Press Conference by the Press Secretary 19 July 1996

Decision on the Helms-Burton Act made by President William Clinton of the United States of America
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ken Shimanouchi: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this regular Ministry of Foreign Affairs press conference. I have two very brief announcements today. My first announcement concerns the recent decision by President William Clinton of the United States of America concerning the Helms-Burton Act. I would just like to draw your attention to the statement by Press Secretary Hiroshi Hashimoto issued on 17 July regarding this matter. Japan, for some time, has been expressing to the United States its concern that the Helms-Burton Act may entail extraterritorial application of domestic law, which is not permitted under international law. The Government of Japan was encouraged by the recent decision made by President Clinton, suspending for six months the right to file suits under Title III of the Helms-Burton Act. Japan hopes that the Helms-Burton Act will continue to be implemented prudently. We consider that democratization in Cuba is insufficient, and Japan will continue its efforts to call on Cuba to promote democracy in the country. That is the first announcement. My second announcement is more a reminder than an announcement. Immediately following this regular press conference there will be a background briefing on the two meetings to be held in Jakarta next week -- the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) Meeting and the ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference (PMC).

Those are the announcements that I wanted to make, and I will be delighted to respond to any questions that you might have.
Reported construction of a light tower in the Senkaku Islands
Q: We are just looking for some comment on reports of a Japanese organization which has built a lighthouse on the Senkaku Islands. This has sparked a bit of response in Beijing and Taiwan. I understand these islands have been disputed by the three governments. I would just like your comment on what the Government of Japan stance is on it, and whether you might be taking any actions to curtail the activities of the Seinenensha.

A: It is clear that historically, and in the light of international law, that the Senkaku Islands form a part of Japanese territory. The Islands are under the effective control of Japan. There does not exist any territorial issue regarding the Senkaku Islands. We will be considering our response to this matter on the basis of the position that I have just described to you.

Q: There seems to be some ambiguity about what exactly has happened on the island, and what, if anything, has been built there or even what it looks like. Can you answer any of those questions for us? What information does the Government of Japan have?

A: There are reports in the media that a rightist group built a light tower on the island, and we are informed that that seems to be the case.

Q: How have you verified that?

A: We have ways of verifying that. The Islands are under the effective control of Japan, as I said.

Q: So, how have you verified that?

A: We have means to do that.

Q: Can you tell us more about what has been done? Presumably, Japanese vessels have visited the Islands and had a look, have they?

A: I will have to get back to you on that.

Q: You might have to get back to me on this, as well. But, can you describe to us the structure that radicals have placed there?

A: I do not have all the details of what you are asking for.

Q: Do you think it's possible to get some of those details?

A: I will try.

Q: Could you tell us exactly -- there have been reports that the Chinese and Taiwanese Governments have launched some kinds of remarks with Japan about this incident. Can you tell us what they have they said to you?

A: I think you are aware of the comments the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China made in Beijing yesterday.

Q: No, I wasn't.

A: I do not want to quote the spokesman of another country, so I suggest you check. I think it has been reported by the media.

Q: This was the Chinese?

A: The Chinese spokesman. It was made on 18 July in Beijing by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman of the People's Republic of China.

Q: Has any communication taken place through official channels?

A: This is all we have. The only reaction by the Chinese side is the one made by the spokesman.

Q: So, the Chinese Government -- the Chinese Embassy here -- hasn't made any official comment on this?

A: No.

Q: Does the same go for Taiwan?

A: With regard to Taiwan, we do not have official ties with Taiwan. We only have non-governmental ties. We work through private organizations on each side which are responsible for managing practical business between the two sides. On 17 July, the Tokyo office of the Taiwanese organization made an inquiry to its Japanese counterpart organization -- I do not have the English translation of their names -- regarding this media report. At that time, we are told, the Taiwanese representative said that if the Government of Japan allows this to happen, the Taiwanese side will be lodging a very strong protest. That was the Taiwanese reaction to this.

Q: It may not be appropriate to sort of continue to ask you for detail in this conference, but could you tell me a bit more about the legal status of the Senkaku Islands in Japan's view? Presumably they're a part of Okinawa Prefecture, aren't they? Is the land owned by the Prefectural Government or is it owned privately?

A: My understanding is that part of the Senkaku Islands is owned by the Government, and there are also privately owned portions. That is my understanding, but I will have to check. I do not have all the details with me.

Q: Are there any steps that the Government of Japan will be taking to assert -- you said they are under Japanese control -- any new steps that are going to be taken to reemphasize this?

A: The Islands have always been Japanese territory and always have been under the effective control of Japan.

Q: Is this issue likely to come up at the upcoming ASEAN regional Forum Meeting? Last year, they spent much of their time talking about disputes over the Spratlys. It seems to me like the timing of this action could be interpreted as something less than coincidence.

A: There is no reason to deal with this issue in a regional forum. As I said, the Japanese position is that there does not exist any territorial issue.

Q: Do you know if this group -- Seinenensha -- had supposedly built something, if there are any legal bounds for them building a structure on the island? Do they have permission from the land owner?

A: I am not an expert on domestic laws and regulations. I cannot answer that question off hand. All I can say now is that we will be dealing with this matter very carefully, on the basis of our basic stance regarding the territorial rights of the Senkaku Islands.

Q: I think I'm not the only one here that is curious to learn about this in a bit more detail. Would it be possible to arrange a briefing with someone who is involved in the issue more closely?

A: We will check and get back to you.
Possible discussion in Jakarta between the People's Republic of China and Japan regarding security matters
Q: Is there any plan for Foreign Minister Ikeda meeting the Chinese Foreign Minister in Jakarta -- a tete-à-tete?

A: Will there be a bilateral meeting between the two foreign ministers? Is that your question?

Q: Yes.

A: The two sides are coordinating their schedules right now. I am not aware if the meeting has been set up yet. But, both sides are trying to coordinate their schedules, so as to hold a meeting in Jakarta.

Q: Related to that, this morning, the Defense White Paper was approved by the Cabinet. This White Paper took a new twist in evaluating the Chinese military. This area is a matter of concern for the Government of Japan. Would it be possible that Foreign Minister Ikeda may bring up this subject in his meeting with the Chinese foreign minister?

A: I have not read the Defense White Paper. I had better not make any comments before reading it. Regarding the agenda of the meeting between the two Foreign Ministers, usually we discuss bilateral issues and also international issues of common interest to the two sides. We always discuss a broad range of issues in our bilateral meetings with China.
Possible Japan-U.S.-Republic of Korea trilateral meeting in Jakarta
Q: On that opportunity, are the foreign ministers from Japan, the United States and the Republic of Korea going to meet to discuss KEDO and the Korean Peninsula?

A: The three sides are coordinating their schedules right now, with a view to setting up a trilateral meeting in Jakarta.
Japan-Russian Federation relations
Q: Regarding the recent promotion of Igor Rodionov to the post of Russian Defense Minister, will it affect relations now between the two countries in the military field?

A: We see this as a part of a chain of appointments following the presidential election. Naturally, we are interested in these developments in Moscow. But, basically these are domestic issues of the Russian Federation.

Q: So, you do not think that it will affect the relations between the two countries -- in the military field especially?

A: I do not want to speculate on that, but in the military field, the cooperative ties between the two countries have become very tight in recent months. The Japanese Defense Minister visited Moscow in April, and we think that this meeting was very conducive to enhancing mutual confidence in the security area. We wish to continue along these lines in the military area.
Senkaku Islands issues
Q: If it would be possible to arrange a background briefing just to give us some details on this island issue.

A: I am not aware if it is possible today. But, we will check and get back to you.

Q: The question, for instance, if whether any laws have been broken in establishing this structures. It is obviously quite an important one, and it is rather hard to understand what's going on.

A: If you are interested in domestic laws, that is outside the purview of this ministry.

Q: Right, but does the Government of Japan take a position on that? Is any response going to be made by the Government as a whole?

A: The position of the Government of Japan is as I have already said.

Q: I am talking about the position of the Government of Japan as regards this structure, rather than as regards the territorial question. We know what the view on the territorial nature of the islands, but it is very unclear what has happened and what it means regarding this group and what is likely to happen.

A: So, you are interested in a briefing on these matters.

Q: Yes. You said that you had the means of verifying some of these reports. It would be nice to share some of that information if you could.

A: I said I would have to get back to you on that one. We will see if we can arrange a briefing. I am not aware if we can do it today. It is probably very difficult, and also, some of the questions you asked are outside the competence of this ministry. I do not know if we will be able to answer all your questions.

Q: I remember when the Takeshima question came up, a very useful briefing was arranged where someone talked a bit about the history of the Islands, and so on.

A: You are interested in something like that?

Q: Yes.

Q: We are very clear now on what the Government of Japan's position is concerning the Island itself. We are not clear what the Government of Japan's position is regarding this light house. That is what we are trying to get a handle on. Maybe the Government of Japan is not clear yet what its position is.

A: I understand very clearly where your area of interest is, so we will get back to you.

Q: I am not sure, but did the Government of Japan not file a protest toward China when a couple of Chinese jets flew to the Senkakus? I remember the Air Force scrambled two Phantoms or four.

A: We in the spokesman business have very short memories. I will have to check and get back to you. I will have to check my files or ask the China Division people to check their files.

Q: Four or five months ago, if I remember correctly.
Delay of the Helms-Burton Act effective date
Q: The first item ends with a statement that Japan has demanded that the United States Government explain the effective date of the Act. That's quite a strong way of putting it -- a demand. If the United States Government declines that demand, or does not explain the date, what will Japan do?

A: I am looking at the Japanese version -- the original. I think "sought" is a better translation than "demand." We asked that the entry into effect of Title III be postponed, and President Clinton decided to suspend for six months the right to file suits under Title III. We understand that this can be extended for an additional period of time. And, we see this as a very positive response to our request by the United States side. That is why the statement says, "We were encouraged."
Pre-indictment transfer of custody conditions in cases of U.S. servicemen charged with crimes in Japan
Q: There may be an arrest warrant today for a U.S. serviceman charged with the slashing and robbery of a woman in Nagasaki and a gentleman of Sasebo. I am wondering if you had any contacts with the U.S. military here in terms of lodging protest, or what actions might be taken on this?

A: The local police in Sasebo and the United States Navy people in the City of Sasebo have been in close contact. They have been working very closely on the investigation of this case. And, we in this ministry have been in very close contact with the American side on this matter, so that this case will be dealt with appropriately in light of domestic law and the relevant arrangements between the United States and Japan. So, we have been in close contact with the United States on this matter.

Q: I understand that there was a change in the Status of Forces Agreement which would permit Japanese authorities to arrest or take custody of someone who has been charged with a crime -- much faster than in last year's case, for example, in Okinawa. Are those new rules going to be effective this time as you understand it?

A: This was not a revision of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) itself. It was an agreement of the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee established in accordance with provisions of the SOFA. As you said, this agreement makes it possible to transfer the custody of a suspect before indictment. Before this agreement it was not possible to do that. And, this agreement opened the way for pre-indictment transfer of custody. But, at this moment, all I can say is that we intend to maintain close contact with the United States side and also with the Japanese police authorities to approach this matter appropriately and expeditiously.
United Nations Law of the Sea and Senkaku Islands matters
Q: I understand that the exclusive economic zone under the Law of the Sea is going to become effective tomorrow. I wonder if you can confirm that one. Without having too much on the light house, would it be true to say that this incident in the Senkakus is rather unfortunate given the timing?

A: I can confirm that the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention will enter into effect on 20 July vis-à-vis Japan, because this is the 30th day after the deposit of the instrument of ratification with the United Nations.

Q: So, is the timing of this incident with the light house somewhat unfortunate, given that, for example, Japan has already had two rounds of fishing talks with the Republic of Korea? I believe Japan has not yet started any talks yet with China on matters pertaining to disputes on the Senkaku Islands.

A: Let me correct you there. We have had one round of informal fishing talks with the Republic of Korea, and we have also had one round with China. We intend to continue these talks, with a view to reaching an agreement as soon as possible. We have to work with the Governments of China and the Republic of Korea to establish a new fishing order which is in keeping with the new United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and we will be working on that.

Q: The Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said yesterday about the light house matter that they wanted the Government of Japan to take effective measures immediately to remove the adverse effects arising from this incident. The spokesman also said that the Government of Japan knows what effective measures the Government of Japan should take. Is it possible for you to share those effective measures with us? I understand there was another incident back in --.

A: I cannot put words in the Chinese spokesman's mouth. I cannot do that.

Q: You just did say that the Government of Japan was aware --.

A: I am aware of what he said. But, I am not going to comment directly on what he said. I think it was before you came that I explained our position on this matter. Thank you very much.

Back to Index