Press Conference by the Press Secretary 2 February 1996

Procurement of foreign products in government computer procurement
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hiroshi Hashimoto: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. As you are aware, in 1994 the Japanese Government introduced the measures related to the Japanese public sector procurements of computer products and services and the procedures for government procurement of products. According to these measures, foreign products in government procurement have been continuously expanded, and it is to be desired that foreign firms become more and more familiar with these measures and continue to make full use of opportunities to participate in Japanese Government procurement. That is what I would like to explain to you at the outset of my briefing and I am ready to take any questions you may have.
Financial news services regulation by the People's Republic of China
Q: I would like to ask three related questions on the subject of the announcement that the People's Republic of China made last month regarding economic information business carried on in the People's Republic of China by non-People's Republic of China companies. The first question is, if you could please give Japan's reaction to a comment that United States Trade Representative Mickey Kantor made this week, saying that the People's Republic of China's clamps on the flow of financial information is of deep concern to the United States? The second question is, does Japan believe that these restrictions imposed by the People's Republic of China should or will affect the country's application to join the World Trade Organization (WTO)? The last question is, what does Japan believe will be the competitive or other impact on Japanese financial institutions operating in the People's Republic of China?

A: First of all, the Japanese Government considers that transparency on the People's Republic of China's economic situation should increase in the process of the country's modernization efforts. This is our basic stance. The Japanese Government knows that on 16 January, the Government of the People's Republic of China issued an edict which gives the Xinhua Agency sole authority over the release of economic information to the People's Republic of China by foreign news agencies and their related news organizations. However, this edict is full of abstract descriptions about new restrictions, and the scope of restrictions is not clear. Therefore, the Japanese Government is now clarifying those points with the Government of the People's Republic of China. You asked whether the measures by the People's Republic of China will negatively affect the WTO negotiations. The Japanese Government has been conducting bilateral talks with the People's Republic of China on their participation in the WTO. But, as I explained to you, the Japanese Government is now clarifying the measures with the Government of the People's Republic of China, so until the details are known, the Japanese side would like to refrain from making an official comment as to what extent and how this will affect the negotiations of the People's Republic of China to participate in the WTO. In any case, liberalization of trade and services should be promoted under the WTO, and the WTO free flow of economic information should be established. I think the news agency services can be a subject of the negotiations between Japan and the People's Republic of China, but for the time being, this is not yet on the negotiation table. Your last question is related to the Japanese financial institutions and other private sectors. Up until now, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has not received complaints from Japanese companies operating in the People's Republic of China. This is one point. The second point is, as I have explained to you, that the new regulations are rather vague, and we still do not know how the measures will be implemented in the People's Republic of China. It is difficult for us to predict what sort of affect will be made on the Japanese private sector operating in the People's Republic of China. In any case, as I told you, the People's Republic of China is continuously endeavoring for modernization, and it is very important for us to encourage this. In the process of modernization, the People's Republic of China should endeavor further to increase transparency regarding the economic situation in their country.

Q: At the APEC Ministerial Meeting in Kyoto on 16 and 17 February, what items will be proposed by Japan for this meeting?

A: I do not have information on the agenda for the Minister of Finance now. This is a continuation of the APEC process.
Asia-Europe Summit preparations
Q: Can you give us some idea of what kind of goals Japan might have regarding the Asian-Europe Summit coming up in Bangkok? Particularly regarding trade issues?

A: As you know, Minister for Foreign Affairs Yukihiko Ikeda is now in Phuket and meeting his counterparts on the Asian side. The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is very important for Japan. This is the first summit meeting between Asia and Europe. Now the ministers are working very hard on how and what the leaders and governments should talk about in March. We understand that, without setting a specific agenda, they will state their views about various issues they are interested in. There will be political dialog -- it can include exchange of information and views about the security relationship or other related matters. Secondly, they could talk about economic cooperations in a broad sense. Thirdly, they could talk and exchange views about cooperations in other fields. They are going to issue a Chairman's declaration. It is premature for us to say what will be included in this declaration; but, in any case, this is the first occasion for the summit between Asia and Europe. This is probably not the occasion for them to decide something, but they will be very happy to touch on various aspects and deepen their mutual positions on various matters. This summit is not primarily related to the trade issue. Of course, we understand that the European side is interested in the development of APEC. For example, the Asian side may touch on this and explain to them the basic nature of APEC, based on open regionalism, and so on.
Food aid to North Korea
Q: There seems to be a widespread skepticism among officials in both the United States and the Republic of Korea as to the validity of the reports of widespread famine and flooding in North Korea. Can you explain what the position of the Government of Japan is on whether you believe these reports are exaggerated? Do you believe them? Are you, in fact, planning to issue additional aid to North Korea?

A: When the tripartite meeting on the deputy vice- ministerial level took place in Hawaii, they exchanged views about the food situation in North Korea. Yes, there was a difference in analyzing the situation to some extent; however, those three countries shared the same views that the food situation is critical, but has not yet reached a stage where a famine has been caused by this. The Republic of Korea's views about the food situation may be different from that of the United States, but the difference is not very critical. In any case, the Japanese side does not intend to extend rice aid to North Korea. The same can be said in the case of the Republic of Korea. As far as the United States is concerned, they are now studying the possibility of extending aid to North Korea; however, they have not yet decided whether they will extend aid to North Korea or not. Even if they decide to extend aid to North Korea, it will not be as much as the Republic of Korea and Japan have provided before. The amount would be, seemingly, rather small. Basically, we do not find a very big difference in analyzing the situation in North Korea.

Q: So, the Government of Japan also believes that the situation is not at a famine stage yet?

A: Not yet.

Q: You said that you do not intend to extend aid right now, but have you discussed the issue of when and if you decide to extend aid, are you going to attach conditions to that aid, such as withdrawal from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) or inter-Korean talks, or anything like that?

A: I should have explained this to you in more detail. Last year, we extended rice aid to North Korea several times. As far as the second package is concerned, not all the rice has been shipped to North Korea yet. This is one point. The second point is that last year we had a stock of rice which was imported to Japan for emergency purposes, but because we have already used up the stock of emergency rice, we do not intend to extend rice aid to North Korea. The third point is that last December, the United Nations Department of Human Affairs (DHA) issued an appeal and Japan responded quickly by extending US$500,000 to North Korea. Apart from that, the DHA (or any other United Nations- related organization) has not issued any new appeals since that time. So, we are not in a position to send emergency aid to North Korea. If you talk about the economic cooperation in a general way, we think that it can only be studied under the negotiations on normalization between Japan and North Korea. But, unfortunately, negotiations have been stopped.

Q: So, in other words, you are requiring inter-Korean talks before Japan will resume its economic cooperation?

A: If you talk about economic cooperation, yes.

Q: What about the emergency aid? Will you attach similar conditions to that?

A: If we talk about emergency rice, first of all, we think that the situation over there has not reached a critical stage yet. Secondly, no United Nations organization or agency has issued a new appeal for aid. Thirdly, we have already used up the stock of emergency rice to be delivered to North Korea. Now, we are not studying the possibility of extending new emergency aid to North Korea.

Q: What is the state of the normalization with North Korea that Japan is trying to resume? Have there been any recent contacts?

A: Informally, we contact North Korea, and we have already stated many times that we are ready to resume talks. But, up until now, we have not received any concrete sign that they would like to do so.

Q: When was the last time informal contacts were made?

A: As far as informal contact is concerned, we do not publicize this. In any case, we have established communication.

Q: It is a popular saying that the ball is in the other court -- it is up to North Korea.

A: Probably, it is not appropriate to say that the ball is on our court or their court, and so on. Both sides have already established contact, and if both sides can agree, we can resume the talks. In any case, as was the case in the past, when the two sides decide to conduct the formal negotiations, we always make an announcement, but still there has been no move.

Q: What do you think is the reason for the silence from the North Korean side? Why are they not responding?

A: What the Japanese Government has been saying is that without setting any preconditions, the Japanese side is ready to resume talks on normalization.

Q: Recently, there was a delegation from the ruling coalition that did go to North Korea. I am wondering if you received any briefing from them on that visit and what was discussed or accomplished?

A: Are you talking about House of Councilors Member Akiko Domoto's visit to North Korea?

Q: Yes.

A: She recently visited North Korea and was approached, presumably, by North Korean authorities, and was asked whether the Japanese side could extend new aid to North Korea. Councilor Domoto came back, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had a chance to be briefed by her on this subject. I understand the three ruling coalition parties met, and the other day they presumably said that the talks on normalization of relations between Japan and North Korea should be opened as soon as possible, but it seems that the Coalition parties, for the time being, will not send a delegation to North Korea. On the contrary, they are sending their delegations to the Republic of Korea.

Q: When is this?

A: Next week.

Q: So, the Coalition Government decided talks on normalization should begin as soon as possible, but there is no concrete schedule or timetable?

A: No.

Q: She was approached by North Korea and asked whether the Japanese side could extend new aid and, as you just explained, she said no, not at this time? How did she respond to that request?

A: We were briefed by her on her visit. The other fact is that the coalition parties met the other day. We do not know precisely what they talked about; but, what we know is that they say the talks on normalizations should begin soon. That is all. Therefore, I do not know how the coalition parties treat the message sent by Councilor Domoto.

Q: I see. Was the Government -- the Ministry -- in a position to tell Councilor Domoto that no, the Government of Japan is not wanting to consider aid at this point?

A: The Government itself has explained to her clearly about what we have done. We have explained to her that the so- called emergency supplies have disappeared, and so on.

Q: I just ask, because I hear that she appears to be appealing for aid for North Korea in her own private speeches, and so forth. Does this represent some sort of divergence in views on whether to give aid to North Korea between people like Councilor Domoto and people like Government of Japan Ministry of Finance officials?

A: I am not in a position to speak on her behalf. But, as far as the Government's position is concerned, I have already explained it to you. As far as the three coalition parties are concerned, what we know is they will dispatch a delegation to the Republic of Korea, but for the time being, we have not heard anything about their plans to dispatch a delegation to North Korea. I do not know how Councilor Domoto is dealing with these matters, but after we were briefed by her, I think she told her friends how she thinks the situation is in North Korea.

Q: A related question. Just let me clarify -- North Korea has not yet loaded all the rice Japan offered last year?

A: Not yet.

Q: Why?

A: We do not know the reason, but in any case, this rice is shipped by North Korean Freight. Unless the North Koreans bring their ships to Japan, we cannot simply deliver the rice to North Korea. It is completely up to their plan. Whenever they come, we are ready to deliver the remaining rice to North Korea.

Q: How much remains? How much has been given and how much remains?

A: I do not have the data here. Later, we will let you know.

Q: I do not want to look like a bean counter, but obviously, this unloaded rice left in ports must be stored in warehouses or storage facilities. It costs money for storage -- with warehouse fees, etc. Is the Japanese Government paying that?

A: No, I do not think so. What I can tell you about the rice given by the Japanese side is that when we extended aid to North Korea last year, we received information through the International Red Cross about the distribution. This is related to the 150,000 tons of grant aid to North Korea. Apart from that, the North Korean officials later gave explanations to our Japanese colleagues about the distributions. The cities which received the Japanese rice were clearly indicated in the document, but we do not know where they stocked the rice. What we know is where they have distributed rice.
Visit to Japan by Secretary of Defense William Perry of the United States
Q: There are reports that United States Secretary of Defense William Perry is visiting Japan before President Clinton visits. Could you clarify this and could you explain why this visit has suddenly popped-up on the diplomatic agenda?

A: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs knows that Secretary of Defense Perry intends to visit Japan just before President Clinton's visit. Today, we do not know when he will visit Japan. In any case, if Secretary Perry comes to Japan, it will contribute to a successful visit by President Clinton in April. The Japanese Government will welcome Secretary Perry's visit. That is the official stance of the Japanese Government. In addition to this, when Minister for Foreign Affairs Ikeda visited Washington, D.C. the other day, and had talks with United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Secretary Perry, Minister Ikeda understood that Secretary Perry is very responsible for solving the Okinawa base issues. In this sense, we welcome Secretary Perry's visit to Japan before President Clinton comes.

Q: At the last press conference, you explained that Minister Ikeda and Secretary Perry reconfirmed that the two governments are going to issue that joint security paper. This sudden decision on the part of Secretary Perry to visit Japan at that time -- does it not mean that there is some need to once again reconfirm or dilute that January agreement between Minister Ikeda and Secretary Perry?

A: No, I do not think so. Both governments have already reconfirmed the importance of the security relationship between the two countries. The two governments intend to do so at the time of President Clinton's visit to Japan. Minister Ikeda told Secretary Perry and Secretary Christopher in Washington, D.C. that when President Clinton comes to Japan, desirably, the two sides should give a specific direction in relation to the Okinawa base issues. He did not elaborate on what he meant by this. But, if this should be reflected in the joint paper to be issued in April, I think the two sides should endeavor to concretely talk about this (direction). In this sense, we simply welcome Secretary Perry when he comes to Japan -- before President Clinton's visit. I think we should thoroughly prepare for his visit to Japan. Thank you very much.

Back to Index