Press Conference by Press Sec. 27 January 1995

1. Visit to Japan by Minister of Foreign Affairs Gong Ro Myung of the Republic of Korea
2. Offers of assistance from abroad for those afflicted by the Great Hanshin Earthquake and crisis management in Japan
3. Upcoming visit to Japan by Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Amir Mahmoud Mousa of the Arab Republic of Egypt

1. Visit to Japan by Minister of Foreign Affairs Gong Ro Myung of the Republic of Korea

   Acting Foreign Ministry Spokesman Kishichiro Amae: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Minister of Foreign Affairs Gong Ro Myung of the Republic of Korea will visit Japan from 11 to 12 February on his way back from his visit to the United States of America. During his stay in Japan, Foreign Minister Gong will meet with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Yohei Kono to exchange views, mainly on the North Korean situation and Japan- Republic of Korea bilateral relations.

2. Offers of assistance from abroad for those afflicted by the Great Hanshin Earthquake and crisis management in Japan

   Acting Foreign Ministry Spokesman Kishichiro Amae: Foreign Minister Kono met with ambassadors or charge d'affaires of some of the countries which gave precious assistance on the occasion of the disaster in Kobe -- the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, the Federal Republic of Germany, Canada, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland -- to express sincere gratitude. This will be continued when Foreign Minister Kono has time to receive more ambassadors. Meanwhile, the Government of Japan decided to accept with gratitude the offer by the Government of the Russian Federation to donate jackets, blankets, towels, pairs of gloves and other materials which are necessary for the people who are suffering from the earthquake disaster. A special cargo plane will arrive on 31 January from the Russian Federation, and some government officials from Russia will also arrive on this flight.

   Q: A number of Japanese people that I have been talking to in the last couple of days have been expressing their shock and dismay that the Government of Japan did not accept offers of assistance from many overseas countries. I am wondering why it was that Japan decided not to accept these offers.

   A: I read various newspapers from within and outside of Japan, and I can say that, first of all, the attitude of the Government of Japan is one of respect for the local governments' needs or requirements. If foreign assistance were to pour down all at once without any mechanism to receive it, it would create a very difficult situation, and the precious assistance would not be able to be used effectively. That is why the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conveyed these offers to the National Land Agency, which is in charge of handling this disaster relief. They quickly contacted the local governments, and I admit that there were miscommunications and the answers came a little bit late; but the important thing is that we cannot neglect the requirements of the local people, and we have to think about the effective release of those precious materials to the local people. Foreign Minister Kono, only yesterday, said in an interview on television that we have gained valuable experience this time, and that we are certainly aware that we have to make a fresh start to build up a new system. He also mentioned that we shall take the experience this time as a good lesson, and that we are determined to establish firmly a crisis management system. His words say everything.

   Q: Why has there not been an effective crisis management system up until now?

   A: As far as I know, there is a crisis management system which is limited to the regional level, such as that of the prefecture. But, as far as I know, there is not an overall, nationwide crisis management system.

   Q: How could that be, since Japan has such a long history of natural disasters -- for example, earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves and all kinds of things? A volcano erupted in southern Japan quite recently. How could there not be an effective crisis management system?

   A: That is why Foreign Minister Kono mentioned, as I said before, that we shall take this experience as a very costly lesson.

   Q: Why isn't there, up until now, because of the many chances Japan has had to have experiences in the past?

   A: I cannot give a complete answer to this question; it is being discussed in the Parliament right now, and perhaps Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama may give answers to some of the opposition party members' questions like yours.

   Q: Newspapers are reporting that, still, some countries which offered assistance have not heard anything back at all from the Government of Japan. Why is that?

   A: There are quite a few countries which gave such offers, -- altogether 57 countries -- and we answered to 15 countries. I think Russia is the sixteenth country to which Japan has responded with gratitude. The things which other countries have offered are still under the process of consideration. We are maintaining good communication with the relevant authorities, including the Kobe Metropolitan Government, and whenever they feel necessary, they will quickly inform us through the National Land Agency. So, it is not true that we refused all the other countries' offers. If there is not a necessity for a particular offer, then we will inform them that it will not be needed. Now, we are in the process of this procedure.

   Q: Don't you think that this is extremely bureaucratic? It is more than 10 days after the earthquake, and you are sitting here waiting for local governments to communicate whether they need something or not. I was down in Kobe for about a week, and as you know, the living conditions of the people are terrible there -- no water, no electricity, no gas -- and you say that you are waiting here for local governments to give you some message. There are reports in the newspapers that the United States offered to bring an aircraft carrier into Kobe port, which could house 2,000 people, but it was turned down by the Government of Japan. Why was that?

   A: As you know, the first requirement of people afflicted by this sort of disaster is to find out whether their relatives or friends are alive or not. To find this out is of primary concern for them, and the Government also tried hard to find out whether those people were alive or not. After that, their requirements, as far as I understand, are to have foodstuffs, water and materials to keep them warm against the wintery days, and then, now, according to various TV and radio broadcasts, we have information that their concern is to get lifelines, such as electricity, water supply, or gas, in order to cook for themselves, and after that, they need a private, small shelter, which the Government of Japan is trying to set up. So, their requirements change from time to time. There are so many offers from abroad; you cannot take all those offers at one time. Maybe you understand that the local government officials, the fire brigades, find out, like you, what the necessity of the people is. So, if you are saying that their work is too bureaucratic, I do not agree with you. They worked very hard to find out what the needs were. These requirements should be transferred to the Foreign Ministry, and then to foreign countries. I admit, as Foreign Minister Kono said, we need a better crisis management system. That is a big problem, but as far as the necessity of the local people -- we respect it very much.

   Q: I would certainly agree with you. The people whom I saw -- the local officials in Kobe -- are working very hard. They are extremely committed to what they are doing. I am not referring to that. But, I think, especially for the first several days after the earthquake, there was a great shortage of information about what the conditions were. Still, teams are going around checking the homes, and so forth. For many days, there were people who were unable to even get into the refugee centers. During that period of time, I am wondering why, instead of waiting, when there is no information available, why didn't the Government take some action to start taking advantage of the offers from overseas -- for example, the ship, which could have housed 2,000 people, from the United States -- the people who you referred to a few minutes ago, saying that they were in desperate need of food, shelter, gas, electricity and so forth -- all of that would have been available.

   A: Regarding the aircraft carrier question -- I am not aware of that information. I am sorry to say I cannot give a satisfactory answer to your question. But I can say that the bureaucracy, because of the unexpectedly big disaster, at the first stage, even the Government of Japan, couldn't apprehend all the information. That was true, and that was the reason for the rather slow measures to tackle this disaster. The Government and opposition parties are now discussing this in the Parliament. I am not saying we acted perfectly. But I can say that all the local government officials, as well as the local NGOs, did what they could, and the Government also tried to find out the requirements as soon as possible, but sometimes there was a delay. So, we need an overall crisis management system in the future. It might be possible that the Government will undertake a post-mortem analysis of this disaster, in order to tackle this type of disaster in the future.

   Q: The key point that you are referring to here is that you are saying is that what the central Government should do is to wait until it gets a request for help from the local government, and that depends on the local government finding out exactly what the situation is, which can take two or three or four or five days, or ten days. Do you believe that is the correct way to go about it, or should the Government, instead of waiting for information and complete requests from the local government, go ahead and provide materials as quickly as possible?

   A: I am talking about the acceptance of foreign assistance or materials. Certainly, the central Government made a decision on overall relief operations, including the use of Self Defense Forces, and other local governments' assistance -- for example, the local fire brigades -- hundreds of fire engines from all over Japan. Maybe you witnessed the congested streets full of fire brigades and fire engines. If a foreign country offers fire engines, what can we do in this situation? The local government says that we have ample fire brigades, so we need not any more fire brigades from other countries. We appreciate these sort of offers. But the local people might be frustrated, asking the reason why the fire brigade doesn't arrive? Maybe you are saying that, because of the Government's refusal of foreign countries' offers of fire brigades, they cannot see them. It is not true. It is because of the congested situation; some buildings fell down, and roads were blocked. The most important thing was to clear the roads. I think there are good lessons for us, and we need all that analysis in the future.

   Q: You were pointing to the example of fire engines. Perhaps now there are enough fire engines, but initially there were not. Also, there are many other types of relief goods which can be pointed to as being in very short supply even now. Certainly, it was quite easy to see early on, after the earthquake, that there was a severe need for rescue teams and trained dogs, and so forth, and my understanding is that the Government of Japan initially turned down offers from France, Switzerland and elsewhere for those kinds of teams, and later changed their minds and asked only for the dogs, and not the personnel. Why were those kind of decisions made?

   A: Maybe it is because of the lack of experience. At first, we did not know the magnitude of the disaster. Also, the lack of a good system -- there is Foreign Minister Kono's statement that a crisis management system is to be firmly established. I listened to what you have mentioned as good advice, but it is very difficult at this time to give answers to all your questions. We have to review all these things one by one in the coming days.

   Q: To finish up what I was trying to get at before -- do you think that, in this kind of disaster, the chief responsibility should be at the local level, or at the national government level, in terms of responding?

   A: Chief responsibility falls on the central Government. There is no question about it.

   Q: Then why were you saying that you have to wait until the local government asks you for a particular thing?

   A: It is a matter of coordination, isn't it? When the opinions of the central and local governments on requirements differ, they have to coordinate. There are many central Government officials who went there to find out the real situation in cooperation with the local government officials. The local government officials themselves were hit by the earthquake, and it is clear that about one third of the hospitals were incapable of treating people because of the earthquake, and so, from other prefectures, doctors and nurses were brought in over there. This, the central Government coordinated. It is easy to denounce the bureaucracy, and to a certain extent, this criticism is a righteous one, but, it is not the only solution. First of all, no one expected such a big disaster -- an earthquake of a 7.2 magnitude.

   Q: A related question -- is this the first time that Japan has been offered disaster relief from other countries? Have there been other times in the past when other countries have asked to give assistance?

   A: In 1923, when the Tokyo and Kanto area was hit by the big earthquake, we received various assistance from abroad, and if my memory serves me correctly, foreign countries sent ships with a lot of materials for emergency relief. But, I don't know, since the end of War World II, what kind of relief we have received.

   Q: You are saying that the Japanese Government realizes that it must review its crisis management system. Do you think that this also includes the Foreign Ministry -- about how it would handle it in the future if there should be anything similar to this? Do you think there should be some sort of crisis management system within the Foreign Ministry itself?

   A: The Central Government of every nation has the responsibility to secure the lives of its people, and it is the central Government's responsibility to have a crisis management system without foreign assistance. But, it depends on the magnitude of the crisis, so I cannot give a complete answer to your questions. As for this crisis management system, which is to be discussed in the future in order to make a better one -- I cannot say whether foreign assistance will be included or not.

   Q: Are you saying that you would prefer not to receive foreign assistance?

   A: I didn't say that. Did I say that we would refuse foreign assistance in the future?

   Q: Are you saying that you prefer not to?

   A: No. I said that primary responsibility to secure the lives of Japanese people, or foreigners living in Japan, falls on the central Government.

   Q: Without foreign assistance? To create a crisis management system without foreign assistance?

   A: No. The primary concern is how to make a crisis management system of our own. Certainly, we need to review what kind of crisis management system is necessary for a possible future disaster. It is still too early to say what kind of involvement from foreign countries there will be, but of primary concern is the Government's ability to handle this crisis. That is of primary importance, as I said. I did not say at all that we negate foreign involvement. But, it is too early to discuss this matter, because we are in the process of reconstruction of the local area. It will be discussed in due course in Japan, I suppose.

   Q: Some people have suggested that one of the reasons why many of these offers from overseas were not accepted was because Japan would prefer to do it by itself. Is there any truth to that?

   A: I do not know who told you this sort of thing. It is not true. I haven't heard that.

   Q: It is in the newspapers.

   A: It is not a Government statement at all.

   Q: I did not say it was.

   A: Foreign Minister Kono was very thankful for the foreign assistance, and what you mentioned has nothing to do with the Japanese Government's position. We are very grateful for the foreign offers of assistance.

   Q: There was a report on Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) yesterday that South Korean people are donating some money for the Japanese victims in Kobe. Could you comment on that?

   A: South Korean people? I haven't got information on that.

   Q: The NHK report said that, for the first time, South Korean people are donating some money for Japanese victims.

   A: I am sorry. Korean residents?

   Q: Not residents. South Korean people, in Seoul, for the first time, are donating some money for Japanese victims of the earthquake. This is the first time.

   A: I cannot confirm that. I read also in the paper that there is a movement among the South Korean people to help the Japanese in this tragedy. We received with gratitude the offer of the Government of the Republic of Korea of various relief materials. But, as far as what you mentioned concerning the volunteer activity -- that news didn't reach me, unfortunately. I don't know whether it was the first time, because there were several big disastrous earthquakes in the past -- Fukui Prefecture in the 1960s and others -- nor whether South Korean volunteers offered donations on their own.

3. Upcoming visit to Japan by Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Amir Mahmoud Mousa of the Arab Republic of Egypt

   Q: Could you confirm a report that Foreign Minister Mousa of Egypt could visit Japan next month?

   A: As you know, the visit to Japan by President Hosni Mubarak of the Arab Republic of Egypt was postponed, and it is still under discussion between Japan and Egypt. We are going to announce later next week the visit to Japan by Foreign Minister Mousa of Egypt. Foreign Minister Mousa is coming to Japan in the early part of February, and the date is still under final consideration between the two Governments, possibly the second week of February. It will be decided and announced later this month.