Press Conferences

Mr. IWAYA Takeshi, Minister for Foreign Affairs: I have two announcements at the outset.

First, regarding accompanying Prime Minister Ishiba on his visit to the U.S.

As you know, I accompanied Prime Minister Ishiba on his visit to the U.S. from February 6 to 8 and attended the Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting. Through candid discussions, I believe that Prime Minister Ishiba and President Trump were able to build a personal relationship of trust, while also strongly demonstrating to the international community the unwavering solidarity of the Japan-U.S. Alliance.

Building on the outcomes of this visit, I intend to work with Secretary of State Rubio, my counterpart, and the Trump administration to elevate the Japan-U.S. Alliance to new heights, while further deepening collaboration and cooperation at a wide range of levels toward realizing a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP).”

Minister Iwaya: The other announcement is regarding attendance at the Munich Security Conference and G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.

If circumstances permit, I plan to visit Munich, Germany, from February 14 to 16, and attend the Munich Security Conference.

At the conference, I will attend the session on the security of Europe and Asia. There, I will explain about Japan’s foreign and security policies that are being promoted under its National Security Strategy.

On this occasion, the G7 foreign ministers also plan to hold discussions. G7 unity is extremely important at this juncture, amid a highly turbulent international situation. I intend to reaffirm our cooperation with each of my counterparts.

That is all from me.

Kyodo News, Sakaguchi: I would like to ask about Prime Minister Ishiba’s visit to the U.S., which you mentioned at the outset. Prime Minister Ishiba has repeatedly expressed confidence that he was able to build a relationship of trust with President Trump during their first summit meeting. Having attended the meeting, please share with us your candid view on what communications contributed to fostering the relationship of trust. I have one more question. During the small-group meeting of the summit meeting, it seemed that, at the beginning, before President Trump arrived, you exchanged some words with the officials and broke the ice. Could you tell us who you were speaking with and what was discussed if you remember?

Minister Iwaya: I attended the meeting from the small-group meeting at the beginning. From what I can see, the relationship of trust appears to have been built between the two leaders throughout the entirety of the meeting to the joint press conference.

Until getting there, there was a discussion about whether the two leaders would connect or not. However, I felt that they connected very well. Especially during the small-group meeting, Prime Minister Ishiba mentioned last year’s shooting incident involving President Trump, who was then a presidential candidate, and shared his view on the slogan that President Trump likes to use, “Make America Great Again,” stating that it expresses compassion for the forgotten people. Prime Minister Ishiba continued by saying that he comes from a prefecture with the smallest population in Japan and that he is hoping to revive Japan’s rural areas once more, and is engaged in regional revitalization. Hearing Prime Minister Ishiba’s thoughts may have aroused various sentiments within President Trump. I believe President Trump gained an understanding of Prime Minister Ishiba’s character and views.

Additionally, during the press conference, as you are aware, Prime Minister Ishiba said he had thought that President Trump was a scary man watching him on TV, and that not answering a hypothetical question is a classic response in Japan’s Diet. The Prime Minister drew laughter throughout his remarks, and President Trump reacted positively to them. While a relationship of trust is not built overnight, I believe this series of exchanges laid a solid foundation for building such a relationship.

I was only beside the Prime Minister, and I simply encouraged the Prime Minister to embark on the meeting with a smile and in an uplifting atmosphere.

NHK, Yonezu: I would like to ask a question on the Munich Security Conference and the G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in your opening remarks. President Trump of the U.S., while expressing a willingness to achieve a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, has continued to make comments that seem to condone unilateral changes to the status quo, saying, for example, that Ukraine “may be Russian someday, or they may not be Russian someday.” Against this backdrop, it will soon be three years since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine. Please tell us how will the G7 seek to strengthen its unity, and what role does Japan hope to fulfill.

Minister Iwaya: I would like to refrain from giving an opinion on each of President Trump’s statements. I expect that Ukraine will indeed be one of the key themes of the upcoming G7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. It will soon be three full years since the aggression began. The international situation remains highly turbulent. Unfortunately, division and confrontation continue to deepen. I believe these circumstances are significantly testing whether the G7, which has shared values and principles, can maintain and strengthen its cooperation, something it must do.

The Munich Security Conference provides an opportunity for foreign ministers from various countries to come together. Taking this opportunity, the G7 will also hold a Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and engage in discussions. I intend to hold thorough discussions on the situation in Ukraine with my G7 counterparts and deepen our cooperation.

In any case, it is important to realize or restore a just and lasting peace in Ukraine as soon as possible. In this regard, G7 cooperation is essential, and I urge President Trump to demonstrate leadership in restoring peace in Ukraine.

Yomiuri Shimbun, Uemura: The Trump administration of the U.S. is moving to close USAID, saying that there is a lot of waste at the organization. Has Japan ever received USAID assistance in the past? If yes, could you share your view on that? In addition, this move appears to be aimed at sparking a debate on how the assistance being provided to developing countries and other recipients should be. Conversely, what is the Government’s current view on the importance of Japanese development assistance? If the U.S. proceeds with the closure of USAID, there is concern that it would create a vacuum in international assistance. Please share with us what role the Government of Japan intends to play in the international community.

Minister Iwaya: We are aware of the reports you mentioned. As I understand it, the decision was a 90-day suspension. Amid the deepening confrontation and division in the international community, Japan will further strengthen its relations with the Global South, and we consider Official Development Assistance (ODA) to be an important diplomatic tool in doing so.

Japan has received USAID assistance in response to past natural disasters. Japan and the U.S. have provided support to various countries, working closely through bilateral dialogues as well as multilateral frameworks, including the G7, G20, and the United Nations (UN). Japan intends to continue to maintain close communication with the U.S. and other countries and play an important role in the field of development cooperation. We will be clearly conveying our intentions as such.

Asahi Shimbun, Satomi: My question is also related to President Trump. He signed an executive order imposing sanctions on ICC officials. More than 70 ICC member states and regions issued a joint statement criticizing the sanctions. Japan has not joined them at this time. What is the reason for this? Because the statement was issued on the same day as the Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting, some are suggesting that Japan did not join out of consideration for the U.S. Could you answer in light of such suggestions?

Minister Iwaya: The negotiations for the joint statement on the U.S. sanctions against the ICC you referred to are considered diplomatic communication. As such, I would like to refrain from commenting.

That being said, for eradicating and preventing serious crimes and upholding the rule of law, Japan has consistently supported the ICC, which is the world’s first permanent international criminal tribunal, and has sent Ms. AKANE Tomoko, a Japanese former prosecutor of the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office, to the ICC to serve as its President.

Accordingly, we believe it is important that the ICC maintains its independence and is able to carry out activities with its security ensured. We will closely follow future relevant developments with great interest.

The rule of law is also a core principle of a FOIP. Furthermore, the recent United States-Japan Joint Leaders’ Statement states that the two countries will uphold a FOIP and not allow unilateral changes to the status quo by force, which constitutes the rule of law. The statement expresses this explicitly. Based on this position, Japan will work closely with the U.S. and engage in dialogue.

Mainichi Shimbun, Kim: I have a follow-up question on the ICC. I imagine that signing a statement condemning the U.S. or sending out a message in a visible manner is a vital diplomatic activity for the Government of Japan, which attaches importance to the rule of law. For example, advocating to the U.S. through a variety of communication channels is one of the diplomatic activities. What are your thoughts on such advocacy or diplomatic activities of the Government of Japan?

Minister Iwaya: The primary objective of the first Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting was to, first and foremost, build a relationship of trust between the leaders of Japan and our ally, the U.S., and confirm the future of the Japan-U.S. Alliance and close cooperation on a FOIP.

Building on such a foundation of trust, Japan and the U.S. must conduct discussions on various issues. There will likely be occasions when opinions are expressed as needed. In any case, as the world continues to face division and conflict, it is important that Japan, as an ally, maintain close communication and provide support where necessary to ensure that the U.S. can demonstrate leadership properly. While there are various issues and challenges, including the ones you just mentioned, we will seek to maintain close communication between Japan and the U.S.

Nikkei Shimbun, Baba: I would like to ask about the situation in the Gaza Strip. President Trump of the U.S. indicated that the U.S. will own the Gaza Strip and that its residents will be relocated to outside the region, such as to neighboring countries, in order to rebuild Gaza. Could you once again share the views of the Government on the President’s remarks?

Minister Iwaya: We are aware of such remarks made by President Trump and the various reactions to the remarks.

Japan is gravely concerned about the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, and will continue to urge the parties to improve the humanitarian situation and calm the situation through the steady implementation of the ceasefire agreement.

In addition, we believe that Japan must play an active role in providing urgent humanitarian assistance, as well as support for rehabilitation and reconstruction from a medium- to long-term perspective, working together with relevant countries and international organizations.

Japan’s position remains unchanged in supporting a two-state solution whereby a future independent Palestinian state and Israel live side by side in peace and security.

Based on the relationships of trust we have cultivated with regional countries over many years, we will maintain close communication with relevant countries, including the U.S., and continue our diplomatic efforts toward establishing long-term peace and stability in the region. This includes promoting Japan’s unique efforts such as the “Corridor for Peace and Prosperity” initiative and the “Conference on the Cooperation among East Asian countries for Palestinian Development” (CEAPAD).

We understand that there are various opinions within the U.S. administration on the Gaza Strip, and we will be closely following future developments.

Sankei Shimbun, Harakawa: I would like to ask about the content of the written answer, which was approved by the Cabinet on February 4, in response to a written question submitted by House of Representatives member SHIMADA Yoichi. In his question, Mr. Shimada notes that records may be missing from two rounds of negotiations held between then-Director General of the Asian and Oceanian Bureau TANAKA Hitoshi and other Japanese officials and North Korean officials, which took place just before then-Prime Minister KOIZUMI Junichiro visited North Korea in September 2002, and asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) to confirm their existence. The Government’s written answer stated, “MOFA would like to refrain from responding as it may hinder future Japan-North Korea consultations.” However, the Government has acknowledged many of times in the past that the records from these two rounds of negotiations are missing. For example, during a Budget Committee meeting of the House of Councillors on March 8, 2016, then-Minister for Foreign Affairs KISHIDA Fumio responded that the records do not exist, stating, “It is true that records from two rounds of negotiations do not exist.” My question is the following: despite the fact that the Government has previously responded that these two records do not exist, MOFA has changed its response in the latest written answer to refraining from answering, what is the reason for this? Thank you.

Minister Iwaya: The question in the latest written inquiry was already asked in the past, and there is a written answer that was submitted upon the Cabinet’s approval. The latest answer was prepared in line with the past answer.

On the one hand, as you indicated, it is also a fact that both then-Prime Minister Abe and then-Foreign Minister Kishida responded at the Diet that records do not exist for those two rounds of Japan-North Korea negotiations.

Honestly, I, too believe that written answers to written questions should carefully consider the submitter’s awareness of the issue.

Meanwhile, there exists a written answer that has been approved by the Cabinet, which carries substantial weight. Likewise, significant responsibility is attached to answers given by a sitting Prime Minister or Foreign Minister in the Diet. What decision should be made when such situations coexist is something that requires careful consideration going forward.

Chugoku Shimbun, Miyano: My question is regarding the Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting. What did the meeting discuss on the “world without nuclear weapons” advocated by Japan? In addition, was Japan’s observer participation in the third Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW, which the Government says it is considering, raised at the meeting? Please share with us if it was raised or not and the reason behind that.

Minister Iwaya: As you are aware, the recent Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting held a small-group meeting surrounded by many members of the media at the beginning, which was followed by full-fledged discussions in the form of a working lunch. Even then, time was quite limited. As I stated at the outset today, the objective was to, first and foremost, build a relationship of trust between the leaders. Economic and security issues between the two countries, including FOIP, were discussed for the entirety of the meeting. There was no specific discussion on nuclear disarmament, including Japan’s observer participation in the TPNW.

Founded on a relationship of trust, which I believe was formed through this summit meeting, we intend to carry out close communication and discussions between the two countries on the various issues facing the international community, at the leader level as well as at all other levels.

However, needless to say, whether Japan will participate as an observer in the Meeting of States Parties to TPNW is a matter that Japan should determine independently. MOFA is currently examining the situations of countries that have previously participated as observers. Based on this examination, the Government will make an appropriate decision.

Yomiuri Shimbun, Uemura: The Chinese side has removed the buoy it had installed near the Senkaku Islands. What are the Government of Japan’s thoughts on the message behind this shift in stance when China had been reluctant to remove the buoy? The Government of Japan never removed the buoy itself and called on China to do so voluntarily. Will this policy remain unchanged? Could you explain once again why the Government of Japan did not remove the buoy itself? Thank you.

Minister Iwaya: Let me begin with the facts. The Japan Coast Guard has confirmed that the buoy, which was found within Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the East China Sea in July 2023, is not within Japan’s EEZ.

On this basis, the navigational warning for this buoy was removed as of February 11.

In addition, we are aware that, on the same day, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained publicly that the buoy had completed its task at the original site, and that voluntary and technical adjustment regarding the buoy was implemented according to the actual need of science observation.

I would like to refrain from responding based on speculation regarding any further background or circumstances.

Such installation of buoys raises issues under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

However, UNCLOS does not contain any explicit provision on the extent to which a relevant country’s physical measures for such installations are tolerated under international law. Furthermore, there is no precedent.

Therefore, if there are standards under international law, then Japan can respond in line with those standards. When such standards are unclear, however, Japan’s response must be based on a comprehensive judgment.

In any case, Japan will continue to seize all opportunities to strongly urge the Chinese side to remove other buoys.

China Daily, Jiang: China lodged solemn representations with Japan on Monday over the negative China-related moves made by the Japanese side during recent talks between Japanese Prime Minister Ishiba and US President Trump in Washington, as well as in the Japan-US Joint Leaders’ Statement. China expressed serious concern and strong dissatisfaction over these developments. So, Minister Ishiba, what is your response to this? How will the Japanese side react?

Minister Iwaya: During the Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting, the two leaders shared the view on issues related to China. They confirmed their opposition to any unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force or coercion including in the East and South China Seas. Furthermore, the two leaders reiterated the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

In view of the severe security environment surrounding Japan and the significant role that China is expected to play in the international community, it is rather natural that China is discussed as a common matter of interest to both Japan and the U.S. in discussing how the world should be and how Japan and the U.S. should cooperate in such a world.

Japan intends to advance Japan-China relations under the confirmed policy of comprehensively promoting a Mutually Beneficial Relationship Based on Common Strategic Interests and building constructive and stable Japan-China relations. The relationship of trust with our ally, the U.S., is important, and it must serve as the foundation on which Japan’s diplomacy and security issues are considered. At the same time, Japan will call on China to fulfill its responsibility as a major power and work to further evolve constructive and stable relations and a Mutually Beneficial Relationship Based on Common Strategic Interests.

Asahi Shimbun, Satomi: My question concerns the incident involving the death of a Japanese woman in Hungary. There have been reports that this woman previously consulted with the Embassy of Japan. If so, could you clarify the facts, such as when she consulted with the Embassy and about what? Additionally, I would like to ask for your opinion on the appropriateness of the Embassy’s response.

Minister Iwaya: It is deeply saddening that a Japanese woman passed away in Hungary, and I would like to once again express my heartfelt condolences.

Regarding your question, in June 2022, the Embassy of Japan in Hungary was consulted by the said Japanese woman regarding her relationship with her former husband, and the Embassy has provided support, including encouraging her to consult with the police about domestic violence.

In addition, around the summer of 2024, the Embassy received an inquiry from the said Japanese woman about issuing passports for her children. The Embassy explained that issuing passports for minors requires the consent of her former husband, who had joint custody. Passport applications for her children were not submitted thereafter.

Following this incident, the Embassy of Japan in Hungary has been providing support to the bereaved family. We will continue to provide as much care as possible as well as necessary support, taking into account the wishes of the family.

TV Asahi, Iida: I would like to ask a follow-up question. If a victim of domestic violence consults an embassy, how does the embassy respond in general from the perspective of protecting Japanese nationals? Was the Embassy in Hungary able to do this or not in this particular case? Please answer these two questions.

Minister Iwaya: Whenever overseas diplomatic missions are consulted about domestic violence by Japanese nationals, the missions have always provided necessary support based on the individual circumstances and wishes. In this particular case as well, as I stated earlier, the Embassy explained that it was advisable to consult the police and provided the necessary support.

Needless to say, protecting Japanese nationals is one of the most important duties of overseas diplomatic missions. They will continue to provide as much care as possible as well as necessary support from the perspective of protecting Japanese nationals, and I intend to issue such instructions once again.

Radio France, Nishimura: I would like to ask about President Trump’s remarks. The Government of Japan has repeatedly emphasized that it does not allow any attempts to change the status quo of territories and areas by force or coercion, mainly to China. Despite this, the Government has never criticized the U.S. President’s extremely coercive remarks on such areas as the Gaza region, Greenland, Canada, and Ukraine, at least in front of the media. If the reason is because it is difficult to criticize a strong ally like the U.S., is this not disturbing? Will Japan maintain this posture throughout the four years of the Trump administration? How will Japan be able to keep a balance and convey its true opinion, including criticizing the U.S.?

Minister Iwaya: President Trump has made various remarks, as you have pointed out. However, I would like to refrain from making any definitive assessments on each of them at this stage.

That is to say, the various situations are actually fluid. We need to carefully monitor where they will settle. In the meantime, we will communicate our views as necessary through dialogue at various levels.

While the U.S. is an important ally, of course all options have not been ruled out. As Japan is a sovereign nation, generally speaking, we value the principles of the UN Charter, including respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. We place the highest priority on maintaining and strengthening a free and open international order based on the rule of law. Based on this approach, we will seek to maintain close communication with the U.S.