(* 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 13, 2010, 3:06 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Visit to Central Asia
Prime Minister's Statement on 100th Anniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea
US Involvement in Return of Northern Territories
Visit to Yasukuni Shrine by Cabinet Ministers
Realignment of US Forces in Japan
Flood Disaster in Pakistan
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
Visit to China by Former Prime Minister Hatoyama

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Visit to Central Asia

Minister Okada: I recently visited Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and attended the Third Foreign Ministers’ Meeting of the “Central Asia Plus Japan” Dialogue. I believe that on that occasion, I was able to hold very meaningful discussions, including holding talks with the foreign ministers of the two countries and paying courtesy calls to their presidents.
In the first place, meetings between the foreign ministers of Japan and Central Asia were basically to be held once every two years, but there was a four-year hiatus. This time, I made the visit, but I hope that we can put this meeting back on track again and hold it regularly, with the next meeting in Tokyo two years from now and probably in the Kyrgyz Republic another two years after that.
Some of you may not be familiar with Central Asia, but this is an extremely important region in geopolitical terms. The countries in this region share borders with the former Soviet Union or Russia, and China, and such countries as Iran are also in the surrounding area. The countries of Central Asia are in a very important position in the sense that they lie in the middle of entire Eurasia. Moreover, for Japan, the countries of Central Asia are suppliers of very precious resources such as energy and natural resources – especially the uranium and rare earth metals of Kazakhstan– so in this regard, I felt once again that we must continue building solid relations with these countries.

2. Prime Minister's Statement on 100th Anniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea

Sakai, Sankei Shimbun: Regarding the Prime Minister’s statement issued the other day on the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation of Korea, the South Korean Government gave a briefing to the local media by using the word “return (henkan)” in translating the Japanese text with regard to a transfer of the cultural assets in question. Please tell us your thoughts on the way that the South Korean Government handled this matter and whether you have any intention to lodge a protest over this.

Minister: I am aware that there are such reports. However, that was the way that the matter was handled within the South Korean Government, so I have no comments on that in itself. As for the expression used in the Prime Minister’s statement, it is as it appears in the statement – no more and no less.

Saito, Kyodo News: In relation to the question just brought up, I would like to ask a question just for the sake of confirmation. Some South Korean media have reported that the expression used in a tentative Korean translation that was prepared as reference when Japan released the Prime Minister statement was “return (henkan).” Please let us confirm whether this is true, just to be sure.

Minister: That is not true. The expression “hikiwatshi (Korean: indo) (English: transfer)” is used in the tentative translation that the Japanese side prepared. It is “hikiwatshi.”

Kamide, Freelance: With regard to the statement on the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation of Korea, various voices can be heard from the standpoint of approval or disapproval. Voices of criticism have emerged from around the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), but I feel that this statement directed at the people could have emerged only from the Democratic Party of Japan. Therefore, including such matters, please tells us once again from your standpoint as the Foreign Minister the significance of this statement.

Minister: I am aware that many of the Japanese and South Korean media have given high marks to the latest statement. It is natural that there are various views within the LDP, but I believe that there are LDP lawmakers who praise the statement.
As for the significance of the statement, this is a juncture year to mark the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation of Korea, but on the other hand, Japan colonized the Korean Peninsula on the basis of the Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty. However, as this year marks the 100th anniversary of that, I think that Government of Japan does not have the option of not making any comments. I believe that it was necessary for Japan to take appropriate action in the form of issuing a Prime Minister’s statement. The statement does not force Japan to bear any additional obligations at all. However, I believe that it is very important for the Government of Japan to express its current thoughts and feelings.
Of course, I realize that some people are critical of the statement, but I feel that it is natural to frankly apologize if you make mistakes. This is something I said when I visited South Korea in February, but I believe that if you are proud of your country, you should have enough imagination to determine how you would feel if you put your country in the other country’s position. I take pride in being Japanese. Consequently, if you think about a situation in which Japan were in a similar position – colonized by another country and thereby had the country, the language, the history, and the culture taken away – I would naturally think that that would be unforgivable. I would like you and many of my fellow Japanese to use your imagination by all means.

Fujita, NHK: Please tell us whether at this moment the Government of Japan has a target date or schedule with regard to how and when it plans to return (sic) the Royal Protocols of the Joseon Dynasty.

Minister: We have yet to work out the specific details of this within the government in particular. I think that we will now have to thoroughly discuss this matter with the Prime Minister’s Office and thoroughly work out arrangements with relevant quarters, as I believe that this will probably come out in the form of a treaty eventually.

Saito, Kyodo News: One point that is common to complaints raised so far by ruling and opposition parties is that although the latest statement is satisfactory in terms of what is expressed, issuing the statement this time could create a practice, or set a precedent in that Japan would have to issue a statement again on a juncture year, a turning-point year, or when there is a change in the Cabinet. Moreover, even if the Japanese side does not think so, other countries such as China, which places emphasis on turning-point years including the year that the Marco Polo Bridge Incident occurred or the year of the Nanjing Massacre, or North Korea may hold some kind of expectations as a result of the latest case. They may also think that Japan might issue a statement on their turning-point years. Voices have emerged expressing concern that these things could result in pressuring Japan to issue a so-called statement of apology or statement of remorse. How do you feel about such arguments?

Minister: What I do not understand about the argument you just mentioned is that every time the Cabinet changes…we did not issue the statement because there was a change in the Cabinet. The statement was issued because this year is a juncture year marking the 100th anniversary and not because there was a change in the Cabinet.
You say that issuing a statement on the 100th anniversary of Japan’s annexation of Korea could lead to Japan’s having to issue other similar statements, but I think that that is a matter that depends on the judgment made at the given time. However, South Korea is a neighbor, a very important neighbor, and there is the very serious fact that Japan annexed South Korea and this year is a juncture year marking the 100th anniversary of the annexation. It is in light of such factors that we arrived at the decision to issue a statement this time.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: With regard to the issue of transfer, you explained that it would probably take the form of a treaty. I think that this treaty would naturally require the Diet’s approval, but may I take it that with regard to this, you are thinking of the extraordinary Diet session this fall?

Minister: We would now like to hold thorough discussions, including that. This is not a matter that can be decided at my discretion because it involves the management of the entire Diet.

Saito, Kyodo News: The latest statement applies to the Korean Peninsula and it addresses the people of South Korea, but Japan’s colonial rule covered the entire Korean Peninsula. Considering that, it could be thought that the statement would apply to the area north of the 38th parallel, or what is currently North Korea. However, my understanding is that there is no mention of North Korea in the statement. How was it determined that the statement should avoid mentioning North Korea?

Minister: Amid the situation in which diplomatic relations between Japan and North Korea have yet to be normalized, the statement was issued this time as one that addresses the people of South Korea. Of course, the intent of the statement applies to the entire Korean Peninsula, but with regard to postwar issues between Japan and North Korea, there still does not exist anything like the Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). I believe that under these circumstances, we would not necessarily be issuing a statement unilaterally (toward North Korea).

Sakai, Sankei Shimbun: With regard to process (involved in issuing the statement) rather than the contents of the statement, some DPJ member are apparently dissatisfied that it was premature, or that the contents of the statement were decided behind closed doors before anyone knew about it. How do you feel about this procedural aspect?

Minister: I think that it just depends on the matter in question. However, I have hardly heard that broad discussions on the statement were conducted within the party, including the Murayama statement and the Koizumi statement that were issued on the occasion of the 50th and 60th anniversaries of the end of World War II, respectively. If discussions were conducted, they would naturally become public. As to the propriety of whether the process of such discussions should become public, I believe that the substance of such discussions is basically similar to that of diplomatic negotiations, and if the details of the discussions were to come out in the middle of the process, expectations could rise. Therefore, I believe that it is normal to think that these matters should be worked out by responsible persons under the government’s responsibility.
I feel that in a certain sense, it cannot be helped that criticism would emerge from those who were not included in such circles, but I do not think that there is any other way to go about doing this.

Nanao, Nico Nico Douga: I would like to make a confirmation, but with regard to the issue of transfer mentioned earlier, there are reports that on that occasion, ratification by the Diet may be necessary. Does this mean that various discussions will be held concerning Diet ratification on the occasion of the transfer?

Minister: In the process of deliberations on the treaty, Diet approval will indeed become necessary.

Nanao, Nico Nico Douga: In that case, amid opposition voiced by the LDP and a number of other parties in the twisted Diet, I feel that it would be difficult for the deliberations to move in the intended direction. What is your outlook on that?

Minister: We have the other side to deal with, so it depends on how we go about it. It goes without saying that a unanimous decision would be desirable for matters of this nature. Therefore, I believe that we need to move this forward very carefully.

3. US Involvement in Return of Northern Territories

Iwakami, Freelance: At the previous press conference, I asked you about negotiations between Japan and the United States during the 1950s. A few days after that, quite recently, a detailed report on the Dulles-Shigemitsu talks was carried on NHK’s ETV special program. The situation of the London Conference on August 19, 1956; the situation in which with regard to the details of that conference, the US side applied pressure urging Japan to demand (the Soviet Union for) the return of the four islands of the Northern Territories; and the story that the United States applied pressure (on Japan), indicating that (otherwise) it would not return Okinawa – all these matters have become public. You said that you were not aware of these matters, but if that is the case, let us look at these matters from a different perspective. There are materials related to Japan and Russia and materials related to Japan and the Soviet Union that have been disclosed. These include diplomatic documents. There is a letter that was sent by the US side to Japan, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in September following (Shigemitsu’s) meeting with Dulles – after the London Conference. The letter contains a passage in which it appears that the United States was threatening Japan that if the latter did not demand the return of the four islands, the agreements under the San Francisco Peace Treaty would be left pending, or in other words, the United States was thinking about nullifying it. This letter has been disclosed already, I have been able to read it, and I have confirmed it, but I would like to ask you once again what you think of the fact that at the time, there was strong pressure from the United States concerning the demarcation of territories and boundaries.

Minister: You abruptly tell me about these facts, but I am not aware of them, so I cannot easily comment on them. However, even though US and Russian leaders may have made their own agreements in their meetings during the wartime such as the Yalta Conference, Japan does not come under the restrictions of those agreements. Basically, I think that is the case.

Iwakami, Freelance: After all, what we have here are very serious matters that are the accumulation of the history of diplomacy, so I think that it is natural that even you, a foreign minister with extensive knowledge, do not have all information in your head. However, this is very important, so let us put aside some time, and upon making necessary preparations through administrative officials in advance if necessary and presenting these passages, I would like for you, by all means, to tell us your thoughts on the issue of US involvement and application of pressure on the important negotiations between Japan and Russia concerning the boundaries and territories. What do you think?

Minister: If you let me know in advance, I will do some research. However, hardly anything concerning the negotiations between Japan and Russia have been disclosed, so I cannot make any comments based on what has not been disclosed.

Iwakami, Freelance: There are some things that have been disclosed.

Minister: I can make comments if they are matters that the government has disclosed.

4. Visit to Yasukuni Shrine by Cabinet Ministers

Nishida, Mainichi Newspapers: August 15th will be the first anniversary of the end of World War II since the change of administrations. At your press conference the other day, you said that you would not visit Yasukuni Shrine, and it appears that all of the Cabinet Ministers will forego visiting the shrine this time. This also applies to the statement by the Prime Minister earlier on the 100th anniversary of the Japanese annexation of Korea that was much talked about, but is the foregoing of a visit by the Cabinet Ministers part of the Democratic Party administration’s foreign policy of creating new relationships of cooperation in East Asia? Please tell us your thoughts on this.

Minister: I am not in a position to answer this. It was not a case that I told the other Cabinet Ministers what to do, or made any specific requests of them. There, however, exists my thoughts. I am not aware of the background leading to the fact that no Cabinet Ministers will visit the shrine, so I would like to refrain from making specific comments. As I have stated before, my view is that we should not visit Yasukuni Shrine, because Class-A war criminals are also enshrined there. And, this is what I have been saying for a long time.

Nishida, Mainichi Newspapers: In relation to this, when you were the president of the Democratic Party of Japan, and Prime Minister Koizumi visited the shrine, you criticized him severely, saying that he had harmed the national interest. What do you think about an impact on our foreign relations, or that on relations between Japan and South Korea, or Japan and China as a result that the Cabinet Ministers will not be visiting the shrine this time?

Minister: In that sense, I think that visiting Yasukuni would have an impact, but not visiting the shrine is essentially a matter of individual decision. What I have said is that I do not think we should go there, because Class-A war criminals are also enshrined there.

5. Realignment of US Forces in Japan

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Today, August 13th, marks the sixth anniversary of the crashing of a helicopter at Okinawa International University, and I would like to ask a question in relation to this. At the time, you were the president of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), and you made a statement to the United States on behalf of the DPJ. That statement included an item about returning MCAS Futenma without a replacement facility, and when this request was made to the United States side, although Mr. Maehara was the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Next Cabinet, the request was sent with your name as the name of the president. Now, you are in the position of promoting an agreement between Japan and the United States to relocate to Henoko, in the city of Nago. Regarding this difference, I would like to ask whether anything about you has changed over the six years since the helicopter crashed, with Futenma still in the same location.

Minister: That document summarized the views of the party. Of course, as president of the party, the responsibility for that was naturally my own; but as I have said before, when I personally formed my view, or came to one view on the subject, was in the fall of 2005, when the Government of Japan reached a certain conclusion between Japan and the United States. Until then, there were various options, but that created a conclusion at that time. That was when I started to think that it would be quite difficult to move Futenma outside the prefecture, or outside the country.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: In relation to that, that agreement between Japan and the United States was made between the administration at that time and the United States. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), which at the time was an opposition party, wrote up a request, and that request argued the need for an action plan, or that the DPJ argued the need to create a coherent plan for how to reduce the base presence in Okinawa. If that had been allowed to build up, this argument would have matured within the DPJ and become a fine thing, but this has not come about, or at least we have not seen it. But although I think that some believe that this was not debated enough, or not debated with enough dedication, I would like to ask your opinion of this.

Minister: Some might make that criticism.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: This request also mentioned the Status of Forces Agreement between Japan and the United States, and the request stated that while of course the crash occurred outside the base facilities, it included a statement that even if the accident had occurred on base, the Status of Forces Agreement should be amended so that the United States would respond immediately to a request by local government officials to witness the scene. I believe that the DPJ still intends to revise the Status of Forces Agreement, and I believe that you will enter negotiations to that effect, but right now, mentions of environmental terms are flying about. Do you maintain your stance from that time of demanding positive revisions to allow access to accident scenes on base?

Minister: Ultimately, if we do not set priorities when we see things through, then although we can make any requests we like, we have to think of things with the precondition that the party in power must come to a solid conclusion on each issue. We also essentially think that if it is necessary to revise the Status of Forces Agreement, then we should do so, but to speak frankly on this point, the issue of the relocation of Futenma is our greatest challenge now. I do not think that we will obtain a good result for the relocation of Futenma if we keep requesting this or that while Japan and the United States are in the middle of discussions. Consequently, I think that we must carry out actions in due turn.

6. Flood Disaster in Pakistan

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: This is in relation to the flooding in Pakistan. I understand that the dispatch of Self Defense Forces helicopters is being considered; when do you intend to reach a conclusion on whether to dispatch them? What is the status of your considerations at this point?

Minister: The damages from the flooding in Pakistan are severe, and I believe that Japan must provide the most support possible. In addition to the humanitarian aspect, I recently exchanged views with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, and Pakistan also has an extremely important role considering the issue of Afghanistan. Consequently, we are currently considering whether we can dispatch helicopters as part of Japan’s assistance. Of course, our actions must be based firmly on the local security situation, but as of this time, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense are scheduled to depart this evening in order to perform an on-site survey. After receiving their report, the Cabinet intends to reach a conclusion over whether assistance is possible, and what assistance would be effective.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: You just mentioned that this evening, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense will go to the site of the flooding. If you are aware, could you tell us how many officials will be going, and how long they plan to stay?

Minister: I do not think that I should speak about this in too much detail, but we will be sending the number of officials necessary to perform the on-site survey. However, as this is ultimately only a survey, it will not be 20 or 30 officials.

Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun: When are they scheduled to return to Japan and deliver their reports?

Minister: We have a rough date in mind, but there are some things that we will not know until they are actually there. If we take too much time, then it will be meaningless to dispatch (the helicopters), so we want them to perform the survey swiftly and return to Japan with the results, but I cannot state precisely when they will return at this time.

7. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)

Iwakami, Freelance: Last time, I asked a question about Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) in relation to the nuclear umbrella and nuclear deterrence. At that time, you flatly rejected the logic of the MAD strategy, saying that it belonged far in the past. After that, I thought that perhaps my knowledge was lacking, so I studied up on this. I could not find anything stating that the mutually assured destruction strategy was an old philosophy or old system that had lost its effectiveness, and my attempts to study the subject seemed to show that it is still viable today. I would like you to tell us the true meaning of what you said at that time; also, there are still nuclear strategies today, and terms like “nuclear deterrence” and “nuclear parity” are still used; and the term “nuclear umbrella” is still used as well, so I would like you to tell us whether there is a nuclear strategy to replace MAD, and whether there could be a methodology or theory with different procedures whereby balance is maintained precisely because each side has the capability to destroy the other.

Minister: One of the greatest changes in the international community following the cold war was the appearance of new threats, not nation-to-nation, but by groups that are not nations. Alternatively, it is difficult to express this, but normally when a nation reaches a critical juncture, its considerations presuppose the protection of the nation and its people, but for some nations this does not necessarily apply. Where mutually assured destruction (MAD) applies is, for example, between Russia and the United States, and that may still be effective now. But if a terrorist organization has nuclear weapons, or if North Korea does, it would not be the case that MAD is established between the United States and North Korea. Consequently, it may still partially apply. Mutually assured destruction is only valid when each side has something that it cannot afford to lose, and the sides are balanced. I believe that currently, there are many cases in which these preconditions are not met.

Iwakami, Freelance: You said that MAD is also valid today where it was first developed: between the United States and Soviet Union, or the United States and Russia; but what I wanted to ask was whether this relationship had been established between the United States and China. Alternatively, (whether you think that) the two sides are approaching MAD at a point in the future. Although this is based on a type of lack of trust, it is strange to say so it is also based on mutual trust that neither party will attack the other, because the one side will certainly destroy the other. I would like to ask your views on, although such a relationship may not exist with North Korea or terrorist organizations, whether both the United States and China as superpowers may head in this direction, whether they are heading in this direction, or alternatively, whether MAD has already been established between them.

Minister: I think that the approach of mutually assured destruction may exist in theory, but from the viewpoint of one human being, it is quite impossible to accept such inhuman logic. In this sense, although an extremely logical analysis of the question may lead to one conclusion, I think that one must consider the issue a little more rationally, coming round to the fact that we are human beings.

Iwakami, Freelance: May I take from this that you personally do not think that MAD is logically very preferable? Would you not say that there is a contradiction between that and the fact that Japan is under the nuclear umbrella of the United States, and the United States has guaranteed to Japan that it will not be subject to nuclear attack by Russia or China? Please comment on this point.

Minister: The question is whether the concept of MAD was widely accepted. In other words, some experts do argue this. And in a sense, there is no mistaking that this has functioned to increase nuclear arsenals. This has led to arms races, where each side tries to get more than the other side. I think that a reflection on this fact is widely shared.

8. Visit to China by Former Prime Minister Hatoyama

Noguchi, Nippon Television: Former Prime Minister Hatoyama will visit China from Monday to Wednesday of next week, where he will meet with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. This will take the form of a Diet member round-table within the Democratic Party, and I believe that this is part of its party diplomacy, but aside from that, I have also heard that next month, he is scheduled to visit Russia representing Prime Minister Kan. As Minister for Foreign Affairs, do you think that it is advisable for a rank-and-file member of the House of Representatives, who is not a member of the government, to appear on center stage of diplomacy, regardless of whether he is a former Prime Minister? Alternatively, do you think that it is unadvisable?

Minister: I would like to get the discussion straight. First, although I have heard that former Prime Minister Hatoyama will be going to China, I am not aware of whom he will be meeting. However, I essentially think that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should welcome members of Parliament visiting various places to conduct diplomacy by lawmakers, and all the more if they have experience as a Prime Minister. The visit to Russia is something that I also asked for. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was to lead the creation of a panel on the issue of global warming, and in the discussion of whom we should send to represent Japan, I asked former Prime Minister Hatoyama.

Noguchi, Nippon Television: Was this because you had expectations for Mr. Hatoyama and no one else?

Minister: I thought that he was the best choice because he worked passionately on the issue of global warming when he was Prime Minister, and he is also knowledgeable about the topic.

Back to Index