Top > Announcement > Press Conference by Foreign Minister > March 23, 2010

(* 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 Katsuya Okada

Date: Tuesday, March 23, 2010, 5:15 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

  1. Opening Statements
    • (1) Visit to the Republic of Haiti by Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada
    • (2) NPT Review Conference
  2. NPT Review Conference
  3. Gas Field in the East China Sea (Shirakaba)
  4. The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
  5. The Examination of the So-called Secret Agreements
  6. The Three Non-nuclear Principles
  7. The Japan-ROK Joint History Research
  8. Traffic Accidents caused by US Military in Okinawa
  9. Negative Security Assurance

1. Opening Statements

(1) Visit to the Republic of Haiti by Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada

Minister:
I have two announcements to make. First is the report on my visit to Haiti. I left Japan on Friday night and returned to Japan on Monday evening. The itinerary has already been released. Looking at the site with my own eyes, I was struck by the extremely severe situation there – almost all the houses were deserted. In such an environment, the members of the Self-Defense Force (SDF) unit are being very active, and are highly appreciated by the local people. I met with Mr. Edmond Mulet, Acting Special Representative of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, H.E. Mr. Rene Garcia Preval, President of the Republic of Haiti, Mr. Jean-Max Bellerive, Prime Minister of Haiti, and Mme Marie Michèle Rey, Foreign Minister of Haiti. The Haitian side expressed gratitude for Japan’s US$70 million aid, and requested further aid. I told them that Japan would consider increasing the amount of aid at the G8 foreign ministers’ meeting or Haiti Donors Conference scheduled at the end of this month, and also requested them to make sure that the aid would be used to benefit the Haitian people, since it comes from Japanese taxpayers’ money. I also met with NGOs in Haiti, and observed each of the four Japanese NGOs playing an active role. Further, I visited some hospitals and evacuation camps, and exchanged a few words with the people there. That is all I need to announce about Haiti. I would like to reflect what I saw at the site into the discussions at the G8 foreign ministers’ meeting and Haiti Donors Conference the end of this month.

(2) NPT Review Conference

Minister:
Another announcement is on the submission of a new package of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for the NPT Review Conference. On March 23, the Government of Japan and the Government of Australia submitted a “New Package of Practical Nuclear Disarmament and Non-proliferation Measures for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)” to the office of the United Nations Secretary-General as a working paper for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, which will be held in May. This package was confirmed by the foreign ministers of both countries as a follow-up item in the Joint Statement by the Australia-Japan Foreign Ministers released at the meeting on February 21 entitled, “Toward a World without Nuclear Weapons.” The draft was quite complete by then, but underwent further adjustments resulting in the submission today. From now on, while discussing the matter with other partner countries, I intend to do my best to have this package reflected on the final document of the NPT Review Conference.

2. NPT Review Conference

Question (Inoue, Kyodo News):
I would like to ask about the package just handed out. It advocates the “provision of stronger negative security assurances (NSA),” but is there a prospect that the US will approve the idea, as you have been saying the US would also be consulted on this point  in the context of disarmament and other discussions? Also, the principle of “sole purpose” spelt out in the Joint Statement seems not to be included in this new package. What are the reasons for this?

Minister:
Basically speaking, this document is a working paper for the NPT Review Conference. We need to prepare a more realistic draft, resulting in the difference from the Joint Statement just pointed out. We have informally exchanged opinions with the US on the paper, but the US has not announced any official stance in this regard. This is a matter for future consideration.

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
In the fourth point of the package, it calls on the nuclear-weapon states to provide, as soon as possible, stronger negative security assurances on the premise that beneficiary states are “non-nuclear-weapon States that comply with the NPT.” Can we assume that North Korea and the like are not be included in this category given the requirement of compliance with the NPT? Also, the third point calls on all states possessing nuclear weapons to “make an early commitment to reducing, or at least not increasing, their nuclear arsenals.” I immediately came up with China when considering the states that would not make this commitment. Can I read the line as such?

Minister:
At the current state, it is apparent that North Korea is not included in “non-nuclear-weapon States that comply with the NPT” in point four. Also, point three does not specify certain countries, but calls on all countries to reduce, or at least not increase, their nuclear arsenals.

3. Gas Field in the East China Sea (Shirakaba)

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
I have a question regarding the talks on the gas field in the East China Sea. Last week, you went to the Prime Minister’s Office and I believe that the Director-General of the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy accompanied you. Please tell us what the current situation is, such as how the discussions are progressing and our relations with China.

Minister:
Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Masayuki Naoshima was there as well. We explained to the Prime Minister and the Chief Cabinet Secretary the current situation. We explained the issue was at a stalemate and we are trying to move things forward. The premise of the explanation – which I have stated here many times – is that there are two agreements between Japan and China and this is often reported incorrectly in the media, and one of these agreements is about Shirakaba, or Chunxiao in Chinese. The agreement states that Japan will carry out capital participation in accordance with Chinese laws. The other is about northern part of the sea we agreed on joint development. There is a clear distinction here. We also explained about this. Regarding future measures we will take, I do not think it is appropriate to state them here, so I will refrain from commenting. However, some issues between Japan and China still remain and we talked to the Prime Minister from the viewpoint that we must resolve these issues as soon as possible.

Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
Did something that required immediate consideration occur between your exchanges with the Chinese side that made it necessary to give an explanation to the Prime Minister last week?

Minister:
No, there was nothing in particular. It just so happened at that time.

4. The Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan

Question (Nezu, NHK):
I have a question regarding the Futenma issue. I believe that relevant ministers are going to gather to conduct a discussion on the Futenma issue after this. With the time limit of coming up with a government proposal by the end of March, please tell us what your attitude will be in attending today’s ministerial meeting.

Minister:
I am not aware if we are compiling a plan by the end of March or not, so I cannot answer your question. However, there is no doubt that it is time we gather together our opinions, so I would like to discuss this issue thoroughly.

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
As you just stated yourself, aside from whether a formal plan will be compiled, I believe opinions will be gathered based on today’s talks. You will visit the United States at the end of the month and I am sure you will have the opportunity to meet with the US Secretary of Defense at that time. At this meeting, will you explain again the Japanese side’s position and progress based on today’s discussion?

Minister:
I am not sure. I believe it will depend on Japan’s progress. Of course, if I am asked, I can explain what progress we have made to that point, but it has not been clearly decided yet whom I will meet with at the end of the month. If I do meet with US senior government officials, I think the topics that will come up would be, for example, Iraq or Haiti and we would discuss these in detail rather than the Futenma issue.

5. The Examination of the So-called Secret Agreements

Question (Ida, Shukan Kinyobi):
I respect that you are actively trying to be accountable to the people of Japan, involving yourself in a tug of war with bureaucrats of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs over the accountability to be realized. I am referring to the response you made when a question arose whether or not the obligation to preserve secrecy can and should be released in an interview held last Tuesday in the Committee of Foreign Affairs. You also made the Togo Memorandum public in the evening of last Friday, immediately after the existence of the memorandum was confirmed in the morning during the interview with the unsworn witness. At the same – and this might be an extremely difficult issue for you – you could well play into the hands of bureaucrats. That said, let me ask you a question. According to the explanation you gave in your press conference last Friday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not disclose the Togo Memorandum because the Ministry presumed that Mr. Kazuhiko Togo did not want it to be disclosed to the public. I asked Mr. Togo directly if that was the case: he completely denied the presumption that the Ministry made. He told me – and he also testified this in the interview in the Diet – that he gave the memorandum when he was called into the expert committee's hearing because a note-taker attending the hearing requested to do so. In other word, we could say that Mr. Togo gave the memorandum upon the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in which case, the Ministry must be held accountable. Based on what grounds did you say last Friday that the Ministry presumed that non-disclosure of the memorandum was necessary? 

Minister:
The expert committee conducted hearings not only with Mr. Togo but also with more than ten people. You can see their names in the last section of the expert committee's report. The hearings proceeded on an off-the-record basis. I may be wrong but I believe it was only Mr. Togo who submitted documents. In any event, we received documents from Mr. Togo. He did not make it explicit if we may disclose the documents. It was with this understanding that the expert committee and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs received the documents. That was my understanding and that is why we had not disclosed the documents. Later, in the interview in the Diet, Mr. Togo said that he intended to return the documents to the people of Japan and to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In response, we deemed that the documents may go in public, and we asked Mr. Togo if we could actually disclose them, just in case. And we disclosed the documents.    

Question (Ida, Shukan Kinyobi):
Did you see the Togo Memorandum in advance? I think you should have the authority to make a final judgment, regardless of Mr. Togo's request for disclosure or non-disclosure, so that you can fulfill your ultimate responsibility of being held accountable to the public: the documents should and will be disclosed if you judge that the documents need to be disclosed. Don't you think this should be the case?  

Minister:
I did see the memorandum in advance. Basically, I did not intend to disclose the memorandum because I presumed that it should not be disclosed. We did not disclose each of the exchanges we had with people other than Mr. Togo. I thought the information obtained from Mr. Togo should be treated likewise. 

Question (Ida, Shukan Kinyobi):
This will be my last question. The Togo Memorandum, had it been kept within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, could have been made public as a non-classified document after the examination conducted this time. Various media outlets have reported that you judge the list of documents to be of first-class value. I may be repeating myself, but I think, ultimately, a decision must be made by the Minister, as a politician chosen by the people under a political leadership system. Do you think this is the right way to go?

Minister:
Basically, the Togo Memorandum came to be known when the expert committee conducted hearings. As such, I think it is the expert committee which is to make the primary decision as to how to handle the memorandum. I am not saying that the expert committee prohibited the disclosure of the memorandum. I had thought that individual exchanges made in the course of the creation of reports were not supposed to be disclosed, but rather, they would be used as background materials for compiling reports. I respected this rule and I made my judgment from a comprehensive point of view.

Question (Beppu, NHK):
On a related note, Mr. Togo made a reference to Mr. Shotaro Yachi and Mr. Ichiro Fujisaki when he gave the interview in the Diet last week. What is the status of progress or the prospect of an investigation or confirmation regarding these two? Now that you are back from Haiti, how do you intend to proceed?

Minister:
I have just come back from Haiti and I was in the Diet all day today, so I had little time for decision-making. As I mentioned last week, I think we need to organize a third-party committee with the participation of people outside of the Ministry. That does not mean that we will leave everything to third parties. Rather, given that this is the Ministry's internal matter, I, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the State Secretary will join the committee and together with the third parties we will conduct hearings and investigations in the committee. That is what needs to be done. A question may arise as to what we will investigate. As I said earlier in my press conference, a possible mass destruction of documents, which is said to be happened before the enactment of the Act on Access to Information, is still within the scope of rumor. Also, similar rumors probably exist in other ministries than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Instead of widening the scope of investigation to include rumors, including the one that Mr. Togo heard, we would like to examine the truth regarding the red file [one of Mr. Togo’s files].  

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
You said that a third-party committee needed to be organized. This committee will be different from either the one chaired by Mr. Shinichi Kitaoka or the one within the Ministry that you chair; instead, you will establish a new committee to investigate the file that Mr. Togo created. Is that correct? 

Minister:
Yes, that is correct. I do not think we need a large-scale committee. Rather, I think a small committee will do. The committee will be set up not to conduct discussions, but to conduct hearings. My plan is to organize a small committee comprised of people from different positions.   

Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
You said that you saw the Togo Memorandum in advance. On the other hand, it was last November when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concluded its examination. As Mr. Togo testified in the interview in the Diet, eight important documents listed in the Togo Memorandum turned out to be missing. There are some disagreements between the Togo Memorandum and the examination by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Did you instruct an additional examination to the Ministry's examination team or enquire about the missing documents when you saw the memorandum?

Minister:
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducted a thorough examination. A disagreement does exist, but I absolutely do not think that things have now been left up to the Ministry to examine further.

6. The Three Non-nuclear Principles

Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbum):
Concerning the Three Non-nuclear Principles, the Governor of Nagasaki Prefecture, who has been demanding legislation on this issue, visited the Prime Minister’s Office today, and I suppose he also met with you directly around the noon. You have been saying at your press conferences that legislation would be difficult. Did you tell this directly to the Governor?

Minister:
I did. I said that legislation would be difficult, unless the two points of concern could be solved at least.

Question (Saita, Nishinippon Shimbun):
May I confirm what those two points are?

Minister:
As I said in a previous press conference, the first point concerns the right of innocent passage. I understand that the government has traditionally interpreted the entry of nuclear weapons into territorial waters as not being subject to the right of innocent passage. However, contrary opinions are prevalent in some other countries. For example, the US and the USSR or Russia held such opinions at one time. Therefore, there is a problem as to whether we can legislate the principles without contradicting international law. The Three Non-nuclear Principles will probably be accepted as an official position as long as they are not legislated, but more rigorous consideration will be needed for legislation. Another point concerns how we should ensure their effectiveness, which was also questioned today by Diet member Yamamoto in the Budget Committee of the House of Councillors. I asked in turn what were the Liberal Democratic Party’s ideas when it was in power, but there was no reply. There is a certain significance to the Three Non-nuclear Principles as a declaration, as they clarify the position of the Japanese government, and we may consider some measures to sanctify them. However, for them to become a law, I think we need a more formal argument about implementation aspects.

Question (Ida, Shukan Kinyobi):
The global situation is changing every moment, but the Hatoyama administration says it will hold fast to the Three Non-nuclear Principles. Can I assume that the Hatoyama Cabinet sees no problem in maintaining the three principles in the current international situation, or in the near future, with regard to Japan’s national security?

Minister:
Due to the change of US nuclear policy in 1991, I think there is basically no problem with Japan’s Three Non-nuclear Principles. This is why we are saying we will hold fast to the three principles, As I said in the Diet today. I cannot answer “what if” questions about the future – these matters should be left for the government of the time to decide. and I cannot limit possibilities of such future decision at this stage.

7. The Japan-ROK Joint History Research

Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
I heard that experts from Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) will soon compile and release the 2nd term report on the Japan-ROK Joint History Research soon. How will this affect the Japan-ROK Joint History Research and historical issues between Japan and the ROK and what meaning will it have? Additionally, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, in such a situation where there is such a wide discrepancy on Japan and the ROK’s views on history, what is your opinion on how much – as neighboring countries – how far should we go to have a common view on history and how much should we try to approximate our views, text books, and government positions?

Minister:
There are so many ways to view history and I think it is extremely difficult to completely unify our view on a single fact. This does not apply only to relations between countries. I think that every historian has his or her own individual perspective on history. So I think that there are a variety of views. However, if we can close that gap even just a little through an exchange of opinions, I think that would be a wonderful thing. Just now, you stated that there was a very wide gap between views on history between Japan and the ROK, however, I think that this does not apply to all history. In modern history, I think that there is quite a difference in views, however, for history before modern times, there are parts on which we share a common view. If we can increase these common views through discussion, we could come that much closer to recognizing each others views. In that sense, I think that Joint History Research is meaningful.

8. Traffic Accidents caused by US Military in Okinawa

Question (Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo):
Incidents or accidents involving US military personnel have being occurring frequently, such as an arrest case involving drunk driving and a case of a vehicle intruding on the grounds .The top commander of the US military forces in Okinawa released an announcement stating that they had given instructions for an internal investigation to prevent further occurrences of accidents. I am sure the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has requested individually at the times these accidents occurred for the prevention of further occurrences or strengthening discipline, but what is your opinion on this series of accidents?

Minister:
On March 16 there was a hit-and-run incident in Nago City and following this, an incident in which a drunken US military personnel crashed into a taxi and fled in Uruma City on March 21. As you pointed out, these accidents have been occurring one after another and I have been very concerned about this situation. I have been taking various opportunities to convey this concern to the US side. As for the incident on March 17, the Director of the Status of U.S. Forces Agreement Division made a request to the Security Director at the US Embassy, and the Japanese side also made a request to the US side at a meeting of the Japan-US Joint Committee held on March 18. On the US side, Okinawa area coordinator, Commanding General of the III Marine Expeditionary Force Lt. Gen. Terry Robling conveyed a message to Ambassador in charge of Okinawan Affairs Sumio Tarui that he sent his heartfelt apologies for the recent series of accidents and that he gave instructions so that such incidents never occur again. He also promised to properly implement measures to strengthen discipline. I hope that they implement measures so that these sort of incidents never happen again.

9. Negative Security Assurance

Question (Takahashi, Asahi Shimbun):
During intensive discussion at that Budget Committee, Prime Minister Hatoyama stated that he would like to consider legislation for negative security assurances. I don’t think that you have ever commented on this issue before. What is your opinion on this matter?

Minister:
I do not recall the Prime Minister using the term “legislation.” I believe he said something such as “a resolution by the UN that has binding power.” I think this is a desirable direction to head towards. I believe that the current permanent members of the UN Security Council, the five countries with nuclear weapons, are basically in agreement on the matter of NSA. Of course, there are many conditions. Additionally, there are also countries that claim that they currently have nuclear weapons, for example, North Korea, and of course, India and Pakistan. Therefore, there is the issue of how to treat these countries, so while I think it is the right direction to be headed in, I do not think it is something that can be done easily. We must conduct further thorough deliberation and we are still in the process of doing so.

Back to Index