(* 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: Friday, March 26, 2010, 5:15 p.m.
Place: Briefing Room, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Main topics:
- Opening Statements
- (1) Myanmar Election Laws
- (2) Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
- (3) Foreign Ministers Visit to the United States of America
- Myanmar Election Laws
- Japan-US Relations ( Foreign Ministers Visit to the United States and the Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan)
- Traffic Accident caused by a US Military person in Okinawa
- The Examination of the So-called Secret Agreements
- Territorial Issues
- Japanese National Examination for nurses and certified care workers by Foreign Candidates Based on EPAs
- Japan-US Security Arrangements
1. Opening Statements
(1) Myanmar Election Laws
Minister:
I would like to talk about three points. The first point is about Myanmar. The country's election related law has been revealed and I have just confirmed its details. I have picked up this issue at the second from the last regular press conference. The focal point is a provision to ban people serving a prison term from running in elections or from becoming a member of a political party. I have ordered the Japanese Ambassador to Myanmar to confirm this point, and have received an answer from him that the law actually had a provision to this effect. I was explained that this provision applies to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi who has been under house arrest. The law, with this provision, clearly deviates the country's elections from ones expected by Japan -- elections that are open to every interested person. That is very regrettable.
Today, I asked Ambassador Hla Myint of Myanmar Embassy in Japan to come to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There I conveyed him our message that an election, carried out under these circumstances, would not be recognized by international community. I asked Myanmar to reconsider its approach and hold an election that is fair and open to every interested person. I have repeatedly said that the upcoming election would be a very important one for Myanmar. I have reiterated this point to both the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Myanmar. Now that more specific details of the upcoming election have come to light, it is more evident that an election under these situations cannot constitute an important and internationally recognized election. These are the points I have asked the country to reconsider.
(2) Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan
Minister:
The second announcement is my meeting with US Ambassador John Roos this morning, where I explained to him the status of the government’s review process on the relocation of Futenma Air Station and exchanged some opinions with him. I mentioned the promise made by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and the Government of Japan to settle the issue by the end of May, and we confirmed that the two countries will continue to have close contact. I will refrain from mentioning further any details, since we are not at the stage yet where we can reveal any plans or ideas of the Japanese government.
(3) Foreign Ministers Visit to the United States of America
Minister:
The third announcement is on my visit to the United States (US) from March 28 to March 31, in order to attend the G8 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and the Haiti Donors Conference. I will be in Washington, D.C., from March 28 to 29, where I will meet with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and National Security Advisor to the President James Jones, mostly on March 29. On March 29 and 30, I will attend the G8 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting to be held in Gatineau, Canada, and I would like use this opportunity to meet with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon, and as many G8 foreign ministers as possible. On March 31, I will attend the Haiti Donors Conference to be held in New York. I will return to Japan in the early morning of April 2.
2. Myanmar Election Laws
Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
I would like to ask several questions about Myanmar, which has just been referred to. I have just learned that Ambassador Hla Myint of Myanmar Embassy in Japan had been called to visit the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for talks today. Who actually received him at the Ministry? In addition, the Japanese ambassador to Myanmar was explained that the exclusive provision of the law in question would apply to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Could you tell us specifically how and when this explanation was made to the ambassador? Thirdly, it now appears unlikely that under current circumstances the election of the country will go in the direction expected by Japan. Please tell us how the Government of Japan intends to work on the situation.
Minister:
I do not exactly remember the specific time and date, The Japanese ambassador to Myanmar made an inquiry to the Government of Myanmar. As a result, I learned that the government explained to the ambassador that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was included in the persons serving prison terms under the provision in question. And I spoke to Ambassador Hla Myint today. I am interested in this issue based on the wish for Myanmar to open up for its future. With this idea in mind I will work on the Government of Myanmar and also discuss this issue thoroughly in any bilateral meetings I may have a chance to hold with countries including the United States and Canada. I would also like to exchange opinions and collaborate with ASEAN member countries, for example, Indonesia and Thailand, to work on this issue. I will work on this agenda from now on.
Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
In connection with what you have just mentioned, did the Myanmar ambassador to Japan give you any new explanation, comments or further reaction to you as you conveyed to him the stance of the Japanese government?
Minister:
I should not refer to the details of our talks, especially what the other side said, However ,as far as Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is concerned, the ambassador did not clearly say that she was included in the persons serving prison terms. It appeared there could be some breadth of interpretation for the provision in question. The ambassador also said that he would convey the stance of Japan to the government of his country.
Question (Higuchi, TBS):
At the Japan-Myanmar Summit Talks, held along with the Mekong-Japan Summit last November, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said that it is important that the election in Myanmar in 2010 will be held in the direction expected by Japan. He further said that if the election is realized in such a way, Japan would strengthen the various forms of support which it is offering to Myanmar. I take this statement to mean that if the election in Myanmar is carried out in the way wished for by the Government of Japan, Japan will expand its economic assistance to the country. Do you think that under the current circumstances offering further economic aid to the country would be difficult?
Minister:
After the Japan-Myanmar Summit Talks, I also had a chance to meet the Prime Minister of Myanmar and hold in-depth discussions with him. I clearly said to the Prime Minister that the programs prepared by the Japanese government, aimed at full-fledged economic assistance, are based on the premise of an election to be held in Myanmar which, as expected by us, would be open for any interested person to participate in. Today, I reiterated this idea and clearly said to the ambassador that under the current circumstances, such increased support cannot be carried out.
Question (Igarashi, Asahi Shimbun):
You have just mentioned other member countries of ASEAN, such as Indonesia and Thailand, which you wish to work with. It is said that China has significant influence over the military government of Myanmar. Do you not consider working with China on this issue?
Minister:
I would like to discuss this issue with the country by all means. However, when we work for an election that is open for any interested person to participate in, it may be more convincing to have countries which have already practiced this leading the appeal. In this light I believe Indonesia and Thailand can be good partners for us. We should also think of Malaysia.
Question (Nezu, NHK):
In connection with what you have just said, you earlier mentioned that the US and EU were beginning to implement policies similar to those of Japan in regard to Myanmar. How would these trends be influenced by the stance that Myanmar has now taken? Are you concerned about the prospects? I would like to ask your opinion in this light.
Minister:
I would like to proactively exchange opinions over Myanmar with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I will work hard to coordinate our actions in order to help realize an open election in Myanmar.
3. Japan-US Relations ( Foreign Ministers Visit to the United States and the Issue of the Realignment of the US Forces in Japan)
Question (Mizushima, Jiji Press):
You said that you would refrain from elaborating specific views exchanged with Ambassador Roos, but if I may, please let me confirm some basic points. In his statement, the Ambassador has expressed the view of the US government that it will carefully consider the Japanese government’s position. Do you think that the US government is not necessarily persisting with the idea that the current plan is the best? Or do you think otherwise?
Minister:
Your question should be addressed to Ambassador Roos. I will refrain from speaking about what I think. I will just say that the Ambassador listened to my explanations sincerely.
Question (Beppu, NHK):
My question is about your meeting next week with Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton. You will explain to them the Japanese government’s position or proposal or however it is called now. The US government, on the other hand, has repeatedly made its position clear that it considers the current plan for the relocation of Futenma Air Base to be the best. I think you will be engaging in extremely tough diplomacy. If you could elaborate on what you look forward to at these meetings, including what you think your responsibility as the Minister for Foreign Affairs is, that would be much appreciated.
Minister:
There is some misunderstanding here. I will be meeting with Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton next Monday, which is quite soon. Probably we will not discuss the issue extensively. A thorough exchanges of views will first take place at working-level consultations instead. I would like to have thorough discussions on issues such as the Myanmar issue, which I spoke about earlier, the Iranian issue with Secretary of State Clinton, and a nuclear strategy with Secretary of Defense Gates. The Futenma issue will certainly be a topic for discussion, but I think it will be too early to spend a substantial amount of time discussing the issue.
Question (Noguchi, Mainichi Shimbun):
I would like to ask about your perception of Japan-US relations. Last December, you said that you would develop a sense of crisis that Japan-US relations would be shaken if no agreement on the current plan were to be made by the end of that year. I believe that at your meeting today with Ambassador Roos, the Ambassador responded that the US government would carefully consider other proposals than the current plan as well. What is your perception of current Japan-US relations?
Minister:
I do not see any major developments now. The government is working, without any fuss, to compile its proposal by the end of May through various endeavors, including negotiations with the United States.
Question (Ida, Shukan Kinyobi):
My question is on behalf of our readers. This is about the issue of Futenma Air Station. Some argue that the relocation issue will have a significant impact on Japan-US relations. How do you think US relations with the Philippines and Ecuador changed after they abolished US bases in their countries?
Minister:
I am not sure about Ecuador, but as for the Philippines, the abolishment obviously made an impact on the territory issue. When it comes to Japan, we significantly rely on the US for deterrence. Theoretically we could choose to develop military forces strong enough to defend ourselves alone, but we have not chosen to do so. Losing the deterrence provided by the US force under such circumstance would have a significant impact on the people’s safety.
Question (Murao, Yomiuri Shimbun):
You said that working-level consultations would be taking place going forward. Is it correct to say that the diplomatic and defense authorities of the two nations will conduct working-level negotiations for some time? Are you planning to resume verifications that the two ministers and Ambassador Roos conducted last year?
Minister:
Working-level consultations will take place among diplomatic and defense authorities. The Prime Minister’s Office may involve itself in the consultations as well. A meeting of the heads of the authorities is not something that can be convened with high frequency. It will probably be Ambassador Roos and I who will engage in negotiations as necessary based on the working-level consultations. We will certainly convene meetings of the heads of the diplomatic and defense authorities if there is a need to do so, probably in a similar form to “2+2” meeting. However, I do not think there will be many such meetings.
Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
You said that you would not spend a substantial amount of time discussing the Futenma issue during your visit to the United States. That was your explanation about the status of the progress of examination. As the person responsible for negotiations with the United States, do you think it is too early to consider a conclusion?
Minister:
The US side will need some time to verify our report on the status of the progress of the examination and discuss feasibilities on its side. We gave an explanation on Friday and we will be meeting on Monday: there will be little time for verification or discussion. Therefore, I do not anticipate deep discussions to take place this time. Of course, I would be happy to spend more time discussing this issue if there is such a request.
Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
In relation to the feasibility that you mentioned, do you think the proposal that the government is currently examining will in the end be the one to secure deterrence, which you are very concerned about?
Minister:
The alleviation of the burden on Okinawa and maintenance of deterrence – they are the two preconditions we seek to realize through our discussions.
Question (Kajiwara, NHK):
Today’s meeting with Ambassador Roos served as the foothold for full-fledged negotiations with the United States. Is that correct? Also, Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama stated today that his wish for a relocation to be carried out outside of Okinawa Prefecture remained unchanged. It may be just media outlets reporting various views, but I am a bit confused seeing different proposals to come one after the other. Will the idea of relocating Futenma Air Station to outside of Okinawa Prefecture, as the Prime Minister has indicated, be the policy you will adhere to when engaging in negotiations?
Minister:
Whatever the Prime Minister is saying is the precondition for our examinations.
Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
You have emphasized that the alleviation of the burden on Okinawa is one of the two principles for a resolution to this issue. I think the elimination of the risk of Futenma Air Station will be the core issue here. In other words, the alleviation of the burden on Okinawa will require either a reduction of functions of Futenma Air Station or a relocation of the station. On the other hand, Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of the US Pacific Fleet, is opposing the relocate of the station to outside of Okinawa Prefecture. Nor is he willing to downgrade the functions of the station. Do you think the downgrading of functions will become the focus of the Futenma issue?
Minister:
I will not comment on the contents of examinations.
Question (Kawasaki, Yomiuri Shimbun):
Minister of Defense Toshimi Kitazawa met with Governor of Okinawa Hirokazu Nakaima this morning. During their meeting – and again in front of reporters – Minister Kitazawa suggested to Governor Nakaima that there was virtually no possibility for the current plan to be re-adopted. Is your understanding about the current plan the same as the one Minister Kitazawa has? Or do you have different understanding?
Minister:
The Cabinet is examining the issue from scratch. That is my understanding.
Question (Higa, Kyodo News):
The Prime Minister said this morning that the government would fix its proposal by the end of this month. The government seems to be making steady progress toward the compilation of its proposal. You met with Ambassador Roos and Minister Kitazawa with the Governor of Okinawa in Okinawa, but local governments named in the process of compiling a government proposal and people in the local communities must find it extremely difficult to understand the reasons why their prefectures or local communities would be chosen for a relocation site. Will the Hatoyama administration, or the government, explain to whichever local government that is to serve as the relocation site the reason why it had to be there and that the government considered all the other possibilities before reaching a conclusion? If so, when will that be?
Minister:
It depends on how you interpret what the Prime Minister meant by the process of compiling a government proposal. It is no easy task to compile a proposal acceptable both to the local community and the US side. I will refrain from speaking about when the government will give explanations.
Question (Hiyama, AFP):
My question is about the speed of negotiation on the Futenma issue. Is it correct to assume that the negotiation will be accelerated in April and May once the government proposal is drawn at the end of March? This is related to the previous question, but when will the government make the contents of its proposal public? What is the Hatoyama Cabinet’s understanding of the people’s right to know?
Minister:
As I said earlier, it depends on what you mean by government proposal. Whatever the definition may be, a compilation of the proposal is no easy task. The right proposal, which we will draw by the end of May, is the one to be accepted by both the US side and the local community.
Question (Nezu, NHK):
What is the significance of meeting with Ambassador Roos before visiting to the United States? Please also tell us if you think the meeting has served as the starting point for negotiations and consultations with the United States.
Minister:
I just explained to the Ambassador the current situation. You could say that it was in effect the starting point for a series of explanations or exchanges of views. It just happened to be today and it is not necessarily the case that the meeting was arranged in consideration of my visit to the United States.
Question (Beppu, NHK):
Today being the starting point, will the main purpose of having meetings with Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton be to confirm that the consultations have begun? Will it be a formal occasion for you to confirm with respective secretaries the start of working-level consultations? Is that going to be an aim of the meetings?
Minister:
The meetings will not be held in order to discuss solely the Futenma issue. The Futenma issue will be one of the topics to be discussed during the meetings. In consideration of the other parties involved, I will refrain from speaking about specific views to be exchanged. I do not think deep discussions will take place, given the limited amount of time between today and Monday after the weekend. Of course, I would be willing to engage myself in in-depth discussions.
Question (Takahashi, Jiji Press):
My question is on the aforementioned statement of Defense Minister Kitazawa that the possibility of adopting the current plan has become almost zero. I perceive this statement as being a result of narrowing down options through the “zero-basis” discussion within the government, in other words, a result of proceeding into the next stage after sorting out various proposals. However, you said that the Cabinet is still considering the issue on a zero basis. Does that mean that the current plan is still valid?
Minister:
All I can say is that the government is considering the issue on a zero basis.
Question (Shinbori, TV Asahi):
You just said that the Prime Minister’s Office may be involved in the next working-level consultation. Could you explain the significance of involving the Prime Minister’s Office? Is this because the Chief Cabinet Secretary has led the government’s review process?
Minister:
Since the Chief Cabinet Secretary has been mainly responsible for the process up to now, I think there is a need to involve a working-level person who can convey the opinion of the Chief Cabinet Secretary.
Question (Kajiwara, NHK):
You said that the Prime Minister’s statement that a relocation site should be outside Okinawa Prefecture must be incorporated in the consideration as a basic premise. I have the impression that there is some discrepancy in the targeted direction between the Prime Minister and yourself within the Cabinet. How do you perceive this point?
Minister:
There is absolutely no difference of view since I am working under the Prime Minister’s direction. My previous statement was meant to say that we must consider the Prime Minister’s ideas as a premise when proceeding with the review process.
Question (Hiyama, AFP):
How have you defined or positioned a government proposal as you proceed with the review process so far? Will it be the basis of accelerated negotiations from April? Let me ask what will change between March and April.
Minister:
The question is a quite difficult one to answer. I just explained to the US side the current status today; there has been no substantial exchange so far between Japan and the US. I think substantial talks will take place starting in April.
Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
As a minister in charge of the negotiation with the US, do you see any points of compromise?
Minister:
I will not comment on that.
Question (Beppu, NHK):
I apologize for the repetition, but returning to the issue of Futenma, did you say that you explained the way of thinking and the proposal of the government to Ambassador John Roos today?
Minister:
I said that I explained the current status.
Question (Beppu, NHK):
When explaining the current status of the review process, did you mention some of the proposals currently being considered, or did you brief Ambassador Roos on the process of review underway? Given that there is no consolidated proposal, what exactly did you explain?
Minister:
I explained the status of the government’s review process. I will not mention anything more.
Question (Inoue, Kyodo News):
On the Futenma issue, the Prime Minister says that a government proposal must be compiled by the end of March by all means. Given the deadline to finalize a plan by the end of May, what will be the difference between the government proposal compiled in March and the one compiled in May?
Minister:
Please ask that question to the Prime Minister.
Question (Inoue, Kyodo News):
You say you will completely follow the Prime Minister’s direction with regard to compiling a final proposal by the end of May. However, I have an impression that there is a marked difference between the Prime Minister and you concerning the deadline by the end of March, of which you said, “I did not make such a statement” in the Diet. Could you please explain what kind of proposal the government must compile by the end of March?
Minister:
Since I have no time today, I will confirm about this with the Prime Minister after I return from the US.
Question (Nishino, Kyodo News):
Since you cannot reveal much about the talks, I will ask a question from a little different perspective. Do you often meet people before 7:00 in the morning? Can I assume that you had breakfast with Ambassador Roos this morning?
Minister:
I have been asked a number of times whether I had a breakfast. I do not see why this is so important. If I say I had a breakfast, they may ask what I had for breakfast, but I had no breakfast today. I often start working early in the morning, but it may have been slightly earlier than usual today.
4. Traffic Accident caused by a US Military person in Okinawa
Question (Ida, Shukan Kinyobi):
I would like to convey a question from a reader. `A hearing about the press conference on March 19, about the hit-and-run accident in Okinawa, I had a question whether the correct information was conveyed to the Minister , Were you informed that it was an serious matter? You indicated that you found it a little problematic as the matter had already started being processed. Does this mean that you find it a little problematic that Japan is bound to the Status of Forces Agreement, under which Japanese authorities have no right to search or arrest US service persons? Allowing the said Agreement to remain in place may result in a situation in which no local municipality is willing to come forward to host the base after it is moved away from Futenma in Okinawa.
Minister:
I am afraid there may be some misunderstanding in this message from a reader. First, the reader mentioned the term hikinige (to run over someone and flee), but what actually happened was not hikinige but a car hitting another vehicle and children on board the vehicle being injured. The car which hit the other vehicle fled the site after this incident. The question is whether or not this can be called “hikinige.” In my understanding, hikinige usually refers to an act against pedestrians. If my understanding is wrong, I would appreciate being corrected. I think the incident in question should rather be referred to atenige (to hit another vehicle and flee). Secondly, the comment that the Japanese authorities have no right to arrest or persecute a US service person in an incident is not correct. It is true when the incident involves a public service of the US military forces. But otherwise, a US service person is naturally subject to arrest or persecution under the Japanese law. I think the reader's comment is probably based on the misunderstanding of some facts.
5. The Examination of the So-called Secret Agreements
Question (Kurashige, Asahi Shimbun):
Concerning the secret agreements, at the meeting of Foreign Affairs Committee in the Diet today, Mr. Akamatsu, a Diet member from the New Komeito (party), questioned how you would proceed with the future examination concerning the passing down of the documents mentioned by Mr. Togo in his witness interview at the Diet, to which you replied that this the Ministry is currently in the process of making a decision on this. Could you please answer to the extent you can what kind of outsiders you are considering to invite to future discussions? Along what schedule and steps are you planning to advance the examination? At what stage will you make an announcement to the media? I would like to hear an explanation since this also concerns the schedule of the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting.
Minister:
I would like to explain about this after returning from the US.
6. Territorial Issues
Question (Saito, Kyodo News):
My question concerns your statement on the Takeshima issue at House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee today. You clearly stated that Takeshima is inherently Japanese territory. At the same time, you used your own words instead of “illegal occupation” to describe the situation, when asked your judgment as to whether the Republic of Korea is illegally occupying the island. This leads to my question on your responses with regard to the Takeshima issue and the Northern Territories issue. As far as the latter is concerned, I understand you have had an intense exchanges of views in negotiations with the Russian side, including the previous meeting with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Moscow. The Government of Japan holds both the Northern Territories and Takeshima to be integral parts of Japan. However, externally, I have an impression that there is some difference in the government’s response between the two issues. Take the expressions used, for example, as well as the way the issue is treated at the meetings. This must be due to the difference of situation surrounding the bilateral relations with Russia and those with the Republic of Korea, and perhaps Japan’s strategic considerations. Nevertheless, the general public view might regard this as indicating a certain difference. I would like to hear some explanation about this point.
Minister:
That is quite difficult to answer since the question is very abstract, but I should say I have not used the expression used in the Diet committee today with regard to the Northern Territories as well.
7. Japanese National Examination for nurses and certified care workers by Foreign Candidates Based on EPAs
Question (Yamauchi, Nikkei):
There was an announcement today about the Japanese national examination for nurses and certified care workers by foreign candidates based on EPAs, Three people have passed the exam to become nurses or care workers so far. How do you perceive this? Problems, including linguistic barriers, have been pointed out for some time, and there is not much time left for candidates considering their period of stay. Is there any measure to address this problem?
Minister:
I think it was two Indonesians and one person from Philippines who passed the exam, and I am very glad that they made it. Nevertheless, since there is no doubt that Chinese characters and other circumstances are stopping this initiative from moving forward, I think it is necessary to improve the examination, such as conducting it in plainer language, so as to not let a linguistic barrier prohibit the success of those wanting to become caregivers in Japan. The people has been aspiring to become nurse or care workers in Japan but cannot work here as they do not have a license, even though they have the necessary qualifications in their home countries. I think the situation that the majority of these people who earnestly study cannot pass the exam is not at all desirable. I think the government can do a little more on this.
8. Japan-US Security Arrangements
Question (Kajiwara, NHK):
At the meeting of the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee today, I think that in response to Diet member Akamatsu’s question concerning nuclear policy you said that if the United States changes its nuclear policy, Japan too should naturally change its way of thinking. Specifically what did you mean to say?
Minister:
The US has decided to not load strategic nuclear weapons on vessels and aircrafts, based on its nuclear policies formulated in 1991 and 1994. If this policy changes, then I think the two countries will need to discuss what must be done at that point.
Back to Index