(* 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, July 13, 2010, 3:00 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Results of House of Councilors Election
House of Councilors Election
Dispatch of PKO Units to Sudan
Six-Party Talks
Postwar Individual Reparations
Impact of Results of House of Councilors Election on Japan’s Foreign Policy
US Military Realignment Issue
Appointment of Ambassador to the United States
Language Used for Official Texts

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Results of House of Councilors Election

Minister Okada: I do not have any announcements in particular, but since this is my first press conference after the election, I would like to say that although I campaigned for our candidates at the instruction of the Election Campaign Strategy Committee, the election results turned out to be very regrettable. Of course, there was the issue of the consumption tax, but I think the truth is that with regard to the consumption tax issue, (Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s) true intentions were not conveyed and there were very many people who thought that the tax would be raised right away.
   Although there were such things, in a certain sense, the people gave their verdict on the overall situation ever since the government under the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) was launched last year. Therefore, I believe that we must humbly accept that and now strive to leave behind accomplishments that firmly meet the expectations that the people had (of the DPJ) a year ago.
   Throughout the election campaign, I have said that we still have more than three years before our term expires, and that we would like people to judge us based on what we will have accomplished by the time of the next general election – that the latest House of Councilors election has taken place only 10 months since the inauguration of the DPJ administration, so it is still too early to give the final verdict. Nevertheless, I believe that we had the people give us a 10-month interim evaluation.
   Since the Diet is “twisted” (with the DPJ having a majority in the House of Representatives, but not in the House of Councilors), we will face great difficulties in managing Diet affairs. While I may be going a little overboard to say that for each matter, the ruling and opposition parties should firmly transcend the barriers that divide them, we will explain well to gain understanding. I think that different parties will be endorsing different matters, so I think it is necessary to work on this carefully.
   The Diet affairs will become more important than it has traditionally been, and I think that consultations during Diet committees meetings will likely become very important in dealing with various bills and treaties. Therefore, I believe that it has become increasingly necessary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well to work out various matters, while communicating well with those who are in charge of the committees.
   However, as things do not wait for us – as I believe that time does not stop not only for foreign affairs, but for all matters – we would like to firmly join forces to deal with these matters – to work hard, being united under Prime Minister Kan.

2. House of Councilors Election

Higuchi, TBS: With regard to the election that you just mentioned, you also mentioned the consumption tax, but what do you think caused the regrettable results? Please tell us about this in more concrete terms.

Minister: To put it simply, I believe that over the past 10 months, we were unable to produce results that the people had expected, although I think there are various reasons for each of the results.

Nishino, Kyodo News: You made comments directed at the people, asking them to determine by the next general election what the DPJ has accomplished, but from an objective viewpoint, I believe that a reversed situation of the House of Councilors and House of Representatives puts the DPJ government in a very difficult position with regard to implementing its policies – a situation in which the DPJ, as a matter of fact, cannot bring about what is characteristic of the party. Please tell us about your outlook or prospects as to how the DPJ should go about implementing what is characteristic of the party through policies, including bills to be submitted to the Diet, moving forward.

Minister: First of all, it does not mean that everything will stop or come to a deadlock. If you look at various bills, more than half of them have been passed with approval from some opposition parties. Therefore, we can still hold expectations about such bills.
However, with regard to policies advocated in the DPJ’s new manifesto, various political parties have their own views. Therefore, I believe that it will be necessary to proceed, while determining which ones are acceptable and which ones are not.
Although I think that it will be very tough, one thing is that this is the result of the choices that the people have made. Consequently, we have no choice but to rely on our ingenuity and work hard in this tough situation. However, since we have experienced being in both the ruling party and the opposition party, I think that if we stand on the standpoint of the people, there should be things that we can mutually agree on, or otherwise, politics will not move forward.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: You said just a while ago that within the past 10 months, the DPJ failed to produce results that the people had expected, but do you think that the failure to produce the results that the people had expected include the fact that although the DPJ advocated relocation of Futenma Air Station to another site “at least outside the Okinawa prefecture,” the party, in the end, decided on a plan to move Futenma Air Station to Henoko?

Minister: I think that the Futenma issue is certainly included in that. However, we never wrote “outside the prefecture” in our manifesto, and of course our party leader at the time went to Okinawa and spoke about moving Futenma Air Station “at least outside the prefecture,” so the residents of Okinawa naturally held expectations about that. However, I believe that whether the people across the nation interpreted that the DPJ made such a pledge is another matter.
In the end, we reached the Japan-US agreement, but I believe that it is true that this process was not necessarily what the Japanese people had expected.

Noguchi, Nippon Television: In light of the results of the House of Councilors election, some party members have raised voices indicating that the party leadership should take responsibility, including stepping down. How do you feel about this?

Minister: There may be such voices, but as I said earlier, I think that the results were the evaluation of the Japanese people on the DPJ’s accomplishments over the past 10 months. Therefore, I feel that it is not proper to blame everything on the current Kan administration, which has just been inaugurated.

Oshika, AERA: With regard to the consumption tax that you mentioned earlier, you said that this matter was not necessarily conveyed in a manner that you had intended, but what do you think of the tactic or the timing in which Prime Minister Kan brought up the issue of raising the consumption tax at the outset of the election campaign?

Minister: Prime Minister Kan did not say that he would raise the consumption tax. He said that a study would be conducted on that, and that is not different from what we, the DPJ, have traditionally been saying. However, it is true that when Prime Minister Kan said that he would use the proposal by the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to raise the consumption tax to 10% as a reference, many people interpreted that he intended to raise the consumption tax to 10% immediately, or many people thought so, based on media reports. Therefore, I feel that there was a problem of how things were said and how they were conveyed.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: With regard to the House of Councilors election, the DPJ, as you know, did not field a candidate for the Okinawa constituency, so basically, nearly all the candidates expressed opposition to relocating (Futenma Air Station to another site) within the prefecture. In the end, the LDP candidate won the election, so I think that if the votes cast for the LDP candidate and those for all other candidates were combined, the total number of votes can be taken as an expression of the will of the voters, indicating that they are opposed to relocating (Futenma Air Station to another site) within the prefecture. Please tell us about your view on this situation, as well as on the fact that Mr. Kina of the DPJ lost a proportional representation seat.

Minister: I think it is rather difficult to evaluate this matter. Since Mr. Kina advocated (moving Futenma Air Station) “outside the prefecture,” he did not speak about (relocating Futenma Air Station to another site) “within the prefecture.” Therefore, I feel that I should not comment on how that should be interpreted, as I am not a commentator.
In that sense, there were no candidates who called for relocating Futenma Air Station to another site within the prefecture. Therefore, in a certain sense, I think that the residents of Okinawa had no options. Nevertheless, if you think about it now, it is clear that many people in Okinawa favor (relocating Futenma Air Station to a site) “outside the prefecture,” so it is quite difficult to say what the outcome of this election means. I believe that in a certain sense, it is clear at this point that even if an election were not held, many people still held the view (that Futenma Air Station should be relocated to a site) “outside the prefecture.” Amid this situation, we did not field a candidate because we could not find a candidate in favor of the Japan-US agreement. The candidate recommended by the DPJ’s local chapter advocated (relocating Futenma Air Station to a site) “outside the prefecture”, so we, as a political party, could not endorse that candidate.
I do not quite know what the LDP’s candidate thinks of the Futenma issue. I believe that the LDP does not necessarily advocate (relocating Futenma Air Station to a site) “outside the prefecture.” As for the issue of consistency, shall I say, between that and the elected candidate, I do not quite understand it, but I believe that it is a matter that should be explained by the candidate in question, Ms. Shimajiri, who has been elected, or by the LDP.

Nishino, Kyodo News: Pardon me for constantly bringing up the topic of election, but although I believe that there are various reasons for the DPJ’s defeat this time, the fact remains that the DPJ has suffered a major setback. Therefore, I believe that the method of taking responsibility for this major setback will indeed become the focal point of party management, moving forward. In the past, you led election campaigns as the DPJ president and campaigned for a national election as the party’s secretary general. As you have been in such a position and had such experiences, how do you intend to rebuild the party in the aftermath of this major setback in a national election? Although this is a press conference at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, please, by all means, tell us about your thoughts on how the DPJ ought to be.

Minister: I do not quite understand the point of your question.

Nishino, Kyodo News: What I mean is how you, as one of the leaders who has experience as the DPJ president and secretary general, feel the party leadership should take responsibility in light of the fact that the party has suffered a major setback in a national election.

Minister: I think that depends on the situation. During the general election in 2005, I resigned the same day. However, only a short time has elapsed since the inauguration of the current Kan administration, so I do not think that it is right to demand the administration to take responsibility for the latest election.
I said this during a television program, but if we think about the situation that existed just before, it can be viewed that the DPJ made a substantial comeback. I believe that the results of the latest election are the result of consolidating various matters that happened over the past 10 months, so I feel that it is a mistaken perception to call on Prime Minister Kan or the secretary general, who took over the final portion of that 10-month period, to take responsibility.

Nakamori, Ise Shimbun: Mr. Shiba won in the Mie constituency, which is also your home constituency, but I think that the difference in the number of votes (between Mr. Shiba and his opponent) has substantially narrowed. Please tell us how you feel about that.

Minister: I think that amid the crustal movement, shall I say, that took place during the final week of the election campaign period, Mr. Shiba managed to hold out very well. However, looking at the latest election, I think that Mr. Shiba himself realized the importance of further appealing to the local communities in a firm manner.

Yoshinaga, Mainichi Newspapers: You said earlier that Prime Minister Kan and the current party leadership are not the only reasons for the major setback in the election, but do you feel that the party presidential election should be held uncontested with DPJ President Kan retaining his post?

Minister: I think that I also spoke about this on television, but there is a system in which a party presidential election is held once every two years, with participation by party members and supporters. Therefore, I have no intention to say that it is wrong or improper if someone raises his or her hand, saying, “I am worthy of” (running in the election). The rest is up to the voters to decide.

Yamauchi, Nihon Keizai Shimbun: Earlier, you made a comment to the effect that political parties need to transcend their differences and cooperate over matters by subject. You also mention in your blog that there may be cases in which cooperation with opposition parties is possible over issues by subject. What form of coalition do you think is the most appropriate? In addition, what do you think are the matters on which cooperation is possible, for example?

Minister: I am not thinking about a coalition, in particular. Although my thoughts are premised on the current coalition, I am not thinking about going beyond that to form a coalition with other political parties. Of course, it is the president or the secretary general, rather than me, who should think about that. However, if we look at the situation objectively, there are no opposition parties that have shown interest in forming a coalition with the DPJ. Therefore, I think that such a thing will not happen right away. Of course, until that time, we would not know whether that would happen in the future, but for the time being, I feel that such things are rather inconceivable. Consequently, I think that we will be looking for partners willing to endorse certain bills such as reform of the civil service system, for example.

3. Dispatch of PKO Units to Sudan

Yamao, Asahi Shimbun: My question concerns PKO activities in Sudan. Chief Cabinet Secretary Sengoku has said that a decision would be made as soon as today, but has a decision been made already as a result of discussions?

Minister: The decision has yet to be made. I think that the Chief Cabinet Secretary will likely speak about this at four o’clock (in the afternoon)

4. Six-Party Talks

Tsuchiya, Kyodo News: My question concerns the issue of resumption of the six-party talks. While the UN Security Council adopted its president’s statement on the sinking of an ROK patrol ship, please tell us about the position of the Government of Japan on this issue in light of such a change in the situation.

Minister: Since this is in the aftermath of such a serious incident, we cannot simply put everything behind us just because a UNSC presidential statement has been issued. I think that it all depends on what stance the DPRK takes in response. Of course, it is necessary to hold talks on the nuclear, missile and abduction issues, and we have no intention to reject the six-party talks. However, after such a serious incident, I think that we cannot simply pretend that nothing happened, and it is unlikely that the talks would be resumed immediately just because a presidential statement has been issued.

5. Postwar Individual Reparations

Asaka, Freelance: It has been reported that at a press conference on the 7th of July, Chief Cabinet Secretary Sengoku said that the government, for its part, needs to study the issue of new postwar individual reparations. How do you feel about this?

Minister: I am not aware of the details of the Chief Cabinet Secretary’s comments, but I would like to first get a good grasp of what he specifically has on his mind. I have not discussed this matter with the Chief Cabinet Secretary yet, so first, I would like to firmly ask him about his intentions.

Asaka, Freelance: According to media reports, the Chief Cabinet Secretary has used the expression “the government, for its part.” In that case, the reports indicate that he spoke on behalf of the Government of Japan – that it is the will of the GOJ to pay reparations. How do you feel about this?

Minister: Although that is the opinion of the Chief Cabinet Secretary, the government, for its part, has not conducted any concrete debates, so we would like to try to hold thorough debates. With regard to what he is talking about, for example, as we are currently holding discussions on returning the remains of the people of the Korean Peninsula that are in Japan, I think the idea to speed up this process, shall I say, is a way of thinking, and I think it just depends on the contents. Therefore, it just means that we need to hold more concrete discussions.

Asaka, Freelance: If individual reparations were to be approved, the issue of reparation rights between Japan and the ROK has already been settled through the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea in 1965, so the two countries have taken such a position. Consequently, if Japan were to approve new reparation claims by ROK individuals, I believe that there would emerge the question of what would happen to the rights to claim property that Japanese nationals left behind on the Korean Peninsula. When you meet with the Chief Cabinet Secretary, do you intend to speak with him about conducting studies to that extent, for example?

Minister: My understanding is that what the Chief Cabinet Secretary said was not necessarily intended to reverse a settlement that has already been achieved through the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea. I would like to make a thorough confirmation, including the facts with regard to that part. Basically, the two governments have reached a certain agreement within the Treaty.

6. Impact of Results of House of Councilors Election on Japan’s Foreign Policy

Mizushima, Jiji Press: I have a question about the impact of the defeat in the House of Councilors election on Japan’s foreign policy. I think that there are a number of possibilities, such as in Japan-US relations, waning of the political power needed to reach a resolution on the Futenma issue, or in foreign policy toward North Korea, enabling North Korea to see Japan’s weak negotiating position. I would like to ask your views on the impact of the House of Councilors election on Japan’s foreign policy, or national security.

Minister: Fortunately, treaties and the like are seldom divided over pros and cons in the Diet. They are often passed by unanimous vote, or by an overwhelming majority. In this sense, I think that the impact of a ”twisted” situation in the House of Councilors is limited compared to other bills. And as for foreign policy itself, although opinions naturally differ between political parties, the intention of foreign policy is to embody the national interests of Japan, and the interests of the Japanese people, to the greatest extent possible, so I think that it is preferable to reach a shared understanding and agreement that goes beyond inter-party conflicts. I intend to explain this in greater detail to the opposition parties as well, and work to convince them.

Nanao, Niconico Video: This is a question on behalf of our viewers. This is in relation to foreign policy. I believe that the results of the House of Councilors election is also getting attention overseas, but some people believe that the weakening of our political foundation could cause the attitudes of China or Russia toward Japan to change, to wait and see Shuttle diplomacy may also become difficult. I believe that the Japanese people are expecting easy-to-understand results, but is there a secret plan for strengthening relations with China and Russia?

Minister: I am not very fond of the term “secret plan,” but as I said earlier, I do not necessarily think that the outcome of the “twist” (of the House of Representatives and the House of Councilors) will be tied directly to a weakening of diplomatic capabilities. But we hope to explain matters in greater detail to the opposition parties, and since foreign policy did not necessarily take a 180-degree turn when the Democratic Party of Japan came into power, most policies are essentially carried on by the succeeding government, so I intend to explain these matters in detail, and find an answer to a common foreign policy that goes beyond matters of ruling and opposition parties.

Nishino, Kyodo News: I have a question in the same vein. One point is, given that we have (a deadline) of the Futenma issue in August, and the deepening of the alliance and the Futenma issue (to be addressed) at (the time of) APEC in November, will this not have any impact? Next, measures against global warming have been a major pillar of the policies of the DPJ, and they have been carried out by both the Hatoyama and Kan governments; conflict in this area was seen between the ruling and opposition parties at the recent Diet session. Both of these could be positioned as foreign-policy matters, and would you not say that there will be an impact in these aspects?

Minister: Firstly, the panel of experts will discuss the Futenma issue until the end of August, and then release a conclusion at the expert-panel level, and I think that we must advance this discussion properly. Of course, whether we will be able to gain the understanding of Okinawa will be a bit long way off, and I believe that this is a matter that is to be proceeded with care and attention. Regarding the views of the opposition parties on the Japan-US agreement, for example, the LDP planned to move it to offshore Henoko as the government at the time, so I would like to find common ground by holding thorough discussions. At any rate, it is a fact that we will not be able to move forward if we are not able to obtain the understanding of the people of Okinawa.
Although the views of the opposition parties on global warming are indeed divided, DPJ is aiming for 25% by 2020 under certain conditions, while the New Komeito Party argues that this does not go far enough, and that we should achieve 25% by 2020 without conditions. I think that the LDP’s view is that the figure of 25% by 2020 is too large. So views differ among the parties. I therefore believe that we should discuss this thoroughly, centered on a position near to the approach of the DPJ.

7. US Military Realignment Issue

Takimoto, Okinawa Shimpo: On the topic of the understanding of Okinawa that you were speaking about, in my earlier question on the House of Councilors election, at the present time many people in Okinawa are opposed; in the prefecture, they are currently saying “no.” You just said that you may ask for understanding a little after August, but by when do you intend to gain the understanding of Okinawa? Do you intend to gain understanding in a definitive form by the time President Obama comes for APEC in November? Or alternatively, the gubernatorial elections are in November; do you intend to wait until after the gubernatorial elections, and act after viewing the results of the elections?

Minister: Gaining understanding is our top priority, so I think that it is best not to set deadlines, saying we will do this by such and such a date. We want to do this as early as possible, but continuing to move forward without gaining understanding does not bring about the answer in the end, so I think that we must move things forward cautiously. Of course, we also have the United States, so we must do things as properly as possible, but I think that the United States understands that we will not obtain good results if we rush things, and I think that we must explain this fact properly.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I have been asking this for some time, but when you say the “understanding of Okinawa,” what would you see as having gained this? I realize that I have asked this before.

Minister: I do not think that it is very productive to define it. It means what many of the people of Okinawa can understand.

Mizushima, Jiji Press: Going back to Futenma, you said that you would like to find common ground with the LDP, since they originally intended to relocate Futenma to Henoko. I believe that this Futenma issue has been addressed in a relatively contentious atmosphere until now, but would it be possible, in certain circumstances, to ask for the cooperation of the LDP in some form moving forward?

Minister: The time when we ask for cooperation may be the time when the prospects for some type of progress become visible, but as of the present time, this may not necessarily be the case, so I think that we must spend a little time to foment a relationship of trust. I experienced the previous Diet, and since it is a matter of foreign affairs, I have thought that we do not need to consider things antagonistically in many senses. Of course, while it is fine to have points that are in conflict, there actually must be more things that we can cooperate on. I think that in those areas, our efforts have not been sufficient, and that we should have explained things more properly and with greater care.

Beppu, NHK: I find it difficult to imagine cooperation with the LDP on this issue, but the problem now is convincing, or gaining the understanding of Okinawa. I think that the focus now is on the relationship between the ruling party/the government and Okinawa, but in this context, what specific form would cooperation with the LDP take?

Minister: If we try to move forward in the current Diet, since we now have a “twisted” Diet, (with different majorities in the upper and lower houses,) we need understanding of this and parties in the Diet that will understand this and support us. But without a doubt, that is still a way off.

Nanao, Niconico Video: This is a question from our viewers. With regard to the Futenma base issue, several issues are concentrated at once: the site for the replacement facility will be decided at the end of August, and the Nago city elections and elections for the leader of the DPJ will be held in September. I would like to ask here again: during the previous administration, for a time there was confusion in diplomatic negotiations under the initiative of the Prime Minister’s office but has the Ministry of Foreign Affairs put these things under control?

Minister: Firstly, what you said about the location and construction methods being determined at the end of August is not necessarily correct. What will happen is that the expert panel will study these things, and release their results. This does not mean that the government will make a decision at the end of August. After receiving the conclusions of the expert panel, it is likely that the 2+2, the four ministers of Defense and Foreign Affairs, will put this into some form. A certain process will be necessary until then. Next, I honestly cannot deny that there was confusion in some aspects. Midway through, we decided to move forward between the US Department of State and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, confirming mutually that other routes are not official routes, and that approach has not changed. I think that having two or three different routes is truly poor diplomacy, and I think that this must absolutely be avoided. I think that this is the basics of diplomacy.

8. Appointment of Ambassador to the United States

Oshika, AERA: There may have been a question on this the other day, but there have been some rumors that Yoichi Funabashi, section chief at the Asahi Shimbun newspaper, will be appointed Ambassador to the United States. Do you intend to do this?

Minister: If we start confirming or denying personnel decisions, there will be no end to it, so I essentially think that I should not say anything, but I will say that this is the first time I have heard this. No, this is not the first time I have heard this; I have heard it several times, but I have never said this.

Oshika, AERA: Could it be Mr. Funabashi campaigning for himself?

Minister: I am not aware of that. I have met Mr. Funabashi, but that topic has never come up.

Oshika, AERA: Is it possible that he will be appointed to some post at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

Minister: I do not think it likely at the present time.

Oshika, AERA: I understood.

Minister: If I am asked one person at a time like this, then people will gradually learn who the Ambassador will be, so after this I do not plan to answer these questions.

9. Language Used for Official Texts

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: I have a question about the fact that the official text of the joint statement released by the Japan-United States Security Consultative Committee on May 28th was in English, with Japanese given as a provisional translation. You have been praised highly for the reforms you have implemented since becoming Minister. You have fixed what needed fixing, even when it went against convention, such as taking the side of the Japanese people on information disclosure, and resignation of the advisors to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the other day. I think that when there is an agreement between Japan and the United States, a Japanese-language version of the official text of the joint statement should be prepared. My first question is whether you considered internally in some way that a Japanese-language version of the official text was necessary or not, when you decided to create only an English-language version of the official text for this joint statement. Next, I think that when Japan-United States relations are considered, that a Japanese-language version of the official text should be made, but please tell us if you intend to work to also produce a Japanese-version of the official text in the future, including discussing the matter, even if until now the official language of joint statements has been English only.

Minister: Firstly, the official text of this agreement is in English. This is since the agreement was ultimately reached in the English language, and the negotiations had also been over the wording in English. We understand English to a certain degree, but the US negotiators probably do not understand Japanese, so ultimately we negotiate in English, and exchange English-language documents. While it would be possible to attach official Japanese translations to these documents, it would take time to truly ensure that there were no questions over a single word or phrase. It is in this sense that the official text is in English, and we provide our own translations in order to indicate the contents. Please make judgements based on the English-language text.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: It is my understanding that, for example, when negotiating with Russia, both Japanese and Russian versions of the official text are prepared. Are there no questions over continuing this practice of using the language of the United States for official texts when it comes to relations with the United States?

Minister: It can take time. If we are to announce the official texts of Japan and the United States simultaneously, then the announcements will take that much longer. That is the problem. Hardly anyone understands languages other than English, so in this sense it is a matter of course to attach a Japanese-language translation and make that an official text. It does not mean anything by it, but I simply do not feel a need to go to those lengths with English-language texts.

Back to Index