(* 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 15, 2010, 4:47 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Emergency Grant Aid to Tajikistan
- (2) Appointments of Ambassadors
- (3) World Cup Soccer Games
ROK Patrol Ship Sinking Incident
Appointments of Ambassadors
Visit to Japan by US Assistant Secretary of State Campbell
Security Environment in the Northeast Asia Region
US Military Realignment Issue
Visit to Japan by Afghan President Karzai
Assistance during Gulf War
Formulation of Foreign Policy
Case of Missing Japanese Painting Displayed at Embassy
Cabinet Approval Rating
Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Emergency Grant Aid to Tajikistan

Minister Okada: One of my announcements is that at today’s Cabinet meeting, a decision was made to extend emergency grant aid worth approximately 0.2 million US dollars for measures against polio in Tajikistan and neighboring countries. This is to assist the procurement and transport of polio vaccines for about 350,000 children so that Tajikistan and neighboring countries will be able to obtain polio vaccines. This emergency grant aid will be extended through the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

(2) Appointments of Ambassadors

Minister: While appointments of ambassadors have already been reported in the evening papers, these include those that have been decided at today’s Cabinet meeting and those that have been endorsed. The appointments that have been decided include the ambassadors to China, Australia, Greece, and the ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the Kansai region, while those who have been endorsed include the ambassador for the Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations and the ambassadors to Canada, the ROK, and Egypt. These appointments have already been reported and are as you all know well. If you have any questions I would like to answer them.

(3) World Cup Soccer Games

Minister: Finally, I would like to say that it was very good that Japan defeated Cameroon in the World Cup Soccer Games yesterday. I watched the first half and went to bed. I fell asleep with peace of mind after Japan scored one point and I felt confident about Japan’s victory. As I had been feeling slightly distressed that the name Okada (name of the coach for the Japanese soccer team) has been the target of bashing, I think it was very good (that Japan won). I promised Foreign Minister Mashabane of South Africa that if the Japanese team manages to advance to the final match, I would visit South Africa once again. However, since I think we would be asking too much (of the Japanese team) to hope that (the team) would get that far on the first try, I would like to see (the team) win and advance to the final tournament first.

2. ROK Patrol Ship Sinking Incident

Saito, Kyodo News: My question is in relation to the sinking of the (ROK) patrol ship. I have heard that 15 countries held an informal consultation at the UN Security Council the other day and that the ambassador to the UN for Mexico, the chairing nation, subsequently issued a presidential statement expressing concern over the incident. Since this was a closed session that apparently will not be kept on record and the president’s statement apparently has no binding force, how do you feel about the Security Council’s response this time? As former Prime Minister Hatoyama has given assurance to (ROK) President Lee Myung-bak that Japan would take the lead in referring the incident to the Security Council, how has (the Government of Japan) actually dealt with this matter and what kind of results does it intend to seek under the current circumstances? Please tell us about your thoughts on these matters.

Minister: Since (the Security Council) has not made any kind of decision yet, I have no particular comments concerning an ongoing process. While maintaining close contact with the ROK Government, the Government of Japan, for one thing, has given it various advices as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. The GOJ has also fallen in line (with the ROK Government) up till this day, while thoroughly grasping what the ROK Government is seeking. Moving forward, we would like to cooperate (with the ROK Government) so that we can achieve the best results, while, of course, watching how the other members (of the Security Council) respond.

Saito, Kyodo News: The Hatoyama administration convened a meeting of the Security Council of Japan in late May, and my understanding is that the members of the Cabinet shared serious concerns -- a sense of crisis -- about the situation on the Korean Peninsula. Looking at moves in the UN since then, I think that the incident in which Israeli forces attacked a ship carrying aid to the Palestinian autonomous region or discussions on sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities have taken precedence. In the ROK, unified local elections were held and the Lee Myung-bak administration suffered a setback in the elections. In this way, there have been various developments. Moreover, while this is not directly related, I have heard that since the ROK won a game at the World Cup Soccer Games, a lot of interest in such matters has emerged within the country, and while this is not rational, the mood, shall I say, or the atmosphere has changed in terms of public opinion as compared to that at the time that the results of the investigations into the sinking incident came out. Has the tension on the Korean Peninsula actually eased and does the Government of Japan plan to make any changes to its position in line with that, or is there any such possibility? Please tell us about your perception of the current situation and your outlook.

Minister: Discussions at the Security Council on Iran were already scheduled to take precedence from the beginning. As for the case of Israel, it is true that (a Security Council meeting) was held at an early stage after such an incident occurred, but not much time was spent on that. If you ask me whether the situation has changed with regard to North Korea, my answer is no. As usual, North Korea has been saying, in a certain sense, very provocative things, so I have no reason to believe that the situation has improved. We will firmly deal with the situation with a sense of urgency. I feel that thorough discussions at the Security Council are sought in order to prevent such things from recurring. As to what specific actions should be taken, we would like to move forward while holding close consultations with the ROK Government.

3. Appointments of Ambassadors

Nishioka, Mainichi Newspapers: Please tell us about your thoughts on the intentions (of the Government of Japan) with regard to appointing a private sector person as the next Japanese ambassador to China.

Minister: Rather than that a private sector person (has been appointed), I thought of (appointing) the right person to the right post. Even before I became foreign minister, I had always believed that rather than making a selection from a narrow field, the government should look at a broader range of human resources when selecting ambassadors because the post of an ambassador is very important, as the ambassador represents the country. Amid this situation, it just happened at this time that we needed to select the proper person as an ambassador to China. Since China is a very important country to Japan, we looked (for a candidate), thinking that if there is an outstanding person, we should select one from the private sector. Mr. Niwa demonstrated excellent skills in implementing corporate reforms at Itochu Corporation – rebuild the company when it was facing considerable difficulties – and I think that many people recognize his achievements as a reform-minded business manager. I believe that he is appropriate because, in addition to his achievements, he is familiar with China, or understands China. While we also appointed the former COO of Nomura Holdings Inc. as ambassador to Greece this time, there are also a few other former trading company officials who have become ambassadors and are currently working in their jobs. I feel that these things should serve as a stimulus to invigorate the entire field. In any case, Mr. Niwa is to become the ambassador to China, which is a very important country to Japan and he has a very important role to play. I feel that it is no exaggeration to say that this will serve as a touchstone to see if those from the private sector will fit in ambassadorial posts. In that sense, I would like for him to work very hard. When I first spoke to him about this, Mr. Niwa promptly replied: “I worked as a corporate manager until now. However, I want to spend the rest of my life serving the country and the people. Since I had been thinking about how I could do this, the work of an ambassador would be very worthwhile.” I would like to hold expectations on this kind of spirit.

Nishioka, Mainichi Newspapers: I have another question. As an ambassador from the private sector is to be appointed to China, voices have emerged pointing out the possibility that other Japanese companies advancing into China may hesitate to exchange information, being cautious about the new ambassador’s ties with his former company. Do you have any plans to convey some kind of views that you have on this to the new ambassador?

Minister: I do not think that there are any of those kinds of things in the economic circles. People know what kind of person Mr. Niwa is. He has served as the president and the chairman of Itochu Corporation, but he plans to completely sever those ties and serve as ambassador. Otherwise, he will absolutely not be able to serve as ambassador. Some people may be making such noise, or making such comments, but that (listening to such comments) would mean that there would be no ambassadors appointed from the private sector. I am convinced that Mr. Niwa will superbly and properly serve his role as a Japanese ambassador.

Ito, Japan Times: Please tell us the government’s intention behind appointing the adviser to Nomura Holdings Inc. as ambassador to Greece and what you expect from him.

Minister: Timing wise, Greece is currently in the spotlight, and (the appointment) came at such a time, but that was just a coincidence. We had been making preparations from two months ago, so I would like you to keep this separate from Greece’s current monetary and fiscal situation. However, appointing people who have various experiences in the private sector and who are respectable and knowledgeable as ambassadors has been practiced before the change in administration. I think that there have been three ambassadors who formerly worked at trading companies – one appointed to Bulgaria and two to Africa. I would like you to consider that (the latest appointment) is a part of that.

4. Visit to Japan by US Assistant Secretary of State Campbell

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: I have heard that US Assistant Secretary of State Campbell is to visit Japan in the latter part of this week. Please tell us about such things as the significance of the visit and its relation to Futenma (Air Station relocation issue).

Minister: Frankly speaking, I have not been specifically following it, as he has been visiting Japan quite frequently. However, there is the patrol ship sinking incident, the Futenma issue, and the change in administration. I believe he is coming to Japan for various reasons.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: I believe that experts will start holding consultations soon, but if there is anything that has been decided with regard to the schedule, would you be able to tell us about it?

Minister: At this stage, I have no specific comments to make yet. I believe that since there has been a change in administration, we need to hold further consultations regarding the way things have been moving along so far and how we want to go forward. Of course, I am aware of the deadline at the end of August, so I do not think that it will take very much time.

5. Security Environment in the Northeast Asia Region

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Yesterday and today, during the Diet questioning, questions were asked with regard to the “consistency between Prime Minister Kan’s past statements” (and his current position) on the issue of deterrence – questions about comparisons such as “in the past, such and such comments were made, but in the latest policy speech, (this and that)” – and Prime Minister Kan (responded to the questions) by explaining the situation after the end of the Cold War between the United States and the (former) Soviet Union or the situation after the 9.11 (simultaneous terrorist attacks on the United States), and explaining that (his position on deterrence) was due to these changes of the times. Now, what I would like to ask you here is whether the current situation is such that the current security environment in Northeast Asia is markedly unstable in comparison to the past.

Minister: As to the question of from what viewpoint the Prime Minister made such comments, I do not know any more than what he said, so I think it would be better to directly ask the Prime Minister’s Office about that. In any case, as various questions were asked today, from what I was able to confirm today, (the comments in question) are those that Mr. Kan made until around 2005. After that, I do not necessarily acknowledge that he made similar comments recently, although I have not confirmed that. It is a fact that the Prime Minister did indeed make such comments about the changes in the external environment, but as to why he made such comments, I think that I should not make any remarks by imagining what the Prime Minister had in mind.

Koyama, Freelance: There was an incident in which a Chinese helicopter flew in close proximity to a Maritime Self-Defense Force ship, and Paul Giarra, a former senior official at the US Department of Defense, has said that this was the result of the weakening of the deterrence capability of the Japan-US alliance over the Futenma issue. With regard to the patrol ship sinking incident, Victor Cha, former director for Asian Affairs at the White House, National Security Council, has also said that this incident occurred because the deterrence capability of Japan and the United States has weakened as a result of the Futenma issue. In short, as the UK’s Financial Times singled out former Prime Minister Hatoyama as the one who created an environment that made it easy for North Korea to take a hard-line policy, both of them (Paul Giarra and Victor Cha) have expressed concerns that the situation in East Asia has become very unstable as a result of the Futenma issue. How do you feel about this?

Minister: I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I will not make comments on every single issue. However, I believe that the patrol ship sinking incident was, in a certain sense, a miscalculation on the part of North Korea and it was definitely a blow to that country. In other words, since I believe that, in a certain sense, North Korea had shown interest in the six-party talks, especially US-DPRK talks, these talks have all been suspended, so in that sense, although it is very difficult to imagine how that incident happened, I am not bold enough to simplify all of that, laying the blame on the Futenma issue.

Koyama, Freelance: With regard to the case of the SDF (ship) and the Chinese helicopter, the Chinese side has admitted it, according to Mr. Giarra.

Minister: While I believe that I do not have to comment on every single issue, Mr. Giarra currently is not a member of the US Government and I do not have any means to confirm what kind of information he obtains and through what kind of channels, Therefore, I will not make any further comments.

Kamide, Freelance: Specifically, not as Prime Minister Kan’s perception, but as your own perception, there was a time, about 20 years ago, when tensions on the Korean Peninsula rose substantially, and taking that into consideration, do you perceive the current situation as actually being different in specific ways from the situation at that time in comparing situations (that have developed) within the last decade? What I mean is whether (the current situation) is particularly dangerous.

Minister: That is a very difficult question. However, the fact that 46 people were killed as a result of a torpedo attack is extremely unusual in itself, and we cannot really say that a similar incident or something in sequence to that will not occur. Therefore, I believe that we must firmly deal with the situation with a sense of urgency.

6. US Military Realignment Issue

Yamauchi, Nihon Keizai Shimbun: My question is about the Futenma (Air Station relocation) issue. You said earlier that you were aware of an end-of-August deadline. With regard to this, former foreign ministers have expressed strong concerns about Japan-US relations. Amid this situation, if the end-of-August deadline is not met or is delayed, how do you think it will affect Japan-US relations?

Minister: I do not think it is good to hold hypothetical discussions so much. Since both governments agreed on this, I have no intention to say that it cannot be achieved. I think that we need to firmly deal with this matter.

Inoue, Kyodo News: With regard to the deadline at the end of August, it is mentioned in the joint statement that this is the deadline for completing a study by experts. Does the interpretation of this “completion of a study by experts” mean that the method of construction (of a replacement facility for Futenma Air Station), the location, etc. would be narrowed down to a single plan – that (the replacement facility) would be constructed in such a place and in such a way?

Minister: I believe that it is written (in the joint statement) that the location would be “the Henoko-saki area and adjacent waters.” Therefore, the question is about deciding on the location under that presumption, but as to whether there would be a single plan, it is as written there. I would like you to read (the joint statement) as it is.

Inoue, Kyodo News: It is difficult to understand by reading it as it is, so that is why I am asking you. I would like to ask you whether completing the study by experts means that a decision will have been made on the location and the construction method at the time of the completion of the study by experts.

Minister: It is written (in the joint statement) that a “study by experts regarding the replacement facility’s location, (configuration) and construction method would be completed” – no more and no less. I do not think that I should make any further comments based on imagination right now. It is as agreed there.

Inoue, Kyodo News: Does that mean that there could be a multiple number of options at the end of August, or that it is possible that as a result of consultations among experts, there may be multiple number of options such as that this kind of construction method is possible or that kind of construction method is possible?

Minister: If I were to comment on that, it would turn out that I said that, so I have no intention to comment on that. In any case, it will be a technical study. (The experts) would be studying whether it would be technically feasible. Ultimately, a decision will be made at a 2+2 meeting.

Tsuruoka, Asahi Shimbun: Aside from the Japan-US (Joint) Statement, former Prime Minister Hatoyama commented that the current (Futenma Air Station relocation) plan (agreed between Japan and the United States in 2006) would be a desecration against nature. Does the Kan administration intend to follow former Prime Minister Hatoyama’s remarks about desecration against nature and respect it or does it consider the Joint Statement to represent everything and will not be tied down by a remark that is not even included in the Joint Statement and thus freely study the location (of the Futenma Air Station replacement facility) and the construction method?

Minister: With regard to what Prime Minister Hatoyama meant when he spoke about desecration against nature at the time, I could comment on it based on imagination, but I have no intention to make comments that go beyond his remarks. When Prime Minister Hatoyama made those remarks and I was asked about that here, I am certain that I replied, “Ask the Prime Minister about that.”

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: With regard to the end of August (deadline), does it refer to something at the end of August upon (the completion of) a study (by experts), or will that be the final decision? Will what could be called the results of the study be disclosed?

Minister: With regard to that as well, Japan and the United States did not reach some kind of agreement. Therefore, if I were to be suddenly asked right now, I would also be bewildered at how I should reply. I think we will be holding consultations and making decisions.
In any case, I believe that since this will be a study from the technical standpoint, what are technically feasible will be narrowed down there, and as to whether these will turn into one plan or a multiple number of plans, it would also depend on discussions that will be held, but in the end, they will be narrowed down and finalized at the 2+2 meeting. Since we will be making efforts to gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa in the course of this process, it is difficult to make any further comments.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: If we look back at the process of Japan-US consultations held in recent years, there is the background of the Okinawa Prefectural Government participating in the consultations to decide on specific construction methods or the location or position (of the Futenma Air Station replacement facility). In that sense, as you said earlier that this would be a matter of discussions among Japanese and US experts, and in parallel with that, the part about the understanding of the local communities – in your concept of feasibility in the sense of (gaining) cooperation from the local communities or feasibility in the sense that includes (gaining) the understanding of the local communities, do you envisage forming a consultative body in which the local (authorities) will participate?

Minister: If I am not careful at what I say here, it would again get reported like it did the other day, but what I am saying is that a study will be conducted from the technical standpoint. The premise for a technical study is that a plan has to be acceptable to the people of Okinawa, and while keeping that in mind, the plan has to be technically feasible, or otherwise, we cannot build it (the replacement facility), so we must think about this by making a comprehensive judgment.
However, with regard to (the deadline at) the end of August, priority will rather be placed on whether (a plan) is technically feasible. After that, the political decision as to whether that is accepted by the people of Okinawa and is feasible will be made in the process leading up to the decision at the 2+2 meeting that will take place later on.
I think that it would be best if we can gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa during that period, but I think that the current situation in Okinawa does not make it look easy. Therefore, I believe that how we should think about these things will be determined at the 2+2 meeting, in other words, at the political level, after (a plan) becomes technically feasible at the end of August.

Noguchi, Mainichi Newspapers: With regard to the Japan-US 2+2 meeting that you have repeatedly mentioned, you spoke about the 2+2 meeting for deciding on the construction method for Futenma (replacement facility) and the 2+2 meeting to be held in the half of this year in connection with the deepening of the (bilateral) alliance that you mentioned during the foreign ministerial meeting in January this year in Hawaii. Does this 2+2 meeting mean that the construction method for Futenma will also be confirmed during the 2+2 meeting for deepening the alliance or (are Japan and the United States) thinking about holding separate meetings, one for the deepening of the alliance and one on Futenma?

Minister: I will not know about this until then. First of all, whether a conclusion on the deepening of the alliance can be reached there depends on the progress in our discussions. Although various discussions have been going on at meetings of senior officials, discussions have yet to be held at the ministerial level. Therefore, whether all this can be done together at the same 2+2 meeting or there will be a slight deviation in timing depends on the situation.

Higa, Kyodo News: Okinawa Governor Nakaima and Prime Minister Kan held a meeting today, but you said earlier that the situation in Okinawa does not make things that easy. Please tell us once again about the timetable for gaining the understanding of (the people of) Okinawa or the way the Kan administration will be gearing up to deal with this matter.

Minister: I think that we will need to thoroughly discuss these matters among the Cabinet ministers. I think that various discussions are possible, but relevant ministers have not gathered to hold discussions yet. Although I have spoken with the Chief Cabinet Secretary about the various backgrounds to the matter so far, we have yet to make a final decision as to what kind of team structure we will work under. In any case, I believe that we must properly work as a team and each and every one of us needs to maintain teamwork and firmly make efforts to gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: If MOFA requital funds were to be used for the purpose of gaining the understanding of (the people of) Okinawa, do you think that this would be an appropriate way of using the funds? That includes gaining understanding and for gathering information.

Minister: That is quite difficult to give you a generalized answer, but MOFA requital funds may be used for obtaining information that is normally difficult to acquire. I do not think it is proper to make any further comments. However, I would like to say that in general, the funds need to be used properly so that no misunderstanding is created.

7. Visit to Japan by Afghan President Karzai

Saito, Kyodo News: I have a question about Afghanistan. President Karzai will visit Japan. I was told that there will be a summit-level meeting with the Prime Minister, and I would like to ask what kind of issues will be discussed at the meeting, how talks will proceed, and what kinds of results you intend to achieve. Also, regarding the package of 5 billion dollars over five years, I would like to ask about the progress on this, and whether it will be discussed, and what kind of initiatives you will take moving forward.

Minister: Since President Karzai will be coming, a bilateral meeting between the President and the Prime Minister will be held. I also plan to pay a courtesy call on the President before that. The President will also be accompanied by Minister of Finance Zakhilwal, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs as well, so I also would like to hold bilateral meetings with each of them.
   As you pointed out, Japan has committed to up to five billion dollars over five years, in order to firmly support Afghanistan. Although some of that has already been used, a prerequisite is that it be used appropriately.
   In this sense, since it is the tax money of the Japanese people, in order to ensure that it is used appropriately, firstly, a peace jirga was also recently held on what kind of nation-building Afghanistan intends to carry out, and a Kabul Conference on that is scheduled for July. Moving toward that, we would like to ask them at length about how they think of their nation-building. And the question is the role that Japan will play in that process. Of course, Japan already has its main course of action mapped out, but we would like to get a clearer sense on how Japan can help with Afghanistan's nation-building specifically.
   Recently, President (Karzai) also met with President Obama, and I am told that they held talks in a very good atmosphere. Although the international community and others are placing tough demands on President (Karzai), such as the issue of corruption, and of governance, I think that there is a common awareness in the world today that we must support President Karzai and conduct nation-building in Afghanistan properly.
   Amid these circumstances, although Japan has not dispatched military forces, it has provided solid civilian relief. We have the trust of the Afghan Government, and in these circumstances, I hope that we can have an in-depth exchange of views.

Saito, Kyodo News: This is a follow up on the last question. As you just said, proper governance by the Afghan Government – amid emerging issues of corruption, as well as a wide range of other issues, we are providing a fairly large sum of five billion dollars over five years, using the tax money of the Japanese people, as you said. I think that it will be quite difficult to concretely check whether this is being used appropriately at some locations, because it is extremely dangerous for officials associated with the Government of Japan to view local sites directly. Amid these circumstances, I would like to ask if you have any ideas on how to guarantee this, including how you are currently managing it.

Minister: I think that it will be better to announce this after our meeting with the President, at this conference room. I do not think that it is appropriate to speak too much in advance.
But the Government of Japan is moving forward fairly actively on the issue of improving security, and reintegrating former Taliban soldiers, and assistance to such areas as agriculture and education. Although I think that these things are being used effectively, as the security situation worsens, I think that we will have to check even further that it is being used properly.
It is not the case that we have absolutely no people in Afghanistan now, and I think that we can of course do this to a certain extent.

Saito, Kyodo News: Back during the Gulf War, I believe that (Japan) was extensively criticized for its "checkbook diplomacy." What is the qualitative difference between the support at the time of the Gulf War, which was criticized at the time as checkbook diplomacy, and this assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan? I would also like to ask whether any measures have been taken so that we are not criticized for checkbook diplomacy.

Minister: While it is a fact that at the time, there was criticism using the term "checkbook diplomacy," but I think that the interpretation of this phrase will differ considerably depending on the individual. Some people said this in the sense of solving issues with money instead of dispatching the Self Defense Forces. I am speaking from my memory of events 20 years ago, I think that the biggest criticism was that it was "too late, too small." So international opinion came to a boil over our commitment bit by bit. In the end, as I recall we provided 11 billion dollars, but at first we only provided two or three billion. This time, I believe that we will not be criticized in this sense, and that the Afghan Government as well as the international community are saying that Japan is doing a good job.
On the topic of criticism over (supporting using) money alone, I had the opportunity to meet with the officials from the US State Department then, and I recall quite clearly that the State Department told us that the US Government was extremely grateful. They said that it would be impossible for an ordinary country to provide that much money, and to even procure funds by raising taxes.

8. Assistance during Gulf War

Koyama, freelance: During the Gulf War, I was reporting from Dhahran, and the criticism I heard at the time was that Japan was not making any personnel contributions at all. On top of this, (Japan) said that it would send 100 doctors, but they did not send even one. They made an official pledge, but did not send even one doctor. While it was good that (Japan) sent well over 100 ambulances, they could not use even one of those because the steering wheels were on the wrong side. Then at Riyadh Airport, Japan did not dispatch Japan Air Self-Defense Force cargo planes, saying that it was too dangerous, despite the fact that European countries and the U.S. were using civilian passenger planes. We were further criticized because of accumulation of those.

Minister: As I said, although some people had those views, the question is whether this is linked directly to the criticism of checkbook diplomacy. We are now discussing checkbook diplomacy. I am well aware that there was a wide range of criticism.

9. Formulation of Foreign Policy

Yamamoto, Seikainippo: Now that Mr. Kan is Prime Minister, there is a wide range of discussion in the Diet by the opposition parties over how the same powerful Cabinet members gave advice on Prime Minister Hatoyama's meandering diplomacy, or particularly on the issue of Futenma. I think that you also shoulder a portion of this, but on the issue of not only Futenma, but the fact that Prime Minister Hatoyama announced his concept for the East Asian community to the General Assembly of the United Nations without consulting the United States at all. Today, our newspaper interviewed former Deputy Secretary of State Armitage, and he similarly said that Prime Minister Hatoyama was ambitious about the concept of an East Asian community, but did not explain this to the United States at all; that this concept excluded the United States. I would like to hear your views on when this new diplomatic concept was advanced, whether you collaborated in it, or whether it was the sole decision of Prime Minister Hatoyama, or whether the Democratic Party of Japan as a whole determined that (Japan) should advance the East Asian community without any prior consultation with the United States.

Minister: Firstly, Mr. Armitage is not a member of the government. I would first like to state this. Next, when there are many ideas, I think that when we have a concrete policy, we should maintain close discussions with the United States, as an ally, but the East Asian community is an extremely vague idea, and I think that opinions are divided on whether it is necessary to coordinate this in advance. In any case, the East Asian community is by no means something new, and it is also written in our manifesto. More specifically, this approach was laid out in 2005 when I was the (party) president. This is a topic as old as the Democratic Party of Japan, and I do not think there is any way that the United States was not aware of it.

Yamamoto, Seikainippo: I do think, however, that this was the first time that a prime minister spoke on this topic in an official diplomatic setting. I think that it is different in this sense.

Minister: At the least, although I do not know what Mr. Armitage said, I have absolutely no recollection of words to this effect being said (by the US Government).

10. Case of Missing Japanese Painting Displayed at Embassy

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: I would like to ask you a question concerning answers finalized at today’s Cabinet meeting in response to the concise statement of questions (to the Cabinet at the Diet). The answer is the one in response to a question concerning the case in which a Japanese painting titled “Shio-no-Mai” (Dance of the Tides) purchased by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1992 went missing after being displayed at the Japanese Embassy in Uzbekistan. The embassy reported this on the 21st of May (last year) during the Liberal Democratic Party administration, and although there has been a change in government, a written answer came out today that there have been no new reports for more than a year. While I realize that there are various priorities, the investigations has yet to be completed even though more than a year has passed and even after there has been a change in government, and consequently no explanation has been made to the public. In any case, I feel that the fact that (the MOFA) intends to continue the investigations from the standpoint that it is held responsible – the fact that only an answer like this has been provided even after a year has passed – would be questionable considering that the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) gives priority to fulfilling its accountability for giving explanations to the people. Please tell us how you feel about this.

Minister: I believe that this painting was purchased with taxpayers’ money, so in that sense, I feel that we must take seriously that fact that it has disappeared. It is for that reason that investigations are going on, but there have been personnel changes, and the current situation is such that it is difficult to know (what happened) despite trying to make confirmations. I believe that at some point we have to make a final decision, saying that we “do not know,” if we do not know. Incidentally, I have heard that it is not an extremely expensive item.

11. Cabinet Approval Rating

Kamide, Freelance: Although a bit of time has passed, various media have conducted public opinion polls regarding the political situation, and the approval ratings for the DPJ and the Kan administration have shown a V-shaped recovery to very high ratings. With regard to Okinawa-related issues, the details as to how the people of Okinawa will react is unknown. Taking this into consideration, please tell us once again as a Cabinet minister why you think the approval rating is so high, given that in general (there exist such factors) as (the Kan administration’s) distancing itself from Ozawa and the personality of Prime Minister Kan.

Minister: I feel that basically, the air of excitement and expectations for the DPJ that existed at the time of the change in government last year have always been there. Looking at reality, however, I believe that – while the issue of “money and politics” or the Futenma issue may be one of those things – many people were disappointed at the fact that the government was running astray over those things, but now they are rethinking about holding expectations for the DPJ once more by going back to a year ago. However, as there is still time until the voting day for the House of Councilors election, I feel that if we fail to firmly deal with this matter, there is a possibility that this situation could turn out to be temporary.
Although I said that the Futenma issue could be one of the reasons (that people were disappointed at the DPJ), I believe that it is a fact that there are many poll results (that indicate) that a majority of the Japanese people support the Japan-US agreement.

12. Investigations Concerning the So-called “Secret Agreement” Issue

Minister: I was recently interviewed, and although it was carried by Kyodo News, there were not many articles about it; it is about the issue of the secret agreements. There were some points which I would have very much liked to answer if I was questioned at the Diet or here. The first topic is something that has already been reported, which is the handling of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula. Our investigation showed that when the security treaty was created 50 years ago, it included (handling of) a contingency on the Korean Peninsula. We believe that subsequently, Prime Minister Sato replaced this with the phrase "positively and swiftly," but it is not clear whether the United States was necessarily in alignment with this. We have now confirmed that firstly, (the secret agreement) was not that prior consultation would not be necessary in the case of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula. Given this, the question is what response to take. There is a high probability that a major change on the Korean Peninsula would have an extremely large impact on the peace and stability of Japan, so Japan confirmed with the US Government that it would respond appropriately and swiftly to prior consultation.
Another topic is the suspicion that the Sato Cabinet made a secret agreement to introduce nuclear weapons to Okinawa. Although the paper document came from the private residence of Mr. Shinji Sato, it is the view of the Government of Japan that at least, this secret agreement is not valid now. It is our original approach that if a secret agreement had no involvement of the officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and was only signed by the state leaders, and on top of this was not passed down to the successive governments, then that secret agreement was never valid. And we think that even if it was valid at one point, it is not currently valid, and on this point, we have confirmed with the US Government as well that at the least, such a secret agreement is not valid any longer. I have been waiting patiently for the past months for someone to ask me about this so that I could respond, but the Diet has also ended, and I have no more opportunities to speak about it, so I would like to mention it again now.

Nishino, Kyodo News: My company has covered this very widely.

Minister: But it was not carried in the newspapers.

Nishino, Kyodo News: I think that it is not that it was not covered in the newspapers, but that you did not see it.

Minister: Please excuse me.

Nishino, Kyodo News: There are very large stories in local newspapers across the country. I would like to ask for responsible statements based on the fact. Having said this, I would like to ask the following. In relation to the second point on the secret agreement on Okinawa, the US Government said that such a secret agreement is not valid "any longer." In short, does this mean that the US Government originally thought that there was such an agreement, but that in the course of this investigation, (the secret agreement) became no longer valid?

Minister: I would like to speak accurately: they said that such (an agreement) is not in effect now. The US Government has not said anything about the time (when it was first written).

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: You said that you confirmed the two points mentioned earlier with the US Government. In what form was this confirmation made?

Minister: I believe that I spoke about the final report on the secret agreements with you at a press conference, but this was in the report from the expert investigation. I think that this was explained in the reports by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the experts, but it was a point in time before that.

Beppu, NHK: To confirm, this is an extremely basic question, but is this regime for prior consultation on a contingency on the Korean Peninsula still in place?

Minister: As I said, the secret agreement to not hold prior consultation in the event of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula is not currently in effect, so naturally, it would be subject to prior consultation.

Beppu, NHK: Would it be correct to state that the security treaty is the foundation to hold prior consultation?

Minister: It is the Kishi-Herter exchange of notes exchanged when the security treaty was signed.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: In other words, I believe that holding prior consultation means that they would discuss matters beforehand with us, but would I be correct in understanding that if such a situation were to occur, it is possible that the third of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, namely that (Japan) shall not permit their introduction (into Japanese territory), could be put aside?

Minister: What topic are you speaking about?

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: A contingency on the Korean Peninsula.

Minister: If there were a contingency on the Korean Peninsula, we essentially do not believe that nuclear weapons would be introduced (into Japanese territory). Theoretically, however, even if such a thing were to occur, then upon the prior consultation, we essentially have the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, so we would respond based on that. In any case, the text states "appropriately and swiftly," which in this sense means "neutral." It does not use the wording "positively" that had been used until now.

Kamide, Freelance: I would like to make doubly sure of this, but to summarize, but on the issue of the suspicions by the Japanese people, including these four secret agreements, and your response (to these suspicions) upon being appointed that this must be made clear, may I understand that none of the secrets or lies suspected by the Japanese people occurred, and that the matter has been resolved?

Minister: That is not the case. The first of the four secret agreements was even discussed at length in the Diet. I said that the interpretation differed on whether this included temporary port calls. Then we have the second and the third. The fourth was, in a sense, about how to handle money at that time, and the matter was completed then, so with this, in a sense all of them have been resolved, or shall I say brought to a conclusion.

Koyama, freelance: Regarding the phrase "prior consultation," I believe that this was Japan's understanding, and the United States' understanding was "prior notification."

Minister: This was as it was agreed to and written down. We do not believe it to be "notification" in any way, and I would rather like to ask you what your grounds are for saying that the United States thinks in this way.

Koyama, freelance: Although I do not know precisely what year it was, around 1960, the press secretary of the State Department explained this to the Japanese journalists.

Minister: We are not talking with a press secretary from far in the past. We are discussing the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States.

Tsuruoka, Asahi Shimbun: Is the change from the phrase "positively" way back during the Sato Cabinet to emphasize that Japan may say "no?"

Minister: It is to say that we are neutral. Please read it as it is written there.

Back to Index