(* 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, September 19, 2012, 3:25 p.m.
Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Main topics:
- Japan-China relations
- The Osprey
- Japan-China relations
1. Japan-China relations
Murat, Turkish National Broadcasting Agency: I have two questions to ask, one is that whether Japan have any intention of strengthenig the military considering pressure from surrounding countries regarding territory? Question number two is related to the Senkaku Islands. Is there any impact on the Japan-China economic relationship?
Minister Gemba: First I would like to respond to your latter, the second question with regard to the situation surrounding the Senkaku Islands and others—whether there is any impact on the economy. As you know, there are anti-Japanese protests occurring recently. Some of them have become rampant. There are damages on Japanese companies, so in that sense, there is an impact as a matter of course. Having said that, however, I think both sides should make efforts so that there is as few impacts on economy as possible. With regard to the recent anti-Japanese demonstrations with some becoming vandalism causing damage to Japanese companies, essentially speaking, this should have been avoided. There should be no resort to violence for any reason. This is reported by the press and disseminated to the international community. As a consequence, investments in China, not only from Japanese companies but from others, might be withheld, and that would be a loss to China as well. Given today’s mutual interdependence between Japan and China, we should try to make efforts to minimize the impact, especially on the economy. Naturally speaking, we must make mutual effort on both sides.
I would now like to respond to defense capability development raised in your first question. Setting aside the territorial issues, as far as I am concerned, the defense of Japan should be primarily conducted by itself, and then comes the alliance. Therefore, from the standpoint that Japan should defend itself, it is necessary that we develop appropriate defense capabilities in order to defend ourselves, because we have strictly defensive forces and do not resort to the use of force against other countries.
Yokota, Mainichi Shimbun: I wish to reconfirm your basic recognition with regard to the Senkaku Islands. According to the Chinese government’s argument, In the press conference on the visit to Japan of the then deputy premier Deng Xiaoping in 1978, he said that based on the normalization of Japan-China diplomatic relations and the negotiations of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, the two countries had promised not to touch upon the issue. And the Chinese government insists that, judging by the fact above, there is an agreement between the two governments that they shelve the issue. One of the grounds that China criticizes Japan is that the agreement has been broken by the acquisition by the Japanese government. My question is that if the Japanese government is of the view that the two governments agreed during the negotiations to put the issue aside, and if you are not, what is the Japanese government’s recognition of the treatment of the Senkaku Islands during the past negotiations and of what gave rise to the historical uncertainties?
Minister Gemba: I have at hand a record of the Japan-China diplomatic relations normalization negotiations, which relates to your question. The document, which has already been made public, says that Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka asked what the Chinese side thought about the Senkaku Islands, saying that he had received various comments and inquiries. Premier Zhou Enlai responded that he did not want to talk about the Senkaku Islands this time. He continued that it was not a good timing to discuss them, that they became an issue because oil is produced there, and that otherwise, neither Taiwan nor the U.S. would make it an issue. He turned to the next topic then. The question is whether this constitutes an agreement. Needless to say, our position is that there is no agreement, while on the Chinese side, they claim that there is an agreement. As I mentioned before, the position of Japan is that there is no agreement.
Matsumura, Asahi Shimbun: Anti-Japanese demonstrations are occurring in China, and they are taking countermeasures. At the same time, China is activating its diplomatic activities such as depositing a chart with the United Nations that depicts the waters around the Senkaku Islands within its borders. Under the circumstances, Director-General of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau Shinsuke Sugiyama said at yesterday’s Liberal Democratic Party meeting that Japan must send out messages more strongly. More specifically, how do you intend to assert Japan’s position to the international community?
Minister Gemba: First, as you pointed out, in terms of the chart, the Chinese side has submitted one to the UN. I am aware of such moves, and under such circumstances the Japanese government will officially submit our objection to the UN. We would do the same about the issue of the continental shelf too. On top of that, during this time period, as has been raised earlier on, in the case of anti-Japanese protests, we heve repeatedly requested the protection of the Japanese citizens as well as the immediate suspension of violent acts. As I said before, violence would not do any good for China either. Violence should not be condoned for any reason.
We are sending out our messages to the international community more strongly. First, starting from a few days ago, under my instructions to the Japanese embassies in the capitals of various countries around the world, we have strengthened sending out Japan’s position. As Japan’s position has been that there is no territorial issue with regard to the Senkaku Islands, It has been the case that we present our position when the other country presents its original position. This time, with China presenting its own position in various places, Japan has to strengthen sending out ours to the international community, and we are doing so through our embassies abroad. Also, to the embassies here in Tokyo, we are to conduct briefing sessions on Japan’s position this afternoon.
Matsumura: You were talking about appeals to be made to the international community, or international public opinion. In terms of appeals to world leaders, as well as to the media, the speech to be delivered by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda next week in the United Nations General Assembly is one opportunity to do this. What is your view on this?
Minister Gemba: Regarding the UN General Assembly prime minister’s speech, at the moment, including mine, ideas are being reviewed. However, whether a specific matter might be included in that, honestly, is one thing to consider. Whether it should be discussed as a specific issue or taken up as a general matter has to be considered.
Yokota: Primi Minister said yesterday that one thing that’s necessary for calming down the heated Japan-China relationship is that channels should be broader and multiple for communication purposes. Next week, Minister, yourself, you are going to the UN General Assembly, and I think the foreign minister of China is expected to appear. Do you intend to have a ministerial meeting?
Minister Gemba: At this point we have no fixed schedule for a foreign ministers’ meeting with China. However, I am of the view that we should maintain and further strengthen communications with China. At this juncture, we have been consistently making efforts to stabilize the situation peacefully through dialogue. In that sense, not only at my level but at various levels we should reinforce communications. By doing so, misunderstanding and misjudgment that could result in escalation can be reduced. In that sense we would like to have and strengthen closer communications with China.
Nakai, Kyodo News: You said that you would be promoting the messages to be sent out. Up until now, some people on the Chinese side has been making statements indicating that the responsibility for all of the situations lies only on the Japanese side. I think that the Japanese government is, while making objections, stressing that the Japan-China relationship calls for a calm-headed, broad perspective. Do you recognize that the position of Japan is, at this point in time, being supported by Asian countries, European countries, the U.S. and the international community as a whole?
Minister Gemba: First of all, toward the international community, the position of Japan that the islands are undoubtedly an inherent part of our territory in light of historical facts and based on international law should be explained based on the past background. Having said that, related to your question, as the Chief Cabinet Secretary has commented, Japan has taken the realistic and best possible measures in the aim of ensuring a peaceful and stable maintenance and management in the long term. That, with backgrounds and details, is what I try to explain to different countries through overseas establishments under my instruction. In that regard, there still remain some aspects that haven’t been well-known, which I intend to explain.
Nakai Kyodo News: Regarding the peaceful and stable maintenance and management of the islands, to continue the dissemination of Japan’s position—would it be a contribution or how could it be a contribution to the peaceful and stable maintenance and management, or could it produce a backfire? What do you think?
Minister Gemba: I don’t think it would pose any counter effects.
Koyama, Freelance Journalist: You are sending out messages to the international community. What about messages to be sent to the Japanese public? Do you think you are providing proper explanations to them?
Minister Gemba: Do you mean things like the background information to this day?
Koyama: Things like why the islands are Japanese territory. And one more question, you said that there was no agreement to shelve the issue. Have you provided such explanations to China through diplomatic channels?
Minister Gemba: Starting with the latter question. Explanations have been provided every time when necessary, of course. As for explaining to the Japanese public, I recall earlier questions from you. In light of historical facts and based on international law, the islands are an inherent part of Japan’s territory. When it comes to the contents and the reasons, indeed, more detailed, more comprehensible explanation could have been provided. I agree. When I had your question before, I talked about occupation of terra nullius. It was in January 1895, when the government of Japan made the cabinet decision to formally incorporate the islands into Okinawa Prefecture. The incorporation was implemented after detailed on-site surveys before the Sino-Japan War, even ten years before 1895, and they confirmed that the islands were not attributable to any country. At the same time, looking into the San Francisco Peace Treaty as well as other treaties, the Senkaku Islands were not included in the territory that was to be abandoned by Japan. Also looking at the process of the Reversion of Okinawa, I think it is obvious. Having said that, as has been pointed out, this has to be explained in a more comprehensible manner. After all, our position has been that no territorial dispute exists, so, the same sorts of efforts as in the Takeshima Island and the Northern Territories cases, including publishing leaflets, have not been made. Therefore, in that regard, I do agree that more could be done. Therefore, more comprehensible explanation has to be provided at home.
Kaku, Xinhua: Related to the territorial issue, once again the question about the position of the Japanese government. At the 1972 diplomatic relation normalization negotiations, Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka posed the beforementioned question on his own. Doesn’t that contradict Japan’s position that territorial issues do not exist? Why did Prime Minister Tanaka refer to the Senkaku Islands from his side?
Minister Gemba: Frankly speaking, as you have pointed out, I think it is a fact that Prime Minister Tanaka said that he had received various comments and inquiries as to how to think about the Senkaku Islands. Premier Zhou Enlai, on the other hand, said that he did not want to talk about the Senkaku Islands this time, and that it was not a good timing to discuss them at that point in time, etc. Whether that constitutes an agreement or not, that is the question. Meanwhile, not only recently, but whenever we discuss this matter with China, Japan has conveyed that there was no such agreement as I answered to the earlier question. Interpretation differs between Japan and China on this, and that is the situation where we are in.
Kaku, Xinhua : According to some major Japanese newspapers’ reports and editorials, the position of Japan that there is no territorial issue can pose a barrier in the sense that it closes a window for diplomatic dialogues between Japan and China. What do you think of this?
Minister Gemba: The islands are undoubtedly an inherent part of the territory of Japan both in light of historical facts and based on international law. There is no doubt that any territorial issues do not exist in the first place. I am aware that a variety of opinions exist on the unexistence of the territorial issue, while I think what we face now is a diplomatic issue. However, the territorial issue does not exist. That is the position of Japan.
2. The Osprey
Yoshida, Nishinippon Shimbun: Today, we were notified that the safety of the operation of the Osprey had been confirmed. In the event of an accident, will the responsibility be taken by the Japanese government as well? The next question is, there is a preparation going on to fully operate the Osprey without being able to get the understanding of Okinawa. Given74% of the facilities for the USFJ’s exclusive use being shouldered by Okinawa, isn’t there a risk that the opposition might become stronger and destabilize the Japan-U.S. Security Alliance?
Minister Gemba: It is difficult for me to answer a hypothetical question, but needless to say, if we had made a safety declaration and there had been an accident, I would feel responsible myself, frankly speaking. The Government of Japan, however, acknowledged that experts were not presented any different opinions with regard to the safety of the Osprey. But there were some human errors, and how we can overcome such human errors, as well as other questions, have been discussed at the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee, which achieved an agreement to some extent.
Concerning the understanding of Okinawa, that is of the utmost importance. That is very important indeed. But, if we continue to have CH-46E helicopters operated as they are, in the long run that would not be desirable from the viewpoint of safety. In that sense, although the agreement at the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee was indeed a difficult process, as far as I am concerned, I made my utmost efforts. That is because we wanted to answer to the sentiments of people of Okinawa as much as possible.
There is the 74% concentration of the facilities in Okinawa for the exclusive use of the U.S. forces, and I absolutely feel sorry for that. There should be a sharing of the burden across the country as I always say. The flight drills of the Osprey which are about to be conducted in locations other than Okinawa are possible partly because the Osprey has a longer range. In that sense, the recent agreement at the Japan-U.S. Joint Committee has also incorporated a nationwide burden sharing, indicating that the operation of the Osprey does not solely engage people of Okinawa.
In specific terms, after the deployment of the Osprey in Okinawa, there would be flight operations in locations other than Okinawa, which was embraced in the agreement of the Joint Committee for future consideration. That’s because we don’t want Okinawa to bear the whole burden. That is the emotion that lies behind this agreement.
3. Japan-China relations
Matsuura, Yomiuri Shimbun: Concerning the future prospects of anti-Japanese demonstrations, today Beijing’s municipal authority warned citizens by e-mail that they should not gather in front of the Japanese embassy. What is your assessment and analysis of this and the impact?
Minister Gemba: We don’t know that yet. I think no one at this moment can predict it accurately. However, regarding the Senkaku Islands related incidents, as various movements have continued in the last couple of days, unfortunately this kind of situation is likely to last for some time. What is important at this moment is that a broader perspective should not be lost. A calm reaction is most important.
Matsuura: So you don’t think that the e-mail notification will calm down the situation?
Minister Gemba: I expect it to be calmed down, of course. We have called on the Chinese side for multiple times to maintain law and order, so I have strong expectations.
Back to Index