(* 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, June 11, 2010, 3:30 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Statement
- (1) Revision of Investigative Report on Issue of Missing Diplomatic Documents
- (2) Soccer World Cup
Resignation of Minister of Finance Kamei (Omitted)
Policy Speech by New Prime Minister Kan
Appointment of Ambassadors
Revision of Investigative Report on Issue of Missing Diplomatic Documents
Japan-US Agreement (Host Nation Support Budget)
BBC Interview
ROK Patrol Ship Sinking Incident

1. Opening Statement

(1) Revision of Investigative Report on Issue of Missing Diplomatic Documents

Minister Okada: Firstly, last week we rushed to release the report on the missing diplomatic documents, but I would like to report that we have subsequently revised it slightly on the advice of Professor Uga.

(2) Soccer World Cup

Minister: Next, the soccer World Cup has started, and I would like to watch as many matches as possible. The starting match is between South Africa and Mexico, which brings to my mind their two female foreign ministers, Foreign Minister Mashabane versus Secretary of Foreign Affairs Espinosa. Since I am finding it very hard to decide on which team to cheer, I would like to put my answer to that on hold. In any case, I hope that Japan will do its best and perform well.

2. Resignation of Minister of Finance Kamei (Omitted)

(Omitted)

3. Policy Speech by New Prime Minister Kan

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: I would like to ask about the policy speech by the new Prime Minister Kan. My question is about the part on foreign affairs. It seemed to me that there did not appear to be much new, or nothing appeared to me to stand out; I would like to ask your view on it.

Minister: I think that it was a very good speech, with the key points being well covered. He also spoke fairly extensively on Futenma. I think that this shows that the Prime Minister is well aware that this is an extremely important issue.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: I have a follow-up question. In the policy speech, new Prime Minister Kan asked, "Are we prepared to pay a price at times for the sake of our nation?" Breaking this down a little further, what significance do these words hold?

Minister: I think that you should ask Prime Minister Kan, but I think he was speaking on the concept of the common good, and I think that speaking as someone who is responsible for our nation, he was saying that sometimes, rather than individual interests, one must go a step further for the sake of the common good; that sometimes one must pay a sacrifice for the common good, although I think that what he was saying may be prone to distorted interpretations.

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: This also concerns the policy speech. Regarding the Northern Territories, new Prime Minister Kan appeared to speak in the same way as the previous government. When former Prime Minister Hatoyama took his post, he showed considerable desire to resolve the issue of the Northern Territories, and I believe that he said that he wanted to find a direction forward within about a year of taking office. Does new Prime Minister Kan intend to continue with this approach to policy on Russia in relation to issue of the Northern Territories?

Minister: I think that "within a year" was very much a statement of former Prime Minister Hatoyama's personal intention. I was surprised by that statement. This issue is not very simple. It may be possible to find a direction forward, but my own recognition of the issue is that several major hurdles must be overcome before a solution can be reached.
In any case, I think that I will need to speak at length with the new Prime Minister in order to find out how to prioritize matters in tackling issues of foreign affairs. I have not discussed with him to that extent.
But in general terms, as Prime Minister Kan has already said, I believe that Prime Minister Kan follows suit with his predecessor’s desire to move forward toward a resolution to the Northern Territories issue with economics and politics as two wheels of the cart. Recently, I find myself getting into easily using the word "desire" too.

4. Appointment of Ambassadors

Saito, Kyodo News: There have been rumors in the media about an ambassadorial appointment, although I will refrain from mentioning specific country, and I am not trying to confirm it. Instead, in a general sense, what is the significance of a so-called "political appointee"? We now have a Democratic Party of Japan government, and a Kan Cabinet; I would like to ask whether you or the government intends to make full use of political appointees in ambassadorial appointments, and whether in general there are positive aspects of having a political appointee vis-a-vis a career diplomat as ambassador.

Minister: Firstly, the gist of your question, or in other words the term "political appointee," is not clearly defined, but essentially, an ambassador is an appointed post, so in this sense, it would not be strange to say that all ambassadors are "political appointees," depending on the definition.
Speaking on whether career diplomats should be appointed to ambassadorial posts, it depends on the person and the post. There is no reason we must have a career diplomat (for Ambassador), and in the past the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has had ambassadors from the private sector, such as from Mitsui and Company. So our approach is very much to put the right person for the right job. But there is no need to restrict our choice to career diplomats, and if there is a better person outside (the Ministry), then we will also consider him or her. I do not think we need to confine ourselves to one particular way of doing things. I think that we can be flexible in our thinking.

Saito, Kyodo News: On the topic of political appointees, some diplomatic experts often cite US Ambassador Schieffer as a good example. In the case of the United States in particular, they have a presidential system. If I remember correctly, the ambassador to China was there for a long time. During the Bush Administration, it was pointed out that the advantage of having an ambassador who had a close relationship with the president is that in case of urgencies, he or she could get in touch with the president right away via the hotline. He or she may be less familiar with foreign affairs than a career diplomat, but has some trump card or hole card to play, and some point out he or she can be extremely useful. Do you also share such view?

Minister: I think that is one thing. But in the case of the United States, it is not only people who are close to the President become ambassadors. Since nearly all of them are political appointees in the United States, certainly there are some including Ambassador Schieffer who can speak directly with the president. But that is not the case for many of them as well. The ability to speak directly with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Foreign Affairs is one element. But I do not think that it is a major element. I value on personalities and capabilities.
I have worked fairly closely with Ambassador Schieffer. Although he had absolutely no experience in diplomacy, he had an extremely strong record of accomplishment as an attorney in a completely different world. I think that the talents and the record of accomplishments are carried over even after the career change.
Therefore, this is not because I have seen Ambassador Schieffer, but as long as we have pool of talents and capabilities, I think that we can select ambassadors from a wide range of candidates. Of course, I do not by any means think that it is bad to have a career diplomat as an ambassador, as they have experience and a good understanding of various matters. But as I said earlier, I think that we should make decisions based on principle of choosing the right person for the right job.

NB: The statement "I have worked fairly closely with Ambassador Schieffer" was made with the current Ambassador Roos in mind.

5. Revision of Investigative Report on Issue of Missing Diplomatic Documents

Hashimoto, Jiji Press: I have a question about the revision of the report on the missing documents. In the part about restoration upon the reversion of Okinawa (to Japan), on page 11, the document was revised to delete the following statement: "If it was a copy, it was not necessarily illegal." I believe that this revision changes the view (of the issue) around 180 degrees. Could you explain why this deletion was made?

Minister: This was done in accordance with the advice by Professor Uga. Essentially, we have not changed the view that it would not be illegal if it were a copy. However, apart from illegality, it is of a serious problem if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs destroyed the only one copy whose original is missing because that it was the only copy kept by MOFA.
The deletion was made in order to avoid such misinterpretation that copies could invariably be disposable. Similarly, with the same intension, on the fifth page, seventh line from the bottom, we inserted "if the original exists", which makes the entire sentence: "If the original exists, then destroying a copy cannot in itself necessarily be considered illegal."

6. Japan-US Agreement (Host Nation Support Budget)

Kamide, Freelance: I have a question about the Japan-US agreement on the Futenma issue. This question relates to the Ministry of Defense. The agreement includes a clause that a so-called "sympathy budget," the expenses of stationing US troops in Japan, would be applied to various actions for environmental stewardship by August. Seen from the viewpoint of the people of Okinawa, how do you explain using a further sympathy budget when the United States hardly made any concessions (in the negotiations)? Alternatively, this has already been budgeted, and actually the US budget has been reduced by about one third. With such development in mind, could you explain concretely the prospect of this matter?

Minister: The possibility of using the host-nation support is mentioned in the agreement, but the specifics will be worked out later. This has not been decided yet. Although host-nation support as a whole will need to be debated, we need to spend money in a way that the taxpayers can agree with, and I think that there would be some in need of reorganization within the current host-nation support. At the same time, I think that it would be all right to disburse it into new fields as long as they appear to be easily acceptable for taxpayers. With regard to public utility costs and the like, of course we may have certain limit, but if we can introduce natural energy for this, then the total cost will be reduced on a running basis. So I think that there is some room for study. But it has not been decided.
I would like to say that I disagree with your earlier statement that from the perspective of Okinawa, (the US military) has been all take and no give. I hope you will have an accurate awareness that we have incorporated many new substances that were not included before, such as moving joint training outside the prefecture, revising the Hotel/Hotel (training) area, and reaching an agreement about the environmental issues to date.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Yesterday, bipartisan Diet members from the ruling party attended a workshop titled "Diet Round-table Discussion on the US Military Bases Issue in Okinawa and Elsewhere." The workshop sent requests to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Defense, because it wanted them to explain their joint statement. But just after noon on the day of the workshop, they responded with a written statement saying that they would refrain voluntarily from attending it based on the instruction of the Prime Minister’s Office under the circumstance that the Kan Cabinet was just formed. They were therefore not able to receive a briefing from the officials. They used to have briefings from officials. I would like to ask why they did not come in this situation, at this time, and in this way.

Minister: I cannot answer, because this was not the decision of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Generally speaking, we provide briefing at policy meetings. As to the level of detail of support to give, we cannot respond infinitely. Although I think there is a decision, this time the decision was not that of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Therefore, it is difficult for me to answer your question this time. In any case, I understand that some subcommittee meetings will be formed in the future. I think that by aggregating those occasions, the government office will respond as a routine. If we attend the meeting of ruling parties, we will of course attend the similar meeting of opposition parties.

7. BBC Interview

Tanaka, Nihon Internet Shimbun: Before noon today, I was watching the BBC and saw you being interviewed by a reporter from the BBC. Compared to the diplomacy toward China under the previous administration, you made resolute remarks. Do you think that the (BBC) reporter was convinced? Also, when did the interview take place?

Minister: The interview was yesterday. It was about 30 minutes, so that was only a part of it. So I am not sure if the reporter or the Tokyo Bureau Chief were convinced. This is because I do not know what their views were in the first place. I was very anxious to see what parts would be quoted, and what parts would be shown.

Tanaka, Nihon Internet Shimbun: It was on the territorial issue.

Minister: That is probably for a few minutes or a few seconds out of 30 minutes. Do I look well?

Tanaka, Nihon Internet Shimbun: You looked good.

8. ROK Patrol Ship Sinking Incident

Nishino, Kyodo News: I would like to ask about the sinking of the ROK patrol ship, and Russia. Multiple international news agencies, my company included, are reporting on news from Russia that an investigation team that went to Korea for the patrol ship incident could not draw a conclusion that this was necessarily a crime by the DPRK. Meanwhile, there was a telephone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov. According to the press release on that conversation, he was quoted as saying that this was not an official announcement. I would like to ask firstly about this investigation, and secondly about the situation of the Russian investigation, and then, I would like to ask again about Japan's position on the handling at the UN Security Council.

Minister: Russia dispatched an investigation team, and is now examining the results. Therefore, Foreign Minister Lavrov just said to me that he was waiting for the outcome of the investigation, without mentioning anything like a conclusion. I think that would be the fact. Since I had seen the media reports beforehand, I thought that he would speak a little more negatively, but he was completely neutral. Of course, I do not know how things will turn out. We will not know what will be the conclusion and when it will be released beforehand. As for the development at UNSC, we can imagine various scenarios, but Japan's stance is to support the ROK as much as possible, and we are providing a wide range of advice when requested. As we are now a nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council, we are providing the advice necessary for the ROK to bring this issue out at the Security Council for discussion. I will not speak further on that at this stage. I am sure that you all remember, but when the DPRK launched the missile, there were some difficult aspects to Japan’s response. After all, no resolution was adopted at that time. I think that we must listen fully to the ROK Government's basic thinking. As they have to reach an answer eventually, I think that we must provide a wide range of advice. Japan's approach is essentially to support the ROK so that it can realize its views. Their Foreign Minister has expressed this hope to visit Japan. Leaving aside whether that happens, I would like to keep in frequent contact via telephone and the like.

Beppu, NHK: I understand that the response by the ROK Government will be a major criterion for the actions, or response of the Japanese Government to take. But does Japan draw a line that cannot concede to cross? I mean does Japan have a position for instance not to satisfy with the resolution or statement that does not include condemnation against DPRK.

Minister: The results of the investigation are clear. Also, 46 people were killed. I think that this must be properly condemned, and a brake must be applied properly so that this does not happen again.

Back to Index