(* 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: Friday, August 6, 2010, 4:10 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Attendance at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony
- (2) Requests by Governor Nakaima of Okinawa
- (3) Visits to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan
Peace Memorial Ceremony in Hiroshima
Visits to Yasukuni Shrine by Cabinet Ministers
Incident in which Japanese Oil Tanker Suffered Damage in Strait of Hormuz
Japan-South Korea History Issue (Prime Minister's Statement)
Ceremony by India to Commemorate Date of End of War
Talks with Governor Nakaima of Okinawa
Japan-South Korea Relations (Opinion Poll)
Realignment of US Forces in Japan
Joint Military Exercises between US and South Korea
Foreign Minister’s Visit to Central Asia
Resource Diplomacy
Nuclear Umbrella

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Attendance at Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony

Minister Okada: I have three announcements. With regard to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony, in which I had the honor of participating this morning, I have participated in this ceremony held on August 6 a number of times in the past, but this was the first time I participated in this ceremony in my capacity as Foreign Minister. Therefore, even though it may be the same ceremony, I certainly felt the weight of the responsibility, shall I say, or such a thing once again, all the more. I participated in the ceremony, while once again recalling how much effort I put into promoting nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation as a foreign minister over the past year. While I believe I have tackled various matters, I have engaged in debates on disarmament especially with the foreign ministers of major countries and the foreign ministers of nuclear powers, as well as in debates at the G8 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting or Japan-China Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, or in various preliminary exchanges of views with the United States, which has compiled its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). I believe that these things have been reflected to a certain extent in the NPR. Various things also come to mind such as a joint contribution of an article in Japanese and German newspapers with German Foreign Minister Westerwelle and a joint expression of views with Australian Foreign and Trade Minister Smith. However, I also feel that I still have not done enough. Since nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament are issues into which I have poured great efforts even before I became foreign minister, today I came to feel that I would like to firmly tackle these issues with a renewed resolve.
With participation by representatives of various countries, including UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and US Ambassador to Japan Roos, I feel that the ceremony itself was well organized than ever and served to make an appeal to the world. In any case, I would like to make further efforts, moving forward.

(2) Requests by Governor Nakaima of Okinawa

Minister: Secondly, we received requests from Governor Nakaima of Okinawa, Mayor Gibu of Kin Town, and other officials of the Council for Promotion of Dezoning and Reutilization of Military Land in Okinawa. They talked to us about each item on the written list of requests, and one thing is that the government, for its part, intends to properly give a written response to their requests. This is something that traditionally has not been done so much. They said that it was after the inauguration of the Hatoyama administration that this came about for the first time. They said that the government gave its written response on May 31, and I promised that we would sincerely respond to their latest requests. Additionally, as it has been the case recently, various incidents keep occurring one after another. It is easy to speak about “prevention of the recurrence of such incidents,” and I myself have made requests concerning this matter to Ambassador Roos many times, but I feel that there still is room to implement various ideas to make it further difficult for such incidents to occur. I told (the Okinawan officials) that we intend to hold thorough discussions on this matter with the US side.

(3) Visits to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan

Minister: (My next announcement) is about my visits to Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan starting today. I plan to be gone until the 11th Wednesday. In Uzbekistan, I will attend the Third Foreign Ministers’ Meeting of the “Central Asia Plus Japan” Dialogue to be held in Tashkent. There has been a hiatus for a while, but I think that it was because going to Central Asia was rather difficult due to scheduling problems, among other things. I believe that it will be the first time in five years, but since this is a very important region, a region with which Japan also should further deepen relations in the aspect of energy and resources, I hope to firmly conduct exchanges of views.
In Uzbekistan, I am scheduled to pay a courtesy call on President Karimov and hold bilateral talks with the foreign ministers of participating countries. I am scheduled to visit Kazakhstan from the 9th (Monday) to the 10th (Tuesday) to pay a courtesy call on President Nursultan　Nazarbayev and hold bilateral talks with the Foreign Minister. I also hope to thoroughly observe sites of ODA projects and other places as much as time permits me.

2. Peace Memorial Ceremony in Hiroshima

Iwakami, Freelance: I would like to ask a question concerning the Peace Memorial Ceremony in Hiroshima today. Once again, with regard to the meaning of the dropping of an atomic bomb over Hiroshima, it has been reported in various public opinion surveys that more than 50 percent of the people in the United States feel that the United States was justified in dropping the atomic bombs in order to end the war. How do you feel about the awareness of the American people or the stance of the US Government and the media that tolerate this? What do you think of the dropping of the atomic bombs? Do you think that it was necessary to end the war? Please tell us about your views on this.

Minister: I recall that when I happened to visit the Smithsonian, there was an exhibition on the atomic bomb that was going on just at that time. There is a background to this exhibition. The Smithsonian’s original plan on the atomic bomb exhibition was changed in the end as a result of protest by veterans’ organizations and other groups. It was changed to the effect that the dropping of the atomic bombs could not be helped or that it was necessary. I felt at that time that there exists a wide gap between the awareness of the people of the two countries. I am quite sure that the director of the (Air & Space) museum was forced to resign at the time. I would like people to learn more about the reality. While Ambassador Roos has come to Hiroshima – this is his second time – I would like many people to visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki and thoroughly learn about what happened there. By doing so, I think that since we are all human beings, we will have the same feeling.

Kamide, Freelance: In connection with today’s ceremony in Hiroshima, voices have emerged calling for US President Obama’s stopping by Hiroshima and Nagasaki during his future visit to Japan. Since this is a matter that has to be coordinated with the other side, I think that no decisive moves have been made, but what are your thoughts about the significance of President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima, and at the moment, how do you feel about making this come true?

Minister: This is a matter of how the US Government or the President feel about it, and although we would very much appreciate it if the US President were to come (to Hiroshima or Nagasaki), I feel that this matter should not go beyond this point and turn into a “should or should not” argument. As I mentioned earlier, I would like many people to look at reality, but I do not think that this is a matter in which the Japanese side should bring up an argument over who should or should not come.

Araki, Chugoku Shimbun: At the Peace Memorial Ceremony today, Prime Minister Kan expressed his intention to firmly engage in promoting nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation. Please tell us about specifically how you intend to engage in this as a minister in charge of these affairs.

Minister: I thought I had spoken about this earlier, but I have been quite active on this over the past year. A meeting of a small group of foreign ministers is scheduled on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in September. We will be setting up a new group. I am speaking about bringing about a “world of reduced nuclear risk” as a preliminary step to a “world without nuclear weapons.” I believe that not only I, but also the foreign ministers of other countries have started using this term “world of reduced nuclear risk,” and the term has spread considerably. In other words, I have been making efforts for the past year, employing a tactic of not just speaking about a big future goal, but also properly promoting discussions on what ought to be done along the way in attaining that goal, and I intend to boldly promote that.

Takahashi, Asahi Shimbun: At today’s ceremony, Mayor Akiba of Hiroshima called for Japan’s abandoning the US nuclear umbrella. Please tell us how you feel about this.

Minister: I fully understand Mr. Akiba’s feelings as the mayor of Hiroshima. However, if we look at Japan’s security and the current situation, I believe that it would be extremely difficult to ensure the security of the Japanese people without the US nuclear umbrella, especially amid the presence of countries near Japan that possess nuclear weapons such as North Korea, Russia, and China. Therefore, I believe our views are different.

Iwakami, Freelance: I feel that discussions have been conducted all this time completely on the premise that nuclear deterrence or the nuclear umbrella provided by the United States exists, but there is suspicion whether the so-called nuclear umbrella actually exists. For example, various people such as Hans Moregenthau or other US scholars of international politics have questioned whether in the event that a situation arises that could lead to a nuclear war, the United States would use nuclear weapons for counteroffensive for an ally at the risk of attacks on the US mainland. Although this is a fundamental question, please tell us once again about your views whether, in light of the fact that there are such voices, the US nuclear umbrella would function effectively.

Minister: There are no definite answers. However, it depends on the substance of the alliance, and there is no mistake that nuclear attacks on Japan would be deterred only if (the United States) is prepared to retaliate with nuclear weapons in the event of a nuclear attack on Japan. I may not be able to do so if you asked me to provide logical proof or 100% proof, but I believe in this and hold no doubts. The argument you just brought up cannot be logically proven in the end, so I think that this (argument) will not yield any results. I feel that what matters is the substance of the alliance.

Iwakami, Freelance: You just said that what matters is the substance of the alliance, but please tell us about the details of the substance of the alliance with regard to what kind of substance the Japan-US alliance would require to further guarantee that nuclear deterrence.

Minister: Simply put, I believe that it is a matter of whether a country planning to launch a nuclear attack would think whether the United States would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Japan came under nuclear attack.

Takahashi, Asahi Shimbun: I am very well aware that you have been ardently tackling this issue, but I still think that in the end, you will still be questioned about the inconsistency of your advocating nuclear disarmament while relying on US extended deterrence. Please tell us about your thoughts on this matter.

Minister: The nuclear umbrella and nuclear disarmament are not incompatible. With regard to nuclear disarmament, we are calling on countries that possess nuclear weapons to reduce their nuclear arsenal, so I think that saying that nuclear disarmament and protection under a nuclear umbrella are inconsistent is an argument that I find very difficult to understand logically.

3. Visits to Yasukuni Shrine by Cabinet Ministers

Fujita, NHK: It will be the first time for the government under a Democratic Party of Japan administration to commemorate August 15, the day marking the end of World War II. Please tell us once again whether you plan to visit Yasukuni Shrine in your capacity as foreign minister on that day. I have one more question; please tell us about your thoughts on the propriety of Cabinet ministers’ visiting Yasukuni Shrine.

Minister: Of course, I have no intention at all to do so. I feel that it is inappropriate for Cabinet ministers, especially a foreign minister, to visit Yasukuni Shrine, where Category-A war criminals are enshrined. Although I should not necessarily be commenting about other Cabinet ministers, I would like for them to judge my thoughts based on what I just said. I think that this is a matter for the Chief Cabinet Secretary or the Prime Minister to state as a basic policy of the Cabinet.

4. Incident in which Japanese Oil Tanker Suffered Damage in Strait of Hormuz

Hasegawa, AFP: With regard to the incident involving a Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (oil tanker) in the Strait of Hormuz, there are media reports that according to a United Arab Emirates report, confirmation has been made that it was a terrorist act. Please let us know if you have any information on that.

Minister: Details have not been clarified. No confirmation has been made, so at the moment, I have no further comments. It has been told that photographs are presented, but it has also not been confirmed whether the photographs are those of the ship belonging to Mitsui O.S.K. Lines. Therefore, I would like to refrain from making further comments at this point.

5. Japan-South Korea History Issue (Prime Minister's Statement)

Saito, Kyodo News: My question is in connection with the history issue. So far, the Government of Japan has issued the Murayama statement and the Koizumi statement. There have been a number of statements. In addition, joint declarations have been issued. While it appears that the expression “deep remorse and heartfelt apology” to the people of Asia that appears in the Murayama statement has taken root, please tell us about your views on whether this expression in the series of statements is appropriate as a message that the Government of Japan transmits to the world and whether it had significance and was effective in conducting diplomacy vis-à-vis Asia so far.

Minister: In the sense that whether it is appropriate, I think that it is indeed appropriate. Rather than saying whether it was significant for diplomacy vis-à-vis Asia, I believe that it is a matter of course for Japan to admit its mistakes and state it.

6. Ceremony by India to Commemorate Date of End of War

Shimada, Freelance: Relating to August 15th, I saw on India’s website that on that day, a ceremony will also be held at the Indian Embassy to commemorate the date of the end of the war. Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs plan to send Ministry staff or the like there to make commemorative remarks, or something similar?

Minister: I am not aware of this, including whether we have been invited.

7. Talks with Governor Nakaima of Okinawa

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: On the earlier matter of talks with Governor Nakaima, I believe that a letter of request was delivered that called the Japan-US statement on the relocation of Futenma extremely difficult to implement, and asked for the issue to be resolved in a way that the people of Okinawa could understand and agree with. I would like to ask whether that subject was also mentioned orally during this exchange, and whether you mentioned it in some way.

Minister: I do not intend to make that exchange public in this kind of occasion.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: In your opening statement, you said that the government would return a response in an official written form. This exchange of written documents could be considered an exchange of views, or a dialog with the local community to a certain extent, but I would like to ask in the context of an exchange with the local community, or asking for the understanding of the local community, whether you mentioned the creation of an institution for discussions today, and how you will proceed with this.

Minister: As I just mentioned, I will not touch on the substance of our discussion. This is because we had an exchange of views that both sides understood to be non-public.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: This is not about the substance of your discussion, but about an institution for discussions in general.

Minister: As I said, I do not intend to touch on the substance of our discussion.

8. Japan-South Korea Relations (Opinion Poll)

Asaka, Freelance: According to an opinion poll conducted jointly by KBS World and NHK, 62.1% of Japanese responded “Relations between Japan and Korea are good,” while 59.9% of Koreans responded “Relations between Japan and Korea are not good.” What do you think of this gap?

Minister: I think that there are many reasons for this. For example, the reactions will differ between the side that inflicted pain and the side upon which the pain was inflicted. But it is a fact that it has improved significantly compared with a little bit earlier – for example, during the Koizumi administration. I think that we need to consider not just the absolute numbers, but also the trends, shall I say, or the tendencies of these numbers.

Takahashi, Fuji Television: You just said that relations with South Korea have improved compared to the times of the Koizumi administration. I would like to ask what attitudes specifically have helped, and what is necessary to improve relations further.

Minister: I think it would be quite difficult to explain why relations have improved. I think that the numbers show that they are in fact clearly improving. Of course, after the Koizumi administration we had the Abe administration, the Fukuda administration, and the Aso administration, but I think that the efforts since the Hatoyama administration and Kan administration have been greatly appreciated.

9. Realignment of US Forces in Japan

Higa, Kyodo News: This may be in relation to the Futenma issue. I believe that this was your response to Social Democratic Party leader Fukushima at yesterday’s budget committee meeting, but on the topic of the significance of the Marines’ presence in Okinawa, I believe that you responded antagonistically, asking how we could protect the lives and property of the Japanese people without the Marines. Is it your understanding that the lives and property of the Japanese people could not be protected without the Marines’ presence in Okinawa? If that is so, then is this consistent with the target of reducing the Marines’ presence by 8,000 people?

Minister: I would like my responses to be heard accurately. When asked why there was a need for a Marine presence in Okinawa, my response was that the overall training and operating force must be united. There is actually nowhere outside Okinawa that will accept all of that. My intention was to respond that the presence of the Marines is required in Okinawa in part for this reason.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: In relation to what you just stated, you said that there is nowhere outside Okinawathat will accept the combined assets that are in Okinawa, or that no such place can actually be found. Currently, Okinawa also does not accept these assets, so in this sense I think that makes matters flat, or rather that everyone has the same stance. So then if you ask why it has to be Okinawa, I think the answer is that it is because the Marines are currently in Okinawa. Do my views match your own, sir?

Minister: The subject originally began with the relocation of Futenma, and the relocation was in order to eliminate the danger at Futenma. Many destinations for this relocation were considered, but ultimately, the only destination that could be found was Henoko. Of course, the local community is currently opposed to a relocation to Henoko, so in that sense it is not currently accepted by them. But what I am saying is that this is precisely why we must strive to properly ask for understanding.

10. Joint Military Exercises between US and South Korea

Saito, Kyodo News: My question is about the joint US-South Korea military exercises following the sinking of a South Korean naval patrol ship. I heard on the news that yesterday, a spokesman of the US Defense Department formally announced that the aircraft carrier George Washington would participate in exercises in the Yellow Sea, which is to the west of the Korean Peninsula. I would like to ask whether this has been confirmed. Additionally, China is very opposed to this, and although these are international waters, Chinese military officials have repeatedly stated in public that holding exercises near China is a challenge to China and absolutely inacceptable.
Amid these circumstances, an aircraft carrier is going there. I would like to ask whether this will have some impact on peace and stability in the Far East, and how this issue should be handled. I believe that Japan has a slight involvement because it is sending observers, and I would like to ask from that perspective.

Minister: First, it is my understanding that it has not been decided whether Japan will send observers to the exercises held in the Yellow Sea. Next, what we always state is that holding exercises in international waters is allowed under international law. Some say many things when China does so in waters near Japan, but including this, even if holding exercises in international waters by either side stirs up feelings, legally there is no problem with it. Consequently, I would also like the Chinese to understand of these exercises in the Yellow Sea in this sense. Although Japan is not in the position to ask this, I hope that China will respond rationally.

11. Foreign Minister’s Visit to Central Asia

Saito, Kyodo News: I have a question about Central Asia. You earlier said regarding your visit to Central Asia that they were extremely important nations. You gave resources as an example, but I do not think that the Japanese public at large is very familiar with Central Asia, so although you gave resources as one example of the importance of Central Asia, I think that there are many other facets as well, such as security and economy. Could you describe the overall importance of the region for us?

Minister: I mentioned resources and energy, but before that I said that the region also of course has geopolitical importance. In other words, they are former members of the Soviet Union, and to the south of Russia. Then we have Russia and China, and the Western world, and meanwhile we have Afghanistan, so in this sense the region’s location is extremely important geopolitically. In addition to this, recently there is uranium and other resources like gas, so the region has gained attention for these kinds of resources and energy. I believe it was about 13 years ago, but I have been to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan one time before. This was way back when I was in the New Frontier Party (NFP), but it was just shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and there were issues like nuclear weapons. Kazakhstan had nuclear weapons, but they said that they had abandoned them. There was an extremely high level of interest in this point, so I accompanied a study group by my party to these two countries. It has been about 13 years since then, so I would also like to get a thorough view of how the situation there has changed. At any rate, this is an extremely important region for Japan, and since the second Foreign Ministers’ Conference was held in Tokyo in 2006, there have been an interruption, so I would like to return to a state in which we hold such conferences at least once every two years or so.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: This is a rather minor topic, but at this Foreign Ministers’ meeting with five Central Asian countries, it appears that only Turkmenistan’s Foreign Minister will not be coming. As you are aware, Turkmenistan is somewhat unique among the five countries because it has declared permanent neutrality. Turkmenistan’s Ambassador attended the last meeting, but in part because Turkmenistan’s president visited Japan last year, I think that it would be good if we could build relations with them a little this time. I would like to ask whether Turkmenistan explained why their Foreign Minister would not be coming, and what your views are of this.

Minister: It is my understanding that this is due to an issue with the Foreign Minister’s schedule. He came last year, and I spoke at some length with both him and the president. Consequently, I was looking forward to the Foreign Minister coming, and I think it is very unfortunate that he could not. Turkmenistan is an extremely important country. It is also very important for Japan in terms of things like pipelines and gas. When we hosted the president last year, I think that we were able to take a step toward strengthening our relations, so although I think that it is unfortunate that he cannot come this time, I am committed to further strengthening our relations.

12. Resource Diplomacy

Saito, Kyodo News: I have a question concerning resource diplomacy. In the international community, various countries currently engage in fierce competition over resource diplomacy, so I think that it is a foregone conclusion that of course Japan must do so as well. I think that the problem is that countries with lots of resources always seem to be developing countries, and to be politically unstable, or be developmental dictatorships, with strongly dictatorial governments, or be noted for human-rights abuses, and I think that there are many problems with how those resources are accessed. On this point, as Japan advances resource diplomacy, does Japan intend to use some sort of proper yardstick in these areas? Or alternatively, will you build country-to-country relations without going too deeply into the other country’s internal politics, and putting aside whether the other country is a military dictatorship, proceed quietly with country-to-country resource diplomacy? Please tell us your basic thinking on this.

Minister: I think that a lot of countries, such as Australia and South Africa, will get angry if you tell them what you have said just now, that countries with resources are developmental dictatorships. Of course, many of these countries have proper elections, and they choose their members of parliament or leaders. In cases of significant human-rights abuses, there are of course cases in which Japan must consider its response as a nation. For example, one such country now is Myanmar. But there are stages that must be progressed through in order for democracy to mature. For example, comparing Indonesia from some time ago with Indonesia now, I think that Japan also made significant efforts in this area, but the Indonesia we have now was made possible by spending time, and waiting for democracy to mature. I think that it is also problematic to rush to a debate of how things should be, using just one set of values. There are in fact many countries that choose their members of parliament or leaders without elections, and while we should maintain the viewpoint that this is a kind of violation of human rights, we should not think too critically of those countries. We should give them a little more time, and a little more space in which to move.

13. Nuclear Umbrella

Iwakami, Freelance: I’m sorry, but I would like to ask a question to confirm just one thing about the nuclear umbrella. I think that a prerequisite for the efficacy of the United States’ nuclear umbrella is what would be called a nuclear balance, and the United States and the Soviet Union had a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). I believe that this doctrine was established in the 1960s, but does a MAD doctrine exist between the United States and China, or will one be established in the near future? Please tell us your views on this point.

Minister: A nuclear umbrella or nuclear balance does not necessarily have to be equal. Also, Mutually Assured Destruction was something that was discussed in the past between the United States and the Soviet Union. I do not necessarily think that this is effective now. It is a debate from the past.

Back to Index