===========================================================================
Roundtable Interview of the President by Foreign Print Media
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary July 4, 2008

Roundtable Interview of the President by Foreign Print Media Roosevelt Room

ÿÿWhite House News

ÿÿÿÿÿ G8 Summit 2008

July 2, 2008

12:46 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: So here's the thing -- I'm going to have a few comments, and
then got time for one question apiece. So calibrate your questions. You can
do like our press -- ask three questions in one question.

Anyway, what are the rules for the American press corps -- French and
American press corps?

MS. PERINO: It's embargoed until they have a chance to use it themselves.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm talking about these people.

MS. PERINO: Yes, they hold it until after it's already published.

THE PRESIDENT: I got you. That's presuming they read Japanese papers.

MS. PERINO: Toby does.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay.

First of all, I'm looking forward to this. As you know, it's my last G8.
These are useful, important meetings because it's a chance to forge common
policy, but it's also a chance to have a lot of important bilaterals. And
the first bilateral I have is with the Prime Minister. And it's very
important for me to make it clear to him and the Japanese people that I
value the bilateral relationship with Japan.

It has been, and will be, the cornerstone of our policy. And my view is our
relations have been very good during my presidency. As you know, I had a
close relationship with Prime Minister Koizumi. After all -- but he wasn't
the first Prime Minister I dealt with. The first Prime Minister I dealt
with wasn't around very much, he was -- he spent more time with my
predecessor, obviously. And then Koizumi, and then obviously Abe and the
current Prime Minister.

I worked hard to have a good personal relationship with all the leaders, so
that we can discuss common problems and common issues. And we've worked
through a lot of problems in the past, but more importantly, we've got a
strategic relationship that is solid and well-founded. And that's very
important for stability and peace in Asia.

And so -- and then, of course, we'll have the meetings. And there will be a
variety of topics to discuss. I'm confident people will be concerned about
food prices and energy prices. We'll discuss those. To the extent that we
can develop a common strategy to deal with them, it will make a lot of
sense. I think the world will watch carefully and see what signals come out
of the meetings. My own view is, is that here in the United States we can
do more to find oil. Like Japan, however, we're dependent upon foreign
sources of oil, which means we've got to transition to a different era.

One of the interesting things that's taking place in Japan -- I tell this
to a lot of my friends here -- I happen to believe battery technologies are
coming soon. And the Japanese are, of course, in the lead when it comes to
new technologies relative to automobiles, such as battery technologies. And
some day, relatively soon, I'm confident that people will be driving the
first 40 miles on electricity, and the cars won't look like tiny marbles
July 2, 2008or golf carts; they'll actually be regular-sized automobiles.

And so the question is, how do we manage the transition to a new era?
Eventually we'll be driving hydrogen automobiles. And I know the Japanese
private sector is working very hard on hydrogen technology, as are we. Here
at home, as you know, we're diversifying the fuel by the use of ethanol.
And I've always felt it was good to have American farmers growing fuel,
rather than trying to purchase crude oil from parts of the world that,
frankly, are either unstable or don't like us.

In terms of food prices, a lot of the food prices are being driven by
energy costs. But we can do a better job of selling seed and fertilizer --
or giving seed and fertilizer to help others grow crops. I mean, it is --
parts of the world should become sufficient in food, and they're not.

One of the interesting debates will be, of course, the use of
bio-engineered food, genetically modified crops. And it's -- these
genetically modified crops can grow in fairly harsh weather conditions,
where there's a lack of water, and yet some countries are fearful to use it
because they won't have market access for their crops when they export
them.

Another great opportunity would be, of course, dealing with the
environment. I know this is important for the Prime Minister, and it's
important for all nations there. It turns out that energy independence and
climate change can go hand in hand. In other words, the technologies that
free us from dependence on hydrocarbons will be the very technologies that
enable us to improve the environment. The question is how best to expedite
new technologies to the market, and frankly, get it in the hands of
countries that are going to need these technologies, such as your
cross-straits neighbor, China.

My own view is that there will never be an effective agreement unless China
and India are at the table. And I say "effective," I mean a
results-oriented agreement where, in fact, we actually accomplish an
objective, which is reducing greenhouse gases. And so we'll work to set the
conditions so that people understand that in order to be effective, all of
us who are creating greenhouse gases must agree to long-term goals, and
develop effective interim plans.

On my mind, of course, will be human rights and human dignity. And that
comes particularly in the form of helping people deal with malaria and
HIV/AIDS. I believe in the admonition to whom much is given much is
required. Our nations have been given a lot and we're comfortable nations.
And we got to remember that there is suffering in the world and that when
we speak, when we make pledges, we got to mean what we say. And the last G8
people came to the table and said, okay, we hear you, now we'll all pledge.
And the question is, have people written checks? And I will gently remind
people, to the extent I can be gentle, that it's important for people, when
they hear us talk, to know that there will be results.

And I'll talk about our HIV/AID initiative in Africa and how it's been
effective, and the malaria initiative. I'll use examples such as Zanzibar,
a part of Tanzania, where the infection rate for young babies was 20
percent; it's down to 1 percent because of a simple plan -- and that these
nations can help.

And so we've got a -- by the way, this all is part of this war on terror --
I do want to thank the Japanese government and Japanese people for clearly
understanding the stakes. But we face an enemy that can only recruit when
they find hopeless people, and there's nothing more hopeless than a mother
losing her baby because of a mosquito bite. And so not only is it in our
moral interest to help people, it's also in our national security interest
to help people.

And so that's kind of how I see it. Now, who wants to start?

Q Sir, since I went to high school in Texas --

THE PRESIDENT: Where did you go?

Q Edinburg, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Did you? Edinburg High School?

Q Yes, class of '74.

THE PRESIDENT: You've got to be kidding me. (Laughter.) Edinburg High
School. Isn't that interesting? Nobody knows where Edinburg is except for
me and you. (Laughter.) It happens to be on the Mexican border. It is --
what year were you there?

Q In '74.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, man. You been down there since?

Q Yes, several times.

THE PRESIDENT: Amazing, isn't it, how it's changed?

Q Yes, it has.

THE PRESIDENT: The benefits of free trade. People need to -- if you could
have seen Edinburg in '74 and Edinburg in 2004, and now 2008, you'd be
amazed at the changes as a result of free and fair trade between the United
States and Mexico. And therefore, one other point will be, of course,
complete Doha successfully.

Thank you for reminding me of the importance of free trade. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, thank you very much for giving us this opportunity to ask
questions, sir. And first, let me start with a very Japan-specific question
about North Korea and abductees issue. Sir, at the press conference on June
26, you made a -- said that the United States would not abandon its strong
ally when it comes to resolving this abductee issue. But in spite of this
very strong statement that you made, there are still some doubts and
concerns in Japan, especially among the families of abductees that the
United States might try to resolve this nuclear issue at the expense of the
abductee issue. And Mrs. Yokota, who you met in your Oval Office two years
ago, reportedly said that she was irritated because she felt that Japan was
ignored. What exactly do you plan to do to assure Japanese government and
the people that the United States will not abandon Japan in the process of
rescinding North Korea's designation of a state sponsor of terror? And what
will the United States do to help bring progress to this issue within 45
days of this delisting process, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, first of all, I can understand the mom's
concerns. I got to see firsthand in the Oval Office how -- her sense of
anguish and hurt that her sweet daughter had been abducted. So I understand
the emotions of the issue. As a matter of fact, I invited her to come
because I wanted to -- I wanted her and others to see firsthand my personal
concern. The truth of the matter is, if I wasn't concerned about the issue
and didn't think it was a priority, I wouldn't have invited her to the Oval
Office.

Secondly, I believe that the six-party talks is the best way to effect
change in the North Korean regime -- positive change. One such change, of
course, is to head toward a common objective, which is a nuclear free -- a
nuclear weapons-free Korean Peninsula, which is in our interest and it's in
Japanese interests.

Secondly, there are other issues, of course, to be dealt with in this
framework. And one such issue is the abductee issue. The question is can
Japan solve this issue alone better, or does it make sense to have the
United States and other countries expressing the same concerns? I happen to
believe that it is in your country's interest to have the United States and
other countries helping you on this issue. And therefore I view the
six-party talks as a framework to convince the North Korean government to
deal with these serious issues.

And, you know, people -- I can understand people saying, well, I guess this
is the beginning of the end of U.S. concern. But I will say it again, like
I have said it time and time again, this is the beginning of our concern
and it's a framework to help solve the concerns of the parents, the people
of Japan and the Japanese government.

In terms of the recent declaration, this was agreed to by the Japanese
government. This was an understanding that this is how we're going to move
the process forward. But this is only one step. I think some of your
listeners or readers probably think that, well, this is the end of the
process. No, this is the beginning of the process. And there's a lot more
work to be done. And our policy is action for action. And what's changed is
it used to be, okay, we'll give the North Koreans a concession and hope
they respond. Now it's, when they act we respond. And part of the agenda is
the abductee issue.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Sato.

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: They call you Mr. Sato?

Q Hi, yes. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I'd like to just follow up
on the North Korea issue. There is in Japan -- there is concern in Japan
that the golden era of the U.S.-Japan alliance has passed, the historical
-- (inaudible) -- of alliance is now degrading. So how do you think that,
in this context, the removal of North Korea from the list, affects the
U.S.-Japan alliance?

THE PRESIDENT: It's interesting. Somebody told me that beginning to creep
into the dialogue there is the six-party talks really is -- you know, will
undermine the bilateral relations between Japan and the United States. I
fully reject that. It's like saying, okay, we're all part of the United
Nations, therefore bilateral relations don't matter. Multilateral forums to
address an issue strengthens relations, they don't weaken relations.

And the fundamental question is how do you solve the problem of North
Korea; that's the question. That's what the six-party talks were aimed to
address. The history of this issue was at one point in time it was really
only the United States that was dealing with the issue, others were kind of
there, but they weren't that -- they basically said, here, go solve it.

And it's an effective way to deal with a problem way diplomatically. In
order to solve a problem diplomatically there has to be other voices who
say, here's what we expect and, if not, here are the consequences. And
that's why it was so important to convince the Chinese, for example, to
become a party to the six-party talks.

In the meantime, however, we have been working very closely with Japan on a
variety of issues. You notice we're no longer talking about basing issues.
Why? Because our bilateral relations were such that we're able to deal with
them. We were able to work together in Afghanistan and Iraq. We were able
to work together on humanitarian issues in places like Afghanistan. In
other words, our bilateral relations have thrived during this period when
the six-party talks were constructed.

The only thing I can do is just tell people how I view it, when I go to
Japan -- or through objective agents such as yourself. And it is, our
relations have been important, they are important and they will be
important. And as I said in my opening statement, this really is a
cornerstone to our policies in Northeast Asia.

Hiro.

Q Thank you, President. Again, on North Korea.

THE PRESIDENT: Sure, yes. Is this going to be six North Korea questions?
(Laughter.) I can handle all six, trust me.

Q Well, last week you said you don't have any -- you have no illusions
about the North Korean regime, Kim Jong-il. So the question might be
hypothetical, but if North Korea --

THE PRESIDENT: No, it is hypothetical, I can tell you -- when you start
with an "if." (Laughter.) You can try a hypothetical. (Laughter.)

Q In the case North Korea does not fulfill its obligation, such as
disclosing a number of the weapons that they have, or non-disclosing of the
enrichment --

THE PRESIDENT: Or dealing fairly on abductees.

Q -- yes, abductees. Or proliferation issue, activities to Syria. What kind
of message do you think you'd --

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll of course work with our partners. Now, for
example, these won't be unilateral sanctions. These will be multi-party
sanctions. But first of all, this regime is highly sanctioned. They have
been isolated. And if they choose not to move forward on an agreed upon way
forward -- action for action -- there will be further isolation and further
deprivation for the people of North Korea.

The regime had made a conscious decision to at least make a declaration
within the six-party talks to move forward. I would only surmise that
perhaps the leader of North Korea is tired of being isolated in the world,
and would try to advance his country in a way that makes it easier for the
people to have a better life.

And therefore, if you read the statements that started the six-party --
that confirm the six-party talks, about what the pledges are -- there are
very concrete -- it's a concrete action plan. But keep in mind at this
point in time this is still a regime that is highly sanctioned. So step one
is if he chooses not to move forward, then the status quo is for certain
and he'll remain highly sanctioned. And then of course there will be great
disappointment with the other parties involved in the six-party talks.

Expectations are that he will move forward, action for action. But if he
doesn't, we now have partners at the table who will be wondering how best
to send yet another message to him -- and the good news, it won't be just
Japan and the United States, there will be other countries there. This is
how multilateral diplomacy works.

And I repeat to you, the six-party talks have been aimed to set a framework
in place that will serve as an inducement to go forward, but also that can
be consequential. And we of course will consult with our partners to deal
about -- I mean, step one is no change in the current status, which means
highly sanctioned -- probably the most sanctioned nation in the world. And
step two is, of course, we'll consult and figure out a way forward.

My hope is, is that the North Koreans continue to move forward. And you
mentioned what we expect. We expect there to be full declaration of
manufactured plutonium. We expect there to be a full disclosure of any
enrichment activities and proliferation activities. And we expect the
abductee issue to be solved.

Kenji.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to ask a climate change issue.

THE PRESIDENT: Climate change, yes.

Q In the upcoming summit, Prime Minister Fukuda hopes to set a long-term
goal for curbing greenhouse gas emission, and I think you share the idea.
What goals do you have going into the summit and do you expect to strike an
agreement on that?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm hopeful we can strike an agreement. But I caution
everybody that such an agreement must have all of us who create greenhouse
gases -- not just those of us around the table at the G8. And that's why we
worked with the Prime Minister to have this major economies meeting; it was
to strengthen the G8, is to make it relevant.

You know, it's an interesting notion that -- I said today in my press
availability in the Rose Garden -- I don't know if you were there or not --
you know, I wonder whether or not some of these nations who are creating
greenhouse gases -- but considered still developing nations -- are used to
the period of Kyoto, when they weren't held to account about what they were
producing. I wonder if that's their mind set. Because if it is, it'll make
any international agreement ineffective if they're not a part to it,
because, you know, it is estimated that -- well, China is creating a lot of
greenhouse gases and will continue to do so. And therefore Japan and the
United States can maybe make decisions that affect our own production, but
it will be ineffective at solving the problem unless China is with us.

And so my hope there is to move the process along so that we, at a very
minimum, send a clear message to developing countries that are producing
greenhouse gases that we expect you to be a part of an agreement. And step
one is a long-term goal. In other words, if you can get nations to commit
to a goal, you've got them committed to a process. If, however, the process
doesn't matter whether you're a part or not, or you may be a part at some
point in time -- in my mind that won't produce the results that are
necessary to deal with the global climate change issue.

And so we'll see how that goes. We're working it very hard, as is the Prime
Minister and other nations.

The other thing we can do is we can talk about some just practical things
we can do, such as insisting that we reduce tariffs and trade barriers on
pollution equipment. It makes no sense to make such equipment prohibitively
expensive when it is -- when there are some basic technologies that could
move and can help. And I will be talking about technologies there, as well.
And I told you about some of the technologies dealing with automobiles and,
you know, the interesting thing is, is that the world is now beginning to
waken up to the beauty of nuclear power.

And, I mean, if one is really concerned about global warming and greenhouse
gases, they ought to be carrying signs insisting upon the development of
nuclear power plants. This is renewable energy with zero greenhouse gas
emissions. And yet the world -- parts of the world are very reluctant about
-- even in our country, it's very difficult to build a plant. We've been
able to get some regulatory relief through government action. I think four
new plants have been permitted or four expansions have been permitted. But
we ought to be -- about 25 percent of our electricity comes from nuclear
power, and it ought to be a lot higher.

And you know, one of the things that interesting is Japan and the United
States are working on technologies to deal with the waste. And that will --
if that -- when that technology comes to fruition, it will ease some
people's concerns. There will be some who just simply will never buy into
nuclear power; I fully understand that. But this will be a great
opportunity to discuss about other things we can do while we're trying to
work -- you know, by the way, everything we're going to do is meant to
strengthen the United Nations process and not weaken it.

And so, anyway, that's kind of what's on my mind going into the meetings.

Q Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Oishi.

Q Hello.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Nikkei is economic newspaper, so let's talk about economy.

THE PRESIDENT: You're an economic newspaper.

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You're "The Wall Street Journal." (Laughter.)

Q More famous than "The Wall Street Journal."

THE PRESIDENT: More famous. (Laughter.) Well, that's good.

Q So, Mr. President, I know your strong U.S. dollar policy --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's true.

Q But do you know how to make it stronger? Or do you expect the possibility
of the U.S. intervention in the fiscal -- financial market?

THE PRESIDENT: We believe that the relative worth of economies should set
respective currencies. And therefore the best way to reenforce our strong
dollar policy is to keep taxes low in the United States, ease regulatory
burdens, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, and make it clear
that we're for free and fair trade -- that not only means the trading of
goods and services, but also the investment, that the United States is open
to investment. And to me those are the best ways to deal with the
fundamental aspects of an economy that assures the world that the United
States will be a vibrant, strong economy, and that eventually will be
reflected in our currency.

Would you like another economic question?

Q Well, does Europe share the same view?

THE PRESIDENT: Does who?

Q Does Europe --

THE PRESIDENT: Share the same view of the U.S. dollar? I think they want
there to be -- it's an interesting question. I heard concern about our
dollar and I believe they support the U.S. strong dollar policy.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. My question is on North Korea and Iran.

THE PRESIDENT: North Korea.

Q North Korea and Iran.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good.

Q So you have looked at multilateral diplomacy in dealing with North Korea
and made a decision to move it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism
in return for actually a far from perfect declaration on its nuclear
activities. Some people say that this is kind of appeasement or a double
standard compared to the way you dealt with Iraq. So do you think the way
you dealt with Iraq -- with North Korea, namely, action for action
principle, through multilateral diplomacy, rather than military option
would be an effective and realistic motive for preventing an Iran with
nuclear weapons? And if so, what exact action do you want from Iran? And
what action is the United States ready to offer to Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sure, thank you. First of all, if I might I'd like to
reject some of the premises in your question. One, you said that --
incomplete declaration. Well, we're in the process of determining whether
or not North Korea did make an incomplete declaration. And if they did,
they will remain the most highly sanctioned nation.

One thing is for certain is they did collapse their cooling tower on the
plant that had been used to manufacture plutonium. I mean, that is a
complete declaration, at least of that aspect of what they said -- when
they said they would dismantle -- or disable and then dismantle. And so
we've got -- you know, there's a process. Things are going on. I guess we
live in a world where everything is supposed to be instant, but I repeat to
you, this is a first step of a multiple step process -- just so everybody
understands.

Secondly, we conducted multilateral diplomacy in Iraq -- oh, yes. 1441 at
the United Nations Security Council -- the world came together and said,
disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences, in a unanimous vote. Now my
speech to the United Nations took place in September, early September of
2002. I don't know if you remember the debate during that summer. It was,
"Will Bush go to the U.N. Security Council or will this be a unilateral
move without it?" -- going to this world body. I think some might have been
old enough to have covered that story here.

And the answer was, I did go to the U.N. Security Council. We did conduct
multilateral diplomacy, and the world was supportive of saying to Saddam
Hussein, disclose, disarm, or face serious -- and he made the choice. He
was the one who got to make the choice because he -- you know, he defied
the world.

And so I have always said that diplomacy has got to be the first choice of
solving any of these problems. But military options remain on the table,
and they remain on the table for these three issues you discussed. I happen
to believe multilateral diplomacy is the most effective way to solve some
of these very difficult problems because there needs to be more than one
voice in saying the same thing; because in the past if you're there alone
and you say something and then the leader basically rattles people's cages
or makes them nervous, guess who the world rushes to? Not to the person
rattling the cage; it rushes to, in this case, the United States: Fix it;
get him what he wants. And it didn't solve the problem.

Now I understand sometimes people love process so everybody feels good, you
know. But that's not what I -- this administration is trying to solve
problems. And the best way to solve the problem in North Korea was to have
others at the table along with us -- and same with the Iranians. Now this
has been difficult to get there to be a focused message because some are
worried about market share. You know, the message to the Iranians is:
Verifiably suspend your enrichment program, and there's a better way
forward.

And by the way, in 2003, it looked like we were in the process of
convincing the Iranians to verifiably suspend their enrichment program. And
the United States was working with our partners in Europe, sending a
message that you can end your isolation. And then Ahmadinejad came along
and changed the tone and changed the -- evidently changed the policy of the
government. And so now Iran is much more confrontational. But our message
hasn't changed: Verifiably suspend your enrichment program and there is a
better way forward.

So there are carrots and there are sticks. We're working hard to make sure
that the sticks mean something. And I've been pleased by the U.N. Security
Council resolutions that have been issued by our friends in the United
Nations Security Council in a way that says to the Iranians, we're serious
about your change of policy. The choice is theirs. We've made our choice.

Now, one thing that's interesting -- I think I'll you find this
interesting, at least you'll play like it's interesting -- is this: Should
the Iranian regime -- so I'm the guy who just talked about nuclear power,
right? Should the Iranian regime -- do they have the sovereign right to
have civilian nuclear power? So, like, if I were you, that's what I'd ask
me. And the answer is, yes, they do. And I have said so publicly time and
time again. But they don't have the right, as far as the U.N. Security
Council, for example, goes, to enrich, because they haven't told the truth
about their program; therefore, they can't be trusted with enrichment.
After all, enriching uranium is a step toward having a nuclear weapon.

So we worked with the Russians, Vladimir Putin and I worked on -- and he
took the lead on this issue, for which I am grateful. So he goes to the
Iranians and says, we'll provide enriched uranium for you. You have a
sovereign right -- Bush has said you have a sovereign right to have nuclear
power. But because you have defied the IAEA in the past, we'll provide
enriched uranium for you, and we'll collect the enriched uranium; therefore
you don't need to enrich. And if you insist on enriching, it must mean you
want a weapon.

And so multilateral forums enable people to come up with those kinds of
tactics that are effective. And so, you bet, the multilateral forum is the
best way to solve this peacefully.

Okay, guys. I hope you've enjoyed it as much as -- oh, you want to ask more
questions? I'm sure you do. Well, that's generally what happens with one of
these things.

Okay, you better hurry --

MS. PERINO: Lightning round.

THE PRESIDENT: Lightning. Quickly.

Q Quick -- move to Afghanistan. Japan has been providing the support --
support to multilateral force, including United States, in Indian Ocean, to
support Afghanistan. But the law that enables maritime Japanese force to do
that will expire in July.

THE PRESIDENT: Next July.

Q Next July.

THE PRESIDENT: A year from now.

Q Yes, next July.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And so --

Q And U.S. has been --

THE PRESIDENT: We were very pleased that they renewed the law.

Q And Secretary Gates has been asking to either extend or even enhance,
like sending helicopters -- CH-47s to Afghanistan. And I was wondering
whether you can explain to the Japanese why such upgraded participation in
the war in Afghanistan serves the interests of Japan, apart from simply
meeting the expectation of the United States?

THE PRESIDENT: Because when al Qaeda -- forces like al Qaeda have a safe
haven to attack friends and allies, or Japan itself, it's a danger to
peace. And as for the Japanese contribution, we are very grateful for what
we have, and we appreciate the government getting the current extension
through the parliament. And we, of course, will work with our allies to
determine whether or not an enhanced presence could be useful. And if the
government can support that, fine. But I just want you to know how grateful
I am for the contribution, as well as the humanitarian contributions.

It also ought to make the Japanese people feel good to know that they're
helping young girls go to school, or they're helping people get their food
to market. Does it matter? Yes, it matters, if you care about the human
condition. So the contribution has been great.

Sato. Got another question? If not, I will applaud you.

Q Yes, I have a very personal question, so --

THE PRESIDENT: A very what kind?

Q On the history, for --

THE PRESIDENT: Personal, yes.

Q During your presidency, the Japan-U.S. relationship was very strong. But
there are still unresolved issues on -- regarding Pearl Harbor and
Hiroshima. And some historians propose that the Prime Minister should visit
Pearl Harbor, and U.S. President should visit Hiroshima.

THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting.

Q What do you think about this?

THE PRESIDENT: My attitude is, is that I -- look, this was a painful period
in our respective histories. After all, my father, for example, was a young
Navy fighter pilot at war with Japan. But my experience has been very
different, because one of my best friends was Prime Minister Koizumi. Isn't
that interesting? And one reason why is because we put the past behind us
and focused on the future.

And symbolic gestures like that may make sense; I don't know. I haven't
really thought about it. It's an interesting idea. You're the first person
that's ever brought it up to me, I want you to know. But whoever the next
President is must, one, understand the importance of the relationship; and
two, be thinking about the future -- because we share values, we've got a
lot of work to do, we've had interesting economic relationships throughout
our history. As you know, I believe in open markets, free and fair trader.
That -- to me, if I were somebody living in Japan, I'd say, well, there's a
fellow who has put the past behind him and is focusing on what's in the
best interests of both countries.

So it's an interesting suggestion. This will be -- it won't work for me;
this is my last trip to Japan as President. Supposed to never say never,
but I -- let me just -- I predict this is my last trip to Japan. And I'm
not saying I'm happy about it.

So -- is anybody going to ask me about Bobby Valentine? (Laughter.) You
don't even know who Bobby Valentine is. He was the old coach of the Rangers
who's a manager of one of the Japanese baseball teams, and he's done very
well in Japan. People like Bobby, don't they?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, he's -- last time I was in Japan Bobby was there at the
airport with Mr. Oh. (Laughter.)

Q Oh. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: The Babe Ruth of Japanese baseball.

Q Oh, yes, that's right.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay? Got anything, Hiroki?

Q Yes, please.

THE PRESIDENT: You're the guy who thought of it.

Q On China?

THE PRESIDENT: China, yes. See how generous I am to give you all these
questions?

MS. PERINO: You're ruining the lighting round aspect of it.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, keep moving. (Laughter.)

Q Actually, I would like to ask you what's your view on current relations
between U.S. and China? Because seven years ago, U.S. military plane was
forced to land on Hainan Island.

THE PRESIDENT: That's right, yes.

Q And then, I would like to ask you, then, how you see the evolution of the
China-U.S. relationship since then? And also, there is some concern in
Japan that future of Asian -- (inaudible) -- U.S. and China will jointly
manage the stability and prosperity. How do you see --

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, the cornerstone of U.S. policy is good, strong
relations with Japan. So, as far as the Bush administration goes, that has
been our policy and we've acted on it. That's not to say we can't have good
relations with China, nor Japan can have good relations -- I mean, Japan
should have good relations with China. And we expect Japan to work hard to
have good relations with Japan, just like Japan ought to hope that we have
good relations with China, which we do. Our relations are strong, and some
say have never been better. I'll let the experts judge that.

And one reason why is we've managed some difficult issues together. The
Taiwan Straits issue is a difficult issue, and it looks like it's in a much
better spot. I have worked hard to have a good personal relationship with
Hu Jintao, and Jiang Zemin, his predecessor, so I can speak frankly to
them.

And my big concerns about China are religious freedoms and individual
rights and political freedoms. Every time I've met with the Chinese leader,
which has been a lot, I've had a very frank and open dialogue, and yet been
able to maintain a good, cordial relationship so we can work through
problems. One such problem is no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula.
We've got big economic relations with China, as does Japan.

And so I don't view the world as zero sum -- in other words, if you got a
good relationship -- strong relationship, you can't have a good
relationship with China; quite the contrary. In good foreign policy and
good diplomacy, a good relations with one makes it easier to have a better
relations with another country. And that's how we've conducted our policy.

China is a very interesting issue for all of us. Right now they're dealing
with trying to get their economy such that people in the rural parts of
their country are able to benefit. And it's a challenge. And they're using
a lot of raw materials. And one reason why it's important for Japan and the
United States to help them develop the technologies that make them less
dependent upon some of these raw materials that have affected worldwide
price of raw materials.

And so it's a -- it will be a very interesting issue for future Presidents,
but we've been able to manage it very well.

Kenji.

Q Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Yell your name -- (laughter.)

Q I'd like to ask about the presidential election.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I don't talk about it, Kenji. (Laughter.) The American
people are going to get to pick. I'm for McCain, if that's what you want to
know. (Laughter.)

Q -- presidential election and U.S. foreign policy.

THE PRESIDENT: I like a persistent guy. Keep going.

Q Yes, thank you very much. (Laughter.) So with one candidate who supports
your foreign policy, and another who sharply criticizes it, so how do you
think this election will affect the rest of the world?

THE PRESIDENT: The rest of the world?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I'm -- that's a good question. I'm for John McCain
because I think he'll do a better job on foreign policy and domestic
policy. But, Kenji, you know, I really am not going to spend a lot of time
opining about the current election. The American people will filter it out.
It's very early in the election cycle. This fall is really when the
campaign begins in earnest -- the debates, and people start to really focus
on it. Right now it's a lot of the pundits and a lot of the pros and
experts, some of whom are sitting right behind you, that are --

Q So do you believe that the next U.S. administration will continue your
policy on North Korea?

THE PRESIDENT: I think whoever gets in the White House will take a look and
say, gosh, it makes sense to have other people at the table other than the
United States in order to effect good diplomacy. Diplomacy -- in order for
diplomacy to be effective, it has to be consequential. In other words, when
five people say, here's the way forward, and if you choose not to do so
there will be consequences -- or if you choose to do so, there will be
consequences, it is much more effective than one nation sitting there
saying, please change your habits.

And so I -- you know, I'm going to leave it to the candidates. They'll have
to make up their own mind. But at least there's a multilateral forum in
which to deal with this problem. Hopefully it's progressed a long way down
the road by the time whoever comes in the Oval Office. We're pushing
forward on an action-for-action, verifiable -- and by the way, the next
stage of this, just so everybody is comfortable, there will be a verifiable
-- a verification regime in place, so that -- to answer your question,
Michero, it will be less speculation and more transparency.

Thank you, sir.

Oishi. Another economic question?

Q You must be the most excellent expert on oil business.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.) Look where our price is. (Laughter.)

Q Well, actually, I'm suffering high gas prices.

THE PRESIDENT: You are?

Q Every day.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you are.

Q So what can you do to curb energy inflation?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, a couple of things. One is you either -- just, this is
pure economics; you'll understand this better than anybody here -- you
either increase the supply of something or decrease the demand of something
in order to affect price -- down. The habits of the United States consumer
is beginning to change because people are now -- they don't like $4
gasoline. I can understand why they don't like $4 gasoline. People are now
looking for smaller cars.

That takes a while, however, to change. I fully understand that. But demand
is beginning to shift in our country. And in order to affect worldwide
demand, it seems like all of us -- Japan, the United States and others at
the G8 -- need to convince some of the people coming to the G8 to stop
subsidizing their consumers, or at least reduce the subsidies somewhat so
that there is some effect on demand. Price cannot affect demand if people's
habits are subsidized by state enterprise -- or the state.

Secondly, the strategy on energy has got to be twofold, at least from the
United States perspective: One, spend money and come up with technologies.
That will mean we have to use less gasoline, therefore -- in automobiles,
for example -- less gasoline and, therefore, take the demand off of crude
oil.

And I mentioned one such technology that I thought was interesting for me
to mention it, recognizing the ascendency of the Japanese technology in the
battery market. I've spent a lot of time on this issue, and I think people
would say that the Japanese autos and the Japanese R_

And the high price is going to spur a lot of investment. That's what I've
explained to the main suppliers of crude oil. So when I went to Saudi
Arabia, I said, this high price is hurting your consumers, your customers,
and it's going to cause a lot of research and development to diversify away
as fast as possible, which is what's happening.

In the meantime, we better transition to this period. In other words,
evidently our Congress must have thought that there will be instant
technology on the market, because they prevented us, since 2001, from
exploring for known oil and gas reserves that we can do in environmentally
friendly ways. And now all of a sudden the price got high enough where the
American people are now beginning to hear that message, and I hope the
Democrat leaders in Congress hear it, which is, you know, allow this new
technology be deployed to find new reserves. And the sooner we do this the
better. And it will certainly affect -- at the very minimum, affect the
psychology of the world, to see that new supplies of crude oil could be
coming on the market in the United States.

So that's our strategy: technologies, and in the meantime, find more oil
here at home. And there's more oil to be found. And I can assure you Japan
wishes they had these reserves, you know? And you'd be finding them. And
you wouldn't be hamstrung by politicians refusing to allow this to go
forward.

Michiro.

Q Last question on Iraq. What is your evaluation about where Iraq is now?
Do you think now if the U.S. can afford to withdraw more troops from Iraq,
or will you leave that decision to the next administration? What is your
assessment on war on terror in general, during your two terms?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you. Let me make sure I get -- this is the old
three-part question and I'm about to be 62 years old, so -- (laughter.) By
the way, I will be celebrating my birthday on Japanese soil; that's
interesting.

Q Congratulations.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, come to the party. It's not going to be much of a
party; it's only 62.

Let's see, Iraq and troops. Okay. First of all, there was -- the people
have -- okay, you got to have benchmarks. I think there was 15 benchmarks
-- 18 benchmarks. And one way to evaluate progress is to measure what's
actually happened to what was expected, and the progress is undeniable.
What happened was security was such that the politics and the economics
could move forward. And for a period of time, that was not the case. That's
why we sent more troops in. The combat brigades of the surge will finally
come home. The last one will be home in July. So we are in a policy of
return on success.

I will listen to General Petraeus when he returns in September as to
whether or not we can achieve our objective with fewer troops. That's up to
our commanders. In other words, I'm not going to run a poll during the
political season, or any time, to determine what's the best policy. The
policy is determined by the considered judgment of our commanders. And my
hope is the next President will have that same standard. That's going to be
up to that person to make the right judgments.

In terms of the war on terror, step one is to recognize we're at war. Some
in our country don't believe we're at war. If you don't believe we're at
war, that this is a simple law enforcement matter, then what you do is you
wait until something happens and then react. You know, law enforcement is
there is an action, there's a crime, and then there -- law enforcement
acts.

In war, what you do is you prevent the enemy from hitting in the first
place. That's why Iraq and Afghanistan are very important theaters in the
war on terror. People -- some think these are separate wars. It's the same
war -- against ideologues who murder the innocent to achieve their
political objectives. These are just different fronts in the same war.

And, you know, I am not surprised that a lethal enemy pushes back through
the use of their indiscriminate violence to stop the advance of free
societies, because this is an ideological war. When they see freedom on the
march, it frightens them and it worries them, to the point where they kill
innocent people to try to shake the will of the people in that country, and
to shake the will of those trying to help them.

And so, one, we've taken on the enemy. And two, we've had good success
against al Qaeda. The first and second person is still alive, but the
number three person in al Qaeda has had a dangerous existence -- Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, al-Libi, a series of leaders. And we are pressuring them
today and we'll keep pressuring them. And my hope is whoever the next
President understands this is a war and that we can't relax, and that
there's an enemy that wants to do free people harm, and that we have an
obligation as free societies to keep the pressure, not only for our own
security, but for the security of others.

This is back to this man's question down here about, why should we care
about Afghanistan. The answer is, is because safe haven is a risk. But
there's also another answer. That's one of the great lessons of our
relationship. You know, I marvel at the fact, and I talk about it a lot to
the American people of the irony about Prime Minister Koizumi and my
relationship. It's a great testament to our respective countries and the
transformative power of liberty that my dad fought the Japanese, and his
son sits at the peace table with the Japanese leaders in a spirit of
respect and friendship and common values.

Anyway, thank you. Enjoyed it.

Q Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Very good questions.

Q Thank you very much, sir.

END 1:40 P.M. EDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080704-1.html