line under which Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Kira, or the Economic Affairs Bureau and the International Legal Affairs Bureau have held consultations on the bill for a long time. Although many of our views have been incorporated, I asserted that at the final stage, unless national treatment is properly secured for foreign financial institutions, Japan could be filed to WTO, and therefore, while keeping this in mind, an article that would serve as the grounds for it should be incorporated (in the bill). I had Parliamentary Vice-Minister Kira, the Director-General of the Economic Affairs Bureau, and the Director-General of the International Legal Affairs Bureau give a detailed briefing. As a result, changes, although slight, were made to the text (of the postal reform bill). This was finalized at a Cabinet meeting on the 30th of April, from which I was absent. By managing to exchange views immediately before that (the decision at the Cabinet meeting), some revisions were made to the text (of the bill), and the matter was settled amicably.
Although I cannot affirmatively say that there is absolutely no chance that other countries will file a case to the WTO against Japan, now that such revisions have been incorporated in the bill, we would be able to defend ourselves by saying that we have addressed the matter appropriately, in the event that a complaint is filed with the WTO against us. This is not about the United States saying this or that, but rather it is about international trade and commerce rules.

Iwakami, Freelance: Continuing on a related matter, please allow me to make a confirmation of what you just said. With regard to the revised text, please tell us, to the extent that you remember, which parts of the text were revised and how they were revised. You also said that it is not about the United States saying this or that, but I would appreciate if you could comment on whether there were such things as pressure or request from or lobbying by the United States -- in this case from both the government and the private sector of the United States.

Minister: We have received comments from the United States. However, we have received comments not only from the United States, but also from the EU. Therefore, unless we properly ensure the basic principle of national treatment or non-discrimination between domestic and foreign (services), or in other words, not giving special treatment only to Japanese firms, Japan would be subject to dispute at the WTO, for being very protectionist. Therefore, I believe that it is natural that we should properly respond to this as a common sense matter. It is not that we have been asked to do so by the United States, but rather that Japan, as a trading nation, must not do things that violate international rules.
I do not remember the text, but the writing was very technical. However, if the need arises, the bill is in such a form that we can say that there are such stipulations and Japan does not practice any discriminatory treatment.

5. Japan-China Relations

Saito, Kyodo News: My questions are related to (incidents in) the East China Sea. One concerns the issue of the navigation of Chinese ships, about which I asked you during the previous press conference. The other is about the issue involving the pursuit (of a Japanese survey ship) by a survey ship affiliated with the Chinese State Oceanic Administration. I recall that with all these things going on, you lodged a protest against the other side, and at the same time, you mentioned the need to create a mechanism for dialogue, should I say, or some kind of framework to prevent recurrences or avoid creating a contingency situation in the future. I would like to ask you a question in that connection. Of course, I believe that such things are very important. On the other hand, Chinese Ambassador to Japan Cheng Yonghua gave a lecture in Tokyo today and mentioned the importance of dialogue. I attended that lecture. However, the problem is that Japan and China are very far apart on the fundamental aspect of the issue. I am sure you are aware, but in response to our pointing out that it was improper for the (Chinese) marine survey ship to cross the median line (to the Japanese side), I think China intended to assert that since it does not recognize the median line in the first place, such an argument is invalid. That, I believe, was China’s reasoning. The problem is that if this situation is left unattended, the same thing can happen again. In other words, from our viewpoint, a (Chinese) survey ship would cross the median line and come (to our side). Then, once again, the Chinese fleet would navigate in waters near Japan, but since this is on the high seas, there is nothing wrong. Then, Japan’s (Maritime) Self-Defense Force (MSDF) ship would follow that fleet. This situation could occur in the future. Would it be possible to prevent this in one way or another? Can some kind of countermeasures be conceived so that such incidents will not happen? Of course, dialogue is important. In addition to such dialogue, are there other things that can be done? If you have any ideas, please tell us about them. At the same time, there is a Japan-China foreign ministerial meeting coming up. If you plan to take up something at this meeting, please tell us how you intend to do that.

Minister: I believe that we should properly conduct discussions in a more stringent manner. With regard to what you said, if Chinese ships, including military vessels, enter Japan’s exclusive economic zone, there is nothing wrong in terms of international law. You said that was the problem, but that is not correct. On top of that, while it is a very difficult problem as to how to address such matters as where the areas claimed by the two countries overlap, it is a problem that requires us to pool together our wisdom. Of course, the fundamental problem involves settling the matter by determining whether (the areas in question are separated by) the median line or is an extension of the continental shelf. If the problem cannot be solved easily and requires time, I believe that we have to pool together our wisdom to designate a tentative period, a period that would be required to settle the issue. In any case, regardless of whether the discussions will go that far, I would like to hold discussions at the Japan-China foreign ministerial meeting so that, as various incidents have continued to occur, these incidents will not be repeated over and over.

Saito, Kyodo News: In connection with the same question, I believe that what you just said is completely correct – that with regard to (Chinese) ships navigating in waters near Japan or inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone, there is no problem with that in terms of international law. With regard to that point, Ambassador Cheng made the following remarks today – that “this is a part of normal, ordinary training.” That was the first remark. The second remark he made was that “Japan is the only country that followed around our country’s ships.” In other words, he said, “Other neighboring countries, various countries face the East China Sea, but Japan was the only country that hounded our country’s ships. There are other countries, but none came out there. Therefore, I am worried that when such incidents occur, they could damage mutual trust.” He did not make any law-related remarks. He probably said to the effect that only you (Japan) did it, and this could damage Japan-China relations. I believe his comments point to a moral issue. In terms of this moral aspect, how do you view it from the standpoint of whether the (Maritime) Self-Defense Force’s latest actions were actions that somehow provoked the Chinese?

Minister: I do not know, since I have not confirmed whether there was only one country (that trailed the Chinese ships). In any case, ships are free to navigate on the high seas or through exclusive economic zones, so there is nothing legally wrong with watching ships that are in training from up close. These things are done ordinarily. The problem is, of course, coming so close that you sense danger, and this time, a Chinese helicopter came very close. Of course, the Chinese side is apparently saying that it did not come that close, but with regard to the issue of factual matters, my arguments are premised on what Japan has been saying, yet there are common sense rules. That does not mean that Chinese ships may not watch Japanese ships or Japanese and US ships in training from up close. There are no reasons for prohibiting that, but if they come so close that you sense danger, I feel that that is not acceptable. I hope that we can discuss these matters more calmly.

6. Japan-United States Working Level Talks

Nishino, Kyodo News: I am returning to my earlier question. You mentioned you had brought up the issue against Minister Fukushima in the Cabinet round table that she should not say too much in public. Did you also bring this up at today's Cabinet round table?

Minister: I did not do so today. I had also forgotten that I should not repeat what has been said at a Cabinet round table. Because it is in the past.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Also, I think that now is naturally the time for talks between Japan and the United States. I have been told that there will be working-level talks in Washington on the 12th, aiming for a resolution by the end of May. Since this is about the substance of these talks, I understand that it will be difficult to make a statement, although I feel that the Japanese people should be told clearly that you are holding working-level talks, please tell us, within the scope that you are able, whether working-level talks will be held on the 12th, what will be the focus, and what form of instruction you will give to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs personnel.

Minister: I cannot speak about the particulars. But as I said last time, this is the 50th anniversary of the Japan-US Security Treaty, so although I do not remember whether I said this here or at the Diet, I said that we will discuss our alliance at this juncture of the 50th Anniversary, but of course we will also use that time to discuss the Futenma issue. I would like to state now that the issue of Futenma will actually be the central focus of the next discussion. US Ambassador to Japan Roos and I have organized the fundamental approach to the issue to together, but there are still a few specifics that need to be worked out, so we will have discussions carried out at the working level from a technical perspective.

Beppu, NHK: Is it the understanding that negotiations are to be held at the working-level talks in order to work out technical issues? In other words, Japan is not be held not to negotiate, but to negotiating with the United States with a specific mandate to win something from the United States in those talks, correct?

Minister: Firstly, we do not use the phrase "working-level talks." Working-level officials will meet and have a discussion. That’s it. This is not something like an established meeting, which fixed members attend. Also, on the topic of the meaning of "negotiations," they will not only expand technical matters, but will also discuss a few points. I think that whether these (points) will first be decided there, or whether each side will take them back, then work them out between the Ambassador and myself will depend on how things progress.

7. Japan's Security Policy

Nanao, Niconico Video: This is a question from our viewers. Maybe it’s not his question but his view, to some extent. Anyway we received the following email. "I think that the issue of the Futenma base is not only an issue of the Democratic Party of Japan. Can't we discuss this throughout Japan, beyond party lines? Can't we get governors, or appointed representatives from Hokkaido to Okinawa, and discuss where to move them? I think that this would result in the will of the Japanese people as a whole." This is the email that we received. As the media reports a deadlock, I think it is a fact that the time is increasingly ripe for everyone to think together, and share the burden rather than just put it only on Okinawa. What do you think of this view?

Minister: Specifically, this has already been discussed at the Governors’ meeting and the like. As you said, the issue of the relocation of Futenma has spurred the people of Japan as a whole to discuss a little more what deterrence is, and why the US Military is in Japan, and I think that this is a very good thing. As I have explained at the Diet, situations are changing around Japan, such as the situation on the Korean peninsula, and the increase especially of naval power in China and other neighboring countries and amid these circumstances, several contacts have taken place between them and the Self-Defense Forces as I discussed earlier – a helicopter approached to Japan’s vessel within a dangerous distance. The question here is to what degree Japan can defend itself. Of course, the Self Defense Forces have extremely strong defensive capabilities, but they cannot make offensive attacks. They are strictly defensive forces. The United States is responsible for offensive actions, and I think that without this, it would be impossible to protect the lives of the Japanese people. In this sense, we have no choice but to rely on the US Military for deterrence. Of course, this is not just Japan. The US Military is here not only for Japan; but also for the peace and security of this region. Even under this premise, we cannot help but acknowledge that amid the various developments following the war, Okinawa came to bear an excessive share of the burden. We must somehow get the country as a whole to share (this burden). I would be very gratified to see the Japanese people considering this matter, which the Futenma issue symbolizes, and see them hold an interest in this issue. At the same time, I would like them to understand that Prime Minister Hatoyama is now working very hard to overcome difficulties with a view to somehow reducing the burden on Okinawa.

Iwakami, Freelance: I would like to ask a question in relation to deterrence. I believe you have said many times that the military capabilities of the Marines can serve as a deterrent. In 2009, former Minister of Foreign Affairs (Hirofumi) Nakasone stated that a threat by China to the Senkaku Islands would be covered by the Japan-US Security (Treaty), and the Aso government also responded (to the Diet) that this was covered by the Japan-US Security (Treaty). I would like to confirm one point here: regarding whether the Marines would be mobilized if China actually invaded the Senkaku Islands, the document on the transformation and realignment of the Japan-US alliance clearly states that Japan is responsible for island regions. That Japan bears the responsibility. It states clearly that the Self-Defense Forces have the primary responsibility for the defense of island regions, and the US Military will not be mobilized. I feel that this point is somewhat contradictory, but if there was actual, real action, military action, would the former government's response regarding the Japan-US Security (Treaty) be correct, or, as written in the document on transformation and realignment of the Japan-US alliance, would the Self-Defense Forces mobilize, with primary responsibility for the defense of island regions? Which one has precedence? Which one is correct?

Minister: I think that they are both correct. However, it is naturally Japanese people, the Self-Defense Forces, to have the primary responsibility for defending Japan. We cannot depend on the US Military for the defense of Japan as well. However, if there is something that the Self-Defense Forces cannot handle themselves, then we may borrow the capabilities of the US Military. I think that it goes without saying that Japan itself has the primary responsibility for defending Japan.

Iwakami, Freelance: Does this mean that if the Chinese military were to occupy the Senkaku Islands, the Self-Defense Forces would be mobilized, and if they could not handle it, then the Marines would join in later?

Minister: I think it is best not to discuss things too baldly. I will not speculate which country will do what, but Japan's territory includes plenty of islands, so the points is whether the capabilities of the Self Defense Forces are currently sufficient to protect Japan, and whether we should give them stronger capabilities to protect these island areas. I think that without a doubt this is one topic that ought to be discussed in the course of making a new National Defense Program Guidelines, where discussions are not at an academic level now, political debates being yet to come.

8. Japan-US Working Level Talks

Mizushima, Jiji Press: I would like to confirm your answer to Beppu from NHK just now. On the progress of the, was it talks in Washington at the working level, in your response you stated that whether a final decision is made, or whether you bring the issue back and work it out with the Ambassador, will depend on how things progress. Would I be correct in interpreting this as saying that depending on the stance of the United States, there is a possibility that a general agreement will be reached?

Minister: I think it would be difficult to get that far this week.

9. US Military Realignment Issue

Yamamoto, Seikainippo: I would like to confirm something in relation to deterrence. Prime Minister Hatoyama went to Okinawa, and said that he came to understand the deterrence of the Marines. I think that this invites a slight sense of disappointment, but in relation to this, in the last Friday press conference, you stated that you and the Prime Minister have had wide-ranging discussions on deterrence. I am not sure how your statement that you have discussed deterrence matches up with the Prime Minister's recent statement in Okinawa that he came to understand deterrence. Do you know the route that the Prime Minister took to reach this understanding?

Minister: People who do not know what kind of person Prime Minister Hatoyama is often speak of him in this way. The other day, Minister (Seiji) Maehara also responded to the Diet that it was possible that the Prime Minister had never considered deterrence until now. I also think so. However, he is an extremely modest person, I so think that at that time he was just speaking very modestly.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I feel that I have not received an answer from you regarding my earlier question. On the question of why it has to be Okinawa, I would like to ask specifically whether you specifically sounded out (local communities) in the discussion of moving (the Marines) out of Okinawa, or how you actually came to consider that it would be difficult to do so.

Minister: I think that one thing is that it would be extremely difficult to separate the training grounds from the base. I cannot go into specifics, since these are talks between Japan and the United States, but I think that this is one thing, the idea that it must be taken as a set. Then you might say we could just move this entire set somewhere, but unfortunately we were not able to find a suitable place. This is because a certain amount of facilities are needed, and training grounds are also needed. There was no specific place which could meet these conditions.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Did you specifically sound out local governments on this, or was it done within the government on paper only, by applying the conditions that occurred to you?

Minister: Specifically, the review committee headed by the Chief Cabinet Secretary explored many avenues, and I am not aware of how they did this.

10. Construction of SDF's Own Base in Djibouti

Iwakami, Freelance: According to an AFP dispatch at the end of April, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) is to construct a base in the African country of Djibouti. The article appeared in the form of an interview with an MSDF commander. It says that this would be the first overseas base since the end of World War II, but the report has not been widely reported in Japan. Please tell us as much as possible what kind of facility it will be, how it is positioned, and what its attributes are, as well as what significance it will have in terms of Japan’s strategy.

Minister: For anti-piracy operations, Japan currently sends not only vessels, but also aircraft. Those aircraft will require maintenance, among other things. It is necessary to secure space for those purposes. Whether we would call that a base is another thing. There is such a space at the moment, but we want to secure the space by properly concluding a contract with the Djibouti Government.

Iwakami, Freelance: Is it going to be just a maintenance facility? Will it have the attributes and scale of what could be called a military base, or will it be something that can only be called a maintenance facility with just a modest number of personnel stationed there and a modest amount of weapons and equipment? Can you please shed a little more light on those points?

Minister: I think it would be better for you not to visualize a base with an airfield. Various countries (operating in Djibouti) have aircraft and have secured space for them. I do not recall the exact number, but I think there are two SDF aircraft for watching pirate ships from the air. We do not have as many as 10 or 20 aircraft deployed there. It will not be something like a "base" you may describe in your mind.

Back to Index