(* 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 Takeaki Matsumoto

Date: Friday, July 15, 2011, 5:43 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Second Supplementary Budget
Foreign Minister's attendance at ASEAN-related Meetings
Japan's Energy Policy

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Second Supplementary Budget

Minister Matsumoto: As you are aware, the draft for the Second Supplementary Budget was decided at the Cabinet Meeting this morning, and the draft was submitted to the Diet for deliberations. MOFA has requested approximately 1.5 billion yen to reinforce the transmission of information for the restoration of Japan Brand. Based on the major pillars―projects that will involve diplomatic missions abroad to transmit information on attractiveness of local areas and invitation programs that will promote overseas understanding of Japan, we would like to contribute to the restoration and reconstruction of the area with our full strength through advertising local attractiveness, technology, and commercial products of the Tohoku region and other regions as well as through actively disseminating information on the progress of reconstruction to foreign countries.

2. Foreign Minister's attendance at ASEAN-related Meetings

Saito, Kyodo News: I have a question in relation to the ARF and EAS. Various conferences, such as EAS, ARF, Japan-ASEAN Summit Meeting, and Japan-U.S.-ROK Summit Meeting, are scheduled for the rest of the year. I wonder what message you will convey to these meetings and what remarks you will make if you are planning to represent the government and attend the meetings. Could you explain your intension with regard to marine safety and related matters, in particular?

Minister: As these meetings are collectively called ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Meetings, a number of multilayered frameworks have been constructed by various countries centering on ASEAN to discuss a variety of matters. We can say that Japan has a special relationship with ASEAN when we consider the long history of Japan-ASEAN relations. We confirmed the disaster-related cooperation of Japan and ASEAN when the Special ASEAN-Japan Foreign Ministers’ Meeting was held on April 9 this year as offered by ASEAN. At that time, we confirmed a collaborative approach to disaster management and prevention in the sense of protecting the lives of the people of each country. I am hoping that we can share the recognition that will further promote this approach. In addition, as a matter of course, I think discussions will be done at all levels about the reinforcement of the solidarity of ASEAN and the construction of infrastructures that will enable all ASEAN countries to develop together, to which Japan has been greatly contributing, and we are to explain that we will continue working on it.
With regard to your question about ocean-related matters, the ocean literally connects all lives, societies, and economies from a socio-economic viewpoint, and that is the reason the ocean is a great infrastructure of development. In that sense, I have been reiterating a condition of the ocean increasing the tensions of countries concerned is not desirable. Many countries involved have already expressed their concerns about it. I hope that all countries concerned will work in the direction of alleviating the tension and that the international community will solve issues peacefully. We think it is desirable to solve all issues in accordance with international law and rules. We are conveying this idea in the hope that all issues will be solved peacefully, and would like to attend to the meetings by keeping in mind what roles we can play.

Saito, Kyodo News: With regard to what you mentioned about marine safety, I would like to confirm two points. Please tell us if areas about which you are concerned or in which such concerns should be alleviated exist near Japanese coastal waters or Asian waters, and whether you intend to point out such areas or show concerns and talk about them in the series of meetings.

Minister: We are watching the current situation, where, for example various remarks have been made by countries concerned with the South China Sea. I think we can at least confirm the existence of actual frictions because such remarks have been made by these countries. However, I would like to make concrete remarks after I carefully hear the opinions and ideas of the countries concerned.

Tsuruoka, Asahi Shimbun: I have a question related to freedom of maritime navigation. You met Joint U.S. Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen today. Would you introduce Chairman Mullen and your remarks, if any, with regard to freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, where China is in dispute over sovereignty with Vietnam?

Minister: Chairman Mullen used the word "China" in the context of his trip to China. I am not sure about the accuracy of what he said at the press conference because I indirectly heard about his comment at the press conference a while ago. In my understanding, however, he stated at the press conference to the effect that the United States is not for or against any country as far as sovereignty is concerned but the United States will take a strong attitude toward freedom of navigation, because it affects the vital interests of the United States. I do not remember accurately whether he mentioned all of that when he met me, but I understand what he mentioned was similar in intent.

Shimoe, Kyodo News: I have a couple of ARF-related questions. I remember that Foreign Minister Okada actively held bilateral talks when he attended the ARF last year. Could you tell us with what countries and do you wish to have bilateral talks and what do you wish to give importance to if the bilateral talks are realized? Meanwhile, according to the U.S. government's announcement, the United States, Japan, and South Korea will have a meeting of their foreign ministers on July 22. Could you tell us what you wish to confirm at this trilateral meeting?

Minister: Different members have different patterns. I cannot answer your question exactly because there were member changes last year. However, the ARF is a long-awaited opportunity, where many foreign leaders will attend. Therefore, I would like to find various chances and hold talks with many leaders actively.
I could not confirm the U.S. announcement about the Japan-U.S.-ROK trilateral meeting, because I was tied up in the Diet and other official matters. As far as I understood as of yesterday, the United States hoped the holding of the meeting by all means. I have not received a report whether proper schedule adjustments have been made. I remember that a Japan-U.S.-ROK Foreign Ministers' Meeting was held in December last year. The stability of the Asia-Pacific Ocean region is a common interest to and a goal of Japan, the United States, and South Korea. Therefore, we take actions in concert in many cases in the field of security. We have been exchanging views in that respect, and there has been a unified cooperation between Japan, the United States, and South Korea. I am sure that our goal has been expressed in a manner understood by the international community. If the meeting is realized this time, we would like to have talks and indicate as the common will of the three countries that we will contribute to the stability and prosperity of the region in a manner supported by many countries.

Asaka, Freelance: I have a question about the Japan-U.S.-ROK Foreign Ministers' Meeting. There is a report that the Korean National Assembly will be held on Takeshima on August 15. I wonder if you are aware of this. If yes, please tell us if you are going to take up this matter at the Japan-U.S.-ROK Foreign Ministers' Meeting.

Minister: All I can say at the moment is that I am aware of the report stating that the Korean National Assembly is scheduled on August 15. No agenda for this trilateral Foreign Ministers' meeting has been decided, and I cannot say exactly. With regard to Takeshima, I have been informing the Korean side of our standpoint since I took office as Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I have mentioned to them all necessary things. My remarks in the trilateral Foreign Ministers' meeting will include in terms of what things should be discussed. Therefore, at this stage, I cannot say exactly.

Inukai, Mainichi Newspapers: I have a question related to the Japan-U.S.-ROK Foreign Ministers' Meeting. This will be the first trilateral meeting since the Japan-U.S.-ROK Foreign Ministers' Meeting held in December last year. I remember that it was held last year, around which the Yeonpyeong shelling occurred and the case of uranium enrichment was brought to light. It has passed nearly seven months since then. Japan, in particular, will probably have to bring up issues about North Korea and the six party talks as well as the abduction issue at the meeting. Could you tell us your stance when you attend the meeting?

Minister: With regard to the North Korean issues, it is my opinion that North Korea should take a sincere attitude to what it did in the past, such as last year's provocative act. Meanwhile, we have been expressing with regard to the nuclear issue that we will not engage in dialogue for dialogue's sake. However, we have been reiterating that it is necessary for North Korea to show its willingness to proceed firmly with concrete actions including the fulfillment of its commitments in the past.
From the context of the series of our relevant talks in the past, I do not think what I mentioned will start with the North and South talks, but is rather related to the North South Korea talks. In this respect, we will earnestly call for the binding unity of Japan, the United States, and South Korea, and wish that the three countries will work on North Korea and make necessary arrangements concretely in accordance with our intension. I cannot say definitely how North Korea will respond. However, we want to ensure that our message will be relayed to North Korea, and hope that the North Korean nuclear issue and abduction issue will move toward solution.

Saito, Kyodo News: We came across a report stating that the North Korean Foreign Minister may attend the ARF. I would like to confirm the fact, and wonder if you are willing to come in contact or have talks with the North Korean Minister.

Minister: All I can say is that I am aware of the media report. We have been reiterating that Japan has no intension to refuse dialogue with North Korea. We would like to talk and negotiate over several themes and solve the abduction issue and nuclear issue.
On the other hand, again, we want to avoid consuming time uselessly in dialogue for dialogue's sake. At the current stage, I do not think that we are ready to organize what I should talk to advance the issues to solution. However, we have not finally decided what action we are going to take. This is my current recognition.

3. Japan's Energy Policy

Matsumura, Asahi Shimbun: The other day, the Prime Minister introduced his idea of pursuing a denuclearized society. After that, the Prime Minister said that it was not the Cabinet's policy. Could you tell us how you took his idea? Could you also tell us what you think of the idea in conformity with infrastructure exports including nuclear power plants under MOFA's new growth strategy?

Minister: First, I would like to respond to your second question. As a matter of fact, our maximum challenge of nuclear power plants has been the maintenance of safety. After experience the accident this time, I think it is everybody's common recognition that the maintenance of safety must be reconfirmed.
Some media, however, reported this morning that a Japanese enterprise won at a tenderin a foreign country, which I think was Lithuania. As a matter of fact, I took office as Minister for Foreign Affairs on March 9. I can say that almost all overseas people who requested the use of Japan's nuclear technology met me after the nuclear accident. Frankly speaking, however, it is true that surprisingly many requests have been coming continuously.
As a matter of course, these people are concerned with safety issues. As far as I hear their talks, it is my recognition that Japan's nuclear technology is still highly evaluated worldwide. In that sense, I think we must think well about how we should provide them with the required technology while deeply considering that the leaders of Japan that caused such a major accident can confidently talk about safety when we talk with them.
In terms of safety, some part of our verification and inspection of nuclear technology is still in process, but there is a great hope. Furthermore, there are requests made by countries closely related to Japan, and I do not think we must close the delivery or negotiation channels for the technology. Before finally providing them with the technology, however, I think that we need a stance to discuss with these countries much more than ever before.
With regard to your first question about what I think about a society denuclearizing its energy sources or not depending on nuclear power plants. The media already reported that not all parts of the remarks were based on the Cabinet's unified opinion. I cannot say exactly what part is different or not, but I believe that you remember there were four pillars when the accident took place.
The first one is that the safety of nuclear power plants must be confirmed, which in a sense connotes that nuclear power plants will be used continuously. As the Chief Cabinet Secretary said as well, elimination of nuclear dependency does not mean that Japan will abandon nuclear power plants.
The second one is the promotion of the efficient use of fossil fuels with environmental consideration.
The third one is an active increase in the use of renewable energy.
The forth one is energy saving on the demand side, based on which a review on the actual need for electricity usage. I have been thinking that this is an extremely productive idea in a sense.
Everyone has his or her opinion over denuclearization and elimination of nuclear dependency. The expressions "debureaucratization" and "political leadership" have been used in the past. I have been reiterating that people should rather use the expression "political leadership." In my personal opinion, I do not think "de-something" is not a very creative way of thinking, which I am afraid may end up with simple refusal to accept the present situation. I think it is our role to think of something creative. I dared to refer to the four pillars a while ago, because I think that the four pillars showed what we had to do. As we are leaders of the country, it is ideal for us to proceed that way for the benefit of the people.

Inada, NHK: I understand that you said the four pillars showed what to do but the expression "denuclearization" did not. Please tell us what you think of it. Participants including National Public Safety Commission Chairman Nakano said that Prime Minister Kan made remarks on denuclearization without any consultation with other ministers. Later, the Prime Minister mentioned that it was his personal opinion. What do you think of the Prime Minister of a certain country made remarks affecting the country's energy policy with no consultation with the Cabinet and added that it was his personal opinion?

Minister: I was there for the first half of the Conference, and what you said may be true, but it was taken in a distorted way. Minister Nakano said that he presumed the Prime Minister had consulted with the parties under his jurisdiction and that Minister Nakano as a member of the Cabinet would like to share what would be finalized because it was quite a big issue. Minister Nakano also said that he would like to have or share reference documents. Therefore, it is my understanding that what he said was very different in nuance from the words like "I was not informed" or "with no consultation."
I talked about debureaucratization and political initiative a while ago. Though I wander in my speech, political leadership means an act of government officials including us working together with government offices, for example, toward a direction oriented by us under our responsibility. This is not a de-bureaucratic or anti-bureaucratic system. In my understanding, political initiative is not debureaucratization at all if debureaucratization is taken negatively and our collaboration with government officials does not work well. In a sense, I would like to work comprehensively under political initiative.
With regard to the energy issue this time, I think it is necessary to specify one by one what should be done concretely. I hope that you will understand that is why I mentioned my personal opinion a while ago. I think that the issue includes matters still awaiting solution.

Back to Index