Still Room for Diplomacy with North Korea, Baker Says
("We are willing to build a new relationship with Pyongyang") (3160)
Despite the gravity of North Korea's pursuit of a nuclear weapons
program, there is "still room for diplomacy," according to Howard
Baker, U.S. ambassador to Japan.
"We will continue to work with all interested parties to counter the
threats posed by this regime's unacceptable and illegal nuclear
weapons program," he told the Research Institute for Peace and
Security in a speech delivered February 10 in Tokyo.
"We have stated publicly that we have no intention of invading the
North, and that we are prepared to have direct talks with them,
provided they modify their threatening behavior. We are willing to
build a new relationship with Pyongyang," he said.
"But our position is clear about the steps North Korea must take, and
in this the United States and Japan are in full agreement: North Korea
must freeze activities at its plutonium complex and dismantle its
enriched uranium program to develop nuclear weapons. In addition,
North Korea must cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy
Agency and must comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
adhere to the safeguards agreement that is part of that treaty," the
Ambassador said.
"No peaceful nation wants to see a North Korea bristling with nuclear
missiles. This is not a bilateral issue between that country and the
United States, but an issue between that country and the entire
world," Baker said. "My government will continue to consult
particularly closely with Japan and South Korea as we spare no effort
to find a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to this new challenge."
Baker called the government of Japan one of the United States'
"staunchest allies in the struggle against terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." He said the strong
partnership should be credited "not because we have common enemies,
but because we share common values and interests."
In response to questions on missile defense, Baker said there was no
"formal undertaking" between Japan and the United States to develop
such a program, but the two nations do share the same objectives.
"That is," he said, "to identify and face whatever realistic threats
there are, and to marshal our resources, our talents and our
technology to try to deal with those threats as and when they may
appear."
Baker observed that "Japan is uniquely qualified to advance its own
cause in high technology defense, perhaps even including missile
defense" and said he personally believes that "missile defense is in
and of itself a better deterrent than any other form of conflict...."
Following is the text of Ambassador Howard Baker's remarks, as
prepared for delivery, followed by the excerpt of a transcript from
his question-and-answer session:
(begin text)
REMARKS TO
THE RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR PEACE AND SECURITY
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2003
"NEW SECURITY CHALLENGES AND U.S.-JAPAN RELATIONS"
Thank you, President Watanabe, for that kind introduction. It is a
distinct honor to speak to this distinguished audience. Let me thank
you all for giving up some of your afternoon so that you could be here
with us. You know, having reached a certain point in life, I
understand that some among us may look forward to this time of day as
nap time. I promise I will do my best to avoid putting you all to
sleep.
My friends, all of us involved in international affairs owe a debt of
gratitude to the Research Institute for Peace and Security. For many
years, RIPS has played an important role in educating the general
public and promoting dialogue among specialists about the vital
security issues of the day. RIPS has made sometimes arcane topics more
understandable while bridging the many political and cultural barriers
between nations, thereby truly fulfilling its mandate as an institute
that seeks to promote peace and security.
This afternoon, I'd like to talk with you briefly about the new
security challenges that face the United States, Japan, and the other
free nations of the world. I want to sketch out for my country's
overall security strategy. I'd like to touch on how we are dealing
with the threats posed by Iraq and North Korea. And finally, I'd like
to highlight the vital role of the United States-Japan relationship in
countering the current threats to world peace.
None of us will ever forget that terrible day of September 11, 2001.
Perhaps it's not quite accurate to say that the world changed that
day, but it is certainly true to say that our way of understanding the
world did. The brutal murders of over 3000 men, women, and children
from some 90 countries -- including 24 sons and daughters of Japan --
brought home to Americans, and to all people on earth, the chilling
fact that none of us is safe from groups of extremists or rogue states
determined to use terror to attain their twisted political ends. We
had all looked forward to enjoying the "peace dividend" accruing from
the end of the cold war. After 9/11, however, we understood that
Americans and all free peoples are threatened by a new and insidious
enemy. And we understood that we must rise and join together with
other nations to meet this new threat.
The threats posed by terrorism and rogue states are of a wholly new
and different order than the threats we faced during the cold war.
During the cold war, the Soviet Union and its satellites at least
recognized international agreements. While constrained by our policy
of political containment and military deterrence, they adhered to a
basic moral prohibition against the indiscriminate targeting of
innocent civilians. And though it was not easy -- and I speak from
first-hand experience -- we could and did successfully negotiate with
our Soviet adversaries.
In contrast, our new enemies recognize no bounds of geography or
morality as they plot their evil schemes of terror. Their demands are
non-negotiable. This is an unpleasant truth, but we must not shrink
from recognizing it.
The White House National Security Strategy, published last September,
responds to this new situation. It is based on the premise that, and I
quote: "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we
are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by
catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few."
President Bush summed up our thinking in a recent speech when he said,
and again I quote: "those who hate America are willing to crash
airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be
no less willing ... to use a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon."
I think we can all agree that this is in fact the terrible reality we
face.
When we released our new Strategy, most attention focused on the
doctrine of preemptive attack, but this is only a small element of our
much larger, more comprehensive and, ultimately, optimistic policy.
Our strategy is indeed optimistic, as it is animated by our hopeful
vision of a better world: a vision of a prosperous, peaceful, and
democratic global community free from the threat of terrorism and
weapons of mass destruction.
To achieve this end, the National Security Strategy of the United
States rests on four main pillars. First, we will strengthen alliances
with like-minded nations. Second, we will work with others to solve
regional conflicts. Third, we will prevent our enemies from
threatening the U.S. and our allies with weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, we will foster global economic growth and development.
But as we pursue an enduring peace, our first priority is to protect
innocent people in America, Japan, and around the world from those who
would do them harm. America is accordingly building new institutions
to counter these new threats. Indeed, we have recently implemented the
most sweeping changes to our national security organization since the
late 1940's. We established the Department of Homeland Security, which
will coordinate the activities of the many U.S. agencies devoted to
various aspects of our homeland security. We also set up an entirely
new military command -- the Northern Command -- to defend our home
territory. And we are devising ways in which our intelligence
community can better coordinate its activities so that we will know
beforehand who would mount an attack against us. These are profound
changes and they signal our determination to take up the gauntlet that
history has thrown before us.
But another part of this effort to protect our peoples is to seek
peaceful solutions through multilateral diplomatic efforts, backed up,
when all else fails, by resolute force. This, my friends, is precisely
what we are doing in the cases of Iraq and North Korea.
For twelve years now, since the end of the Gulf War, the international
community has given Iraq chance after chance to comply with its
obligation to disarm and destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, exasperated by these many years of Iraqi denial and
deception, three months ago the U.N. Security Council adopted UNSC
Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote of 15 to zero. The world thus
proclaimed loudly and unambiguously that Iraq continued to pose a
threat to international peace and security, and that Iraq had been and
remained in material breach of its disarmament obligations.
The United States sponsored 1441 not in order to go to war. We
sponsored 1441 to try to preserve the peace. We sought to strengthen
the authority of the Security Council to enforce its mandates, and
prevent the United Nations from falling into powerless irrelevance,
like the League of Nations. We wanted to give Iraq one last chance.
Unfortunately, as Secretary of State Powell last week so compellingly
showed, Iraq continues to defy the Security Council and lie to the
world. After twelve years, diplomacy has run its course. Allowing the
dictator Saddam Hussein to stockpile weapons of mass destruction and
harbor terrorists is not an option. The final choice for war or peace
is his. He will disarm immediately, truly and verifiably, or be
disarmed by force.
In the case of North Korea, there can be no doubt about the gravity of
the situation. But the United States believes there is still room for
diplomacy. As with Iraq, from the beginning we have sought to deal
with this outlaw regime multilaterally, through the United Nations and
its specialized agencies, and in close collaboration with Japan, South
Korea and the other nations of the region. We will continue to work
with all interested parties to counter the threats posed by this
regime's unacceptable and illegal nuclear weapons program -- a program
which they have been secretly pursuing for years in egregious
violation of their international obligations.
We have stated publicly that we have no intention of invading the
North, and that we are prepared to have direct talks with them,
provided they modify their threatening behavior. We are willing to
build a new relationship with Pyongyang. But our position is clear
about the steps North Korea must take, and in this the United States
and Japan are in full agreement: North Korea must freeze activities at
its plutonium complex and dismantle its enriched uranium program to
develop nuclear weapons. In addition, North Korea must cooperate fully
with the International Atomic Energy Agency and must comply with the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and adhere to the safeguards agreement
that is part of that treaty.
No peaceful nation wants to see a North Korea bristling with nuclear
missiles. This is not a bilateral issue between that country and the
United States, but an issue between that country and the entire world.
My government will continue to consult particularly closely with Japan
and South Korea as we spare no effort to find a peaceful, diplomatic
resolution to this new challenge.
My friends, in these perilous times, the partnership between our two
countries is more important than ever. I am pleased to say that the
Government of Japan has been one of our staunchest allies in the
struggle against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. In diplomacy, information sharing, attacking terrorist
financing, and the rear-area support of the Maritime Self-Defense
Forces, Japan has been front and center in rising to the challenges of
the moment.
Our partnership is strong not because we have common enemies, but
because we share common values and interests. Our countries both have
a vital stake in the integrity of multilateral institutions and
international agreements. In countering the clear and specific threats
posed by Iraq and North Korea, we are united in our awareness of the
seriousness of the situation, and of the necessity to take forceful
action to restore global peace and security.
My friends, I am by nature an optimist. While I am fully aware that we
live in uncertain and dangerous times, I also know that free peoples,
by joining together, can overcome the most daunting of challenges.
History has made the United States and Japan the world's two richest
and most influential nations at this time of great peril -- and great
promise. It is our unshirkable obligation to accept the calling of
history and work together as partners -- and as friends -- and lead
the world toward our common vision of liberty, peace and prosperity.
Thank you very much.
(end text)
Following is an excerpt from the question-and-answer session that
followed Ambassador Baker's remarks:
(begin transcript)
Ambassador's Address to the
Research Institute for Peace and Security (RIPS)
Monday, February 10, 2003
Excerpts from Question & Answer Session
QUESTION: Mr. Ambassador, Rebecca MacKinnon from CNN. Quickly, Japan
is reportedly developing a plan to respond to a possible missile
attack from North Korea. I'm wondering if the United States has been
working with the Japanese government on any possible plan for how to
deal with a missile attack, whether the United States is committed to
assisting with a response if an attack were to occur, or committed to
making any kind of preemptive attack in the even that a North Korean
missile attack were imminent?
AMBASSADOR: Rebecca, thank you very much. That's a broad-gauge
question, but let me take it in pieces. Number one, America has no
plans for a preemptive strike to interdict a missile attack on Japan.
I do not rule out the possibility that if a missile attack were
imminent or had occurred and if Japan had called on America to be
helpful, I believe America would respond, but there are no plans that
I am aware of to deal with that.
Is there a level of cooperation between Japan and the United States on
missile defense? There's no formal undertaking that I'm aware of, but
I think we share the same objective. That is, to identify and face
whatever realistic threats there are, and to marshal our resources,
our talents and our technology to try to deal with those threats as
and when they may appear. Japan is uniquely qualified to advance its
own cause in high technology defense, perhaps even including missile
defense, but I know of no formal undertaking between the United States
and Japan on how that would occur. I will say once again, from a
personal standpoint, I believe that missile defense is in and of
itself a better deterrent than any other form of conflict, and that
Japan, once again because of its technological prowess, should be in a
position to explore and perhaps develop ways to interdict missiles
that threaten this country. But I do not know of any formal agreement
to that, in that respect.
Japan will face these issues as they present themselves. Japan is
realistic in my view, and understands the danger to this country from
missile from anywhere, but particularly from the Korean Peninsula.
Once again, I think it would be extraordinarily valuable for the
United States and Japan to compare notes and exchange information
about that. But I think that we are very short of any formal and fixed
policy on how we would interact in a common defense of Japan in a
missile attack, or any other attack.
QUESTION: Hans Greimel, AP. I just want to get back to the missile
issue again. Earlier today in the presentation you said that you heard
reports that North Korea was preparing a missile test again. Can you
talk a little bit about what kind of reports those are? Are those
intelligence reports, some kind of government reports, or are those
press reports that you're hearing? Also, what is the United States
responsibility in case of a missile coming toward Japan? Can you
clarify a little bit, whether the United States has the right to shoot
that down immediately, or must it first confer with its Japanese
counterparts and ask them to shoot it down, or what is the flowchart
of communication in that event?
AMBASSADOR: I guess the honest answer is I don't know. But the best
answer I can give you is, number one, when I mentioned the possibility
of a missile test by North Korea, it was based on a variety of inputs.
But you need go no further than press reports to establish the
possibility of another North Korean missile test. After all, they've
done it once, they've done it twice actually, and there is certainly
no guarantee that they will not do it again, given their long line of
provocations, particularly in the nuclear field. I don't know what
they'll do. I cannot give you any special information about that. But
I think it's a realistic prospect that they might have that thought in
their mind.
What would America do if there were a missile in flight toward Japan?
Once again, I don't really know, and I don't know of any plans that
are actually completed about what we would do about that. Keep in
mind, as I have said a couple of times before, that the United States
and Japan are not only allies, but we're friends. At the very least, I
feel confident that we would share our information about that. It is
entirely possible that we would share information that would permit
someone to try to interdict that missile. Although I don't know that,
I would suspect that would be the case. But certainly it's a matter of
friendship and alliance that we would take account of each other's
security interests in that respect.
What is the flowchart on how we would consult? I don't believe there
is such a flowchart. The best I can do on that is to say that there is
close coordination and collaboration between the United States and
Japan on defense matters. There's a good flow of information, a good
flow of intelligence. There's extensive planning that goes on between
our armed forces in both countries. But as to what specific plan would
be put into effect, if there's an imminent missile threat against
Japan, I simply do not know.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
