(* 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 Takeaki Matsumoto

Date: Friday, July 29, 2011, 3:10 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

LDP Lawmakers' Planned Tour to Utsuryo Island
US-North Korea Consultations
Revision of the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement
High-speed Train Accident in China

1. LDP Lawmakers' Planned Tour to Utsuryo Island

Saito, Kyodo News: I would like to ask a question about Japan-South Korea relations. There is a report that some LDP Diet members are planning an inspection tour to Utsuryo Island, which is close to Takeshima. Please tell us exchanges, if any, between Japan and South Korea over this issue along with the Japanese Government's basic position on this issue.

Minister Matsumoto: I understand that the Japanese Diet members will legally enter South Korea for the inspection tour. I am aware, however, that a major backlash is happening over this issue in South Korea. We made a request to South Korea for the prevention of any unforeseen situations. Meanwhile, we have been informing the Diet members concerned of information collected, if any, on the circumstances.

Saito, Kyodo News: Is the Japanese Government requesting self-restraint from the LDP members concerned while suggesting that their inspection tour be withheld?

Minister: Basically, I, as an executive authority member, do not think I am in a position to comment on any actions of Diet members taken at the discretion of the respective Diet members, the political party to which they belong, or the legislative authority.
However, as I mentioned, we have been informing the Diet members of the situation of the major backlash in South Korea.

Inukai, Mainichi Newspapers: There is a media report stating that a spokesperson for the South Korean Foreign Ministry suggested the refusal of the four Diet members' entry at the airport. I would like to ask you whether you received any explanation from the South Korean Government about the refusal of their entry. Could you also explain what the Japanese Government will respond if that happens?

Minister: So far, I have not been informed of any reports about South Korea's reaction. However, I have received a report a while ago that the South Korean Foreign Ministry has called Ambassador Muto in Seoul to visit the Ministerial Office by 3 pm Korea time, which is also 3 pm Japan time, because there is no time difference. However, I have not yet received a report on the contents of his meeting.

Inukai, Mainichi Newspapers: What will the Japanese Government do if South Korea refuses their entry?

Minister: At the present stage, I cannot answer such a hypothetical question. In any case, Japan-ROK relations are very important. I think it meaningful for both countries to deepen the bilateral relations in a stably and friendly manner. While there are various issues between the countries close to each other as a matter of course, it is desirable for both Japan and South Korea to deal with them calmly. Furthermore, both countries should make their efforts toward it. I believe that Diet members representing the respective nations fully understand the importance of the bilateral relations. We, as the authority on foreign affairs, would appreciate it very much if they would accumulate actions contributing to the bilateral relations between Japan and South Korea.

Inada, NHK: I would like to ask two questions in relation to the topic. First, you said that they would enter South Korea legally in your understanding. I am sorry to ask a question based on my one-sided assumption, but some people may not think it logical for South Korea to refuse their entry though their entry itself is legal, and I believe that you have been calling for a calm response. If South Korea rejects their entry, will it be a subject of protest of the Japanese government?
Furthermore, you said that it is desirable for both countries to respond calmly. May I understand that you intend to request calm response from the Japanese Diet members though you are not in a position to instruct legislative members?

Minister: My answer to your first question is the same as that to Mr. Inukai's question because I cannot answer hypothetical questions.
I said that we, as the authority on foreign affairs, would appreciate it very much if they would take actions to contribute to the bilateral relations between Japan and South Korea. As a matter of course, this was addressed to the Diet members concerned, but was also addressed to theh governments of both countries and the people of both countries in a broad sense.

2. US-North Korea Consultations

Ogawa, Yomiuri Shimbun: Washington and Pyongyang officials started US-North Korea Consultations in New York. The first day of the Consultations was over, and the second day will start soon. Did you receive any reports on the first day's Consultations?

Minister: We reconfirmed the cooperation between Japan, United States, and South Korea in Bali the other day. I believe that the parties concerned will exchange information closely at each level. Since I was tied up in a Diet committee meeting this morning, followed by other affairs including the visit of members of the Governors' Association, at the present stage, I have an announcement that the State Department released. I think you have already known it, so I will not take up the announcement. As you mentioned, only the first day was over. We would like to make arrangements for issues over North Korea in the future through the close communication with the U.S. regarding the U.S.-North Korea Consultations and also the close cooperation between Japan, United States, and South Korea.

Ogawa, Yomiuri Shimbun: I remember you mentioned at the ARF in Indonesia’s Bali or the Japan-U.S.-ROK Talks that the Six-Party Talks should be held after the North-South Talks followed by the US-DPRK and Japan-DPRK Talks. We could take it as your intention to hold the Japan-DPRK Talks even before the Six-Party Talks. Could you explain in detail the meaning of what you mentioned?

Minister: I cannot recall immediately what I mentioned exactly. In view of what happened last year, I believe that Japan, United States, and Korea have confirmed to attach priority to the North-South Talks. Meanwhile, I saw the Foreign Ministers of North Korea and South Korea talking right in front of media reporters and me in Bali, though the talks were not formal ones.
The US-North Korea Consultations are being held now. There are issues to be discussed between Japan and North Korea, and I have been reiterating that the door to dialogue has been opened. I mentioned this in front of North Korean representatives at the ARF.
On the other hand, I do not think it is proper to engage in dialogue for dialogue's sake. We would like to have necessary dialogue with diplomatic efforts while maintaining the cooperation between Japan, United States, and South Korea. At the moment, I am not thinking of making arrangements by deciding the order of various meetings. With regard to the Six-Party Talks, I have been mentioning that it is necessary for North Korea to show its willingness to accomplish concretely what it agreed or pledged including the series of the Security Council resolutions and joint statements made at the Six-Party Talks in the past. I think it is desirable to move to the stage where we can consider it appropriate to convene the Six-Party Talks through obtaining full understanding and cooperation from the U.S., ROK, Russia, and China.
As I said, I would like to avoid dialogue for dialogue’s sake at the Japan-DPRK Talks. Meanwhile, we would like to solve issues through appropriate dialogue. The door to dialogue is open, and I think that our standpoint has been known to the counterpart.

Saito, Kyodo News: I have a question about Japan-North Korea relations. I refer to the point you made that you will avoid dialogue for dialogue’s sake. As to the abduction issue in the dialogues, North Korea has announced up to now that the issue was settled. As they are asserting so, do you think that the dialogues do not deserve dialogues from Japan’s standpoint?

Minister: Though I don’t think to make respective words as the premise of all, I said in the last meeting of ARF that we needed to solve the abduction issue, and also that it was important to implement the re-investigation based on the agreement in August 2008 at the meeting where North Korea attended in fact. As you are aware, at the meeting, North Korea insisted that the abduction issue had already been settled. At the meeting later, I was given an opportunity to say that the abduction issue had not been settled yet, and other attendants at the meeting said that they didn’t understand that the North Korea’s announcement that the abduction issue was settled was the fact. Therefore, I think North Korea sufficiently understood at the meeting that the international community understands that the abduction issue has not been settled yet.

Inada, NHK: The Government of Japan has been saying continuously that North Korea should take concrete actions based on the successive Resolutions at the Security Council of the United Nations up to the present. As to these “concrete actions”, do you mean that they refer to the sealing or destruction of their nuclear facilities, if these actions are supposed to be of irreversible nature? Or, should we understand that the words “concrete actions” mean for North Korea to make a promise that seem to be kept by them particularly when the door of dialogues is open between the U.S. and North Korea in this way now? How do you think about what actions you will deem as the concrete actions?

Minister: I have been telling that the dialogues should not ones for dialogues’ sake. Conversely speaking, they must have a possibility to lead to fruitful dialogues. On the manner by which North Korea express their will by taking concrete actions that will lead to such fruitful dialogues, as it is us who will evaluate by watching contents and forms of North Korea’s words and behaviors, I think we should not specify now what kind of actions are needed.

Inukai, Mainichi Newspapers: A moment ago, there was another question about the Japan-North Korea relations. In connection with the South Korea-North Korea talks held in at Bali and the U.S.-North Korea talks which is being held now, I have a question about what kind of relation there is between the talks on the nuclear issue held between South Korea and North Korea and between the U.S. and North Korea and the Japan-North Korea talks including the abduction issue. For instance, I would like to ask if you have an idea not to hold the Japan-North Korea talks if there is no concrete action or no progress as you say during the U.S.-North Korea talks being held now.

Minister: We wish to fully cooperate with the U.S. and would like to consider our responses to the situation of the U.S.-North Korea talks, gaining and watching carefully relevant information. Though I don’t think there is no relation between the U.S.-North Korea talks and the Japan-North Korea relations, I don’t think that the conditions discussed at the U.S.–North Korea talks are necessarily linked to convening of the Japan- North Korea talks.

Inukai, Mainichi Newspapers: You placed a premise that “there is of course a relation” with the U.S.-North Korea talks. Can we understand that, even if there is no progress at the U.S.-North Korea talks, we can consider the Japan-North Korea talks to be separated to a certain degree?

Minister: If you say “to be separated”, it sounds a bit questionable. I understand that Japan, the U.S. and South Korea have a common understanding that the nuclear, the missile and the abduction are the issues for us while we are cooperating with the U.S. and South Korea overall. So, I think, in the context that we will try to solve the problems through cooperation, it is not “to be separated.” Also, it is hard to practically think that one particular relation between Japan, the U.S., South Korea and North Korea advances extremely while the three countries are cooperating with each another.

3. Revision of the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement

Nishigaki, Jiji Press: A little while ago, the members of the meeting of governors in charge of external affairs brought in a document of request. In the meeting, I think there was a topic about the revision of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement, particularly about the revision of the provisions concerning the transfer of crime suspects of U.S. soldiers. How did you reply about it?

Minister: I think there are lots of items in the document I received. In the discussion of the meeting, the members of governors’ meeting explained that their requesting matters include the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement. And as they touched upon the problems of affairs and accidents as well as of the environment, I told them that we will consider the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement, while properly responding to imminent challenges for the time being. I also reported to them that among the measures for respective affairs and accidents as well as the environment, there are ones which are now being consulted between Japan and the U.S.

Matsudo, Ryukyu Shimpo: As to the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement requested by the meeting of governors, please let us know if you feel the necessity of the revision or if you can respond to the problems by improving its operation.

Minister: I think that what is important is not a means but perhaps the contents. Therefore, we are thinking to make progress by selecting the most proper means by which we can make progress now little by little. Now, as to the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement, while we deepen the alliance between Japan and the U.S., also tackling imminent challenges, we would like to discuss it, viewing the progress of them. As to the problems of affairs, accidents and the environment in presence, it is my standpoint that we would like to make progress firmly on what we can make progress within the framework we have already established.

4. High-speed Train Accident in China

Inada, NHK: As to a series of accidents, now a point of trouble in signaler is taken up. There are very severe remarks even in China too as they buried vehicles and the government did not announce the cause of the accident though they knew it. On the other hand, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao made his clear posture at the site that “anyway, safety comes first”. As the exchange of people between Japan and China increases in the future, it cannot be thought that Japanese people will not use the high-speed train at all in the future. How do you evaluate the behavior taken by the Chinese to bury a series of vehicles of this time and on the other hand the expression of posture by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao to “anyway, safety comes first”?

Minister: As to the accident of China’s High-Speed Train, I would like to extend my condolences and sympathy to the injured or dead people. As to my evaluation on the accident itself, I understand that the Chinese side is saying that they will properly investigate and verify the accident. Therefore, I should make my comments, viewing the result of the investigation and verification if there is what I must comment on. We would first view the investigation and responses by the Chinese side. Of course, while there had been times when Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself visited the sites in cases of great natural disasters, the fact that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself visited the site this time too in China shows that he fully knows the graveness of the accident as well as the graveness of impact exerted to Chinese people and the international community, in our understanding. And as far as we listen to his words, we understand that he acted, fully knowing the importance of the investigation of the circumstances. Therefore, we would like to expect that the cause of the accident will be properly investigated and it will contribute to the improvement of safety in the future.

Back to Index