29 January 2002
Transcript: Amb. Baker Discusses Japanese Antiterrorism Efforts
(Jan. 29 remarks to Foreign Correspondents' Club, Tokyo) (7970)
"The United States and Japan have forged a unique relationship in the
wake of September 11," U.S. Ambassador to Japan Howard H. Baker
stressed to members of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of Japan in
Tokyo January 29.
"Immediately after the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United
States, Japan offered its full moral and diplomatic support -- and the
instant outpouring of sentiment from the Japanese people was
heartwarming indeed -- and demonstrated the strength and closeness of
the bilateral relationship between our two countries," Baker said.
"The friendship and alliance between the United States and Japan was
dramatically illustrated in this country's instantaneous support for
the United States in the wake of September 11, engaging in our fight
against terrorism wherever it is found," he continued.
Baker praised the logistical support that Japan has provided in
refueling ships of the allied forces in the region, and the controls
the Japanese government has placed on the sources of terrorist
financing.
Baker also commended Japan for hosting the International Conference of
Reconstruction Assistance for Afghanistan (ICRAA) on January 21 and
22.
"The world owes Japan a debt of gratitude for taking the lead and
hosting this conference," he said.
The conference "also underscored the importance of Japan in the scheme
of things -- not only in support of the war against terrorism, but in
a prominent place in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and thus by
extrapolation to attending to the needs of the deprived world," Baker
said.
Speaking of President Bush's scheduled visit to Japan the following
month -- his first to that country -- Baker said Bush will find "a
country that is a friend of America, a friend and an ally and a
partner in the fullest sense of the word."
"I fully anticipate that when President Bush arrives in Japan that he
will once more express his support for Prime Minister Koizumi's reform
programs ... and his support for the efforts of this government to try
to reform the economy and to restore prosperity and economic vigor in
this great nation," Baker continued.
Baker also said he expected Bush to discuss policy and concerns about
North Korea while in Japan.
"My guess is the President will come with an agenda which includes the
items that I've just identified -- that is an expression of gratitude,
thanks for the support that has happened so far underscoring the
importance of getting our economic houses in order, and our
willingness to cooperate but not to try to dominate the economic
relationships between our two countries," he said.
"I might comment, and this is perhaps further than I should go, but
it's my observation that Japan -- especially in economic matters --
does not operate in a steady gradient, but rather in steps. And I
fully expect that Japan will approach the question of its economic
malaise carefully, but when they decide to act that they will act in
fairly dramatic ways," Baker said.
"But I am not disturbed, frankly, that Japan takes it time to think
through those and to prioritize them according to your needs, Japan's
needs. And I conclude that by telling you that I'm still optimistic
that Japan will meet these demands, these challenges, and will work it
out," Baker said.
Following is a transcript of Baker's remarks and the
question-and-answer session that followed:
(begin transcript)
REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR HOWARD H. BAKER
TO THE FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS' CLUB OF JAPAN
JANUARY 29, 2002 - TOKYO, JAPAN
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for
the warmth of your welcome. Thank you, as well, for the podium because
you see those who know me know that unless I stand up you may not see
me. But on the other hand, my late father-in-law once said when asked,
"Why Nancy married him?" He replied: "Well, he's not very big, but
he's loud." And I've managed to redeem that reputation now for many
years. I also understand you had a podium for my friend Fritz Mondale
-- former Vice President Mondale -- when he spoke here. And perhaps
this one is more substantial. Is that a fair question? Because I
understand, as well, that it did not stand up well to his
presentation. But my friends, in seriousness, I'm pleased to be here
and pay my respects to the club and to its officers and those at the
head table who have kindly offered me this chance to speak and to the
friends I find here in the audience. It's a delight to be with you.
I'd like to preface my remarks by telling you that, in all fairness, I
feel at home here with the press because it is obvious and clear that
in the course of my public career I have never had a cross word with
the press, have never been misquoted, I have never been upset by what
you say, no reporter has ever asked me an unexpected question. And I
do ask you not to spoil that record here today.
But one reason that I'm happy to be here and feel so at home is that I
think I already know this audience well. While I've not met most of
you personally, I meet you virtually every morning because you see
since I've not yet mastered the Japanese language and idiom, I depend
on the newspapers that arrive at the Embassy and are placed on my
table for breakfast. And I see your bylines, I read your pieces, and I
thought the other day, you know, it's passing strange that the U.S.
Ambassador depends in large measure in keeping up with current events
on Japanese sources. But maybe it's not so strange because it does
give me a perspective that I perhaps would not have any other way. And
I must say I enjoy reading those papers in the morning and that I even
manage to throw in the Asian Wall Street Journal and The Financial
Times just to sort of dilute things a little bit. But the press is an
important part of the public governance of America and its an
important part of the governance of Japan as well because not only are
you the collectors of information and the conscientious reporters of
current affairs, but you also are the raw material out of which
opinions are formed and policies are derived. So I'm especially glad
to be here and to have this opportunity to talk to you today.
I'm told that my agenda should be my role as Ambassador and to discuss
U.S.-Japan relationships. May I digress for a moment to say that it is
a little short of astonishing to me that Japan and the United States
are so close and are such friends and are so effectively allied.
Because, indeed, it has not been many years -- only a few decades --
when we were enemies involved in mortal combat. Yet since that time,
America has embraced Japan and, I believe, Japan has embraced America.
Our cultures have meshed and complemented each other to an extent that
I believe almost no one would have imagined thirty, forty, or fifty
years ago.
The house in which we now reside, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, was built
in 1930 -- and, by the way, was the first American Embassy residence
to be purpose-built. That is, built as an American Embassy residence.
And it has been occupied by a succession of great Ambassadors, but it
is also the place where General Douglas MacArthur resided during the
Occupation. And I've read a great deal about that. And I marvel, as
well, how this country embraced MacArthur and his ideas -- and how his
legacy has lived on, not just in that house, but in your Constitution,
in your viewpoints and ideas, but mostly in terms of the cordial and
close relationship between our two countries. It was my privilege
earlier this year to entertain in that residence former Vice President
Mondale -- who served here as you know, as a distinguished Ambassador
-- and to learn from him of his experiences in this great country and
to identify the issues that were dealt with during his tenure here. It
is also my pleasure to have known firsthand and to have served in the
Senate briefly with Mike Mansfield, who is perhaps the arch-typical
American Ambassador to Japan. And to this day, I think visitors expect
me to prepare coffee. But I attended a memorial service for Mike the
other day, after he passed away. His daughter was there and we had a
moment to chat and to have dinner together at the Embassy residence.
And she recalled how her father always prepared coffee for his
visitors. And I debated long and hard with my conscience before I
decided that I would level with this nice lady and tell her it is
true: Mike showed that hospitality and the cordiality of those visits,
but that coffee was the abomination -- and anyone who tasted it would
certainly agree with that.
But I've had the opportunity, as well, to entertain at the residence
most recently the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Denny
Hastert. Speaker Hastert is a remarkable person and I found out, which
I did not know before, that he has many Japanese friends and that he
worked in Japan as a young man when he was hired to teach colloquial
English -- not academic, but colloquial English -- to guides for the
Osaka Exposition. So we had a good visit and reminisced not only about
the past relationship between our countries, but also about the
current relationship between our nations.
It is my firm and fixed view that the friendship and alliance and
inter-relationship between Japan and the United States continues to
grow and unfold. While in many ways, we are more similar now than we
were perhaps at any other time, both nations have preserved their
heritage and tradition, their separate cultures, and both have
reinforced the other in terms of our place in the scheme of things in
world affairs. More recently, the friendship and alliance between the
United States and Japan was dramatically illustrated in this country's
instantaneous support for the United States in the wake of September
11, engaging in our fight against terrorism wherever it is found. I
marvel at how fast your country reacted. I marvel at how fast the Diet
enacted the necessary and enabling legislation. I marvel at how the
people of this country appeared to have wholeheartedly and
unreservedly understood the nature of the universal fight against
terrorism. The United States and Japan have forged a unique
relationship in the wake of September 11, as have so many others
around the world. But I think this relationship is particularly
important because it not only shows the friendship and cooperation
between our two nations, but in a very special way, it shows that
Japan has become an important player -- not only on the economic scene
of the world, but a player in international relations as well. So I
commend the Prime Minister. I commend the Diet, the people of this
great nation, for their willing undertaking of a noble cause -- and
that is to find and punish terrorism wherever it occurs.
Recently, we had a visit from Secretary of State Colin Powell and
Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill -- and they were accompanied,
of course, by the usual phalanx of officialdom including sub-cabinet
officials who participated in an unprecedented international
conference. On January 21 and 22, Japan took center stage in the
world's diplomatic efforts to begin the reconstruction of the
war-ravaged country of Afghanistan by hosting the "International
Conference of Reconstruction Assistance for Afghanistan." And once
again, not only was this important in its own right, and skillfully
executed -- and, by the way, may I pay special tribute to Ms. Ogata,
who chaired the meeting with such skill and dignity. But it also
underscored the importance of Japan in the scheme of things -- not
only in support of the war against terrorism, but in a prominent place
in the reconstruction of Afghanistan and thus by extrapolation to
attending to the needs of the deprived world.
The conference marked a significant landmark in Afghanistan's effort
to rejoin the community of nations, as the Afghan people strive to
leave behind two tragic decades of conflict and misrule. The meeting
was also significant for the extraordinary display of international
cooperation as 61 countries and 21 organizations gathered and made
significant pledges of support for the reconstruction of Afghanistan
and committed to coordinate closely in the efforts to build peace,
stability and prosperity in that country and in this region. The
conference co-chairs -- Japan, the United States, Saudi Arabia and the
European Union -- worked closely and effectively to coordinate the
conference that the Japanese government made enormous efforts to
ensure a successful meeting. The world owes Japan a debt of gratitude
for taking the lead and hosting this conference, and that is why, in
his interview with NHK television, Secretary of State Powell thanked
the Japanese people for taking on that special responsibility.
Looking at the tangible results of the International Conference of
Reconstruction Assistance for Afghanistan, it was by any and all
measures a resounding success. In his January 21 remarks to the
conference, Secretary Powell underscored President Bush's message that
the United States will stand with Afghanistan for the long run and the
long-term fully committed, and that commitment was echoed by the other
three co-chairs in the closing session of the conference. Noting that
the United States already led the world in humanitarian food aid to
Afghanistan, some $400 million over the past two years alone, the
Secretary announced an initial U.S. contribution of $296 million in
the 2002 fiscal year, and explained that this is to be just the first
contribution in a multi-year effort by the United States. In addition
to that, overall the participants pledged more than $1.8 billion for
the first year of the reconstruction effort, exceeding the amount
thought necessary in a needs assessment study conducted by the World
Bank, UN Development Program and the Asian Development Bank. Some
countries offered single-year pledges, some offered multi-year
pledges, some offered monetary contributions and some offered in-kind
contributions, but all told the total sum of pledges came to $4.5
billion or more.
The Tokyo Conference was the latest example of Japan demonstrating
exemplary leadership on the world stage. Immediately after the
September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, Japan offered its
full moral and diplomatic support -- and the instant outpouring of
sentiment from the Japanese people was heartwarming indeed -- and
demonstrated the strength and closeness of the bilateral relationship
between our two countries. May I digress for a brief moment, once
again, to tell you of my personal experience in that respect.
My wife and I were in the United States when that attack occurred.
We'd attended conferences in San Francisco, celebrating the fiftieth
anniversary of the treaty between the United States and Japan, and
then in her home state of Kansas in Wichita for the Midwest Conference
on friendship between our countries. We left on the tenth of September
and traveled to Chicago to be in place for the flight the next day to
Tokyo, which of course did not fly. Nor did any other flight travel to
Tokyo on the next day. But we were there for five days and finally
came back to Tokyo on ANA, the first flight out, and I went directly
to the U.S. Embassy -- my responsibility post. And when I arrived, I
saw a long line of people outside the gate -- and this was late in the
afternoon, early evening. And as I examined it, I saw that so many of
them had floral tributes that they were laying at the gate. No one had
advertised that. It had not been promoted by the American Embassy, but
to me it was a genuine outpouring of the friendship of the Japanese
people for America, their sorrow at the occurrence -- not just the
death of Japanese, but so many Americans and others. And it also
signaled to me that this is a relationship that is not only sound and
secure, but enduring and important.
But back to the matter at hand. The Tokyo Conference, as I say, was
only the latest example of Japan's emerging leadership on the world
stage. It is notable that the government of Japan responded so quickly
in its support for the war on terrorism and, as I have mentioned
previously, that the Japanese Diet acted so promptly. That is
particularly impressive to me, my friends, since not only did I spend
eighteen years in the United States Senate -- eight of those years as
either Minority Leader of Majority Leader. But as I've told our
friends in Japan, including the Prime Minister and many others, I
cannot conceive of the American Congress acting as promptly as the
Japanese Diet did -- and I congratulate you for it. It was important
legislation. It is an important new statement of policy by Japan
toward the scourge of terrorism throughout the world, and it was
admired worldwide. Japan's contribution to this "new war" has been
substantial and real -- and certainly not just symbolic. The
logistical support that Japan has provided in refueling ships, for
instance, has been essential in sustaining allied forces in the
region. The controls the Japanese government has placed on the sources
of terrorist financing is another important measure that deserves
commendation from all of us.
Just as Japan has taken a central role in world diplomacy and an
important role in the war on terrorism, it is and must play a crucial
role in the evolution of development of the next phase of the world
economy. Secretary O'Neill's decision to remain in Tokyo after the
conference in order to meet with his Japanese government counterparts
is indicative of the importance we place on our cooperation with Japan
on economic, trade and financial matters. It is our fundamental belief
that a strong Japanese economy is in the United States' national
interest and important for the health of the entire world. By the same
token, while I would not presume to speak for the Japanese people or
your government, I believe it is perceived here that a strong, vital,
and prosperous America is important to Japan, as well. Our economies
and our societies are so intertwined, it is not an exaggeration to say
that when the U.S. prospers, Japan prospers. And when Japan prospers,
America will prosper. You are not only the second largest economy in
the world, but working together, the United States and Japan are the
prime engines of economic growth and prosperity. Our friends in the
EU, of course, are an important part of that, but speaking here in
Tokyo -- my duty station -- I tell you now, there is no more important
relationship -- economically, strategically, in foreign policy,
socially, culturally -- than that which exists and continues to grow
between Japan and the United States.
And, of course, both of us have our problems. It seldom does much good
to write catalogues of problems -- and besides that, I find it
depressing in the extreme. But we do have problems -- financial
problems, economic problems... America, I think, is on the brink of
recovery from our recession. I've said publicly before -- and I've not
been chastised so far by my government -- I am convinced that we have
put in place the steps that are necessary in America to turn around
our economy and I fully expect and anticipate that some time this
year, perhaps in the third and fourth quarters, we will see
significant improvements in the level of American economic activity.
I am also optimistic, my friends, about the future of Japan and its
financial situation. I am not so intimately familiar with the steps
that you have taken or must take, but I am convinced that you and
Japan understand fully the importance of your economic distress and
the necessity to address the issues promptly and effectively. I fully
anticipate that when President Bush arrives in Japan that he will once
more express his support for Prime Minister Koizumi's reform programs.
The President and the Prime Minister have become more than just
colleagues, in my view -- and I've seen them together now a number of
times. But they are friends, as well. And that may not sound important
in the scheme of things, but believe me, it is. It facilitates frank,
easy conversation and mutual understanding. But I fully expect that
the President will reiterate his support for the Koizumi program and
his support for the efforts of this government to try to reform the
economy and to restore prosperity and economic vigor in this great
nation.
Treasury Secretary O'Neill stressed the confidence our government has
in the Prime Minister, as well, and the conviction that he will be
able to and will persist in carrying out his plans for reform. The
Secretary voiced his confidence in Japan when he spoke at another
local press club and said: "I am ... a strong optimist on Japan, and
view this period as a time of great opportunity for policy to bring
about a change for the better. Decisive actions are necessary to solve
difficult problems, and the United States supports Prime Minister
Koizumi's commitment to take decisive actions." (The end of the quote
from Secretary O'Neill.) He then said: "I firmly believe that the
Japanese miracle is not finished and is not in the past. Returning
Japan to robust and durable growth is of the utmost importance not
only to Japan, but to the United States and the rest of the world."
So in this view, what do I think lies ahead? I think from the varied
activities of the American Embassy in Tokyo, even the most casual
observer will understand that the U.S.-Japan relationship is more than
an alliance, it is a partnership, it is alive and well, busy and
vital. We've just completed successful working visits to Japan by, as
I said the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury. The
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative was in Tokyo for consultations about
trade and a speech on January 24 at this club. The United States,
Japan and the Republic of Korea met in Seoul on January 25 to consult
about our common policy and common concerns about North Korea as part
of a series of such meetings known as the Trilateral Coordination and
Oversight Group (TCOG), yet another example of the U.S. and Japan
working closely together towards a common diplomatic goal for our
mutual benefit.
Next month, when President Bush makes his first visit to Japan, I look
forward to showing him firsthand some of the things that I've learned
about this great nation in the short time that I've been here -- and
that I've come to so fully appreciate and admire. He has met with your
Prime Minister at international meetings such as the G-8 and APEC and
hosted him twice for summit meetings at the White House. They do
indeed have a good rapport. President Bush enjoyed hosting Prime
Minister Koizumi and it will be nice to see how the President enjoys
the hospitality of your nation in return. But you can be certain that
when the President comes to Japan, what he will find is a country that
is a friend of America, a friend and an ally and a partner in the
fullest sense of the word. He will find a people who can be proud of
their accomplishments and their place in the world. My wife Nancy and
I are looking forward to introducing the President to this country,
the country that we've come to know and I know that you ladies and
gentlemen of the press will make him feel welcome as well. I am
confident that the future of our two great nations and the stability
of peace in the world will be advanced because of the friendship and
alliance between Japan and the United States. It's my pleasure to be
American Ambassador to Tokyo, it is my pleasure to say these words,
and thank you for listening, and I'll be happy to try to answer your
questions. Thank you very much.
QUESTION: Petra News Agency. Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador, for
your insights. I'm not sure if you have the chance to read the Arabic
newspapers or Arabic press, but if you really have a chance, you will
find a lot of criticism to the policy of the United States. Basically
toward the Palestinian issue, they think that America is supposed to
be a leader and taking a leadership role in trying to help in solving
the problems, but it seems the latest statements by Mr. President Bush
that it's a little bit against the Palestinian leader, Mr. Arafat. So
I'm wondering if you have any update about the latest American policy
toward this area and how do you think Japan would be a contributor to
this solution of the problem. Thank you.
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, the first questions always, or almost always,
the hardest question. Can you hear me? Is this working okay? I'd hoped
that it might not be. But the serious answer to your question is I
would remark first that in recent years, since the mid-1950s, there
has been no single element of foreign policy that has required more
attention and to which has been devoted more energy and thought than
relationships in the Middle East. It is a continuing problem that has
not yet found satisfactory resolution. But the fact that we suffer
many disappointments in trying to mediate peace between the
conflicting parties of the Middle East is no reason why America should
stop trying and, indeed, we will. The President has recently, or
America has recently, expressed some frustration with the level of
progress and cooperation -- perhaps even some criticism of Mr. Arafat.
But you've never heard, I believe, a single word that suggests that
America has lost faith in the future of this area and our ability to
be helpful and a contributor to the solution. The problems in the
Middle East between Palestinians and Israelis is virtually as old as
the region. I wish I could sit here and tell you that I see and
prospect an early solution. I do not. What I do see in prospect is a
continuing effort to understand, to act and to hope for a better time
for all the parties of the Middle East, without reference to their
location, their creed, their religion or the level of conflict. That
is perhaps too optimistic, but as I said earlier in my remarks, my
friends, I am by instinct and intuition optimistic. But I remain
optimistic that the world will find a way to promote peace, not only
in the Middle East, but in other troubled regions of the world. And I
commend the President, the Secretary of State and so many others who
have addressed so much attention to this issue and I hope we have
early solutions.
QUESTION: Jim Brooke, The New York Times. Mr. Ambassador, when you
were Chief of Staff for Reagan, essentially the U.S. started to get
its finances into order. We'd kind of ignored 10 years of lecturing by
the Europeans and Japanese on that score. Now the shoe is on the other
foot and for several years we've been, Larry Summers was lecturing and
O'Neill was maybe nudging, different styles but the same message. The
U.S. did it under your administration because of domestic concerns.
I'm just wondering what you're seeing here. There is this gaiatsu,
this outside pressure, are you seeing that domestically there is an
interest in changing or are people just kind of listening to the
foreigners lecture?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, you're exactly right. I hope, at least, that
there is a perception in Japan that we have not come, I have not come,
to lecture the people of this country or their government and I
preface almost every meeting by saying first and foremost I understand
and recognize that Japan is a great sovereign nation and that they are
perfectly capable of solving their own problems. That you have
enormous resources to bring to bear on the problems and I have high
confidence that you will address them and address them in an
appropriate way. I confess that sometimes I go on and give
illustrations of what I think the priorities might be in trying to
solve these problems and not infrequently they deal with things like
banks and non-performing loans and things like that. The one area I do
not ever speak of and will not today -- and which, I believe, our
Secretary of the Treasury avoided successfully -- was to talk about
currency exchange, the value of the yen. If there is anything that is
more stultifying than trying to talk about monetary policy for another
country, I cannot think of it. So, I do not do that, but I must
confess to you I do share the American experience on banking, on tax
policy, on methods to resuscitate our own economy and perhaps how they
might be applicable to Japan. But I do that in the confidence and
privacy of small groups, like this, and I do it only where I know you
will not repeat me so it is true, Jim, we do in a different way
perhaps, but we have the same objective as the U.S. government had
when Larry Summers was Secretary of the Treasury, that is to see a
healthy, vigorous Japanese economy because -- as I said in my earlier
remarks -- our economies are so intertwined that it is essential that
we prosper together.
QUESTION: Rebecca McKinnon, CNN. Ambassador Baker, I am wondering if
you might be persuaded to share with us a little bit of advice perhaps
you may be giving about the balance between the role of the government
and of the private sector in turning around the Japanese economy. Now,
this morning I was speaking to the CEO of a major Japanese company who
had been successful in getting rid of a lot of their debt, turning the
company from serious losses to profit, and this particular CEO was
commenting that he thought that a lot of CEOs here in Japan are kind
of sitting and waiting for the government to do something and perhaps
may not be taking enough initiative on their own to really sit in the
driver's seat of the recovery. And knowing that you're with a
Republican administration and Republican administration's tend to
favor more private action versus government lead, if you could share
some thoughts on whether you think the private sector here is doing
enough to move things along.
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Rebecca, I suppose it's never enough, but I must say
that I have an admiration for Japanese enterprise and the leadership
of Japanese companies. By and large, they're very high quality, very
well informed and have a depth of understanding of the overall
economic situation in Japan -- as well, perhaps, as in any country I
know of. The distinction is the levers of power, really, in terms of
reform, banking, for instance, and the like, are not in private hands.
They are essentially that of the government and actually while many of
our friends in business could probably give good advice and often do
give good advice to their governments, it's not a question so much of
the availability of advice or even the relevance of advice as it is
the will and determination to carry it into effect. I might comment,
and this is perhaps further than I should go, but it's my observation
that Japan -- especially in economic matters -- does not operate in a
steady gradient, but rather in steps. And I fully expect that Japan
will approach the question of its economic malaise carefully, but when
they decide to act that they will act in fairly dramatic ways. That
may be in terms of rationalizing the non-performing loan issue. It may
be in terms of privatizing public corporations. It may be -- and then
you could go down the list -- but I am not disturbed, frankly, that
Japan takes it time to think through those and to prioritize them
according to your needs, Japan's needs. And I conclude that by telling
you that I'm still optimistic that Japan will meet these demands,
these challenges, and will work it out. But the example of private
enterprise in Japan is a good example and I am sure our friends in
government understand that, appreciate it and consult extensively as
we do in America on how best to approach the solution to these
problems, but it is the government's first responsibility to put in
place the machinery that is necessary to address the overall problems
of economic distress in Japan and I think they will.
QUESTION: Sam Jameson, Asian Business. You've mentioned the trilateral
coordination on North Korea between South Korea, Japan and the United
States. Is this likely to be a subject that President Bush is bringing
in as much as he will also be visiting South Korea after Japan -- have
you discussed this with the Japanese? The United States and Japan seem
to be in a position of stalemate vis-à-vis North Korea, whereas South
Korea is urging the United States to be more forward and do something
about North Korea. Has this terrorist issue made that impossible?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: No, I don't think the terrorist question has made it
impossible and I really don't accept the idea that the consideration
of the relationship is stalemated. I think that perhaps the adoption
of new points of view or further advance in the normalizing of
relationships, perhaps, has sort of slowed down in the wake of
September 11, but so has almost everything else. But I think there's a
continuous process of consideration of that relationship. Most
recently, I think expressed in our government's position that we're
willing to talk to anybody, anywhere, anytime and indeed we are, but
that stops short of saying how our relationship with North Korea
should be structured. In that connection, by the way, I have the
strong view that the final design of that may depend as much on what
North Korea says and does, as it does on the innovative originality of
America and Japan. But I would fully expect that when the President is
here that that will be a subject of conversation, both in Japan and in
Seoul. I would fully expect that there will be a full comparison of
ideas and suggestions, but beyond that I am not prepared to predict
how it will finally end. What I conclude with is saying, as I did
earlier, that it is the American government's position that we are
willing to talk, we are willing to negotiate anywhere, any place, any
time and we will see how that translates into useful conduct.
QUESTION: [INAUDIBLE], Switzerland. Could you comment or stress on the
image which the region should take from affect that when President
Clinton visited China for 9 full days, he didn't have time to come to
Japan and your President now, before he goes to China, comes to Japan
and spends equal time in Japan and China?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: I commend the President for good judgment and you
may also assume that the American Embassy had strong views on that
subject.
QUESTION: Steve Herman, AP Radio and Network. Mr. Ambassador, I'm
wondering if you could assess the job that Foreign Minister Makiko
Tanaka is doing?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: My friend, I would remind that I am the American
Ambassador to Japan and that she is the Foreign Minister of Japan and
that I have a cordial, good personal relationship with her. And beyond
that, I decline to say.
QUESTION: Hans Gremmel, Associated Press. You say that when President
Bush comes to visit, the top priority will be showing support for
Koizumi's reform efforts. What is, in the United States point of view,
what is the most important aspect of that reform effort and why is it
important to the United States? What's in it for the United States?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, those are good questions. Let me try to break
it apart and do it from a little different way. I have already said at
least once that, you know, the relationship between Japan and the
United States economically and strategically is unparalleled any place
else in the world, perhaps, but it ranks among the very highest order
of importance. So it's important that the President recognizes that,
in my view, as I expect he will. It's important that the President
expresses our gratitude for what Japan has done so far -- and
admiration. It's important that we express our willingness to
cooperate with Japan on other issues in the field of foreign policy,
but also in domestic and economic policy. What's in it for America? I
don't think it's judged on that basis: What's in it for America? But I
do think that the fact is, as I said also earlier, when America
prospers, Japan prospers; when Japan prospers, America prospers. And I
think it would be difficult to over-describe the inter-relationship
between our two countries and our two economies and our importance to
each other. So if the President came to Tokyo without any agenda
except just to discuss the state of the relationship and to explore
new ideas, it would be worthwhile. But as I also said earlier, my
guess is the President will come with an agenda which includes the
items that I've just identified -- that is an expression of gratitude,
thanks for the support that has happened so far underscoring the
importance of getting our economic houses in order, and our
willingness to cooperate but not to try to dominate the economic
relationships between our two countries.
QUESTION: Hajime Ozaki, Kyodo News. Could you shed some light on the
Enron issue? It's very complicated and very difficult to understand
for us and for me it's very difficult to understand why Vice
President, Mr. Cheney, rejected cooperation to the request from the
Congress. Thank you.
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, I can understand your puzzlement over that,
but let me once again break it into two parts. The first part is
purely the legal part. In the American system, it is as old as the
Constitution that there is a clear and clean separation of powers
between the executive and the legislative branches. And what that
means is the legislative branch cannot require the executive branch to
do certain things and the executive branch cannot require the
legislative branch to do certain things. They are separate. They are
not independent, but they are separate and from the beginnings of the
republic, they have guarded that separateness and that independence. I
experienced that when I was Chief of Staff for President Reagan and in
many cases, perhaps even most cases, when a President decides, or a
Vice President who has the same authority, decides to stand on the
doctrine of separation of powers, it is almost always subject to
suspicion. Why is he doing that? Why doesn't he just come clean? And
the answer is because of what I just said. If you're to preserve the
two-track system, that is the independence of two coordinate branches
of government, you cannot do that. Or if you do it, you must do it on
an agreed basis so that you do not damage the doctrine of separation
of powers. Now that's the legal side. From a practical side, there is
no doubt in my mind that coming forward with all the facts and
disclosing them publicly would dispose of this issue faster and more
efficiently and I am sure more satisfactorily. But I don't know what
the facts are. I do know that I do not criticize any president or vice
president for invoking the doctrine of separation of powers. It is
virtually sacred in the scheme of American governments and I would not
like to see it change. So as Vice President Cheney may be subject to
criticism, perhaps even by some in this room, I must tell you that
only he and the President can make a judgment on whether they're
willing to take that political punishment in order to preserve the
doctrine of separation of powers. I cannot answer that for them, only
those in the arena can answer that and in this case that means the
President and the Vice President.
QUESTION: Jonathan Watts, Guardian Newspaper. It's often said that
September 11 changed the world in so many different ways. I wonder if
you could talk about that in particular with regard to Okinawa. Has
the war on terror made any difference in the way that America sees the
importance of its bases in Okinawa?
AMBASSADOR BAKER: Well, that is a very important question, indeed. And
it is true that the events of September 11 changed the world in many
ways. To begin with, it is virtually unprecedented that more than 90
nations would join together on any subject, the war on terrorism being
the one at hand. It is, by the way, an opportunity for the nations of
the world to lay aside some of their disagreements and to see if they
can build on that for other things other than just the fight against
terrorism. Having 90 nations agree on anything is extraordinary so I
hope and I think that those nations, certainly the United States, will
try to build on that togetherness for the sake of other issues. On the
specific issue of Okinawa, I would -- once again -- say that in order
to answer you I have to go back one space. In talking to many in
Japan, I tell them that I understand the burden that Okinawa bears for
American personnel and bases. But I also understand, and I believe
most Japanese understand, that if there is to be an American shield in
the Pacific, if the alliance between Japan and the United States is to
be more than a paper document, if in fact we are allied together in
trying to promote stability and peace in the region, there must be
some basis for projecting power from the United States and that is
Okinawa. Without Okinawa, to retreat to -- retreat is not the right
word -- but to replace our forces, say, in Guam, which would not be
possible, or in Hawaii, which would be too distant, is impractical. So
we understand the burden we place on Japan and more particularly on
Okinawa and I only hope and trust, and I think that Japan and
Okinawans understand the importance of that, and have shown so far a
remarkable patience and understanding of that. In exchange for that,
as many of our officials have said including Secretary of State Powell
most recently, we will do our best to reduce that burden on Okinawa.
We will do our best to see that we are good neighbor. We will point
out that the young men and women who are in Okinawa in American Armed
Forces are not there by choice. They are there because they were sent
there. But we will try to make sure that they conduct themselves as
they should conduct themselves, while at the same time trying to
reduce our imprint and our burden on Okinawa. But I do believe -- I
think our country believes -- that if we are to give substance and
meaning to the alliance between the United States and Japan for the
stability and peace of this region, that there must be a major
presence in Okinawa.
QUESTION: Roger Shreffler. This is not a Japan question, but regarding
the separation of powers answer you just gave in the Enron case, I
know the issues are complex but are you suggesting that your former
friends in Congress, some of your former colleagues, might have been
less than sacred perhaps even wrong in pressuring a Democratic
president to testify.
AMBASSADOR BAKER: No, I don't think it's that at all. The separations
of power is a document that is constantly tested and challenged and I
expect it will continue to be. And I speak with some personal
experience in this field because I would point out to you that perhaps
I was principally responsible for the ultimate challenge on separation
of powers. That is during the Watergate hearings, when it became
obvious that we could not do our jobs as a committee of the Congress
unless we had access to the presidential tapes, there is a great
debate about whether we would try to subpoena them or not and it was
uncertain that the courts would permit us to do it. But I told Sam
Irvine, who was the Democratic chairman of the committee and I was the
senior Republican, I said, "Sam, if there's gonna be a motion to issue
subpoenas, it should be made by a Republican" so it is fully
bipartisan and not misunderstood. And I did that and it passed
unanimously in the committee and the congress and was finally upheld
by the Supreme Court. So it's a continuing challenge between the two
branches and as the Supreme Court has said whether or not you breach
the doctrine of separation of powers depends on the gravity of the
offense. And the Supreme Court may be asked someday," What do you mean
by the gravity of the offense" and no doubt the Supreme Court will
say, "It means whatever I say it is" because in the final analysis,
the Supreme Court is the arbiter of that doctrine, that is separation
of powers like it is of every other piece of law in the American
system. But I do not think of that as diminishing the doctrine. I have
no apology for my participation in that, no criticism of those who
attempt to do so now, but I express my view that the doctrine itself
is sacrosanct in the American political system and only in the most
extraordinary circumstances should it be breached. And unless and
until that is demonstrated, I would not do it.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have run out of time, but I want to say one
more thing, if I may. You've been a good audience and your questions
are penetrating and I hope my answers were adequate, but I'm reminded
of something my father told me years ago. My dad, by the way, was a
member of the House of Representatives. He was a Congressman -- and
unlike his son, he was a very good Congressman -- but he was also a
lawyer and unlike his son a very good lawyer, but I'd finished my
first argument to a jury in Tennessee, my first case. And I thought I
did pretty well and I sat down and said to my father, who was the
council at the table, I said, "How did I do?" He said, "You did okay,
but in the future you should guard against speaking more clearly than
you think." My friends, I hope I've not done that today. 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
|
|
|
