Top > Announcement > Press Conference by Foreign Minister > June 9, 2010

(* 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: Wednesday, June 9, 2010, 0:11 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

  1. Opening Remarks
    • (1) Ministerial Reappointment Address
  2. Reappointment as Foreign Minister
  3. US Military Realignment Issue
  4. Deepening of the Japan-US Alliance
  5. Political Appointments
  6. Domestic Politics (Inauguration of the New Kan Cabinet)
  7. Investigations on the So-called “Secret Agreements” Issue

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Ministerial Reappointment Address

Minister Okada: I have been reappointed as foreign minister. I look forward to your continued support and cooperation.
   Looking back at nearly nine months that have passed, I have taken on various challenges, but there are many issues on which I have yet to achieve sufficient results. Amid this situation, I think that I have been given the opportunity to steadily promote Japanese diplomacy by bringing to fruition the seeds that, in a sense, I have sown so far. With regard to what I have done so far – for example, the secret agreements issue I promised (to resolve) at my first press conference; the establishment of the principles concerning management and disclosure of documents that was triggered by the secret agreements issue: And now, I believe that there are many things that can be called concrete results such as the opening of press conferences or concluding the Japan-US agreement on the Futenma (Air Station relocation) issue, upon which I have many things to reflect, though. Still, there are also many things that have yet to be accomplished.
   With regard to Japan-US relations, we must promote the deepening of the alliance and at the same time move forward the Futenma issue by gaining the understanding of the people of Okinawa – we need to tackle such issues.
   It is also very important to further deepen ties with China, the ROK, and ASEAN member countries on the basis of a large future concept called the East Asian community concept.
   With regard to macro or global issues, I believe I have been involved quite a bit in such issues as nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, global warming, and the issue of poverty centering on Africa. I intend to make further efforts to firmly tackle such issues.
   In any case, as I stated when I first became foreign minister, diplomacy does not move forward without the people’s understanding and support. Keeping this thought firmly in mind, I intend to firmly stick to my basic stance of a hands-on approach or moving things forward by returning to the core of the matters and thoroughly thinking through them.

2. Reappointment as Foreign Minister

Nezu, NHK: In September of last year, at the press conference upon your appointment, you spoke about setting specific targets and schedules, for issues you would address over the next 100 days, and over the next 300 days. Now, upon your reappointment, please tell us your thoughts on this topic.

Minister: When I said within 100 days, I had the end of the year in mind. And by 300 days, I meant by the House of Councilors election. There is not much time left until the House of Councilors election, although it will also depend on what will happen with an extension of the present session. For now, however, I think that there are three areas in particular that I must focus on. The first is the issue of nuclear weapons development in Iran. The second is the attack on and sinking of a Republic of Korea (ROK) vessel by North Korea, and the response by the international community. The third regards the Futenma issue. The deadline of the end of August has been set, and it has been decided that a study will be undertaken by experts. I think that for now, these are the issues that I must put all my energies on. Looking out a little more over the mid- and long-term, there are various things, as I mentioned earlier.

3. US Military Realignment Issue

Nishino, Kyodo News: Out of the three topics you mentioned, my question is about Futenma. Will the Ministry of Foreign Affairs be specifically involved with the expert study? Also, although this slightly goes off the track, will the Ministry of Foreign Affairs take the lead in requesting the understanding of Okinawa?

Minister: In any case, this is an issue that the entire government must work to resolve. Among these, I think that the Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Minister Maehara, the Cabinet members responsible for Okinawa need to play a central role, or must form a team with the Prime Minister’s Office, and tackle the issue properly.
   I believe that we must now urgently consider how we will actually form such a team.

Yamauchi, Nikkei Shimbun: In your opening remarks, you stated that there were many points to reflect on regarding the Futenma issue. Please tell us about these specifically. Also, you say that you will be proceeding further toward the 2+2 by the end of August; please tell us how you will utilize these points for reflection.

Minister: Our biggest point for reflection is that we have not been able to gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa. I think that we could have done things slightly differently, though it is a fact that this is a fundamentally difficult problem. That is why this Japan-US agreement has a fair number of measures to reduce the burden on Okinawa, and I think that it is now extremely important to request understanding while explaining this agreement properly.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: The US White House's NSC Senior Director for Asian Affairs Bader gave a lecture in the United States, where he said that (the US) was not sure who to communicate with in the Hatoyama government. He said that this became clear in April or May. Do you agree that this confusion existed within the government? Also, will you use this as a point of reflection when building the new organizational system?

Minister: I do not know what he meant by saying that they were not sure who to communicate with, but it is essentially the diplomatic route, and this is the route of the Department of State and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. More specifically, Ambassador to Japan Roos and I have discussed extensively and frankly, I am not sure what (Bader) means.

Yoshinaga, Mainichi Newspapers: Even with the formation of the new government, I think that the will of Okinawa or their tough position has not changed at all; on this point, will it be possible to take new options to revise it, for example in the sense of incorporating the will of Okinawa, or incorporating measures to reduce the burden in the Japan-US agreement, by the end of August?

Minister: As you know, the end of August is the timing for the technical study. We do not need to gain the consent of Okinawa by then. Of course, this is not what we must ask the understanding of Okinawa about. However, I think that we need to work daily to gain understanding. What I am saying is that if we do not gain this understanding by the end of August, it does not necessarily mean that we will not be able to move forward from there. In any case, we will eventually form an overall vision based on this technical study, so I think that we must work further to gain the understanding of Okinawa in this regard.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Regarding the issue of Futenma, has the Prime Minister given you any instructions, at today's Cabinet meeting or afterward, aside from what form the Prime Minister's team will take?

Minister: We have still not spoken concretely about that.

Beppu, NHK: I think that there will be a follow-up, but the first part is, as you determine candidate locations by the end of August, are you aiming to also reflect the views and wishes of Okinawa by the end of August? Or will this be done between Japan and the United States?

Minister: We want to reflect the voice of Okinawa as much as possible, but at this stage, I frankly think that we will probably go into it assuming that we will build in the Henoko area, and it will be pretty difficult to have discussions about this or that being better, by looking at the current situation in Okinawa. So I think that what we should do by the end of August is to draw on what the technical possibilities are between Japan and the U.S. Amid this, I of course think that we must advance the technical study keeping in mind that it must be easy to gain the understanding of Okinawa ultimately.

Beppu, NHK: If that is the case, from what you have said, in the end, Okinawa holds the final say? Is the final criterion of whether (a location) will be accepted the understanding of Okinawa? Will this take the form of Japan and the United States working out a plan, and then being consolidated on whether Okinawa gives consent to it?

Minister: We must gain the understanding of Okinawa. But at the same time, if we leave things as they are, then the status quo will remain unchanged, so the question is how to work out an acceptable solution. At the same time, taking the premise that the US military bases are necessary in order to secure the safety of the Japanese people, the problem is how to work through.

Tsuruoka, Asahi Shimbun: After the study by the end of August, a deadline has been set for the next 2+2 confirmation. Do you plan to gain the agreement of Okinawa by the next 2+2?

Minister: I have not used the expression "gain the agreement," so I think that this is the view of the questioner. However, I think that we must strive to gain the understanding of Okinawa.

Yoshinaga, Mainichi Newspapers: My question is about incorporating measures to lessen the burden on Okinawa in the Japan-US agreement. For example, I think that the major framework for a green alliance has been formed, but the specifics have not yet been worked out. How long do you intend to work out the details? For example, gaining the understanding of Okinawa by the 2+2? Or will you also continue to study (the matter) after that?

Minister: We will advance them in parallel.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Earlier, you spoke about a distinction in word use, between gaining Okinawa's "understanding" versus its "agreement." You have not used the phrase "gain the agreement," but you say that effort is needed to gain the understanding. What do you mean by the phrases "gain the agreement" and "gain the understanding?"

Minister: I do not think that I have used the phrase "gain the agreement." When you say "gain the agreement," it creates a question of who (is agreeing). In other words, when you use a fairly formal word like "agreement," the question arises as to whether it is the (agreement of) the assemblies, or the prefecture, or the cities, and so on. When I say "gain the understanding" overall, I am saying that it is necessary to create condition where the people of Okinawa as a whole can accept it. To be more specific, it means that one cannot decide things by saying "now it is like this"; it means that it is vital to create the conditions where the people of Okinawa truly think that there is no other alternative. I do not intend to speak further on this.

Kawamura, Shukan Asahi: On the earlier topic of the relocation of Futenma, the joint statement by Japan and the United States includes the condition of the "acceptance of the local communities," but seen from Japan, it appears that it will be quite difficult to gain the acceptance of the local communities in the Henoko-saki area. How will you explain this to the United States? If you have explained it, then it would seem to be in conflict with the Japan-United States joint statement itself, but what are your views in this regard?

Minister: When you say the Japan-US agreement, which expression are you referring to?

Kawamura, Shukan Asahi: The joint statement between Japan and the United States has the phrase "the acceptance of the local communities," correct? I believe that the "acceptance of the local communities" means the acceptance of the local communities in the Henoko-saki area. Since the statement says "Henoko-saki area", seen from Japan, there does not seem to be any chance of gaining the acceptance of the local communities in the Henoko-saki area. Please tell us how you will explain this to the United States, and how you plan to move this forward.

Minister: I wonder if it is appropriate to jump to the conclusion that "the acceptance of the local communities" means "the acceptance of the people in the Henoko-saki area."

Kawamura, Shukan Asahi: But the name of the region is written there.

Minister: Please read the document carefully, because it could also mean Okinawa as a whole. I have been explaining the current situation in Okinawa in detail, and of course, the United States is fully aware of it, but that acceptance will be achieved by working together to gain understanding of this.

Iwakami, Freelance: You cautioned us earlier not to use the word "agreement." Instead of the word "agreement," you used the phrase, "create the conditions" where Okinawa as a whole "thinks that there is no other alternative." This sounds to me like you intend to wear them down until they give in out of resignation, until they are truly exhausted from resisting, rather than gain the consent, or agreement, or acceptance of the people of Okinawa, who have held on until they were completely worn out.
This may be a somewhat harsh way to put it, but what is of greatest interest to the Japanese people is what will happen if a true acceptance, or settlement, or understanding with the people of Okinawa cannot be reached. And this is also of interest to the people of Okinawa. I would therefore like to ask one more time whether the will of the government will be imposed in a certain sense, or whether if something truly cannot be worked out, then you will rethink (the solution).

Minister: I do not by any means think that the people of Okinawa will do it happily. In this sense, we must be very persistent in calling for their understanding. But if it is difficult for Okinawa to accept, then we will not be able to move forward. If we cannot move forward, then it means that the current situation will be fixed, and the current situation is extremely dangerous to the lives and safety of the people of Japan itself. We must work to gain understanding, while making an overall determination about this.

Iwakami, Freelance: To put it in a bad way, saying that the current situation could be fixed sounds a little like a threat. As the reason for the latter point, it has been said that the safety of Japan is threatened, in other words, that if we do not depend on the US Military, then the security of Japan will be threatened. I also asked about this frequently during the last Cabinet. Now upon the current Cabinet, I would like to ask again whether, not that the all of the US military leaving, but if some of this deterrence could become lacking, then would this government consider it unthinkable to enhance Japan's self defense in order to cover that portion itself? When former Prime Minister Hatoyama resigned, he made a kind of appeal, saying that Japan should protect itself. I would like to ask if you plan to consider this point again.

Minister: Former Prime Minister Hatoyama spoke about that point as something we should aim for in the considerable future and ideally. He was not saying that in reality we can do this immediately. Of course, I think that we could discuss theoretically that Japan should create its own capability to replace the Marines. But if we tried to gain that much capability, we have the issue related to Article Nine of the Constitution; I think it will be extremely difficult to have that level of offensive capability without amending the Constitution.

4. Deepening of the Japan-US Alliance

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: I believe that at the earlier press conference, you spoke about the deepening of the Japan-US alliance as a homework given by the Prime Minister. I believe that discussions are currently under way among working-level officials. Please tell us about the current status of progress and the like.

Minister: I cannot speak about the details when things are still in mid-course. However, I think that we need to have some discussions at some point at the political level. Taking various matters into consideration, I think that this will happen after the (upcoming) House of Councilors election.

5. Political Appointments

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: With State Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Tetsuro) Fukuyama was promoted to deputy chief cabinet secretary, do you have any plans regarding the appointment of a state secretary for foreign affairs or a parliamentary vice-minister for foreign affairs?

Minister: I have a slight feeling of resistance when you say that the state secretary for foreign affairs was “promoted” to deputy chief cabinet secretary, but since the role of the deputy chief cabinet secretary is an important role, I gladly sent him off. His successor has been selected, but I do not think that I need to speak about that at this stage.

6. Domestic Politics (Inauguration of the New Kan Cabinet)

Nanao, Niconico Video: Today, at the Prime Minister’s Office, Prime Minister Kan described his cabinet as the “Kiheitai (the Irregular Militia) Cabinet,” following the example of ShinsakuTakasugi (a samurai from the Choshu domain of Japan who contributed significantly to the Meiji Restoration). How would you describe the atmosphere of the new cabinet in a single phrase?

Minister: A considerable number of people have been retained, so in that sense, it does not look like the Cabinet has changed all at once. However, with young, energetic people joining it, I feel that the Cabinet has become one that has a lot more vitality.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Since there were such matters as the Futenma issue, I venture to ask a question about how the system of governance of the Kan administration and the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) ought to be. This time, the party’s Policy Research Committee is to be reinstated, with Mr. Genba concurrently serving as a cabinet minister and chairman of the committee. Meanwhile, there is a state minister in charge of national policy as well as a chief cabinet secretary. Without a clear roadmap stipulating the procedures for promoting policy coordination, I think that confusion can be expected with inconsistent remarks (made by cabinet ministers). In reflection of the past eight months, how do you feel that policy coordination ought to be conducted, moving forward? Please tell us about your views as one of the leaders of the DPJ.

Minister: Since the role of the chairman of the Policy Research Committee is to coordinate policies within the party, having a cabinet minister concurrently serve that position is intended to maintain unity between the party and the Cabinet. I do not think that this will lead to confusion or the like. In the first place, having a person in charge of policies join the Cabinet in this form is something that we had envisioned all along, so I feel that this has finally taken place. As to how the Chief Cabinet Secretary and the State Minister in charge of National Policy should share roles in promoting coordination within the Cabinet, I believe that this matter will be discussed within the Cabinet. I think that I should refrain from making comments based on speculation, since I am not participating in discussions on this matter at the moment. There are two ideas regarding this matter. One is that the Chief Cabinet Secretary would handle (coordination among) ministries while the State Minister in charge of National Policy would handle policy coordination. The other is that coordination of individual, specific policies would be done by the State Minister in charge of National Policy under the instructions of the Chief Cabinet Secretary. Until now, it (policy coordination) has rather been such that the adjustment of strategies had been consolidated under the State Minister in charge of National Policy, although there are various arguments as to what extent this has worked in reality. The way I see it is that this time, there was a shift from a system in which the State Minister in charge of National Policy was in charge (of policy coordination) to that in which the State Minister in charge of National Policy does the coordination under the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s instructions, or as the case may be, the Chief Cabinet Secretary him/herself coordinates policies.

Murao, Yomiuri Shimbun: Is there a possibility that the party’s Policy Research Committee will also be involved in the Futenma issue in some way?

Minister: I think that the Futenma issue should be discussed within the party, as a matter of fact. It is not that there have previously been no such discussions, and it is not that this issue has not been brought up for discussion at policy meetings and the like. Naturally, I believe that there possibly will be various discussions. However, since the Cabinet, for its part, has already endorsed the Japan-US agreement, I believe that it is necessary to listen to various arguments under this premise, of course.

Yokota, Freelance: I would like to ask a question in connection with the restoration of the Policy Research Committee. With regard to the Policy Research Committee under the previous administration, I believe that there emerged criticism that the details of discussions held at policy meetings were never made public. During yesterday’s press conference, the (DPJ) Secretary General said various things about the new Policy Research Committee. Please tell us about how the new Policy Research Committee intends to handle this issue.

Minister: I am not aware of that. I think that this will be studied under the chairman of the Policy Research Committee.

Makita, Yomiuri Shimbun: At a press conference before the (DPJ) presidential election, Prime Minister Kan made comments effectively asking former Secretary General Ozawa to “remain quiet for a while.” He also made comments to that effect at today’s press conference. As a member of the Kan Cabinet, what are your thoughts about your distance from Mr. Ozawa or about cooperating with him, and in this connection, how do you feel (the DPJ) should respond to demands by the opposition parties to summon Mr. Ozawa as a sworn witness as they are once again making this demand today?

Minister: First, did Prime Minister Kan say, “I want Mr. Ozawa to remain quiet”? I do not quite remember that. In any case, (Mr. Ozawa) has stepped down as secretary general and he currently does not hold any executive post. In that sense, the current situation is that what (former) Prime Minister Hatoyama said has come about in this form. I do not think that “remaining quiet” means “do not make any comments.” I believe that this (keeping quiet) has come about precisely because (Mr. Ozawa) currently does not hold any executive post. As I spoke about it at the press conference held earlier at the Prime Minister’s Office, I feel that it is up to Mr. Ozawa to decide how to handle matters in relation to the Diet. I believe that if he were in an important post in the party, then the party would not be able to be unconcerned on that, or if he held an important cabinet post, the Cabinet would not be able to remain indifferent to that as well. Currently, that is not the case.

7. Investigations on the So-called “Secret Agreements” Issue

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I would like to hear your comments on the secret agreements issue. As it also appeared in the previous report on missing documents, there was a verdict on a lawsuit requesting information disclosure by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As MOFA’s official view in response to the verdict, you expressed frustration, shall I say – or that is how I felt, by saying, “I cannot see how much the verdict reflects the fact that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducted a very detailed search, but they (the missing documents) could not be found.” Looking back, I think that it was possible after the proceedings during the trial or later on, from the standpoint of court strategy, to file a plea for resuming oral arguments, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could have brought that up. As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not do that, I feel that this boils down to a matter of the responsibility of Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I think that it is unreasonable for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to criticize the verdict by saying that it (the verdict) did not touch on that (MOFA’s conducting a detailed search). How do you feel about this?

Minister: I will deal with that in court.

Back to Index