(* 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, October 3, 2012, 2:30 p.m.
Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Main topics:

Deployment of the Osprey
Senkaku Islands
Japan-Republic of Korea (ROK) Relations
Senkaku Islands
Japan-North Korea Consultations

1. Deployment of the Osprey

Ida, Weekly Friday: Regarding the mandatory deployment of Ospreys to Okinawa – first, the local community has argued that immediately on October 1 and 2, there has been breaches of the Japan-U.S. agreement reached at the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee. There have been press reports that dangerous flights over urban areas are ongoing, for instance. What are your views on this matter?
A related question – from September 29 night to 30 for 24 hours, all the gates of the Futenma Air Station was blockaded by the local residents, which is an unprecedented situation in the 40 years conflict regarding the base since the reversion of Okinawa to Japan, proving that a stable operation of bases surrounded by residents’ hostility is not possible. Please offer your views on your political responsibility for heightening the Okinawa residents’ anger to an extent that could significantly undermine the U.S.-Japan Security Arrangement. Please answer the above-mentioned two questions.

Minister Gemba: On the question from Mr. Ida on the Osprey – firstly I do not believe the word “mandatory,” is appropriate. On that basis, you have suggested that the agreement reached at the Joint Committee has not been complied with. As you are well aware, the agreement on the operation of the aircraft was reached as a result of a very difficult negation, which is a globally unprecedented agreement. Now, against this backdrop, I believe you are suggesting that the agreement was immediately breached. If there actually are such facts, obviously we will carefully gather the facts and conduct a thorough investigation. Further, it goes without saying that there will be a necessity to follow up the facts at the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee.
However, at the same time, as I also slightly referred to yesterday, the wording “as much as possible” is certainly included in the agreement. On this wording, we had a very intense discussion to not use the wording “as much as possible.” However, from the safety perspective, when the rules are too stringent, it would rather hamper safety, leading to possibilities of a negative effect on safety. That is what we have heard from the people actually conducting the operations, and because of that, it resulted in that wording. In any event, we will gather those facts and will follow up at the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee accordingly.
As the Government of Japan has confirmed safety, Ospreys are being deployed in this manner in Futenma. It has not reached full operation, but it is essential for the safety of Japan, as well as the security of East Asia. As the production of CH-46 was discontinued twenty years ago, to go on with CH-46 flights is undesirable in the long run from the safety perspective. The Osprey has a capability of twice in speed, three times in loading capacity and four times the flight range. It would not only be the core of U.S. Marine Corps missions, it is also capable of conventional vertical takeoff and landing to landing ships, and it can also be utilized for unconventional missions such as disaster reliefs and humanitarian assistance. There was the Great Meiwa Tsunami in 1771. It was a large tsunami that hit Ishigaki and Yaeyama. Whether the current CH-46 can respond to such a large tsunami, with its short flight range, I think due to its limited flight range, it would not be possible. Based on these and others, I hope to earn the understanding of the people of Okinawa. It is my responsibility for not having earned sufficient understanding yet. Under these circumstances, I hope to make the utmost efforts to earn their understanding.
Along with that, the relocation of the Futenma Air Station and the reduction of burdens are a necessity. That is why the possibility of conducting flight training in areas other than Okinawa was purposely included in the agreement. I believe it is important to translate our position to nationally share the burden into reality.

Ida, Weekly Friday: Regarding the second part of my question that for 24 hours the all gates of the Futenma Air Station were blockaded, even with the effectiveness of the Osprey as a weapon, unless the base is stably operated, as there are presently many kites flying over the base, not only would the transfer of equipment be impossible but also the effective operation of the Futenma Air Station will be unfeasible. Residents’ organizations have already indicated that they will continue in wavelike ways their blockades. So, although you have just stated that you will further work to earn their understanding but in what kinds of specific ways will you do that. Please also tell us your political responsibility for the unprecedented uproar of anti-base movement in Okinawa.

Minister Gemba: I believe I have addressed your question. The responsibility obviously lies on myself and I will consistently continue to work for to earn their understandings.

2. Senkaku Islands

Saito, Kyodo Press: I would like to ask three questions on the Senkaku Islands and I intend to make each question clear. First of all, the Government of Japan, as known, is intending the peaceful and stable maintenance and management of the islands, but from the public perspective, the specific definition of this term is difficult to comprehend. Does the term “peaceful and stable maintenance and management” include maintenance of the status quo, say, not constructing any lighthouse or port of refug. I would like to confirm that point and that is my first question.
Secondly, Prime Minister Noda pointed out the importance of the rule of law on the basis of international law in his General Debate statement at the United Nations General Assembly. I would like to ask if there is a certain country, I deliberately will not specify the country, but if a certain country makes its own claim on an inherent part of our territory and proposes instituting proceedings before the International Court of Justice, do you believe that Japan in principle should respond? Again, I will not specify any country but if a certain country declares to institute a lawsuit claiming sovereignty of an inherent part of Japan’s territory, will you make it Japan’s basic position to respond to this based on the idea of the rule of law? That is my second question.
And thirdly, Chinese patrol ships are intruding into Japanese territorial waters on a nearly daily basis. Even under such circumstances, can we still regard that the Senkaku Islands are under the valid control of the Government of Japan? At his last press conference, previous Parliamentary Senior Vice-Minister Tsuyoshi Yamaguchi stated that it could not be 100% proclaimed as so. What is your response to this?

Minister Gemba: To the questions raised by Mr. Saito, which I believe are all quite difficult. With regard to the first question, the definition of peaceful and stable maintenance and management, I understand it as preventing all unnecessary confusion over the Senkaku Islands and the non-interruption of valid control by the Government of Japan.

Saito, Kyodo Press: On maintaining the status quo?

Minister Gemba: Now, on this particular point, I believe I have previously stated that I believe presently the peaceful and stable maintenance and management of the islands is realized.
Now, on the rule of law; the rule of law has referred to in general by Prime Minister Noda at the UN General Assembly and other occasions, indeed the UN Charter itself states, in instances of conflict, it will be peacefully resolved in accordance with international law. We have repeatedly made clear that it is Japan’s position to place high value on the rule of law. Against this backdrop, I believe Japan should play a leading role in assuring the rule of law is applied not only in the Asian Pacific region but also worldwide.
With that said, to answer Mr. Saito’s hypothetical question, speaking in generalities, it all comes down to compulsory jurisdiction, meaning if it recognizes compulsory jurisdiction. That is what Prime Minister and I requested for at the UN General Assembly. I believe that presently it is only 67 nations that have recognized compulsory jurisdiction. Yes, sixty-seven. That means that it is 67 nations that have precisely declared the right to righteously recognize jurisdiction of the court. Since we have made clear that respective nations should recognize the compulsory jurisdiction, as a matter of course, if there is to be a conflict between nations who have recognized compulsory jurisdiction, and they are to jointly institute proceedings before the ICJ, generally speaking, I believe it would be a natural way of thinking to accept it in principle.
Having said that, on the Senkaku Islands, firstly we do not believe the necessity for it and secondly, there is the issue of whether compulsory jurisdiction has or has not been accepted. On your third question, wheterh it is under valid control – my answer would be yes, I believe the Senkaku Islands are under our valid control. The grounds for this are that firstly there is implementation of security and law-enforcement. As the Taishojima has already been acquired and owned by the Government, as is the case with three other islands, there has been constant management by the Government with regard to Taishojima; the fixed assets tax is imposed on privately owned land; and also the national government and Okinawa prefecture have conducted various environmental studies. On these grounds, I believe the islands are validly controlled.

Takenaka, Reuters: Governor Ishihara has suggested the construction of a port or a radio tower. He has also suggested offering money collected through donations to whichever administration that is in power after the general election given their assent to his plan. What is the Government’s view on constructing structures or deploying personnel to the islands for the enhancement of valid control?

Minister Gemba: As I have been saying, it is my view that the peaceful and stable maintenance and management of the islands is currently in place.

Otani, NHK: Today, once again three Chinese vessels entered the territorial waters of Japan. This is two days in succession. What is the response of the Government and how is it addressing the situation? Further, how do you view the fact that the intrusion into Japanese territorial waters was halted for some time but now it is once again continuing?

Minister Gemba: Obviously, we have lodged protest against this act. In order to communicate effectively and to hold dialogues in a calm environment, we hope to request China to exercise self-restraint. The fact that there were no movements of activities of this kind for a certain period of time may have been due to certain conditions like the typhoon. Unfortunately, I do not believe the circumstances can subside that easily. Although we must settle the issues peacefully, there are matters which we cannot compromise. At the same time, we hope to pursue all possible options.

3. Japan-Republic of Korea (ROK) Relations

Azumi, Freelance Journalist: I would like to ask about your attendance to the United Nations General Assembly. During your stay in New York, you had a very busy schedule, meeting with Foreign Ministers of seven countries, holding the Japan-Pacific Alliance Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, as well as the Japan-U.S.-ROK Foreign Minister’s Meeting. It has been reported that you have explained Japan’s position on the Senkaku Islands at these meetings, but did you also explain Japan’s position for instance on the Takeshima issue between Japan and ROK, the issue of comfort women monuments being built around the U.S. and other issues to the third countries at the foreign ministers’ meetings? Another question is on the election for the non-permanent members of the UN Security Council. What is Japan’s position on the ROK’s announcement of its candidacy?

Minister Gemba: Ms. Azumi, your question is that although Japan’s position with regard to the Senkaku Islands and especially Japan-China relations were explained at numerous bilateral meetings and other various occasions, but that there were no explanations on the Takeshima issue. In principal, with regard to Senkaku and especially the issue between Japan and China, it is a fact that we explained our position to respective countries.
Regarding the Takeshima issue, this was obviously a topic at the Japan-ROK Foreign Minister’s Meeting. In addition, as you well know, the issue pertaining to Takeshima is indeed the institution of proceedings before the ICJ which we are currently calling for. I believe all people should naturally consider the relevance with my and the Prime Minister’s speech. Moreover, the Japan-ROK relationship is relations where both countries will rightly make their claims but at this time we have come to a point where it is extremely important to enhance cooperation in the areas of security, culture, human exchange, as well as economy. Needless to say, we are addressing the situation on the basis of a comprehensive judgment.
Your other question was with regard to non-permanent seat of the UN Security Council, and this is currently under review.

4. Senkaku Islands

Matsuura, Yomiuri Shimbun: This seems in relation to the Senkaku Islands issue but there are reports that on September 28th, the Beijing customs authorities denied clearance and confiscated various Japanese newspapers delivered from Tokyo to Beijing. Please give us the information you have and how you will address this incident.

Minister Gemba: On the question of newspapers, I have partly heard of the issue. Whatever the case may be, I believe we will make a lodgment once we have a clear understanding of the situation. At any rate, it would have a negative effect on both countries to undermine the economical or these sorts of cultural interactions, or mutual dependence, and so I hope to request a calm handling of the situation to the Chinese side based on a broad standpoint. It goes without saying that the actual facts must be correctly and clearly understood.

Momoi, Nikkei Shimbun: Regarding the article on the Senkaku Islands by Mr. Nicholas Kristof, the columnist of the New York Times, we believe that Japan’s consulate general in New York submitted a counterargument. I believe there would be a certain unfavorable influence on Japan when a prominent journalist like Mr. Kristof claims as if in the past, Japan had stripped the Senkaku Islands, which is in line with China’s assertions. What is your view on this?
In addition, we understand that you will be enhancing public relations activities with regard to the Senkaku Islands, but there are considerations that we are way behind from China in terms of both quality and quantity. How do you view the current situation?

Minister Gemba: I think much has changed. I am aware of intentional provocative writings by such persons. We have made counterarguments. However, since it would only please the person when I myself make any remarks, I would purposefully refrain from that. I am aware of the various reports made in different newspapers, and in comparison to the initial stage, I believe articles reflecting the position and assertion of the Government of Japan has been on the rise. It is my impression that the number of such articles will continue to increase. In other words, as we continue to objectively explain our position, it will become more clear how extremely advantageous we are, and that in light of both historical facts and based on international law, the Senkaku islands are part of our territory. In that sense, I hope to steadily continue our dispatch of information. However, as to whether we will run newspaper advertisements and suchlike, we must accurately and clearly rebuff, and carefully consider if we should play in the same game. When there is a real necessity, I hope to take the option into consideration. I hope you will take time to read various newspapers including European, so that you will see that there is a growing tendency to understand Japan’s position.

Koyama, Freelance Journalist: This New York Times journalist is biased toward China so I wasn’t surprised so much to read this article. When he was a correspondent in Tokyo, he interviewed the then Ambassador Mondale on the Senkaku Islands issue and although he misreported Ambassador Mondale’s remarks, he did not correct his misreport despite objections by the U.S. Embassy.
My question is, the Taiwanese expert cited in the New York Times claims that although Japan asserts that there were numerous surveys conducted on the Senkaku Islands, there seems to be only one survey conducted in the 19th century. How many surveys were actually conducted by the Government of Japan over the Senkaku Islands?

Minister Gemba: My earlier answer to Mr. Saito was regarding surveys conducted not in the 19th but in the 20th century. I believe you are asking the number of surveys conducted from 1885 to 1895, and I am sorry but I do not have the materials to clearly say how many at this time. What I can say is that we put in ten years to carefully study that the region was not under the control of the Qing Dynasty and that it was actually islands, and as a result of that in January 1895, the islands were incorporated into Okinawa prefecture.

5. Japan-North Korea Consultations

Nakai, Kyodo News: Regarding the intergovernmental consultations between Japan and North Korea, more than a month has passed since the division director-level discussions was held, and I would like to ask the outlook for the next meeting and why it hasn’t been held so far.

Minister Gemba: I cannot give any reasons, but we are continuing discussions on how and when the next session will be in confidence with our counterparts.

Nakai, Kyodo News: Any possibilities of a meeting within this month?

Minister Gemba: That is unclear, since a meeting is meaningless without substance. In other words, to have a meeting, there has to be substance.

Back to Index