02 December 2002
Transcript: Amb. Baker Defends Allied Approach to North Korea
(U.S. envoy praises calm, deliberate approach by Japan, So. Korea,
U.S.)
U.S. Ambassador to Japan Howard Baker praised what he said was a calm
and deliberate approach by Japan, South Korea and the United States to
North Korea's recent revelations about its nuclear weapons program.
Speaking at the Japan National Press Club in Tokyo December 2, Baker
hailed Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visit to North Korea and his
"attempt to forge peace with this most difficult of neighbors."
Baker noted Pyongyang's admission that it had for some years been in
breach of many of its international commitments by embarking on a
program to produce highly enriched uranium in order to build nuclear
weapons.
North Korea's acknowledgement of its nuclear weapons program was all
the more shocking in view of "generous diplomatic overtures" from
South Korea and Japan as well as the "massive amounts of humanitarian
food aid" provided by the United States through the UN World Food
Program and continued assistance through the Agreed Framework, Baker
said.
The United States, Japan and the Republic of Korea responded "quickly
and firmly with a unified policy toward the DPRK (Democratic Peoples
Republic of Korea)," he said.
Baker cited President Bush's November 15 observation that the three
nations are "united in our desire for a peaceful solution to this
situation" and "united in our resolve that the only option for
addressing this situation is for North Korea to completely and visibly
eliminate its nuclear weapons program."
Baker said the troika has "acted calmly, slowly and deliberately, and
I think with good effect. It appears to me that North Korea is not now
asserting its nuclear capability quite so enthusiastically as it did a
little while ago, so perhaps it is having an effect. But it's the
unity and boldness of action by the United States, South Korea and
Japan that I believe is having an effect on the attitude in North
Korea."
But he added: "Whether that turns out to be a solution remains to be
seen. ... It has been made clear by my government that we are
perfectly willing to have conversations and negotiations with North
Korea, but only after there is the certain and visible and confirmable
beginning of the dismantling of their nuclear capability."
Baker emphasized that President Bush "has made no threatening gestures
to North Korea." The U.S. response has been to North Korea's assertion
that it has a uranium enrichment facility, in violation of its several
undertakings under the agreement with the International Atomic Energy
Agency, the Framework Agreement and others, he said.
"But once again, how that finally resolves is very much up to North
Korea," the ambassador said. "The United States is steadfast in its
resolve, but the United States is not anxious to have a conflict with
North Korea or anyone else."
Baker also said the Japanese Diet's passage of legislation allowing
its country to participate in the war against terrorism was a bold
move. So too, he said, was Japan's insistence that Iraq comply with
the U.N. resolutions calling on Iraq to immediately, unconditionally
and actively cooperate with U.N. monitoring, verification and
inspection commissions.
Following is the December 2 transcript of the remarks of U.S.
Ambassador to Japan Howard Baker to the Japan National Press Club:
(begin transcript)
Ambassador Howard H. Baker
Remarks to the Japan National Press Club
December 2, 2002 Tokyo, Japan
12:00 p.m. local time
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Ladies and Gentlemen, I am delighted to be back to
the Japan National Press Club today. It was just about a year ago that
I spoke here before. It seems that we've established something of a
small tradition of the U.S. Ambassador making a yearend speech to this
group and attempting to summarize the year that has gone before.
If I were to characterize the last year, two images would come to
mind: boldness and cooperation. Two thousand two has been a year of
both. In Japan and in the United States and elsewhere around the
world, it has been a year marked by change, marked by close U.S.-Japan
cooperation in many arenas -- economic, political and diplomatic.
The response of the world community to the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program has been decisive and bold. In
Japan, Prime Minister Koizumi's visit to North Korea -- an attempt to
forge peace with this most difficult of neighbors -- was certainly
bold. And his efforts to reform the economy have certainly been the
boldest of all measures we have seen in recent years. The Diet's
passage of legislation allowing Japan to participate in the war
against terrorism, as well as the renewal of that legislation twice,
most recently in November, was another bold move.
My friends, let me start with Iraq. At times in the past, some in the
Japanese press have suggested that the United States was guilty of
"unilateralism" in its approach to world affairs. However, on the
question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its challenge to
the world community, President Bush galvanized the will of the
civilized world by exercising leadership and seeking support in the
world's most multilateral organization, the United Nations.
On November 8, the United Nations Security Council adopted a firm and
unanimous resolution calling on Iraq to immediately, unconditionally
and actively cooperate with UN monitoring, verification and inspection
commissions, and the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to
accurately and fully declare all aspects of its weapons of mass
destruction. President Bush and Secretary Powell displayed bold
leadership with the world community to bring this measure to reality,
and the President welcomed passage of that resolution in these words,
and I quote:
"With the resolution just passed, the United Nations Security Council
has met important responsibilities, upheld its principles and given
clear and fair notice that Saddam Hussein must fully disclose and
destroy his weapons of mass destruction. That is the judgment of the
United States Congress; that is the judgment of the United Nations
Security Council. Now the world must insist that that judgment be
enforced."
Subsequently the world has insisted, and Japan has insisted, that Iraq
cooperate fully with the UN resolution. In a statement issued November
9, 2002 by Foreign Minister Kawaguchi, the Government of Japan
welcomed the "unanimous and firm message" that the resolution sent to
Iraq, and promised to make "utmost necessary diplomatic efforts"
toward its implementation.
Perhaps nowhere in the world have the benefits of multilateral
cooperation been more evident and boldness more called for than in our
diplomatic efforts in North Korea. Pyongyang succeeded in shocking the
world community by its admission that it had for some years been in
breach of many of its international commitments by embarking on a
program to produce highly enriched uranium in order to build nuclear
weapons.
In spite of generous diplomatic overtures from South Korea, in the
form of President Kim Dae Jung's Sunshine Policy, from Japan in the
form of Prime Minister Koizumi's groundbreaking trip to Pyongyang, and
from the United States in the form of massive amounts of humanitarian
food aid administered through the UN World Food Program and continued
assistance through the Agreed Framework, North Korea pursued the
development of weapons of mass destruction.
The United States, Japan and the Republic of Korea, consulting through
the TCOG mechanism, responded quickly and firmly with a unified policy
toward the DPRK. This unified response was best summed up by President
Bush when he said on November 15, "We are united in our desire for a
peaceful solution to this situation. We are also united in our resolve
that the only option for addressing this situation is for North Korea
to completely and visibly eliminate its nuclear weapons program." Here
too, as with Iraq, leadership was needed and a bold policy was
supported by close cooperation with steadfast allies in search of a
reasonable outcome to a difficult diplomatic crisis.
With regard to the economy, I must begin by applauding Prime Minister
Koizumi's commitment to the revitalization of the Japanese economy.
Despite its economic problems, Japan remains a rich nation. Japan is a
nation of savers and of diligent people. It has the financial and
human resources needed to implement policies that will revitalize the
economy.
The plan is there; now the challenge comes with its implementation. A
pessimist might say that reform plans are merely words, but I am an
optimist with this as with all things, and I think that Japan, under
the bold leadership of Prime Minister Koizumi, is on the right track.
I believe the commitment is there, and that is the boldest step of
all. There is a Greek proverb that says, "Well begun is half done."
Having made the commitment to reform I believe Japan is well on its
way to meaningful structural reform that will enable Japan to retain
its place as a leader in Asia and indeed throughout the world.
As I look back at the year 2002, my friends, I feel exhilarated at all
that has transpired, and I feel encouraged for what it means about how
we face the challenges of 2003. The past year has been a year of
challenges that were met boldly, decisively and together. Ours is a
remarkable alliance, a partnership and our friendship. As the world's
two largest economic powers engaged in, as Mike Mansfield used to say,
the most important bilateral relationship in the world, working
together is really nothing that our two nations have not done before
and must continue to do in the future.
I look forward to the year 2003. I believe that it holds much promise.
It contains much peril and challenge, but I believe the people of
America and the people of Japan are well equipped by reason of their
national character, by reason of their political institutions, by
reason of their resources, their courage, their determination, that no
challenge is too bold, no problem is too difficult, no difficulty
cannot be overcome. We are two nations together. We are intertwined
economically. We are not only allies, but we are friends as well. We
have been tested in the challenge of this past year, as surely we will
be challenged in the future. But my friends, I have high confidence in
the future. I have high confidence that this relationship that exists
between the United States and Japan, which is unique anyplace else in
the world, puts us in a position to meet these challenges and to lead
the world to an era of peace, prosperity and stability.
I am pleased to be here on behalf of my country. I am pleased to have
this opportunity to speak to you today and once again to give you my
impressions of the past year and to share my enthusiasm and optimism
for the year ahead. I wish us all good luck. Thank you very much.
There's a whole stack of questions over here and I can hardly wait.
QUESTION: Thank you very much, Ambassador. We will start the Q&A
session. Mr. Koike of Nikkei is going to ask some of the questions. I
have received questions from six people (that) concern North Korea and
Iraq. Let me summarize a little bit and ask you some questions. First
of all, concerning Iraq and North Korea both, why is it that the
United States shows a more flexible attitude towards North Korea,
which is more dangerous, as opposed to Iraq?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: (Inaudible) for me to say which is the more
dangerous, but rather to say that both are challenges. In this day an
age, any power that possesses nuclear weapons and exhibits the
willingness to use them, as they have in Iraq on their own citizens,
is a real danger. By the same token, any nation that virtually brags
about their ability to produce nuclear weapons, and claims as they did
to Assistant Secretary Kelly that they could make even better weapons,
represents a challenge to mankind. Conflict between nations is no
longer just political; it is survival. When either Iraq or North Korea
profess the ability to use nuclear weapons or to possess nuclear
weapons, then mankind as a whole must act together and in cooperation
to meet that challenge. That's exactly why President Bush sought the
support of the United Nations Security Council and the U.S. Congress
on the question of Iraq, and why he continues to carefully,
deliberately consider the nature of the challenge from North Korea,
and why the action in both cases -- Iraq and North Korea - has been
taken carefully and with full consultation with our friends and
allies, including Japan. So I do not acknowledge that one is more
important than the other, but rather that as a measure of the
challenge to our time that they're two nations that are potentially a
threat to stability -- and not only in the Pacific, but elsewhere. So,
I believe that the United States has been careful and deliberate. It
has made both these issues a multilateral concern. It has sought the
advice and counsel of our friends in Asia -- in Japan and South Korea,
with China and others - on how to address the question posed by the
North Korean proclamation of its nuclear capability. And we have
sought the endorsement and support of the United Nations itself in the
Security Council Resolution, which was adopted unanimously. The
President has said on more than one occasion, we do not desire to have
a military conflict with anyone -- not Iraq, not North Korea. By the
same token, the combined and unified action of freedom-loving people,
like Japan and the United States, are surely notice to those who would
destroy that peace and tranquility that we will face those challenges
boldly and certainly and effectively. Thank you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. The next question is about Japan-North
Korean relations. Talks are having difficulty going forward. The
Japanese government, in negotiating with North Korea, is it seeking
help from the United States in its negotiations with North Korea? Mr.
Jenkins, the husband of Mrs. Soga... He may be treated as a refugee,
but is there a way to avoid litigation by the United States? Is it
possible? These are the two questions.
AMBASSADOR BAKER: As I understood the questions, one is it possible to
avoid conflict with North Korea?
QUESTION: The first question... Is the Japanese government seeking
help or assistance from the U.S. government so that the Japan-North
Korean negotiations can move ahead? That is the first question.
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, I'm still not sure I understand, but let me
give you an answer and we'll see if it fits the question. To begin
with, as I said earlier, the United States and Japan and South Korea
have consulted carefully, as we have with other friends and allies, on
the challenge presented by North Korea. We have acted calmly, slowly
and deliberately, and I think with good effect. It appears to me that
North Korea is not now asserting its nuclear capability quite so
enthusiastically as it did a little while ago, so perhaps it is having
an effect. But it's the unity and boldness of action by the United
States, South Korea and Japan that I believe is having an effect on
the attitude in North Korea. Whether that turns out to be a solution
remains to be seen. I have already commended the Prime Minister for
his bold initiative in traveling to North Korea and opening a
dialogue. It has been made clear by my government that we are
perfectly willing to have conversations and negotiations with North
Korea, but only after there is the certain and visible and confirmable
beginning of the dismantling of their nuclear capability. I think --
and this is not a statement by the U.S. government but my own personal
view -- that if North Korea were to begin dismantling their nuclear
capability -- and I'm speaking now of their centrifuge operations,
that if they would begin that, they might be very surprised at how
promptly the United States would respond in negotiations in an effort
to resolve these issues. But the underlying point is, President Bush
has made it clear that he does not wish to have a conflict with North
Korea. He has made no threatening gestures to North Korea. It is not a
target country, but rather it is a response to North Korea's assertion
that it possesses a uranium enrichment facility in violation of its
several undertakings under the agreement with the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the Framework Agreement and others. But once again, how
that finally resolves is very much up to North Korea. The United
States is steadfast in its resolve, but the United States is not
anxious to have a conflict with North Korea or anyone else.
QUESTION: What about the second question? Ms. Hitomi Soga's husband,
Mr. Jenkins... We don't know if he's coming to Japan, but if he comes
to Japan or if he leaves North Korea, do you think he'll be indicted
by the U.S. government? Do you think that he will face some legal
actions? Is it possible to extend immunity to him so that he will not
face a legal case?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: The Jenkins case is a very difficult issue. I
personally feel sorry for him. He has been in North Korea for a long
time. I'm sure he wishes to be rejoined with his family, but on the
other hand he is still characterized as a deserter from the U.S. Army.
I know that our government is considering this situation carefully. I
know that no commitments have been made. The government will proceed
according to the provisions of the law and how that will finally
unfold remains to be seen. Your specific question is whether or not he
will be indicted if he returns to Japan, and I cannot answer that.
What I can say is that the U.S. is pursuing the matter carefully and
will make its judgment appropriately, but we have made no
representations except that we will consider the matter as carefully
as we know how. It is not an easy matter. It is a largely a legal
matter. But it's one that has many ramifications, and it's one that
will be carefully considered by the United States Government, and on
which no decision has yet been made.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. The next question also concerns North
Korea and Japan. A week before September, when the Prime Minister went
to North Korea, you mentioned that these normalization talks might be
a little bit risky. So, we would like to know what you meant when you
said this discussion might be risky?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, that's what I meant. I think that
circumstances have proven that to be correct. But by the same token
you should recall, so I'm sure you do, that when the Prime Minister
announced his desire to go to North Korea, that the United States
supported that and encouraged him to go forward. We also shared our
information about the North Korean nuclear capability with the Prime
Minister. We have no criticism of the Prime Minister for that trip.
Indeed, we have applauded that trip, and we hope that it will produce
a favorable result. But it's an uncertain result. North Korea has not
yet responded in a favorable way -- that's what I meant when I said it
was a risky matter. But once again, we applauded the Prime Minister
for his boldness, his initiative, for his effort, and the outcome
remains to be seen.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. Next, since September 11 there may have
been some change in U.S. society, and there is a question about that
possible change in U.S. society. After 9/11, in the United States you
have to be a patriot. Otherwise, you might be abused. What will happen
to U.S. democracy in the future? That is, how should we look at the
future of American democracy, because you may be treated roughly
unless you are viewed as a patriot in the United States? Is there that
kind of perception in the United States?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: The United States is deeply committed and
fundamentally committed to the rule of law. The United States will
defend the rights of every citizen, as will the courts, as will the
President, and they will be safeguarded by the Congress. But by the
same token, the country recognizes, the President recognizes and the
Congress has recognized that there is a period of grave danger in the
wake of 9/11, and that great danger requires different approaches.
Some of them are unusual in the sense that they have not recently
existed, but they're not unprecedented in the sense that America has
taken extraordinary measures to protect itself on previous occasions
during World War II, during our American Civil war, and otherwise.
It's always a careful judgment on what is appropriate, how far to go.
But the basic bedrock conviction in America is that we are a nation of
laws, and that we will protect the rights of every citizen - and that
is not changed by 9/11. It will continue to be so in our country, and
no country should doubt that, no American should be unsure of that,
the President has proclaimed that, the courts protect that, and it is
so and will continue to be so.
QUESTION: The next question is a subject other than Iraq and North
Korea. As has been reported, the Belarus Ambassador is said to have
sought asylum to the United States Embassy. Do you have any
information concerning that? Related to that, is it true that this
former ambassador from Belarus seeking political asylum to the United
States?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: You're exactly right that it has been a matter of
much conjecture in the press. It is also true that the first I heard
of it was in the press. And that is still all I know about it. I will
say facetiously and I will say in jest, but it's also true, that
having heard those rumors, I checked the Embassy before I left and he
was not there. As far as I could tell, he was not there. We have had
no requests from him that I'm aware of -- I believe we have not. I
know what I've read in the paper.
MODERATOR: After my questions, I will open it up to the floor so you
can pursue these questions further if you're not satisfied. This will
be my last question. In your speech, you talked about Japan's reform
effort, specifically concerning deregulation in Japan. About
deregulation policy or efforts, how would you evaluate Japan's effort
to reform? Do you have any specific recommendations or suggestions as
to how we should conduct our reforms? Do you have any advice or
suggestions?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: First of all, from the day I first arrived in Japan
until this very moment, I've made it a policy never to give advice to
my friends in Japan. I will share our insights and our experience in
America, but I do not give advice to how Japan should conduct its
internal affairs -- its domestic affairs. In the case of the economic
situation, the banking situation, I have often shared with officials
of this government our experiences in America when we had banking
difficulties in the 1980s. But once again, I have made it clear that
this was not in the nature of a suggestion that you should follow the
American example, but rather simply to share our experience. Japan is
not America; America is not Japan. Even though we have great
similarities and our banking systems are both very large, the
challenges are different and the problems are different. You do have
major problems with your banking system here in Japan. That is no
secret. The question of non-performing loans is very large and has
been with us now for some time. But you should keep in mind, as I'm
sure you do, that Japan is a great rich nation. You have the resources
to do whatever you decide to do. The question is to decide what to do.
And you may or may not follow the example that America utilized in the
1980s. But I am convinced that the Prime Minister and his program are
determined to go forward with reform, and that a program has been
outlined which is a good program - and the U.S., including the
President, have supported that program. But once again, Japan can do
whatever Japan decides to do. It has the resources, it has the
democratic institutions, it has the educated population, and it has
the political system that can carry into effect whatever reforms it
decides on. But it certainly is not America's position that we ought
to tell you how to do that. We will cheer for you, we will be
optimistic and enthusiastic, but it's up to Japan to decide how to do
that. But may I also say once more that we applaud the Prime Minister
and the efforts he has shown in proposing reform, and we believe it
offers the reasonable prospect of success.
MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Those are the questions I have
prepared.
Thank you very much Mr. Koike and Mr. Ambassador. We are ready to
receive questions from the floor. Please raise you hand and I will
call your name. And the person whose name is called, please come to
the microphone. You can ask questions in English or in Japanese.
Please limit your questions to one to a person. Please raise your
hand.
QUESTION: World National Affairs. The former Treasury Secretary
Lawrence Summers about 2 years ago asked that the United States and
Japan rewrite the bilateral task convention. Where is this discussion
standing now between the two countries?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: You have no reason to know that my father served in
Congress and he was a great man, but he also was a philosopher of
sorts, and he told me once -- he said, "In public life, if you don't
know the answer to a question, say you don't know the answer to the
question." And I must tell you I do not know the answer to that
question, and if I say one bit more, I will tell you more than I know.
So with your kind indulgence, I will not answer that question because
I don't know the answer. Now that may not be a precedent for anybody
else's question, but there's something else my father taught me years
ago, and that was, in public life, if you don't like the question you
were asked, answer some other question. You've got one over here.
MODERATOR: The next question please? The gentlemen over there?
QUESTION: I'm Muraoka. I used to work for the Kyodo Agency. Among the
Japanese people, when we think about famous Americans, one of them
would be Mr. Jenkins, so I'd like to ask a question about Jenkins
again. From the U.S. viewpoint, if somebody has broken the law, if you
pardon that person, then (do) you have to ask that person or
interrogate that person directly. If that interrogation takes place,
and if he agrees that he will never criticize or attack the United
States, then do you think a pardon can be given to him? Do you think
he will be pardoned? You say that North Korea should dismantle its
enrichment facility and dismantle its nuclear programs and reduce its
conventional weapons. If North Korea does not do that, then special
consideration will not be given to Mr. Jenkins? His wife in Japan can
be given some option if the U.S. makes it clear that the U.S. might
consider such a pardon to him, so could you clarify this point?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, the answer to the question is the pardon
authority rests solely and exclusively with the President, and he may
exercise that authority on whatever basis he decides. The second part
of the question, I believe, is a pardon likely? I have no idea. What I
have said before and will repeat now is the Jenkins case will be
handled according to the laws of America. What that means in terms of
the final disposition of the case, including the possibility of a
pardon, has not yet been decided. The two, however, Jenkins and the
question of dismantling of the nuclear facilities of the DPRK, are
simply not related. The Jenkins case is a matter of law and will be
dealt with according to law, either in trial or in pardon or some
other device. It's a legal matter. The question of the DPRK's uranium
enrichment program is entirely unrelated and separate. As I've said
previously, the President has called on the DPRK to visibly and
credibly begin the dismantling of that facility as a precondition to
further negotiations with North Korea. I think that's abundantly
clear, but I reiterate the two things: the Jenkins case and the
dismantling of the uranium enrichment facilities are totally unrelated
to each other. They are both important, but they have no bearing one
on the other.
MODERATOR: We are ready to have the next question.
QUESTION: My name is Hasegawa of Nikkei. I would like to ask a
question about the free trade agreement. Japan is negotiating with
Korea and Singapore in terms of the free trade agreement. How do you
look at this Japanese willingness to have a free trade agreement with
some Asian countries, and how do you view a free trade agreement
between Japan and the United States?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: That's a good question, and let me give you a
general answer first. To begin with, it is the fundamental policy of
the United States that trade should be free and unfettered, and that
applies to Asia, to America, to Europe. The ultimate objective is to
have free trade without restraint. In terms of America's policies in
that respect, I would point out that we recently conducted a NAFTA
seminar here, a North American Free Trade Agreement seminar, to point
with pride to the success of the free trade agreement between the
United States, Canada and Mexico. It was a controversial issue when it
was adopted, but it is almost universally applauded in my country now.
I think the example of successful free trade agreements, as with
NAFTA, argue in favor of undertaking that in other parts of the world.
I encourage - my government encourages - Japan to go forward with
consideration of free trade agreements wherever that seems
appropriate. Most recently you've considered that with China, you've
considered it with Singapore, and you've considered it elsewhere. But
once again, the bedrock American position is that in any part of the
world that the objective should be to have more free trade, not less.
So, the American view of negotiations, between Japan and Korea or
Singapore or China or other nations, is to support that initiative and
that effort. The ultimate objective is free and unfettered trade
between nations of the world, and we support the efforts of any nation
to advance that cause.
QUESTION: My name is Hiroshi Fuse from Mainichi Shimbun. I'm a former
Washington correspondent. My question is very simple. Iraqi
inspections began last week at the end of November. So, Ambassador,
what is your assessment of the current situation? Is a war inevitable?
And a second question, if I may: If war is not inevitable, you have to
go to Iraq and occupy the Iraqi territory for some time. So, how can
you manage the budget of occupation of Iraqi territory? Thank you very
much.
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, the first part of your question is certainly
accurate. That is, it is the stated position of the President that it
is his hope that the Iraqi threat can be dealt with without conflict.
He has also said that he has no immediate plans on his desk for
military action, so I accept both those things at face value. The
answer to the question of whether there will be conflict or not
depends entirely, really, on Saddam Hussein. If he is willing to
dispose of his weapons of mass destruction and reform his institutions
there will be no conflict. If he is not, then it continues to be a
challenge. On the question of what happens post-conflict in Iraq, the
first part of my answer would be we have not yet with certainty had a
conflict, and we will continue to hope we will not have to have a
conflict. As I say, that is the stated position of our President and
of our country. But if we have a conflict, I am sure that we would
succeed, and I am sure we could manage the business of the reform of
that country. We bear no ill will toward the people of Iraq, but
rather toward the regime that has oppressed those people and created a
threat to the rest of mankind for a long time.
QUESTION: I am Sato Suzuki with TV Asahi. Back to the Jenkins case,
because Ms. Soga is worried about her husband, about her daughter, and
many people in Japan are worried about her, about their family. People
are wondering here in Japan, naturally, if there is anything you, as
the Ambassador to Japan, can do to help her, to help her family,
because we know that if you speak, the White House will listen. And if
you speak, the Pentagon will listen. Are you willing to meet with her
personally and look into what, if anything, you can do to help her?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, first of all, I've already said that, as a
person, as a human being, I am sympathetic, from a humane standpoint.
I really am sympathetic to their plight. But by the same token, as I
have also said, it is a legal matter that will be addressed by my
country, and whether or not that results in an arrest and trial, or
perhaps even a pardon, is not for me to say, and has not been stated
by our government, but rather all of those things are still under
consideration. And I don't mean to imply that any one of them is under
consideration, but that the whole case is under consideration.
Would I be willing to meet with her? Yes. Indeed, I would be willing
to do that. I would be willing to listen with patience and to report
with fidelity what she says, and what the circumstances are. But have
I met with her? No, I have not. Have I indicated my willingness to do
that? I have. But I must say that that's a matter that addresses
itself to her and to Japanese authorities - Japanese government. I'd
rather simply say that my sense of sympathy would compel me to say,
yes, I would be pleased to meet with her and to report accurately on
what she says. But no such meeting has been arranged, and I am not
inviting that meeting. I am merely saying that yes, I would be honored
to do that.
MODERATOR: Yes, people in the back - somebody in the back.
QUESTION: Ambassador, I am Ichinose from NHK, Japan Broadcasting. You
just mentioned the importance of cooperation between the U.S. and
Japan, and once the United States decided to go to war against Iraq,
what would the U.S. government expect Japan to do? And if the U.S.
government decides to go to war against Iraq, do you think you are the
one who is going to tell the Japanese government that the U.S. is
ready to attack?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: There is another saying in America, another proverb,
I guess, that we don't borrow trouble. That is, we don't worry about
things until they happen. We have not gone to war with Iraq, and I am
willing to continue to hope that there will be no need to go to war
with Iraq. The question is would I be the one that told Japan in case
America decided to do that. Perhaps. I am the President's
representative here and perhaps I would be the one, but I have not
received such an instruction.
I forgot the rest of your question. Oh, what would we expect Japan to
do? I don't know. Japan was enormously helpful in the war previously
in the Middle East and has been very helpful indeed in the war against
terrorism, and we are grateful for that. But we have not asked Japan
for any specific contribution of resources in the event of war with
Iraq. But once again, the decision has not been made to have war with
Iraq, and it depends very much on what Saddam Hussein decides to do.
So, to resort to my own proverb, let's worry about that later. Let's
not do that until it is certain that we need to worry about that. But
suffice it to say that we have not yet made any such request.
QUESTION: My name is Naito, a freelance press person. Let me ask
another question concerning Mr. Jenkins. I want to hear your answer.
My question is as to whether Mr. Jenkins has been determined as a
deserter or not. My understanding of the statute of limitations is 40
years. What will be the sentence/punishment? If a pardon is given,
when and how would that decision be made? Another question is Enron.
It has been a year since the Enron issues occurred, and we have
focused on the false accounting and reporting since then. Do you
consider a system for clean reporting - no more false accounting - to
be complete in the United States?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: The first thing to observe about Enron is that it
was identified and addressed. It was not covered up. We did not try to
avoid the consequences of that failure. The second thing is, Enron has
been placed in bankruptcy/reorganization, which is going apace at this
time. Beyond that, there have been legislative efforts as well as
government efforts to make sure that we modernize and upgrade and
improve our accounting standards and our reporting standards so that
we can avoid future Enron concerns. Something like Enron is always
unfortunate. It would be even more unfortunate if America did not
recognize it, acknowledge it and deal with it. And we did that, and we
continue to do that, and the matter is in the courts. And since it's
in the courts, I cannot predict what finally will happen.
Your question on the Jenkins matter, what I said in my earlier
remarks, I believe, or one of my earlier questions, was that he is
classified as a deserter. "Deserter" is a technical term, and whether
or not he is convicted of desertion depends on the determination of
the legal process. But what I said - which is true, I believe - was
that he is classified at the moment as a deserter.
On the question of the statute of limitations, that also is a legal
matter, but it is my impression - and I practiced law for a long time,
I am a lawyer - but it is my impression that the statute of
limitations, whatever it is, would not begin to run until he was back
in the United States or in American custody. So I think the statute of
limitations is not an issue in the Jenkins case at the present time. I
do think, however, that there is every assurance that the Jenkins case
will be handled in accordance with the law, and that he will be
treated fairly and humanely and sympathetically. But the statute does
not begin to run, I believe, until after he returns or until he is
brought back into custody.
And for fear of that sounding too harsh, let me say that I am really
sympathetic to the man, but still in all he's classified as a
deserter, and the matter has to be dealt with according to law. That's
what we're set about doing.
MODERATOR: I see two people raising their hands, and with those two
questions we'll conclude the session.
QUESTION: I am Abe from Kyodo News Agency. About Japan-North Korean
relations... in dealing with North Korea, for the Japanese government
the solution to the abductee issue is very important. In this
situation, if you take a hard line on the nuclear issue, this may lead
to the resolution of the abduction issue, some people say, but maybe
we can turn a blind eye to the nuclear issue, including the issue of
KEDO. Then this would contribute to a quicker solution of the
abduction issue. There are these two different views within the
Japanese government. What is your view on this? Also, the
normalization talks between Japan and North Korea are stalemated. What
is your observation about this stalemate? These are the two questions.
AMBASSADOR BAKER: First of all, as I am sympathetic to the Jenkins
matter, I am sympathetic, certainly, to the plight of the abductees.
That's the first thing. I would not presume to suggest to the Japanese
government how they handle that matter. I think they have handled it
very well so far, and how it finally resolves is yet to be determined.
Do I think that a resolution of the issue of uranium enrichment would
also facilitate a resolution of the abductee issue? Perhaps, although
I consider the two entirely separate and different. The uranium
enrichment issue is so important, and is such a flagrant violation of
the undertakings of the DPRK in a variety of treaties and obligations,
that it stands alone in importance and must be considered separately
from the humanitarian and other considerations involving the
abductees. We hope that the abductee issue can be resolved promptly.
We have no advice to give. We trust our friends and allies, the
Japanese, to decide how best to approach that, but it has no bearing
on our concern, and I believe for Japan and the rest of the world's
concern, for North Korea's development of uranium-based nuclear
weapons.
MODERATOR: The last question please.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) of the Herald-Asahi. Back to the Belarus, the
former ambassador's issue. Could you confirm whether he actually
entered the American Embassy compound on the 30th or not? And if he
did, what was his purpose? The second part, obviously, is going to be
hypothetical. If he asks for asylum, what would the United States do?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well first of all, as far as I know -- and I believe
I would know -- he has not entered the American Embassy. I checked
that just before I came to this luncheon, and we have no record of him
coming. We have no one who has knowledge of him coming. As I said, I
believe that as Ambassador, I would know that if he had, so I don't
believe he has. What would we do if he did present himself? The law is
well settled on that as well. If he presents himself in the
appropriate way as a political refugee and seeks asylum, then the
government would consider it in one way. If he presented himself as a
fugitive from lawful action by the government, it would be considered
another way. But as you say, it's hypothetical, and as far as I know
he has not presented himself. And I'll check again as soon as I get
back to the Embassy. No, he has not. Thank you.
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you so much. It's been a pleasure to be
with you once again, and if you invite me back a year from now, God
willing, I'll be here to do it again. Thank you very much.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
