Press Briefing
Spokesperson and Deputy Minister for Public Relations Cho Tai-young
Dec. 24, 2013 15:30 KST


[Q&A]

Q: What is your view on the prompt support provided to the ROK’s Hanbit Unit in South Sudan by Japan’s Self-Defense Force unit there despite the current state of the ROK-Japan relations?

A: To my understanding, amid the political instability in South Sudan, the ROK’s Hanbit Unit dispatched to the country recently requested the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) provide it with ammunition to beef up its self-defense capability and received it through UNMISS.

Q: I have a related question. What is your view on that ammunition support?

A: I have nothing else to add. All I know is that the ROK unit asked for support from UNMISS to bolster its defense capability and received it through UNMISS.

Q: I have a further question. Some people point this out as an opportunity to improve the ROK-Japan relations. What do make of this view?

A: I have reiterated right here on numerous occasions the ROK government’s policy on its relations with Japan. To reiterate once again, the ROK government deals with and will deal with issues concerning historical perception in a stern and principled manner. At the same time, it will maintain cooperation with Japan in areas where cooperation is needed. This position will remain in place.

Q: I have a further question. Some consider this support from Japan’s Self-Defense Force unit a move intended to justify the Abe government’s policies to pursue proactive pacifism and the right to collective self-defense. Some people consider the ammunition support as intended to justify Japan’s moves toward proactive pacifism. What do make of this view?

A: I have read some press reports that the ammunition support provided Japan with a pretext for beefing up its military spending and pursuing a right to collective self-defense. In response to these press reports, let me just tell you that the two are in no way linked to each other, nor should they be understood that way. As I told you moments ago, the Hanbit Unit made the request to the UN to step up its self-defense capability and received the ammunition through the UN. There is nothing more, nothing less.

Q: According to some articles carried by domestic daily newspapers today, the Japanese government confirmed that the ROK government had made the request through the ROK Embassy in Japan. What do you have to say about this?

A: That is true. The UN made the request to the Japanese government, which, in turn, asked the ROK government if the latter had made the request, to which it answered in the affirmative.

Q: When the ROK government made the request, it must have known that although it receives ammunition through the UN, it will do so from a confined number of countries since the ammunition to be provided must be interoperable. Can we say that when the ROK government made the request, it took into account the likelihood of the ammunition coming from Japan?

A: I believe that it would be better for you to ask about technical and other relevant details to the Ministry of National Defense.

Q: With regard to the ROK government’s policy on the ROK-Japan relations, you have just mentioned that it will adhere to its principle on historical perception while maintaining cooperation with Japan in areas where cooperation is possible. Do the areas include security? Should situations similar to this one arise down the road, do you think that the ROK would receive ammunition and/or weapons from Japan’s Self-Defense Forces again?

A: I have repeatedly told you the ROK government’s position, which you must be well aware of by now. There is nothing more or nothing less. Please understand as it is.

Q: I have a further question. It is true that the Hanbit Unit asked for support and it was decided that the Unit would receive bullets from the Japanese side through UNMISS. The process of providing support is handled by the UN. Then what is the reason for the ROK government to officially confirm this?

A: I would refer you to a ministry responsible for the operation of the Hanbit Unit.

Q: Are you saying that the reports are true anyway? I mean the reports that the ROK government confirmed the request through the ROK Embassy in Japan.

A: Yes, they are true. As I said moments ago, to my knowledge, the Hanbit Unit made the request after an approval from the headquarters in order to strengthen its self-defense capability. I think it would be appropriate for you to inquire with a ministry handling this matter for more details.

Q: Then, it seems that the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had closely coordinated and consulted in advance before Japan’s provision of bullets. During the process, didn’t the Foreign Ministry have any different opinions on the Defense Ministry’s decision? Or did the Foreign Ministry express concern over the effect it would have?

A: I am sorry for giving you a quite short answer to your very detailed and specific question. However, this is not because I am not serious but because, as you know, the Foreign Ministry makes its position public after it is finalized. It is difficult to tell you every detail throughout the entire process.

Q: I have a question on Japan’s provision of bullets. In its briefing, the Ministry of National Defense said that the Unit “temporarily borrowed” them. However, the Japanese government announced yesterday that it “provided bullets without charge.” Which one is correct?

A: Let me repeat the same answer. I think it would be appropriate to contact a ministry responsible for the operation of the Hanbit Unit for such details.

Q: I have another question on the Hanbit Unit. Is it correct to say that the only role the Foreign Ministry played in the process of requesting the bullets and receiving them from Japan was to convey the request through the ROK Embassy in Japan and relay the result back?

A: It is regrettable that you could see me as a person not serious because I have just given similar answers to your detailed question. However, as I said a moment ago, we cannot give you every detail through the entire discussion process within the government.

As such, we have provided all related information at once after sorting out our thoughts on results. We appreciate your understanding.

Before I finish this briefing, let me repeat this. In answer to a question asked today at the beginning, I clearly explained the Foreign Ministry’s position on the relation of Japan’s provision of bullets with Japan’s collective self-defense or military expansion. However, as I remember, similar questions have been repeatedly asked.

Let me tell you once again that the Hanbit Unit’s request to UNMISS, a UN peacekeeping mission, and receipt of ammunition has nothing to do with Japan’s collective self-defense or military expansion, which are being mentioned in some press reports. I’d like to make this clear again.

I will conclude today’s briefing. Thank you.

*unofficial translation