(* 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, December 26, 2012, 9:51 a.m.
Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Realignment of the U.S. Forces Japan
DPJ’s diplomatic policies
Japan-China relations
Japan-U.S. relations

1. Realignment of the U.S. Forces Japan

Toiyama, Ryukyu Shimpo: Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto stated in the press conference yesterday, “From a military viewpoint, Okinawa is not necessarily the only choice, but from a political viewpoint, Okinawa is most appropriate.” This remark sounds like the political background of Okinawa, which would allow the Futenma Air Station to be relocated somewhere in Okinawa, is a factor in determining the place to relocate the air station rather than geopolitical considerations. Firstly, I would like to know what you think about this statement. Secondly, the City of Nago, the Governor of Okinawa, and all those elected locally in the general election this time are opposed to the relocation of the air station inside Okinawa. In your last opening remarks, you told us that you would make efforts for Futenma relocation, though, do you think it is still possible to relocate the air station inside Okinawa, that is to Henoko, considering all current situations? Lastly, the environmental impact statement which had been amended was submitted to Okinawa Prefectural Government the other day while you are in office. Do you regard this submission as a progress in the Futenma relocation issue? Please answer the three questions.

Minister Gemba: Let me answer your questions collectively. I have a belief that the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and its impact should be shared nationwide. However, it is Okinawa that currently suffers the impact. I think that is largely due to geopolitical reasons and so I have been asking the people of Okinawa to bear such impact. Still, I think it is possible to reduce that kind of impact while maintaining deterrence. For that purpose, I have eagerly worked for the return of the land south of Kadena during my tenure and it almost comes to an agreement. As I have mentioned before, relocation of the U.S. Marines to Guam was the issue which could not be realized without progress on the issue of Futenma in the past. We separated the two issues, and it means that we somehow gave priority to reducing the impact on Okinawa for the moment. I believe that our efforts will bear fruit in the future. I will continue these kinds of efforts toward reduction in the impact on Okinawa no matter what position I am in, taking the security of Japan into consideration. From a different position, I will make efforts so that the understanding of the people of Okinawa can be obtained.

2. DPJ’s diplomatic policies

Nikaido, Asahi Shimbun: How are you going to be involved in foreign affairs and security issues in the future? The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ)’s foreign affairs policy has often been criticized. Do you have any plans for renewing the policy?

Minister Gemba: As for my future commitments, my position in the party or my role in the near future have not been decided yet. But, needless to say, I would like to continue to be deeply involved in foreign affairs and national security issues.

I think one good thing that has been achieved since the change of power three years and three months ago is that a huge difference in positions on foreign affairs and security issues between the ruling and opposition parties, at least between the first ruling party and the first opposition party, has disappeared. Of course, I don’t mean to deny differences, but I do not think such differences should be huge. I have always thought that foreign affairs and security policies must be based on realism. In that sense, I would like to formulate the DPJ’s foreign affairs and national security policies on the basis of our accumulated experience.

Sugimoto, Sankei Shimbun: You have just told us that there should not be huge differences between the ruling and opposition parties in terms of foreign affairs and national security policies. I would like to ask you which part of the achievements you think you were able to win only because the DPJ was in power for the past three years and three months. Moreover, you pointed out that its policy position under the Hatoyama administration was shaky. Could you tell me what should be reflected upon as the Foreign Minister in terms of foreign policy of the DPJ in the past three years and three months?

Minister Gemba: I think we should look back and summarize the past three years and six months or three years and seven months, instead of three years and three months. This is not limited to foreign affairs and security policies. The successes and failures of the past three years and three months, particularly most of the negative parts, stemmed from the poorly-envisioned manifesto, and I think we need to reflect upon that problem, including the process of making the manifesto. The DPJ did not have thorough discussions within the party at that time, but the manifesto was nonetheless created in such atmosphere. Frankly speaking, I do not think the change of political power was achieved due to the manifesto. Therefore, instead of looking back the past three years and three months, we should look back the past three years and six months or three years and seven months to wrap up our activities in a more appropriate way.

Information disclosure in the field of foreign affairs made certain progress. We did win achievements in economic diplomacy that the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) could not have done in the past. Actually, negotiations for a free trade agreement between Japan, China, and the ROK and the regional comprehensive economic partnership have started. Negotiations with the EU will be making a de fact start. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been discussed to a great extent. I would rather like to closely watch whether the new administration will find a solid answer to how to deal with the TPP when problems between Japan and the U.S., or the national strength of Japan from now, particularly aging Japanese society with a declining birth rate and shrinking labor force population, are taken into account. This may not be a direct answer to your questions, but the DPJ carried out what was right about the manifesto, while frankly admitting our mistakes in poorly-estimated financial resources or exaggerated expressions in the manifesto during the time the DPJ was in power. We honestly did. This applies to the comprehensive reform of tax and social security as well as the problem of “at least out of Okinawa Prefecture.”

3. Japan-China relations

Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun: Thank you for all the efforts as Foreign Minister. I would like to ask you a question which might be difficult to answer. Concerning the policy toward China, the DPJ has consistently taken a calm and careful response while the Prime Minister stated that he was considering deploying the Self-Defense Forces. That stance was consistent amid the situation in which China continued extremely provocative actions. On the other hand, the Abe LDP administration has committed that it will consider stationing public officers in the Senkaku Islands, thus showing a harder-line attitude. Could you tell us your evaluation of the cautious approach that the DPJ has taken, and your idea on what type of approach should be taken in the future to this issue?

Minister Gemba: I think we should continue our stance of “neither respond to provocative actions nor take provocative actions.” I think, as the word “consider” symbolizes, considering stationing public officials is, in large part, for the election. We should firmly maintain our basic stance that we cannot concede to China’s own assertions. Based on that stance, we need to maintain and strengthen communication with China to solve the problem. I hope the new administration will follow the way that we have paved.

4. Japan-U.S. relations

Yoshida, Nishi Nippon Shimbun: I would like to ask you two questions. The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is an often discussed issue. The first question I would like to ask you is whether you currently think the treaty is unilateral or not. The second question is about the impact of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. You have noticed that the impact should be shared nationwide. However, even the Futenma Air Station, which is a symbol of such impact, is to be relocated to another site in Okinawa. If the reduction of the impact on Okinawa, including the Futenma issue, is feasible by sharing the impact nationwide while maintaining deterrence, I think you should propose a concrete plan on how to share that impact while you are in opposition. I would like to point out that the DPJ once pledged “at least out of Okinawa prefecture”. Please answer these two questions.

Minister Gemba: You said, “even the Futenma Air Station, which is a symbol of such impact,” but exactly because this is the issue of the Futenma Air Station, it is more difficult to solve. That is my opinion. The issue of Futenma has such characteristics. Even though we will become an opposition party, we will consider what to share and how to share from the view of realism when we say we will share the impact nationwide. I think this is an important point. Also we need to consider the time span, when looking at this issue.

Whether the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty is unilateral or not, my opinion as the Foreign Minister is, as a matter of course, it is bilateral. However, concerning the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty, Japan should more fully perform its roles and assume responsibilities, taking the balance of power in the international community into account, not limited only to the field of security. Otherwise, I think it would be difficult to construct a new world order, a stable and peaceful one. Therefore, I think both the ruling and opposition parties need to thoroughly discuss the roles and responsibilities that Japan should take further.

Back to Index