Press Conference, 22 December 2006

10th Japan-China Working Group Meeting concerning Chemical Weapons in China
Declaration of the UN International Year of Sanitation
First Negotiation Meeting for Conclusion of the Treaty between Japan and the Russian Federation on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the Republic of Montenegro, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of El Salvador
Questions concerning the Progress of the Six-Party Talks
Questions concerning Negotiations for a Japan-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
Question concerning Japan's Response to Floods in Malaysia

I. 10th Japan-China Working Group Meeting concerning Chemical Weapons in China

Deputy Press Secretary Tomohiko Taniguchi: Thank you very much for coming.

Apart from the items already available on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) web page, I would like to make an introduction of the following:

The first is regarding the 10th Japan-China Joint Working Group Meeting concerning Abandoned Chemical Weapons in China, which was held yesterday in Tokyo between officials from both Governments. Those who participated included Director of China and Mongolia Division of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau Takeo Akiba of the MOFA as head of the Japanese delegation and his counterpart Mr. Pan Hao, Deputy Director of the Office for Japanese Chemical Weapons Discarded in China, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China.

They talked about a host of issues such as those related to disposal projects in Haerbaling District, Dunhua City, Jilin Province.

As a footnote I should add that Japan and China have a memorandum, signed in July 1999, that set out why and how jointly both countries would excavate, collect, and safely destroy the abandoned chemical weapons left in China at the end of the war by the Japanese Imperial Army.

China and Japan are both signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Article 4 of the Convention stipulates that a signatory country destroy the abandoned chemical weapons left in another signatory nation, which is exactly what Japan has been doing.

Related Information (Press Release)

II. Declaration of the UN International Year of Sanitation

Mr. Taniguchi: Next, let me tell you that the United Nations (UN) General Assembly has declared 2008 as the International Year of Sanitation. It requested that the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs serve as the focal point for the year and to develop proposals on possible activities, including possible sources of funding. The year was one of the recommendations of the Hashimoto Action Plan launched by the UN Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation in March 2006 at the 4th World Water Forum. What I have just said is a direct quotation from the web site of the Holland-based International Water and Sanitation Centre, at www.irc.nl .

Related Information (Press Release)

III. First Negotiation Meeting for Conclusion of the Treaty between Japan and the Russian Federation on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

Third, yesterday and today, the Russian Federation and Japan are holding the first negotiation meeting for conclusion of the treaty between Japan and Russia on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.

The long name speaks for itself, in my view. But if not, the treaty would enable police on each side to contact one another when need be without going through diplomatic channels. Japan has long since had one such treaty with the US, and has one waiting to be made effective with the Republic of Korea (ROK). We have ongoing negotiations for having such treaties with Hong Kong and China.

IV. Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the Republic of Montenegro, the People's Republic of China, and the Republic of El Salvador

A couple of items on Japan's official development assistance (ODA).

First, to the Republic of Montenegro, the Government of Japan has decided to extend a grant aid up to 441 million yen to help support the improvement of medical equipment for the nation's main hospitals.

Second, the Government of Japan has also decided to extend a grant aid up to 793 million Japanese yen to China to help implement the Project for the Establishment of the Monitoring Network for Acid Deposition, Dust and Sandstorm. The issues at stake are dire not only for the people in China but for almost all on the globe, and the grant aid was something Minister for Foreign Affairs Taro Aso mentioned this month in Sebu, the Philippines , when he met his counterpart, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, who appreciated Japanese cooperation toward Chinese environmental concerns.

Third, lately we had the privilege of hosting His Excellency Mr. Elias Antonio Saca Gonzalez, President of the Republic of El Salvador, and Mrs. Saca and their suite in October this year. I am pleased to make the announcement that the Government of Japan has decided to extend a grant aid up to 20 million yen to help implement a project to construct what is called the Japan-Central America Friendship Bridge, which is supposed to fix the transportation bottleneck of the border bridge between El Salvador and the Republic of Honduras.

V. Questions concerning the Progress of the Six-Party Talks

Q: My question is on the ongoing Six-Party Talks. What is the status? I believe it was Mr. Kenichiro Sasae, Director-General of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who questioned the effectiveness of holding these Six-Party Talks. Do you have any comments on that?

Mr. Taniguchi: I have not been briefed about what has been going on today, but as of the end of yesterday there was no such discussion about questioning the effectiveness of the Six-Party Talks framework, and no one had voiced such questions. That is the first part of the answer to your question. What is going on at the moment is unclear. I will have to wait a little bit more to know what has happened.

Q: Is there a sense of disappointment at what has been happening so far? What is the mood?

Mr. Taniguchi: I have to say, there is a shared sense of disappointment among other five nations (Russia, China, ROK, Japan, and the US) because the North Korean Government and the North Korean envoy had been very much sticking to a single issue.

Q: Which was the lifting of financial sanctions?

Mr. Taniguchi: That is right.

Q: Is there any possibility of bilateral talks between Japan and North Korea?

Mr. Taniguchi: In terms of possibilities, there always are. That is the answer. The question is whether North Korea is willing to knock on the door.

Q: If I may add, nothing has been raised on the abduction issue?

Mr. Taniguchi: Mr. Sasae repeatedly mentioned that in the overall sessions, but so far as the bilateral negotiation is concerned between North Korea and Japan, there has not been such an opportunity as of yet.

Q: A follow up question, sir. What about China's proposal of setting up working groups as a way to promote the six-way process? How does Japan view such a proposal?

Mr. Taniguchi: I am not sure if that proposal has been made official. I have been reading a lot in the media, published both here and elsewhere, but as far as the question of whether the proposal has been made official, I do not know and I cannot tell you any more about it at the moment.

Q: Another follow up on the North Korea issue. Would Japan propose any other format or any other measures for dealing with North Korea after this current session of the Six-Party Talks?

Mr. Taniguchi: I do not know anything about it. Let me just repeat that so far all the nations involved are still invested in the Six-Party Talks framework, and so my prediction is that the Japanese Government is going to continue to do its utmost to give steam to the Six-Party Talks framework.

Q: You mentioned the "shared sense of disappointment" among the five parties. I understand that if you use the word "disappointment" that is based on the premise that there was some sort of expectation at the start. How great were the expectations for Japan with regard to these talks, or how little was the expectation that there would be some kind of problem?

Mr. Taniguchi: That is a tactfully framed question. Obviously at the beginning of the Six-Party Talks, everyone was very hopeful that there was going to be a breakthrough in one way or another. In using the word "disappointment," I have just said that so far they do not seem to have made any progress because of the attitudes of the North Korea delegation, but beyond that I do not intend any implication.

But the expectation is still there, held by the member nations, and I can only reiterate what I just said: that the five nations are still interested in giving momentum to the Six-Party Talks framework. The only question is how and when the North Korean Government is going to follow the course so eagerly awaited by the other five nations.

Q: Have you heard any news? I understand that the talks are likely to end today. Any updates as to whether they really are?

Mr. Taniguchi: No, I do not have anything at the moment.

Q: There were actual six-party talks on the first day, but which other days? I keep on hearing about bilateral and trilateral talks, but not actual six-party talks.

Mr. Taniguchi: Right, it has been largely bilateral and trilateral talks. You are correct, there has been few six-party discussion per se, but what is important nonetheless is to have all of the member nations together, and to create an atmosphere, pressure, if you like, under which the people concerned are compelled to face up to the challenge straightforwardly, and under which the North Korean Government will likely feel the concerned voices made clear by the other five nations' Governments. That is one of the most important motivations for the five nations to hold the dialogue by inviting North Korea.

Q: Do you have a sense that North Korea is mixing issues during this discussion? All the countries have come together in hopes that North Korea would give up its nuclear program, but it keeps on bringing up financial sanctions and other issues. How do you view North Korea's tactics in dealing with this dialogue?

Mr. Taniguchi: It has been made obvious already that the North Korean Government and its envoy are doing their best to buy time, as if time were on their side, which is not the case. In other words, they may believe that they are able to win the battles, but they are doomed to lose the war; non-proliferation is everyone's concern across the board, and by sticking to their point, North Korea is going to get isolated even further. That is the point China, the ROK, Japan, Russia, and the US are trying hard to bring home to North Korea and one should hope that Pyongyang will feel that.

Q: How is Japan going to tackle the abduction issue if North Korea is going to refuse bilateral talks?

Mr. Taniguchi: It sounds as if Japan can do nothing without holding direct bilateral discussions, but there are many other venues and opportunities that Japan has not yet explored fully. There still remains ample room for Japan to continue to think hard about the abduction issue. In order for the Japanese Government to do exactly that, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's administration just set up a special office with his special adviser that is going to deal specifically with this abduction issue.

Over the last year or so, I must stress, huge progress has been made in heightening the awareness among people in counties like the US, thanks largely to a well-created motion picture that focused on Ms. Megumi Yokota's case. If you can recall the meeting with Ms. Megumi Yokota's parents, it was President George W. Bush of the US who said that the meeting was the most moving one during his career as President of the US. That has been some of the progress that did not exist a year or two ago, and that has taken shape over the last year or two. We are striving to move forward, but I should say that we have still got a long way to go.

Q: I have been reading reports that North Korea will definitely not give up its nuclear program unless the US lifts its financial sanctions. Is that how you see the situation at this point? Is that the condition they are sticking to?

Mr. Taniguchi: According to what Mr. Christopher Hill, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs of the US Department of State, said to members of the press last night, that seems to be the case. But I cannot tell you for certain, because I have not been briefed about what has happened today, from the morning until now, so I cannot tell you with 100% confidence.

Q: When do you expect Mr. Sasae to come back?

Mr. Taniguchi: On that point too, I cannot tell you for sure. There may be some abrupt change at the last minute in terms of the schedule, so I should not make any comment on that either.

VI. Questions concerning Negotiations for a Japan-Thailand Free Trade Agreement (FTA)

Q: I have a separate question. The Minister of Finance of the Kingdom of Thailand has apparently told reporters that he is keen to form a free trade agreement (FTA) with Japan during this current administration. Any comments on that?

Mr. Taniguchi: It has been more than welcome. We have been waiting for that to come.

Q: But even with the new government? I believe that Japan has been dealing with Thailand with regard to this FTA a lot already, but since the coup, the talks have stalled. Has there been any progress since then, or has it really been completely stalled?

Mr. Taniguchi: That has been put on hold, and we are trying to seek an opportunity to resume the dialogue to finalize the deal.

Q: Any prospects at this point?

Mr. Taniguchi: One must be hopeful, but other than that I do not have any comment at the moment.

VII. Question concerning Japan's Response to Floods in Malaysia

Q: I have another question on a separate issue. It is on the flood in Malaysia. I think that about 6,000 people have been evacuated. Is Japan expecting to give some sort of assistance aid, or send the Self-Defense Forces?

Mr. Taniguchi: I believe the relevant department and bureau are working hard to explore what Japan can do, but at the moment I am afraid I do not have anything to say explicitly.

Back to Index