(* 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 Koichiro Gemba

Date: Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 4:40 p.m.
Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Disclosure of documents related to the normalization of relations between Japan and the DPRK
Information disclosure lawsuit on the disclosure of documents related to diplomatic normalization negotiations between Japan and South Korea
Revision of Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement
Information disclosure lawsuit on the disclosure of documents related to diplomatic normalization negotiations between Japan and South Korea
Visit of a Member of the Diet to the DPRK and Vice-Ministerial-level negotiations between Japan and China
Visit to Europe
Senkaku Islands
Japan-Russia relations
Japan-China relations

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Disclosure of documents related to the normalization of relations between Japan and the DPRK

Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba: One comment to make at the outset and that is with regard to the case on information disclosure of documents related to the diplomatic normalization negotiations between Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK). Based upon the ruling, I’ve given instructions to disclose in principle all documents which may be disclosed. Based on my instructions, a voluminous amount of approximately 20,000 pages of subject document were scrutinized and as a result, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has decided that certain portions which were initially designated as non-disclosure will be disclosed to the extent possible.
In addition, those portions which were initially decided as non-disclosure portions, those not required to be disclosed and the non-disclosure were deemed as legitimate upon the ruling, will also be disclosed to the utmost extent.
On the other hand, those portions which were given orders for disclosure, but disclosure of which is considered to undermine national interest, were concluded as appropriate to maintain its non-disclosure status, and therefore a decision was made to make an appeal.
As far as this claim for document disclosure is concerned, we must take the impact on future normalization of diplomatic normalization negotiations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) into full consideration. The negotiations between Japan and the ROK were finalized in 1965, but since negotiations on similar issues with the DPRK is still yet to be conducted, we believe that it would not be appropriate to disclose information which is highly likely to be disadvantageous to the Japanese side.
Since my appointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I’ve given instructions to actively disclose diplomatic records. As a result, although previously the number of diplomatic record files which were transferred or made public was approximately 2,000 a year, in the past year, the number of files disclosed reached 6,475. Regarding this information disclosure of documents related to the normalization of relations between Japan and the ROK, upon this ruling, it has been determined to disclose information to the maximum extent.
On an approximate basis, 268 portions were subject to the disclosure order based on the ruling. Around two-thirds of those subject to that order will be fully disclosed. Further, with regard to the portions subject to appeal, parts of these will be partially disclosed. On top of that, regarding the 114 portions about which the non-disclosure decision was deemed legal by the court, 20 of these are planned to be completely or partially disclosed.

2. Information disclosure lawsuit on the disclosure of documents related to diplomatic normalization negotiations between Japan and South Korea

Nikaido, Asahi Shimbun: Regarding the portions to be disclosed, by when are you planning to disclose them? Also, you just mentioned that diplomatic relations normalization negotiations with the DPRK must be taken into consideration, but is it also based on the view that it would influence the issue regarding Takeshima and that is why it was determined not to be disclosed and you’ve decided to file an appeal?

Minister Gemba: In principle, our decision is based upon the impact on negotiations for the normalization of relations with the DPRK. For your first question, since it involves technicality, there will be an explanation given to you from the working level.

3. Revision of Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement

Saito, Kyodo News: As you are well aware, the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) has publicly pledged to propose a revision of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in its Manifesto for August 2009 Lower House Election. With regard to this, why did the DPJ administration believe there was a necessity to propose a revision of the SOFA and how should we understand the fact that this was included in the DPJ’s manifesto? In addition, if it is to be revised, which parts do you believe should be revised?
For my second question, throughout the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the DPJ administrations, I would like to ask whether there had been any explicit request for the revision of the body text made to the U.S. side. Were there any revision requests during negotiations with the U.S.? If not, why hasn’t it?
For my last question, Minister of Defense Satoshi Morimoto has clearly stated at his press conference the other day that regarding the recent incident by U.S. servicemen, there are no views within the administration as to revising the SOFA at this point. I think this is problematic in the sense that his remark may not be in accordance with the DPJ manifesto which proposes the revision of the agreement. Please give us your view on this point.

Minister Gemba: The first point, on the point that the DPJ stated that it would propose a revision in its manifesto for the 2009 election, and on how the revision was supposed to be made, I believe you will understand the DPJ’s specific proposal if you would look at the contents of the proposals that the DPJ has made, at least when it was the opposition party. I believe your question was why those matters were included in the manifesto, and what the persons in charge and the party leadership envisaged at that time is, because there were indeed those detailed discussions going on then, included in the manifesto. After the DPJ became the ruling party, I haven’t heard of those for example being modified or brushed up, but basically, the reason for that being in the manifesto at the time is that it was reflecting the discussions being conducted at that point.
The second question was whether there were requests made and if there weren’t any, the reason for that. As I have explained before, since I was assigned as Minister for Foreign Affairs, I have made two improvements regarding the functioning of the SOFA. I have the belief that in the end the royal road is to specifically solve the matters one by one. Obviously, I am aware that there are people in Okinawa making strong appeals for the revision of the SOFA and I believe that we must actively listen to those voices but in reality, as you are aware, for instance, I believe the SOFA between Japan and the U.S. is superior to the SOFA between South Korea and the U.S. To be more accurate, there are comparative merits and demerits according to areas, which are somewhat different, and the period it took for the revision of the SOFA between South Korea and the U.S. was I believe approximately six years. That means that it takes a considerable amount of time. The U.S. will naturally make its own assertions. So clearly there is an issue of how to address the situation during that period of time. Up to this time, we have delivered by specifically solving each and every issue. I believe we are once again at the stage of working to solve the matters one by one. Upon the occurrence of that heinous and extremely despicable and inexcusable incident, I believe it is of great importance to take truly effective measures never to repeat a similar tragedy not merely by stating words like recurrence prevention or enforcement of official discipline. From that perspective, the U.S. side took swift measures. Along with that, the Government of Japan will carry on with our specific proposals and requests with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of our measures.
In this sense, I believe I was able to answer your question on Minister of Defense Morimoto’s comment, but with regard to my understanding of his remark that it is the shared view within the administration that there is absolutely no intention to revise the SOFA, as I have repeatedly mentioned, I hope to consider the matter in accordance with the development of the realignment of the U.S. forces, and the deepening of the Japan-U.S. alliance, which are obviously in relation to the matter, and also with the development of the party. Whether it is in contradiction, I believe this is in a way an issue to be continuously considered, in an ongoing way.

4. Information disclosure lawsuit on the disclosure of documents related to diplomatic normalization negotiations between Japan and South Korea

Gomi, Tokyo Shimbun: In relation to your remarks at the outset, there were voices that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been too secretive regarding the disclosure of documents. I believe it is very much welcomed that the documents will be disclosed to the extent possible this time but do you believe the procedures for disclosure had some problematic points? Further, some people say there is a need for in-camera proceedings; that the system where judges are able to see the disclosed documents should be introduced. Do you believe there is a necessity to actively adopt this system? Please give us your answer on these two points.

Minister Gemba: First of all, I believe the issue is the matter of the position on information disclosure. At the time of the regime change, in a sense from the perspective that it could not be realized without the regime change, I believe information disclosure was promoted by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada. There were obviously the standpoints of responding to people’s right to know and realizing diplomacy that goes hand in hand with them. Those rightful structures of diplomacy and information disclosure were difficult to realize without such opportunities as regime change and I believe that then Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada made that breakthrough.
So, as I mentioned earlier, we have started to disclose a considerable amount of diplomatic records, and as I consult with Mr. Okada from time to time, in the past year, we have disclosed more that 6,000 files. Further, frankly speaking, if this lawsuit had been handled in the conventional way, we would simply have made an appeal. Because the documents are no fewer than 20,000 pages, the working-level workload was enormous. That each and every document was scrutinized means that our young staff put in a lot of work on it. Although it was a very tough job, I gave instructions to carefully review them. And the fact that some portions were determined not to be disclosed based on national interest is something that was unavoidable. Further, although that decision may be appropriate based on national interest, in order to fully satisfy our citizens’ right to know, we must scrutinize each and every document because there ought to be some documents which should be disclosed. I have seen a portion of the documents, if not all, during the weekend and there actually were documents which I thought were disclosable and some which were not. So, in that sense, I have self-evaluated that a large part of the disclosure was made possible due to the efforts by the persons in charge in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

5. Visit of a Member of the Diet to the DPRK and Vice-Ministerial-level negotiations between Japan and China

Matsuura, Yomiuri Shimbun: There have been some press reports that a member of the House of Councilors, Mr. Yoshifu Arita visited the DPRK. Please explain the facts and your account. In addition, there are other reports that Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Chikao Kawai held a meeting with Chinese diplomatic authorities in Shanghai on the 21st. Please explain the facts on this too.

Minister Gemba: As for DPRK, the Japanese government has warned against traveling the DPRK even by Diet members. In that sense, although this is a warning, it is regrettable that a member of the ruling party has visited the DPRK with no prior consultation to the ruling party.
As for reports on Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Kawai, I would like to refrain from disclosing each and every interaction between our country and China. As this is diplomacy on the ground, it goes without saying that the content of discussion cannot be disclosed in certain instances, and based on the relationship with our partner country, it is at times better to refrain from mentioning whether a meeting took place or not. In general, communication between Japan and China is at times conducted behind closed doors in an undisclosed manner and other times are conducted publicly.

6. Visit to Europe

Azumi, Freelance journalist: From the 15th to the 18th you were on a trip abroad and we understand that you explained Japan’s position on the Senkaku islands. Japan and South Korea faces various problems including Takeshima, the name of the Sea of Japan and comfort women, but it is said that these issues were not referred. Besides, although this is undisclosed, there are reports that Japan voted for South Korea at the election for the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. I believe that this is a result of Japan’s policy of trying to earn South Korea’s cooperation on the Senkaku islands and North Korea, but by not mentioning anything, don’t you believe that there is the risk of giving South Korea the wrong message? For instance, yesterday, 15 members of South Korea’s National Defense Committee landed on Takeshima, showing further aggressiveness on the Takeshima issue.

Minister Gemba: Whether we referred to or whether we exchanged views on South Korea especially Takeshima during my visit to Europe, I believe there were certain countries where we did. I would not say that we exchanged opinions on Japan-South Korea relations in detail with all Ministers for Foreign Affairs of France, UK, and Germany, but with some, with one or two Ministers I believe we exchanged our views. But because that is based on my recollection, I hope to confirm the record afterwards. On the question of whether our current position will send the wrong message or not, I do not believe it will. Various decisions are made precisely on our comprehensive assessments.

7. Senkaku Islands

Lee, Hong Kong Phoenix TV: I have two questions. Firstly on international public diplomacy on Diaoyu, referred to as Senkaku in Japan, there were some reports that you directly instructed a department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare brochures on the Senkaku Islands. Firstly, please confirm the facts. On top of that, recently some Chinese media reported that a Japanese senior official recognized for the first time that a sovereignty issue over the Senkaku Islands does exist. I would once again like to confirm Japan’s position on this.

Minister Gemba: First, on the so-called information dissemination to the international community on the Senkaku issue, although I did give instructions to enhance publicity activities, I did not mention or instruct in particular to prepare brochures and other sort. On the issue of a Japanese Government high-ranking official stating that he is not in the view that a so-called sovereignty issue does not exist, I am not aware of that comment.

8. Japan-Russia relations

Ando, Hokkaido Shimbun: I would like to ask about yesterday’s meeting with Russia’s Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev and the signing of the memorandum. I have two questions.
First, I would like to ask your impression on how the signing will influence Prime Minister Noda’s visit to Russia in December and the following negotiations on the northern territories. Second, on the memorandum, its content has not been disclosed. Is there a reason for this? Please tell us if there are plans to disclose the content in the future.

Minister Gemba: On the reasons for not making the content of yesterday’s memorandum public, this is because the Security Council of the Russian Federation has concluded these memoranda with several countries other than Japan, and since the contents of those are not made public, it will not be disclosed due to our relations with Russia.
As to yesterday’s talk with Secretary Patrushev and the signing of the memorandum, in relation to Prime Minister’s visit to Russia, I believe it was indeed an important step toward Prime Minister’s visit in the field of security. In Japan, it may be said that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in charge of security issues as a whole. Since the structure is very different between the two countries, I began the talk by explaining the difference, but together with our working dinner, we had a very in-depth and straightforward exchange of opinions which I believe were extremely beneficial. As I mentioned at yesterday’s doorstepping interview, I believe it may be said that a channel of dialogue between the Government of Japan or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Russia’s Security Council has been established.

Ando, Hokkaido Shimbun: What would be the impact of this memorandum with the Security Council on the negotiations on the northern territory?

Minister Gemba: Whether the memorandum itself will have any direct impact, it is difficult for me to say, but I’m sure if any, it will be a positive impact and not a negative one. In our talks yesterday, we certainly had discussions on the territory. We discussed various, including sensitive issues but based on our relations with Russia, I will not explain our talks.

9. Japan-China relations

Nakai, Kyodo News: As it was referred to in the previous question, although you will refrain from commenting whether a vice ministerial-level meeting took place during the weekend, aside from that, you yourself held talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi in New York and following that, Japanese Director-General of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau Shinsuke Sugiyama met with Chinese Director-General of the Department of Asian Affairs Luo Zhaohui. I believe a certain level of communication is conducted with the Chinese side but looking back on the communication thus far, from Japan’s viewpoint, as to whether mutual understanding has deepened toward the improvement of Japan-China relations based on a broad perspective, on the surface, it does not necessarily seem that the understanding has deepened so easily. What is your view?

Minister Gemba: I believe it is further necessary to maintain and enhance our communications. However, in conducting dialogues, I believe a certain amount of time is required. What is important is, as I will be repeating what I constantly mention, that both countries view the situation from a broad perspective and address the circumstances in a calm manner. I believe what is essential is that we work to avert contingencies, peacefully calm the situation, and realize a situation where economic, cultural, and human exchanges will develop stably.

Back to Index