(* 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 28, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Joint Statement of the Japan-US Security Consultative Committee (SCC)
- (2) Emergency Grant Aid to Chile for Major Earthquake Disaster
- (3) Visit to Japan by Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki of the Islamic Republic of Iran
US Military Realignment Issue
Sanctions against North Korea
Visa-free Exchanges for Four Northern Territory Islands
Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Summit Meeting
Research Whaling (International Lawsuit by the Government of Australia)
Prime Minister's Remarks on the Senkaku Islands

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Joint Statement of the Japan-US Security Consultative Committee (SCC)

Minister Okada: I have three announcements to make. The first concerns the conclusions of the Japan-US Security Consultative Committee (SCC), the conclusions by what is referred to as the 2+2, which were revealed this morning. As I already gave a briefing on this at the Diet – just a while ago at the meeting of the committee (on foreign affairs and defense) – Japan and the United States have vigorously conducted a series of consultations on the Futenma Air Station relocation issue at the ministerial and deputy director-general levels. In the process, I not only met frequently with US Ambassador to Japan (John) Roos, but also held talks with US Secretary of State (Hillary) Clinton. Subsequently, SCC, which consists of Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, Minister of Defense Kitazawa and me, came to issue a joint statement today. The particulars of the statement are as follows:
   First, it was decided that with regard to the construction of the Futenma Air Station replacement facility, a replacement facility with a 1,800-meter runway would be relocated to (constructed at) the Camp Schwab Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters. With regard to this point, it was also decided that a study by experts would be completed by the end of August 2010, and that the verification and validation would be completed by the time of the next SCC. In this connection, we are scheduled to hold consultations with the US side with regard to the replacement facility's specific location, configuration, and construction method. At the moment, I would like to refrain from making prejudgments on the details, but while acknowledging that, I can say that the joint statement is not based on the premise that (the replacement facility’s location, configuration, and construction method) would be within the framework of the current environmental impact assessment, but on the other hand, it has been confirmed that the environmental impact assessment procedures and construction of the replacement facility would be completed without significant delay.
   Secondly, it was decided that in order to reduce the disproportionate burden borne by the people of Okinawa, concrete measures would be taken in eight areas. For example, with regard to training relocation, it was decided that relocation of activities outside of Okinawa would be expanded and the relocation of training outside of Japan, such as to Guam, would be examined. In this regard, it was also decided that utilization of Tokunoshima would be considered, subject to development of appropriate facilities.
   With regard to the environmental aspect, it was decided that a prompt and serious consideration would be made of an agreement on the environment, including reasonable access to US facilities and areas in cases of environmental incidents, and reasonable access to US facilities and areas for environmental surveys prior to land returns.
   With regard to training areas, it was decided that restrictions on the use of the "Hotel/Hotel training area" would be partially lifted. It was also decided that further studies would be made to reduce noise at Kadena.
   With regard to the relocation to Guam and the return of facilities and areas south of Kadena, it was confirmed that (these plans) would be steadily implemented. In this connection, with regard to the return of facilities and areas south of Kadena, it was decided that the so-called "Industrial Corridor" of Camp Zukeran (Camp Foster) and a part of Makiminato Service Area (Camp Kinser) would be newly designated as priority areas for early return.
   In addition to the aforementioned, please see the distributed joint statement for details.
   As indicated in the joint statement, recent developments in the security environment of Northeast Asia reaffirmed the significance of the Japan-US Alliance. Amid this situation, it is understood that a robust forward presence of US military forces in Japan, including in Okinawa, provides the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and for the maintenance of regional stability.
   On the basis of this perception, we cannot help but ask the people of Okinawa to continue shouldering the burden, but the government, for its part, intends to continue making sincere efforts to gain the understanding of the local communities regarding the issue of Futenma Air Station replacement facility. At the same time, in order to reduce the burden on the people of Okinawa, we intend to promptly implement the various measures lately agreed.
   That is all I have to comment on the Japan-US draft agreements.

(2) Emergency Grant Aid to Chile for Major Earthquake Disaster

Minister: My next announcement is on grant aid to Chile for major earthquake disaster. Today, the Government of Japan decided to provide emergency grant aid worth a maximum of 195 million yen to the Government of Chile, which has been engaged in reconstruction efforts toward recovery from the recent major earthquake disaster.
In response to the Chilean Government’s request, we plan to employ this grant aid to offer support in the medical field, including setting up temporary hospitals and providing related equipment and material in areas near the quake epicenter. I reported this matter during the Cabinet meeting today.

(3) Visit to Japan by Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Minister: My third announcement concerns the visit to Japan by Foreign Minister Mottaki of Iran. He is scheduled to visit Japan from the 30th of May to the 31st and a bilateral foreign ministers meeting will be held. The upcoming visit will be taking place at the request of the Iranian side. More precisely, the Foreign Minister will arrive in Japan on the night of the 30th and will leave on the night of the 31st.
I think I spoke about the Japanese Government’s position on Iran here before: by failing to comply with a series of UN Security Council resolutions, Iran has not fulfilled its commitment to gaining the trust of the international community with regard to its assertion that it has been conducting nuclear activities for peaceful purposes. It has been further violating UN Security Council resolutions by continuing to pursue its 20% (uranium) enrichment program, and as long as this situation continues, we believe that additional sanctions are necessary.
   Meanwhile, Iran has agreed with the Brazilian and the Turkish Government regarding handling of low-enriched uranium. We appreciate that in itself and call for a steady implementation (of the agreements).
   While acknowledging such Japanese Government’s position, Iran still requested a bilateral foreign ministerial meeting, so we agreed to it.
   We plan to take advantage of Foreign Minister Mottaki’s upcoming visit to urge Iran to seek a peaceful and diplomatic settlement of its nuclear issue.

2. US Military Realignment Issue

Iwakami, Freelance: I would like to ask a question in relation to Futenma. We have reached the point where Japan and the United States will issue a joint statement, but at this point I would like you to look back, and allow me to ask a question about the background behind this decision on Henoko. When did you personally come to recognize Henoko as the most suitable (destination)? Also, which Cabinet member came to believe that the Henoko plan was the most suitable, and when?
I have been asking questions over these past 8 months, and the response has always been that this was not the time. One answer has been given and disclosed, so although each of the Cabinet members probably came into agreement at different times, when did they do so, and what was the process -- could you clarify the background of this matter?

Minister: When the government makes a decision, it does not normally speak in detail about the process behind that decision. If you ask about me, I stated here in October of last year that relocation outside the prefecture was unfeasible, and that we should therefore consider merging with Kadena. I also later have spoken that the current draft agreement between Japan and the United States was included in the concept of "zero base" (starting from a base of zero).
But this decision is not a return to the plan of former agreement between Japan and the United States. As is written here, experts will study the replacement facility's specific location, configuration, and construction method.
Of course, the overarching framework is to complete construction and the procedures for the environmental impact assessment without significant delay in the environmental-impact study, but the specific actions to take will be decided within this framework at a later date.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: I have a related question. There has been so much study up until now, and I do not think that the Japanese people will be convinced with just being told the results, so could you explain the reason why Henoko is deemed the most suitable?

Minister: As the Prime Minister also said, unfortunately a suitable relocation destination was not found outside the prefecture, or shall I say that a specific location could not be identified; meanwhile, there were a number of candidate sites in Okinawa Prefecture. But taking into consideration the total amount of time it will take, and the situation in the local community, although we have by no means gained the understanding of the local community, as the mayor has voiced clear opposition regarding the Henoko-saki area and other areas are also opposed, it was concluded after discussions between Japan and the United States, that the Henoko-saki area is the most preferable.

Yamamoto, TV Asahi: This is the topic of by when approximately you will get the consent of Okinawa Prefecture. It says that the experts will study the location until the end of August, and that it will be completed after that at the SCC. Are you thinking of this as the target timeline, or do you plan to wait until after the gubernatorial elections in Okinawa in November?

Minister: What is written here is that the verification and validation will be completed by the time of the next SCC, so we envision gaining Okinawa's understanding by then.

Uesugi, Freelance: In last year's general elections, the Democratic Party of Japan administration, I mean Prime Minister Hatoyama himself said in campaigning with respect to the Okinawa-base relocation that it would be outside the country if possible, or at a minimum outside the prefecture. Looking at the resulting joint announcement, I can only infer that this policy could not be carried out. What is your thoughts regarding this topic?

Minister: I believe that the Prime Minister himself has made a candid apology for this. We searched high and low for a way (to move the base) outside the prefecture, but in the end it was not possible. But the Prime Minister has always been intent on reducing the burden on Okinawa, and Japan and the United States have agreed on burden-reduction as a package of various measures for reducing the burden.

Higuchi, TBS: At this morning's (Diet) committee meeting, you said again that you must apologize for the current circumstances, because you have not gained the understanding of the people of Okinawa, despite having said "by the end of May." Given the current situation at this point in time, or looking back over the past eight months leading up to this, do you think that this process was inevitable?

Minister: I think it depends on what is inevitable. For example, if it had been decided from the start to proceed with the plan based on the agreement between Japan and the United States, although this is a hypothetical argument, and if you ask me whether the people of Okinawa would have been satisfied with that, I do not think that they would have. We will describe to the people of Okinawa a wide range of packages including reductions to the burden on Okinawa, and do our utmost to gain their understanding.
But in any case, we have failed to meet the end-of-May deadline in the sense of gaining the understanding of the local community, and I am deeply regretful vis-a-vis the people of the prefecture.

Beppu, NHK: The United States has been saying that the consent of the local community is necessary for ensuring the unit's operational viability and political sustainability. Have you made, on behalf of the Government of Japan, a firm commitment to the United States to gain the understanding of Okinawa?

Minister: Both Japan and the United States understand that this is not possible without the understanding of Okinawa.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I would like to ask a question in the context of the understanding of the local community. You said earlier that (a relocation site) was found nowhere outside the prefecture, or that a specific location could not be identified, and amid these circumstances the mayor is opposed, and the understanding of the local community has not been gained, but when speaking on the point of the understanding of the local community, I think that it is the same as with other communities. Given this, I would very much like to know the reason for deciding on Henoko, and speaking in the sense of understanding, you earlier stated that the United States has a common awareness of gaining understanding as to how to proceed. The agreement document does not state clearly that it is not possible without understanding, or I do not think that it can be inferred from the text. I think that this is just the intention of the two parties, and is not guaranteed, but could you comment on this?

Minister: I think that there will be a wide range of debate over what gaining understanding entails, but at the least, the law makes it clear that we cannot proceed without the consent of the governor, who has the authority over reclamation of the public water area.

Jinbo, Video News: Given that there was nowhere else that would accept (the base), even so, looking at today's joint announcement, I cannot find any evidence showing why it had to be Henoko, except the part saying "recognized that a robust forward presence of U.S. military forces in Japan provides the deterrence and capabilities necessary for the defense of Japan and for the maintenance of regional stability," I think this is perhaps the only part of it that does so. By this, may I infer that the Government of Japan recognized and agreed that the presence of the US Marines in Okinawa is necessary deterrence in order to defend Japan and maintain regional stability?

Minister: That is the way we understand.

Saida, Nishinippon Shimbun: My question concerns the destination of the relocation of training. Two locations are stated: Tokunoshima and Guam. Please tell us why each location was named specifically.

Minister: I would like to refrain from speaking about individual details of the negotiations. The (relocation to) Tokunoshima is conditional. The condition is that appropriate facilities must be developed. In any case, these came out of the desire to take the widest possible range of functionality out of the prefecture.

Tsuruoka, Asahi Shimbun: Earlier, you mentioned the legal authority to reclaim public waters, but are you considering reclamation as the main construction method, as in the current proposal?

Minister: No preconditions have been set on this. It is as written here. But of the many candidates, including the quick installation platform (QIP) method, I am not confident that we can say that this law does not apply. If we go by the intent of the law, then even with the QIP method, I think it would be necessary, but in any case, it is a fact that we cannot move without the consent of the governor.

Higa, Kyodo News: I believe that this series of negotiations began with Prime Minister Hatoyama's statement of "at a minimum, outside the prefecture," but was outside the prefecture really the starting point for negotiations between Japan and the United States? In other words, did Japan start the negotiations by telling the United States that it wanted to move it outside the prefecture?

Minister: I would like to refrain from mentioning specifics of the negotiations, but moving it outside the prefecture was also envisioned.

Takahashi, Jiji Press: My question concerns the topic discussed earlier of reclamation authority. The view of the People's New Party is that it will be quite difficult to gain the authorization of the current governor, and there is talk of building a base within a base, or as Minister Kamei and others say, putting a bird in a birdcage. Is the government no longer considering the option of a plan that does not require the approval of the governor, such as building it on land?

Minister: Our option is Camp Schwab Henoko-saki area, and adjacent waters.

Yoshida, Okinawa Times: In the Environment section of the joint statement, it says that they would consider the introduction of renewable energy technology into US bases, including a component of Host Nation Support. It states that this would be for bases in Japan and Guam, but is it appropriate to extend Host Nation Support to foreign bases abroad?

Minister: It states that it would be considered, including as a component. The details are an issue to be addressed hereafter.

Iwakami, Freelance: With every local government in Japan opposed to relocation, there are views, criticism, and opposition coming from Okinawa that the choosing Okinawa in these circumstances is discriminatory against Okinawa. Meanwhile, if the only inevitability requiring it to be Okinawa is, as mentioned earlier, maintaining deterrence for forward deployment in Okinawa, then the Air Force is already in Kadena, so I find it extremely unconvincing that Okinawa must shoulder an even greater burden. I feel that this does not provide sufficient explanation with respect to the questions, or criticisms and opposition, that this is discrimination against the people of Okinawa. Could you please give a little more convincing reason why, as a result of much study, it had to be Okinawa, and it had to be Henoko?

Minister: The Marines have rapid-response capabilities. Consequently, their location is vital. That is the first reason why they are in Okinawa. There may have been other choices. But that would have required a massive package, including training sites. We could not find anywhere outside Okinawa that would accept this, although of course it is how being said that this cannot be done in Okinawa either.

Uesugi, Freelance: I have a question about the text of the joint statement. This document states, regarding training relocation, that the both governments committed to examining the relocation of training, outside of Japan, such as to Guam. Does this mean that you will hold discussions linked to the 2009 Guam Agreement, or will you discuss creating a separate mechanism or the like; will you create a review committee or the like? Which will it be?

Minister: I did not understand your question just now very well, but the Governments of Japan and the United States will hold discussions. There is no direct relation to the Guam Agreement.

Jinbo, Video News: My first question is, when this agreement states Camp Schwab Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters, does this include a proposal (to build) on land at Camp Schwab? My other question is about the Japanese and English-language versions of the statement. The English version states that as the replacement facility, "the runway portion(s) of the facility to be 1,800 meters long." It puts an "s" in parentheses, which indicates that the possibility is envisioned that there will be multiple runways. The Japanese language normally does not make a distinction between singular and plural, such as adding an "s," and this is a difference between the Japanese and English languages. May I understand from this that the possibility of multiple runways was envisioned from the start?

Minister: This is not envisioned from the start. I think that the possibility has not been excluded.

Jinbo, Video News: The possibility has not been excluded. But an "s" was added purposefully.

Minister: This is because they were originally saying that it would be in a V shape.

Jinbo, Video News: Next, how about the proposal (to build) on land?

Minister: The text here states the Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters; a proposal (to build) on land does not envision that all of it will be on land.

Jinbo, Video News: But the use of the word "and" means that the waters will necessarily be included; since it says "and," this means that it will not be only on land, right? The waters will be included in all cases.

Minister: Those are my thoughts on it.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: Regarding the proposal indicated in the 2006 roadmap, you have been saying that given the reality, it is unfeasible, it has no feasibility. Then in the proposal in this statement, from what is clear at this time, I cannot find any major differences from the 2006 agreement regarding the replacement facility. Was there any evidence upon which you based your decision that it has now become feasible?

Minister: The question is upon what evidence you base your statement that it has not changed. As it is written here, a study by experts regarding the replacement facility's location, configuration, and construction method will be completed promptly, after which the verification and validation will be completed by the time of the next SCC. The specific location, configuration, and construction method of the facility are not mentioned here. Consequently, although I think that there is one view that nothing has changed from before, this agreement does not state that nothing has changed.

Yoshinaga, Mainichi Newspapers: Just now, there was a question about an "s" being added. If the original plan was for a V shape, and the "s" was added because of that, then of course two runways are envisioned. Does this mean that in the end, there is a possibility of returning to the original proposal?

Minister: I think that it depends on the meaning of the original proposal. There is a wide scope, and what we will do within that scope will be decided hereafter.

Nishino, Kyodo News: I think that there will probably be many questions about the differences between the roadmap agreement and this new 2+2 agreement. The expectation that (the base will be relocated) at least outside of the prefecture has grown very high among public opinion in Okinawa. I think that there is a wide range of assessments of this new 2+2 agreement. But there is no doubt that there is a gap (between them); how will you explain this, or how will the Hatoyama administration grapple with this? I think that this is the part that will be questioned the most, but could you mention this again?

Minister: We will proceed while maintaining close consultations within Cabinet. We still have not ironed out the specific process. The Cabinet is united in its commitment to this issue.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Isn't it true that the Cabinet has yet to form a united commitment? For example, I believe that today, you responded before the Diet that the Cabinet would make some sort of decision, but it was said again that Social Democratic Party leader Fukushima would not sign it, and this agreement is also being severely criticized. Please tell us your views again from the viewpoint of how the Cabinet will advance this agreement between Japan and the United States.

Minister: This point will be made clear in some form today, so I think that the only thing will be to look at that. In fact, the Chief Cabinet Secretary is leading coordination over this matter now.

Kajiwara, NHK: The Social Democratic Party is now fiercely opposing the draft agreement between Japan and the United States, and I think that this is damaging the government. It has been pointed out that this situation arose because sufficient explanations or considerations were not given to the Social Democratic Party during the negotiation process. Do you think that there were problems with the method of negotiation?

Minister: I think that there are many ways of looking at this. In any case, there may be some talk after the results came out, but we are now truly in the wrap-up stage, and I think it is best not to talk excessively.

Chan, Global Chinese Press: The Ministry of Defense has decided on a policy of revising the boundaries of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the airspace above the island of Yonaguni, in Okinawa. Currently, the eastern third of the island is a Japanese ADIZ, and the western two-thirds are a Taiwanese ADIZ. How are negotiations on this issue going with the Taiwanese authorities? For example, if Taiwan does not consent, could there be a conflict between Japan and Taiwan? The Prefecture of Okinawa asked the national government to revise (the boundaries); is there some relationship between this and the relocation of the base at Futenma?

Minister: There is no relationship with the current issue of Futenma. This was a decision by the Ministry of Defense. I am not aware of any issues arising between Taiwan.

Jinbo, Video News: Earlier, I believe you stated that this did not mean that procedures for an environmental impact assessment were not needed. At the same time, the text states, that both sides confirmed the intention to complete the environmental impact assessment procedures and construction without significant delay. I believe that your intention there was to state that it is not necessarily the case that a new environmental-impact assessment will not be needed, but looking at this text, if the environmental-impact assessment is to be done without significant delay, then if it is done properly, the environmental-impact assessment itself should take a certain amount of time, correct? If this is the case, then could you explain how I should interpret this? If an environmental-impact assessment is conducted, does it mean without delay in the sense of doing it right away, or should I understand that it will be done properly within a set period of time? Next, as an actual issue, if an environmental-impact assessment is conducted, have you explained to or discussed with the United States how long it would normally take?

Minister: It is as written here. There is nothing more or less than this. We have not specifically agreed on what would be considered a significant delay. Overall, however, the verification and validation are to be completed by the next SCC, so it must fall within that frame, and it is a fact that being able to complete the construction and environmental-impact assessment without significant delay would be within that frame.
It had been reported by a fair number of media outlets that an environmental-impact assessment would not be redone, and I said this in order to explain that this was incorrect.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: My question relates to the part about significant delays. Overall, the 2006 roadmap agreement calls for completion in 2014, and reversion after that, but what is your view on the Futenma relocation, when the reversion will actually be, aside from any agreement between Japan and the United States?

Minister: It will essentially be as decided up until now. This is why the document states that the target for the replacement facility is 2014. In any case, the reversion will take place when the replacement facility is complete, and the relocation has been made.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Will there be no change to this target?

Minister: The basic sequence will not change. But there is, of course, a possibility that the target of 2014 will be slipped back slightly. If this happens, then I cannot eliminate the possibility that the overall plan will also change. The Diet also discussed this at some length today, but if we cannot obtain the understanding of the local community in Okinawa due to excessive haste, then this will not move forward, so I think that it is necessary to proceed swiftly, while obtaining their understanding.

Iwakami, Freelance: You cited the Marine Corps’ rapid response capability as a decisive reason that it definitely has to be Okinawa. However, as I have previously asked questions here a number of times, I asked whether according to the SCC document of 2005, the Self-Defense Forces bear the primary responsibility for defending, or responding rapidly on, remote islands, or in other words, border areas. You yourself admitted that, saying that the sequence is such that the SDF would first respond immediately, with the US military possibly mobilizing afterwards. That means that the necessity of the Marines being forward deployed so that they can quickly respond to a contingency as soon as possible and be mobilized seems to contradict what you have been saying.
The other day, I met with Professor Yanagisawa of the National Institute of Defense Studies and directly interviewed him, but his view is that the fact that the US military is positioned on Okinawa is extremely dangerous for the US military, or in other words, the US military is too close to the forefront, so the US military is thinking about moving backwards, pulling back toward Guam. Listening to a number (of such comments), it sounds very contradictory to me. Why is it necessary to be so obsessed with Okinawa? In any case, I feel that under these contradictory circumstances, it would be extremely difficult to have the people of Okinawa feel convinced and accept (US military presence). Therefore, I think that it is necessary to resolve these (contradictions) and explain the necessity (of US military presence). Please tell us about your views on this.

Minister: I think I have been explaining this. As for Mr. Yanagisawa’s comments, he is speaking about his personal views. If he does have such firm views, it makes me wonder why he did not speak about this at the time he served as the Assistant Chief Cabinet Secretary and was precisely in a position to be in charge of this matter. When I said that it would be the primary responsibility of the SDF, I am speaking about that as a principle. However, if the SDF does not have sufficient capability, there is no choice but to rely on the Marine Corps.
In addition, this is not just about Japanese territory and territorial waters. Basically, it is hardly assumed that the SDF would go beyond Japanese territory and territorial waters. I am speaking about the advantages of Okinawa’s location, with that in mind.

Iwakami, Freelance: Okinawa was just mentioned, forefront being cited as the reason. In that case, I would think that if the site of a contingency, for example, were the Korean Peninsula, where tensions currently exist, a place like Nagasaki or Kitakyushu, for example, would be much closer to the forefront than Okinawa, and rapid response capability could be better demonstrated. Why is it that efforts were not made to relocate to these places, where opposition from the local communities similarly exists, by going as far as to persuade them? Please tell us about the differences in the way that Kitakyushu and Okinawa are treated.

Minister: The Korean Peninsula is undoubtedly one area that can be envisaged by the US Forces in Japan. However, it does not just end there.

Nezu, NHK: I believe that as Japan has negotiated with the United States for eight months since September last year, the United States has consistently insisted on (relocating Futenma Air Station to) the Henoko area. Please tell us once again whether you felt that the United States was indeed very firm about its assertions and that in the process of conducting negotiations, it was difficult (to change the US position). Also, with regard to the runway designated in the roadmap drawn up in 2006 and the runway in the latest plan, please give us a simpler explanation regarding which has more advantages and in what ways.

Minister: The United States has consistently argued that the original plan is the best. We have said that we wanted to reduce Okinawa’s burdens as much as possible, and the latest agreement between Japan and the United States came out of that. While it has been specified that the runway would be 1,800 meters long, nothing else has been written here, so that will be what needs to be worked out hereafter.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: With regard to the issue related to Social Democratic Party leader Fukushima, you have repeatedly responded to Diet interpellations earlier that coordination is being conducted under the Chief Cabinet Secretary, but I get the impression that they are in a fluster as the matter draws to a conclusion. I think that the people also feel the same way. It just appears that this was something that was anticipated, but even though the Chief Cabinet Secretary has the primary responsibility with regard to this kind of coordination within the Cabinet, you were involved in working out coalition accords with SDP leader Fukushima during the time you served as Secretary General (of the DPJ). If it comes down to (relocating Futenma Air Station to) Henoko, it was readily imaginable that the SDP would object. In preparation for a situation like this, did you personally try to persuade SDP leader Fukushima or other party members, or conduct coordination with them? Please tell us about this.

Minister: As a way to do work, I feel that it is important for the person who undertakes the responsibility to work intensively and share information.

Nishizato, ZDF: I went to do a coverage report of Futenma for ZDF in February this year. I viewed Camp Schwab from the ocean and noticed a rather large-scale building construction project in progress. According to an explanation by a local resident opposed (to the Futenma Air Station relocation plan), a new building was being constructed to replace an existing building that would stand in the way, assuming that the construction of a base would take place. I think that a budget is allocated each year in accordance with the original (plan), but is it a fact that some kind of construction work in anticipation of building a new base in Futenma is already under way?

Minister: That is taking place. That is obvious if you look at the budget.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Let us return to the (issue of) understanding of the local communities. First of all, under the previous administration, an agreement between the Japanese and US governments was reached after the conclusion of a basic confirmation note or basic agreement with the local communities, at least in form. This time, however, the agreement between Japan and the United States has been reached first without reaching an agreement with the local communities. How do you feel about this? With regard to reaching an agreement with the local communities, there are various definitions, but you said that “first, there is (the authority) of the governor regarding public water area reclamation.” How do you feel about whether it may be necessary to gain the local Nago Mayor’s understanding, agreement, consent rather than a legal agreement, or to exchange some kind of document?

Minister: I believe that I should not speak specifically about future matters. I think that the understanding of the people of Okinawa is clear from a common-sense perspective.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: How do you feel about the fact that the agreement between Japan and the United States has been achieved before the agreement the local communities?

Minister: If you look at Okinawa right now, the situation is such that it is almost impossible to gain such understanding. Since we cannot leave the dangerous situation of Futenma as it is permanently, in order to move the matter forward as quick as possible, there was no choice but to have Japan and the United States first reach an agreement and the understanding of the people of Okinawa gained after that. Of course, the Prime Minister visited Okinawa twice in May and made efforts to gain (local) understanding, but regrettably, such a situation has yet to develop.

3. Sanctions against North Korea

Saito, Kyodo News: I would like to ask you a question concerning sanctions against North Korea. My understanding is that sanctions have traditionally applied to people, money, and goods. I think that this time, from the standpoint of strengthening surveillance of the flow of money, there was a lowering of the maximum amount of money that may be remitted without notifying (the government), as well as a lowering of the maximum amount of cash that can be taken out of Japan (to North Korea). I know very well that there is nothing more that can be done about goods, as there already are sanctions in place banning all (imports from and exports to North Korea of) goods. I think that the problem is with people. As I have heard that some cabinet ministers have expressed views that something more should be done about sanctions on people – for example, that perhaps it may be a good idea to expand the sanctions to be applicable to a select number of senior members of the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan – do you think that the latest sanctions will be effective, or in other words, from the perspective of Japan’s position of fully backing South Korea, can the sanctions be expected to produce practical effects? Also, the problem of (sanctions on) people – please tell us your views on these points.

Minister: The latest (sanctions) plan came about following consultations among various ministries and agencies centering on the Chief Cabinet Secretary. I feel that the sanctions will be quite effective because, for example, anyone carrying sums over 100,000 yen (to North Korea) will be required to report (to the government) and the 10 million yen upper limit for remittances (that can be sent to North Korea without being reported to the government) will be lowered to 3 million yen. Although I think that the issue of sanctions on people was also discussed, it was not included this time. I believe that I should refrain from speaking about the details of how the matter was examined.

Yamamoto, TV Asahi: I think that the latest sanctions cover diverted trade through third countries, but I recall that you said during a Diet interpellation that it would be quite difficult. Please tell us what makes it difficult and how the Ministry of Foreign Affairs intends to handle this matter.

Minister: What makes it difficult, it is not very easy to get a grasp of the actual situation. However, as the Prime Minister has given instructions to firmly implement what is possible, we intend to hold thorough consultations with relevant ministries and agencies on specifically what we can do.

4. Visa-free Exchanges for Four Northern Territory Islands

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: I believe that today, the second group of people planning visa-free travel to the Northern Territories are going through the disembarkation procedures, beginning just about at this moment. During your press conference the other day, you said that with regard to port entry permits, the group would be submitting papers issued by the Japanese side, but as far as what we have found out through our coverage activities, I think that the Russian side has shown reservations about that. As they may be in the middle of entering port at this moment, is it your understanding that it will undoubtedly be able for them to enter without any problems? Is it all right for us to understand that they will have no problem entering port, shall I say, or landing this time?

Minister: I do not know. This is a matter in which you have the other side to deal with. However, the government, for its part, would like to make efforts to ensure smooth disembarkment.

5. Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Summit Meeting

Yamamoto, Nihon Keizai Shimbun: The Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Summit Meeting to be held over the weekend in Jeju Island is expected to be an important meeting in the wake of the patrol ship sinking issue. I have heard that the foreign ministers of China and the ROK will be accompanying their respective top leaders, but in the case of Japan, a state secretary for foreign affairs is to be going there. Why are you not going this time?

Minister: It is not about this time. Normally, I do not go. I did go the last time because it was the first summit meeting. In the case of Japan, the top leader and the foreign minister do not move around together. They each – how should I say it – do the best they can. Going together would result in duplication . Not doing that is the way it has been done traditionally.

6. Research Whaling (International Lawsuit by the Government of Australia)

Sakagami, The Australian: The Government of Australia announced today, the 28th, that it plans to formally file a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the Netherlands in order to stop Japan’s research whaling in the Antarctic Ocean. Normally, Japan-Australia relations are considered to be close and favorable, but do you think that Australia is acting with justice and out of good will if it is going to file a lawsuit against Japan when talks on research whaling are under way at the IWC not only between Japan and Australia, but also among other countries?

Minister: As you pointed out, the Government of Australia has announced that it plans to file a lawsuit with the International Court of Justice. We received notification directly from the (Australian) government. It is regrettable that the Australian Government has decided on an international lawsuit when relevant countries are conducting negotiations at the IWC. It is the understanding of the Japanese Government that research whaling is a legitimate activity. Therefore, we intend to respond appropriately, keeping in mind the position of our country.

7. Prime Minister's Remarks on the Senkaku Islands

Saito, Kyodo News: I would like to ask a question concerning Prime Minister Hatoyama’s remarks on the Senkaku Islands. At a meeting of the Association of Prefectural Governors the other day, and as a question on this came up at today’s meeting of the (Diet) Committee, I will read an accurate transcription rather than as reported by the media. Prime Minister Hatoyama made the following remarks: “However, with regard to the issue of sovereignty, my understanding is that a conclusion should be drawn by having Japan and China, the parties concerned, hold thorough discussions.” He then said, “Although I feel that it is necessary to further confirm the direction (of this issue) with the United States as well, it is my understanding that in case of a clash due to a contingency situation, the (Japan-US) Security Treaty will become applicable.” This kind of exchange took place. What I would like to ask you here – at least as I understand it – is that as there are only two places where the Japanese Government has said that there exists an issue of sovereign rights – a territorial dispute – and that these places are Takeshima Island and the Northern Territories; places other than these such as Tokyo, Mie Prefecture, and the Senkaku Islands, as well, are all Japan’s sovereign territories where there are no disputes. As such, I cannot help but feel that the (Prime Minister’s) remarks with regard to the Senkaku Islands, which are Japan’s sovereign territory, that “a conclusion should be drawn by having Japan and China, the parties concerned, hold thorough discussions” somewhat differ from the official government view, even if the remarks are taken out of context, leaving aside the preceding and subsequent passages. Please tell us about your views on this point, and, furthermore, as consultations would naturally have to be held on the question of the title (to the Senkaku Islands) if this is true, please tell us whether there actually are any plans to do so, or whether there were any such instructions.

Minister: I was there beside the Prime Minister with some people in between, so I believe I was listening very closely, since it was, as a matter of fact, a diplomatic issue. However, since this was at a public venue, I think that what you just read out is probably true. In that case, I feel that I should have made some comments as appropriate. As I responded to Diet interpellations, the Senkaku issue is not a territorial issue for Japan. There is no room for argument here, and the Japanese Government has repeatedly made statements about that.

Saito, Kyodo News: I understand your comments very well. It can somewhat be taken that the Prime Minister has a misunderstanding or his perception of that differs from the official government view. With regard to this point, do you have any plans, for example, to confirm a little bit about his real intentions or discuss this matter with him?

Minister: Although it is not clear as to what the Prime Minister had in mind when he made those remarks, if they create misunderstanding, I believe that he will use a more accurate expression at some point.

Back to Index