(* This is a provisional translation by an external company for reference purpose only. The original text is in Japanese.)
Media Availability by Minister for Foreign Affairs Koichiro Gemba
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 6:08 p.m.
Place: In front of Ministerial Reception Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Main topics:
- Opening Remarks
- (1) Report on Official Trip (APEC Ministerial Meeting)
- (2) U.S. Forces' Rotating Deployment and Expansion of Training in Australia
- TPP
1. Opening Remarks
(1) Report on Official Trip (APEC Ministerial Meeting)
Minister Gemba: I took an official trip from Thursday, November 10, to Sunday, November 13, to attend the APEC Ministerial Meeting. We discussed a wide range of issues involving APEC, such as strengthening economic integration in the Asia Pacific region and disaster prevention measures, and we were able to attain useful results. As you know, I had bilateral talks with the foreign ministers of other countries in the Asia Pacific region, and I was able to have meaningful exchanges of views on this occasion.
At my meeting with the U.S. Secretary of State, we discussed primarily the Honolulu APEC along with the East Asia Summit, which the U.S. President will attend for the first time, and shared the view that these are important to the construction of basic economic, political and security frameworks for the region. We confirmed that Japan and the United States would work together closely to attain concrete results.
(2) U.S. Forces' Rotating Deployment and Expansion of Training in Australia
Minister: At a U.S.-Australia Summit Meeting held today, it was announced that U.S. troops would be deployed in Australia on a rotating basis. We had received a prior explanation from both the United States and Australia.
I think that the United States made this decision as a concrete expression of its policy to strengthen the commitment of the United States in the Asia Pacific region. Japan welcomes this decision because we think it will improve the capability of U.S. forces in the region, thus contributing to regional security.
Furthermore, we have been informed by the United States that this decision will not influence the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan.
2. TPP
Question: With regard to the TPP, it seems that support for Japan taking part in the TPP talks has not gained momentum since the Prime Minister and you returned from the APEC Ministerial Meeting. On the contrary, there has been growing criticism of the TPP, including the discrepancy of views between Japan and the United States over what was said at the Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting. At the House of Councillors Budget Committee today, the Prime Minister mentioned that he wanted to develop a robust mechanism for engaging with the countries participating in the TPP negotiation and suggested the establishment of a cross-ministry team. What form do you think this mechanism should take?
Minister: I think we need to look at the Prime Minister’s concept as our starting point. As a matter of course, it will be something like a cross-ministry team. Then we’ll have to consider such issues as how to add staff. At the same time, we have to think of the composition of the team that would be tasked with conducting negotiations after Japan joined them as well as that of the team that handles the preparatory discussions. I think we will have decide on whether a single team will be put in charge of the entire process, or whether a team should be put together exclusively for the preparatory stage of discussions and staffed up later at the negotiation stage.
Question: The Chief Cabinet Secretary seems to favor organizing a team under the National Policy Unit. What do you think about this?
Minister: I think we should have a frank exchange of views on how to organize the most robust mechanism for engagement.
Question: The discrepancy between Japan and the United States over what Prime Minister Noda said at his summit meeting with President Obama has not been resolved. Prime Minister Noda told the Budget Committee today that, after confirming that he had been misquoted, he said that the U.S. “ought to make a correction” but the U.S. responded that their account was based on their interpretation, and the back-and-forth was left at that. When he said that the U.S. “ought to make a correction,” does that mean that the Prime Minister instructed the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to seek one?
Minister: The way I understand it is that the Prime Minister instructed the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to seek a correction from the U.S. side, that is, the White House. I further understand that, as a result of that request, it was confirmed that the Prime Minister did not say at that time that he would "put all goods, as well as services, on the negotiating table for trade liberalization." That confirmation has been made public both in Japan and abroad .
Question: I was told yesterday that neither the Prime Minister nor the Chief Cabinet Secretary had asked for a correction or lodged a protest, if my understanding was correct.
Minister: I am not sure what you were told, but my understanding is that a correction was in fact sought to avoid the misunderstanding that would be caused by the Prime Minister being misquoted or having remarks incorrectly attributed to him. As a result, it was confirmed that Prime Minister Noda had not made the statement previously attributed to him, and that confirmation was made public both in Japan and abroad.
Question: There is a view that this whole series of events at the summit resulted from insufficient coordination between Japan and the United States. What do you think of this?
Minister: On our side, we were finalizing our position domestically until the last minute. We continued finalizing it until just before we boarded the government plane, which may have resulted in some misunderstanding.
I think what the U.S. side included in their account of the summit was based on what Prime Minister Noda or other governmental officials had previously stated in public. It was subsequently made public both in Japan and abroad that the Prime Minister did not himself make such remarks at that meeting.
Question: Prime Minister Noda did not say anything at the House of Councillors Budget Committee regarding the question of whether to put rice on the negotiating table in the TPP talks. What do you think of putting trade on the table?
Minister: I do not know whether you heard my answer in the Diet earlier today, but I was asked why we can say that we will protect the public health insurance system but we are unable to make the same pledge about rice.
In the case of the public health insurance, one reason is that there is little prospect that it will be subject of negotiations under the TPP. On the other hand, putting the liberalization of agricultural trade on the table and then negotiating to exclude or eliminate certain products later is a fundamental part of the negotiation process. Fundamentally speaking. I think such has been the case in TPP negotiations up to now. Therefore, the key point is how we should approach the issue in that context.
Let’s review the facts. Japan has about 9,000 tariff lines. The U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement, to take an example, is the most liberal of its kind, with only one percent of tariff lines excluded from the agreement. One percent of 9,000 is 90, that is, 90 tariff lines are excluded. There is still deep-rooted support for allowing such exceptions.
To put the figure of 90 in context, for example, rice and processed foods with rice together amount to 34 tariff lines. I hope you will keep this fact in mind. Therefore, taking all this into account, our approach to the issue comes down to how we handle the talks as well as what adjustments we make in our position prior to negotiations.
Back to Index
