(* 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 Hirofumi Nakasone

Date: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:25 a.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Opening Statement
- Presidential Statement of the United Nations Security Council on the Launch of a Missile by North Korea
A Letter from Mr. Iizuka to Ms. Kim Hyon-Hi
Project to Support Brazilians' Returning Home
The Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States of America concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of the III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their Dependents from Okinawa to Guam

1. Opening Statement

Presidential Statement of the United Nations Security Council on the Launch of a Missile by North Korea

Minister:
Japan highly appreciates the issuing of a statement by the President of the UN Security Council strongly voicing the international community's unified message regarding the launch of a missile by North Korea. Japan, in partnership with the other countries involved, has made diplomatic endeavors at all levels toward realizing the goal of having the international community issue a unified and strong message. On April 11, in the final stage, Prime Minister Aso and I conducted last minute coordination in meetings with our counterparts from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea, in Pattaya, Thailand. As a result, the statement condemns the launch by North Korea in contravention of Security Council resolution 1718 and includes concrete steps towards the thorough implementation of resolution 1718. The statement mainly follows Japan's requests and the wording is exceptionally strong. This is highly significant not only to Japan, who is exposed to the most serious danger by this missile launch, but to the peace and security of the international community as well. Japan urges North Korea to take this Presidential Statement seriously and comply fully with resolution 1718. Japan will continue to make active efforts through the framework of the Six-Party Talks for the comprehensive resolution of outstanding issues regarding North Korea such as the abduction, nuclear and missile issues.

Question:
Japan has called for a resolution. What are your thoughts on the conclusion by a Presidential Statement?

Minister:
This Presidential Statement states the understanding that North Korea in contravention of Security Council resolution 1718, which is legally binding. It also demands North Korea to comply fully with the legally binding resolution 1718. Therefore it is a strong Presidential Statement and, while it is not a resolution, I believe that it will sufficiently serve its purpose.

Question:
On April 10, you explained that during your talk with Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State of the United States, you had agreed to continue to cooperate toward the realization of a resolution. At that point, it had already been reported that the US had been coordinating with the permanent member nations for the adoption of a Presidential Statement. What explanation did Secretary of State Clinton give you regarding this situation?

Minister:
Since this was a diplomatic exchange, especially because it was a telephone call between a Secretary of State and a Minister for Foreign Affairs, it may not be appropriate to explain the contents of the exchange in detail. However, even if (hypothetically) there was a talk about a Presidential Statement at the UN, a decision had not yet been made (for the Presidential Statement). I stated during our talk that it was important to have a resolution. It is true that we agreed to continue to cooperate toward the realization of a resolution. Japan-China-ROK, Japan-China, and Japan-ROK meetings had been scheduled afterward in Thailand, so Secretary of State Clinton may have been waiting for the outcome of these meetings.

Question:
You stated that you agreed to continue to cooperate toward the realization of a resolution. What was the wording of this?

Minister:
I cannot comment on the detailed wording here, however, we agreed that we would work towards a resolution, that a resolution was appropriate, and that it was important to issue a unified message to the international community. These are things that we have been stating repeatedly and we agreed to make further efforts toward the realization of a resolution.

Question:
Regarding this measure, I believe there is concern that North Korea may take a hard-line stance such as withdrawing from the Six-Party talks or resuming its nuclear experiments. What is your opinion on this?

Minister:
I have not received information that North Korea has issued any comments, nor has it given any response. We are demanding the early resumption of the Six-Party talks through this Presidential Statement, so we must make efforts towards the resumption of the talks based on this and in cooperation with the host country, China.

Question:
Based on this incident, is there any room for Japan to consider new and additional sanctions including a total ban on imports or limitations on travel?

Minister:
The Sanctions Committee on North Korea will compile a list designating the entities and goods to face sanctions which will be reported to the Security Council, so I believe it will be necessary to see how this turns out. As for Japan, we have decided on what measures to take at the Cabinet Meeting on April 10, so I do not think there will be any new measures taken immediately.

Question:
Is there a possibility of further additional sanctions depending on the list of the Sanctions Committee?

Minister:
I do not know. We must look at the situation, and for the present we have decided on our response. Japan has made clear its measures against North Korea.

Question:
Regarding the sanctions stipulated in Resolution 1718, there are a little over 70 countries actually implementing them, so Resolution 1718 is not being fully implemented. Given the Presidential Statement, what does Japan plan to do in terms of full implementation of the sanctions?

Minister:
The Presidential Statement condemns the contravention of Resolution 1718 and states that all Member States must comply fully with their obligations under Resolution 1718, on which the statement is based. This Statement reconfirms Resolution 1718 and I believe each country must take thorough measures.

Question:
In order to raise the effectiveness of the measures in Resolution 1718, I believe that the role of China is extremely important. Do you have any plans to request China's full compliance with its measures?

Minister:
China also supported the Presidential Statement this time. I believe that this shows that China will take positive measures at the Sanctions Committee and at the Security Council for the effective implementation of Resolution 1718.

Question:
I believe that China has not made the content of its report to the Sanctions Committee public. What is your opinion on this?

Minister:
Do you mean regarding what China has done up until now?

Question:
The report has been submitted. However the content of it has not been announced. Is this acceptable or do you plan to request that China disclose the contents?

Minister:
Is this something that must be disclosed?

Question:
I think that China has decided not to disclose the content.

Minister:
I do not know whether the content needs to be disclosed or can be kept undisclosed. However, since this is based on a statement voicing the unified opinion of the Security Council, every country must implement its measures.

2. A Letter from Mr. Iizuka to Ms. Kim Hyon-Hi

Question:
There are media reports that a letter from Mr. Koichiro Iizuka to Ms. Kim Hyon-Hi had been undelivered and left within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Can you confirm these reports? Please also tell us of responses to be made.

Minister:
It was five years ago, in February 2004, when Mr. Shigeo Iizuka and Mr. Koichiro Iizuka visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They requested that a letter of Mr. Koichiro Iizuka be delivered to Ms. Kim Hyon-Hi. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs received the letter and delivered it to the government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) via the Japanese Embassy in the ROK, requesting that the government of ROK transfer the letter to Ms. Kim Hyon-Hi. Japan and the ROK made a number of arrangements afterward. Eventually, however, the government of ROK told us that they could not deliver the letter to Ms. Kim Hyon-Hi and sent it back to us. The latter was then kept by the Northeast Asia Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During this process, exchanges of opinions took place between the Northeast Asia Division and the Cabinet Secretariat's Abductees Support Division. I feel very sorry for the Iizuka family that the return of the letter to the family was delayed as a result of insufficient communication within the government. The letter was transferred to the Cabinet Secretariat on March 11 of this year, and it was returned to Mr. Iizuka on the morning of March 12. In any case, it is very regrettable and I feel sorry that the letter describing the feelings of Mr. Koichiro Iizuka did not reach Ms. Kim Hyon-Hi. In light of these developments and in response to the strong will of the Iizuka family and the request from the Headquarters for the Abduction Issue of the Cabinet Secretariat, we have been striving to realize a meeting. I called Mr. Koichiro Iizuka this morning to extend an apology and describe to him the efforts that will be made in earnest to prevent such an event from happening again by ensuring sufficient communications among the people concerned. The people in charge at the Cabinet Secretariat and at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have extended their apologies, and I myself also extended apologies this morning. I also instructed the director-general of the bureau in charge, and other officials, to take due note that the response had been insufficient.

Question:
When did the government of ROK send the letter back to Japan?

Minister:
It was sometime after the government of ROK found that the letter could not be delivered, but I am not aware of the exact date. They could not transfer the letter and so returned it to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We could investigate this matter upon request. However, it is a matter of almost five years ago, so I cannot say for sure about when and how the then person in charge received the letter.

Question:
Could you please investigate it?

Minister:
I could. It was sometime after the government of ROK told us that the letter could not be transferred.

Question:
Why was the government of ROK unable to deliver the letter?

Minister:
I do not know. I am sure that the government of ROK has made efforts to deliver the letter but they could not deliver it. I do not know the reason as it is a matter of the ROK.

Question:
You stated that a number of arrangements were made. Could you please investigate that as well?

Minister:
It would be difficult to find out how many arrangements were made, and when they were made, following the request for arrangements.

Question:
Did the government of ROK just return the letter without explaining the reason for doing so?

Minister:
I am not aware of the reason, but the letter was sent back to us.

Question:
Was the letter kept inside the Northeast Asia Division for the whole time after being sent back from the ROK?

Minister:
That is how I understand it.

Question:
There must have been a chance to hand over the letter during the previous meeting between Mr. Iizuka and Kim Hyon-Hi. Who is responsible for missing that opportunity?

Minister:
I think one problem was in the handling of the letter years ago, after it was sent back from the ROK. The letter could have been handed back to Mr. Iizuka if an appropriate response was taken at that stage, deciding whether to return it soon or keep it for a certain time. Although I have no detailed information of the situation, that is my basic understanding. It seems that they did not make a solid decision, or that they did not take a proper response.

Question:
Can I confirm when the Iizuka family was notified that the letter did not reach Kim Hyon-Hi?

Minister:
I do not know.

Question:
So is it correct to assume that the Iizuka family did not know until the meeting that the letter did not reach Kim Hyon-Hi.

Minister:
I will investigate if that had been communicated to the Iizuka family before then.

Question:
I am assuming that those in MOFA were aware that the letter had been kept inside the Northeast Asia Division, and that Mr. Iizuka was notified of that fact right before the meeting, that they could not actually deliver the letter to Kim Hyon-Hi.

Minister:
I do not know whether the successive Division staff or whoever else was responsible for keeping the letter were always aware of that or if they completely forgot about it after filing away the letter.

Question:
Is it correct that you apologized to Mr. Iizuka by phone?

Minister:
That is because of the fact that we ended up keeping the letter in that way for years, although we were naturally obliged to return it to Mr. Iizuka, as it is a private letter. That was what I apologized for. I also apologized for the response of MOFA at that time was not adequate, although I do not know the details of the situation.

Question:
Is it correct to assume that you made a phone call to Mr. Iizuka without knowing what kind of information he had received to that date?

Minister:
Although I have no detailed information as to how Mr. Iizuka understands the situation, I called him out of awareness that MOFA's response was not adequate.

Question:
What did Mr. Iizuka say during the phone call?

Minister:
Mr. Iizuka thanked us for a phone call. I would like to refrain from revealing further details of the telephone conversation.

Question:
Did he not mention the failure in bringing up this case during the previous meeting (with Kim Hyon-Hi), for instance?

Minister:
There was no mention of such details.

Question:
I would like to confirm one thing. Is there a possibility that the Northeast Asia Division failed to pass down to the succeeding staff information about the keeping of the letter?

Minister:
I have no knowledge of such details; they will be explained later by the staff.

Question:
Isn't it correct that then Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Akitaka Saiki received the letter and filed it away immediately?

Minister:
I do not know who did what at that stage.

Question:
We heard that you have also given instructions to the Director-General (of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau) about that.

Minister:
Since he is currently responsible for the matter, I warned him from that consideration.

Question:
I am wondering if the matter requires another press conference by the Minister.

Minister:
Concerning the background of the facts, I would like to have it explained thoroughly by the staff.

Question:
I am asking this question as it is the matter that the Minister has personally made a phone call about.

Minister:
As I have been saying, I called Mr. Iizuka to apologize as the head of the entire organization for its inadequate response as a whole. The phone call was not meant to explain about individual details. In other words, I apologized that MOFA's response was inadequate in order to communicate my feeling of responsibility as its head. Therefore, I have no understanding of individual details as to what happened when and where. I am aware that I should get hold of these details, but since I have no detailed knowledge right now about the exact facts that I can confidently present to the people here, I would like to have that question answered by the staff.

3. Project to Support Brazilians' Returning Home

Question:
The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare is providing support for unemployed Brazilians of Japanese descent to return to Brazil. A system has been established through which subsidies of 300,000 yen are provided to help unemployed Brazilians of Japanese descent return home. Currently, those who receive the subsidy are not permitted to re-enter Japan under the same visa status. Some communities of Brazilians of Japanese descent, among others, see this provision of permanently not allowing the re-entry as being too strict, and are requesting the provision to be time-limited. How does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs see this measure?

Minister:
A technical visa has been issued specially for people of Japanese decent. I believe the measure is part of efforts to support the people going back to their country, who wish to do so for various reasons, including for economic reasons. My understanding is that the prohibition of re-entry is a temporal measure. I believe that the concerned ministries and agencies hold the same view as ours. If this restriction on re-entry becomes an issue in their home country, for example, I will work with the concerned ministries and agencies to convey the content of support accurately. I will do so because those people, I believe, have no choice but to go back to their country due to Japan's domestic circumstances.

4. The Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States of America concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of the III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their Dependents from Okinawa to Guam

Question:
The Agreement between the Government of Japan and the Government of the United States of America concerning the Implementation of the Relocation of the III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their Dependents from Okinawa to Guam is scheduled to pass the House of Representatives today. Do you have any comments on this?

Minister:
As I have repeatedly stated at the Committee, this agreement is part of the realignment of US forces in Japan, with the intention of reducing the burden of Okinawa while maintaining a sufficient level of deterrence in the region. It has also been a desire of the people of Okinawa for a long time. The land south of Kadena will be returned under this agreement, and I believe that it will lead to the reduction of the burden on Okinawa as well as contribute to the stimulation of the region through the utilization of the region.

Back to Index