(* 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, August 20, 2010, 0:25 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Senior Official Personnel Changes at MOFA Headquarters (omitted)
- (2) Visit to India and Thailand
- (3) Situation in Myanmar
Abduction of Japanese National in Afghanistan
Japan-South Korea Relations (100th Anniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea)
Resumption of Six-Party Talks
Sexual Exploitation of Children and Regulations on Expression
Japan-Russia Relations (Northern Territories Issue, Establishment of “Day of the End of World War II,” etc.)
Realignment of US Forces in Japan
Democratic Party of Japan Presidential Election (omitted)
Governor’s Election in Okinawa
Japan-China Relations
Negotiations on Japan-India Nuclear Energy Agreement
Japan-South Korea Relations (100thAnniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea)
Situation in Myanmar
Expectations on Prime Minister Kan in Field of Foreign Affairs
Diplomacy in the Middle East
Japan-South Korea Relations (100th Anniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea)

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Senior Official Personnel Changes at MOFA Headquarters (omitted)

(omitted)

(2) Visit to India and Thailand

Minister Okada: With regard to my visit to India and Thailand, I am scheduled to visit those countries from tonight until August 24.
In India, I will attend the 4th Japan-India Foreign Ministers’ Strategic Dialogue, which has been regularly held, together with Mr. S. M. Krishna, Minister of External Affairs of India. I believe that there are many bilateral issues to discuss such as an economic partnership agreement and the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy. I am also scheduled to pay a courtesy call on Prime Minister Singh.
In Thailand, I am scheduled to meet with Foreign Minister Kasit on August 23 (Monday) to hold discussions centering on bilateral issues, as well as to pay a courtesy call on Prime Minister Abhisit, whom I have known. In between those meetings, I am scheduled to take an inspection tour of economic cooperation projects and sites of Japanese companies that have advanced into Thailand.

(3) Situation in Myanmar

Minister: My third announcement is about the situation in Myanmar. I was unable to go into sufficient detail about Myanmar during the previous press conference. On August 13, the Government of Myanmar announced that it would hold a general election on November 7. If the Myanmar Government carries out this general election without releasing political prisoners including Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, that would run contrary to the free, fair, and open general election sought by the international community including Japan, and it would be regrettable.
We intend to continue firmly urging that Myanmar hold a general election with the participation by all relevant persons, through such processes as the early release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and the prompt holding of substantive dialogue with her.
What I just spoke about was conveyed to the Myanmar Government yesterday through Myanmar Ambassador to Japan Hla Myint. The Director-General of the department (Southeast and Southwest Asian Affairs Department) conveyed this to the Ambassador.

2. Abduction of Japanese National in Afghanistan

Uesugi, Freelance: Yesterday, TV Asahi showed a video of journalist KosukeTsuneoka. It was said that he was in captivity, but this has actually been confirmed through the video. Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the government take any kind of position on this matter?

Minister: I did not directly watch the video, but I am aware that there was such a report. At the moment, I have no further comments.

3. Japan-South Korea Relations (100th Anniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea)

Saito, Kyodo News: I would like to ask a question about relations between Japan and South Korea. In view of the 100th Anniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea, the South Korean side has once again asserted that the annexation treaty was invalid at the time it was concluded 100 years ago. While the South Korean side has traditionally asserted this, it is making this assertion once again on this occasion, and I believe that there is an intensifying tone of argument that the Japanese side should also acknowledge that the treaty was invalid.
As for the Japanese position, I think that it was after Mr. Murayama issued the Prime Minister’s statement in 1995 that a clarification was made. I recall that what happened was that Japan indicated the position that this annexation treaty was valid in terms of international law and the South Korean side subsequently objected to this. Now that there has been a change in administration, please tell us about the position of the government under the Democratic Party of Japan – the Kan administration – as to whether it currently considers that the annexation treaty was invalid or valid, including the process through which it came to taking that position.

Minister: There has been a process in which this became a controversial issue between the two countries within the scope of the (negotiation over the) Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea and it has settled down to the idea that the treaty is no longer valid. I do not think there is anything else I need to add to the policy behind concluding the (negotiation over the) Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea at the time or to the fact that it is no longer valid.

Saito, Kyodo News: With regard to supplementing that point, this is a repetition, but in his response to Diet interpellations in 1995, Prime Minister Murayama made reference to the word “valid.” He used the word “valid” to clearly state that the (annexation) treaty had been valid. Is not the current government in a position to use that word to clearly state that the (annexation) treaty was valid? I would like you to confirm this point.

Minister: I do not know the details of Prime Minister Murayama’s statement at the time, so I cannot make any comments in particular premised on that. It is as I stated earlier.

4. Resumption of Six-Party Talks

Nishioka, Mainichi Newspapers: With regard to the six-party talks, the Chinese Government has announced that Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue visited Pyongyang yesterday and held talks with (North Korean) Vice Foreign Minister Kim Kye-gwan. Please tell us about your thoughts on the prospects for resuming the six-party talks.

Minister: With regard to this point, discussions have been held between Japan and South Korea or among Japan, the United States, and South Korea, but it still is not the right time, or in other words, the Cheonan incident has not been properly dealt with yet. In the future, the nuclear and missile issues are to be discussed at the six-party talks, so we naturally envisage resumption of the talks. However, it still is not the right time.
In addition, I would like to say that while various conditions tend to be attached in resuming the talks, we are not in a position to hold talks under North Korea’s conditions, such as lifting our sanctions, for example.

Nishioka, Mainichi Newspapers: With regard to conditional resumption of the talks that you just spoke about, has the Government of Japan already received demands from North Korea, such as what kind of conditions regarding the lifting of sanctions Japan is willing to accept in order for North Korea to agree to hold talks?

Minister: We have not received any demands in particular.

Saito, Kyodo News: You said that the Cheonan incident occurred, but it has not been settled yet. With regard to settling it, in what specific way should the North Korean side settle the matter? In what way can it be settled in order to open the door to resuming the six-party talks? Please tell us about this in concrete terms.

Minister: I believe that basically, how the South Korean Government, which is a party that is directly involved, thinks about the matter is extremely important. However, even in Vietnam recently, the North Korean side clearly stated that the investigations conducted with the South Korean Government playing the central role and with cooperation from various countries was a fabrication in itself. Such a perception is totally different from our perception of the matter. With regard to those points, I believe that it will not be easy to hold the six-party talks under the present circumstances.

5. Sexual Exploitation of Children and Regulations on Expression

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: I have a question on regulation of expression. At the World Congress III against Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents held in 2008 in Rio de Janeiro, the Government of Japan/the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement. A provisional translation of this statement has been posted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, and as one of the challenges ahead, it state, “In comics, animations and computer games, depictions of sexual intercourse with children are frequently found. Although these images of children are virtual creations and do not exist in reality, it surely raises serious problems because they generate a social tendency to allow the treatment of children as sexual objects.”
The statement claims that the depiction of children who do not exist in reality contributes to a tendency to treat children as sexual objects, but is there any proof of this?

Minister: Was this made as a statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: Yes, that is correct.

Minister: I do not know the details, because this topic was brought up out of the blue, so I would like to investigate this. From what you have told me, however, children who do not actually exist would seem to imply fictitious characters, but I would like to investigate the details thoroughly.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: I am happy to wait for an answer. Please allow me to ask this question again at a later date.

6. Japan-Russia Relations (Northern Territories Issue, Establishment of “Day of the End of World War II,” etc.)

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: Let me ask you about business trips to the four islands of the Northern Territories. Recently, I have been continuously doing a coverage report and met with a number of people who actually went to Etorofu Island. A lot of people seem to have gone there on what seem to be like inspection tours or business trip tours. Upon meeting with these people and interviewing them, I heard many of them saying that they indeed wanted to do business in the four islands of the Northern Territories, amid actual concerns that the fisheries industry would be facing severe conditions and shrinking particularly from now on. Therefore, I would like to ask once again whether, taking the Cabinet’s understanding into consideration, the government has any plans to partially lift the limitation on such businesses in the future in one way or another.

Minister: Firstly, if there were people traveling (to the Northern Territories) despite the fact that there is a Cabinet understanding, it would be a serious problem. While such matters have been partially revealed recently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will call on various ministries and agencies to thoroughly get across the purport of the Cabinet understanding. We are now in the process of making preparations in line with this thought.
In other words, as there may be people going there because they do not know about the Cabinet understanding, we intend to thoroughly convey the government’s policy to the various people concerned, as well as to companies, financial institutions, and other such places.
You mentioned business, but when it comes to doing business in the Northern Territories, which belong to Japan, there emerge various problems such as the issue of visas. Basically, we believe that since Japan seeks the return of the Northern Territories, people should refrain from taking any action that is inconsistent with that policy.

Shimada, Hokkaido Shimbun: I have a related question. I have not gone there, so it will be based on what I have heard, but in reality, it appears that American and South Korean companies are conducting substantial business in the four islands of the Northern Territories. However, from an international viewpoint, it appears that these foreign companies conducting such businesses are unaware of whether the sovereignty of the four islands of the Northern Territories resides with Russia or Japan. I feel that in a certain sense from an international viewpoint, the fact that these companies of various foreign countries such as the United States and South Korea are conducting business in the four islands of the Northern Territories could lead to a situation in which the international community would recognize Russia’s effective control over the islands. Does the Japanese Government have any intention to exercise influence over these foreign companies?

Minister: Amid conflicting assertions between Japan and Russia, I feel that there is the problem of how far Japan can go. We would like to thoroughly study what we can possibly do.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: I would like to ask a question on a bill concerning the day of the end of World War II that was enacted on July 25 in Russia upon President Medvedev’s signing it on that day.
According to the Voice of Russia’s website in Japanese, Victor Pavlyatenko, head of the Center for Japanese Studies at the Science Academy Far East Institute, an influential Russian think tank, which can affect Russia’s policy toward Japan, has made the following statement: “The initial response of the Japanese side was sufficiently positive. A number of Japanese authorities expressed satisfaction over the very delicate and cautious approach that Russia has taken in establishing the date. The day of the end of the war is a justified memorial day that is a day of celebration for all the people of Russia and one that clarifies historical facts.”
The statement says that the initial response of the Japanese side was positive. Please tell us whether this is the way you reacted and how you acknowledged the matter.

Minister: I believe that there were various arguments, and I do not think that it is necessary to comment on every single thing that people say. However, I feel that to a certain extent, we can appreciate the change in the initially reported position, in which this day was designated as a day to commemorate the end of the war against Japan, to a position in which this day was designated as a day marking the end of World War II for Russia.
However, that and the fundamental question are different matters, so as to whether Japan’s initial reaction was necessarily positive – I do not quite understand that he (Victor Pavlyatenko) determined that Japan’s initial reaction was positive based on who said what – I find it difficult to comment on that.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: However, as long as that is how the Russian side thinks, I believe that there is a possibility that they will toughen their position, maintaining that the reality after the end of the war cannot be changed and that they cannot agree to returning the Northern Territories. I believe that during the era of President Yeltsin, the Russian position was that – from the standpoint of breaking away from Stalinism, or in other words, that they (the four islands) were negative relics of Stalin’s mistaken imperialism – returning the four islands of the Northern Territories would be a good thing for Russia, that it would lead to breaking away from Stalinism. However, the Russian side clearly changed its attitude and can thus be expected to take a rather tough position on the return of the Northern Territories. Please tell us how you feel about this or whether Japan has any intention to issue some kind of message to coincide with the commemoration day on September 2.

Minister: My understanding is that September 2 is the day that Japan signed (the act of surrender) on board the US battleship Missouri. This is not directly related to the Northern Territories, so I find it difficult to understand that designating September 2 as the day of the end of the war would affect Russia’s attitude concerning the Northern Territories.
I believe that I mentioned at this press conference some time ago that we have designated August 15 as the day marking the end of the war because that is the day that Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration. Generally speaking, I feel that it is not surprising at all that there are different views. I do not think that this matter and the Northern Territories are related.

Asaka, Freelance: Soviet military forces landed on Shumshu Island on the northern end of the Kuril Islands 65 years ago on August 18. As a result, this day has reportedly been designated as the Kuril Airborne Division Day. There was a report that this day was designated as a regional-level national commemoration day starting this year. Has MOFA taken any kind of action over this matter, considering that – as already mentioned by Mr. Ida earlier – the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had its Deputy Director-General at the European Affairs Bureau make representations to Russia’s chargé d'affaires on July 27 with regard to the day of the end of World War II?

Minister: So far, I have not heard anything about that. I think there is the question of to what extent I should comment on a regional-level matter. I do not have a thorough grasp of the facts, so I would like to determine whether a response is necessary upon grasping the facts.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: In connection with the earlier question, despite Japan’s accepting the Potsdam Declaration on August 15, the Soviet Union subsequently invaded the four islands of the Northern Territories. In clear violation of the Japanese-Soviet Nonaggression Pact, the Soviet Union invaded Japan. In other words, I think that depending on whether you consider August 15 or September 2 as the end of the war, there is serious concern that Russia’s subsequent invasion of Japan could become justified. How do you feel about this?

Minister: I do not quite understand your thinking. I feel that both August 15 and September 2 are dates that have legal significance. August 15 is the day that Japan officially accepted the Potsdam Declaration – the day that declared unconditional surrender. September 2 was the day that this was prepared in a document format. As such, both days have legal significance. Consequently, I think that that matter and how you feel about the action taken by the Soviet Union at the time are issues that are not necessarily linked. For Japan, there is no change to the fact that despite clarifying unconditional surrender on August 15, attacks against it (by the Soviet Union) continued.

Saito, Kyodo News: In the passage concerning the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan after August 15, you just said to the effect that attacks continued despite that (Japan’s surrender). I would like to ask you about the nature of those attacks. As a result of Soviet attacks after August 15, many Japanese soldiers were killed. Please tell us about your views on whether the attacks were justified in terms of international law.

Minister: There may be various arguments, but from the standpoint of a Japanese, Japan was attacked despite unconditional surrender, or in other words raising a white flag. Moreover, rather than that the Soviet Union continued to attack Japan from the beginning, the fact is that it started attacking Japan at the last minute in violation of a neutrality pact. Therefore, I naturally feel dissatisfied with that.

Noguchi, Nippon Television: I would like to ask you about negotiations on the return of the Northern Territories. Former Prime Minister Hatoyama is to visit Russia early next month. Has a meeting with President Medvedev already been set?

Minister: I have not confirmed that. I have not heard about that.

Noguchi, Nippon Television: I believe that former Prime Minister Hatoyama will be visiting Russia on behalf of Prime Minister Kan. Please tell us how the government – from the viewpoint of negotiations on the return of the Northern Territories – positions the fact that former Prime Minister Hatoyama will be visiting Russia as a proxy (for Prime Minister Kan) and what kind of role the government expects the former Prime Minister to play.

Minister: Firstly, with regard to how the government positions this matter, former Prime Minister Hatoyama will not be visiting Russia as Prime Minister Kan’s proxy. He will be attending a seminar, shall I say, or something like a Russian version of the Davos Conference (World Economic Forum). As this conference is going to be held, there emerged the question of whom Japan should send. During the time that Mr. Hatoyama served as the Prime Minister, coordination was under way to have him attend the conference, but we had a new prime minister to take his place. Amid this situation, it was decided that former Prime Minister Hatoyama would attend the conference. However, it was not necessarily the case that we would first decide that Prime Minister Kan should attend the conference, but Mr. Hatoyama should go there as his proxy. The government asked former Prime Minister Hatoyama to attend the conference because we determined that it was appropriate for him to serve the role, and he kindly agreed to do so. Although it depends on the meaning of the word “proxy,” he is not necessarily a proxy in the legal sense.
Also, he is not going to Russia to hold negotiations on the Northern Territories. Of course, I think that if there is an opportunity for him to meet with the Russian President, he will likely hold various discussions with the President as a former prime minister. However, Mr. Hatoyama will not be going to Russia to hold negotiations in the capacity as a proxy for the Prime Minister. We would be very glad if Mr. Hatoyama takes advantage of the experience he gained so far as the former Prime Minister, so that his visit leads to results in which even the slightest progress can be seen in the territorial issue.

7. Realignment of US Forces in Japan

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: At a lecture in California, US Secretary of Defense Gates said that he had instructed the Marines to review their current posture, and in this lecture, he mentioned personnel reductions. Do you intend to take this opportunity to negotiate with the United States on the Marines’ presence in Japan, removing them from Okinawa?

Minister: The Government of Japan believes that the presence of the Marines is necessary as a deterrent. Consequently, we do not believe that their complete withdrawal would be favorable to Japan.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Did the Americans contact the Government of Japan to explain the details of his statements, or any views on policy, or have you heard such?

Minister: It is my understanding that this is still the stage of statements made at a lecture, and does not mean that details have been decided. I of course think, however, that the Government of Japan must fully ascertain what the US intends to do with the Marines in the future.

8. Democratic Party of Japan Presidential Election (omitted)

(omitted)

9. Governor’s Election in Okinawa

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: This question is in relation to Futenma. The elections for the governor of Okinawa are scheduled for November. Movement has started in Okinawa as the governor’s election approaches. I think that the stance of the Government of Japan on promoting the Japan-US agreement has not changed, and in this sense, does the Government of Japan think that it would be preferable for a governor with even a certain degree of understanding to be elected, rather than a prefectural governor who is opposed to the policies of the Government of Japan, including in the sense that the governor has approval and certification authority for a wide range of matters?

Minister: As this is an election, I think that the government should avoid commenting on the election. I rather think that this is a matter that should be judged by the party.

10. Japan-China Relations

Nanao, Niconico Video: This is a question from our viewers. It concerns relations between Japan and China. The other day, the results were released for an opinion poll conducted jointly by Genron NPO and China Daily. When asked whether they had unfavorable feelings about the other country, the result was 55% in China, which was a major improvement of 10 percentage points. Meanwhile, however, the figure for Japan remained about the same, at 72%. Amid your focus on East Asia, I would again like to ask your view on this difference in awareness between the peoples of each country, and what policies the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will implement in order to improve mutual understanding at the people’s level.

Minister: The figure of 72% is somewhat unfortunate. Consequently, it is a fact that there are a variety of issues, such as the East China Sea. But let us take the gyoza (Chinese dumpling) incident, which probably drew the greatest amount of interest. The suspected perpetrator in that incident was indicted, so in this sense, the Government of Japan was able to accept the procedures that were taken. I think that this deserves significant praiseshould be rightly appreciated. Of course, I do not think that this issue ties to food safety overall, but I think that the thorough response by the Government of China should be appreciated straight forwardly.
At any rate, the figure of 55% is also by no means a good number either, so it is a current situation that there is not insufficient mutual understanding between Japan and China. Consequently, I feel that a little more effort by the government, and by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is necessary to advance mutual exchange and understanding at the grassroots level.

11. Negotiations on Japan-India Nuclear Energy Agreement

Yoshinaga, Mainichi Newspapers: During your upcoming visit to India and Thailand, A Strategic Dialogue will be held with the Indian Foreign Minister. During that dialogue, a nuclear energy agreement will be discussed. As you are promoting nuclear disarmament in your role as Minister of Foreign Affairs, how will you communicate Japan’s position to India, and what requests will you make of India?

Minister: Signing a nuclear energy agreement does not necessarily mean that one agrees to nuclear disarmament. For this reason, I think that it is a separate discussion, but I of course intend to make requests to India concerning disarmament and non-proliferation by nuclear-armed states. The details of a nuclear energy agreement will be negotiated in the future, but for example, it would be utterly unacceptable for Japan to accept nuclear testing. Therefore, we will have to negotiate how to incorporate this into the agreement details. However, I also intend to communicate our basic thinking on this issue.

Kamide, Freelance: With regard to a nuclear energy agreement with India, speaking from Japan’s position as a victim of atomic bombing, there are some who say that Japan should take a more stringent response. Speaking on this point, at the last press conference, you said that appropriate measures had been taken in an environment approved internationally, but this time, you said that you will make necessary statements. In what form will you, perhaps “remind” is not the right term, but how will you express Japan’s requests on these types of issues to India? If there is anything specific, please tell us.

Minister: I think that it is better to speak on this after the meeting is over, but as you just said, public opinion in Japan is quite severe on this, and I intend to communicate this frankly. However, I also discussed this at some length the last time I visited India, although it was before I became Minister of Foreign Affairs. What left a very large impression on me was that all the party leaders except for that of the Communist Party were extremely positive about possessing nuclear weapons, and they gave many reasons for this. They mentioned Pakistan, as well as China. They had extremely strong convictions as they proceeded nuclear development. I also intend to explain Japan’s thinking on this topic thoroughly, although there may be a fairly large clash of views.

Kubota, Sankei Shimbun: This is in relation to the Japan-India nuclear energy agreement. I believe that Japan plans to create an institution for the public and private sectors to jointly market nuclear power plants internationally. Please describe your thinking on nuclear-energy agreements and resource diplomacy, shall I say, or the marketing of nuclear power plants.

Minister: We cannot cooperate in the construction of a nuclear power plant without a nuclear energy agreement. Therefore, a nuclear energy agreement should be compatible with that kind of projects of nuclear power plants. We are in no way envisioning the marketing of this without a nuclear energy agreement. Since Japan has advanced technologies of nuclear power plants, along with the Shinkansen (bullet train) and water projects, proper rules have to be created for these. And, leaving aside the case of India, since the peaceful use of nuclear energy has generally been widely accepted, proper cooperation is required within a framework to prevent diversion from peaceful uses. I think the issue is that the adoption of Japan's leading technologies will lead to the construction of safer nuclear power plants, so the Ministry of Foreign Affairs also intends to provide thorough support.

Kubota, Sankei Shimbun: Having positioned nuclear energy agreements as a part of resource diplomacy, which is among the growth strategies of the Democratic Party of Japan, can I assume that you intend to advance an agreement with India?

Minister: No, speaking on a nuclear energy agreement and the construction of nuclear power plants, although construction is not possible without a nuclear energy agreement, we are not creating such an agreement in order to promote construction. I of course think that given our limited manpower, when we decide which countries with which to sign nuclear energy agreements, it is a matter of course that we will give priority to countries intending to build nuclear power plants, and sign agreements starting with countries where they are necessary. I do not intend to link the two much beyond that.

Higa, Kyodo News: To be sure, India is a nuclear-armed state that is outside the NPT framework, but I think its ultimate goal of eliminating nuclear weapons is the same as Japan's. Accordingly, how do Japan and India intend to cooperate on the points of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation?

Minister: On this point as well, India has been arguing very strongly for the eliminating nuclear weapons for a long time. In the sense of specific suggestions or common targets for achieving this, there are visions of the future that we hold in common. We intend to take specific steps to find ways to cooperate; to reduce the numbers and roles of nuclear weapons; and to prevent proliferation. We thus intend to speak frankly in order to see if there are areas in which we can cooperate.

12. Japan-South Korea Relations (100thAnniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea)

Saito, Kyodo: I would like to go back to the topic of Japan and South Korea. Between Japan and South Korea, Prime Minister Kan has already released a statement on behalf of the Government of Japan. The annexation agreement was actually signed on the 22nd, and it went into effect on the 29th. I think that a significant number of articles about this have already been written in the South Korean media. I would like to reconfirm whether the Government of Japan will take some action on the 22nd or 29th, such as adding to the statement in some form.

Minister: We have gone so far as a statement by the Prime Minister, so I think that this is the full extent of what to be done.

Shimada, Freelance: This question relates to the Prime Minister's statement. In the House of Councillors election, the Democratic Party campaigned with the slogan, "Restore Vitality to Japan." Words of apology have been written many times before in statements and the like, but is it possible that such words will restore Japan's vitality or confidence, or that conversely they could have a negative impact?

Minister: I do not know if I was asked, but I have told many times about apologizing, and I think that as a human being, it is a matter of course that when you make a mistake, you apologize for it. But this does not in any way require groveling. Of course, it is important for an apology to be heartfelt, but I do not think that we must assume that this will impact other things.

13. Situation in Myanmar

Yamao, Asahi Shimbun: In your opening remarks, you mentioned the general elections in Myanmar. Do you intend to recognize the results of the election if they are held under the current circumstances?

Minister: Whether the results of the election are recognized is a different topic from whether the elections were open and fair. I do not think that any country will go so far as to say that an entire election is invalid in any but extreme cases. But there is still time, and we are still hoping to see open and fair elections. We also intend to decide our view of the results of the election after seeing how the election was conducted. I do not think that one should call the results of another country's elections "invalid" unless in extreme circumstances.

Kamide, Freelance: I reported on the landslide victory by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in the 1990 elections. At that time, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs took a slightly different position from the United States, in order to make what it called a constructive engagement. In this election, as you said in your opening statement, the Government of Myanmar is not acting in accordance with international desires. What can or must be done in order to change this? How does Japan see its role specifically?

Minister: We have done many things to date. I have held talks with their Minister of Foreign Affairs, say, for three times and spent a fair amount of time in discussions. When the Prime Minister of Myanmar came to Japan as well, Prime Minister Hatoyama spoke with him. At that time, I also paid a courtesy call, and had a fairly lengthy exchange of views on various topics relating to free and open elections. We have also communicated Japan's thinking via our Ambassador. Regardless of all these efforts, however, this current announcement shows that these efforts have gone unheeded. As I said earlier, this is highly regrettable. As to what we can do, of course we will communicate the views of the Government of Japan via our Embassy, but there may not be much margin to do more than that. Nevertheless, we intend to work with great persistence to the end.

14. Expectations on Prime Minister Kan in Field of Foreign Affairs

Takahashi, Fuji Television: This question concerns Prime Minister Kan's handling of foreign affairs issues and the like. For example, yesterday when meeting with some Ministry of Defense staff and others, he asked, "Is a Minister a commanding officer or what?" I think that this was an opportunity for a kind of blunt statement that there are many different things that he does not know. I think that this is true of many aspects of foreign affairs and defense, and although he is extremely skilled in matters of domestic politics, I think that this was an opportunity to admit frankly that the Prime Minister still has a great deal to learn about foreign relations. Do you have any expectations for Prime Minister Kan's actions in the future, in such areas as foreign affairs, as we are approaching the sessions of the United Nations? Are there any fields that you would like for him to study?

Minister: I have no knowledge of what Prime Minister Kan said beyond what has been reported in the media, so I would like to put on hold the extent to which the Prime Minister's true intentions were communicated. What I have felt since becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs is that there are many differences in the quality of information you have access to, depending on whether you are in an opposition party or the party in power. Consequently, Prime Minister Kan has also focused on the economy and finance during his tenure in the Cabinet, and I think that it is to be expected that he not have detailed knowledge of foreign affairs. I thus would like to take the time to explain critical issues as they come up, and receive various policy instructions from the Prime Minister.

15. Diplomacy in the Middle East

Tanaka, Nihon Internet Shimbun: Motohiro Ono, senior researcher at the Middle East Institute of Japan and extremely knowledgeable about Middle East policy, has been elected to the House of Councillors. His actions included protecting Japanese citizens who were hostages during the Gulf Crisis. What are your views on how such an individual's background and knowledge (of Middle East affairs) can be leveraged in Japan's Middle Eastern diplomacy?

Minister: I have well known Mr. Ono before he was elected, and I also went out in support of him many times during his campaign. I remember it well, because during the entire election campaign, only when I went out to support him in Saitama, it was raining cats and dogs. But at any rate, I would definitely like to leverage the knowledge of such an expert. I intend to ask his views as necessary, and although of course I think that he will also make statements in party subcommittees and the like, I am on very friendly terms with him, so I hope to receive advice from him as necessary.

16. Japan-South Korea Relations (100th Anniversary of Japan's Annexation of Korea)

Kubota, Sankei Shimbun: I would like to ask about the 100th anniversary of the Japanese annexation of Korea. One question is how you have thought about transferring Korean cultural artifacts. Also, yesterday there was a debate between members of the Japanese and South Korean parliaments over the issue of compensation for the comfort women, and there have been demands for compensation from the South Korean side; please tell us your views on this.

Minister: A treaty will of course be required in order to transfer royal protocols and other documents originating in the Korean Peninsula. It is a question of when such a treaty will be submitted to the Diet, but it has not yet been decided. We intend to consider when this will be done, including whether such a treaty will be brought before the session of the Diet about to start, or before a regular Diet session. As I also stated some time ago, since this is a treaty, it must of course be reviewed by the Diet. I think that if possible, it would be preferable for this treaty to be approved with a large number of votes in favor. In this sense, I believe that it is necessary to explain it carefully and thoroughly.
On the issue of comfort women, the Government of Japan has responded to this issue through a fund that had been set up, and it is the recognition of the Government of Japan that the issue of monetary compensation was closed at that stage.

Back to Index