(* 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 21, 2010, 6:55 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Meeting between Japanese and US Foreign Ministers
- (2) Visit to Japan by Afghan President Hamid Karzai
Japan-China Foreign Ministerial Meeting (South Korean Patrol Ship Sinking Incident)
South Korean Patrol Ship Sinking Incident
Meeting between Japanese and US Foreign Ministers (US Military Realignment Issue)
Meeting between Japanese and US Foreign Ministers (Hague Convention)
Meeting between Japanese and Chinese Foreign Ministers (Urging China to Reduce Its Nuclear Arsenal)

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Meeting between Japanese and US Foreign Ministers

Minister Okada: Today, my first statement is about a Foreign Ministers' meeting between Secretary of State Clinton and myself, followed by a meeting between Prime Minister Hatoyama and Secretary of State Clinton.
Firstly, about the meeting between the Japanese and US Foreign Ministers: although I will not make any statements beyond the briefing, or press conference, earlier at the venue, we spoke for about an hour over a range of issues, and I think that we had a valuable exchange of views. The central topics were the response to the sinking of a South Korean patrol ship, the response to the Iranian nuclear issue by the UN Security Council, and an exchange of views over China, as the Secretary of State will next be traveling to China. We also of course exchanged views over the outlook for the Futenma issue.
We also exchanged views over the topics of the Hague Convention and the issue of Myanmar, although we did not spend too much time on these. This was my fifth meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, and I think that it was an extremely valuable exchange of views.
The Prime Minister spoke with the Secretary of State for about 30 minutes. In this discussion, the Prime Minister first spoke about the issue of relocating Futenma, and the Prime Minister and Secretary of State confirmed the importance of the Japan-United States alliance amid the current security environment, especially the issue of North Korea. I would like to hear any questions you have beyond that later.

(2) Visit to Japan by Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Minister: My other point is the visit to Japan by the Afghan President (Hamid) Karzai. He will be visiting Japan from Wednesday, June 16, until Sunday the 20th. The reconstruction and stability of Afghanistan is one of the key challenges for the international community, and Japan has also supported Afghanistan actively.
During the president's visit, we will request an explanation of the initiatives of the Government of Afghanistan with regard to such issues as strengthening governance and improving security. We also plan to discuss the effective implementation of the measures to support Afghanistan announced by Japan in November of last year.

2. Japan-China Foreign Ministerial Meeting (South Korean Patrol Ship Sinking Incident)

Chan, Global Chinese Press: With regard to the South Korean patrol ship sinking incident, there is a high possibility that the South Korea will take the matter to the UN Security Council. In that case, does the Government of Japan plan to call on the Chinese Government to cast a vote in favor (at the UNSC) on the occasion of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to Japan, for example?

Minister: With regard to the South Korean patrol ship sinking incident, it is up to the South Korean Government to decide whether to raise the case at the UN Security Council. I understand that at the moment, such a decision has not been made yet. However, if the South Korean Government decides that it wants this case to be taken up at the UN Security Council, Japan, for its part, would like to provide full cooperation. Prime Minister Hatoyama recently made comments to that effect. In conducting discussions on this matter at the UN Security Council, China’s cooperation will be very important. It is for this reason that we asked US Secretary of State Clinton, who will now be visiting China, to raise this topic (during her talks with Chinese authorities). At the same time, I told her that when Premier Wen Jiabao visits Japan, we plan to discuss this matter between the two countries.

Saito, Kyodo News: In connection with today’s foreign ministerial meeting, I would like to ask you a question about the United States’ (considering) listing North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism (once again).
Two years ago, the United States removed North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, despite the fact that the issue of alleged abduction of Japanese nationals (by North Korea) has yet to be resolved, resulting in the matter being frequently taken up on various occasions in Japan at the time. Amid this situation, criticism (against North Korea) has intensified this time, as North Korea’s involvement in the sinking of the South Korean patrol ship has become clear. In that connection, I think that whether the United States will list North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism could become one of the focal points. Although there is the aspect that this is a domestic issue rather than a diplomatic one for the United States, I feel that from the standpoint of the feelings of the Japanese, shall I say, or public sentiments, there is also the aspect that (the Japanese people) want the United States to do something about this. Do you have any intention to discuss this matter with the United States in the future, putting aside the expressions you might use or the way you might speak? Also, please tell us whether you raised this matter during your talks with Secretary of State Clinton.

Minister: As you pointed out, this is a domestic issue for the United States that involves the application of US legislation. I asked Secretary of State Clinton what she thought about this point, but she did not give me a clear answer at our meeting this time. I believe that it is likely that no such decision has been made yet (by the US Government).
Nevertheless, in thinking about this issue, while it concerns US legislation, the latest incident (sinking of the patrol ship) is a violation of a ceasefire agreement. The criteria for listing (a certain country as) a state sponsor of terrorism is basically that terrorist acts against individuals have been committed (by that country). In that sense, I feel that this does not strictly apply (in this case), but, just in case, I asked Secretary of State Clinton this question, with a sense of expectation.
Let me repeat this again, but I did not get an answer (from Secretary of State Clinton) as to whether (the United States) was thinking about this (re-listing North Korea as a state sponsor of terrorism).

Iwakami, Freelance: Let me ask a question in connection with the issue of re-listing (North Korea as) a state sponsor of terrorism.
I have heard that the chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Middle East under the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the US House of Representatives has sent a letter to the President seeking re-listing (North Korea as) a state sponsor of terrorism. I have heard that this is related to the fact that the Israeli Foreign Minister requested re-listing (North Korea as) a state sponsor of terrorism on grounds that weapons such as missiles and rocket launchers have been exported from North Korea to Hezbollah and Hamas.
As you just spoke about re-listing (North Korea as) a state sponsor of terrorism in connection with the issue of the abduction (of Japanese nationals by North Korea), these issues may perhaps be the two sides of the same coin, but please tell us about your analysis or thoughts on how the situation in the Middle East and this problem in the Far East are intertwined, how they are related, or how they affect each other.

Minister: What I spoke about in relation to listing (North Korea as) a state sponsor of terrorism is terrorist activities. Terrorist activities are in fact acts of terror against individuals, but North Korea’s latest behavior is a violation of the ceasefire agreement targeting the South Korean forces. Therefore, I said that from a legal perspective, we have a slightly different situation here.
In order to list (North Korea as) a state sponsor of terrorism, I think that it will be necessary to find proof that it is actually supporting terrorist groups, for example. I think that your mentioning earlier that North Korea may be providing support to Hezbollah and the like should be understood within such a context. Therefore, I believe that one of the points of issue is whether you can properly prove that North Korea is linked to such terrorist groups.
In any case, as this is basically an issue of the application of US domestic legislation, I would like to refrain from making any further comments on this.

Iwakami, Freelance: Israel probably recognizes Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist groups, but does Japan recognize Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist groups that have ties with North Korea, or does it have some other perception? Please tell us your thoughts on this point.

Minister: This is an issue of the application of US legislation to determine whether to list (North Korea as) a state sponsor of terrorism. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment on whether Hezbollah and Hamas, which you just mentioned, are terrorist groups or whether they have ties with North Korea.

Yamamoto, TV Asahi: At the interview held earlier, Secretary of State Clinton said: “We want to send North Korea a clear message that has no room for misunderstanding. We would like to decide on the details within this week.” Does the Government of Japan, for its part, plan to make a decision on its stance within this week, in line with the United States?

Minister: First of all, setting aside the question of whether it will be within a week, President Lee Myung-bak is scheduled to deliver a speech on Monday. I believe that the South Korean Government’s stance will probably become clear at that time.
As for Japan, we would like to make a decision on what we should do in concert with the South Korean and the United States, while maintaining close communication with them.

3. South Korean Patrol Ship Sinking Incident

Saito, Kyodo News: Let me ask you a question in connection with the patrol ship sinking incident. You gave a briefing just a while ago on cooperation among Japan, the United States, and South Korea. Meanwhile, Japan has so far repeatedly imposed unilateral sanctions on North Korea.
This time, while (the incident involves) a South Korea vessel, Japan cannot ignore the incident in the sense that it is threatening security in Northeast Asia. My question is whether, amid this situation, Japan is prepared to study the possibility of imposing additional sanctions and visualizes some kind of concrete measures.

Minister: First, I feel that basically it is very important for the international community to act in concert, and, therefore, I think that we will aim at that.
Whether Japan will unilaterally implement some kind of measures is a matter for future consideration. However, as we have no trade relations (with North Korea), there are not many additional steps that we can take amid our successive sanctions. Nevertheless, it is not that there are absolutely none, and what to do with them is a matter for future consideration for the Government of Japan.

Iwakami, Freelance: I think it was during the press conference you held before the previous one at a stage when it was still uncertain as to what caused the patrol ship to sink that you made a comment expressing your concern to the effect that in the event that it was not an accident, the six-party talks could get blown away. I believe that you had a strong sense of wariness, but at this stage when North Korea’s involvement has become clear, please tell us once again about your thoughts on whether the six-party talks will be resumed or how this (revelation of North Korea’s involvement in the patrol ship sinking incident) could affect the six-party talks.

Minister: We believe that the six-party talks are very important. However, now that it has become clear that this incident was brought about by North Korea, the environment is such that we should not convene the six-party talks immediately.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: With regard to relations between the two Koreas, I think that military tensions between the two countries have repeatedly emerged in the past, and recently, when “deterrence” has been mentioned in connection with the Futenma relocation issue, I believe that Prime Minister Hatoyama and you also cited the South Korean patrol ship sinking incident as an indication or an example of the unstable situation of Northeast Asia, using expressions to the effect that there is this situation with North Korea or the situation with China. Is the current situation such that the latest incident raises the instability to an unusual degree compared to tensions between South Korea and North Korea in the past, or are the tensions at the same level as in the past, shall I say, or have there always been factors that cause tensions? How do you perceive these matters?

Minister: Ever since the Korean War ended in 1953, there have always been tensions between the South Korea and North Korea, and various incidents have occurred during this time. However, 46 soldiers were killed at the same time as a result of an armed attack. This is a very rare case; nothing like this has occurred in recent years. The seriousness of this incident is that, although I believe that this happened for some kind of reason or that there probably was a reason, it happened amid (conditions) that are unimaginable to us. Therefore, I feel that we must deal with it with a sense of urgency as a matter of course.

Nishizato, ZDF: With regard to that issue of “deterrence,” I think you can say that it (the incident) “ended at this level of military activity because there is deterrence.” However, I think you can also say that even though the PAC3 and the like have all been deployed in response to the Taepo Dong missile and the like, “this (deployment of the PAC3, etc.) has not served as deterrence.” With regard to the fact that North Korea carried out such an act despite this, do you feel that it is still unlikely that a more serious incident will occur? Please tell us about your thoughts on this in connection with the Futenma issue.

Minister: Since the PAC3 is a defensive weapon, it is not directly related to this issue of firing a torpedo to sink a ship. However, it may be that North Korea has fewer options because of the presence of the PAC3. Nevertheless, that is only speculation.
The latest incident has thrust us the fact that something like this can indeed occur right around us. It just happened to be South Korea this time. There is no guarantee that the same thing will not happen in Japan. I believe that we must deal with the matter with this sense of urgency.

Sakamaki, Bloomberg News: What kind of effect will this patrol ship sinking incident have on the Futenma relocation issue? For example, do you think the rising of tensions may affect the opinion of the general public that feels that the Futenma issue should indeed be solved quickly or the government’s decision on that?

Minister: This (incident) will not directly affect the Futenma issue. However, I feel that it made us reconfirm the necessity of strengthening the Japan-US alliance. I believe that it made us -- what I mean by us is the Japanese people -- reconfirm the “importance of the Japan-US alliance.”

Iwakami, Freelance: Please allow me to ask you once again, but with regard to the latest patrol ship sinking incident, how can you conclude or surmise as to with what kind of intention or in what context North Korea took such a military action? What are your thoughts on this? In addition, is the nature of this incident such that it will end up as being only a sporadic or single accidental incident, or do you see it as the beginning of a series of events that will lead to the outbreak of a major war? Please tell us, to the extent you can at the moment, about the outlook for the future.

Minister: I do not think that this will trigger a major war. However, anything more than this will remain within the scope of speculation, so I as minister for Foreign Affairs feel that this is not something about which I can speak lightly. What is necessary is that we need to be aware that various things can happen and we must be thoroughly prepared to deal with them.

Asaka, Freelance: During a session of the Upper House Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense yesterday, you responded to a question by lawmaker Nishida, saying, “I do not think that the current situation is a contingency.” Do you mean that although the current situation is extremely close to a contingency, the circumstances are not such that the current situation can be considered a contingency, or are the circumstances such that the current situation is still very far from a contingency? Please tell us about your sense of crisis with regard to these points.

Minister: Whether it is far or close is a very sensuous matter, so I cannot answer a question like that. However, I do not think that the current situation is a contingency. Additionally, with regard to the latest incident, I believe that we must indeed deal with it calmly, yet firmly.

4. Meeting between Japanese and US Foreign Ministers (US Military Realignment Issue)

Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers: I have a question about the Futenma issue. You said that the topic was discussed briefly at today's Foreign Ministers' meeting, but what was Secretary of State Clinton's response to your proposal from the Japanese side? Since an exchange of views over the Korean Peninsula was the main topic, did she simply listen and file it away, or was there some kind of reaction? Were you able to get a sense of a move toward an agreement between Japan and the United States?

Minister: I do not think I should speak about what statements Secretary of State Clinton made. However, in light of the current environment, and the importance of the alliance between Japan and the United States, you can assume that we are in agreement over the need for Japan and the United States together to swiftly and properly deal with the issue of relocating Futenma.

Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers: When you say that it must be dealt with swiftly, can I interpret this to mean that you re-confirmed that Japan and the United States should resolve this issue properly by the end of May?

Minister: We consider the end of May to be a precondition. Of course, since we are now in negotiations, I cannot say at the current time what the result will be. But at the least, the end of May is the promise made by the Japanese side, so we agreed to work to resolve (the issue) swiftly with this in mind.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: At the joint press availability, I believe Secretary of State Clinton said that at the Foreign Ministers' meeting she was seeking a proposal that was "operationally viable and politically sustainable." I think that there has been no announcement on these details today precisely because (the proposal) lacks these qualities, but I would like to ask your view on what is meant by "politically sustainable" or "operationally viable."

Minister: It is not my place to interpret the language used by the United States. Please take her words literally.

Nezu, NHK: At today's Japan-United States Foreign Ministers' meeting, you described the current situation of the working-level talks, but deputy director general-level talks are also being held today in Tokyo. In the discussions to date, have the reports to you stated that a certain level of agreement has been reached, or is it your understanding that working-level talks will need to continue next week as well?

Minister: I will not comment on the particulars. I would certainly like deputy director general-level talks to advance solidly as well, hopefully reaching an agreement as quickly as possible.

Nezu, NHK: What are your views on whether working-level talks will need to continue next week?

Minister: No comment.

Yamamoto, TV Asahi: Regarding the final form (of the agreement), will you draw up a written agreement jointly between Japan and the United States, or will you make a joint declaration, or will you hold something like a 2+2, and make the final resolution there? What are your views on how this will be done?

Minister: I think that you will know this when it is made public, including what you have asked. I think it best not to speak too much of this while it is still ongoing.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: This is in relation to my earlier question. On the image of this government proposal, or proposed agreement, what I was asking earlier was what you thought of the Secretary of State's statement, and even though I quoted the United States side, I was unable to receive an answer, so although I think that you are not able to speak about particulars now, what form would you like this to take?

Minister: There are originally two issues: reducing the burden on Okinawa, and maintaining deterrence, and we discussed how to achieve both of them simultaneously. Prime Minister Hatoyama desires strongly to minimize the burden on Okinawa, but at the same time, if one considers the security environment surrounding Japan, and this holds for the recent issue of North Korea mentioned earlier in particular, as well as for China's increased naval power, there are a number of issues. Considering this, I would like the Japanese people to understand how vital it is to maintain deterrence. We will do our utmost to achieve both of these issues, and we are currently working to reach an agreement between Japan and the United States.

Oguri, Nippon Television: At the joint press availability earlier with Secretary of State Clinton, you said that you wanted to find a major direction for Japan and the United States, and that you would strive to achieve the understanding of Okinawa. What is your view of the order: should an agreement be reached first between Japan and the United States, or should the understanding of Okinawa be gained first?

Minister: Which of them should be first is a difficult problem. I think it would be best to achieve them both at the same time. However, considering the current situation in Okinawa, it is fairly clear that we are not in a situation that we can gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa immediately. Consequently, I think that what we will do is first create a draft agreement between Japan and the United States, and then work to gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: My question is about your statement that you would reach an agreement between Japan and the United States, and then work to gain the understanding of Okinawa. I think that each of the Cabinet Ministers will be doing this as part of their roles, but regarding how you will gain the understanding of the local community, of course this is also about reducing the burden of the relocation destination, but in the context of the Prime Minister’s statement of reducing the total burden, Futenma is not the only base issue in Okinawa. Therefore, I think that initiatives to resolve various issues originating from bases in other areas will naturally be included in the efforts to reduce the total burden, so I think that you will be working to gain the understanding of the local community for those initiatives, but I would like to hear your views on my understanding of this matter.

Minister: There is no alternative but to ask you to wait and see what comes out of this, but on the issue of relocating the base at Futenma, I have received many views on minimizing the burden, and also other views from Okinawa prefecture. With regard to this issue, we will strive to reduce the burden, while maintaining discussions between Japan and the United States. We consider all of it to be one package. Of course, relocating 8,000 (Marines) to Guam, and as a result reverting the base is also part of this.

Kamide, Freelance: On the topic of the issue of relocating the base at Futenma, a variety of views have come out. There are views on possibilities in many places throughout Japan. There have also been views that Hokkaido is included. I would like to ask your opinion on whether these ideas are being considered at this stage.

Minister: My answer is the same. I will not speak about the status of ongoing considerations.

5. Meeting between Japanese and US Foreign Ministers (Hague Convention)

Ito, Japan Times: Earlier, you stated that there was an exchange over the Hague Convention at the Foreign Ministers' meeting. Could you tell us about this exchange?

Minister: I do not think that I should speak about what Secretary of State Clinton said, but the Government of the United States has a consistent stance, and it is that they would like us to join the Hague Convention as quickly as possible, since there are many US parents who cannot see their children. I was told that they would like us to focus our efforts on resolving currently existing issues. I said that there are a number of issues when you consider the Hague Convention domestically, and we are currently holding discussions with the Ministry of Justice. I said that we hope to resolve these issues, and join the Hague Convention at the earliest date possible.

6. Meeting between Japanese and Chinese Foreign Ministers (Urging China to Reduce Its Nuclear Arsenal)

Chan, Global Chinese Press: At the Foreign Ministers' meeting on the 15th, you mentioned the first nuclear security summit hosted by President Obama,held in Washington in April. Although President Hu Jintao had made a statement, you were critical, stating that of the five nuclear powers, China was the only country that was not working on nuclear disarmament. Is the Government of Japan dissatisfied with China's current nuclear disarmament regime or the like?

Minister: Firstly, I think that this concerns a statement that I made at the Japan-China Foreign Ministers' Meeting, or the Japan-China-South Korea Foreign Ministers' Trilateral Meeting, but what I said was that President Hu Jintao's speech was very good. I think highly of it. Of course, I was not critical of any of it.
Separate from this, I said that amid an overall move toward a world without nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia have reached an agreement on nuclear disarmament, and the UK and France are also reducing theirs. But unfortunately China is increasing its (nuclear arsenal). I said with regard to this, that we would like (China) to reduce them, or at least maintain the status quo. I think that what I said was a matter of course.

Back to Index