(* 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: Friday, August 24, 2012, 9:15 a.m.
Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Japan-North Korea Preliminary Consultations
Japan-North Korea Preliminary Consultation
Japan-Republic of Korea (ROK) relations
Energy policy

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Japan-North Korea Preliminary Consultations

Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba: We just announced that Japan would hold a preliminary consultation to resume the official consultations between the governments of Japan and North Korea in the near term. After making further arrangement through our embassy in Beijing, it has been decided that a director-level preliminary consultation is going to be held in Beijing on August 29 as the first step. The consultation is going to be held for the duration of a whole day starting in the afternoon of August 29. We may extend it to two days if necessary.

2. Japan-North Korea Preliminary Consultation

Nishikawa, TBS: Initially, the Japan-North Korea Consultation was intended to be held at the Director-General level. Why was it changed to be held at the division director level?

Minister Gemba: This is the request from North Korea as we coordinated this meeting through our embassy in Beijing. We may hold a preliminary consultation at the Director-General level if necessary.

Nishikawa, TBS: A simple question: Will holding the meeting between division directors instead of bureau directors change the content of the negotiation or any other aspect?

Minister Gemba: There is nothing in particular. It might take a little more time.

3. Japan-Republic of Korea (ROK) relations

Nishikawa, TBS: Let me ask you about the letter sent by Prime Minister Noda. Yesterday, an official of the ROK embassy in Japan visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to directly return the letter, which was rejected by the Ministry. As a result, the letter will be returned to Japan by post. How will the Japanese Government respond to the action?

Minister Gemba: Needless to say, sending back this kind of letter is extremely regrettable and lacks courtesy. I think this can never happen under usual circumstances. The ROK says they will send back the letter by post, which we have not yet received. All I can say is that we will not resend it.

There are two reasons for that. The reason that the ROK says it will not receive the letter is that it contains the term “Takeshima” in it. This means that the ROK must have full command of the content of the letter, and that we have got our message across to them.

For the second reason, continuing this sort of interaction in relation to the letter defames the diplomacy of Japan. So I think we’d better not resend the letter.

Having said that, in case the ROK has any issues in relation to why they cannot accept the letter, they should communicate their intention in the form of a reply. I simply do not have any idea about the intention of the ROK. Their action even makes me feel that the ROK is not confident about the territorial rights they claim they have on Takeshima. We will appropriately lodge a protest through appropriate levels on this issue. On the issue of the President’s statement about His Majesty the Emperor, which our Prime Minister commented on in responding to questions in the Diet deliberation yesterday, we will request the ROK apologize for that and withdraw it.

Nishikawa, TBS: You were in the Cabinet meeting room with the Prime Minister and the Chief Cabinet Secretary after the meeting today. Did you discuss with them and decide on how you will respond to this issue?

Minister Gemba: That’s right. This is the letter sent by the Prime Minister. So I need to make sure what the Prime Minister thinks about this issue in responding to it.

Nishikawa, TBS: We feel Japan-ROK relations have quickly deteriorated since President Lee Myung-bak landed on Takeshima. How will the Japanese Government deal with the situation to put the bilateral relations back on the track of a good relation?

Minister Gemba: I’ve studied the history of Japan-ROK relations by tracking different administrations involving different incidents. I looked into which period was good and stable and which period was bad and I found many bad periods.

Naturally, we had bad relations with the ROK when the Syngman Rhee Line was put in place. Japan did not have such good relations with the Kim Young-sam administration, either. In the case of the Roh Moo-hyun administration vis-à-vis Prime Minister Koizumi, our relations were also very bad. Japan had good relations with the ROK in the early period of the Lee Myung-bak administration. The relations between Prime Minister Obuchi and President Kim Dae-jung were initially good, representing the best time for our bilateral relations actually, but turned sour in the end with the textbook issue.

So I think that Japan-ROK relations have both good and challenging times. I also notice a change in the era. We are witnessing the transformation era after the Cold War, which affects not only Japan-ROK relations but the world as a whole. So what’s important is, we need to take definite actions while keeping our calm posture. This is quite important and I will maintain the balance by keeping this in mind.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: You always say that Japan and the ROK share vital interests. Do you still see it that way?

Minister Gemba: There is no doubt that both countries share strategic interests, especially from a security perspective. As is the case with the Japan-North Korea Consultation, Japan is in close contact with the ROK. We also need to take note that partnership among Japan, the U.S., and the ROK is important. We should never forget this overall picture.

However, I must say that taking care of various issues with the ROK in a considerate manner, in a sense, has led to this incident. This is caused not only by the current administration by the Democratic Party of Japan but also by past administrations headed by the Liberal Democratic Party. So we need to take definite actions as required, while keeping a calm view toward the overall framework we are in. As you said, both countries share strategic interests after all.

Yokota, Mainichi Shimbun: Today, the Prime Minister is going to hold a press conference. Can I ask you why he will give a press conference at this time and what it will be about?

Minister Gemba: I guess Prime Minister Noda answered the question in the Diet yesterday. What I suppose is that he wants to clearly explain a series of events including the issues on the Senkaku Islands in his own words. He wants to directly deliver his message to the Japanese citizens with his own words.

He gave a press conference on the comprehensive reform of social security and tax many times, so I suppose he wants to discuss this issue with his own words, too.

4. Energy policy

Tosa, Asahi Shimbun: I want to ask you about the nuclear energy policy. The governmental Energy and Environment Council is considering three options concerning the ratio of nuclear energy in 2030. My first question is what your stance is on this issue.

Second, I want to ask you whether you think we should approve building new nuclear power plants after 2030 or approve a policy for it?

My last question is about the reprocessing of used nuclear fuels. Do you think we should abolish or continue this process, or partly keep it? Or do you have other views on this issue?

Minister Gemba: As I served as Minister of State for National Policy, I was involved in the Energy and Environment Strategy Council as vice chairman. So I am very interested in this issue. However, I should not offer my conclusions in public while the Energy and Environment Council currently holds various meetings with me attending them as a member.

So please allow me not to comment on this issue. I gave a similar comment as I responded in the Diet deliberation the other day.

At that time, I proposed the reduction of nuclear power and said we should initiate a national discussion including the option of abolishing nuclear power. I also said that we need to make an important decision on this issue at the end of the day to discuss our national strength on a mid- and long-term basis and ensure energy security. What I mentioned includes the nuclear fuel cycle.

Back to Index