(* 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, April 25, 2012, 3:31 p.m.
Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Question concerning the Realignment of the U.S. Forces in Japan
Question concerning TPP
Question concerning Japan-Russia Relations
Question concerning the issue of the Purchase of Senkaku Islands
Question concerning the situation of North Korea
Question concerning Confirmation of BSE-Positive Cow in the U.S.
Question concerning the Realignment of U.S. Forces in Japan

1. Question concerning the Realignment of the U.S. Forces in Japan

Shimada, NHK: About the realignment of the U.S. Forces in Japan, the Joint Statement was supposed to be issued today, but it was postponed. U.S. senators stated in the letter to Secretary Panetta that explanation on the Joint Statement is insufficient and more proper explanation should be given as to the cost allocations. How do you respond to that? What is the explanation given from the U.S. side? Can we understand that the issuance of the Joint Statement was postponed because of a request from the U.S. side? Do you think that the content of the Joint Statement may be changed? Can we understand that the Joint Statement will be issued before Prime Minister’s visit to the United States?

Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba: With regard to the agreement which was scheduled to be announced at this time, I believe it is substantial and forward-looking. This time, the announcement has been postponed, basically due to the situation in the United States. Coordination is being made and I believe it will be best if it is announced before the Prime Minister’s visit to the United States. We would like to make the announcement prior to his visit to the United States. I do not believe that there is going to be any change in substance of the Joint Statement.

2. Question concerning TPP

Kamide, Freelance: I would like to ask about TPP. I believe this was addressed in the questions sometime ago, but let me ask two questions. Yesterday, nearly 200 bipartisan Diet members including those who belong to DPJ came together, mostly who are opposed to TPP. Two issues were raised there. From the perspective of the Japanese public, the substance of the TPP is not clear. They say that the substance of the negotiations and the negotiation process could not be disclosed over four-year period. If it is true, it is impossible for the government to fulfill accountability, and national debate cannot be conducted on the issue, contrary to the Prime Minister has mentioned. The Diet members actually pointed this out. The other is the free trade agreement between the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the U.S. Various lessons were drawn. At the end of the day, maybe this is the benefit on the United States. That is the message which we have received from the Republic of Korea. Now the United States, I believe, has also dissatisfaction on their part, so the situation is complicated. How does Japan guarantee that TPP will not be something that is solely based on the position of the United States?

Minister Gemba: Naturally, for the economic partnership, in particular TPP, Japan should take the initiative in thinking about the medium to long-term future to make decision. I believe that this is a grand strategy. From a comprehensive point of view, I mean, not only for the economy, but for the foreign policy and security policy, TPP will be a grand strategy for Japan. As to the U.S.-ROK FTA, of course different parties may have different assessment. The ROK, based upon their national interest, have taken the decision. In the process of the general election, the issue was discussed and as a consequence of that, the Government as well as people of the ROK, have given a positive answer to the Agreement, I believe. There are the advantages and disadvantage, or the positive as well as negative sides of any economic partnership. The U.S.-ROK FTA may be of good reference to us because this is the most recent agreement concluded by the United States. So, we should review on the Agreement, and then make our own proper decision.
As to the question of information, I believe that the information collected and information being sorted out have been continued to be provided by the government. We would continue to provide the necessary information to the people, and make a good discussion, and take the decision based upon the national interest. You suggested that the future negotiation may be conducted at the initiative of the U.S.. I believe there would be different interpretations as to who has taken the lead for the negotiation. There is of course a difference between the bilateral negotiation and multilateral negotiation. I think that the U.S. hopes to make rules in cooperation with Japan, which would be win-win to both Japan and the United States. Of course, there are the cases where they should focus more on the Japanese market itself. The U.S. market on the other hand is attractive for Japan as well. As you know, the tariff on Japanese goods, especially on mineral or industrial products including automobiles, is very low-level or almost zero. In the United States, there are different levels of tariff – 2.5%, 25%, or even more. As a result of economic partnership this time, it may be reduced. There may be different analyses and different assessments on which country takes initiative, but putting that aside, as we live in the era of declining birth rate and aging population, , I believe the TPP would be a grand strategy forward for taking over the affluence to our children or grand children, without reducing Japan’s national power.

Kamide, freelance: How about the fact that the content of the negotiation should not be disclosed for four years?

Minister Gemba: Do you mean the process to date? I am not aware that, but we would like to provide information as much as possible. Furthermore, naturally, among the countries concerned, they might have an agreement that they are not going to disclose draft texts. I think that is almost common sense, isn’t it? In the process of multilateral economic partnership negotiation, I think providing a draft text would actually represent a rare case, in my opinion. So, gathering information, organizing the information, and providing appropriate information to the Japanese public – I think that is the role which we should play.

3. Question concerning Japan-Russia Relations

Murase, NHK: On the 7th of next month, Mr. Putin will be officially inaugurated as the President of Russia. Last month, Mr. Putin has indicated that he wants to conclude the issue of the Northern Territories. How do you intend to advance the negotiation? Also, Japan and Russia, up until now, in relation to the issue of the Northern Territories, have continued to argue their basic positions on both sides, and they have not been able to find solution. Do you think that it is necessary to change the way in which you carry out negotiations? Also, in order to find a solution that can be acceptable to both parties, do you think both countries will make some concessions? Specifically, what concessions do you envision? I would appreciate your answer.

Minister Gemba: I place importance on our relations with Russia. I would like to advance our cooperation in all areas. The strategic environment is changing in the Asia Pacific region, and against this backdrop, I believe that the significance of the bilateral relationship between Japan and Russia is being increased. That is my recognition of the situation.
I would like to raise Japan-Russia relations to a new level, but in order to do so, the biggest pending issue is of course the territorial issue. Even after 67 years since the Second World War, there is still a big gap between the positions of the two countries. When I inspected the northern territories from the ship, Mr. Koizumi, who was sitting next to me and who has been engaged in a campaign for the return of the Northern Territories and was a former resident of Shikotan Island, when we were able to see the Shikotan Island in our sight, he had a just mumbled that he would very much like to go straight back. I will not forget his words for life. So, as soon as possible, I would like to bring a solution to this territorial issue.
I believe it was in January when I met with Foreign Minister Lavrov for four hours or four hours and a half or so, and I have discussed the many issues between Japan and Russia, including of course the territorial issue. On that occasion, I have mentioned that we would like to revitalize our discussion on the territorial issue. Foreign Minister Lavrov’s reply was, as you have just suggested, that Russia would very much like to discuss the issue with Japan after the new government is established. In addition to that, as was pointed out earlier, there were President-elect Putin’s remarks.. I am hoping that this has indicated willingness to see solution for the territorial issue. We need to meet on a face-to-face basis and have exchange of views to know what is beyond the willingness. We should have a Summit Meeting or a Foreign Ministers’ Meeting to confirm their intention and proceed with the discussion.
It is Japan’s position that the Four Northern Islands are inherent territory of Japan. I have already conveyed this to Foreign Minister Lavrov. I think that we need to address the territorial issue by advancing whole Japan-Russia relations. Fortunately, the atmosphere of mutual trust, I believe, has deepened between the two countries. So as we try to advance Japan-Russia relationship as a whole, we hope to find the way forward in solving the territorial issue.

4. Question concerning the issue of the Purchase of Senkaku Islands

Ishida, Yomiuri Shimbun: I believe that you met with Mr. Tang Jixuan, President of the Japan-China Friendship Association, at noon today. I heard that Mr. Tang had mentioned on the issue of Governor Ishihara’s plan to purchase Senkaku Islands. Could you give us more details?

Minister Gemba: Well, I cannot provide you the details but it would be a lie if I said there was no reference to this issue. China, for its part, has stated its position and, as for myself, I stated my position, and the position of the Japanese government has also been stated. As for the rest, we discussed various issues such as the dialogue between Japan, US, and China which I have proposed. Mr. Tang is the head of private organization for the friendship of Japan and China, the Japan-China Friendship Association. So we talked a long time including social conversations.

5. Question concerning the situation of North Korea

Higashioka, Asahi Shimbun: I would like to ask two questions about North Korea. Now, North Korea has declared that it is going to take special actions. Now, the government of the Republic of Korea and the U.S. Government now are beginning to have views that North Korea may proceed with nuclear test. What is the Japanese Government view about the possibility of nuclear testing by North Korea? That is my first question. Secondly, if North Korea were to go ahead with this nuclear test, not only will it be in violation of the Security Council’s presidential statement, it will be in violation of other resolutions. How will the Japanese Government react?

Minister Gemba: With regard to the question from Mr. Higashioka, I have an almost clear answer but I cannot state that here. Your first question on the nuclear test is something to do with the classified information. In any case, we are paying close attention on this issue. As you may know, the presidential statement of the United Nations Security Council has been made in a very strong tone, and if the further provocative action like the nuclear testing is done, then the United Nations Security Council is resolved to take action. That is mentioned in the presidential statement. We would like to make all out efforts to try to deter such moves. Not only Japan, the U.S., and the ROK, but also Russia and in particular China should work on North Korea. Therefore, Japan would like to closely cooperate with the U.S., the ROK, China, and Russia. The cooperation should be by the five countries, not by three countries. With regard to your question on Japan’s response when the nuclear testing is done, if you would read carefully the presidential statement, I believe you will be able to have some idea.

6. Question concerning Confirmation of BSE-Positive Cow in the U.S.

Tosa, Asahi Shimbun: The fourth case of BSE has been confirmed in the U.S. Japan has relaxed the restriction of import on beef. Will there be any impact?

Minister Gemba: With regard to the question about beef that Tosa-san raised, we have already consulted the issue with the Food Safety Commission in last December. Naturally, including the confirmation of this BSE case, information will be provided to the Food Safety Commission, and that is how it should be. I think that the BSE-Positive cow is more than 30 months of age and it is dairy cow. As you know, beef that is imported to Japan is of the age younger than 20 months. Therefore, in terms of domestic measure, I do not believe that there will be any change. . It will not affect the discussion on TPP as this is something that is separate from TPP. The safety of U.S. beef is being discussed in the Food Safety Committee, based on scientific knowledge.

7. Question concerning the Realignment of U.S. Forces in Japan

Sugimoto, Sankei Shimbun: Some of the senators who sent a letter to Mr. Panetta are talking about consolidation of Kadena as one site for relocation of Futenma Air Station. However in Japan, Mr. Hajime Ishii, I believe, is also considering consolidation with Kadena. So, Minister, what about your views toward possible consolidation with Kadena? The plan of relocation to Henoko will be firmly maintained?

Minister Gemba: To be frank with you, the parliamentarians have different views in both of Japan and the U.S. The important thing is, based upon such different views, what should be the final decision to be taken by the government. Having said that, both the Japanese and the U.S. governments have committed to relocation to Henoko. I believe that the indefinite use of Futenma should not be allowed.
Even though I do have my clear thoughts on Kadena, what I would like to mention here is that both the Japanese and the U.S. governments have already committed to Henoko.
What was about to be announced - the agreement between our two governments - was for the purpose of trying to overcome the two difficulties. One thing was vis-à-vis the Okinawa, the progress of Futenma issue was not able to be seen that easily. In the United States - vis-à-vis the Congress - the budgeting process has met with difficulties. So, both governments have tried to come up with ideas. As I have said at the outset, I believe the content has become the more positive and more substantive.
Step-by-step, we would like to meet the expectation and respond to concerns of the people of Okinawa; that is important. In any case, the security environment surrounding us is ever-changing. Not only the United States but Japan should also be able to respond in an appropriate manner to the changing circumstances. But that had been prevented to a certain extent. Both Japan and the U.S. need to appropriately respond to the changing security circumstances and also, at the same time, at the earliest time and in a visible manner, to try to reduce the impact on Okinawa. I believe the content of the agreement will be answer to the questions on both sides.

Back to Index