(* 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 29, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Accompanying Prime Minister to G8 and G20 Summits
- (2) Official Development Assistance (ODA) Review
- (3) World Cup Soccer Games
G8/G20 Summit
Official Development Assistance (ODA) Review
Dispatch of PKO Units to Sudan
House of Councilors Election (Public Opinion in Okinawa)
Roles and Frameworks of G8 and G20
Delay of Transfer of Wartime Operational Control between US and ROK
US Military Realignment Issue (Entry of Visiting Aircraft)
Japan-India Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy
Disclosure of Diplomatic Documents
Japan-US Relations (Japanese Enthusiasm for Study Abroad)
Other Matters

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Accompanying Prime Minister to G8 and G20 Summits

Minister Okada: I have three announcements.
   I have returned from the G8 and G20 Summits. As I said prior to my departure (from Japan), I myself did not participate in the actual meetings. I sat with (Prime Minister Kan) during the briefings and the bilateral meetings – the Japan-China, Japan-Russia, Japan-ROK, and Japan-US summits – held on the sidelines (of the Summits).
   I believe that it was very significant that during the G8 Summit, (the member countries) unanimously took up, although indirectly, the latest North Korean incident (sinking of an ROK patrol ship). There were various controversies up to the last moment regarding how Russia would respond, but in the end, (all the G8 members) came together.
   With regard to economic issues, Prime Minister Kan thoroughly explained his concept of “a strong economy, strong finances, and strong social welfare,” which he worked out by himself during the time he served as finance minister.
   The bilateral meetings were all held in a very nice atmosphere. In particular, during the Japan-US meeting, I believe that Prime Minister Kan was able to speak about his own thoughts without relying on papers (documents prepared in advance). At the end, the two leaders spoke with each other in front of reporters, with (television) cameras allowed inside (the meeting room). I believe that those who listened to the conversation between the two leaders must have realized that the meeting itself was held in a very nice atmosphere. Of course, each of the (bilateral) meetings held this time was essentially the first time (for Prime Minister Kan). During the time of Mr. Hatoyama, I felt that a sense of affinity (between leaders) grew stronger after holding the second or third meetings, if I look at the case of Japan-China and Japan-ROK bilateral meetings, in particular. It is a lot of work to have to start over from the beginning, but I would like to have everyone give support so that good relations between the leaders can be built.
   As for myself, in between the bilateral meetings, I exchanged views focusing on the North Korean issue with ROK Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Yu Myung-hwan for about 30 minutes. After the Japan-China meeting, I also spoke briefly on the North Korean issue with Mr. Dai Bingguo of China for about 10 minutes while standing.
It was Prime Minister Kan’s diplomatic debut, but I believe that these meetings went very well in general.
   I departed (Japan) on a commercial airliner, with connections on the way. However, I returned on a government plan directly from Toronto. It was the first time I boarded a government plane, so I explored the inside of the plane. There was a bed in my compartment. Before that section, Prime Minister Kan, Finance Minister Noda, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Fukuyama, and of course, Mrs. Nobuko Kan were present, and we had dinner in Prime Minister Kan’s compartment. Later, I returned to my compartment where there was a bed. However, the bed was somewhat luxurious and I felt hesitant to sleep on it. Therefore, I slept in my seat and returned (to Japan). Of course, since I would not be able to sleep at night (in Japan) if I slept too long, I dozed off for two or three hours in my seat.

(2) Official Development Assistance (ODA) Review

Minister: Discussions on how Japan’s ODA ought to be have been held for a long time within the Ministry (of Foreign Affairs) or among relevant officials, and those discussions have been concluded, so that is my announcement.
Discussions within the Ministry have been held with former State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Fukuyama or Parliamentary Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Nishimura playing the central roles. I participated in the discussions occasionally, and during the final stages, I stated various views quite extensively. Based on an awareness that sufficient empathy for ODA has not been obtained from the people, a review has been conducted with regard to how ODA ought to be in order to gain the people’s understanding and support. The review was also conducted based on a view that it is necessary to implement ODA programs more strategically and effectively. We recently concluded the review, while obtaining advice from economic circles, NGOs, intellectuals, and people from the outside. I will not be explaining the details. I believe that a briefing will be given by our staff some other time, but three areas (have been designated) as priority areas of our ODA (from the perspective of) “enhancing enlightened national interests.” (One of the priority areas) is poverty alleviation, and this includes the (achievement of) MDGs. (The other areas are) investment in peace and support for sustainable economic growth. These three are the three priority areas of our ODA programs, and represent our (strategy of) “selection and concentration.” In addition, although specific policies will involve rather technical or more in-depth discussions, from a practical standpoint, policies that are very meaningful to NGOs and others, but not very ostentatious, have been expressly written down. While I have also expressed various views of my own, one of the specific measures that I called for in particular is the possibility of extending our ODA loans in US dollars rather than in Japanese yen, so that the debtors – the developing countries – do not have to bear exchange risks. This calls for considering the possibility of extending our ODA loans in foreign currency. Although there are also other ideas, I believe that we need to move on with each of the issues that need to be studied.
As for the rest, we would like to further work out the details of such matters as the Innovative Financing Mechanism and the International Solidarity Levy.

(3) World Cup Soccer Games

Minister: My last announcement is about the World Cup Soccer Games. Since the game (between Japan and Paraguay) is scheduled to start at 2300 hours Japan time today, I would like to watch it by all means. As Japan is the only Asian country with a team left in the tournament, during the recent bilateral meeting between (ROK) President Lee Myung-bak and Prime Minister Kan, President Lee said that he would like to see the Japanese team try its best as a representative for Asia. I hope that the Japanese team will perform well as the representative for Asia and move forward.

2. G8/G20 Summit

Iwakami, Freelance: I would like to ask you about your participation in the G8 and G20 Summits. You said that Prime Minister Kan spoke about his original concept of “a strong economy, strong finances, and strong social welfare.” Prime Minister Kan has frequently cited Greece to explain that similar to Greece, Japan’s fiscal situation is extremely bad. However, the basic fiscal conditions of Greece and Japan are quite different. I question the validity of comparing Japan, which is able to dissolve its national bonds within the country, and Greece, which needs to have nearly all of its national bonds purchased by foreign countries. Please tell us about your thoughts on this, including the issue of raising the consumption tax, as well as how Prime Minister Kan’s comments on his view on the economy and fiscal policy that he made at the G8 Summit or G20 Summit were received by the leaders of other countries, or how they responded.

Minister: First of all, I was not at his (the Prime Minister’s) side during the G8 or G20 Summits. In addition, as a rule, we are not supposed to comment on what the leaders of other countries spoke about, but what was agreed on has been released in the form of a written agreement.
Greece and Japan are certainly different. I do not think that Japan is as fragile as Greece. However, excessive savings in Japan means that a vector force is operating in the opposite direction as our society progressively ages. I believe that we need to properly understand that the situation is such that we cannot keep issuing national bonds forever and expect that they will be dissolved mainly within the country. Although the Japanese economy has basically been in a poor state and tax revenues have been extremely low, Japan still needs to quickly emerge from a situation where it has relied on debts to supplement a major portion of its revenues, or otherwise, I believe that this is something that we at least need to apologize for to the next generation, as Japan could turn into a country where children and young people cannot keep their hopes alive.
With regard to the sense of crisis about Greece, I have heard that Prime Minister Kan came to strongly acknowledge this not only in his capacity as a prime minister, but also in his capacity as a finance minister when he attended finance ministers’ meetings (in the past). I believe that the Greek issue served to trigger a common sense of crisis among the leaders of the major countries in the world regarding the problem of fiscal deficits and fragility.

Saito, Kyodo News: I would like to ask a question in connection with the G8 and G20 Summits. With regard to consultations on the ROK patrol ship (sinking incident), my understanding is that you said earlier that this is not necessarily completely included in the summit declaration, but wording that is commendable to a certain extent has been incorporated. I actually read the text, and it has apparently been thought out very well, as it can be interpreted as practically referring to North Korea by name. However, from a different angle, it can also be interpreted as not naming North Korea. It was a delicate expression.
Does the Government of Japan basically consider this to be satisfactory, or since I feel that it can be said that the GOJ is not completely satisfied in the sense that it (the text) could be interpreted in a different way, as I just mentioned, can you please tell us once again about how you feel about this wording?

Minister: Since countries with different positions gather to work out the text (of the summit declaration), it is impossible to achieve a perfect score. Amid the situation in which Russia has expressed strong opposition – at least at the UN Security Council, Russia has strongly resisted criticizing (North Korea) by name – I feel that the fact that such wording was adopted indicates that Russia made quite a bit of concessions. In that sense, I think it worked out fine. Based on this wording, we would like to further promote discussion at the UN Security Council. In the case of China, however, I do not think that it will be very easy, as even during bilateral meetings, China has basically maintained its traditional position of seeking a soft landing, or avoiding excessively forcing (North Korea) into a corner. Nevertheless, considering that such an act has been committed (by North Korea), it would be more problematic instead if it comes to that criticism at the UN Security Council, or criticism aimed at preventing recurrences (of the ROK patrol ship sinking incident) – rather than criticism for the sake of criticism – cannot even be voiced there at all. Therefore, we intend to firmly exert efforts to that end.
The foreign minister of the ROK has made comments, giving high marks to Japan for making considerable efforts at the US Security Council and for working hard at the latest G8 Summit, as the ROK is not a member of the G8.

3. Official Development Assistance (ODA) Review

Yoshida, NHK: I would like to ask a question regarding the issue of how ODA ought to be. At first glance, I get the impression that it (the ODA review) has been written with considerable focus on support for NGOs and private businesses; with regard to your traditional idea of supporting the private sector or strengthening collaboration with NGOs amid (Japan’s) particularly severe fiscal situation, please tell us once again what you intend to stress in this ODA review or about your thoughts on the basis of which this ODA review was written.

Minister: Of course, we are basically thinking about increasing the absolute amount (of the ODA), but in any case, we need to use our ODA efficiently amid the severe fiscal situation. I believe that taking advantage of the knowledge of the private sector and NGOs in the context of using our ODA efficiently is very important.
As for the rest, various things written here, such as the possibility of (a country) continuing to use yen loans even after (that country) has graduated from yen loans, for example, are new. I feel that although these are necessary, the idea of “selection and concentration” may perhaps come out a little more. We would like to hold thorough discussions on such matters, moving forward.

Saito, Kyodo News: During the previous press conference, I asked you a question in relation to ODA, citing the case of Palestine and the case of the UNRWA. I would like to further ask a question in that connection. As a result of this “selection and concentration” strategy, I believe that in consideration of Japan’s national interests from a regional standpoint, there will be some places that will be preferentially selected and those that unfortunately will not be selected. How do you intend to explain that to the Japanese people so that they can easily understand? For example, specifically speaking, in the case of Palestine, assistance for Palestine has continued to drop in the wake of the overall reduction in ODA, as far as I see from the bar graph. How do you intend to explain that? Please tell us how you intend to explain this, strictly taking the case of Palestine or areas other than Palestine where assistance has likewise continued to drop, as well as how you plan to deal with this situation.

Minister: First of all, we need to prevent the overall volume (of ODA) from falling. However, I believe that one (of the problems) is how to efficiently use ODA amid this very severe fiscal situation. With regard to this, I would like you to look closely at the contents, but it is written there that we will try to shift from the system in which developing countries request individual projects to a system in which the Government of Japan or JICA and developing countries hold consultations from the beginning and decide on specific projects in the process of determining the overall direction – a shift to a way of thinking not premised on individual projects. In this way, the “selection and concentration” strategy is implemented, in a certain sense. When it comes to the request system, we sometimes wonder, when handling the approval process, why this road is necessary or why this water supply facility, for example, is necessary here – that such matters are not properly positioned in the overall picture. Under a request system, such issues necessarily emerge, but I believe that if Japan adopts the idea that if the country as a whole is lacking in a certain area; therefore, Japan will supplement that area, the assistance would be more efficient and not wasteful. Under such circumstances, it would be possible to use money more efficiently. Therefore, while Japan, as a matter of fact, has made commitments to Africa and Afghanistan in terms of the amount of money, I believe that we must not leave the weak to bear the burden.

4. Dispatch of PKO Units to Sudan

Beppu, NHK: I have a question about PKO (peacekeeping operations) in Sudan. I believe that there is currently debate between (Ministry of ) Foreign Affairs and Defense, but I would like to ask again about the significance of sending PKO (units) for the local referendum in the south of Sudan, for Japan, and of course for the people of Sudan, as well as amid strong interest in Sudan among the international community.

Minister: Sudan is a big country, and the north and south have long been in conflict. Now, PKO units are dispatched, and the peace is maintained. And, a local referendum is going to be held on the issue of southern independence. Were this to be conducted peacefully, then no matter what the result, it would be highly significant in the sense of eliminating the long-standing conflict between the north and south in Sudan. On top of this, it has a large presence in Africa, so I think that it will have a large impact on Africa as a whole.
However, the question of whether Japan will dispatch PKO units, whether we will participate, is currently being debated throughout the entire government, and not just between (Ministry of) Defense and Foreign Affairs. I therefore think that it would be best to wait until a result is produced before commenting further.

5. House of Councilors Election (Public Opinion in Okinawa)

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I would like to ask a little about the House of Councilors election. I asked somewhat about this last time, but the substance of my question now is a little different. The Democratic Party of Japan has not fielded any candidates for the Okinawa election districts. Currently, all the candidates in the Okinawa election districts are demanding that (the bases be moved) outside the prefecture, which is different from government policy.
Speaking on the subject of the Futenma relocation, it has not become a point of debate, or should I say that it has not become a point of debate with government policy, but in the sense of referendum on relocation to Henoko, in the city of Nago, what are your thoughts on how the will of the people will be grasped, in the sense of how the will of the Okinawan people will be taken in this House of Councilors election?

Minister: I am not very sure. And since the Democratic Party of Japan is not fielding any candidates, I do not think that I am in a position to speak on that. We are not aware of the detailed views of the current candidates either. Since I have not heard anything beyond what was covered in the media, I would like to refrain from imprudently making comments.

6. Roles and Frameworks of G8 and G20

Saito, Kyodo News: Getting back to the subject of the G8, I am aware that since the inception of the G20, the presence, or the role of the G8 has come to be debated internationally. I have been told that when he attended the G20, Prime Minister Kan made a statement suggesting that China also joint occasionally. What are your personal thoughts on the G20 framework? Also, do you have any views on its role?

Minister: This has been debated widely for a long time. I essentially think that the G8 framework is extremely important. I of course think that when it comes to economics, the framework of the G20 including the emerging economies will be more effective. But on topics other than economics, for example development issues, or politically, this also applies to the North Korea issue, and when it comes to these types of issues, I very much think that the G8 is important as a group of industrialized countries that share the same values. When discussing issues like development at the G20, and we did do a little of that, but I do not think that the G20 is the appropriate place to discuss issues like global warming, for example. When the Prime Minister mentioned China, he meant it in the sense of occasional (participation). This of course is a form of outreach, and it is natural that inviting various countries to participate more happens on an ad hoc basis as necessary. But, I do not understand (his statement) as meaning permanent membership.

7. Delay of Transfer of Wartime Operational Control between US and ROK

Asaka, Freelance: I have a question on wartime operational control, the transfer of which between the United States and ROK was recently postponed. You exchanged views with Minister Yu Myung-hwan; did this topic come up? I would also like to ask whether this delay will have an impact on Japan's Far East security policy.

Minister: This topic has not been discussed between myself and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, nor between our leaders. Of course, it is between the United States and ROK that this topic has been discussed.
I think that this was based on the current situation on the Korean Peninsula. Extending it a little into the future is a decision between the two parties, so I do not think that Japan is in a position to comment on whether it is good or bad. Ultimately, I think that it is something to be decided between the two. However, it is easy to imagine that they had the current situation on the Korean Peninsula in mind as a backdrop to the decision.

8. US Military Realignment Issue (Entry of Visiting Aircraft)

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I have been told that in the bilateral meeting between Japan and the United States, an offer was made to the US side asking for cooperation in reducing the burden of the bases on Okinawa, or something like that. In fact, looking back at the current situation in Okinawa, visiting aircraft have come to Kadena (Air) Base, and just recently, I think it was the 25th, 12 aircrafts from the US Military, from Iwakuni, were temporarily assigned there until the end of August, and currently, there are already F22s there, and Hornets came in May, so having visiting aircraft (at the base) has become a permanent situation. Amid this trend, while on the one hand you are speaking of reducing the burden on the People of Okinawa, and proceeding while requesting the understanding of the People of Okinawa, on the other hand, the actual situation does not match with that at all. I would first like to ask how you view the current situation, and what kind of action the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has taken with the United States regarding the notice that the Hornets that I just mentioned were coming.

Minister: Firstly, the sending of visiting aircraft (to Kadena) is essentially determined by the United States, so I think that this decision was probably in part made with a view to the overall security environment. Consequently, although reducing the burden is extremely important, I also think that we cannot make decisions based on this alone.
However, even if training flights are moved somewhere else, then the number of visiting aircraft increases by that amount, regardless of whether there is any correlation, it is a fact that the numbers of visiting aircraft have increased by a large amount. I therefore think that Japan and the United States must hold thorough discussions so that this can be done within the process of further reducing the burden.
What I just now spoke is in general terms, and I think that we also must naturally keep the security environment surrounding Japan in mind.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: So what you are saying is that, as I think you spoke earlier about the current situation in North Korea, that the increase in visiting aircraft to Kadena is a reflection of the situation in North Korea; I would like to ask if it is your view that they are linked, and on my earlier question, I would like you to respond on what specific actions you have taken with the United States regarding the aircraft that have come now.

Minister: You say “now,” but it is my understanding that the coming of visiting aircraft is not a matter subject to consultation. I was not notified or similarly informed beforehand.
Next, I will not comment on whether the current situation on the Korean Peninsula has had an impact. I think that the only thing I can do is ask you to make a judgment of the overall situation.

9. Japan-India Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: I have a question about the Japan-India nuclear cooperation agreement. At your press conference the other day, you said that it was a difficult decision, but that there were also positive aspects. I think that requests from industry were part of this, but in February 2008, you at the time said the following in response to questions at the House of Representatives budget committee. "By looking at various marketing efforts of peaceful uses of nuclear power, or even recent effort by French President Sarkozy, it is not a case that I do not feel that. And, I think that we have a political responsibility to avoid having each country running after immediate profit, and to act as if in the end, nuclear non-proliferation did not in fact exist, including Japan." I think that this decision is a 180-degree reversal of that statement, so what are your thoughts on this?

Minister: I think that the statement you refer to from 2008 was before the unanimous decision in the NSG. This was during the previous government, but in the end, Japan agreed and the decision was made by the NSG. After that decision was made, the question is what determination to make as each country advances its own nuclear cooperation agreements. The question is, what significance would it have for Japan to stay the course alone? I think that it would have a large symbolic meaning, so of course I also reached this decision after much thought, and I think that Japan's views have been communicated sufficiently to the world. Amid these circumstances, if, for example, Japan had said that it would not cooperate based on a nuclear-power agreement, then if some other country had moved forward it would have resulted in the same thing, so I think that this was an unavoidable decision. As a slightly more mid- and long-term challenge, countries like India, which are not signatories to the NPT, are not bound by the NPT, and they also do not have the obligations as a nuclear-armed state. I therefore think that we must also consider how to approach these types of issues, and how to stem this.

10. Disclosure of Diplomatic Documents

Higa, Kyodo News: I have a question about the disclosure of diplomatic documents. The other day, the promotion committee decided to publish 38 files, but how is the state of progress? When will they be transferred to the Diplomatic Record Office?

Minister: Although I do not intend to spend too much time on this, I am currently making the final decision.

11. Japan-US Relations (Japanese Enthusiasm for Study Abroad)

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Regarding Japan-US relations, although I only have provisional information and do not have the specific numbers, I have been told that the number of foreign students from China to the United States has increased by about 150%, and the number from India has increased by nearly 200%, while conversely, the number from Japan is declining. If strengthening the alliance between Japan and the United States means (strengthening the alliance) in a wide range of fields, including human as well as military exchange, then how do you view this situation, looking toward the future?

Minister: We should view this with concern. But we cannot force people to go. I think that we must thoroughly put out a helping hand to those young people who would like to study abroad, but cannot do so for financial or other reasons. I also think that there is an overall trend toward being more inward-looking, but I would like to see more young Japanese people studying abroad. It does not have to be the United States; I would like them to go to various places, including places like China and Europe. When I watch golf and so on, I see that young players from Japan are quite active internationally, so it is somewhat puzzling to me why the university numbers have fallen so much. In terms of exchange, there are also are many possible forms of exchange – for example, inviting former US POWs of Japan to Japan, and there are also things like the JET program – and a number of people who have come to Japan to teach English, while at the same time experiencing Japanese culture, and some of them have become novelists and so on. I would also like Japanese teachers to travel abroad a little more; for example, English teachers go overseas for a year or so to get exposed to native English, and so on. This would cost a lot of money, so it would be quite difficult to implement, but I think that it would be good to have something like that.

12. Other Matters

Asaka, Freelance: This is something of personal interest to me, but ever since you became Minister I have been wondering about this: I have heard that when you were an opposition Diet member, for example when you would visit Africa or other places, you would always fly economy, even when you had to change planes two times or more. When I asked you why, you answered that it was because you liked economy seats, but since becoming Minister, do you still think that economy seats are better, or have you thought about this?

Minister: Firstly, I think that the statement of economy seats is a mistake of fact. When my party was in the opposition, I paid my own money to fly business class. When I traveled to China and other nearby locations, the trips were almost always a matter of a few hours, so I sometimes flew economy then. But I would like to state that I essentially traveled in business class. Since becoming Minister, I use first class when it is available. Lately, more and more flights do not have first class, even on international flights, so in those cases I take business class. For example, when I recently went to the UN, I returned to Japan by way of Europe. From New York to Paris, I flew Air France, and they had first class, but my flight from Paris to Narita was on a type of plane without first class, so I returned to Japan in business class. I have a tough travel schedule, and as you might expect, this takes a physical toll. In this sense, I want as much time to rest my body as possible. I also take individual circumstances into considerations, and not let things get too extravagant. So although I do not refrain from using the beds in chartered flights, this has been because it was right in front of me and I was able to use it. But I want to approach things in moderation.

Back to Index