05 October 2001

Amb. Baker Says U.S., Japan Allied Against Terrorism

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Howard Baker, Jr. stressed to members of the Japan National Press Club October 5 that "nothing surpasses the importance" of the U.S.-Japan relationship, "particularly so now that we are faced with a great challenge from a new enemy and adversary called terrorism."

Baker said there are many ways countries can contribute to the fight against terrorism -- such as financial, diplomatic, medical, or humanitarian assistance -- but he repeatedly told the audience that the United States would not tell Japan what to do.

"It is not my purpose as American Ambassador, it is not the purpose of my government to tell you how you support the friendship and alliance between our nations. That is your judgment to make. And we have high confidence that you will make the right decisions, and that you will contribute not only in a meaningful way, but in a great way, to this new alliance against terrorism," he explained.

Baker did, however, suggest that Japan might be especially able to respond to the humanitarian requirements of the tragedy in Afghanistan.

"You are much closer to this region of the world than we are. And you perhaps have better contacts there than we have. And as friends do, as allies do, we would welcome your suggestions and advice on how you alleviate the suffering that inevitably will occur, and is already occurring in Afghanistan," Baker said.

He added that "America would be happy for Japan to participate diplomatically wherever and however it can.... [T]o the extent that Japan has friends and contacts that they can use to try to assist in that it would be most welcome and most appropriate."

While he characterized identifying and fighting terrorism as a question of "outright survival," Baker also warned the audience that "the economic situation in our two countries is vitally important as it always is."

"As important as it is to formulate public policy to combat a new enemy, it is also important that we do not lose sight of our own welfare, our social condition, our economic welfare. It is vitally important that we not forget the economy, and that the attack on September 11 did not change the necessity for seeing that we have a prosperous and successful economic condition, in America, in Japan, and to the extent that we can help, throughout the world," Baker said.

In response to a question about lawsuits filed by former U.S. prisoners-of-war (POWs) seeking compensation from Japanese companies for being forced into slave labor during World War II, Baker said he believed all such claims were voided with the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty 50 years ago.

Following is a transcript of the event:

Moderator: May I introduce our ambassador first of all and what kind of a person he is like. After his appointment, this is the first visit to the press club so I would like to introduce him in a little bit more detail than usual.

Mr. Howard Baker, Jr. was sworn in as the American Ambassador to Japan on June 22 of this year. He is the 26th and the 13th after the war. The Ambassador was sworn in and on July 5th he presented his credentials to the Emperor. From 1967 January through 1985, which means some 18 years or so, the Ambassador served in the US Senate. From February '87 until July '88 he was the Chief of Staff under President Reagan. The Ambassador was born on November 15, 1925 in Huntsville, Tennessee. He completed his integrated studies at the University of the South and Tulane University, receiving a school degree from the University of Tennessee. During the Second World War he served 3 years in the US Navy. After this service he worked in the law firm founded by his grandfather.

In 1966 he was elected to the Senate for the first time from Tennessee. In 1973 he became the vice chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee. With this he won national recognition. In 1976 he was the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention. In 1980 he was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. He served two terms as minority leader from 1977 through 1981 and another two terms as majority leader, which was in '85 through '85. The Ambassador has served all these high level important positions and then retired from his senate career. The Ambassador has received many awards throughout this period. In 1984 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, in 1987 the Jefferson Award for greatest public service performed by an elected or appointed official.

Unlike other average politicians, the Ambassador is a noted photographer. In 1993 Ambassador Baker received the American Society Photographers International Award. He has published 4 books -- "No Margin For Error" in 1980, "Howard Baker's Washington: This is His Photography" was published in 1982, "Big South Fork Country" in 1993. This is also showing his photographs and (inaudible) golf. This was published in 2000. Also his photography, which means this includes 3 photographic books.

Just one note about his family members. In December 1996, Ambassador Baker married the former US Senator from Kansas Mrs. Nancy Landon Kassebaum. Unfortunately Mrs. Nancy Baker was unable to attend this session here. But of course both of them are doing the same service. Unfortunately his former wife passed away from illness. She was Mrs. Joy Dirksen Baker. The Ambassador has two children and 4 grandchildren.

A little bit in detail rather than usual but thank you for your attention, and this was the introduction of our guest speaker. I believe this is a most opportune time not only for the two countries but for the global situation. This is extraordinary timing that we are able to meet the Ambassador today. Ambassador, please.

Ambassador Baker: Thank you very much for your introduction. I plead guilty to all the charges. It's always a pleasure to meet with members of the press. I have done it many times in the course of my career in public service, and it has been my experience that it is more an education for me than it is for you because it gives me some insight into the mainstream of political and public thought as seen from you who report it. So I count it a great pleasure today to be with you, to have an opportunity to speak and to interact with you, this premier group of journalists, and to consider the state of the relationship and cooperation between the United States and Japan.

I should perhaps begin these remarks by saying that I am not here to give advice to the people of Japan nor the government of Japan. I am here to acknowledge two things. First, that Japan is a great sovereign nation state among the great nation states of the world. And that Japan and the United States are not only friends but also allies. And as one of predecessor's, former Senator and former Ambassador Mike Mansfield, used to say, and used to say often, "The U.S.-Japan relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world, bar none." I've often wondered how you translate "bar none." But it's an old western expression in America, and it means nothing else surpasses the importance of that relationship. And indeed that is so. That is particularly so now that we are faced with a great challenge from a new enemy and adversary called terrorism.

But what a remarkable partnership it is, that between the United States and Japan. Sixty years ago our two countries were embroiled in a bitter war in the Pacific, and 50 years ago we signed a peace treaty that brought those hostilities to a close. My friends, seldom in the history of the world have two countries that were at such odds with one another gone on so quickly to form such deep abiding and mutually beneficial friendships as have the United States and Japan in the years since the war. I was a young Ensign in the US Navy in 1945, and I must tell you that I never could have imagined then that the United States and Japan would be friends, let alone allies in our common defense and in our dedication to peace and stability throughout the world. That is a tribute not only to the leadership of two great countries, but perhaps even more it's a tribute to the spirit, the soul and the nature of two great people.

And we are allies, it is true. To me it is more important that we are friends. I have been to Japan many times over the years, but it is only since I arrived here as Ambassador that I feel I can totally partake of the culture of this great nation, and have a better understanding of your culture, your cities, your people and your future. I am grateful for that opportunity, and I will do my best to speak for my country, I will do my best to hear and understand what you have to say, and to relay and transmit that back to my country and my government faithfully, diligently so that both our nations can embellish and extend the friendship and cooperation between us.

Shortly after I arrived in Japan to take up this post, I returned to the United States to celebrate the milestone event in the U.S.-Japan relationship, that is the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty. It was organized by one of my friends, a man for whom I have such extraordinary respect, and has served our nation and the world with such distinction, former Secretary of State George Schultz. The event was truly a dazzling affair composed of seminars, symposia, dinners, keynote speeches and a ceremony suitable for the commemoration of a partnership that has grown into the most significant bilateral relationship in the 21st century.

At the time of the San Francisco ceremonies, I thought that the events I participated in there were the strongest testimony possible to the vitality of the U.S.-Japan relationship, and I thought it would be the main message that I would bring to you here in Tokyo today. The U.S.-Japan partnership is alive and well. It is a partnership that works on all fronts: political relations, economic, trade ties, security relations. It has never been stronger. I thought I knew then that the message I would bring you would deal with what we've done so far in this relationship.

But then my friends the world changed.

In a single, blinding moment, the world changed. The tragedy of the World Trade Center destruction, the attack on the American Pentagon, the proliferation of terrorist threats changed this world. They were defining moments in the history of mankind, and nothing will ever quite be the same again.

It was a cowardly attack, these two airplanes that struck the World Trade Center and destroyed them, by anonymous terrorists. It brought these great buildings down in only a few moments, but as President Bush said "They can destroy our buildings, but they can't destroy America." And they have not.

The attack on the Pentagon, and the mysterious plane crash in Pennsylvania which followed it, only intensified the certainty that we were facing a new era, facing new challenges, and would have to devise new methods for protecting ourselves and civilization. Not just because there were more than 5,000 people who were lost in the World Trade Center destruction, or that so many others have been injured and are missing, but rather because of the certain realization that we are vulnerable, and that mankind and civilization are fragile.

It will call on every bit of our strength, intelligence, the history and culture of our countries, to devise ways to protect ourselves against this new, faceless, ruthless, merciless enemy who destroys without compassion.

I traveled from the great anniversary celebration in San Francisco to another celebration in Wichita, Kansas, which was called the Mid-America/Japan friendship conference. There are, I believe, 5 of these, one in the Southeast, one in the Midwest, and in other parts of our country. My wife Nancy was the co-chair of the meeting in Wichita. It may then explain why I felt it necessary to speak there. But it was a pleasure to speak there, and to feel the enthusiasm of the people of the Midwest, as I had in San Francisco, for the evolving and continuing friendship and alliance between the United States and Japan. It was the same.

But then I traveled to Chicago in order to catch the plane the next morning to return to Tokyo. And my secretary called me from the American Embassy in Tokyo, and said "Are you watching television?" My wife and I were in a small hotel room near the airport in Chicago, and I said "Why no, I am not." She said, "Then you'd better do it." And I turned on television, literally in time to see the second plane collide with and destroy the second Trade Center tower. And I knew at that moment that the world had changed, and that I and the world would never quite be the same again. And I knew that relationships, not only between peoples but countries, would never be the same again. And it was not certain by any means that we would be better off, or more cooperative, or more sensitive to these challenges than we had been before. Great adversity has not always produced an improvement in the human condition in the course of civilization.

But it wasn't very long before I realized that the entire world was gathering around America, and expressing their grief, and their support, and their understanding of the commonality of the challenge before us. And then, my friends, to see the outpouring of personal grief was even more moving. Because when I did, five days later, manage to fly from the United States to Japan, the first thing I did was return to the U.S. Embassy, my post. As I went in the gate, the main gate to our Embassy, I saw flowers on the grass in front of the gate. And I saw lines of people, mostly Japanese I believe, but great lines of people who were bringing flowers and carefully laying them down. Then I saw where, without my intervention or without any formal act on the part of the American Embassy, that we'd put two tables there for books for people to sign, and then a tent because it was raining. And then for days there were lines of people who came, not only to bring their floral tributes, but to sign the book. And it was a moving experience. Because as people approached those books, it wasn't a mechanical gesture. They would stop and think. Some would bow their heads. And those behind would leave space so that they could have that private moment. It became sure evidence that the people of Japan not only understood the nature of this threat, but they reached out to America, to the survivors, to those who perished, and their commitment to forge an even better alliance against the common threat of terrorism.

To date 197 countries have expressed condolences and sympathy to the United States. But no one more enthusiastically and thoroughly than Japan. Early on Prime Minister Koizumi spoke to President Bush by phone and offered Japan's full support in our time of need. On September 14 the Prime Minister spoke at the Foreign Correspondent's Club of Japan to state publicly to the world press that Japan would do everything it could to assist its friend and ally the United States.

My friends, I had seen for myself the fruits of terror in America. But I'd also seen the gathering up of humanity in a common cause to defeat it. And as the U.S. - Japan friendship/alliance adds to that, and becomes integral to it, it increases and expands the importance of that bilateral relationship, and leads the entire civilized world in the direction of a higher estate.

After I arrived at the Embassy, we were greatly honored, I personally was greatly honored, that the Prime Minister came to our Embassy to personally offer his sympathy and to sign the condolence book and to leave flowers for the victims of the attack. Many other cabinet members of the Cabinet, including the Foreign Minister, Director Nakatani, Diet members came to do the same. I was also reassured to see the support for the United States and the new war on terrorism expressed on the editorial pages of Japan's newspapers. One major national daily here stated in their editorial on September 13, "We should not be idle spectators in the battle against terrorists."

That point of view is reflected in public opinion polls, the results of which have been published, of the attitude of people in this country, and our determination to defeat this new and vicious enemy. On September 19 the government of Japan announced a seven-point package of concrete measures in the campaign against international terrorism, including measures involving Japan's Self Defense Forces, expanded security for U.S. forces, the humanitarian assistance to affected countries and displaced persons. Measures to support the whole economy and strengthen international cooperation in sharing information and so many other things. And of course, not the least, the government of Japan offered $10 million in emergency relief funds to assist those affected by the September-11 attacks.

President Bush warmly welcomed these measures in a statement from the White House that same day.

On September 24 and 25, Prime Minister Koizumi visited the United States to see first hand the devastation at the sight of the World Trade Center in New York, where many Japanese citizens were still missing, and then to consult with President Bush at the White House in Washington. I was there at that meeting. I traveled back to Washington on Sunday in order to be in place when the Prime Minister arrived at Andrews Air Force Base in this great 747 aircraft with the Japanese symbol to welcome him to our city and our country, and then to accompany him to the meetings with the President in the White House and the Oval Office.

And I can report to you first hand, my friends, that these two men understand each other, that President Bush and the Prime Minister understand the severity of the challenge, the nature of the obligation, and the opportunity to work together. And at a press conference after their meetings, the Prime Minister spoke, in English, directly to the American people. And he said, "We Japanese are ready to stand by the United States to fight terrorism. We must fight terrorism with determination and patience."

I cannot emphasize enough to the people of Japan how reassuring it was to hear your Prime Minister speak thus, in our time of crisis, in our language, with such strong words of support. As I stood there at the White House listening to the Prime Minister, I thought this is sure proof, eloquent testimony, to the friendship of our two nations.

Since the terrible events on September 11, and the events that unfolded thereafter, I've been asked by many friends in Japan, both officially and unofficially, what can Japan do to help. What is expected of a friend and ally? Many Japanese reporters have further asked me what we "expect" the Japanese to do, and your editorial pages are filled with discussions and debates about what Japan ought to do, or is able to do not only according to your judgment and decisions, but also within the framework of your culture, your Constitution and your laws.

Let me say that there is no one way that we expect all our friends and allies to assist us. As President Bush on the White House lawn with Prime Minister Koizumi, "People will contribute in different ways to this coalition." Prime Minister Koizumi said at that time that there were many ways to cooperate, some of them financial, perhaps diplomatic, humane assistance, medical assistance; there are many ways.

But I repeat once more, it is not my purpose as American Ambassador, it is not the purpose of my government to tell you how you support the friendship and alliance between our nations. That is your judgment to make. And we have high confidence that you will make the right decisions, and that you will contribute not only in a meaningful way, but in a great way, to this new alliance against terrorism.

But my friends, as important as it is to formulate public policy to combat a new enemy, it is also important that we do not lose sight of our own welfare, our social condition, our economic welfare. It is vitally important that we not forget the economy, and that the attack on September 11 did not change the necessity for seeing that we have a prosperous and successful economic condition, in America, in Japan, and to the extent that we can help, throughout the world.

And we are pleased to see that Prime Minister Koizumi in a recent speech devoted so much time to the economy, and the welfare of the Japanese economy, and by inference the American economy. Because as Japan prospers America prospers, and as America prospers Japan prospers. We are not only allies, we are joined together in our economic and social welfare. As unlikely as that seems, after all these years, we are not only allies in terms of our defense of civilization, but we are willing partners in the economy and the evolution of the quality of civilization in the future.

My friends, none of these things are easy, none of them will be without controversy. Your Diet presently is engaged in debate on what measures to take. Having served so long in the American Congress, I have a terrible temptation to go sit in the distinguished visitors' gallery and watch. But I will not do that, because I do not wish to give the impression that we are trying to influence the outcome. What I will do is to tell you, as I have tried to do in these remarks, that I have high confidence that your will do the right thing, both in terms of our mutual defense, and in terms of our economic and social welfare.

I don't know of any greater compliment that one nation can express for another than mutual confidence. And my friends as American Ambassador in Tokyo, I am here to tell you that I expect our alliance and our friendship to endure, I expect the world will be better off for our cooperation, and I am sure it will be a better place in which to live because of our combined effort. I thank you.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Ambassador Baker, for very insightful remarks. We would now like to move into the Q & A Session. Mr. Haruna, could you take over. We are now going into Q&A Session.

Mr. Haruna: Now, we have received a number of questions from the members of the press, almost all related to this terrorist attack recently. But having heard representation by the Ambassador, I am sure you have been deeply impressed. At the State of Union message, the U.S. Presidents state about the State of the Union. In doing so, the Presidents usually say the State of the Union is sound. Now, having listened to the Ambassador's speech, you would know that the state of the U. S.-Japan relationship is sound and even stronger. I believe that was the message that he has given to us. What is your view, I wonder, now? I am sure the audience has received your message that the state of the relationship is very sound and strong, and I believe that was your message.

Ambassador Baker: I wanted to convey two messages. The first is that the friendship and alliance is strong and vital, and the other, I guess, is that the best is yet to come because I think that as we continue our collaboration, cooperation and friendship that there will be a better day, perhaps with less terrorism, perhaps with greater economic and social success. But my point is that the friendship and alliance between Japan and the United States is certainly more than a military arrangement. It has to do as well with the combination of other culture and our determination and our contribution to the future.

Question: Thank you very much. Now we have received a number of questions concerning this terrorist attack. I am sorry about this very direct question but when is the U. S. going to involve itself in the war? Are you going to attack the area after you identify the whereabouts of Bin Laden? What is the purpose of the war that you are going to conduct? Those are my direct questions to you. I am sorry about this directness.

Ambassador Baker: I am not sorry for the directness at all and you will not be surprised to know that I expected that. And my answer once again is in two parts. First, we are already doing something. It is an achievement of historic proportions that 197 countries have condemned these terrorist acts. It is equally remarkable that so many nations have joined together in their common commitment to eliminate terrorism. America, as you know from your own press accounts, and our allies have already begun deploying assets in affected regions. So much is already being done. It may be that it is already having a result and it may be that the result will be profound enough so that violent confrontation may be less necessary. But in any event, there is already a great deal going on. The question, however, also means when do I think there will be a military attack on Afghanistan or the surrounding territory and the answer to that is of course I don't know. But if I did know, I would not say. (Laughter)

Question: Thank you very much Ambassador. Osama bin Laden is alleged to be the mastermind and it is said that the U. S. has disclosed the evidence. Will the evidence be made public?

Ambassador Baker: Well, the President briefed our friends, allies, and international organizations. Certainly has briefed NATO, has briefed Japan, the leaders of Japan, on the evidence that we have of bin Laden involvement. Much of it, I think, is now public, perhaps more of it will be as time goes on. But I repeat what the President and Prime Minister Blair and others have said the evidence is clear and convincing. Were it not so, I very much doubt that you would have 197 countries joining with us in this fight.

Question: Now vis-��vis the Taliban, there are talks about a possible military attack on the Taliban. Now so far the U.S. Government position has been that the U.N. Resolution is not required in order to go ahead with a military attack. Why is this? Why do you think that an U.N. Resolution is not necessary?

Ambassador Baker: I think the Resolution that is already on the books at the U.N. is adequate, more than adequate, to meet the requirements, any requirements, that we have for joint and collaborative action. I think the Resolution passed by NATO is virtually unprecedented, is unprecedented, and adds great weight and support, but frankly I don't worry so much about the technicalities of an U.N. Resolution or a NATO Resolution. Rather I worry about the clearly expressed determination of nations around the world to join together to eradicate terrorism, and that is so clearly expressed in so many ways by so many countries that in my view at least it is far more important than the black letter of the resolutions of any organization.

Question: The diplomatic policy of the Bush Administration was criticized as unilateralism. The CTBT is one example or small weapons-related area is another area they were unilateral and passive. However, when it comes anti-terrorism, the Bush Administration is emphasizing the importance of collaboration and multilateralism. Does that mean the diplomatic policy has changed?

Ambassador Baker: No, it does not mean the diplomatic position has changed, it means circumstances have changed. Unilateralism is not always a bad thing. For instance, President Bush has clearly pointed out that if some international initiative is against the best interests of the United States, he will say so and oppose it. But I don't think that categorizing the United States as a unilateralist policy is fair. We are involved in all of the major international organizations. We have assembled a greater array of friends and support to fight terrorism than ever known in history. We are an Atlantic power, we are a Pacific power. We have contributed efforts for humane relief throughout the world for many years. I think it is not really accurate to say that America in any way has a unilateralist policy. On some issues we have a separate policy, but I think it is amply demonstrated now that the United States is a great world power, committed and dedicated to marshalling and gathering together the support of like-minded nations around the world in a common purpose such as the fight against terrorism.

Question: In the Japanese National Diet, a bill has been submitted and there is an active debate in the National Diet with regard to possible Japanese support and assistance, but other than that, what kind of other support and assistance do you think is required, that should be coming from Japan? And one point is Japan has a very favorable relationship with Iran. Therefore, is the U.S. expecting information coming on Iran from Japan, through Japan?

Ambassador Baker: You know that is a very interesting question and it is important to note that countries, like people, sometimes have different friends and different degrees of friendship. The United States and Iran have not had a favorable relationship since the American Embassy in Tehran was occupied. By the same token, the United States perhaps has better relations with some other countries, some of them close by Japan, and it is in the nature of a great alliance and a great national friendship that perhaps we can help each other. Maybe we have things that we can do in America that will improve the relationship with other countries in this region, between Japan and China, Japan and the Koreas or otherwise. Maybe there is an opportunity for you to help with countries like Iran and otherwise, but countries, like people, have different friends, and friendships suggest that we combine our resources and our assets and help each other.

Question: A question going more in depth. The other day, Secretary of State Powell talked about post-Taliban support to Afghanistan. What he expects of Japan was discussed. In Japan, with regard to Afghanistan, there are many experienced personnel. I wonder if you have any comments about Japan supporting Afghanistan?

Ambassador Baker: Well I have a little difficulty with translations so forgive me if I miss a part of the point. But, of course, America would be happy for Japan to participate diplomatically wherever and however it can. And as I began my remarks on what's happening now and what may happen in the future, there is much going on now and it's all diplomatic. Whether or not diplomacy turns out to be adequate to the circumstance remains to be seen. And it is probably unlikely that diplomacy will solve the entire question but it will be helpful, and to the extent that Japan has friends and contacts that they can use to try to assist in that it would be most welcome and most appropriate.

Question: Now along with a military attack, I believe the role that could be played by the U.S. forces based in Japan would become even greater. With regard to the Okinawa base, do you think the function of Okinawa will change in the future because of this possible military attack?

Ambassador Baker: The question as I understand it was do I think the situation in Okinawa will change as a result of these attacks. Once again, that addresses itself to military people and I don't know the answer to that. I can tell you that the long-term view of the United States is that Okinawa is important to the totality of the defense relationship between the United States and Japan. In many ways it is a keystone, an important part, of our ability to give creditability to our ability to defend nations in this area. Will there be changes in the deployment of troops in Okinawa? I think it has been publicly announced that some bases will probably be moved, that there will be an effort to diminish the impact on Okinawan society or, as others have said, to reduce the footprint, but I cannot in all candor tell you that I think, I see in prospect the likelihood that utilization of Okinawa as an important part of our defense relationship is likely to change.

Question: Earlier, Ambassador, you mentioned that you have high confidence in the conclusion that the Japanese people and the government will reach. Now anti-terrorism actions in Japan -- about the Japanese policy against terrorism, do you have any comments or ideas?

Ambassador Baker: The question I believe was how do you marshal your resources in this country to fight terrorism in Japan. Well once again, you know, how you do that depends on your own judgment, Japanese judgment. I get calls from my family, my son and his wife, and my daughter saying "are you safe?" and my reply has been I think I am probably as safe as you are or maybe safer. But who knows, who knows what dangers lurk, who knows whether or not we'll be able to have intelligence information that will forewarn of danger in Japan or in the United States.

Life these days is very uncertain. But I can tell you that I have high confidence in your Self Defense Forces, in your ability to ascertain the activity of those who would not wish us well in Japan. Your intelligence apparatus is very good, I think, and I think there is a high level of appropriate cooperation between the United States and Japan in these matters, and clearly the sum total of our combined efforts will be greater than it would be either alone. But once again, Japan has the responsibility for taking care of terrorist threats in Japan, including protecting the American Embassy, and I have more than a passing interest in that. But let me tell you that I feel very comfortable with the measures that the Japanese Government has taken. I feel very confident that they are doing, all that can be done and I have no hesitation in saying that I expect that to continue.

Question: Now there is a discussion going on in Japan with respect to our assistance to the U.S. And there was a question from a U.S. press member on this point so I would like to pick this up. Along with any military actions that you may take, I am sure you do recognize that because of the Japanese Constitution, Japan is constrained from what we can do when we try to provide assistance to the U.S. as you wage your attack when you take military actions. But what is your view? There is a question from an American member of the press, are you going to support the Japanese in such action, that we are constrained by Constitution? Do you think the Constitution should be revised in order to allow the assistance even more from Japan?

Ambassador Baker: If there is any single subject I should not try to advise Japan on, it is on their Constitution. And I have gone to some lengths in the course of these rambling remarks to say that I am not here to try to tell Japan what they should do but rather to express confidence that we will work together. It is true that your Constitution has very explicit language on the commitment of your Self Defense Forces. It is also true that you have great latitude in what you can do within that framework, but I will leave it up to the Government obviously to decide how to do that and what to do. I'll conclude that remark by saying as of now America is very satisfied with Japan's response and we are very pleased with the action you are taking, the commitment that you're making, and I expect to continue that.

Moderator: Thank you very much. This will be the end from the designated questioner. I would like to thank you all for the large number of questions. In fact, we are moving ahead of schedule which means we do still have some time. Therefore, I would like to invite more questions from the floor. If you would please raise your hand, I would like to call upon you. Please come forward to the microphone, please tell us who you are and please be concise. Please only ask one question at a time.

Question: I am Toshi Aritage from the Bureau of National Affairs. I have one question and my question, I guess, is limited to one. So just briefly I am interested in knowing what kind of a priority you place on the U.S.-Japan relationship in the economic area. You mentioned in your speech that the economy is vitally important for the U.S., Japan and the world.

Ambassador Baker: Well there are two grades of danger perhaps in all situations, but certainly in the situation in our two countries now. One is outright survival, that I, to identify and fight terrorism. The other is the long-term welfare of our countries and it is not possible to prioritize them except to say one is more important at one moment and another at another moment. But the economic situation in our two countries is vitally important as it always is. I am not one of those who think that Japan is on the brink of economic disaster. I honestly believe that you have enormous resources that you can bring to bear to correct the dislocation to your economy. You have great resources for that. You have qualified and capable people to design these policies and Japan will recover. And the United States, I think that our recession is temporary and once again we too have great resources and great economic leadership. And I think our leadership is responding in an appropriate way to the downturn in our economy.

There are two parts to any economic program - one is to recognize the problem and the other is not to panic, not to be frightened of it and I think in the United States that we are proceeding at a pace to correct the problems in the economy. I think you are here in Japan, perhaps not quite as fast as I think we are in the United States. I am particularly concerned with the banking situation here but I am not expert enough to go further into detail except to say that it's an issue, I am sure, that has to be addressed. But on balance I must tell you once again I think Japan has great resources available to correct these issues. It has strong leadership that will address these issues and in America I think our recession is temporary, if it is a recession, and that you'll soon see a rebound and improvement.

The Federal Reserve in the U.S. has been responding promptly and in a very rapid manner and while the result of that is sometimes delayed is not long delayed. And I think both nations will be on a healthy footing as time goes by. But once again, America prospers if Japan prospers, and Japan prospers if America prospers. So as the saying goes in America, we're sort of in this thing together.

Question: Anthony Rolley, Business Times. Mr. Ambassador, I don't want, for a moment, to underestimate the horror of what happened in New York and Washington on September 11 but presumably the anger or hatred that drives people to commit such acts against the United States must have a motive, a cause. Do you think the United States leadership has reflected sufficiently on the motives that lie behind these attacks and possible link, for instance, with the Arab-Israeli conflict and the perceived support by the United States government for Israel as effectively a mini-super state within the Middle East.

Ambassador Baker: My personal evaluation is that the acts of terrorism committed against New York and Washington had nothing to do, or virtually, nothing to do with the traditional conflict in the Middle East. It had to do/ it has to do with perhaps religious, with other problems that are not always, maybe never, fully related to a particular situation in the world. Specifically to answer your question, do I think that American policy in the Middle East, particularly the Arab-Israeli policy has contributed to this, I don't think so. I think that our policy has been constant for many years, indeed for generations. I think the conflict there between the Arabs and the Jews, or between Israel and the Arab neighbors has been in existence for a long time. I do not think any recent policy of the United States has contributed in a meaningful way to that. What I do hope is that one of these days there will be peace in the Middle East. And that then we will have a reduction in the conflict that exists in the region that sometimes spills over in the other parts of the world.

Question: Mr. Ambassador, Sam Jamison, Asian Business. You were citing the importance of the Japanese economy. Specifically, on the issue of the value of the yen. The Japanese helped the United States at the plaza in 1985. Would the United States be willing to do the opposite to drive down the value of the yen to help, perhaps, to spur a little inflation and solve the bank problem?

Ambassador Baker: I am tempted to tell you a story that will not bear translation. But I will try. And that is my father was a great lawyer. And when I first started practicing law as a young man many years ago, he admonished me after an argument that I made to the jury, "You should always guard against speaking more clearly than you think." The truth of the matter is that I do not know the answer to that. And if I say one more word about it, I will tell you more than I know. So I respectfully decline to answer.

Question: Hano from Reuters in Tokyo. I have a question regarding former U.S. POWs who have filed lawsuits against Japanese companies. On September 25th, three former U.S. ambassadors published a letter in the Washington Post, saying they were concerned about an amendment to legislation working its way through Congress that would allow former U.S. POWs to seek compensation from Japanese companies because they were forced into slave labor during WW II. I was wondering if you agree with this view. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about why you agree or disagree with this view.

Ambassador Baker: Yes, I can. I do agree with it. I think the article was well stated and appropriate. I mentioned in my remarks that I attended the 50th anniversary celebration of the peace treaty between Japan and the United States. It has been the constant position of the government of the United States that all such issues were liquidated in the negotiation, signing, execution and ratification of the treaty. That has not only been the position of every administration since the end of WW II; it has also been the consistent view of every court that has ever been called on to interpret that. I do not know what will happen in the Congress with enabling legislation that may attempt to circumvent the provisions of the treaty. I suppose it is theoretically possible that something could be done but my guess is that it will remain, not my guess, I am sure it will remain the position of the US government that all such issues were liquidated by the treaty itself. On a humane basis, I can understand the concern; I am sympathetic to these concerns but as a diplomat, as a lawyer and as an American citizen, I must say that everything must have an end. And in my view, the treaty was the end of such claims and there may be injustices, there may not. But the fact of the matter is that there must always be an end and I believe the treaty represented that end.

Question: Iizuka from Yomiuri Shimbun. About the September 11th attacks, Mr. Armitage talked with Ambassador Yanai and he used the phrase, "show the flag." This has been reported in the press. Now about this particular phrase, "show the flag," what exactly does this mean? Does this mean that the SDF fleets should show the Japanese flag and show support? Is it asking for something physical? Or is it just to show psychological commitment? What do you think?

Ambassador Baker: The question is, as I understand it, Deputy Secretary of State, Rich Armitage, said that Japan must show the flag. "Show the flag" is an old expression in the English language, which means show where you are, what sides you are on. And I think that's what Rich Armitage meant. But your question had to do with did it include the deployment of SDF forces or maritime self-defense forces? I don't Rich Armitage had that in mind. I think once again that is Japan's decision to make. How do you do that? Within the constraints of your own law, your constitution and your governmental preference. But "show the flag" to me means show whose side you are on. I think Japan has already adequately showed whose side they are on and will continue to do that in very important ways in the future.

Question: Rebecca McKinnon, CNN. My question relates to the U.S. bases here in Japan right now. And clearly they are playing a significant role in the current deployment of U.S. troops and in the upcoming conflict that everyone is expecting to see. Do you think that ... Could you comment on how, whether this highlights the necessity of maintaining bases for the United States in Japan over the long term. Could this current deployment be done from Guam or from Hawaii. Is it necessary to have troops in Japan in order to do what the United States is doing now?

Ambassador Baker: The question was do I think the present situation - present terrorist acts - alter the deployment of U.S. troops, U.S. forces, in Japan? Well, I am not a military man; I cannot tell you that. I can tell you that Japan is an important ally and that the presence of American force in Japan and on Okinawa is an important showing of the validity and vitality of the treaty of mutual cooperation between our two countries. Do I think that particular bases will be downsized or eliminated or others will be built? I simply don't know that. The first thing that happen to me when I arrived in Tokyo was I got the airplane at Narita and was met by my new DCM, Dick Christenson, who said, "Now you must go down to the tarmac and have a press conference about Okinawa." And I had just been 14 hours on the airplane and I said, "I don't know anything about Okinawa." And he gave me a quick briefing and the best I could do was to go down and read a prepared statement and then say, "I promise I go to Okinawa to see firsthand the situation." And I did that. My wife and I did that a few weeks later. What I found in Okinawa was essentially, I think, related to the question you put. People in Okinawa have an interesting and logical mix of opinions. On the one hand, they keenly feel the burden of American troop presence there, especially when an untoward incident like the recent rape incident occurs. But when you meet with individual Okinawans, students, officials, private citizens, you find a remarkable realization that these young men and women in Okinawa, American personnel there, are not there because they chose to be there. They are there in the furtherance of a mutual purpose of Japan and the United States, that is, strategic defense in this region. So I guess the simplest answer is -- and simple answers are never good -- but the simple answer is I don't think that the terrorist incident is likely to affect in a material way the military relationship between the United States and Japan. I think that with or without that incident that you will see changes from time to time in the nature and type of commitments that are made, just as you will see changes in Japan of the nature and type of self-defense forces that you have. You have to change with the times but I do not think the terrorist incident in and of itself will produce an abrupt shift in the relationship between Japan and the United States from a military standpoint.

Question: Mirasawa, formerly a reporter of Nikkei and a critic. Ambassador, you did not read a paper that is described by bureaucracies. It was very honest remark from you and I have been strongly encouraged and impressed with your speech. So about what you mentioned in your speech. USA and Japan. You talked about Osama bin Laden. With regard to the Taliban, we are all deeply angered. That is, of course, true. But there is another issue. There are normal people living in Afghanistan. Drought and many other difficulties are occurring. In fact, they have no food. There is Tetzu Nakamura, a member of NGO, who actually in Afghanistan. In the press, he has said that a rain of biscuits should be provided to Afghanistan by the USA. According to the Bush administration, in addition to $100 million, a total of $320 million is now going to be provided as support to the people of Afghanistan. I highly recommend this decision. Now how exactly is this going to be implemented? Is it through the Pakistan government? Do you think it is going to be successful if it goes through Pakistan? How exactly are you going to support the Afghan people?

Ambassador Baker: The question really, I think, consists of, first of all, thank you for your kind remark about my speech. The question, though, is how are you going to implement the aid and assistance to the Afghans. Will it be handled through Pakistanis or otherwise? I don't know how it is going to be handled. I have not been briefed on that. I am convinced that there is a firm commitment on the part of the American government and I am sure on the part of the Japanese as well to respond to the humanitarian requirements of the tragedy in Afghanistan. I would expect that it would take the form not only of money and credit but also in terms of direct food supply, medical resources and the like. Actually, this is one of those cases as someone asked earlier, I guess, how Japan can help. You are much closer to this region of the world than we are. And you perhaps have better contacts there than we have. And as friends do, as allies do, we would welcome your suggestions and advice on how you alleviate the suffering that inevitably will occur, and is already occurring in Afghanistan. I am pleased for one that there was not a sudden retaliation effort against Bin Laden. It is clear that the American government is involved in a careful, measured preparation for response rather than a sudden attack. And I think that also signals that we are sensitive to humanitarian needs of the people of the Afghanistan as time goes by. Whether is has to do with political arrangements or just pure humanitarian assistance remains to be seen. But, I know America, I believe, and I believe the same is true of Japan, when we see great suffering, we have ambition to go try to relieve it. How we do that is a decision yet to be made and probably made in hundred different ways but you and other Japanese should think on that subject, write about that and tell us what you think how it should be done. That will be my reply.

Question: My name is Kano. I am an individual member of the club. Now, the U.S. is the world's largest importer as well as the exporter. Therefore the U.S. has enormous impact on the global economy, and it would impact on our daily livelihood. In the case of Japan, almost 30% of our daily exports are destined toward the U.S. market. The U.S. is the best customer for us.

The second destination would only account for 7% of the Japanese total export, going to China, Taiwan and other countries. Therefore, the U.S. accounts for 30% of Japanese total exports.

Now, I have a question concerning the future U.S. economy. What is the outlook for the U.S. economy? May I have your personal view with regard to the future outlook? Do you think the U.S. will start recovering very soon, or starting from next spring, or at what timing? Could you share with us your very candid personal view? Thank you. And also, I was told that I could only raise one question, but if I possible I have a second question. As far as Japan is concerned, we have been spending a lot, using taxpayers' money to provide assistance for the world that we are currently faced with. Do you think the financial contribution that Japan is making is a meaningful, significant one in the eyes of the U.S.? Thank you.

Ambassador Baker: Well, I wanted to see if you had a cell phone with you and you were going to call you broker after I said how fast the economy was going to recover. I have no idea how fast it will recover, but I think it will recover promptly, I think soon. I think measures are already in place by our government to stimulate the economy. I mentioned earlier the Federal Reserve. I have high confidence in Alan Greenspan and his colleagues at the Fed. They've already sent interest rate down really very rapidly, almost unprecedented rapidity. And that will have a very significant effect on our economy. Our government is engaged now in other programs, including funding for the greater defense requirements in response to terrorism that will have a stimulative effect on the economy. So all together I think a year from now, two years from now, or three years from now, if we were here in this place we might be worrying about inflation instead of recession. But I think America will recover very nicely. And in Japan I also have high confidence that you will. As I said, you have great resources here, great accumulated savings, great wealth that you can bring to bear on this problem. But, forgive me if I sound like I'm giving too much advice, there are still fundamental structural problems in Japan, and chief among them in my view is the banking situation. So I hope and think that Prime Minister Koizumi's plans for structural reform will go forward, because I think that will hasten the day when the Japanese economy turns around. Japan and the United States have been the great economic engines that have driven prosperity in the world. And if nothing else, we owe and obligation to resume those roles.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Because of time constraints, may I ask for the final question? Yes, please.

Question: Ambassador, thank you very much. Earlier, Ambassador, you mentioned that in these terrorist attacks, Palestine is not related. Now currently, if you look at the news across the world, anti-American actions, including demonstrations, are occurring in many Islamic countries. Surprisingly, many of the people in the Muslim countries are taking this action to raise anti-American sentiment. So, going forward, I believe that the USA needs some kind on conciliation, or other types of actions of actions, to move closer with Islamic countries. I wonder if there are any specific ideas to improve your relationship. I am a Protestant, and the Jewish people show their hostility. Now the Islamic people are showing their own hostility. And I believe this kind of religious conflict must have played some role. What do you think sir? Thank you.

Ambassador Baker: That religious conviction has a great deal to do with what happened, and I would not be surprised if it was not the principal operating factor in those who would take control of an airliner and crash it into a building and kill 5,000 people. You know, it's not a rational act. And it most likely did have some religious grounding.

But on the question of changing our policy in the Middle East, you know I'm not Ambassador to Israel, and I'm not Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. And I cannot speak with authority on what the American position should be.

But I can say this. America's position in the Middle East has been consistent through many administrations and over many decades. That is, we seek peace, we seek to broker peace there, and we seek to enhance peace in the Middle East, which has been troubled for centuries. But by the same token, we do not abandon the state of Israel. And those two things come into conflict. But that is American policy, and I do not expect that policy to change.

Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you very much. You're very good.