Press Conferences

Minister for Foreign Affairs Fumio Kishida: I will make an official visit to Cambodia, which is the ASEAN coordinating country for Japan, from Sunday, June 29 to Tuesday, July 1.
I am scheduled to hold meetings with Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen and Minister of Foreign Affairs Hor Namhong. Bilateral economic relations have been deepening, including the number of Japanese companies entering Cambodia, which has approximately tripled in recent years. Based on mutual visits by the two countries’ leaders last year, I hope to further strengthen the “strategic partnership.”

Minister Kishida: At today’s Cabinet meeting the Government of Japan decided to extend Emergency Grant Aid of 6 million US dollars, approximately 582 million Japanese yen, through international organizations in order to support relief operations for displaced persons in Northern Iraq. Yesterday, June 26, the Government of Japan decided to grant approximately 50 million Japanese yen to the emergency humanitarian assistance activities being undertaken by Japanese NGOs at refugee camps etc. in Northern Iraq.
The Government of Japan firmly condemns the attacks by armed groups, and intends to continue to support Iraqi government and people.

Watanabe, NHK: My question concerns the support for Iraq you just mentioned. I would once again like to ask what the Government of Japan’s intentions are in providing this support to Iraq, and what its goals and its expectations are.

Minister Kishida: To begin with, the Government of Japan is supporting Iraqi Government’s fight against terrorism. Furthermore, the latest conflict is generating large numbers of internally displaced persons within Iraq. From a humanitarian standpoint, the Government of Japan decided to assist those internally displaced persons.
Going forward also, the Government of Japan intends to solidly contribute to stability in Iraq while coordinating with international organizations and others.

Saito, Kyodo News: I would like to ask about the efforts toward a Cabinet decision on the right of collective defense.
Firstly, in the debate on the right of collective self-defense up to now, in press conferences and in response to questions in the Diet, Prime Minister Abe has referred to the use of force to unilaterally change the status quo in South China Sea, changing the status quo by force, South China Sea several times. Accompanying that the Prime Minister has said that under those circumstances, the Government and he as Prime Minister have a responsibility for the lives of citizens and ensuring they can live in peace, and he has repeatedly said several times that it is important to be able to respond to any situations.
My question is, if it becomes possible to exercise the right of collective self-defense, will or will not the Government of Japan formulate a legal framework allowing Japan to commit in some form to the situation in South China Sea as indicated by Prime Minister Abe? Or alternatively, will it be unable to commit to the situation in South China Sea in the end? I expect that from Japanese citizens’ point of view, insofar as the Prime Minister has meintioned South China Sea by name, whether or not some involvement to it becomes possible will be a key point. From the viewpoint of supplementing the Prime Minister’s comments, could you explain the debate on the right to collective self-defense and whether there is a connection with South China Sea or not, from your standpoint as Minister for Foreign Affairs?

Minister Kishida: To begin with, as you point out, the Government of Japan has repeatedly stated that it put importance on the rule of law, which does not permit changing the status quo by coercion.
However, in terms of the connection with the right of collective self-defense, the legal basis for Japan’s security is being discussed, including the issue of the right of collective self-defense, and currently those discussions are continuing in the ruling parties. Consequently at the present point I do not believe it is appropriate for me to make comments from my position as Minister on the assumption that the right of collective self-defense will be exercised.
I believe the Government will decide its policy after thoroughly assessing the course of the discussions, and I intend to watch that debate closely.

Saito, Kyodo News: The Prime Minister has mentioned North Korea several times while discussing the right of collective self-defense in response to questions in the Diet and in press conferences up to now.
For example, when the Prime Minister discussed the matter while referring to a panel recently, he touched on North Korea by name. At the same time, as you know, although he did not mention China by name he repeatedly said what appeared to hint at the necessity for the right of collective self-defense while mentioning things like South China Sea and that changing the status quo through force cannot be permitted. And so what I would like to ask is whether the right of collective self-defense, the review of security policy including the right of collective self-defense, and the rise of China in military are ultimately connected or not. In other words, if there is a connection, I think it would be appropriate to mention China by name in the same way as North Korea. However, the relevant Cabinet officials, including the Prime Minister, are not openly referring to China by name.
That being the case, in reviewing the security policy, is there a connection with the so-called recent rise of China or is there not? I think this is an area citizens will have difficulty discerning, so I would like to ask for your comments on the causal connection in regards to that point.

Minister Kishida: Your question concerns the connection between China’s military buildup and rise, and the debate on the right of collective self-defense, but to begin with, various discussions are taking place in the debate on the right of collective self-defense, and my understanding is that the debate itself is not be carried out with any specific country or any specific situation or anything similar envisaged.
What will be discussed is the legal basis for Japan’s fundamental security, and consequently I am aware that there is no connection such as the one you mentioned.

Kamide, Freelance: My question concerns U.S.-China relations. Listening to recent comments by State Department officials in the U.S. Congress and elsewhere, up to now the U.S.-side’s response has appeared to not deny China’s new type of great power relations, referring to highly core interests and so on, but recently, in comments that reflect awareness of China’s various advances, including in South China Sea, the tone has become stronger and is becoming critical of China. Should this be interpreted as an essential stance or alternatively, as comments made on a case-by-case basis? The U.S.-China relations that I referred to now are furthermore also an issue linked to Japan-U.S. relations, so I would like to ask your point of view regarding this matter.

Minister Kishida: As Minister I am not in a position to make any comment on the U.S.’ views or position regarding regional affairs, but I imagine the U.S. probably has various viewpoints on various situations, such as steadily changing regional situations, or outbreaks of situations likely to cause tension.
In any case, as Minister I am not in a position to explain the U.S.’ standpoint, thoughts or views.

Yamamoto, Sankei Shimbun: My question concerns Japan-China and Japan-ROK relations. Next week Chinese President Xi Jinping will visit the ROK, and both countries can be predicted to strengthen their anti-Japanese stances, but I would like to ask for your views on Japan-China and Japan-ROK relations, and what your outlook is regarding how diplomatic relations with both countries will move forward from here on, given that summit meetings are yet to be achieved with either country.

Minister Kishida: You asked about Japan-China and Japan-ROK relations. China and the ROK are both important neighbors to Japan. Difficult challenges exist between Japan and both those countries, and the fact is that difficult phases also exist, but I believe relations with both countries must be considered in a future-oriented manner.
Toward this, I think it is of course important to continuously engage in a dialogue and to continuously communicate, and as I have repeatedly stated, as before the door for dialogue remains always open. Our understanding is that because difficult problems exist, and because we are in a difficult phase, it is more vital that we engage in a dialogue and communicate particularly at a high political level. I strongly hope that, based on our approach and our appeals to the ROK, both countries respond resolutely to these problems.

Hiroshima, Asahi Shimbun: Yesterday, you received the report from the Government’s advisory panel on the review of the ODA Charter. Within it, there were proposals on provision of ODA to the military and on this being permissible. Can I ask your opinion with regards to this, and also when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs compiles a draft proposal in the future, whether it will reflect within it these proposals of the advisory panel?

Minister Kishida: In your question, you stated that in the report submitted yesterday there was a part that corresponded to the military being able to receive ODA. But first of all, on this point I recognize that it is completely different from the fact.
I would like you to read thoroughly the content of the report. It is clearly written as our basic policy in the report that seeking peace by non-military means should be our basic policy. This report, for example, says that in the case of support with non-military objectives, such as for disaster assistance, it should not be uniformly ruled out just because the military is involved. This was written in the report. But on this point, for instance in the response to the large-scale typhoon that hit the Philippines last year, the JICA team and the Self Defense Forces closely cooperated.
There are examples such as this. Therefore, in such disaster assistance and other occasions, we are naturally aware of the importance of investigating a variety of measures and then making a decision to answer the question of how to use ODA.
In any case, as I myself (the Minister) have repeatedly answered to questions posed in the Diet, we have absolutely no intention of using ODA for military purposes. So although looking toward to the future, we will review the ODA Charter toward the end of this year, I would like to state that we have absolutely no intention of changing this basic approach in this review work.

Miyasaka, Nikkei Shimbun: My question is also on this topic. Besides the Self Defense Forces that have been used up to the present time, do you think it is necessary to change the method of support via ODA so it can be provided in terms of Japan’s relations with the militaries of other countries?

Minister Kishida: There are various cases with regards to our relations with the militaries of other countries and to militaries. As I have just stated, the report raises the question whether it is appropriate that it is not allowed at all in such cases as a disaster or for civilian purpose or other cases only because military is involved. I believe that we should take this point into full consideration as we discuss this issue going forward.
Toward this review of the ODA Charter, as I have stated up to the present time, I believe we should ask for public comment and also listen to the opinions of the many parties involved in this issue, such as NGOs and the economic community.
While listening to these opinions, we shall take this report into full consideration and decide on a policy as the government. However, as I previously mentioned, we have absolutely no intention of using ODA for military purposes and our basic policy on this has not changed at all. I would like to stress this point.

Kamide, Freelance: I would like to return to the issue of collective self-defense. In the recent ruling-party discussions, Mr. Masahiko Koumura or others near him referred to the possibility of so-called collective security, which was once clearly denied by Prime Minister Abe. Although he didn’t specifically mention that this was likely to be the case in the future, he implied that there would be discussions from now on.
In your position as the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as one time Prime Minister Abe clearly stated we would not participate in a form of collective security, and with the United Nations, then regarding this issue of a multinational force and based on the discussions that have been taking place around this topic and at the present time, could you please describe to what extent is Japan’s participation possible and to what extent it is not possible?

Minister Kishida: I am aware that in ruling-party discussions, as you pointed out, discussions have taken place on collective security, too. However, we are currently in the middle of these discussions and so at the current stage, I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to say something conclusively. I hope that the ruling parties will fully discuss this issue and after conclusions have been reached, the Government will also firmly decide on a policy.

Watanabe, NHK: Next week, the director-general level discussions between Japan and North Korea will be held, and although I asked you about this before, I would like to ask you again on your general opinions on Japan’s lifting of sanctions, and what the time frame might be for such a decision, after the findings of the Special Investigation Committee from North Korea are presented.

Minister Kishida: This round of discussions is a follow up to the recent agreement between Japan and North Korea. We are scheduled to receive an explanation from the North Korean side about the organization,composition or persons in charge of the Special Investigation Committee.
As the Government, we consider it to be important that we clearly understand this explanation and information across the whole of government and that we then make an appropriate judgment. Regarding the timing and related matters after we receive this explanation, I don’t think it is appropriate for me to comment on the timing and related matters at this time because this will be decided on after we receive the explanation and at the current stage we do not know what the content of the explanation will be,. What I consider to be most important is that we clearly nail down the explanation and then make a judgment.