(* 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 Koichiro Gemba
Date: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 3:40 p.m.
Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Main topics:
- Sanction on Iran
- Meeting of the directors-general of Japan, the United States, and the Republic of Korea
- Abduction cases of Japanese Nationals and the introduction of Japanese-English simultaneous interpretation
1. Sanction on Iran
Yoshioka, NHK: I’d like to ask a question about economic sanctions on Iran. Minister, you always mention that it is important to make effective sanctions and market stability co-exist. My question is about effective sanctions. In the UN, Russia and China oppose a UN Security Council resolution for sanctions. China and India are going to continue to import crude oil. Also, the U.S. government wants to prevent impact on economy before the presidential election, while they want to maintain the image of the President being adept at national security. Therefore, the U.S. is now pressed to deal with the difficult situation. Against this backdrop, do you think sanctions by a coalition of the willing including the U.S., Europe, Japan, and the Republic of Korea will be really effective? If there exists a certain degree of limitation, what kind of diplomatic efforts do you think Japan needs to be engaged in?
Minister Gemba: Let me address the question from Mr. Yoshioka about effective sanctions against Iranian nuclear development. I have consistently insisted that there has to be the cooperation in the international community. Without that, we cannot expect the effective sanction to work.
At the same time, we have been calling for the cautious implementation of U.S. National Defense Authorization Act, and at the same time, in principle, for the reduction of the crude oil import from Iran, we stated that we would consider with a view toward that, but it is for the sake of cooperation with the international community and the United States, and the effective sanction. What is considered important, on the one hand, is the stability of the oil market. If it results in the skyrocketing oil price, such sanctions are not considered to be effective and therefore, with words of caution, in fact, I candidly exchange views and opinions with my counterparts. That’s where we stand.
Various states are named in your question, three or four countries. At any rate, for a sanction to be effective, of course pressure has to be maintained. So for the sanction to be effective, with those countries concerned, we want to maintain close communication. That is considered to be important in the first place. And to that end, while consultation with the countries that you have just named is considered to be important, the like-minded countries as you have stated are the ones that we need to maintain close communication with. In fact, already at working level, such communication is taking place. With regard to the obligation of the sanction enacted by the United States, about the interpretation of the Act itself, that requires further elucidation and qualification in fact. Therefore, these were the points that we asked for further clarification: in what way the Act should be implemented in order to ensure effectiveness of this sanction? At the same time, how can we prevent the negative impact on the global economy? And at the same time, how can we prevent a skyrocketing oil price in the market? So those are the points that we are discussing right now.
At the same time, eventually, while maintaining such a pressure, we should not close the path to the dialogue. Therefore, on the part of Japan, we should be able to take active measures, and those are the actions I am currently looking into.
Iwata, Dow Jones: I would like to ask you two questions. One question: right now, you talked about the effective sanctions, and I think there are things that you did not touch on, so that is what I would like to ask you about.
With regards to India and China, as long as they continue to buy Iranian crude oil, other countries may take action, but it may not be effective, even if you have close consultations. So what is your view on this point?
The other thing is that for Japan, you talked about the actions taken by Japan, what are the options that Japan has?
Minister Gemba: Well, with India and China included, as I said before, for those two countries you mentioned in particular, we can have consultations. This is a U.S. Act, so first with the United States. In what way can we apply pressure in an effective way on the nuclear development by Iran? I think the international community as a whole needs to have that kind of discussion.
As you have said, China and India’s trade, how much they will buy is an important point actually. To be frank, this has been part of the discussions up to this point. Therefore, in a very candid manner, I am having an exchange of views with the United States.
In terms of taking proactive measures, for example, on a working level, the actions towards Iran have taken place repeatedly in the past. But at what point and in what form we are to take further measures - that is what is being studied.
Rahman, Muslim World: Okay. There was news from the Iranian side that in case such sanctions are imposed, they will stop transportation of oil from Hormuz. If the situation worsens, and there happens a sort of war, and transportation of oil from various countries – not only Iran – is stopped, will it not multiply the problems of the United States? That area is very near Afghanistan. There will be two countries instead of one where the U.S. is already having problems.
Minister Gemba: Just looking at Japan, let’s say that vis-à-vis Iran, a military option is chosen. Let’s say there is some situation in the Strait of Hormuz. I think 85% of the oil to Japan goes through the Strait of Hormuz - that is the reality. This is not just affecting Japan but it will impact in a great way, the global economy. That is readily imaginable. But, on the other hand, Iran, in terms of the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, that kind of provocative action and their remarks to that effect should be refrained. What is important is how to maintain the pressure so that sanctions can be employed in an effective manner. At the same time, the path of dialogue should not be closed. In other words, the necessary action to maintain that dialogue should be taken.
With regard to the military option itself, I do not think that is the correct option. Therefore, first of all, as for the effect of sanctions, as has been asked by the other reporters – what kinds of sanctions, the content of the sanctions, and how there can be international cooperation - the countries involved need to consult closely. With regard to the role Japan should proactively play, that has to be considered.
Shimada, NHK: About proactive action to be taken – that is what you are looking into. So far, the consultation has been taking place at the working level and you are now considering the level that should be considered as effective. Can I understand that you are also considering an option that you yourself will make your case to Iran?
Minister Gemba: At any rate, the question is what could be effective actions. After considering that question in a comprehensive manner, I would come up with my conclusion, and then, on the part of the Japanese government, the measures that are considered to be necessary are to be taken.
Yoshioka, NHK: At the diplomatic committee of the LDP yesterday there was an explanation that you yourself sent a letter to your counterpart, Iranian foreign minister last month, asking Iran to clear the suspicions of the international community on its nuclear development. Could you tell us about what was in that letter and what kind of response you received from Iranian side?
Minister Gemba: I don’t have that information here – the letter itself – therefore, I cannot report to you the content very accurately. In a nutshell, I urged them to give up nuclear development. In this respect, we received an explanation from Iran, but so far, that explanation cannot eliminate suspicion from the international community against Iran. That is what we conveyed to them. Unfortunately, so far, we received the response as usually expected.
2. Meeting of the directors-general of Japan, the United States, and the Republic of Korea
Ishida, Yomiuri Shimbun: I understand that there was the meeting on North Korea attended by the directors-general of three states: the United States, Japan, and ROK. I understand that they agreed to hold a foreign ministerial-level meeting at the earliest time possible. Mr. Minister, what is the significance and aim of having such a ministerial meeting? And what kind of issues do you want to talk about?
Minister Gemba: About this question, in the wake of the directors-general meeting by the United States, Japan, and ROK, I have not received a direct report. So after hearing the report about the result of that meeting, at a certain point in time, among the three states - Japan, United States, and ROK – I think it is advisable to have the Foreign Ministers’ meeting. But as for specifics, after hearing details about the report on the results of the meeting by directors-general, then I would like to come to the final conclusion on that.
3. Abduction cases of Japanese Nationals and the introduction of Japanese-English simultaneous interpretation
Nakayama, Yomiuri Shimbun: I have two questions. The first question has to do with North Korea, which was mentioned earlier. With the reshuffling of the Cabinet this time, Mr. Matsubara is now in charge of the abduction cases. Mr. Matsubara has been involved in this issue for a long time and claimed that the enforcement of the structure is necessary. With regard to the abduction cases, how are you going to guide this to a resolution? This is what I want to ask you.
You are starting the simultaneous interpretation. Why have you decided to introduce the simultaneous interpretation? If you have any comments after going through this first experience, I would like to listen to it. ...
Minister Gemba: First of all, with regard to the abduction cases, needless to say, the issue on the abduction cases has to do with the sovereignty of the nation. It also has to do with human rights. Therefore it is, I think, a grave interest of the international community, and vis-à-vis the foreign ministers of the world I have strongly continued to request their cooperation to resolve this issue. This time, Chairman Kim Jong-Il of North Korea passed away, and North Korea, you could say, is now looking to shift to a new regime. As I mentioned before, this kind of situation has both risks and opportunities coexisting. First of all, we need to be well prepared for the risks. The preparation for the risks has to be complete. At the same time, we need to make efforts to come up with opportunities. When those opportunities crop up, they should not be missed. How can those opportunities be generated? Various efforts are being made. With regard to the concrete content, I cannot disclose it here. Between Japan, the United States and the Republic of Korea, it is necessary to have close cooperation. Also, the role of China with regard to the abduction cases is very important. That is what I would like to state here.
This is the first time we are using this simultaneous interpretation system for the Foreign Minister’s press conference. It is not so much about my intention, but from before I took office it seems that the decision had been made. I think that the foreign policies of the Japanese government and other information should be communicated not only in Japan but also to the international community and disseminated. In a sense, Japan’s position can be more precisely communicated to the international community. This is the first time today, and we are going to continue this for a while, so that – not just myself, but we hope to get some objective feedback so that if there are things that we can improve, we would like to make those improvements and make adjustments on the way.
Back to Index