(* 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, August 3, 2010, 3:20 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Sanctions Measures against Iran
- (2) Flood Disaster in Pakistan
- (3) 2nd Japan-CARICOM Ministerial-Level Conference
Sanctions Measures against Iran
Draft Report by Advisory Panel on Security and Defense Capability in the New Era
Review of the Three Non-nuclear Principles
Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions
Realignment of US Forces in Japan
Deepening of Japan-US Alliance
Policy toward North Korea
Current and Future Diplomacy between State Leaders
Takeshima Issue
100th Anniversary of Japanese Annexation of Korea

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Sanctions Measures against Iran

Minister Okada: Firstly, with regard to sanctions measures against Iran discussed during today’s Cabinet meeting, the UN Security Council (UNSC) on June 9 this year adopted resolution 1929, which obliges UN member countries to take such measures as freezing the assets of entities and individuals engaged in Iran’s proliferation sensitive nuclear activities, etc.
At its meeting today, the Cabinet approved of taking the following measures in order to implement this resolution.

Freezing of the assets of 40 entities and one individual designated under the said UNSC resolution;
Prohibition against Iran’s nuclear technology-related investments; and
Prevention of transfer of financial resources related to the supply of large conventional weapons.

Also, the recently adopted Resolution 1929 further calls for taking measures (against entities and individuals) in the event that it is recognized that there is reasonable cause to believe that (these entities and individuals) are contributing to Iran’s nuclear activities. In addition to this, it has been decided that studies will be conducted within the government to arrive at a conclusion as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of August this year, on measures – in other words, additional measures – that should be taken in such areas as non-proliferation, commerce, financial services, and transportation.
It is necessary to take a resolute posture with regard to the Iranian nuclear issue from the standpoint of firmly maintaining the nuclear non-proliferation regime, the relationship between that issue and the response to the North Korean nuclear issue, and the effect on the stability of the Middle East region, among other things. I believe that it is important that the international community, while leaving the window of dialogue open, unite and steadily implement successive UNSC resolutions and demand that Iran make a sensible decision toward a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the nuclear issue.

(2) Flood Disaster in Pakistan

Minister: Due to record torrential rainfall in various parts of the country, large-scale flooding occurred in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in northwestern Pakistan, causing serious damage including the loss of many lives.
   In addition to expressing deep condolences to the victims of the latest disaster and their bereaved families, as well as sympathy to those who have been affected, on behalf of the Government of Japan, I sent a message to Foreign Minister Qureshi, stating that Japan is ready to provide necessary support.
   The area where the flood damage occurred this time and the area where an earthquake occurred previously overlap considerably. This is an area that I visited after the earthquake, so in that sense, I have a special feeling about this.
   Taking into consideration such matters as the situation of disaster in the affected area and consultations with the Government of Pakistan, studies were conducted within the Government of Japan. As specific measures, we decided to extend: (1) emergency grant aid of up to 3 million US dollars (approimately 260 million yen) centering on such aspects as water and food; and (2) emergency relief goods worth 20 million yen.
   Moreover, we plan to carry out additional assistance upon promptly making a decision after holding consultations with the Government of Pakistan and international agencies.

(3) 2nd Japan-CARICOM Ministerial-Level Conference

Minister: My third announcement is about the convening of the second Japan-CARICOM Ministerial-Level Conference.
   On September 1, which is one month from now, we will invite the foreign ministers of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members and hold the second Japan-CARICOM Ministerial-Level Conference in Tokyo. This conference will be held for the first time in 10 years since the first Japan-CARICOM Ministerial-level Conference held in 2000.
   At this conference, the ministers will discuss future cooperation between Japan and CARICOM and enhance collaboration on various global issues, including the environment and climate change, economic crisis, and assistance for the reconstruction of Haiti. Of course, I also plan to take advantage of this occasion and hold bilateral talks with the foreign ministers of the various countries.
   The 14 CARICOM member states, which frequently take a common position in the international arena, hold a certain presence in the international community. I believe that the fact that they will deepen their understanding and support towards Japan’s positions on various global issues through this conference will be extremely significant with regard to our promoting multilateral diplomacy.
   This conference was held 10 years ago, but since then, arrangements could not be made with regard to such matters as the timing of the next conference and who would be participating. As a result, it has been decided that the conference would be held again in Japan this year, which is 10 years after the first conference.

2. Sanctions Measures against Iran

Saito, Kyodo News: With regard to sanctions against Iran, which you just talked about, does the fact that Japan plans to consider how it would deal with the matter hopefully by the end of August mean that Japan intends to once again impose unilateral sanctions, shall I say, or do it separately? If that is the case, please tell us about your view on what those sanctions will consist of.

Minister: Japan will additionally consider measures of its own. With regard to the details, we are currently working out arrangements with various relevant ministries and agencies, so at the moment, I cannot make any comments.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: The United States and the EU have already announced additional sanctions against Iran. In particular, the EU is apparently imposing its own sanctions such as freezing a wider range of assets than those that Japan announced today. I would like to ask you whether Japan is currently studying the possibility of adopting such plans.

Minister: My understanding is that it will still take a little while longer before the EU finalizes its decision. The announcement has indeed already been made. While acknowledging the details of the measures that the United States and EU plan to take and using them as reference, we hope to come up with Japan’s own measures.

Yoshinaga, Mainichi Newspapers: In imposing Japan’s latest portion of sanctions or having imposed sanctions against Iran already, what is your view of such matters as how they may affect Japanese companies? Also, please tell us how Japan intends to impose the sanctions, while giving due consideration to such matters as the effects of the sanctions on Japanese companies.

Minister: These are the two sides of a coin, and it depends on which side you are looking from. It cannot be said that Japanese companies will not be affected. However, sanctions measures that do not affect Japanese companies cannot be expected to be very effective. Therefore, I believe that imposing additional sanctions in coordination at least with the United States and the EU as a part of international efforts is necessary in the sense of Japan’s fulfilling its international responsibilities and preventing nuclear proliferation and stopping Iran from moving forward its nuclear development program.
What we decided today is what has been decided at the UNSC. Therefore, I believe that it is a matter of international responsibility to at least implement the sanctions even if they cause some undesirable effects.

Saito, Kyodo News: What kind of attitude must Iran take in order for Japan to decide not to impose unilateral sanctions or lift these sanctions decided at today’s Cabinet meeting in line with the UNSC resolution? Please present those conditions to us once again.

Minister: The measures adopted at the UNSC today are not a matter that can be decided by Japan alone. Since Japan implements sanctions measures based on the UNSC decision, lifting them must be based on the results of discussions at the UNSC. Consequently, this cannot be determined by Japan alone.
With regard to additional measures, there is room for Japan’s making its own decision in that sense. However, I believe that we must act in coordination with the United States and the EU, which are also considering additional measures.
At least under the circumstances in which Iran has been ignoring successive UNSC resolutions and continuing uranium enrichment activities aimed at reaching the 20% enrichment level, I believe that it is inconceivable that those sanctions will be lifted.

Saito, Kyodo News: Robert Einhorn, US coordinator (for the implementation of sanctions related to Iran and North Korea) reportedly spoke about Iran in Seoul at the same time he spoke about North Korea, so he might speak about Iran in Japan. In this regard, one of the key points is the inspection of cargo, which is included in the UNSC resolution. I have heard that there is a lot of maritime traffic between Japan and Iran, and the Government of Japan has already passed a cargo inspection law with regard to North Korea. Please tell us about your view on whether Japan intends to treat Iran as it treats North Korea.

Minister: At the moment, we are not thinking about anything specific. I think that it will depend on whether the need arises, but at this time, there is no need.

Saito, Kyodo News: With regard to the matter just mentioned, inspection of cargo is included in the UNSC resolution, but I do not quite remember whether it was an obligatory clause or a request clause. Even though I am quite certain that it was at the level of requests instead of obligations, I tentatively understand that the position of the Government of Japan is that it will actively take action even for a request clause. Does this mean that with regard to the part about cargo, there are some political or technical difficulties?

Minister: A study has yet to be conducted within the government as to how necessary it is or whether it is meaningful. We are not completely ruling it out.

3. Draft Report by Advisory Panel on Security and Defense Capability in the New Era

Iwakami, Freelance: A part of a report by a new advisory panel on security that is a private advisory panel to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, the official name of which is “Advisory Panel on Security and Defense Capability in the New Era,” was carried in media reports on the 26th. It was reported that the panel’s report included a review of the three non-nuclear principles, a review of the principle of not allowing nuclear weapons to be introduced into Japan. I have heard that this would serve as material for further discussion on the next National Defense Program Outline. I would like to ask you about your views on this.

Minister: Firstly, it has not been announced. It was a leak. Since an announcement has not been made, it means that it leaked from somewhere. I would like to be cautious about making comments premised on that. It would be different if an announcement had been made after a decision was properly made.
One more thing – generally speaking, this advisory panel is made up of intellectuals, and the panel’s report will not become the National Defense Program Outline as is. While using the report as one of the references, the National Defense Program Outline will be worked out by holding discussions within the government, especially at the political level. Therefore, there will be no one-to-one correspondence in particular between the panel report and the National Defense Program Outline. Right now, I can make no further comments.

4. Review of the Three Non-nuclear Principles

Iwakami, Freelance: As your own view, rather than in relation to the details of the report by the new panel on security, please tell us once again about your thoughts on whether there is a possibility that the three non-nuclear principles will be reviewed or firmly maintained.

Minister: I have repeatedly said here that we intend to adhere to the three non-nuclear principles. Of course, I do not recall having conducted extensive discussion on this after the inauguration of the Kan administration, and since we have a new prime minister, I think that we have to discuss this again. However, I do not know at all whether Prime Minister Kan disclosed a completely different view somewhere.

Iwakami, Freelance: In connection with this issue, what has been bothering me with regard to this issue is that in recent years, many influential US politicians, such as former US Vice President Cheney or Senator McCain, or those who formerly served as aides to former US President George W. Bush, have repeatedly made forward-looking comments with regard to probably introducing nuclear weapons into Japan or deploying them, rather than having Japan possess nuclear weapons or manufacture them. I believe that the United States has its own agenda, but I had wanted to ask you whether, in light of the fact that such comments have repeatedly emerged, there is any possibility that Japan might review even a part of the three non-nuclear principles. Therefore, I would like to ask you once again what Japan should do, taking into consideration the expectations of the United States.

Minister: I am not especially aware of those views – although I do not think they are about nuclear power – of the former Senate officials of the United States. I have never heard about such things. There may be people who are saying these things, but I do not understand what kind of situation they are envisioning in making such comments, as I have repeatedly said here that basically with regard to tactical nuclear weapons, they have clarified in the NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) that they intend to scrap Tomahawk missiles from here on. However, although I do not think that they are thinking about introducing strategic nuclear weapons into Japan, this is a matter that goes beyond my imagination, and it is inconceivable that their comments are based on and supported by legitimate facts.

Kamide, Freelance: I believe that August 6 will be of a great significance for advancing the elimination of nuclear weapons. Amid the situation in which (the officials of) three countries – the United Kingdom, the United States, and France – and the UN Secretary General (will be attending memorial services in Hiroshima to mark the 65th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima), will the Democratic Party of Japan be able to clearly state that it intends to uphold the three non-nuclear principles? If that is the case, I would like for you to say so in your capacity as Foreign Minister.

Minister: That is why – as this earlier question was asked in the context of the defense advisory panel’s report and the exchange that followed – I said that I should avoid answering that question when I even do not know whether that was a leak. My views are as I have traditionally stated before.

5. Oslo Convention on Cluster Munitions

Takeuchi, Video News: There are two things that I would like to ask about the Oslo Convention. I think that under this Convention, there are stipulations extending to the scrapping of munitions. Firstly, I would like for you to explain in concrete terms the situation of progress in Japan. Secondly, in order to prevent the US military from using cluster (bombs) within Japanese territory, I would like to ask once again whether Japan has any intention to find out whether the US military uses clusters bombs or to ask the US military to stop using them.

Minister: My understanding is that under the Convention, we cannot make demands to that extent. Therefore, I think that this would be a matter that goes beyond the Convention. I am not aware that Japan is specifically making such demands at the moment.

Takeuchi, Video News: What about those that Japan itself possesses?

Minister: We will proceed with the procedures in line with the Convention.

Takeuchi, Video News: The intention of my first point is to learn about the current situation regarding that process – how much progress has been made.

Minister: You must let us know in advance if you want to find out about such facts, as I do not know about everything. If you want to, I think you can inquire with those in charge of this matter at the various government departments.

6. Realignment of US Forces in Japan

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I believe that today is the start of deputy director general-level talks between Japan and the United States, which will include Futenma as well. I am making my question with the understanding that it will not only be about Futenma, but I believe that until now, talks have been conducted by experts at the working level of division directors. Based on that, I would like to ask to what stage you are intending to advance discussions by holding deputy director general-level talks.

Minister: It has not been decided. But since we do have end-August as one juncture, there is no doubt that as to conclusion at the appropriate level of experts, it will not be concluded at least at the political level. We will wrap up the expert-level talks aiming for end-August.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I believe that the talks will be broad-ranging, including deepening of the Japan-US alliance, and I would like to ask my question in that context. Rather than a single detailed construction method for Futenma, I believe that the mention of burden reduction in the 2+2 joint statement included a menu of options. Will this discussion also be wrapped up at the deputy director general-level talks?

Minister: I am sure that this will also be discussed.

Fujita, NHK: This relates to the last question. Your answer may already be decided, on ending the study by experts by the end of August. But you say that it is not decided whether this will be made public. Up until now, you have also consistently responded that you are not yet in a position to speak about how matters will be handled after that. Yesterday, Prime Minister Kan said in a doorstepping interview with a reporter that he did not intend to decide things without giving Okinawa a chance to have its say in order to gain their understanding. Finishing at the end of August, and then having the scheduled visit by President Obama to Japan in November, and then the governor’s election in Okinawa prefecture on November 28, and then making a decision after that seems like a very passive stance, but how is this being organized within the government at this time?

Minister: The first matter is the meaning of “decide.” Is it deciding at the expert level? What will be decided at the expert level are technical considerations. Essentially, they will consider technical matters, and consider what is technically feasible.
   After that, what is politically feasible will be discussed, and then the 2+2 will make its final determination. I am not sure whether the Prime Minister was speaking about this first stage, or the second stage. What are written in the Japan-US agreement is that there will be a study by experts by the end of August, and that the study will make some form of conclusion at that time. Since this is a technical study, the conclusion will probably not be in the form of saying this or that must be done, but rather that this or that is possible. As to whether that will be one thing, or two, or what form it will take, given its nature as a technical study, I think that it will probably not say that there is only one way to do things.
　In any case, it depends on the results of a study; only one result may derive from the technical study. Therefore, in parallel with this study, we will also decide what form it should take, and whether to make it public, including this as well.
   This is by no means being postponed. It is completely mistaken to say that progress is delayed because a technical study may not narrow down the choices to one solution. I do not think that media reports to this effect are correct. This is due to the nature of the study.
   Another point is that, as the Prime Minister stated, in the final instance the reason why we are doing this is that we must relocate the base away from Futenma. The understanding of Okinawa is a precondition for doing this. Even if we decide things just between the Japanese and the US governments, ignoring Okinawa, it will not be feasible if it comes to a standstill. Therefore, we are only stating the obvious when we say that we are now holding talks from the perspective of what we should do in order to create a plan that will be feasible.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I would like to ask a question in the context of the understanding of Okinawa that you just mentioned. As you will be explaining matters or holding a dialog with Okinawa in order to gain the understanding of the local community in Okinawa, I believe that there is an urgent need for a consulting organization, or some venue for discussions with Okinawa. As to what such a venue should be, Governor Nakaima has said that there is no way he could agree to talks predicated on a relocation to Henoko, in Nago City, and he said he would refuse to enter such talks. But as I believe that the government intends to hold a dialog with Okinawa in order to relocate the base to Henoko, it seems like the two sides are not able to find common ground.

Minister: What you said was a little confused. I think that the image of a venue for talks including Okinawa prefecture will differ depending on the person.
What I said was that until now, when there was an accident or the like, there was a working team that would consider the response to it. Should we expand that a little, and hold discussions there? Or we also have a Japan-US Joint Committee. This committee has discussed noise issues in the context of burden reduction. The question is whether we can upgrade things like this, and enable proper talks to be made using them.
　This was my intention for not mentioning the venue for discussing the issue of the Futenma relocation. Although I think that this will be decided according to the views of the Chief Cabinet Secretary.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Does that mean that the views of the Chief Cabinet Secretary are separate from the venue for a dialog that you spoke about? In other words, are you saying that there has not been communication, or shall I say a consensus within the government, on what kind of thing should be made?

Minister: This is still being discussed. But each party has its own responsibility. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has its role, and the Prime Minister’s Office has its role. Therefore, I think that you could consider discussions over the form that the talks should take to be an extension of this. Although it might be taken that the lines are slightly mixed up. Of course, in the end we may reach a single conclusion, but this has not happened at this point. I think that a little more discussion is needed. Of course, this is not limited to the government. We also have the United States and Okinawa.

7. Deepening of Japan-US Alliance

Tsuruoka, Asahi Shimbun: I have a question about deepening the Japan-US alliance. After the meeting in January between yourself and Secretary of State Clinton, on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the revised alliance, Prime Minister Hatoyama issued a statement that he wanted to show some kind of result by year’s end. Now that Naoto Kan has become the Prime Minister, do you still intend to show a result by the end of the year, such as a joint declaration between the leaders when President Obama visits Japan?

Minister: This issue is very important, so we are starting by discussing it thoroughly. Speaking of 50 years, that is true this year, but next year is also the 51st year, going on from the 50th anniversary, so we do not yet have any particular projections. We will first discuss it thoroughly. We will make a public announcement when we are able. A time of “by year’s end” has indeed been mentioned, I cannot deny that. But we are not 100% constrained by that. We will discuss the details thoroughly, and the discussion seems to be running slightly behind schedule now, so as we also have the Futenma issue, the discussions are frankly slightly delayed, so we intend to hold these discussions thoroughly.

Mizushima, Jiji Press: On the topic of Futenma, the location of the runway will be determined at the 2+2 meeting, but the timing of this meeting has not yet been determined, and although I do not know if it would be correct to say that no rough target has been given for when it will held, amid these circumstances, you were earlier speaking of measures to reduce the burden on Okinawa; please tell us whether it will be possible to do some things when the prospect for the replacement facility is for certain, such as lifting restrictions on Hotel/Hotel training area, relocating the training grounds, or an agreement on the environment.

Minister: Implementation can proceed in parallel with discussions. Since implementation takes a little time, I think that it would be quite difficult to start implementation right away, such as next month, but we are proceeding in parallel with discussions.

Iwakami, Freelance: This is in relation to a dialog with Okinawa. During the Hatoyama administration, you went to Okinawa, and held a direct dialog with the residents of Okinawa, with a focus on the residents of Nago. That dialog was held in a closed format, but the other day, when I was doing some interviews in Okinawa, I thought that most of the people were very critical of the closed format, or shall I say that they did not think that it was a desirable format.

Minister: I think that will depend on the person.

Iwakami, Freelance: If you had the opportunity to go to Okinawa again and hold a dialog, would you want to make it closed, or open? Would you let the press in too, and would you make it totally open to people who could not fit into the venue as well?

Minister: There seems to be a slight misunderstanding, but it was not that people could not fit into the venue; it was that we invited specific people to the discussions. In other words, I did not attend the talks as the Minister. Consequently, I took a taxi to the venue in a taxi rather than an official vehicle. At the meeting were supporters gathered by House of Representatives member Denny Tamaki, a member of the DPJ. The group also included the candidate who became the mayor. I was speaking before those people, and consequently, I spoke in a closed format. I was speaking not as Minister of Foreign Affairs, but as Katsuya Okada, member of the House of Representatives from the DPJ. I do not have any plans to do the same thing again. There is a slight question of division of roles, but my judgment has been that it is best not to mix (the position in charge of) Okinawa too much with the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs negotiating with the United States. Of course, I would not refuse if, for example, the Chief Cabinet Secretary or the Prime Minister instructed me to do so, but I have no such plans at this time.

8. Policy toward North Korea

Saito, Kyodo News: Mr. Einhorn, coordinator for the US Department of State, is to visit Japan. Specifically, what matters will be discussed? Also, in connection with this, the United States has implemented unilateral sanctions against North Korea. Some of the measures are very tough, including measures against North Korea-related accounts or companies engaged in relevant transactions. Please tell us about such matters as to what extent Japan plans to act in coordination and whether it will become necessary to revise laws, etc., including the outlook.

Minister: I do not know what assertions he will be making until I listen to him very closely. As you know, hardly any trade exists between Japan and North Korea. Remittances to North Korea have also been substantially limited as a result of additional measures that Japan previously implemented. In that sense, I think that Japan does not have much room to implement additional measures. As to whether the United States has some new ideas – for example, as you spoke a little about it, focusing on a company to determine whether it is engaged in diverting transactions – and whether these matters would be discussed, I believe that I will not know until I listen to him very closely. I think that we will then conduct a thorough study on what we can do.

Yamamoto, Sekai Nippo: During the Budget Committee meeting this morning, Liberal Democratic Party (sic) lawmaker Hiranuma directed questions at you. He asked you whether you could have considered meeting with North Korean Foreign Minister Pak at the latest ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) meeting, and you said, “The reinvestigations (by North Korean authorities into the issue of abduction) remain suspended, and looking at the situation, I could not meet (with Pak),” citing this as the reason for not meeting with the North Korean Foreign Minister. In that case, if North Korea does not take any action on some new aspect of the issue, do you take the position of not contacting North Korea at all beyond that point, or is there some kind of scheme for probing into relevant developments through some other channels? Please tell us about this.

Minister: I cannot directly answer your question, but since it is something special to hold a meeting at the ministerial level, I believe that we need to think about it a little more carefully. It would be fine if there were some specific developments with regard to the reinvestigations that North Korea promised two years ago, but they have completely failed to fulfill their promise, so I determined that it would not be appropriate to hold a ministerial meeting under this circumstance. I spoke about this at the Diet, but in addition to that, there occurred this incident involving an ROK patrol ship, so we decided to pay due respect to the thoughts of the ROK side. Taking those matters into consideration as well, I decided in the end not to meet with the North Korean Foreign Minister.

9. Current and Future Diplomacy between State Leaders

Nanao, Niconico Video: This is a question from our viewers. It concerns diplomacy between state leaders. On the 1st, Jiji Press reported that Prime Minister Kan would postpone his August overseas visit. While it has been a traditional practice of past prime ministers to use August and September to travel abroad, the report said that he would concentrate on the party president election in September. Additionally, Prime Minister Kan’s foreign policy is less visible to the Japanese people than Prime Minister Hatoyama’s was. Diplomacy between state leaders also appears to be stalled now. Please tell us your views of the current situation, and the situation moving forward.

Minister: It is difficult to conduct diplomacy between state leaders in August. In particular, they take about a month of vacation in Europe and North America, so even if you go there nobody will be there. If you go to a resort somewhere you may be able to meet somebody, but since taking a vacation is a common practice, it is not so strange that the Prime Minister would not travel abroad in August. Mr. Kan held meetings with major leaders at the recent summit, so I think that he decided that it was not necessary to hold meetings one after another in this sense. If you wish to compare him with Prime Minister Hatoyama, Prime Minister Kan has only been Prime Minister for two months. It has not been very long, so I can understand why he wants to first get a firm grasp of domestic affairs. If you spend too much time traveling abroad, then in Japan we now need to bring together the estimate of requests for the draft budget, and as we are now at the initial phase of establishing the administration, there are many things that must be done. There are also still many things that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not been able to explain to him properly. I think that for this reason, the Prime Minister has decided to solidify his footing for now, including those things. I think that this is a sensible decision.

10. Takeshima Issue

Iwakami, Freelance: I believe it was the day before yesterday, but NHK had a program about relations with South Korea, in which it brought up the issue of a secret agreement on Takeshima. Regarding the territorial issue of Takeshima, I believe that it was reported in the media that there was a secret agreement that said the dispute would be “resolved by leaving the matter unresolved.” Does such a secret agreement really exist between Japan and South Korea? I would also like to ask you to speak about whether the United States had a hand in this, if you are aware.

Minister: I do not know any details, because I did not watch that program. I do not know if this was a secret agreement in the correct sense of the words. I do not think so, but I have absolutely no grasp of whether this is true. I think that many people at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs are of the opinion that it is not true. I saw a little of the part where former Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials came out. As far as I heard, they were all denying it, but I am not aware of the details.

Iwakami, Freelance: More than the issue of Takeshima, the United States has been putting pressure on Japan since the 1950s to keep it from building friendly relations with its neighbors, and make it impossible to do so. The Takeshima issue may be a part of this. To give an example, I believe it has been recently said that in a meeting in London on August 19th, 1956, between Foreign Minister Shigemitsu and Secretary of State Dulles, the United States applied pressure to prevent Japan from reaching a settlement in negotiations with the Soviet Union to compromise with the return of two islands and to demand of Japan that it request the return of the islands of Etorofu and Kunashiri, saying that if Japan could not accept this, then it would not return Okinawa to it. Back then, in the 1950s…

Minister: May I say something?

Iwakami, Freelance: Yes.

Minister: I have absolutely no awareness of these facts, and I have never seen or heard anything like it. Therefore, I cannot respond beyond this if you build an entire framework with this as a precondition.

Iwakami, Freelance: Are you saying that you have absolutely no knowledge of this issue?

Minister: Yes.

Iwakami, Freelance: I see. I will return to this at a later time.

11. 100th Anniversary of Japanese Annexation of Korea

Takeuchi, Tokyo Shimbun: This is slightly related to the earlier question. The end of this month will mark the 100th anniversary of the Japanese annexation of Korea. I have heard that there are speculations within the government that the Prime Minister will release a new statement. Please tell us the current status of considerations of a response by the government.

Minister: I answered this at the Diet yesterday. We are now carefully considering what kind of reaction to make.

Back to Index