Press Conference by the Press Secretary 13 February 1996

1. Holding of the Fifth Mongolian Assistance Group Meeting
2. Fundamental Japanese positions on the reform of the United Nations
3. Situation regarding Takeshima Island and other territorial issues
4. Upcoming summit meeting between President William Clinton of the United States of America and Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto
5. Japan's view of the situation in the strait between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan
6. Possible upcoming talks between Japan and the United States of America under the World Trade Organization (WTO)

1. Holding of the Fifth Mongolian Assistance Group Meeting

   Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hiroshi Hashimoto: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The first announcement is related to the Fifth Mongolian Assistance Group Meeting. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the purpose of this Group is international assistance for Mongolia's effort for democratization and the transition to a market economy; Japan continues its active cooperation, putting priority on the establishment of a basis for achieving a stable self-supply of food and energy. Mongolia is an important neighbor of Japan, and the bilateral relationship has been developing rapidly; from 27 April, regular air service will be commenced between Mongolia and Japan. Nowadays, Japan has become Mongolia's top export partner. We hope that this Fifth Mongolia Assistance Group Meeting will be successful.

2. Fundamental Japanese positions on the reform of the United Nations

   Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hiroshi Hashimoto: The second announcement is related to the fundamental Japanese positions on the reform of the United Nations. I would just like to point out some important points in the reference material distributed to you. Currently, four major working groups are working for the reform of the United Nations. The first one is the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council; the second is the High-level Open- ended Working Group on the Financial Situation of the United Nations; the third is the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group of the General Assembly on an Agenda for Development; and the fourth is the Open-ended High-level Working Group on the Strengthening of the United Nations System.

   Japan believes that the efforts to reform the United Nations should aim at the creation of a system in which the rights and responsibilities of Member States in the political, economic and social fields, as well as in the financial field of the organization, are kept in balance, and reflect the changing realities of the international community. As for the first issue, which is the enlargement of the Security Council, Japan considers that by the end of the current 50th Session of the General Assembly, the working group should present to the General Assembly a basic framework for Security Council reform. Japan is of the view that the working group must establish an effective working method, so that it can begin the negotiating process. We are of the opinion that intensive negotiations are necessary. As for the substance of the reform, Japan believes that it is essential to bring about a limited increase in the permanent membership of the Security Council, and at the same time, to add an appropriate number of non-permanent seats; also, the enhancement of transparency in the Security Council's working methods is necessary.

   As for the second working group related to the financial situation, the Government of Japan believes that the Member States should address the problem of finance as one ingredient of an overall plan for the reform of the organization in all of its aspects. Therefore, the financial problems will have to be solved within the framework of a well-balanced and comprehensive package, which should include reform proposals not only in the financial area, but also in the social and economic areas, as well as in the political area. In other words, we are against the idea of singling out the financial issue and trying to solve it separately. As for the scale of contributions, we believe that a linkage should be established between the responsibility that the Member State is expected to shoulder within the organization and the apportionment of its financial burden. So, if we term the present system, "the capacity to pay," we believe that a system termed "the responsibility to pay" should be created. In this sense, the permanent members of the Security Council should shoulder a substantial surcharge for the cost of peace-keeping operations. Japan believes that a certain minimal level of assessment could be introduced for each permanent member. As for the scale of assessment for the regular budget, Japan is of the view that a comprehensive review of all the pertinent factors should be undertaken, including the base period, the scheme of limits, and the per capita income adjustment.

   As for the third working group related to an agenda for development, Japan presented elements for inclusion in an agenda for development to the working group in August 1995. Japan is of the view that a comprehensive approach is needed, that realistic development targets should be established, and that South-South cooperation should be further promoted.

   As for the fourth working group, which has been tackling the issues of reform of the General Assembly and of the Secretariat, we think the issues before this working group are also very important.

3. Situation regarding Takeshima Island and other territorial issues

   Q: Can you bring us up to the moment on the current tension between South Korea and Japan? More specifically, according to your information, what is the nature of the so-called improvements which South Korea wants to carry out on Takeshima Island? Also, what is your understanding of the scale of the military exercises which they are planning?

   A: I will answer your second question first. We know that, on 12 February, the Department of Defense of the Republic of Korea announced that the Korean side intends to hold joint drills of its navy and air force sometime in the first quarter of this year. But, we also understand that the Department of Defense has not announced when the Korean side will actually carry out the drills. Also, we do not know where the Korean side intends to carry out the drills. That is what we know about the exercises. What exactly did you have in mind in your first question?

   Q: There have been reports about an additional wharf or pier on Takeshima Island, and the Foreign Minister of Japan was quoted as mentioning that this is somewhat objectionable -- in the sense of improving the facilities there.

   A: What the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan knows is that several days ago the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea announced that the Korean side intends to carry out some ground construction related to the improvement of the safety of transport of some materials to the island. We also know that the Korean side announced that the island, historically and internationally, belongs to the Republic of Korea, and that it is legitimate for the Republic of Korea to undertake the ground construction.

   Q: Apart from Japan's historical claim to Takeshima, where does it fall in terms of the 200-mile limit? Does it fall clearly inside Japan's limit, or doesn't it?

   A: First of all, if you are asking me about the position of the Government of Japan on Takeshima Island, I answered one of your colleagues last week that the Japanese Government's position has been consistent. But at the same time, the Government of Japan is now preparing documents to present to the Diet for ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We are still under urgent study regarding what we should do about the so-called exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

   Q: Simply, as your map shows, does the 200-mile limit in fact embrace Takeshima? Does Japan's 200-mile limit map show Takeshima falling within the 200-mile limit, or is it outside, or sort of on the border?

   A: From where do you measure 200 miles? From the mainland of Japan? I don't have a map here, but the Government of Japan has not decided whether we will establish the exclusive economic zone in that area yet. At present, under the provisional law, we have established the fishing zone. However, the fishing zone has not been established in that part of the sea which is very near the Korean peninsula and the People's Republic of China. So, in other areas, we have already established the fishing zone. But as for the EEZ, we have not established the zone yet.

   Q: So the claim is purely historical, at this point. Is that correct? Japan's claim to the island is based on historical claims, rather than on delineated borders?

   A: If you are just asking me the position of the Government of Japan on the island itself -- historically, what I should say is that, first of all, the position of the Government of Japan is consistent; but at the same time, we know that the position of the Government of the Republic of Korea is different from that of Japan, and we do not want to see this difference jeopardize the friendly relations between the two countries. We do not want to see it lead to emotional confrontations between the two nations.

   Q: Why has Japan chosen this particular time to ratify the United Nations Convention? Why now?

   A: The Parliament of the Republic of Korea has already ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and we understand that the Chinese Government is also going to present their legislation to their congress, and numerous other countries have already ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the Japanese Government intends to present the relevant laws and regulations to the present session of the Diet.

   Q: Can you give us a bit of background on the history of the island and the history of Japan's claim to it? Secondly, from the photographs we've seen of the island, there is obviously a South Korean presence there -- a flag, and there are said to be guards or at least officers there - - and I read one report which said that there had been a Korean presence there since 1954. If this is a cause of great concern, why hasn't Japan acted earlier to prevent this work and this presence being established?

   A: Probably, you know that between Japan and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the present Russian Federation there are territorial issues. For a long, long time, we have been calling on the Soviet and Russian Governments to return the islands to Japan, but at the same time, we have to admit that those territories are illegally occupied by the Russian side. So, it is not unnatural that Japan claims, but at the same time the other Government also claims, possession of the territories. We understand that the Government of the Republic of Korea has been sending a number of people to Takeshima Island. But, our position on Takeshima Island has not changed, and the position of the Government of Japan has been kept clear both to the Japanese people, and to other countries as well.

   Q: Could you tell us a bit about the history of the island and the Government of Japan's position? When was that position first delineated?

   A: If you do want to know the history of the island, of course, I can explain it to you a little. But, I understand that there is a difference in the positions of the two Governments. It is very unfortunate that the Korean people are strongly resistant on this issue, and the Government of Japan doesn't want to have the issues handled roughly. We sincerely hope that both Japan and the Republic of Korea can talk in a quiet atmosphere, and we should do our best not to jeopardize the friendly relations between the two countries. This is very important now, although our position hasn't changed. So, I'm not sure whether it is advisable or appropriate for me to answer you directly. But, if you want to know some historical background and so on, I think I would like to consider what we can do for you.

   Q: Just to clarify -- I didn't quite understand your response to my colleague's question about the nature of Japan's claim. Is it a historical claim based on prior occupation of the island, or is it based on the 200-mile territorial limit and on international law?

   A: First of all, it has nothing to do with the 200-mile economic zones. This is related to sovereignty. Last week, the Government of Japan conveyed its position to the Government of the Republic of Korea. In doing so, the Government of Japan made clear once again its position on Takeshima Island. Today, I would like to stress that, although the Japanese Government's position hasn't changed, we would like to see this issue handled in a very quiet manner.

   Q: You say it is Japanese-owned soil. Does Japan have any intention to increase its military presence in the area?

   A: First of all, we do not have a military presence near Takeshima Island. Every now and then, the Maritime Safety Agency sends their ships to the area around Takeshima Island.

   Q: Do you expect the talks to be successful, given that Korea is mounting military exercises in the coming weeks? They seem to be very determined to claim the island as their sovereign soil. So, Japan and Korea are almost deadlocked on the issue. How successful do you think the talks will be?

   A: First of all, we still do not know actually when and where the Government of the Republic of Korea is going to carry out the exercises, so we have to wait until we know the details. Secondly, the issue has existed for a long time and has been known to everybody. There is no secret about this. That is one thing. But this is completely another -- how carefully, and how skillfully, we are able to handle the issue. But unfortunately, now, the Korean people are so very upset, if I may say so.

   Q: Would Japan be prepared to use force?

   A: The Government of Japan has never intended to use force at all. We just would like to hold talks in a peaceful and quiet manner.

   Q: Do you rule out the use of force?

   A: We do rule it out. Yes.

   Q: There is no question of force being used?

   A: No. Definitely, no. No. No.

   Q: Why has Japan not established an exclusive economic zone until this time, and when do you think it will make a decision on whether to establish it?

   A: First of all, what I can say is that the Government of Japan is now preparing very thick documentation; there are lots of ministries and agencies involved, and all of us are now in the process of preparing the papers for the present session of the Diet. In general, when the Diet is debating the budget, they do not have time to discuss other issues; so keeping that in mind, we will have to find an appropriate time to do so. But now that the Conference of the Law of the Sea is successfully over, and that the Government of Japan has been preparing to ratify the Convention, we think it is now high time for us to present this to the Japanese Diet. But the Japanese press speculates about when the Japanese Cabinet is going to announce its intentions for domestic regulations related to the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Some Japanese press speculate it will be as early as this week; some Japanese papers speculate that it will be soon. So, if your question is related to this, we say that we are under urgent study. But today, I cannot tell you when the Cabinet will --.

   Q: You can ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea without establishing an exclusive economic zone?

   A: We should separate the two, yes. As far as the Japanese Cabinet is concerned, it will state the fundamental position of the Government of Japan on the related domestic regulations. But the domestic laws and regulations themselves will be formally presented to the Diet a bit later -- not soon.

   Q: You have mentioned that South Korea announced it is going to have a naval-air exercise, and that South Korea plans to reinforce the port facilities. Does the Japanese Government see any link between this series of developments?

   A: Probably, the Japanese Government shouldn't speculate on that kind of delicate question, and we do simply await whether, or when, or how the Government of the Republic of Korea is going to announce a more detailed plan for the exercises.

   Q: Mr. Hashimoto, you sound -- I will say -- very, very calm about this development, which is obviously attracting a lot of media attention here. Could you tell us how the Government of Japan is evaluating the entire development over the last several days?

   A: The Government of Japan has been keeping -- if I may say so -- a moderate posture on matters related to territorial issues, although the position of the Government has not been changed. This can be related to Russia, too. In the case of Russia too, we do not think that the use of force would be a solution; we have got to peacefully negotiate with the Russian side. Just to react violently will not help the solution to the issue at all. So, our stance is firm, but at the same time we always seek peaceful talks.

   Q: Have you heard anything from China, or seen any Chinese comment about the ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and your claim to the Senkaku Islands?

   A: On two occasions. Several weeks ago, when Director-General of the Asian Affairs Bureau Ryozo Kato visited Beijing, he informed his counterpart that the Japanese Government intended to present the laws and regulations related to the Law of the Sea to the Diet. This is the first. The second is that, when Minister for Foreign Affairs Yukihiko Ikeda met his Chinese counterpart at Phuket in the Kingdom of Thailand at the ASEM Asian Foreign Ministers' Meeting, he also conveyed this intention to his counterpart. The Chinese side, on both occasions, said that we should handle this matter carefully, because there are certain delicate issues.

   Q: If the Japanese Government ratifies this Law of the Sea in the current session of the Diet, does it automatically mean that Japan will impose a 200-nautical mile exclusive zone?

   A: No. We would be entitled to do so, but it does not necessarily mean that we will automatically do so. As far as that issue is concerned, we are, as I told you, under an urgent study regarding what we should do.

   Q: Related to the Senkaku Islands -- I think Foreign Minister Ikeda said something this morning about the Chinese side conducting some oil drilling in the Senkaku Islands, and there was some talk about the Chinese side conducting this on their side of the medium line, or something, which I didn't understand. If you could go into that a bit, please.

   A: I do not know how to pronounce the name in Chinese, but in Japanese, the oil-drilling rig, Kantan san-go, is stationed in the sea which is near the Japanese side. One ship which belongs to the Maritime Safety Agency actually seized that rig located over there, and the Japanese side has actually witnessed that, from the top of the rig a flare was noticed; so there is a possibility that exploratory drilling was done by the Kantan san-go. But at the same time, the Japanese side noticed that the Chinese side may be preparing to move the rig. As far as the location of the Kantan san-go is concerned, it is within the Japanese side - - from the median line between the Japanese side and the Chinese side. I am sorry, but I cannot explain this to you in an academic way. It seems that there is a difference in interpreting the location of the median line between the Japanese side and the Chinese side.

   Q: Is this median line a gentlemen's agreement, or was it firmly established in a diplomatic memorandum, or anything like that?

   A: When we have the laws and regulations regarding the Convention on the Law of the Sea ratified, and if the Chinese side also does the same, we have got to talk and actually agree where exactly the median line should be established.

   Q: If bilateral solutions cannot be found to these problems of Takeshima and Senkaku, and if Japan ratifies the Convention on the Law of the Sea, would Japan be in favor of taking the issue to the International Court of Justice for a ruling on the legitimacy of the opposing claims?

   A: As far as I understand, we have no intention to do so, because in general I can tell you that, unless the two parties agree, they cannot go to the International Court of Justice.

   Q: Can you tell us about the bilateral discussions which are going on or which are planned between Japan and the Republic of Korea on the Takeshima question, and whether it is likely to affect the summit between Prime Minister Hashimoto and President Kim Young Sam of Korea?

   A: As far as Takeshima Island is concerned -- unlike the issue of the Northern Territories, a sort of bilateral framework has not been established. Secondly, as far as the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) is concerned, Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto intends to attend the Meeting so far as domestic issues, such as the Diet deliberations and so on, allow him to do so. Still, we actually do not know when and how Prime Minister Hashimoto can go to the Bangkok Meeting. In this sense, possible bilateral meetings over there have not been arranged for Prime Minister Hashimoto at all, yet. It is simply premature for us to say whether bilateral talks between President Kim Young Sam of the Republic of Korea and Prime Minister Hashimoto will take place over there or not.

   Q: You obviously place a lot of emphasis on the need for resolving this by talking and negotiating. Are there no plans to establish some kind of bilateral mechanism? Are any discussions going on at any level?

   A: For the time being, no. In any case, we need a quieter atmosphere, and unfortunately, this is not the case now.

   Q: Given the importance of both Japan and the Republic of Korea to the United States in terms of its forward deployment of force in East Asia, is there any chance that the United States might help to mediate this dispute between Japan and Korea?

   A: I don't think so. It should be handled solely by Japan and the Republic of Korea.

   Q: You replied to an earlier question that, in any case, if you have to create a bilateral forum to resolve this feud, you need a quieter atmosphere --.

   A: I didn't say so. I simply answered the gentleman's question. I said that we need a quieter --.

   Q: That was your answer, but now, could we be a bit more specific? Do you think a quieter atmosphere would exist after the Korean elections?

   A: I am probably not entitled to make a comment on this. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for a civil servant to answer that kind of question. Sorry.

   Q: I was going to ask the same question.

   Q: When you say the "Takeshima issue," are you referring to an island called Takeshima, or are you referring to a group of small islands?

   A: In Japanese, we say Takeshima -- but it consists of two small islands. We just simply call them Takeshima.

4. Upcoming summit meeting between President William Clinton of the United States of America and Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto

   Q: Why did Prime Minister Hashimoto feel it necessary to request a summit meeting with President Clinton later this month?

   A: Prime Minister Hashimoto wants to establish personal relations with President William Clinton of the United States of America. Although Prime Minister Hashimoto has met President Clinton several times in his former capacity as Minister for International Trade and Industry, he has not had a chance to do so in his new capacity. As you know, in April, President Clinton will formally visit Japan. Before that, he wants to meet President Clinton and establish a personal relationship. That is the main purpose of his visit to the United States.

   Q: Do you expect security concerns or economic issues to take precedence in that meeting?

   A: We have not worked out the agenda, but the most important thing is to establish the personal relationship, because President Clinton will come to Japan in April, and the security matters will be discussed in detail at that time. Both Japan and the United States consider the Japan- U.S. relationship as the most important bilateral relationship in the world. So, in general, I can tell you that both leaders will reconfirm this relationship, and I think they can exchange views on the bilateral and international issues which both gentlemen are interested in.

5. Japan's view of the situation in the strait between the People's Republic of China and Taiwan

   Q: Ambassador Mondale said a few hours ago that, during the meetings here with Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Anthony Lake of the United States, Japanese concerns over China and Taiwan were raised several times. Do you think that will come up again when Prime Minister Hashimoto meets the President?

   A: I am not sure in what way Ambassador to Japan Walter Mondale of the United States touched on the subject. What I can tell you is the principal position of the Government of Japan on this. The Government of Japan is carefully watching the situation in the strait between China and Taiwan, but we do not think that military conflict is possibly imminent over there. But in any case, we sincerely hope that if any problem arises between the two parties, we hope they solve the issue peacefully. That's what I can say. I am not sure what Ambassador Mondale told the press about the specific concerns of the Japanese Government. I do not think the Government of Japan has specific concerns over the situation at present. We are just carefully watching the situation.

   Q: How important to Japan are the fishing rights in that area? Has it ever been suggested that there might be mineral deposits there?

   A: I am sorry that I can't tell you exactly what resources are there. But in any case, surrounding that area, many vessels are engaged in fishing. Because, as you know, between Japan and the Republic of Korea and between Japan and China, we have fishing agreements. Not only in that area, but also in other areas, within the 200-mile fishing zone, according to the present agreement, the Chinese and Korean vessels are operating. Therefore, I think that both the Japanese fishermen, and the Korean and Chinese fishermen have a vital -- if I may say so -- a very deep interest in the Japanese fishing zone itself.

6. Possible upcoming talks between Japan and the United States of America under the World Trade Organization (WTO)

   Q: I just wanted to hear about the developments on this copyrights issue, and your stance on the U.S. request to go to the WTO.

   A: Yes. We formally received the request to open the bilateral talks under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. According to the WTO Agreement, we have got to answer to the United States formally whether we shall accept the offer or not within 10 days of the announcement of the United States Trade Representative. We are preparing for this. The last day will be 19 February, and before that, I am sure the Japanese Government is going to formally accept the talks under the WTO.

   Q: So you would have talks with the U.S., but not necessarily accept what the U.S. is asking for?

   A: At the WTO, we will clearly state the position of the Government of Japan to the United States.

   Q: Is the complaint fair?

   A: I shouldn't say whether the United States position is fair or not. But, this is a very technical matter, related to the interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement. Since this is technical, we are ready to talk with the United States side at the WTO.

   Q: How do you expect the U.S. to understand Japan's interpretation?

   A: As far as the present TRIPS Agreement is concerned, Japan thinks that music rights before 1971 will not be protected in Japan, while the United States side claims that the rights should be protected. So, how to interpret this under the existing WTO regime is the point; we are ready to talk with the United States side in detail on this subject. Thank you very much.