Press Conferences

Sankei Shimbun, NAGAHARA: It will soon be one month since President Putin of Russia visited Etorofu Island in the Northern Territories. Regarding possible countermeasures against Russia, you previously stated that you would “respond in a timely and appropriate manner, taking into comprehensive consideration what is necessary for Japan’s national interests.” Could I confirm again whether the Government is considering any additional countermeasures?

Foreign Minister MOTEGI Toshimitsu: President Putin visited Etorofu Island on August 13. In response, Prime Minister TAKAICHI immediately expressed our protest, and I myself summoned the Ambassador of Russia to Japan to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) that evening and lodged a strong protest. We have been responding firmly and resolutely.

Going forward, we will continue to further reach out to Russia at every opportunity, based on our consistent position regarding the Northern Territories.

In any case, as I have stated previously, Japan’s response to Russia, will remain unchanged. We will respond by comprehensively considering what is optimal for Japan’s national interests.

Yomiuri Shimbun, FUKUDA: I have a follow-up question. Is there any room to consider specific measures such as the temporary return or recall of the Japanese Ambassador to Russia? Also, the short-term exchange program of Japanese university students Russia resumed in August for the first time in seven years. Will the Government seek to resume other people-to-people and cultural exchange programs too?

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: We are currently not considering recalling the Japanese Ambassador to Russia.

Even under the current circumstances, we still recognize the importance of people-to-people exchanges that contribute to the development of individuals with expertise on Russia. However, there are no other exchange programs that are set to resume at this stage.

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: I have a separate question concerning Japan-Russia relations. A monument facility commemorating the victory over Japan has been installed in Khabarovsk. In response, the Government of Japan has demanded the cessation of the installation and the removal of the monument. However, as I understand it, there appears to be some discrepancy in the facts surrounding this matter, so I would like to ask for your clarification. To elaborate, the Japanese-language message you issued says, “The installation of a monument depicting the destruction of the chrysanthemum crest is extremely regrettable in terms of Japanese national sentiment, and through diplomatic channels, we have requested the Russian side to cease the installation and remove it.” However, the Russian-language version states “we will continue to strongly urge the Russian side to remove the boundary stone bearing the chrysanthemum crest.” The background to this is that, prior to the installation, the Consulate-General of Japan in Khabarovsk explicitly requested Russia to cease the installation of the boundary stone, not the entire memorial complex, and if the boundary stone is already installed, to remove it. As a result, both the Japanese and English request the removal of the entire memorial complex, which means that the objects subject to the removal demand can, strictly speaking, can be three different items: namely, the complex surrounding the enormous Soviet soldier, the 15-meter-tall statue of a Soviet Red Army soldier named “Ivan,” and most importantly, the boundary stone bearing the chrysanthemum crest.

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: That the soldier is stepping on…

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: Yes. As a result, Japanese media framed this as a request for the removal of the statue, but the Russian media actually cover three different objects subject to the removal demand…

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: Russian media reports?

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: Yes, in Russia…

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: You mean not the Russian-language version of the Foreign Minister’s message but the Russian media reports?

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: The Russian-language version. Because the Russian version of the statement has been conveyed in such a way that many media outlets report that Japan is requesting the removal of only the boundary stone, not the entire memorial complex or the statue. What I would like to ask directly is: what exactly is currently subject to the removal demand through diplomatic channels? Please give me a clear answer.

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: The statue that is stepping on the chrysanthemum crest?

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: Yes, the statue…

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: That’s what I am referring to, and I do not believe there is any discrepancy.

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: Yet the Russian-language version clearly uses the word “boundary stone.” This has been conveyed as Japan requesting the removal of only the cubic boundary stone bearing the chrysanthemum crest—just a part of the monument. This is how it is stated in the Russian-language request, and the Consulate-General of Japan in Khabarovsk also made their request in that same way before its installation. I’m not really understanding the consistency around that.

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: It is not necessarily a matter of whether to separate them or not. There is a boundary stone bearing the chrysanthemum crest that is being stepped upon. Japan has requested Russia to cease its installation, and following the installation, requested its removal. So there is no difference in that regard, is there?

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: I think there is a large discrepancy. If this refers to the entire memorial complex, it is quite large…

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: I did not say memorial complex.

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: However, the word “monument” is in the statement and the message. Monument is “pamyatnik” in Russian, which is “memorial” in English. A “memorial” refers to a facility, and the name of this memorial is “Victory in the East”–that is, victory over Japan. So, according to this wording, Japan is clearly requesting the removal of the entire facility, the memorial commemorating the victory over Japan. However, the last paragraph of the Russian-language version explicitly uses the word “boundary stone.” This version has been circulated in Russia. Therefore, there is quite a discrepancy in the understanding of Japan’s removal request. Even within the international community, it is explained that Japan requested the removal of the entire memorial complex.

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: The one expressed in Japanese is correct. That is the fact, and I will check how it was rendered in the translation.

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: So, with regard to the Russian-language official text conveyed to Russia, you were not aware that it stated the removal of the boundary stone?

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: My apologies, I am afraid I do not read Russian. My understanding is that the message issued in Japanese has been accurately translated into other languages.

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: Then, am I correct in understanding that you did not receive an explanation from the officer at MOFA who prepared the Russian version?

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: As is generally the case, what is issued in Japanese is translated into multiple languages. For example, when issuing an English version, the Japanese text is translated into English, or other languages. The Japanese version is the accurate one, and I believe MOFA staff also make every effort to translate it into other languages as accurately as possible.

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: In that case, doesn’t this mean it is necessary to correct the wording to avoid creating this kind of discrepancy or difference in understanding on the Russian side?

Foreign Minister MOTEGI: Please allow me to look into the matter.

Tokyo Shimbun, TOKIWA: Understood.