(* 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 14, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) The Third Japan-Australia Joint Foreign and Defense Ministerial Consultations
Issue of Sinking of South Korean Patrol Ship
Northern Territories Non-Visa Exchanges
US Military Realignment Issue
China-related Issues
Japan-US Working-Level Talks
US Military Realignment Issue
Response to Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Suspected Kidnapping of Japanese National in Afghanistan
Visit to China by US Secretary of State Clinton
Meeting between Foreign Ministers of Japan, China, and South Korea
US Military Realignment Issue
US Military Realignment Issue

1. Opening Remarks

(1) The Third Japan-Australia Joint Foreign and Defense Ministerial Consultations

Minister Okada: I have only one announcement. The Third Japan-Australia Joint Foreign and Defense Ministerial Consultations, the 2 + 2, will be held on the 19th of May in Tokyo. A meeting between the Japanese and Australian foreign ministers is also scheduled prior to this. At the 2 + 2, it goes without saying that Minister of Defense Toshimi Kitazawa and I from the Japanese side and Defense Minister Faulkner and Foreign Minister Smith from the Australian side are scheduled to participate.
At the Consultations, we plan to discuss such issues as security cooperation between Japan and Australia, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, the regional framework, and the current regional situation. It is expected that through the Consultations, we will be able to further strengthen the strategic partnership between Japan and Australia.

2. Issue of Sinking of South Korean Patrol Ship

Yamamoto, Nihon Keizai Shimbun: My question is about the issue of the sinking of a South Korean patrol ship. The South Korean Government is expected to release the results of its investigations soon, but voices are rising within South Korea and elsewhere suspecting North Korea’s involvement. With regard to this issue, I believe that there will be an exchange of views during the trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of Japan, China, and South Korea, or during bilateral meetings this weekend, but between Japan and the United States, what kind of exchange of views have been conducted at the political level? And how do you intend to promote cooperation?

Minister: First of all, with regard to the issue of the sinking of the South Korean ship, investigations are currently being conducted centering on the South Korean Government, with the cooperation of a number of other countries, as you pointed out. I believe that the results of the investigations will come out shortly, but it has not been clearly decided as to when the results will be released. I feel that until the results of the investigations are released, we should not discuss the matter with a certain prejudgment, shall I say. However, this is a very serious matter. Many people have died. It is said that this likely was not an accident. Therefore, Japan, for its part, plans to deal with this issue by enhancing communications with South Korea, as well as by providing support, as South Korea, of course, is our neighbor and a very important partner.
In answering your question, with regard to whether this issue will be taken up during the Japan-South Korea bilateral foreign ministers’ meeting, I was asked various questions earlier at the Diet about matters other than this issue, and if I keep being asked whether this will be taken up or that will be taken up, and so I start talking about things beforehand, I will have to talk about everything, and therefore, I will not make any comments here. However, I intend to give a briefing to the Japanese people after the talks with regard to the outcome.
Japan and the United States are staying in close touch and maintaining cooperation over this issue. Therefore, I am thinking that the three countries, the United States, South Korea, and Japan, must properly collaborate to deal with this issue, and we are currently doing just that.

Yamamoto, TV Asahi: In connection with that, the results of the investigations by the South Korean side will have yet to come out during the Japan-China-South Korea talks to be held over the weekend, but are there any plans for the three countries to issue some kind of a message?

Minister: I believe that we should avoid saying things with a certain prejudgment before the results of the investigations are released. Of course, the Prime Minister and I have already expressed condolences to (the families of) the deceased, but I intend to express condolences once again with regard to such things to the South Korean people and the families of the victims. However, I feel that we should carefully avoid sending messages that are based on a certain assumption.

Saito, Kyodo News: During your press conference held the other day, you said in connection with the six-party talks, “Of course, I have no prejudgments, but depending on the results of the investigations, the six-party talks will be a long way off.” There’s no mistake that you made such a comment. Are there any changes to your position on this – that although the results have yet to be released, the six-party talks will be a long way off depending on the results? Or in other words, do you still maintain the position that first of all, it is important to find out the truth?

Minister: Yes, that has not changed at all. What I said previously has not changed either.

3. Northern Territories Non-Visa Exchanges

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: This morning, the first group of people to participate in non-visa exchanges departed for the island of Kunashiri. There are reports that the Russian side has asked for the submission of an application for port entry permit required by the Russian Ministry of Transport. First, tell us whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed this. In addition, while the group was scheduled to enter port at 2:00 p.m., please let me confirm whether they were able to safely enter port and land.

Minister: I have yet to confirm those facts. In any case, the Government of Japan cannot provide cooperation toward various matters that are based on the premise that the (four northern islands) are subject to the Russian Government.

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: With regard to the non-visa travel, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs told accompanying reporters the other day that video recording is prohibited and that they should refrain from freely conducting interviews and exclusive coverage activities. Please tell us whether you intend to think over this matter or review it.

Minister: I think that this is a matter of how you, the reporters, should judge the issue with such facts presented before you, rather than whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should review it. To begin with, coverage activities by accompanying reporters are not acknowledged under the framework of the four islands exchange program. Additionally, amid this situation, the Russian side, in particular, view video recording as a problem.
In order to avoid unexpected situations or for the smooth implementation of the four islands exchange program, we have determined that reporters’ activities must be kept in line with the activities of ordinary group members. If a reporter comes with plans to engage in other activities, it can naturally be expected that this would make it difficult to carry out the four islands exchange program itself. It is in that sense that we are saying so.

Nishino, Kyodo News: My question is also related to this, but while there may be logical reasons, amid the fact that there are various conflicting views on Japan’s title to the Northern Territories, free news coverage activities have been authorized for all practical purposes so far, but this time, restrictions have been placed, being shoved over by the Russian side. Don’t you recognize that this is not a matter of relations between reporters and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but that Japan as a whole is being shoved over by the Russian side?

Minister: To begin with, news coverage activities have not been approved. I can understand your point that free news coverage activities should be approved, but at the moment, Russia is effectively in control (of the four islands). I think that we should avoid allowing the four islands exchange program itself to be hampered as a result of conducting free news coverage activities under such conditions.

4. US Military Realignment Issue

Iwakami, Freelance: On the 13th, the governors of the Northern Mariana Islands and Guam came to Japan. They apparently were supposed to meet with Prime Minister Hatoyama, but at the last minute the Prime Minister‘s Office called it off, and State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Takemasa from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will meet with them instead. Although I do not know whether the meeting itself was cancelled in the end, or whether it was postponed, this apparently occurred. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are relocation destinations for the Marines. There has been criticism that despite the fact that their governors were to meet with the Prime Minister, including regarding this issue, this cancellation was a bit rude. Could you explain the background for the cancellation by the Prime Minister's Office, and whether someone from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will go out to meet them instead.

Minister: I am not aware of how the Prime Minister’s Office handled it. I am completely unaware of the facts: whether they had agreed to meet, or whether there had been conditions attached. I therefore will refrain from commenting.
Speaking of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, since they are governors, I decided to have a State Secretary for Foreign Affairs meet them, and asked State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Takemasa to do so.

Iwakami, Freelance: I would like to confirm one point. I was told that Prime Minister Hatoyama was willing to meet with them, but the Prime Minister’s Office refused. Was this true?

Minister: I do not know anything about this at all, so I am not aware about whether the Prime Minister planned to meet with them either. By all means, please confirm this with the Prime Minister’s Office.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: With regard to the governors of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, councilor Kawauchi of the Democratic Party went to a local parliamentary round table on the Okinawa bases issue, where he received a handwritten letter addressed to the Prime Minister from the governors, which he delivered personally to the Prime Minister’s Office. Although the details of that letter are not known, I understand that in general, the letter at least states that they welcome the coming of the Marines, and that essentially 8,000 Marines would be relocated to Guam, but that they would welcome something more. I would first like to ask whether you are aware of the details of this letter, and what you think of its contents.

Minister: If there were such a letter, I think that a copy of it would be delivered to me, but as of this time I have not seen it.

Nishizato, ZDF: I have been told that the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands was quite early to decide to welcome them, but the reaction from the Japanese media has been lukewarm. What has been the view of the Government of Japan on this point? Is it that you cannot get the agreement of the United States? I think that this place meets the criteria of being outside Japan, and reducing the burden on Okinawa. Why hasn't this topic been moved forward?

Minister: Firstly, about the issue of relocating Futenma: it is not that it can be relocated just anywhere. Maintaining the deterrence capability of the US forces in Japan is a precondition of the discussion. So, regarding the 8,000 Marines slated to be relocated to Guam, the Government of Japan agrees to this because mostly headquarters functions are to be relocated. Speaking of relocating more than 8,000 (Marines) to Guam, I believe that the governor of Guam said that more than 8,000 would be impossible, but in any case, I believe that relocating more than 8,000 (Marines) to Guam or neighboring Northern Mariana Islands would post problems for maintaining deterrence.

Iwakami, Freelance: You just said that you recalled the mayor of Guam having said that more than 8,000 would be impossible, but beforehand the members of the parliamentary round table observed Saipan and Tinian, and their report on returning to Japan stated that it is not impossible because of the number of 8,000, but rather because they lack infrastructure. The report stated that they would have sufficient capacity if they had the infrastructure. I believe that communication is still lacking, but could you speak on this point, including (this report)?

Minister: Be that as it may, we still have the perspective of deterrence. Of course, as far as I am aware, I recall that the governor of Guam also stated 8,000 Marines is the limit as the proportion to the population as a whole. It is not just a problem of infrastructure. In this small area, let alone these 8,000 (Marines), there is already a US military presence there as well. It is my understanding that the governor has therefore stated that this volume coming would be the limit. However, I am not aware of what is being said lately.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Every time, you speak of deterrence, but I would like you to define your view of what "deterrence" is.

Minister: As I have said here many times before, deterrence is the idea of making another country refrain from attacking, because if it does, then it will suffer the same or worse damage in a counterattack. I think that this is the basic concept of deterrence.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: This would mean that one would have to conjecture about how the other side is thinking, but then you always say that it is better not to say specifically which country. Naturally, there are some assumptions being made. The other side makes an estimate of what they assume our military strength, or deterrence is, and we in turn calculate their estimate of us. I believe the argument is then that we have deterrence or we do not because of (this calculation). What threats – what functions of the Marines are the other side estimating with regard to attacks from this other party that you believe would be met with a counterattack?

Minister: Asking about which parties, which countries are making what estimates of the Marines does not go beyond the realm of speculation. However, the Marines themselves have extremely rapid response capabilities, and powerful strike capabilities as well. I therefore think that the Marines are generally recognized as being a powerful presence.

Iwakami, Freelance: I have a question about the deterrence capabilities of the Marines. Kyoji Yanagisawa, special researcher at the National Institute for Defense Studies of the Ministry of Defense, is an expert on this subject, and I recall that this year there were articles on the Asahi Shimbun and Mainichi Newspapers. I believe that on the Mainichi Newspapers he had a talk with Satoshi Morimoto, and I believe he posted an essay to the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, but (Yanagisawa) has written about the deterrence capability of the Marines from his perspective as an expert, and he emphasizes that the Marines can be mobilized around the world, and where they are stationed is not a question of military expediency, but a political decision, and whether they are in Okinawa or Guam is not a major issue. He emphasizes that politicians should make this decision. He also states regarding rapid response capabilities, that it is not possible that the Marines would be mobilized immediately for island regions, and be used for the first strike in a counterattack. I also asked this question last time, but although he did not write this, the transformation and realignment of the Japan-US alliance also determined that the Self-Defense Forces would be the primary defense of island regions. You said that the Self-Defense Forces were the primary defense before this.
This means that regarding this rapid response capability, the Marines will never be the type of force that goes into action as soon as an incident occurs. Thus, although I am not saying that they could be stationed anywhere, it is not possible that they must be stationed close to the front lines. Isn't this definition of deterrence extremely vague, and aren't you explaining this matter with the (definition of) deterrence left vague? It was a proposal that at least, the explanation should be that they are stationed here because of military expediency, or political reasons.
Could you again tell us the details of this deterrent capability, breaking it down into segments, including these points?

Minister: I have been friends with Mr. Yanagisawa for the past 15 years, but I did not know that he thought this way until recently. He served for many years in the government as the Assistant Chief Cabinet Secretary for National Security Affairs, and of course he has been in a vital position in the Ministry of Defense, so if he thinks this way, then I think that he should have definitely discuss this at that time.
But I think that the fact that Mr. Yanagisawa, whom I respect, makes this argument shows that there are many views on the topic of deterrence. Today I was also asked many questions by lawmakers from the Liberal Democratic Party to the effect that (the definition of) deterrence is manifest, and I brought up the subject of Mr. Yanagisawa, and said that there is also this argument, and although I do not support it, some also make this argument. In other words, this is not the kind of discussion that is black and white no matter who looks at it. There are still many things that need to be discussed, and I was actually the one who brought this up.
Thus, the island regions are one example of this, but I think the issue is what the current capabilities of the Self-Defense Forces are. I think that precisely because of this, we will see discussion from now until the end of the year over the necessity of increasing the capabilities of the Self-Defense Forces with regard to the National Defense Program Outline. It is natural to think that if the Self-Defense Forces cannot handle something, then the Marines will do so in their place. They cannot just fold their arms and ignore the matter.
Now speaking of Guam and Saipan, they are a little too far in terms of distance. Given the current issues with North Korea, or the military buildups in the countries in our vicinity, I must say that I think that having the Marines stationed in Okinawa is extremely vital for the security of Japan. This is how I feel.

5. China-related Issues

Saito, Kyodo News: I believe that along with the trilateral meeting of the foreign ministers of Japan, China, and South Korea, a Japan-China foreign ministerial meeting between you and Mr. Yang Jiechi will be scheduled, and there will be various issues. While I think there will be such issues as the East China Sea, gas fields, and food safety, I feel I should not be asking you any questions concerning these, as you said you would not answer such questions in advance. Nevertheless, as long as you will be holding talks, please tell us your thoughts on what topics you intend to discuss and what you hope to achieve.

Minister: I was asked the same question at the Diet, and as I have already said that these are matters that I will not talk about in advance, I plan to disclose after the meeting on what we discussed. As such, it is true that there are various important issues, and I intend to hold thorough discussions as long as time allows.

Saito, Kyodo News: Keeping it separate from the meeting, my question is about issues of concern between Japan and China. Let me ask you strictly on the part concerning the 10 Chinese Naval ships navigating in the East China Sea. I am excluding the part about the helicopter. None of the areas where the 10 ships navigated is within Japanese territorial waters, and any ship has the right to pass through the high seas and EEZs. I am aware of that. On the other hand, I believe that it is in consideration of such a situation that the Chinese side is saying that these activities are a part of normal training and neighboring countries should get used to them. I think that this comment does not necessarily point to the helicopter.
This is repetitious, but I feel that it means that the Chinese ships will continue to pass through the high seas and EEZs. China will continue to conduct similar exercises this year, next year, and two years from now, moving forward. More frequently and in larger numbers. It is that Japan cannot help but accept this as not being any problem in terms of international law? I think that this is problematic not only from the legal aspect but also in terms of security, national sentiments, and various other aspects. Please tell us how you feel about this.

Minister: National sentiments are an issue of emotional feelings, so it is very difficult to speak about it in a definitive manner, but I feel that we cannot help but accept what is acceptable in terms of international law. However, it can still be argued that (Japan and China) should mutually enhance their communications. If we agree on advance notification, I believe that Japan, too, will have to provide advance notification of its exercises. That would be an issue of reciprocity, and I plan to have our officials study this matter well regarding what should be done and to what extent.
Of course, we have the other side to deal with, so regardless of what we assert and how hard we assert, if we lack any grounds in terms of international law, the only solution is for the two sides to achieve mutual understanding. Therefore, rather than addressing ships’ passing through as such, I feel that we need to thoroughly think about what can be done to prevent tensions from rising greatly as a result of some mistake made during exercises.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: I would like to ask you about how you think of the current state of Japan-China relations. I believe that ever since the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) came into power, the Chinese side had initially held expectations that the relations would further progress. Recently, however, various issues such as those related to the East China Sea have surfaced, and although the talks over gas fields have been upgraded to the bureau chief level, the current situation is that not much progress has been made in the talks. Please tell us, from your viewpoint as the Foreign Minister, whether Japan-China relations are currently progressing smoothly or are slightly at a standstill.

Minister: Basically, I feel that Japan-China relations, including exchanges between the leaders of the two countries, have deepened. That is why the Chinese Premier is coming to Japan. There was a time when there were no such exchanges between leaders. That was not too long ago. Amid this situation, however, there are a number of matters of concern. I feel that it is important to thoroughly discuss each of those matters and overcome them together.
Therefore, as the foreign minister, instead of laying back on the fact that good relations are continuing at the moment or that the relations have deepened, I would like to take the approach of thoroughly resolving each issue currently confronting us in order to further deepen the bilateral relations in the future.

6. Japan-US Working-Level Talks

Beppu, NHK: With regard to the exchange of views related to the Futenma issue conducted at the working level in Washington, please tell us whether the outcome and the like were within the scope of your expectations or satisfactory to you, and based on those results, how you intend to proceed with the matter, moving forward.

Minister: Since it has been decided that we will not speak about individual matters, I have nothing much to say. However, it is a fact that there was an exchange of views centering on the Futenma issue at the latest round of talks. Since it is a very difficult issue, it is not so simple to arrive at a conclusion, but I believe that the talks were meaningful and that progress has been made. I think that such talks need to be held, moving forward.

Takahashi, Jiji Press: I understand your position that it is difficult to speak about individual matters, but there are two major policies about which Prime Minister Hatoyama has publicly spoken through his own words to the Japanese people. One is that the Prime Minister has asked Okinawa to continue bearing the burden, and the other is that he has asked Tokunoshima Island to take on a part of the functions of Futenma. Do you acknowledge that progress was made on those two points?

Minister: Indeed, I have no intention to speak about the details of individual matters. There is the other side to which we have to give due consideration. However, concerns have been expressed on the spot with regard to what the Prime Minister said. In addition, with regard to such matters, there are cases in which discussions should in fact be held among working-level officials and cases in which discussions should basically be held between Ambassador Roos and me through diplomatic channels.

Higa, Kyodo News: With regard to a question concerning deterrence, you replied that it was very important to the security of Japan to have the US Marine Corps stationed in Okinawa. Is this your personal view or does it mean that the government has arrived at such a conclusion?

Minister: I have consistently said for quite a while that it is necessary to have (the Marine Corps) stationed in Okinawa. We have indeed been holding discussions on reducing the burdens shouldered by Okinawa, so even if deterrence were necessary, I have said that deterrence is necessary for Japan, as I wanted to avoid referring to Okinawa from the beginning. In reality, there are no concrete moves at the moment toward the relocation as a package, along with training areas, to sites other than those within Okinawa. Therefore, I feel that it would be difficult to achieve this by the end of May. While it includes all of those things, I would like to say that the presence of the Marine Corps in Okinawa is necessary for Japan’s security.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: You said earlier that resolving (the issue) by the end of May would be difficult.

Minister: No, I meant (relocation to a site) other than those in Okinawa.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: Various reports have come out saying that the relationship of trust between Japan and the United States would waver as resolving the issue by the end of May would be difficult. Since this is an issue that did not move forward for 14 years under the previous administration, the administration under the Liberal Democratic Party, even after the relocation site was decided. Therefore, while the early return and relocation of Futenma Air Station is delayed, I doubt that this single issue is affecting the overall relations between Japan and the United States. What are your thoughts on what President Obama considers as the utmost priority in the overall US-Japan relations?

Minister: I do not know how President Obama feels, but after holding discussions with US diplomatic authorities including Secretary of State Clinton, I believe that they feel that the Japan-US alliance itself is indeed very important. I firmly believe that the United States naturally understands that it is because of the Japan-US alliance that regional stability has been maintained, including responses to various issues such as global issues, North Korea, Iran, or the global warming issue, as well as issues in the Asia-Pacific region, and that the United States has reaped benefits.
However, that does not mean that is it all right to shelve the Futenma issue, and I believe that it is necessary to properly resolve this issue.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: In that case, since it would not be beneficial to the stability of the region and to the United States if the Japan-US alliance were to waver as a result of the Futenma issue, there would be room for negotiations and various conditions. May I understand that in the process of combining Japan’s assertions and the assertions of the United States, there would be room for negotiations, not limited to the original relocation plan?

Minister: It is slightly difficult to find the proper wording for this, but given that the Japan-US alliance is necessary for Japan as well as the United States, thorough discussions have been held, and I believe that such discussions will have to be conducted, moving forward. At the same time, with regard to the environment surrounding Japan – as the matter about the Chinese Navy has come out earlier – it is clear that China’s military capability has increased. Also, it is a fact that North Korea has repeatedly conducted missile tests and even conducted a nuclear test. Amid such an environment in the surrounding areas, I have reason to believe that the United States also feels strongly that the Japan-US alliance must indeed be managed properly for the security of Japan itself and for the United States to fulfill its commitment in this region.

Kamide, Freelance: In connection with that, as I have listened to the issue of “deterrence,” I feel that it is an unsophisticated issue on which various discussions have been conducted in the Diet, but thinking in terms of how the new government differs from the LDP government or the LDP-New Komeito coalition government, Foreign Minister Okada’s explanation can be taken as being more thoughtful of or giving more consideration, shall I say, to the United States.
In contrast, I think there are arguments that “the presence of a substitute is raising tensions in the Far East,” but on the other hand, there are arguments that this (US military presence) “arouses China and North Korea.” Considering how debates have been held on “what deterrence really means” for the Japanese people, such debates have fundamentally not been held very much at all, including by the mass media, and it is amid this situation that the current Futenma issue has been running astray all over the place.
Considering these things, please explain to us how you intend to have the people think seriously about this so-called “importance of deterrence” issue, including whether this is your own view as mentioned earlier or the view of the entire government.

Minister: I believe that this understanding is shared among at least the five ministers in charge of this issue. I have hardly heard any arguments that “tensions rise because of the presence of the US forces.” Perhaps there are some people who think so, but that is not our position. “To firmly protect Japan itself and the lives of the Japanese people, as well as to ensure national security” is indeed one of the major responsibilities of the government. As it is clear that this cannot be achieved with the exclusively defense-oriented Self-Defense Forces alone, I think that it is one of the most important roles of politics to firmly secure these things with support from the US forces. If you are asking how the DPJ differs from the previous administration with regard to fundamental beliefs, or in other words that “the Japan-US alliance is important” or that “the Japan-US security arrangement is necessary,” I think you may safely assume that there are no differences.

7. US Military Realignment Issue

Nishizato, ZDF: You used the term "deterrence capability of the Marines," but I think that having bases in Japan as a whole, or in Okinawa, are of course a deterrent, but it is my understanding that the Marines are a landing force, so I think that according to your earlier explanation, their deterrence capability is in counter-invading an attacking country, but conversely, are you stating that the battle with the attackers would be fought in Okinawa? Another thing: Futenma has been called the world's most dangerous airfield. Given the fact that the resolution of the ongoing issue of Futenma has been put on hold for 14 years, I feel that debating the issue of just the Marines in terms of deterrence loses the focus a little. I was told that you proposed that it be merged with Kadena, but has the approach of maintaining (the Marines) without building a new airfield been retracted?

Minister: Fighting in Okinawa – if we are invaded, then of course we must stop that invasion, whether it is in Okinawa or Tokyo. I think that we cannot let ourselves be invaded and do nothing about it. Also, I said that we should verify the issue of merging with Kadena. Japan and the United States performed this verification. As a result, I do not think that merging with Kadena is optimal as a concrete proposal.

Iwakami, Freelance: This is a continuation from my question that uses the words of Mr. Yanagisawa. This is from when he was Assistant Chief Cabinet Secretary. In the article I mentioned earlier, Mr. Yanagisawa referred to a case concerning whether to send out the Coast Guard, or whether Chinese warships had made an incursion into our territorial waters; I believe it was probably a case like that, but there was a time when he was Assistant Chief Cabinet Secretary that the situation was extremely tense. He was extremely anxious over whether the US forces would actually come to our aid. In other words, when he occupied a truly key role in the government, he stated that he questioned whether we could actually rely on the US forces. I think that this is an extremely vivid and important testament to the fact that just because we have an alliance does not guarantee that we can count on the US forces when the time comes. Before and after the (May) holidays, you were asked questions along the lines of whether we should have autonomous self-defense, or whether we can count on the US forces. Before the holidays, you were rather negative about autonomous self-defense efforts; you said that when it comes to autonomous self-defense, it would be too costly, and that it would take 2 to 3% of our GDP. Then after the holidays, although I do not know if you had a chance to recharge your batteries, now you are rather positive about the Self-Defense Forces; you say that the Self-Defense Forces have the primary responsibility of defense. This may also be a question of nuance or tone, but after hearing earlier the statements of Mr. Yanagisawa, whom you respect, I would like to hear your views on the facts of real defense.

Minister: Firstly, I will not comment because I have not confirmed that Mr. Yanagisawa made a statement in the sense that you stated. However, the alliance is not just something that is written on paper; I think there is no doubt that it requires constant efforts from both sides in order to increase its effectiveness. Next, I think that it is true that the Self-Defense Forces have the primary responsibility of defense. Of course, Japan and the United States may sometimes have joint responses, the general roles are of defense and offense; the Self-Defense Forces handle defense, and the US forces handle offense. If we were to handle all of this via autonomous self-defense, then as I said last time, cost would of course be one issue. Even countries who are members of the NATO collective security framework normally spend 2%, 3%, or even more of their GDP. Another issue is that I think it would be impossible to find an interpretation under Article 9 of the Constitution that would allow us to go with autonomous self-defense, unless we change the Constitution to add a clear provision for offensive capabilities.

Iwakami, Freelance: I would like to confirm just the last part of your answer. What I am envisioning is, for example, if the Chinese Navy were to invade the Senkaku Islands, I think that the question is whether the Marines, which are said to be the deterrent force of the US military, would not be used, and that the Japanese Self-Defense Forces would defend them instead. In this case, hypothesizing a clear invasion, then wouldn't our right to self-defense, allowed by the Constitution, be invoked to defend us? Or would this bump against the issue of the right of belligerency, which is denied by the Constitution?

Minister: If Japan were invaded, then the current Constitution allows us to stop that invasion. I believe that we are authorized the right of self-defense as a nation. But if we were to leave Japanese territory and strike the other side, then I think this would raise constitutional questions. There has been much discussion in the Diet over whether everything is disallowed, so I will not go into detail over that. But I think that we can say that the Constitution actually places limitations on possessing offensive capabilities like ordinary countries, and to take offensive action against the other side.

8. Response to Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Nanao, Niconico Video: Let me ask you a question on behalf of our viewers. More than 80,000 pigs and cattle are to be slaughtered as a result of, among other things, their contracting the foot-and-mouth disease, which has been spreading in Miyazaki Prefecture. Various information has sped through the Internet, causing anxieties to spread substantially. There have been reports that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries has decided to suspend the export of all beef, regardless of whether it (the meat is from cattle that) has contracted the disease. It has also been pointed out that at this rate, rumors will spread not only throughout Japan, but also overseas. Is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs planning to take some kind of action vis-à-vis overseas regarding these points?

Minister: Some kind of what?

Nanao, Niconico Video: For example, is the Ministry thinking about approaches to foreign countries to prevent reputational risk?

Minister: Nothing like that has come up to my level yet. Foot-and-mouth disease is not necessarily so uncommon. From a global perspective, it has been happening. In any case, I think we have to prevent the spread of damage, and to that end, we must act quickly. I feel that Miyazaki Prefecture and the government must work together on this.

9. Suspected Kidnapping of Japanese National in Afghanistan

Hatakeyama, Freelance: My question is about the case of freelance journalist Kosuke Tsuneoka, who has been missing in Afghanistan. One and a half months have passed since contact has been lost. During this time, various information have circulated, such as that he has been put in prison to secure his safety or that a group has come out and said that he is in their custody. At the moment, has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs been able to confirm his safety and whereabouts, among other things?

Minister: I have consistently said from the beginning that with regard to this issue, we would like to refrain from commenting on the specifics.

10. Visit to China by US Secretary of State Clinton

Yamauchi, Nihon Keizai Shimbun: I have heard that US Secretary of State Clinton, who is your counterpart, is scheduled to visit China on the 24th and 25th of this month for the US-China strategic dialogue in Beijing. Is she scheduled to stop over in Japan after this to hold discussions with you on a wide range of topics? Or is this under consideration?

Minister: At the moment, no such plans have been decided.

11. Meeting between Foreign Ministers of Japan, China, and South Korea

Saito, Kyodo News: My question is regarding a meeting between Japan and South Korea. I am not asking about the outlook for a meeting between Japan and South Korea. Looking at Japan-South Korea relations as a whole, since the current administration came into power there have been a number of incidents, but I would like to ask whether they are progressing overall, and specifically, about the level of trust between the leaders, or about negotiations of an economic partnership, or about territorial issue, the issue of Takeshima. Although there are many positive and negative aspects, I would like to ask your comprehensive view on whether progress has been made overall to date.

Minister: I think that relations between Japan and South Korea have strengthened since the Hatoyama administration came into power, including the level of trust between the leaders. As part of that, you now mentioned economic issues, but talks of an FTA (free trade agreement) with South Korea have been stalled for some time now. I have been making a variety of efforts in order to somehow reopen these talks. Overall, I think that in this sense the relations between Japan and South Korea have grown stronger. However, this is an extremely sensitive year, as it marks the 100th anniversary since the annexation of Korea by Japan, so I think that both countries are probably cautious about strengthening relations, and that even more effort than in the past will be required this year.

12. US Military Realignment Issue

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Last time, I also asked about visiting aircraft, but 20 Marine Hornet fighters have flown from their base in Iwakuni to Kadena for training. One of these aircraft took off from Kadena armed with what are thought to have been cluster bombs, and when it returned these weapons were no longer there, so it is believed that it must have dropped them somewhere. I have heard that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs inquired with the United States over this matter. I would like to ask whether there has been a response from the United States, and how this has been handled.

Minister: Your statement was also debated earlier in the Diet. When we confirmed with the United States, they responded that they perform regular training necessary in order to meet the goals of the Japan-US Security Treaty, and that for operational reasons, they cannot reveal the details of the nature of the training, the munitions used, or the locations where training is performed.

13. US Military Realignment Issue

Iwakami, Freelance: Yesterday, Mr. George Packard came to the House of Representatives on his trip to Japan and gave a lecture before the lawmakers from the Democratic Party of Japan. Before that, he wrote an essay titled "The US-Japan Security Treaty at 50," for Foreign Affairs, in which he states that the current tension in the relations of Japan and the United States are primarily due to the heavy-handed tactics of the US military, which made the Futenma issue worse. He is actually critical of the blunders of the US side, and says that this problem is extremely small in the relations between Japan and the United States, and that it should not be causing this kind of tension. He says that the United States should rather gradually reduce its bases, and that it should listen to what Japan has to say. I was told that he made his lecture from an extremely liberal stance, and that he also says that the US military's idea that Okinawa is some feudal fiefdom that it won with blood is inexcusable. After that, he apparently will go to the Ministry of Defense, and also give a lecture at an academic meeting or something of the sort. I feel that there is some kind of deep meaning behind his coming to Japan at this time and delivering this message, but please tell me your views on these statements by a scholar from the US establishment.

Minister: I recall that Mr. George Packard was the person who wrote a biography of Ambassador Reischauer. I think that this was an excellent book, which is extremely valuable for increasing awareness of Japan-US relations. Now, however, a person who is not a member of government has stated a variety of views, and of course he is free to do so, and I think that this is one piece of evidence that this kind of view exists in the United States, but I would like to refrain from commenting on the particulars of his statements in my capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, from the perspective of the government.

Back to Index