Press Conferences

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

First, upon learning of the passing of Mr. ARIMOTO Akihiro, father of a Japanese citizen abducted by North Korea, I would like to express my deepest condolences and extend my sincere sympathies to the bereaved family.

In order to achieve the return of all abductees at the earliest possible date, the Government of Japan will continue to spare no effort in taking the most effective measures toward that goal.

Minister Iwaya: Next is about my overseas visit.

It is about the G20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. I will visit Johannesburg, South Africa, from February 20 to 21 to attend the G20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting.

At the meeting, G20 members will discuss the situations in Ukraine and the Middle East, efforts towards the G20 Summit this November, and other topics.

In addition, Japan intends to actively communicate the importance of cooperation with Africa, keeping in mind TICAD 9, which will be held in Yokohama this August.

Furthermore, I will hold meetings with my counterparts and confirm Japan’s collaboration with the countries of the Global South.

Minister Iwaya: Lastly, the TPNW.

The Government of Japan received numerous requests for its observer participation in the third Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW, which will be held from March 3. Requests were received from the Hibakusha, national political parties, local governments, NGOs, younger generations, and others.

In response to these requests, under the instruction of Prime Minister Ishiba, we once again reviewed the cases of other countries that have participated as observers in the past, and have considered the right and wrong of Japan’s observer participation from multiple perspectives.

Through this review, we were once again made keenly aware of how this issue is an issue that should be appropriately addressing security threats, as well as a challenging issue of how Japan, as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during war, should fulfill its historical mission.

As we have stated from before, the TPNW is an important treaty that could be regarded as a final passage to a “world without nuclear weapons.” Conversely, our review has deepened the recognition that we need to squarely confront the current situation surrounding the treaty, the reality that the international efforts toward nuclear disarmament are becoming increasingly divided.

On one side, there are nuclear-weapon States (NWS) and countries that need their extended nuclear deterrence. On the other side, there are countries that strongly reject the concept of nuclear deterrence.

For example, some NATO member states have participated as observers, at the meeting, all these countries emphasized their support for nuclear deterrence while stating that this treaty is fundamentally incompatible with their national security policies and that they would not become States Parties.

These countries underscored the importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), stating that it is the cornerstone of the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.

This time, the Government of Japan gave a comprehensive and careful consideration to such aspects, as well as to various security and policy factors, including nuclear disarmament approaches. As a result, in view of the current circumstances, we have concluded that it would not be appropriate for Japan to participate as an observer in the third Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW.

The reasons are as follows.

First, nuclear disarmament. We considered what efforts by Japan, the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during war, would be truly effective for overcoming the divisions in the international community and making substantive progress in nuclear disarmament. Based on this consideration, we came to the view that Japan’s observer participation would not necessarily be effective under the present circumstances.

Japan has been leading the international efforts toward nuclear disarmament centered around the NPT. The NPT is the only universal effort that broadly engages both nuclear-weapon States (NWS) and non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS) toward the goal of a “world without nuclear weapons.”

Making progress on nuclear disarmament would be challenging without the involvement of NWS. This is why we believe that pursuing international nuclear disarmament efforts under the NPT remains more desirable.

Amidst the divisions I just mentioned, if Japan, which has significant influence in the field of nuclear disarmament as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during war, were to participate in the TPNW as an observer, it could make it difficult to gain broad support for the initiatives we have pursued under the NPT with the participation of both NWS and NNWS. This would not be desirable for the purposes of advancing nuclear disarmament.

It is precisely because we are seriously aiming for a “world without nuclear weapons” that we have come to view that Japan’s observer participation would not necessarily be appropriate.

Second, our responsibility to protect Japanese citizens.

Japan faces the most severe and complex security environment since the end of World War II, and we must squarely confront the harsh reality that qualitative and quantitative nuclear armament is advancing in Japan’s periphery. The question of how Japan’s observer participation could impact its security must also be given serious consideration.

Conventional capabilities alone cannot deter an actor that threatens to use nuclear weapons. Under the premise that Japan will not possess nuclear weapons under the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, extended nuclear deterrence is indispensable for protecting the lives and property of Japanese citizens as well as the independence and peace of Japan.

In this sense, the TPNW, which comprehensively prohibits nuclear weapons, is incompatible with nuclear deterrence, and there is currently no prospect of NWS’ accession to the treaty.

In this context, Japan’s observer participation in the Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW could send a wrong message about Japan’s policy on nuclear deterrence and risk undermining our efforts to ensure our own peace and security.

While participating as an observer, Japan could emphasize the importance of nuclear deterrence and reject accession to the treaty. This is not off the table.

However, participating as an observer in the Meeting of States Parties while simultaneously expressing a position that is incompatible with the treaty could obscure its approach to nuclear disarmament diplomacy and weaken the impact of our arguments and efforts.

The Government of Japan is seriously aiming for a “world without nuclear weapons” as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during war. As such, this was a profoundly difficult decision to make, and this is why we gave it much thought and deliberation. Upon consideration, we have concluded, based on the reasons I just gave, that Japan will not participate as an observer in the Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW in March.

Precisely because the pathway toward a “world without nuclear weapons” is becoming increasingly severe, Japan, as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings during war, will continue to make utmost efforts in dialogues and efforts involving both NWS and the States Parties to the TPNW, with the NPT regime serving as the foundation.

In particular, taking into account that this year marks the 80th year since the atomic bombings, as well as the significance of the recent Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Nihon Hidankyo (Japan Confederation of A- and H-Bomb Sufferers Organizations), we are determined to further our efforts to promote understanding of the realities of nuclear weapons use also in collaboration with the Hibakusha.

Japan will continue to fully advance realistic and practical efforts toward a “world without nuclear weapons.”

While acknowledging the reality that the international community is divided over nuclear disarmament, we will continue to conduct unremitting diplomatic efforts to lead it from division to cooperation.

That is all from me.

Kyodo News, Sakaguchi: I would like to ask about the decision not to participate as an observer, as was mentioned in your opening remarks. As you stated at the end of your remarks, Nihon Hidankyo was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I believe the Government also received repeated requests from the mayors of places that suffered atomic bombings and from political parties. However, the Government was unable to fulfill their wishes. Could you once again share your views on this? How do you intend to engage with them going forward?

Minister Iwaya: As I stated earlier, we, as the only country to have ever suffered atomic bombings, have an immense task of making utmost efforts toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, and ultimately, a world without nuclear weapons. At the same time, we have to firmly ensure the peace and security of Japan in an extremely severe security environment. We had to make a profoundly challenging and difficult decision in the face of both challenges. The Government must fully acknowledge the sentiments of the members of Nihon Hidankyo and those aiming for the elimination of nuclear weapons and a world without nuclear weapons.

While we share the same goal, we arrived at the realistic policy decision that it would not necessarily be appropriate to participate as an observer. We will explain this carefully and sincerely. We would like to gain their understanding and work hard together to ultimately realize nuclear disarmament and then a “world without nuclear weapons.”

Yomiuri Shimbun, Uemura: I would like to ask about U.S. President Trump’s signing of an executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. Does the Government of Japan have any intention to rename the gulf? Additionally, has the U.S. ever asked Japan to change the naming? If Japan keeps the Gulf of Mexico name, what would be the basis for this decision? Or if there are grounds for continuing to use the current Gulf of Mexico name, please tell us what they are. Across the world, there are several examples of inter-state disputes over the naming of seas and other areas. Please share with us your view on how such disputes should be settled. Thank you.

Minister Iwaya: On the developments surrounding the name you mentioned, the Government of Japan has no particular comments to make based on speculation. We will continue to closely follow the developments.

Japan has not been asked by the U.S. Government to change the naming.

Under the international law, there may not be a concrete mechanism for settling such disputes. There may be no other way but to thoroughly discuss the matter among the parties. To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. stipulated the use of this name in the U.S. by an executive order. Therefore, please understand that I am unable to comment on its legal effects under the international law or on what potential solutions exist.

Pan Orient News, Azhari: Does Japan have any plans to return to the ambassador level and reopen the embassy in Syria also are you planning to reduce the alert about the country from level 4 to lower level?

Minister Iwaya: We are closely following the series of developments in Syria with serious concern. The Government of Japan has also been in contact with members of the so-called “Care-taker Government.” We are currently considering our future response to the situation in Syria.

Travel Advice and Warning has been issued based on a comprehensive assessment of the situation, including, above all, public security, as well as political and social situations, from the perspective of ensuring the safety of Japanese citizens. We will continue to carefully assess the situation and make an appropriate decision.

In any case, Japan looks forward to a peaceful and stable transition of power in Syria, and expects all parties concerned to play a constructive role in promoting a comprehensive political settlement through dialogue among the Syrian people. From this viewpoint, we will continue to work closely with the international community and relevant countries.

Independent Web Journal, Hamamoto: I have a question on Japan-U.S. relations. On February 14, U.S. Vice President Vance, in his keynote speech at the Munich Security Conference, criticized European leaders for backsliding on democracy, driving a wedge into the illusion that “the U.S. and Europe are allies sharing universal values, including freedom and democracy.” The U.S. has shown no hesitation in disregarding NATO’s Article 5 principle, which enshrines that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against all NATO members. Can the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security, concluded with such a country, really be considered reliable in a time of crisis? Please share your thoughts with us.

Minister Iwaya: I also attended the Munich Security Conference, but I was not there during Vice President Vance’s speech. I became aware of it later through media reports. I would like to refrain from commenting on it. On multiple occasions, Japan has confirmed with the U.S. about the U.S. defense obligations to Japan under the Japan-U.S. Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. Even on the occasion of the recent Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting, we heard the U.S. President state that the U.S. is totally committed. I believe this has been fully confirmed.

Accordingly, the Government of Japan has full confidence that the U.S. will fulfill its obligations under the treaty.

Chugoku Shimbun, Miyano: My question is about Japan’s decision not to participate as an observer in the TPNW meeting, which you mentioned at the outset. As a premise, observer participation in the meeting of States Parties to the TPNW does not entail any obligations under the treaty. You explained that Japan’s observer participation could send a wrong message and prevent the protection of the peace and security of Japan. However, it would seem that Japan’s participation as an observer, not accession to the treaty, would have no impact on Japan’s security, which relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. In the Government’s review of past cases where countries participated as observers while relying on the U.S. nuclear umbrella, what were the analysis findings on the impact on the U.S. nuclear umbrella?

Minister Iwaya:

NWS have been committed to the NPT regime, while at the same time, taking a dismissive attitude toward the TPNW. For example, in a joint statement issued in July 2017, the U.S. and France expressed their position that accession to the TPNW is incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has kept the peace in Europe and Northeast Asia for over 70 years.

We made our decision by comprehensively taking into account this and various other factors, upon inquiring with various relevant countries. We determined that even observer participation does not rule out the risk of potentially impacting the policy on nuclear deterrence for protecting the security and peace of Japan.

Nikkei Shimbun, Baba: Komeito had sought Japan’s participation in the upcoming Meeting of States Parties. Are you considering sending members of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan or Komeito on behalf of the Government?

Minister Iwaya: I would like to refrain from commenting, from the position of the Government, on the measures of each political party.

Kyodo News, Sakaguchi: I have another question on observer participation. The Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting was recently held. During the meeting, I believe the two sides confirmed the importance of extended deterrence. However, it appears that the security policy of the Trump administration has not yet been fixed. Were such uncertainties taken into consideration in making your decision?

Minister Iwaya: At the Japan-U.S. Summit Meeting, the two countries discussed that they would reinforce and increase the resilience of extended deterrence as part of enhancing Japan-U.S. Alliance deterrence and response capabilities. However, response to the TPNW was not raised. The decision was made independently by Japan.

Chugoku Shimbun, Miyano: I have a follow-up question. In your review of countries that participated as observers in the past, were there any countries whose security and peace were found to be affected due to their observer participation?

Minister Iwaya: We examined in detail the statements made by countries that participated in the first and second meetings of States Parties, as well as their subsequent actions. Whether or not their observer participation affected their nuclear deterrence, which you asked about, is something that the respective countries shall determine. There are countries that participated in the first meeting but not the second. There are also countries that participated and determined that they would not participate further as it was incompatible with their national security policy. That's why, it seems that the decisions were made by the countries, respectively. Therefore, we would like to refrain from stepping in and making evaluations based on speculation.

Nishinippon Shimbun, Furukawa: You stated that the Prime Minister instructed the review on observer participation. Was the final decision also Prime Minister Ishiba’s instruction? Please also tell us why the decision was made now, when there is still some time until the meeting.

Minister Iwaya: First of all, as this is a treaty, the Prime Minister instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) to take responsibility for conducting the review, and MOFA led the review. As a matter of course, the findings of the review were reported to the Prime Minister, and I conveyed my views as Foreign Minister. We then received the Prime Minister’s understanding.

Asahi Shimbun, Satomi: I have a related question. I understand that this decision pertains to the third Meeting of States Parties. However, the fourth and fifth meetings will follow. As the reasons for not participating, you mentioned earlier the security environment surrounding Japan and the deepening division in the international community. Will this decision be a permanent one? Alternatively, what changes in the environment are necessary to participate as an observer or become a State Party? Could you answer these questions?

Minister Iwaya: At this stage, I would like to refrain from making any comments about the future based on speculation. Our ultimate goal is the elimination of nuclear weapons and the realization of a “world without nuclear weapons.” Therefore, in the future, if the conditions were to become conducive for realizing this goal, what you stated would not be completely ruled out.

However, currently no NWS are participating in the treaty, and the international community is becoming increasingly divided over the issue of nuclear disarmament. Under these circumstances, Japan’s mission, or the role that Japan should play, is to work hard within the NPT regime, which includes both NWS and NNWS, and which of course faces challenging issues of its own, to move a step closer to nuclear disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons.

Chugoku Shimbun, Miyano: I would like to ask about the point on disconnect that was mentioned earlier. You stated that observer participation could further increase the disconnect. Certainly, Japan’s observer participation might contribute to further disconnect with countries that need nuclear weapons. Conversely, there are also countries that do not need nuclear deterrence. I believe there is also concern that Japan’s decision not to participate could lead to the loss of support from such countries. What considerations were made in this regard?

Minister Iwaya: Given the current situation, I expect that the immediate eradication or elimination of nuclear weapons would be an extremely challenging endeavor.

Therefore, Japan is now working hard to advance nuclear disarmament, prevent the increase in nuclear-armed States, and prevent the production of nuclear materials, even if only marginally. We consider that doing so is the most realistic pathway to meeting the wishes of the States Parties to the TPNW and the people around the world. We intend to explain this carefully and thoroughly.