*EPF114 02/10/2003
Text: Still Room for Diplomacy with North Korea, Amb. 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)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents