Press Conference

1. Announcements

None.

2. Questions and Answers

Question:
Concerning the deployment of the Osprey, you visited Okinawa and Yamaguchi prefecture last weekend, and in response to the expanding opposition, this week, senior members of the DPJ and LDP called for "more consideration to the local communities," with the purport that "unloading at Iwakuni might be undesirable at least until the (result of the) accident investigation comes out." I heard that the LDP had made a proposal from the standpoint that "we should not allow operation in Japan unless their safety is ensured." How do you take these opinions of the major parties and how will you respond to them?

Minister:
Last weekend, I visited Okinawa and Yamaguchi prefectures, including Iwakuni city, gave my explanation, and listened to opinions there. I personally felt the anxieties or concerns in the local communities as you pointed out, and returned and reported this to the Prime Minister and the Chief Cabinet Secretary. The government takes this very seriously. I understand that the U.S. is pursuing the investigation of the two accidents, but, as I said earlier, we have not yet received any (notice) of change to the plan that the aircraft that have already left the U.S. will be unloaded at Iwakuni late this month based on the Host Nation Notification. So, I think the transportation will proceed as planned. After this, as I am saying, Japan and the U.S. have made a commitment that "flight operation will not be conducted until the results of the investigations of the two accidents are notified to the Japanese side and the safety of flight is confirmed." I think the U.S. side will fulfill this commitment. There has been no change about this at this moment.

Question:
About the autorotation case that was mentioned yesterday, there are actually discussions about whether they have autorotation or not, but I think we can also discuss whether their autorotation has functions equivalent to those of ordinary helicopters, and whether it is sufficient or not. What is your understanding about whether their function is sufficient or not?

Minister:
The Osprey has two engines. I understand that there are two ways of emergency landing when the engine shuts down: fixed-wing type emergency landing and that using the so-called vertical-take-off-and-landing (VTOL) function of a helicopter. The latter is autorotation as is generally talked about. This is to conduct emergency landing not by using engine power, but using the lift force of wind as described in the pamphlet about the Osprey issued by the MOD. The pamphlet was not written by the MOD alone, but based on checking and adjustment with the U.S. side about the content and expressions. So, I understand that the Ospreys have the function of autorotation.

Question:
About the Osprey, I think you are struggling because you are finding it difficult to gain support from Okinawa. One of the reasons may be attributed to the past development that there had been debates about a Futenma helicopter replacement plan of the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) that has been ongoing since the 1990s and questions over the plan were repeatedly made in the Diet, but the government avoided debating every time on the ground of lacking formal notice. What do you think about this?

Minister:
Wait a minute. What do you mean by the first part? Whose notice was lacking?

Question:
Questions over the Futenma helicopter replacement plan were repeatedly made in the Diet. I've not checked each and every answer given by the government in detail, but the government stated in its documents responding to these questions that there was no formal notice or explanation from the U.S. side.

Minister:
Wait a minute. What is the notice about? Is it about a construction plan of replacement facilities?

Question:
Regarding the introduction of the Osprey. Questions were made to the purport of whether the Osprey might be a candidate in the Futenma helicopter replacement plan, but I have an impression that the government avoided debating about this. First, I would like to ask what you think about the government's past stance in responding to the questions in the Diet. In connection with this issue, I would like to ask you what approach you will take to gain understanding from Okinawa in your response to future questions in the Diet.

Minister:
Though I've not read each of the answers in detail because they were made before I took office, this may be due to circumstances in the U.S. after starting the mass production plan of the Osprey in September 2005, and in coming up with a procurement plan of how many Ospreys in total would be approved by Congress. The U.S. legislative process is quite complicated. Both the Senate and Congress; it is not like simply passing the House of Representatives first and then the House of Councillors as it is in Japan. In addition, in the U.S., it is not the government that submits bills, but it is the legislature that creates bills and secures the budget. I think the Japanese government back then was not quite sure about how -- in this special system -- changes being made in the budget of the entire procurement plan would affect the overall procurement and what priorities would be given to which units in their allocations, at the time when the mass production of the Osprey had just started and their procurement plan were slowly becoming apparent. Now, the legislature has decided to procure 360 aircraft for the USMC and the whole picture of how they will be deployed to troops in sequence has become clear. Before this stage, however, the whole picture was not necessarily clear and, if the USMC were to have hundreds of them, and the major forces of the USMC in the U.S. mainland are on the East and West Coasts, while another major force abroad is in Okinawa, I think it was anticipated that they would eventually be deployed to Okinawa in the future, but the government was not in a situation to make a specific overall plan which could be made public. The U.S. procurement plans -- as it was for the F-35, for example -- are often increased or decreased by the Senate and the House of Representatives separately, and planning on how they would be deployed to which troops when the overall plan remains unspecified are all matters within the U.S. deployment or procurement plan, and consulted with allies only when it involves the allies. Therefore, I guess that there had been times where the Japanese government answered "we are not yet fully informed. We have no grasp of this" when the whole picture could not be grasped during the process. There is no point for me in making an excuse for this, but I think the government was able to give an explanation about deployment only after the Department of Defense had formally decided to deploy them to the III Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa in said overall plan. For your latter question, as I said at the beginning, the local communities -- whether it is Iwakuni or Yamaguchi Prefecture -- have strong resistance and anxieties about bringing the Ospreys to Japan. We accept this and are thinking about how we can explain the change in equipments on the U.S. side. Now we are thinking of two things: one is to press for and demand the U.S. side to provide investigation reports of the two accidents to Japan as early as possible and to include measures to prevent similar accidents in the accident investigation report. This is one thing. For the second, I feel that not only should the U.S. confirm the safety of flight, but also Japan should check the safety of flight on its own and explain this to the people. There may be various points of view, measures and approaches on how this can be done. Currently, these are all things that are being considered, but I feel that this is something that will be taken up by the entire government. Because it might be difficult for MOD alone to handle them, we, together with the Ministries/Agencies concerned, are now earnestly examining possible measures for Japan to confirm the safety of flight.

Question:
This is a related question. I understand your explanation well considering your current position, but do you feel that the government provided sufficient explanations to Okinawa since the time when the U.S. formally announced its plan to deploy the Osprey to Okinawa about one and a half years ago? I understand that you were not a Minister at the time, but do you think of it as being sufficient?

Minister:
I would like to check again carefully what explanations the Japanese government has provided to Okinawa for these one and a half years. I have not yet been informed of the explanations given at the time. I will check. You said one and a half years then. Was it around last spring?

Question:
When the U.S. announced the deployment of the Osprey.

Minister:
You mean after the announcement?

Question:
Since then, Okinawa repeatedly asked questions of the government. What do you think about the explanations given in response to them?

Minister:
Now I see. I will promptly check what explanations were provided at that time. I think I will be able to explain this properly next time. Regrettably, I have not been informed of what explanations the Japanese government provided to Okinawa about the deployment plan one and a half years ago nor do I have any memory of that time, to be honest. So I'll check again the context including the level and the form of the announcement made by the U.S. which you mentioned. Your question has been surely noted.

Question:
You mentioned earlier on confirming the safety that "not only should the U.S. side confirm the safety but there may be many approaches and views to measures on the Japanese side." What do you think about setting up a Japan-U.S. joint commission on this issue? Such commissions were set up in the past when accidents occurred. With such huge concerns about their safety in the local communities, are there any possibilities to set up such a commission, if not an extraordinary measure?

Minister:
As I said earlier, confirmation of safety will be worked on by the government and it will not only be the MOD who will be doing the checking, but we will handle the issue while consulting with the Ministries/Agencies concerned. I said so because we are exploring measures so that not only the MOD, but the Japanese government as a whole -- including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, other Ministries/Agencies and the Cabinet Office - are going to check the safety and explain to the people. What you have proposed may be one of the options.

Question:
Has the U.S. side already proposed an option of this kind?

Minister:
Since I belong to the MOD and because this issue is not in MOD's charge, I don't know about the details. When I was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I was a member of an investigation commission of a U.S. Forces accident that occurred in Japan and not outside Japan as are the accidents in question this time. That was an accident investigation commission set up directly based on the U.S-Japan Status of Forces Agreement when a U.S. military aircraft had caused an accident within the territory of Japan. I think the current case is different in nature but there are varied views, so I can say that various measures are under consideration. However, as said before, I don't know the details because this is not in our charge.

Question:
It has been decided that a rally will be held in Okinawa prefecture. As mentioned in a question before, Okinawa prefecture has been asking and raising various questions to the government concerning the deployment of the Osprey for the last two years, but the government has not responded to them in an honest manner. I think this has led to the current loss of trust. I would like ask you for your thoughts on the fact that a prefectural-wide rally is going to be held in August.

Minister:
I have not yet been informed of who will hold what kind of rally or when. In any case, it is for the citizens of the prefecture to put together their opinions and such through such rallies on their own initiative. The government will take the content of this seriously.

Question:
I would like to ask about the right of collective self-defense. It has been reported that today a subcommittee of the Council on National Strategy and Policy will issue a proposal to permit exercising the right of collective self-defense. About the right of collective self-defense, you were discreet about changing interpretations during your service while at the same time saying you will offer an opinion to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask you anew what you think about the right of collective self-defense for now.

Minister:
Regarding the issue of the right of collective self-defense, as you may know, the official interpretation on this has been established and I don't have any intention to change the fundamental thinking of the Japanese government concerning the right of collective self-defense during my time in office. On the other hand, I think that deepening of the Japan-U.S. alliance is one of the essential security policies that Japan should pursue in the future. I will seriously work on how to deepen the Japan-U.S. alliance and in what areas throughout my term of office.

Question:
I think your assets were disclosed today. I would like ask you for your comment on this and opinion about the public asset disclosure system.

Minister:
Asset disclosure is not something that is derived based on my own approval, but is derived by various bodies that made investigation using various agencies, so honestly I have not seen the content of this yet. As for the system of asset disclosure, I think this is a good thing. If asked "what do you think about your assets," I would answer that my assets are of a minimum as a university teacher. I have a house to live in but no shares or equities, investments or loans, securities, or properties such as land or antiques. I have only my clothes and underwear to wear, books and household belongings in my house and an old car, which is now not drivable. That's all. I don't think they are something to brag about. I haven't seen this in detail yet. In all honesty, although I think that the proper organizations conducted a proper survey and it is not necessary to obtain consent of the person, since it was disclosed without my consent, I don't know about its content, though honestly I am interested in the result.

Question:
You have made a remark purporting "The Osprey is created from a groundbreaking idea" at the Diet. In fact, recently, you made a remark to the effect of "groundbreaking in the sense that the lift of a helicopter and the lift of an airplane function on one blade." I think you are an expert in this. Do you feel or think that making the two types of lift function on one blade is technically established, or do you see any problem in terms of its operation? I would like to ask you your understanding with your insight as an expert.

Minister:
I am not sure whether it is an exact term to use, but to say this in plain language, the Osprey uses the lift of a vertical take-off helicopter and the thrust of a fixed-wing airplane including propeller, jet and rocket planes to move forward with backward thrust. The Osprey is a technology trying to combine the two systems of lift and thrust, the directions of which are at an angle of 90 degrees to each other, in one aircraft by converting nacelles. Though anyone may come up with the idea, I said this is groundbreaking in the sense that the U.S. first succeeded in realizing this as an actual system in a practical aircraft. It is not that many other countries were also doing this, but it was the U.S. that was the first in the world to try and realize the technology in an actual system, repeated development process, conducted operational suitability tests and reached the decision on actual mass production. I said this is groundbreaking in the sense that this technical innovation is groundbreaking. You asked about the operational side. I think that such a groundbreaking system must have faced many difficulties during the process of development. Humans have worked to complete systems through trial and error to overcome such (difficulties in) science and technology. Not limited to this aircraft but we can see this process in everything in our daily life. Automobiles are also a result of such process: the history of trial and error has made today's automobiles and will continue to develop. I consider that the development of the Osprey as an aircraft has been developed in the U.S. in a proper way, operational suitability tests were conducted and the development process itself ended when mass production was decided. It is natural then to ask why accidents happen. I think it is true that there were accidents after that due to various minor problems in the system, like in the hydraulic pressure line, for example. However, considering that they have continued operation after the two accidents that happened this year, my thinking is that they reached the conclusion that there is no mechanical flaw in the system of the aircraft itself, or no fundamental flaw that may be considered in the process of the system's development.

Question:
You said earlier, "I am sure that (the Osprey) has an autorotation system." However, according to U.S. reports and such, there have been some report documents that the Pentagon or something had decided that the autorotation "is not a formal requirement." Does the Japanese government consider they have autorotation at this moment after considering things like this? I have one more thing to ask about its operation. I think accident rates form a bathtub curve where the rate is high before people get better at the operation and rise again with aging. Do you think that the Osprey is now at the bottom of its bathtub curve?

Minister:
No. For any system, I think from its development to practical use and continued use, various minor improvements are made continuously and constantly. I think this is the same for any system. Equipment for everyday use and mobile phones, for example, are also initially developed and their mass production starts, but the entire process does not end there. There are continuous developments or improvements using the wisdom of various people garnered through everyday use. I think this is how science and technologies develop and how human wisdom works. Therefore, I don't think the entire development program ended 100%. However, I think what the U.S. says is true at least in that the two accidents were not caused by any fundamental mistake in design, and I expect that the U.S. will show such results in its an accident report. As for autorotation, as I said earlier, we have provided explanation in a document written in Japanese after clearance with the Department of Defense. We understand that this is the formal view of the U.S. Department of Defense at least at this point.

Question:
A written protest against "the government progressing with the procedure for prior installation while the safety of the Osprey is not yet confirmed" dated July 2 was issued by Governor of Hiroshima prefecture addressed to the Minister of Defense. What is your opinion about the Governor of Hiroshima prefecture expressing his view across the prefectural border, and how will you respond to this?

Minister:
I've not yet received the document. I heard that the governor will be coming in for a visit in the near future. Maybe he will come carrying the written protest to make a request. It depends on the Diet schedule but I would very much like to do what I can to meet him and directly listen to his request.

Question:
Yesterday, the government compiled a report of a panel of experts on the reform of the pension system of civil servants and the pension system. The report states that the system in which additional pensions are to be paid depending on where they work will be abolished, but that the additional pension for civil servants will be maintained in a different form using tax money. I would like to hear what you think about this and whether you are for or against this.

Minister:
I'm sorry, for one month since taking the office the Osprey has been taking my time everyday and I have not yet studied about pension. I'm ashamed to say that I don't have sufficient knowledge to make a sufficient explanation.

Question:
As you just mentioned, one month has passed quickly since assuming the post as Minister. Please give us your candid impression in looking back over the month.

Minister:
Exactly a month has passed, and the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) Act states that the duty of the Minister of Defense is to supervise the affairs of the SDF. However, in order to supervise the affairs, now, for example, the Osprey is not the equipment of the SDF nor is it something to be brought into our bases. However, this is one of the important duties for which the Minister of Defense needs to work hard on in order to keep the Japan-U.S. Security Arrangements in its best condition and maintain the effectiveness of the deterrence capabilities of U.S. Forces in Japan. Duties concerning domestic affairs such as those at the Diet and listening to various opinions in the local communities are always included in my duty to supervise the SDF, and they may account for a large part of my job. These are what I keenly realized during this one month.

(End)