 summit of the major industrial democracies. This will be the sixth year that I've met with my colleagues from Europe and Japan, thanks in part to the principles that we've been promoting since the first summit, which was in Ottawa in 1981. The summit nations are now in their fourth year of economic expansion. I'm sure our discussions there in Tokyo will focus on the importance of maintaining cooperative efforts to promote sustained non-inflationary market-oriented growth and enhanced market stability. But this summit is different because it's taking place in Asia. Before we get to Tokyo I'll have a chance to sit down with the foreign ministers of the ASEAN countries. In the last generation Pacific nations with almost no territory few natural resources have become dynamic centers of commerce with a remarkable annual growth rate. This energy is changing the economic center of gravity. The U.S. and Canada now exchange more goods with Asia than we do with Europe. Our trade enriches the quality of life on both sides of the Pacific. What's important both in my meetings in Indonesia with the Southeast Asian countries and in Tokyo with the greatest industrial nations the world has ever known is not just economics. It's the relationship between freedom and prosperity. Between democratic government and economic progress. And there are bonds between free people everywhere. There's been a long climb back from the dark days of the 70s when the Western democracies suffered economic and political reversals which sapped their confidence. The climate now is one of renewal, energy, even excitement. I think the democracies have gained in past years a new sense of purpose and direction and this in great measure the result of our willingness to affirm that freedom is both the right thing and the best thing. That freedom works and that it's on the march. And it's in that spirit that we look to this trip. And that's enough of monologue now. I think you're more interested in the dialogue. So fire away. Yes. Your letters have your thinking on salt too. Well this is in a kind of limbo. We're discussing with our friends on the hill now and I'm also going to be discussing this with a well as a matter of fact we have two ambassadors Nitzien Rowney that are journeying one to Asian one to Europe to discuss this with our allies. We want to consult with them on that that matter. So there isn't anything that I can tell you about this beyond the statement that I made some months ago which I still hold to and that is that if the decision is to continue trying to observe the restraints we shall do it in conformity with the extent to which the Soviet Union has observed those restraints. Mr. President there was a new speculation in this room today as to the possible reason for Soviet foot dragging on the next summit that is the powerful performance that you turned in in the last one. Do you subscribe to that theory that they're more or less afraid to meet you? That's not a precise quote. But I did say that you turned in a powerful performance at the last one. Well I am hoping that they're not going to turn away from that. I think that we have met them in the meeting that we did have with and expressed a form of realism that we don't go there with what I think has characterized some meetings in the past or have them here with the idea that oh we can just show them that we're nice people they'll become nice people too. I think we have to recognize they've got goals and they're set upon those goals and the gist of it has got to be that if we're to reduce the weaponry we're going to have to reduce the mistrust and there's only one way to do that. Deeds not words. They're going to have to take actions that reveal that that they honestly do seek peace instead of attempting to rearrange the world to meet their their ideas. Of course I must say I saw another side of him when he met Mr. Honaker in the pictures in the press about that. How satisfied are you now with the way the allies are coming along as to terrorism and what are your goals for the summit to get them to do more? Well I think we're going to have to have a very frank sharing of thoughts and a meeting of the minds there on this. I've been encouraged that in spite of the fact that I haven't come as far as we would like they now some of them are taking actions. One country has openly expressed the view that if they that country is attacked they're going to respond. Others are sending diplomatic Libyan diplomatic personnel home and reducing their their presence. We know that England is even expelling some students that they believe were acting in a way that violated their hospitality so I think that we can make some progress. We have made progress with regard to intelligence and the sharing of that and that's what's made it possible for us to abort a great many planned terrorist actions. 126 last year and it was one of the reasons well our action not only did we have the irrefutable evidence that they were responsible for the tragedy in Berlin but we had definite intelligence information on 35 additional targets principally aimed at Americans but scattered throughout a half a dozen to a dozen countries. This is hypothetical but if the Libyans did give the Soviets a naval base as they longed then after in the Mediterranean there on the Libyan coast would that affect your your feeling about dealing with the Libyan factor in the terrorist war? Well this is a what-if question and I never like to I never like to answer answer those. I have to question very much whether the Soviet Union is ready right now to have a base in Libya and that's right just maybe there a case of the smarts. Yeah on the economic side of the summit what do you hope will be the principal achievement you'll take away from Tokyo? Principal achievement take away from Tokyo oh I tell you I couldn't speculate on one thing more than another we know that we're still discussing a further gat round we know we're going to be talking about more progress toward free and fair trade open markets on all sides and so forth and as I've already expressed we're going to try to arrive at a better meeting in the minds on this what is a worldwide problem of terrorism so and I have to say this I'm optimistic about this every this as I said is the sixth one that I will have been going to but looking back on history and what we've seen in the past among nations supposed to be friendly and all we have established a bond between these seven governments and thus these seven nations that is something I believe better than when the world is known for a long time and I think just the very fact of of maintaining that of talking to each other instead of about each other is is worth the trip but we'll also try to make some real concrete gains yeah you were pretty critical of president Ford some years ago when he would not see Alexander Solzhenitsyn yet Andre Sakharov's wife is here eager to get to see you and is unable to do so how come well I think there's a sizable difference between the two Solzhenitsyn was an exile and there was no nothing political involved in seeing him he had been thrown out of his own country but miss Sakharov left for the health reasons we all know but left the Soviet Union with an agreement that she would not get with the press or make statements and so forth we're very interested in doing all we can to get her husband out of the Soviet Union as well as thousands of other people and I believe the best way to do that is not on the front pages or by demands that put another political figure in a corner in which he can't get out of the corner without appearing to be kowtowing to a foreign government in this case our own and I believe that quiet diplomacy is the best way to succeed in in getting this human right observed the right of dissidents to leave the country and I felt that first of all I didn't know that she was meeting with others in the White House at the time it happened but I I had to I would have felt if I had that this could have put a strain on what we're trying to accomplish I think it would be counterproductive and yet I'm in complete sympathy with what she's trying to do and with her husband's desire to leave that country back on the terrorism question Mr. President will you ask the allies that you mean was in Tokyo for specific commitments in dealing with terrorist incidents for joint action or for more cooperative action that we had last time from the French for example Jack I think that's good I have to come out of the conversation I'll tell them what I think and what we know that and the all the information that we have and hear their their concerns and what it is that's holding them back and then we'll find out how we can within the framework of our alliance to come together on plans of action the Libyan Foreign Minister today at a news conference predicted that there would be a number of major terrorist incidents in Western Europe in the next few hours I think is what he said and he blamed the United States and Israel it sounds a little bit like the Libyans having set something in motion some weeks ago are now trying to disassociate themselves from something they can't control anymore if there are such incidents what will the American response to well again that's something I don't think I should I should answer but we will be watching them and as I say we we have the intelligence on 35 things that they planned as a matter of fact planned even before the Gulf of Sidra naval exercise so for them now to take advantage of speculation that's been going on publicly that what we did might lead to more terrorism I think that's what they would be trying to do that these are acts that they've they've planned and they intended to do and now they'd like to to blame us for it and hope they could get some sympathy among other countries that we had brought this about they had every intention of doing these things and have had that intention for a long time Mr. President last week Secretary Weinberg and Secretary Schultz said the United States had evidence that there was dissension within the Libyan army armed forces that there was battling going on and so forth possibilities of a coup against Gaddafi a week later now what information do you have on that what is the outlook on that well I don't know that we have any information later that would lead us to think that this conflict going on we do know from members of your own profession who were there and eyewitnesses that after our attack there was shooting in the streets and there were eyewitness accounts of seeing this firing and so forth so evidently there was an anti-castro anti-castro anti Gaddafi well I could see where you get confused between the two an anti Gaddafi feeling that that led to conflict apparently that has been put down and there aren't any signs that we have of of further actual combat going on appears as of now to be in firm control at home of as far as we can tell there's we don't have any knowledge of hostilities going on or civil war of anything of that nature but Mr. President in dealing recently with Libya and in earlier instances when you've considered the use of military force have you felt in any way constrained in what you might do by the war powers act no I think that what we've done and there are some that are critical of it to some members of the Congress but we with the idea the security of our own personnel and the necessity of not revealing our plans and with the knowledge that the building leaks like a sieve we think that we've concerned we've gone to them at before the attack takes place and I feel that that what I'm doing is within the constitutional prerogatives of the president to do you had to change anything you might do because of that no no another question about constraints if Libya has been planning all these attacks against Americans and if Libya is a one industry country why is it that you chose to attack no economic targets and it's not going to be your policy and future this was very much considered by us and I don't say that we forever after ruled it out but our thought was that we wanted the specific targets that could be associated with the violent kind of action that had been taken against us and the other that can you attack the economic targets without in a sense attacking the people of Libya and we feel that since this man and his coup some years ago and taking over there's every evidence that there is a pretty sizable segment of Libyan society that does not approve of him and would rather have him gone and therefore we thought it'd be counterproductive to be hitting the targets that would bring down hardship on on the people of Libya I don't think we asked for any such thing we just simply let them know at the very last minute that what we were doing and did that in the spirit of Geneva but no we never we never sought their approval and we wouldn't have gotten it apparently by their comments since the exclusive target of American military response to terrorism or would you employ similar means that evidence would link obviously Syria or Iran those I think states supported terrorism we must have the same policy the difference is that in this case it's much more difficult to trace to the source terrorism sponsored by others than it is with Libya because he's just as I say we have the plans we know also that he has apparently been supporting with financial aid and other services terrorist gangs that aren't Libyan at all some of those they're indigenous to the European countries that the bait of minehawk and gangs of that kind in other words anybody that's out to but take a crack at us or even their host nations he's willing to support but yes if we if there's evidence and we can directly that we can have the year in irrefutable evidence that we've had with him why yes I think we should do that state-supported terrorism is a form of warfare and you just can't sit by and let somebody else declare war on you and pretend that you're still at peace you mean Damascus and Tehran perhaps if that evidence came to us if yes if we had that kind of evidence may I just in closing I know that you've taken your questions but let me give you an example of why there should be more of an alignment of all of us on this I don't think it's revealing any secrets to say now that we had definite information about a planned action in France and France as you know immediately and before our attack sent some Libyan diplomats home this attack the arms had been distributed grenades and small arms this was to be an attack on the people lined up to get visas from the American Embassy so the only extent to which we were the target was the fact that it was our embassy but Americans don't have to get visas to come back here so this would have been the people that would have been mowed down they line up there in the street they're a target would have had to be of people of other countries probably the bulk of them French but that we're waiting to get a visa and that was the nature of the attack and again it was a result of our combined intelligence with ourselves and in this case the French that we were able to abort that particular mission all right