(* This is a provisional translation by an external company for reference purpose only. The original text is in Japanese.)

Press Conference by Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada

Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2010, 3:37 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Visit to Japan by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Visit to Japan by Foreign Minister Mottaki of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Seizure of Gaza Aid Ships
Political Situation (Realignment of the U.S. Forces in Japan)
ROK Patrol Ship Sinking Incident
NPT Review Conference

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Visit to Japan by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Minister Okada: I have one announcement. Yesterday, Foreign Minister Mottaki of the Islamic Republic of Iran arrived in Japan on a rather short notice, and we held a meeting over dinner for more than two hours. Foreign Minister Mottaki has spoken about it, but there was a time when Japan held close discussions with the Iranian side particularly on whether Japan could play some kind of role with regard to the idea of moving low-enriched uranium out of Iran and returning the uranium to the country after processing it so it could be used for medical purposes. Those discussions eventually moved away from Japanese hands and soon turned into discussions between Iran and Turkey and between Iran and Brazil, and have concluded in the form of the “Tehran agreement.” Iran is seeking further cooperation on that matter from Japan on this occasion by all means. At the same time, talks at the UN Security Council on sanctions against Iran have come to a rather crucial point, and I believe that had something to do with Foreign Minister Mottaki’s abrupt visit. Since he asked for a meeting to discuss this matter, I accepted his request.
Foreign Minister Mottaki said that the Tehran agreement was concluded, and according to him, the United States was involved in it. He said that now that this agreement has been concluded, sanctions against Iran are no longer necessary. I had previously heard about this, and Japan appreciates the fact that the Tehran agreement has been concluded and would like it definitely to be implemented as a part of confidence-building measures. However, that (the Tehran agreement) and sanctions are separate matters, and as a matter of fact, Iran is currently conducting uranium enrichment activities aimed at achieving the 20% level. Iran should immediately stop that. I told him (Foreign Minister Mottaki) that Iran should make a drastic political decision so that the sanctions could be unnecessary, as that is what Iran needs to do for its people.
While there was quite a bit of exchanges between us, what I pointed out in particular is why Iran needs to further seek 20% enrichment if it intends to send out low-enriched uranium to Turkey for processing. As raw material for isotopes, that would be sufficient for the time being, and if they are talking about securing reserves for nuclear power generation for the future, 20% (enrichment) is unnecessary.
Therefore, I do not understand the meaning of continuing enrichment activities to achieve the 20% level. This has drawn strong suspicions from the international community. For this reason, Iran should immediately stop those activities. That is what I said to Foreign Minister Mottaki.

2. Visit to Japan by Foreign Minister Mottaki of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Nishino, Kyodo News: I believe that Foreign Minister Mottaki is well-versed in Japanese affairs, as he has served for a long time as an ambassador to Japan. He came to Japan with the intention of briefing you on the Tehran agreement in order to gain Japan’s understanding. Is it correct to assume that you explained to him that Japan’s position is that it does not agree on that matter?

Minister: I told him that we appreciate the Tehran agreement itself, but that does not lead to the logical conclusion that sanctions are thus unnecessary.

Nishino, Kyodo News: In relation to that, is it correct to assume that Foreign Minister Mottaki clarified that Iran will continue its 20% enrichment program?

Minister: As discussions on sanctions have reached a rather crucial point, I do not know how the matter will develop or whether Iran will go ahead and take on the sanctions as the way things stand. We are hoping that this will not happen. At the moment, Iran is asserting that it has the right as a country to aim at 20% enrichment. However, I hope that he will return to Iran and have thorough discussions held on what I told him this time.

Iwakami, Freelance: Please tell us about Foreign Minister Mottaki’s reactions, shall I say, or how he took it when you told him that Japan appreciates the Tehran agreement, but that the sanctions will not be lifted, shall I say, or that the sanctions are a separate matter.

Minister: It is not the matter of whether the sanctions will be lifted, but rather it concerns discussions going on at the UN Security Council on new, additional sanctions. Foreign Minister Mottaki said that these additional sanctions would no longer be necessary.
Japan and Iran have a long history of friendly relations. In that sense, I believe that he held some expectations with Japan. However, I told him quite clearly that looking at it from any angle, the fact that Iran is single-mindedly continuing to pursue its 20% enrichment program amid suspicions that Iran may be seeking to possess nuclear weapons would only further deepen such suspicions. That may have disappointed him.

Iwakami, Freelance: What did he say?

Minister: I cannot tell you what he said.

Beppu, NHK: With regard to additional sanctions against Iran, three UN Security Council resolutions have already been adopted, and the sanctions have gradually been intensifying, but Iran has not changed its behavior. On the contrary, it has escalated, and even if there were (additional) sanctions (adopted) this time, there are arguments as to whether they would have any meaning. Please tell us about your views on this. Meanwhile, Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is considered an open secret, but there are no discussions at all about sanctions on that. How does Japan intend to maintain a consistent position over these two cases?

Minister: First of all, discussions have been held so extensively with regard to the case of Iran precisely because there is a meaning to imposing sanctions against Iran, and I believe that Iran has been conducting diplomacy rather vigorously because they want to do something about it. Since discussions at the UN Security Council have reached a rather crucial point, this (proposal to impose additional sanctions against Iran) has nearly been firmed up at the level of the permanent members of the UNSC, and it is at a stage where discussions will now be held on it by the entire UN Security Council. I believe that a resolute position should be taken, as Iran suddenly started its 20% enrichment program and has been moving in the direction of deepening the suspicions.
As for the case of Israel, that country has not clarified what its nuclear capability consists of, including whether it possesses nuclear weapons. However, under the NPT, it is not authorized to possess nuclear weapons. Therefore, if it does possess nuclear weapons, the Government of Japan cannot ignore that. We have continued to urge Israel to scrap its nuclear program and join the NPT.

Yoshinaga, Mainichi Newspapers: You said earlier that Japan has made a similar proposal, but specifically, what kind of proposal was that and why has it disappeared? Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki touched on his country’s agreement with Turkey and Brazil and said that he wanted Japan to join, as Japan previously made a similar proposal. Please tell us why Japan did not participate.

Minister: I have no intention to speak about specific matters. However, at a certain point, there emerged the possibility that this agreement may be used to delay the overall discussions on the sanctions. In addition, Iran has continued to move forward with its 20% enrichment program. Amid this situation, we determined that we cannot join discussions on this.

3. Seizure of Gaza Aid Ships

Nezu, NHK: My question concerns Middle East affairs in connection with Iran. It appears that an incident occurred on the 31st of May in which Israeli forces captured a group of civilians attempting to deliver humanitarian goods to the Palestinian territory of Gaza. With regard to this incident, the UN Security Council is currently holding an emergency meeting. Please tell us about you views on how Japan intends to respond to this matter.

Minister: First, I think it is necessary to clarify the facts. Israel’s involvement is quite clear, but it is necessary to get a clear grasp of such things as the course of events leading up to that. Of course, a lot of people have lost their lives. One side is a military force, while the other side is a group of civilians. I feel that it is extremely regrettable that human lives were lost amid such circumstances. Aside from this, I think we need to discern the facts a little more.
Director-General Toshiro Suzuki of the Middle Eastern and African Affairs Bureau called the Israeli Ambassador over to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on this issue and conveyed a message already announced by the Press Secretary. We thereby expressed hope that the situation will be quickly brought under control.

4. Political Situation (Realignment of the U.S. Forces in Japan)

Nishino, Kyodo News: I have a question about the political situation. I understand this question as being in line with your statements that diplomacy will not go well without the trust of the people, so please answer directly. After the slumping public approval rating for the Cabinet and the like, there are cries coming from the Democratic Party that they could not compete in a House of Councilors election in the present situation. Today, a meeting of the Standing Officers Council was held, and the response to the matter has been entrusted to Chairman of the DPJ Caucus, Koshiishi. What are your views on these moves within the party to demand the replacement of the Prime Minister before a House of Councilors election?

Minister: I think that each candidate and Diet member has his or her own views. Also, regarding the slumping support rating for the Democratic Party, speaking frankly, I feel that this is an adverse wind. I do not think, however, that changing the leadership will settle this. Also, looking back at the history of the Democratic Party, there has been a tendency for calls to be made to somehow change the leadership at these times, particularly as an election approaches, but I think that the Japanese people are watching, including this. Before the general elections, many views about Prime Minister Aso were voiced within the Liberal Democratic Party. Then, I think that support, or shall I say the ability of Prime Minister Aso to attract support, was further lost. I therefore think that caution is required for this kind of thing.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: I think that these views coming from within the Democratic Party now are in reaction to the resolution of Futenma Air Station relocation issue, and Social Democratic Party leader Fukushima's opposition to that, and her subsequent dismissal. From your perspective as Minister, have there been any errors, or mistakes in the response by the Hatoyama government?

Minister: Of course, this is a process of trial and error, so naturally in hindsight there are things that one should have done differently. But the truth of the matter is that although people are now talking about Futenma, I do not think that it is only about Futenma. I think that it is a combination of many things. But it is a fact that the issue of Futenma is the biggest agenda for the time being. Ultimately, this issue is about how to approach agreements between Japan and the United States. Therefore, although it is unfortunate that the Social Democratic Party left the coalition because they cannot accept an agreement between Japan and the United States that includes the relocation of Futenma (Air Station) to the Henoko area, I think one could say that there were no other options. So at the same time, I think that this also calls into question the approach of the people within the Democratic Party who are making various criticisms. It is a policy of the Cabinet to respect agreements between Japan and the United States, and at the same time, I think that Diet members from the Democratic Party should make this a premise of their debates.

Iwakami, Freelance: I have a question in relation to the question just now. This morning, I went to Minister Kamei's press conference, where I asked about the outcome for the resolution of the Futenma issue, and about the departure of the Social Democratic Party in response to that, and his views. He responded that the goal was still to relocate Futenma out of the prefecture or out of the country. He said that things were still "ing," or in other words “in the present progressive”, and that he had by no means given up. I feel what he said is quite remote from the answers you have been giving until now, that the Cabinet regards the issue to have been settled in the Henoko area. He also perceived the Social Democratic Party favorably. I have great respect for both you and Minister Kamei, but I think that there is a substantial difference in your views. Please describe these differences within the Cabinet.

Minister: I think that Minister Kamei is speaking about this possibility at a point quite some time in the future, but this may not necessarily conflict with moving Futenma (Air Station) to the Henoko area for the time being, in order to remove the danger. In reducing the burden on Okinawa, it is natural to reduce the overall base footprint over the medium to long term. I think that an equivocal resolution to security issues is extremely difficult. Even if we were somehow able to weather it this time, the same issue would eventually come up again, so although I believe that a great deal of explanation and persuasion have been directed at Social Democratic Party leader Fukushima by Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirano, if one thinks that the only way is for Futenma to be relocated outside of Japan, then unfortunately it will not be possible to come to an agreement.

Iwakami, Freelance: If I may quote Minister Kamei, he said, "Henoko has been settled on as a resolution, but this will not be possible without the understanding and consent of the people of Okinawa. It will not be feasible if the prefectural residents are strongly opposed." He thus commented that the prefectural residents are currently very strongly opposed, and this opposition has actually grown stronger since the decision to move to Henoko; and that based on this sentiment of opposition, he feels that it is difficult to implement. What are your views on this point?

Minister: It is a fact that it will be extremely difficult. But if we then give up because of this and leave it as it is, then the status quo of the danger of Futenma will be maintained, and this should not happen. Thus the attitude of the government is to explain this issue sincerely, as the entire Cabinet, in order to gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa. Then at the same time, there is an aspect of the domestic political situation in this issue, but when one thinks of Japan's security environment, I am, somewhat uncomfortable; I think that there is no way that the current debate alone is sufficient. Although the current debate is necessary, at the same time it is the responsibility of the government to assure the security of the Japanese people, and we must think hard about the impact on the Japan-US alliance of continuing to put this off, leaving it in its current ambiguous state. I think that this is the responsibility of the government.

Kamide, Freelance: I was also at Minister Kamei's press conference, and he stated fairly strongly and clearly that "There is no way this issue will be resolved unless Okinawa and the Japanese people are convinced." Is what you are saying now that no matter what happens, this issue will be resolved with Henoko? Aren't there any other ways to resolve it?

Minister: It is a fact that this will not be implemented without the understanding of the residents of Okinawa. This is why sincere efforts to obtain their understanding are required. If you take as a premise that this cannot be done, then, shall I say that no progress will be made at all, or the current situation will be fixed; so the government cannot make this kind of response.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Regarding the awareness, or the perception of the prefectural residents, this weekend my newspaper, the Ryukyu Shimpo, and Mainichi Newspapers conducted a joint public opinion poll of the prefectural residents. As I believe you are aware, 84% were opposed to the relocation to Henoko, which is 17% higher than the same survey that was conducted from October to November of last year. Furthermore, it could be said that public opinion in Okinawa has grown stronger in saying "no" to (relocating the base) within the prefecture, and "no" to Henoko. Furthermore, support for the Cabinet is in the single digits, at 8%, and the proportion of people who support the Japan-US Security Treaty has fallen by half, to 7%. Please comment on your reaction to the fact that the numbers in opposition to Henoko have reached this level, and although you have continually been speaking about supporting the security treaty, please comment on the current situation, in which this further response, and the fact that it also points to distrust in the security treaty, or at least this is very much the case in Okinawa, could rock the very foundations of the security treaty that sustains the stationing of US troops.

Minister: I think that these are harsh figures. This is why we must explain things properly and gain their understanding. We cannot quit the security treaty because the figures are harsh. If it is about responsible politics, properly protecting the lives and property of the Japanese people, and fulfilling our role in regional peace and stability, then I think that we must explain this properly and calmly.

Kajiwara, NHK: I do not think that we will be able to get a calm assessment of this agreement between Japan and the United States until some time has passed, but on the other hand, this Japan-US agreement has eventually enraged the residents of Okinawa; caused the Social Democratic Party to leave the coalition; and threatened to bring down the Hatoyama government. As the Minister who brought together this Japan-US agreement, what are your views on, shall I say, your methods or the responsibility, on this topic?

Minister: The relevant Cabinet Ministers gathered under the Prime Minister, and advanced the Japan-US agreement, while confirming our stance point by point. It would have been impossible to get an outlook on the future without this agreement. The Prime Minister has been well aware that this would cause him to receive harsh criticism, and that his support might temporarily fall, but he took action from the standpoint that it was his political responsibility to thoroughly eliminate the danger of Futenma. I feel the same.

Yamamoto, Sekainippo: The government has been saying that the agreement between the governments of Japan and the United States is vital from the standpoint of the Japan-US Security Treaty, or the standpoint of national security, and that something must be done even if it means changing the will of the people of Okinawa. But at the rally that was held in Okinawa prefecture, please excuse me for bringing up an old stay, but on there being 90,000 people at the rally, it was reported widely in the media that there were 90,000 people, from the organizers' announcement alone. Subsequently, the analysis of aerial photographs by a security company showed that there were around 11,500 people, and even if we cannot know the exact numbers, if this has a certain level of credibility, then it means that the media reported a number seven times larger than reality, based only on the announcement of the organizers that there were 90,000 people. Some weeklies, and the Yomiuri Shimbun published columns on this, but if the government is going to decide on Henoko in Okinawa at this stage, then I would like to hear your views at this stage as to whether you will make some kind of statement on this reporting in the media, or these trends in the facts, regardless of whether the atmosphere makes it difficult to say, if you wish to regain your support to some extent, then will you express your thoughts in some way at that stage?

Minister: If this was an announcement by the organizers, then these are the numbers announced by the organizers, and I do not think that the government should say that those are wrong. Of course, I think that it is natural for this to be debated in the media, but I do not think that this is something that the government should comment on.

Higuchi, TBS: This is in relation to the earlier question by Mr. Kajiwara of NHK, on the topic of going back over the methods used in Futenma discussion until now, I would like to ask on your relationships with the bureaucrats. At the Prime Minister's press conference last Friday, he mentioned an information leak in response to a question on whether the accumulated experience of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense in the field was sufficiently utilized, or whether there were any points for reflection in the relations with government agencies with regard to determining policies under political leadership. In other words, he said that he obtained the knowledge of bureaucrats from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense. On the other hand, he said that when large numbers of people were working on a task, information was leaked during that process. He said, " the broad and large-heartedness to win everyone's trust may be demanded of the Prime Minister himself or the Cabinet members." Looking back at your relationship with the bureaucrats over these past eight months, have you sensed this same challenge? If not, please tell us where your view differs.

Minister: I think that the staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs truly did a great job in the work leading up to this agreement. The negotiations were tough, but I believe that they worked over the weekends (to complete them). The information leak is a separate topic. I do not know where the leak originated, but on the day that the Prime Minister went to Okinawa, a great deal of information appeared in the morning editions all at once. If someone had not leaked it, it would not have appeared in so many media, if not just one newspaper. The information was inaccurate. In particular, the information about the environmental-impact assessment was incorrect. Consequently, it is clear at least that there is absolutely no way that this could have been leaked from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Although I do not know who leaked it, or how, but I think that it was a highly deplorable action. Because this was the day that the Prime Minister went (to Okinawa).

Inoue, Kyodo News: At today's meeting of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, the Chief Cabinet Secretary said in the discussion of relocation of training that it was not only training that would be relocated to the island of Tokunoshima, that they were not considering a training relocation alone. You also mentioned the activities of the US Military, but could you describe what kind of US Military activities other than training will be to Tokunoshima?

Minister: That is not decided at this time. I only pointed out that rather than the term "training relocation," the Japan-US agreement uses the slightly broader term "activities."

Inoue, Kyodo News: By US Military activities with a slightly broader meaning than "training relocation," do you mean that there are some activities other than training (to be relocated)? What kinds of things could this include?

Minister: This is not something that has been specified. It is as written in the document.

5. ROK Patrol Ship Sinking Incident

Nishioka, Mainichi Newspapers: I would like to ask a question about the patrol ship sinking incident. Before the results of investigations on this incident were disclosed, you stated that “if it becomes clear as a result of the investigations that North Korea was involved, it will not become a situation in which the six-party talks would be resumed right away.” On the other hand, if we look at the joint press release of Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Summit Meeting issued the other day, it says that the three countries will continue to make concerted efforts through the process of the Six-Party Talks. It emphasizes the promotion of dialogue with North Korea toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. I have heard that discussions were held on the patrol ship sinking incident and the six-party talks during yesterday’s Japan-China Summit Meeting. Please tell us about the details as to what kind of assertion the Japanese side made at yesterday’s meeting with regard to the six-party talks.

Minister: From what I can recall, I do not think that there were any comments on the six-party talks at the meeting. I believe that was because the discussions had already been held on that during the Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Summit Meeting, but I do not recall that the top leaders of Japan and China held any kind of discussion the six-party talks.

Saito, Kyodo News: My question concerns the (ROK) patrol ship and is related to the question posed earlier by Mr. Nishioka of Mainichi Newspapers. You attended both the Japan-China-ROK Trilateral Summit Meeting and the Japan-China Summit Meeting, and I believe that a major focal point was the extent to which it would be possible to narrow the gap between China or gain China’s cooperation over the issue of referring to the UN Security Council, for which the ROK is currently making preparations. However, I have heard at a briefing that amid this situation, discussions were held yesterday among a small group of people and that the Chinese side requested not to disclose comments made by the Chinese side during the meeting. While I am aware of that, please tell us about your perception, putting aside what the Chinese side said, as to whether progress was made as a result of the Japan-China Summit Meeting, or whether some degree of flexibility could be noticed in China’s overall attitude.

Minister: I believe that it was a pledge not to disclose such matters to the outside. The impression I had, if my memory is correct, is that the meeting was held among a small group of people for about 40 minutes. Prime Minister Hatoyama and Premier Wen Jiabao spoke one on one, while I listened on the sidelines, but they made differing assertions. Although their assertions were different, they both had strong feelings that this issue must be resolved properly in one way or another. I felt that despite the differences in views, it was a very good meeting. My understanding is that it was a meeting that could become the starting point for further talks. However, I cannot speak about specific matters.
Nevertheless, I feel that it is all right to say this since it is my own comment. At the end of the meeting, I said to Premier Wen Jiabao, although the foreign ministers do not make statements during Summit meetings, that “The meeting was very fruitful on the whole, including the talks on gas fields, and you delivered a good message to the people of Japan. That was very praiseworthy.” I frankly think it was a very good meeting, though I am not comparing it with some other meetings.

6. NPT Review Conference

Okada, Chugoku Shimbun: I would like to ask you a question on the NPT Review Conference, which concluded last week. The wording on the start of negotiations on a nuclear weapons ban treaty was included in the final document, but since the government has so far had a negative view about this, how will the government respond to this now that this wording has been incorporated into the final document? In addition, among the points at issue, there was quite a bit of contention over drawing up a roadmap for the elimination of nuclear weapons, and in the final stages, there was a step backward. Please tell us how the government thinks about this point.

Minister: The roadmap is as it has been written in the final document. Such an expression was adopted because the nuclear-weapon states rejected including specific matters. Although it is a little regrettable, that is the product of compromise between countries that possess nuclear weapons and those that do not – the result of their interaction amid a compromise among the whole. Even with regard to the nuclear weapons ban treaty, some non-nuclear-weapons states made clearer assertions, but the expression concerning this matter turned out to be as it is as a result of compromise. I believe that since an agreement has been reached on each matter at the United Nations, talks will move forward with that as a basis. However, I think that it will be necessary to hold talks a little more in depth as to what should be done and in what order of priority.

Back to Index