FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
Statement by Senior Advisor Brian Deese on China’s Submission of its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
The United States welcomes China's submission of its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) earlier today. The INDC submission follows from the target that China announced in the November 2014 Joint Announcement by President Obama and President Xi and helps to provide continued momentum toward reaching a successful climate agreement in Paris. Countries accounting for nearly 70 percent of current global energy carbon-dioxide emissions have already announced and are taking action on post-2020 climate policies. The United States encourages all major economies to submit their INDCs as soon as possible to lay the groundwork for a successful outcome at the twenty-first session of the Conference of Parties in Paris at the end of this year.
Showing posts with label CHINA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CHINA. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Thursday, June 25, 2015
DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY WORK'S SPEECH ON THE CHINA AEROSPACE CHALLENGE
Right: Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work gives the keynote address during the inaugural China Aerospace Studies Institute conference in Arlington, Va., June 22, 2015. The Air Force and the Rand Corp. co-sponsored the event, which focused on assessing Chinese aerospace training and operational competence. DoD photo by Army Sgt. 1st Class Clydell Kinchen.
Work: Institute to Help U.S. Meet China Aerospace Challenge
By Cheryl Pellerin
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, June 23, 2015 – Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work delivered the keynote speech yesterday in Arlington, Virginia, at an inaugural conference of the China Aerospace Studies Institute, or CASI, newly established by the Air Force and RAND Corp.
The institute’s focus is on China, which Work called a rising power that’s experiencing a growing economy and increased military technical capabilities.
“I hope that CASI, along with many organizations like it, are going to help us maintain an unfair competitive aerospace advantage far into the future,” Work said, “because that is the surest means to underwrite conventional deterrence, contribute to crisis stability and safeguard our nation's interests.”
The conference focused on a move by China to do more realistic training across the board under what they call actual combat or wartime conditions, the deputy secretary said, and improve their readiness.
Serious Challenge
“CASI needs to help us think on how we respond to this challenge. It's a serious one and one that we have to take seriously,” he said.
Work said the institute supports President Barack Obama's rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region and the Defense Department’s Defense Innovation Initiative, both of which are top priorities for Defense Secretary Ash Carter and himself.
“More generally,” Work noted, “it's an exemplar of what we need to do to prepare for the future.”
The United States will maintain enormous absolute power as far into the future as anyone can see, Work said, but its relative power will decline in an increasingly technological world and one in which U.S. leadership will be increasingly challenged.
Great Powers
The most significant challenge to U.S. global leadership and the one in Work’s view that promises to be the most difficult to manage is the possible reemergence of great-power competitions.
A great power, as defined by international relations theorist John Mearsheimer, “is a state having sufficient military assets to put up a serious fight in a conventional war against the most powerful state in the world, and that possesses a nuclear deterrent that can survive a nuclear strike against it,” Work paraphrased.
If China is not a great power now it has the potential to be, he said, “and under any circumstances they are going to provide us with an enduring and very difficult military challenge, which will stress us.”
China will present a more significant and perhaps enduring strategic challenge to the United States over the next 25 years if not beyond, the deputy secretary said, one that DoD must be particularly focused on.
Competitive Relationship
“This does not mean to suggest I think that we are doomed to have an overtly hostile relationship,” Work said.
The future U.S.-China relationship will have elements of cooperation and competition and not open hostility, he said, and DoD continues to pursue military-to-military cooperation and confidence-building measures with China.
But DoD can’t overlook the competitive aspects of the relationship with China, Work said.
“Since the end of World War II we have relied upon our technological superiority. Why? To provide a conventional overmatch to overcome an adversary's advantages in time, space and size of forces, because generally we are moving across oceans to meet them,” he said.
Margin of Superiority
Today the U.S. margin of technological military superiority is steadily eroding and China and Russia are pursuing levels of advanced weapons development that haven’t been seen, Work said, since the mid-1980s, near the peak of the Soviet Union’s surge in Cold War defense spending.
For the United States, he said, part of the solution is a long-range research and development planning program, or LRRDPP, under the direction of Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
The program aims to identify promising technologies that can be moved into development within the next five years, and long-range science and technology investments that can be made now for big payoffs in 10 to 20 years, the deputy secretary said.
“The initial results of these efforts … are going to be reported to [Carter] next month and they will be used to provide me and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff strategic guidance on how to approach the strategic portfolio in fiscal year 2017 budget preparation and submission,” Work explained.
Strategic Capabilities
Another shorter-term part of the solution is the Strategic Capabilities Office, or SCO, established by Carter to look at weapons and systems and platforms in production, in the field or programmed now, and use them in a different way than intended to offer an unexpected operational or tactical advantage, the deputy secretary said.
Work said the department is exploring new combinations of technologies, operational concepts and organizational constructs that will help maintain its ability to project combat power into a theater in a place and during a time of its own choosing, especially aerospace power.
“Aerospace power has always been and will always be fundamental to our ability to project power across transoceanic distances, to conduct theater entry operations, and to mount joint combined-arms operations,” Work said.
“And because of its rapid global mobility, air power will likely be the first on the scene in any unexpected crisis in the future,” he added.
Air-Land Battle 2.0
China is mounting a serious aerospace challenge against the United States and is intent on closing the gap between its aerospace forces and those of the United States, Work said.
China also is developing stealth aircraft, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and battle-management platforms, advanced air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, and top-of-the-line electronic warfare equipment, he said.
“In other words,” Work said, “we have to think about the nature and character of air-land battle 2.0 -- another area where CASI, I believe, will be central to our thinking.”
Monday, June 15, 2015
SARAH SEWALL'S REMARKS AT 'LOCKDOWN IN TIBET' EVENT
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Remarks Delivered at the "Lockdown in Tibet" Event
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
International Campaign for Tibet
Geneva, Switzerland
June 15, 2015
(As Prepared for Delivery)
Introduction
Thank you Ambassador Harper for that kind introduction. We wish you and your colleagues a productive 28th session of the Human Rights Council. And thank you to the Helsinki Foundation for arranging this event. I am very pleased to be here.
At the U.S. Department of State, I serve as the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights. I was also designated by Secretary Kerry as the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, a position created within the State Department in 1997.
We believe that the Tibetan people, like people all around the world, should be able to enjoy their fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The State Department’s country reports on human rights noted that China “engaged in the severe repression of Tibet’s religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage by, among other means, strictly curtailing the civil rights of China’s ethnic Tibetan population, including the freedoms of speech, religion, association, assembly, and movement.” So there is no more fitting place to discuss the barriers and challenges that Tibetans face than here in Geneva on the margins of the Human Rights Council.
The problem of Tibet is, of course, also a problem for China. For the United States, just as for many countries represented here today, China is a vital strategic partner, and we welcome its participation and leadership in the web of international norms, laws and practices that have helped preserve global stability since the end of World War II. As we look at the past 70 years, one of the key long term lessons is the cost and fragility of the repressive state. Thus, as we look for China to play a growing role in the international community, we also look for it to abide by its international commitments with respect to the human rights of people in Tibet.
Human Rights Council and Tibet
Over the years, this Council has been a key advocate for Tibetan human rights by maintaining attention on this issue through its sessions, the work of its Special Rapporteurs, and the Universal Periodic Review process.
In recent sessions, many countries – including Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – have argued that China must make more progress in upholding its international obligations to protect Tibetans’ fundamental human rights.
In 2013, nine states made Tibet-specific recommendations to China in its UPR process. They called for China to improve religious freedom, minority rights, and access for UN officials to Tibet. The Chinese government, however, accepted only one of the twelve recommendations.
Human rights Situation
The United States has consistently urged the Chinese government to uphold its international commitments to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, specifically by ending the harassment, detention, and other mistreatment of individuals who seek to peacefully practice their religion, express their views or seek legal redress. We call on Chinese authorities to release Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and other prisoners of conscience, and to allow Dhondup Wangchen to be reunited with his family.
Many other states, like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden have also worked to maintain attention on human rights challenges in Tibet with their own annual reports on human rights. We applaud these efforts and encourage other countries to do the same.
Unfortunately, China’s response has been to tighten already strict controls on Tibetans’ freedom of religion, expression, assembly, association, and movement. Chinese authorities have also taken actions to denigrate His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
This is unfortunate and counterproductive. I have met with the Dalai Lama on three occasions, including at his residence in Dharamsala in a visit last year. I have seen that the spiritual connection between the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhists is beyond measure. His views are widely reflected within Tibetan society, and we believe he can be a constructive partner for China in addressing continuing tensions in Tibetan areas.
Access to Tibet
The Tibetan Plateau’s stunning beauty and unique culture are world treasures that all should be able to enjoy. During his visit to Tibet last month, U.S. Ambassador to China Max Baucus said he looked forward to cooperation on clean energy development, the environment, and wetlands. We welcome China’s promise to promote foreign tourism in Tibet. While investments in infrastructure have removed the geographical barriers to access to the Tibetan plateau, significant other obstacles remain.
Every single foreigner who wishes to visit the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) must first obtain a special entry permit from the Chinese authorities. This is not required for travel to any other provincial-level entity in China.
Diplomats and journalists also face regular challenges in visiting Tibet. Reciprocity is a cornerstone of diplomatic relations. However, while Chinese diplomats and journalists travel freely throughout the United States, our diplomats and journalists are not afforded the same access to Tibet. Over the last four years, 35 of 39 requests made by our Embassy or Consulates to visit the TAR were denied.
The restrictions on access frustrate our ability to provide services to American citizens. In October 2013, the Chinese government delayed consular access to the TAR for over 48 hours during an emergency situation involving a bus accident. The bus crash resulted in the deaths of three U.S. citizens and injuries of several others. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 1981 U.S.-China Bilateral Consular Convention, China is obligated to allow expedient consular access. We urge China to fulfil its obligations.
The Foreign Correspondents Club of China, which represents journalists from some 40 nations, has reported that Tibetan areas in China are effectively off-limits to foreign reporters. We have expressed our deep concern that foreign and domestic journalists in China continue to face restrictions that impede their ability to do their jobs, including delays in visa processing. We urge China to commit to a timely, predictable visa issuance and credentialing process for foreign journalists, unblock U.S. media websites, and eliminate restrictions on journalists in Tibet and other areas.
While we are pleased that Ambassador Baucus was allowed to visit Lhasa last month, our concerns about restricted access remain and we continue to push for greater diplomatic access to Tibet.. We are not alone in our frustration and know that other countries have encountered similar obstacles. I encourage you to share those here today.
Navi Pillay, the then-High Commissioner on Human Rights, noted in 2012 that there were 12 outstanding requests for official visits to China by Special Rapporteurs. To my knowledge, none has yet been granted. In the UPR process, China agreed to a visit by the High Commissioner. High Commissioner Zeid seeks to visit to Tibet as part of his promised visit to China. We urge China to allow the High Commissioner to visit Tibet and to reconsider its opposition to upholding the Vienna Convention on consular access.
Religious Freedom
In encouraging tourism to enjoy Tibet’s extraordinary heritage, China should acknowledge that this heritage is inextricably linked with the free and authentic practice of Tibetan Buddhism. Yet in recent years, China has taken an increasingly assertive and controlling role in the Tibetan people’s cultural and religious affairs.
In March 2015, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief Heiner Bielefeldt criticized China's efforts to control the reincarnation of Tibetan monks, arguing that the Chinese government was “destroying the autonomy of religious communities, poisoning the relationship between different sub-groups, creating schisms, pitching off people against each other in order to exercise control."
This analysis was echoed by the State Department's own reports on International Religious Freedom, which note China's growing interference in the centuries-old system of recognizing reincarnate Tibetan Buddhist lamas. In a very notable case, soon after the Dalai Lama recognized the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedun Choekyi Nyima, he was disappeared. The Chinese government has since banned images of him and refuses to respond to inquiries about his whereabouts.
The current Dalai Lama has said that the question of whether there will be another Dalai Lama, and if so who it will be, should be resolved within the Tibetan Buddhist community according to their longstanding traditions. He said it would be inappropriate for the Chinese government to "meddle in the system of reincarnation and especially the reincarnations of the Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas." The basic and universally recognized right of religious freedom demands that any decision on the next Dalai Lama must be reserved to the current Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist leaders, and the Tibetan people.
Dialogue
In the absence of peaceful avenues for the exercise of basic rights, people despair. The US, EU and former High Commissioner Pillay, all have urged China to address the restrictions on rights and freedoms that have driven some 140 Tibetans to set themselves on fire in protest.
This tragedy underscores the need for the Chinese government to resume direct dialogue, without preconditions, with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. We are very concerned that it has been more than five years since the last round of dialogue. The situation on the ground, as others on this panel will discuss, continues to deteriorate.
When President Obama last invited the Dalai Lama to the White House in February 2014, he stressed the benefits of renewed dialogue and expressed support for the Dalai Lama's "Middle Way" approach. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly clarified that he does not seek independence, and instead wants China to help preserve Tibet's cultural heritage through genuine autonomy within the People’s Republic of China. We believe the Dalai Lama is sincere and can be a constructive partner for peace and stability. We urge China to seize this opportunity.
Conclusion
Like any people, Tibetans have an inalienable right to be stewards of their unique cultural, religious and linguistic heritage. They have a right to do so without interference, in peace and with dignity. I urge members of the Council to join the United States in encouraging the Chinese government to live up to its international obligations to respect Tibetans’ distinct culture, identity, and fundamental human rights, as well as respect international protocols on diplomatic relations and reciprocal access among states.
Thank you.
Remarks Delivered at the "Lockdown in Tibet" Event
Remarks
Sarah Sewall
Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights
International Campaign for Tibet
Geneva, Switzerland
June 15, 2015
(As Prepared for Delivery)
Introduction
Thank you Ambassador Harper for that kind introduction. We wish you and your colleagues a productive 28th session of the Human Rights Council. And thank you to the Helsinki Foundation for arranging this event. I am very pleased to be here.
At the U.S. Department of State, I serve as the Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights. I was also designated by Secretary Kerry as the Special Coordinator for Tibetan Issues, a position created within the State Department in 1997.
We believe that the Tibetan people, like people all around the world, should be able to enjoy their fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The State Department’s country reports on human rights noted that China “engaged in the severe repression of Tibet’s religious, cultural, and linguistic heritage by, among other means, strictly curtailing the civil rights of China’s ethnic Tibetan population, including the freedoms of speech, religion, association, assembly, and movement.” So there is no more fitting place to discuss the barriers and challenges that Tibetans face than here in Geneva on the margins of the Human Rights Council.
The problem of Tibet is, of course, also a problem for China. For the United States, just as for many countries represented here today, China is a vital strategic partner, and we welcome its participation and leadership in the web of international norms, laws and practices that have helped preserve global stability since the end of World War II. As we look at the past 70 years, one of the key long term lessons is the cost and fragility of the repressive state. Thus, as we look for China to play a growing role in the international community, we also look for it to abide by its international commitments with respect to the human rights of people in Tibet.
Human Rights Council and Tibet
Over the years, this Council has been a key advocate for Tibetan human rights by maintaining attention on this issue through its sessions, the work of its Special Rapporteurs, and the Universal Periodic Review process.
In recent sessions, many countries – including Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – have argued that China must make more progress in upholding its international obligations to protect Tibetans’ fundamental human rights.
In 2013, nine states made Tibet-specific recommendations to China in its UPR process. They called for China to improve religious freedom, minority rights, and access for UN officials to Tibet. The Chinese government, however, accepted only one of the twelve recommendations.
Human rights Situation
The United States has consistently urged the Chinese government to uphold its international commitments to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, specifically by ending the harassment, detention, and other mistreatment of individuals who seek to peacefully practice their religion, express their views or seek legal redress. We call on Chinese authorities to release Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and other prisoners of conscience, and to allow Dhondup Wangchen to be reunited with his family.
Many other states, like Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Sweden have also worked to maintain attention on human rights challenges in Tibet with their own annual reports on human rights. We applaud these efforts and encourage other countries to do the same.
Unfortunately, China’s response has been to tighten already strict controls on Tibetans’ freedom of religion, expression, assembly, association, and movement. Chinese authorities have also taken actions to denigrate His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
This is unfortunate and counterproductive. I have met with the Dalai Lama on three occasions, including at his residence in Dharamsala in a visit last year. I have seen that the spiritual connection between the Dalai Lama and Tibetan Buddhists is beyond measure. His views are widely reflected within Tibetan society, and we believe he can be a constructive partner for China in addressing continuing tensions in Tibetan areas.
Access to Tibet
The Tibetan Plateau’s stunning beauty and unique culture are world treasures that all should be able to enjoy. During his visit to Tibet last month, U.S. Ambassador to China Max Baucus said he looked forward to cooperation on clean energy development, the environment, and wetlands. We welcome China’s promise to promote foreign tourism in Tibet. While investments in infrastructure have removed the geographical barriers to access to the Tibetan plateau, significant other obstacles remain.
Every single foreigner who wishes to visit the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) must first obtain a special entry permit from the Chinese authorities. This is not required for travel to any other provincial-level entity in China.
Diplomats and journalists also face regular challenges in visiting Tibet. Reciprocity is a cornerstone of diplomatic relations. However, while Chinese diplomats and journalists travel freely throughout the United States, our diplomats and journalists are not afforded the same access to Tibet. Over the last four years, 35 of 39 requests made by our Embassy or Consulates to visit the TAR were denied.
The restrictions on access frustrate our ability to provide services to American citizens. In October 2013, the Chinese government delayed consular access to the TAR for over 48 hours during an emergency situation involving a bus accident. The bus crash resulted in the deaths of three U.S. citizens and injuries of several others. Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 1981 U.S.-China Bilateral Consular Convention, China is obligated to allow expedient consular access. We urge China to fulfil its obligations.
The Foreign Correspondents Club of China, which represents journalists from some 40 nations, has reported that Tibetan areas in China are effectively off-limits to foreign reporters. We have expressed our deep concern that foreign and domestic journalists in China continue to face restrictions that impede their ability to do their jobs, including delays in visa processing. We urge China to commit to a timely, predictable visa issuance and credentialing process for foreign journalists, unblock U.S. media websites, and eliminate restrictions on journalists in Tibet and other areas.
While we are pleased that Ambassador Baucus was allowed to visit Lhasa last month, our concerns about restricted access remain and we continue to push for greater diplomatic access to Tibet.. We are not alone in our frustration and know that other countries have encountered similar obstacles. I encourage you to share those here today.
Navi Pillay, the then-High Commissioner on Human Rights, noted in 2012 that there were 12 outstanding requests for official visits to China by Special Rapporteurs. To my knowledge, none has yet been granted. In the UPR process, China agreed to a visit by the High Commissioner. High Commissioner Zeid seeks to visit to Tibet as part of his promised visit to China. We urge China to allow the High Commissioner to visit Tibet and to reconsider its opposition to upholding the Vienna Convention on consular access.
Religious Freedom
In encouraging tourism to enjoy Tibet’s extraordinary heritage, China should acknowledge that this heritage is inextricably linked with the free and authentic practice of Tibetan Buddhism. Yet in recent years, China has taken an increasingly assertive and controlling role in the Tibetan people’s cultural and religious affairs.
In March 2015, the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief Heiner Bielefeldt criticized China's efforts to control the reincarnation of Tibetan monks, arguing that the Chinese government was “destroying the autonomy of religious communities, poisoning the relationship between different sub-groups, creating schisms, pitching off people against each other in order to exercise control."
This analysis was echoed by the State Department's own reports on International Religious Freedom, which note China's growing interference in the centuries-old system of recognizing reincarnate Tibetan Buddhist lamas. In a very notable case, soon after the Dalai Lama recognized the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedun Choekyi Nyima, he was disappeared. The Chinese government has since banned images of him and refuses to respond to inquiries about his whereabouts.
The current Dalai Lama has said that the question of whether there will be another Dalai Lama, and if so who it will be, should be resolved within the Tibetan Buddhist community according to their longstanding traditions. He said it would be inappropriate for the Chinese government to "meddle in the system of reincarnation and especially the reincarnations of the Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas." The basic and universally recognized right of religious freedom demands that any decision on the next Dalai Lama must be reserved to the current Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist leaders, and the Tibetan people.
Dialogue
In the absence of peaceful avenues for the exercise of basic rights, people despair. The US, EU and former High Commissioner Pillay, all have urged China to address the restrictions on rights and freedoms that have driven some 140 Tibetans to set themselves on fire in protest.
This tragedy underscores the need for the Chinese government to resume direct dialogue, without preconditions, with the Dalai Lama or his representatives. We are very concerned that it has been more than five years since the last round of dialogue. The situation on the ground, as others on this panel will discuss, continues to deteriorate.
When President Obama last invited the Dalai Lama to the White House in February 2014, he stressed the benefits of renewed dialogue and expressed support for the Dalai Lama's "Middle Way" approach. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly clarified that he does not seek independence, and instead wants China to help preserve Tibet's cultural heritage through genuine autonomy within the People’s Republic of China. We believe the Dalai Lama is sincere and can be a constructive partner for peace and stability. We urge China to seize this opportunity.
Conclusion
Like any people, Tibetans have an inalienable right to be stewards of their unique cultural, religious and linguistic heritage. They have a right to do so without interference, in peace and with dignity. I urge members of the Council to join the United States in encouraging the Chinese government to live up to its international obligations to respect Tibetans’ distinct culture, identity, and fundamental human rights, as well as respect international protocols on diplomatic relations and reciprocal access among states.
Thank you.
Friday, June 12, 2015
WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT ON NSA SUSAN RICE'S MEETING WITH CHINESE GENERAL FAN CHANGLONG
FROM: THE WHITE HOUSE
June 12, 2015
Statement by NSC Spokesperson Ned Price on National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice’s Meeting with General Fan Changlong
National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice met on June 12 with General Fan Changlong, Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission of China, at the White House. Ambassador Rice and General Fan agreed to strengthen coordination in developing a more sustained and productive military-to-military relationship. They reaffirmed their commitment to deepen cooperation in addressing regional and global challenges, including by increasing coordination in the areas of humanitarian assistance and disaster response. Ambassador Rice underscored the importance of strengthening risk reduction measures and narrowing areas of disagreement, including on maritime and cyber issues.
June 12, 2015
Statement by NSC Spokesperson Ned Price on National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice’s Meeting with General Fan Changlong
National Security Advisor Susan E. Rice met on June 12 with General Fan Changlong, Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission of China, at the White House. Ambassador Rice and General Fan agreed to strengthen coordination in developing a more sustained and productive military-to-military relationship. They reaffirmed their commitment to deepen cooperation in addressing regional and global challenges, including by increasing coordination in the areas of humanitarian assistance and disaster response. Ambassador Rice underscored the importance of strengthening risk reduction measures and narrowing areas of disagreement, including on maritime and cyber issues.
Friday, May 29, 2015
DEFENSE SECRETARY SAYS U.S. TO REMAIN PRINCIPAL SECURITY POWER IN PACIFIC
Defense Secretary Ash Carter addresses attendees at the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Pacific Fleet change-of-command ceremonies in Honolulu, May 27, 2015. Navy Adm. Harry B. Harris, who previously commanded U.S. Pacific Fleet, assumed command of Pacom from Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III. Carter’s stop in Hawaii is his first in a 10-day trip to advance the next phase of the Asia-Pacific rebalance. DoD photo.
Carter Urges Peaceful Resolution of South China Sea Disputes
By Terri Moon Cronk
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, May 27, 2015 – The United States will continue to remain the principal security power in the Pacific region for decades to come, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said in Hawaii today.
The secretary also urged countries to work toward a peaceful resolution to territorial disputes in the South China Sea region.
Change of Command
Carter made his remarks during change-of-command ceremonies at U.S. Pacific Command, the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and at the retirement of outgoing Pacom commander Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Honolulu.
Former U.S. Pacific Fleet commander Navy Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr. will take over as the Pacom commander from Locklear, while Navy Adm. Scott H. Swift, formerly assigned to the Pentagon as the Navy Staff director, will command Pacfleet.
“We come together at Pearl Harbor, 70 years after the end of World War II, to mark the change of command at Pacom, our oldest and largest combatant command,” Carter said. “Pacom’s leaders -- and all who serve under them -- are charged with protecting the nation while assuring the peace that’s been the hallmark of the Pacific region for many, many years.”
As Pacom’s commander, Locklear inspired and led DoD’s rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, said Carter, adding that the admiral commanded 350,000 military and civilian personnel, nearly 2,000 aircraft and 180 naval vessels to meet commitments made by President Barack Obama when he announced the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific.
Outgoing Commander’s Legacy
Locklear was a diplomat, strategist and leader who recognized the importance of people, Carter said. Locklear’s legacy will make the rebalance a reality, the secretary added.
“But along the way, he also taught so many of us, including me, about America’s enduring interests and commitments in the Asia-Pacific,” Carter said. “Sam has advised a generation of government and military leaders -- secretaries of defense, national security advisors, and the Joint Chiefs -- and we’re going to remember those lessons and build on his legacy as we enter the next phase of our rebalance.”
But as Locklear knows, Carter said, the region’s security is rooted in something deeper and more fundamental: a commitment to shared values and principles, such as a commitment to the rule of law, to resolving disputes through diplomacy instead of coercion, and maintaining freedom of navigation and overflight in the region.
“The United States, DoD, and Pacom have always stood up for those principles and we always will because they’ve assured the Asia-Pacific’s peace and prosperity for decades,” the secretary said.
South China Sea
Carter said he wants to be clear about the United States’ position on the South China Sea, where several Asia-Pacific countries, including China, have been engaged in territorial disputes.
“First, we want a peaceful resolution of all disputes and an immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation by any claimant,” the secretary said. “We also oppose any further militarization of disputed features.”
Carter added, “Second, and there should be no mistake: The United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows, as we do all around the world.”
And, “with its actions in the South China Sea, China is out of step with both international norms that underscore the Asia-Pacific’s security architecture, and the regional consensus in favor of noncoercive approaches to this and other long-standing disputes,” the secretary said.
China’s actions “are bringing countries in the region together in new ways,” Carter said. “And they’re increasing demand for American engagement in the Asia-Pacific. We’re going to meet it. We will remain the principal security power in the Asia-Pacific for decades to come.”
Saturday, May 16, 2015
SECRETARY KERRY'S PRESS AVAILABILITY WITH CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTER WANG YI
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Joint Press Availability With Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Beijing, China
May 16, 2015
MR LU: (Via interpreter) Friends from the press, good afternoon. Just now, the two foreign ministers have held their dialogues, and they are ready to meet with you and take up your questions. Now, I would like to give the floor to Foreign Minister Wang first.
FOREIGN MINISTER WANG: (Via interpreter) Friends from the press, good afternoon. Just now, I have held a constructive meeting with Secretary Kerry, where the two of us had candid and in-depth exchange of views on China-U.S. relationship and other issues of mutual interest, and we reached a lot of agreement.
Two years ago, when the two presidents met in the Sunnyland, they agreed to build a new model of major country relationship between China and the United States. Over the past two years, thanks to the concerted efforts of both sides – in particular, thanks to the personal commitment and promotion of the leaders of both countries – this new model of relationship has made much headway in terms of both conceptual development and of the actual practice. Last year, China-U.S. two-way trade reached 555.1 billion U.S. dollars, and the stock of our two-way investment exceeded 120 billion U.S. dollars. More than 4.3 million people traveled between the two countries last year. All these numbers have set record highs in history.
Our two countries have maintained frequent contacts at the top and all the other levels, and we have had productive cooperation in important fields ranging from economy, mil-to-mil exchanges, people-to-people exchanges, and also a contact between localities. The two sides have also carried out close communication and coordination on important international and regional issues.
In September this year, President Xi will be paying a state visit to the United States. The most important task for the meeting between Secretary Kerry and me today is to make preparations for the presidential visit and to compare notes with the other side. Just now, together with Secretary Kerry, we exchanged views concerning the arrangement of events, the agenda items, and the outcomes of this visit. Both of us are of the view that this visit by President Xi to the United States is the paramount priority for China-U.S. relationship this year, which will have far-reaching and major implications for China-U.S. relationship in the days ahead. The two sides will continue to work in close tandem with each other, make careful plans, accumulate outcomes, and build up the atmosphere to make sure that the visit is smooth-going and successful.
To achieve this, we have to work together to make sure that the seventh round of the China-U.S. S&ED – the Strategic and Economic Dialogue – and the sixth round of the High-Level People-to-People Consultation between China and the United States, to be held in the United States in the latter half of June this year, to be as productive as possible. We need to further deepen our economic and trade cooperation and speed up the BIT, the bilateral investment treaty negotiations. We hope the U.S. side will take concrete measures to ease civilian-use high-tech export control vis-a-vis China.
We need to continue to maintain the good momentum of the growth of our military-to-military relationship and follow through on the mechanism of notification of major military activities between the two sides, and reach an early agreement on military aircrafts covered by the code of safe conduct for maritime and air encounters.
We need to strengthen dialogue and cooperation in the legal and the law enforcement field, and try to make new progress in the pursuit of fugitives and the recovery of their criminal proceeds. We need to strengthen communication, coordination, and cooperation on international and regional issues, including the Iranian nuclear issue, the Korean nuclear issue, Afghanistan, and the prevention and control of the Ebola epidemic, so as to continue to add new strategic dimensions to this new model of relationship – major country relationship between China and the United States.
We need to strengthen communication on Asia Pacific affairs and jointly explore the prospect of harmonious coexistence and win-win cooperation between China and the United States in this region. We need to continue to strengthen our communication and coordination on climate change to jointly ensure the success of the upcoming climate conference in Paris later this year. Meanwhile, we need to also work together to advance our bilateral practical cooperation on climate change.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and the end of the World Anti-Fascist War. As allies and victory parties during the Second World War, China and the United States have common interests in upholding the outcomes of the victory of the Second World War and also upholding the existing international order with the United Nations at its center.
Both sides are of the view that we have far more common interests than differences between us, and dialogue and cooperation always represent the theme of our bilateral relationship. Both sides need to act in a spirit of mutual respect, seeking common ground while shelving differences, and address the differences and sensitive issues between us in a constructive manner. China also expounds its principled stance on such issues related to Taiwan and Tibet.
China-U.S. relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world, and our two countries jointly shoulder the responsibility and obligation to uphold both peace and promote world development. As long as both sides continue to act in the principle of non-confrontation, non-conflict, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation, and stay committed to the path of building a new model of relationship – major country relationship between China and the United States, we will be able to usher in a bright prospect for China-U.S. relationship and bring more benefits to the people in both countries and enduring peace and prosperity for the world.
MR. LU: (Via interpreter) Thank you, Minister Wang. Now Secretary Kerry, the floor is yours.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Minister Wang. I’m really delighted to be back in China and I thank you very much for your generous welcome today. You and your colleagues have gotten our trip off to a very constructive beginning and I appreciate the comments you made about the importance of dialogue and the importance of working through disagreements, and mostly building on the areas where we agree that great progress can be made.
As Foreign Minister Wang said, we’ve just had a very productive meeting, and one of the reasons that we’re late is that it took longer and we dug into a number of issues in depth, and we’ll continue in a few moments over lunch.
This is my fifth visit to China as Secretary of State, and the reason for that is simple. As I’ve said previously, before President Obama and I traveled to Beijing last fall, the relationship between the United States and China is certainly one of the most consequential, if not the most consequential relationship in the world. In recognition of that and America’s commitment to Asia, Under Secretary Sherman traveled here a few months ago. Deputy Secretary of State Blinken was here about a month ago. I am now here about a month before we have our economic and security dialogue to take place in Washington. And other high-level visits are continually taking place, including military-to-military as well as the Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson was here recently, and Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz was scheduled – had to delay, but will also be here soon.
And there are three key meetings that we are all working on together to prepare for in order to build success. One is the Security and Economic Dialogue that will take place in June in Washington. Two is the summit between President Xi and President Obama to take place in September. And three is the global meeting that we are working on together regarding climate change in Paris in December.
So thanks to focused diplomacy and the leadership that President Obama and President Xi have displayed, today our nations are collaborating to address not just bilateral and regional matters, but some of the most complex global challenges that the world has ever seen. That includes our work together on curbing the disease Ebola, it includes our work together regarding the DPRK – North Korea – and its nuclear program, and it also includes our work together with respect to the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Foreign Minister Wang and I have already spent time discussing some of that today, and I’m personally grateful for his personal commitment and hard work, the contributions they made – China made to Lausanne, to the discussions there and the negotiations, and now to the ongoing discussions. But from the moment those talks began, China has been playing an important key role as a P5 member. Our nations remain closely aligned in this effort. We are united along with the rest of our P5+1 and EU partners. We all understand that unity has been the key to getting where we are today, and it will be the key to completing a good deal and seeing it fully implemented.
We still have a long way to go. Many technical issues remain to be resolved. But we will continue to work hard as the June 30th deadline approaches. And we are all united and committed to do all we can to finalize an agreement that cuts off all of Iran’s pathways towards enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, and gives the international community confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.
On another nonproliferation challenge, we have consistently agreed in all of our meetings since I became Secretary of State and we have met that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs are a threat to regional stability, and we have consistently agreed to enhance cooperation to bring about North Korea’s denuclearization. As with Iran, Foreign Minister Wang and I have always agreed that a mix of negotiations and pressure are needed to address this challenge, and North Korea needs to live up to its international obligations and commitments. And it is obvious that North Korea needs to recognize that it will not succeed in developing its economy or breaking out of diplomatic isolation if it continues to reject denuclearization.
The United States and China are also cooperating more closely than ever to address climate change, one of the greatest threats facing our planet today. Last fall, our respective presidents came together to announce our countries’ greenhouse gas commitments, the reductions, and we continue to call on other nations around the world to set their own ambitious targets. And we agreed this morning that as we get closer to the UN Climate Conference in Paris later this year, the United States and China, the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters, will elevate our cooperation and coordination so that we can reach the kind of global agreement that we will need to ultimately address this threat.
We’re looking forward to building on our cooperation in other areas as well, including international development assistance and the fight against violent extremism. We welcome China’s increased engagement with Afghanistan and its support of an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process. Together, the United States and China are committed to supporting political cohesiveness and ensuring Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists.
And there are many other issues that we are working on together – trade, bilateral investment treaty, any number of different considerations on a global basis. But even as we work on these many, many issues, obviously, there are also areas where our nations have differences. And Foreign Minister Wang and I discussed those as well. We discussed our mutual interests and principles on how to handle maritime disputes in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. The United States has stated that we are concerned about the pace and scope of China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea. And I urged China, through Foreign Minister Wang, to take actions that will join with everybody in helping to reduce tensions and increase the prospect of a diplomatic solution. And I think we agree that the region needs smart diplomacy in order to conclude the ASEAN-China Code of Conduct and not outposts and military strips.
And I think one of the things that characterizes the strength of – or the growing strength of our relationship and the willingness to cooperate is the fact that on a maritime dispute or on other issues – cyber issues or human rights, other areas – where we may have differing opinions, we don’t simply agree to disagree and move on. Both of our nations recognize the importance of talking to each other candidly about those disagreements and trying to find a cooperative road ahead.
It’s only by talking through differences on a regular basis that you can actually work to narrow them over time. And that is the mark of an effective partnership. So I look forward to continuing my discussions with Foreign Minister Wang through the day, and also to the meetings that I’m going to have with State Councilor Yang Jiechi, with Premier Yi, with Vice Chairman Fan, and tomorrow with President Xi. These discussions will help us to build this cooperation and this relationship. And these conversations will set the stage for what we are confident will be a productive Strategic and Economic Dialogue in June, and certainly for President Xi’s trip to Washington this fall.
There is no question but that our nations share extraordinary opportunities that are looking at us as we build the history of this century. We have a lot to accomplish together in the coming years. As two of the world’s major powers and largest economies, we have a profound opportunity to set a constructive course on a wide range of issues that will affect everybody all across this planet. So the United States looks forward to continuing to build this relationship, to work with China, to build on our partnership of today, in order to create the most constructive future that we can, and not just for the people of our two countries but for millions of people around this planet who depend on great and powerful nations to help set high standards of behavior and of aspiration. Thank you.
MR LU: (Via interpreter) Well, thank you, Secretary Kerry. And now, Foreign Minister Wang and Secretary Kerry, though their time is very limited, they will be happy to take two questions from the floor. Firstly, I would like to ask one American journalist to ask one question to Secretary Kerry.
MS HARF: Great. The U.S. question is from David Brunnstrom of Reuters. The microphone is coming to you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I wonder if I could ask both sides about your different visions for Asia Pacific prosperity, namely the TPP and the AIIB, and what the prospects are of China joining the former and the United States the latter at some point in the future. And to follow on from that, one of the dangers in the future to bilateral cooperation and regional prosperity posed by tensions in the South China Sea, and particularly the possibility of U.S. patrols inside China’s 12-mile limit around the Spratly Islands.
And could I ask the Secretary to clarify, does the United States plan to carry out these patrols? And for the foreign minister to tell us how China would respond in the event of those patrols taking place?
I know this is a long question, but I wanted to also add on North Korea. I wondered if you could tell us if you share concerns about the latest missile test there and whether you see the prospects of a deal on Iran’s nuclear program opening the way for one on North Korea in the future. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me try to address all four questions – (laughter) – as quickly as I can.
With respect to the AIIB, there’s an enormous amount of misunderstanding, but let me try to be clear. There is a pressing need to enhance infrastructure investment throughout Asia as well as around the world. And the United States welcomes new multilateral institutions, including the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, provided that they share the international community’s strong commitment to high-quality standards, including genuine multilateral decision making, ever-improving lending requirements, and environmental and social safeguards. Those are the high standards that apply to global financial institutions.
And we will continue to engage directly with China and with other countries in order to provide suggestions as to how the AIIB can best adopt and implement these particular standards. But with that, we welcome the AIIB, and we encourage it to co-finance some projects with existing institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. And we are confident that under those circumstances, it can make an enormous difference, and we would strongly encourage it, as we talk today, to embrace a percentage of its allocation to – a significant percentage to clean energy, alternative energy, renewable energy, to sustainable environmental and other kinds of projects. And because of climate change in the United States, we are ending any funding – public money – that funds coal-fired power projects because of their impact on the climate. And we encourage China and other countries to do the same.
Now on the TPP, we welcome any country – we have a group of countries now come together to negotiate, but we welcome any country to come in to meet the standards of the TPP, and ultimately account for a standardization of the way in which people will approach trade, development, and investment. And I want to emphasize this – the TPP is not in opposition to anyone, any region, or anything. It is a proactive effort to raise the trade standards and transparency accountability of doing business on a global basis. It will set high standards on issues like labor, the environment, state-owned enterprises, intellectual property protection, in a part of the world where we believe those standards are still in flux and being determined. And this will help to create the rules of the road in a way where everybody benefits.
You may ask, “Why is that?” Because in today’s knowledge economy, in the knowledge economy of a global marketplace, stronger intellectual property rights protection actually encourages greater industrial production and it encourages foreign direct investment because it provides accountability for people’s investments. And what we have found in the United States, where today, we’re blessed to have unemployment below 5 percent, and where – around 5 percent, excuse me – and where we have enormous growth and innovation and entrepreneurial activity taking place, we believe that these standards encourage foreign direct investment in technology-intensive industries; it supports higher wages; and it fosters technology transfer and innovation.
Now I’ve taken a little longer than I wanted, but let me come very quickly to Korea and Iran. China is a vital partner in the Six-Party process with a very unique role to play because of its economic, diplomatic, and historical ties with North Korea. We share the common goal of peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula, and we agree on the need for denuclearization in a peaceful manner. President Xi and President Obama affirmed their fundamental agreement and commitment to the denuclearization of Korea – North Korea in their public comments at the bilateral summit last November. So we intend to remain deeply engaged with China, which has unique leverage, and we appreciate many of the steps China has taken already over the past two years to implement the UN Security Council sanctions. But we will continue to work to make it absolutely clear to the DPRK that their actions, their destabilizing behavior, is unacceptable against any international standard.
And I’m sure that Foreign Minister Wang would join me in expressing the hope that if we can get an agreement with Iran, that that – excuse me – that if we can get an agreement with Iran, that that agreement would indeed have some impact or have a positive influence in describing how you can come to the realization that your economy can do better, your country can do better, and you can enter into a good standing with the rest of the global community by recognizing that there is a verifiable, irreversible denuclearization for weaponization, even as you could have a peaceful nuclear power program. And hopefully, that could be a message, but whether or not DPRK is capable of internalizing that kind of message or not, that’s still to be proven.
QUESTION: Sorry, can I just follow up?
MS HARF: I think we’re a little tight on time, sorry.
SECRETARY KERRY: Four is enough. (Laughter.)
MR. LU: (Via interpreter) Now I would like to ask one Chinese journalist to ask one question to Foreign Minister Wang from CRI.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) From China Radio International. My question is: Recently, some American experts, scholars, and media are of the view that Chinese proposals, including the Asia security concept, the AIIB, setting up the Silk Road Fund and the maritime and land Silk Road initiative are all geared to challenge the position and role of the U.S. in the Asia Pacific region and squeeze the United States outside of Asia. How do you look at this issue?
SECRETARY KERRY: We look – is that for me?
FOREIGN MINISTER WANG: That question for me. Okay. (Via interpreter) Well, such notion does crop up frequently, but I have to say that the fact we are seeing is there are more and more interaction between China and the United States in Asia, and our cooperation is becoming increasingly more close. And the Asia Pacific region has become the priority place for China and the United States in their effort to put in place a new model of major country relationship. And I talked about a whole range of cooperation items with Secretary Kerry just now, and many of them are issues in Asia.
China is a member in Asia, and very naturally, we need to contribute our share to Asia’s peace and development. To achieve this, China has framed a series of important and positive proposals, including the Asia security concept and the land and maritime Silk Road initiatives and so on, which testify fully to China’s readiness to work with all countries for Asia’s peace and stability. These, of course, have been very widely, warmly received and supported by countries in Asia. Asia, of course, in the first place, is the Asia of the Asian people.
Meanwhile, we always believe that Asia should be an open and inclusive Asia, because only inclusiveness and openness could make sure that Asia would always keep abreast with the rest of the world for enduring peace – for enduring development and prosperity. Take the AIIB as an example. Right now, it has got 57 founding member countries, and among them, 23 are from regions outside of Asia. This shows fully that when we talk about openness and inclusiveness, we are not simply talking the talk; we are actually walking the walk.
The United States is an important country in the Asia Pacific region, and we welcome a positive and constructive role of the U.S. in Asia Pacific affairs. And we stand ready to strengthen communication and cooperation with the U.S. side on this. As globalization continues to grow, today’s world is a world of cooperation instead of confrontation. It is a world of win-win outcomes instead of a zero-sum game. President Xi has proposed to build a new model of international relationship with win-win cooperation at the center. And I believe China and the United States are fully capable of continuing to strengthen strategic communication at both the bilateral and at the international levels, and carry out useful cooperation in all regions in the world, including the Asia Pacific, so as to continue to make our due contribution to world peace and prosperity.
Just now, the Secretary talked about maritime issues. Though the journalist violated the rule that one question only, but I respect your right to ask questions, so I would like to add a couple of words on this. Firstly, I would like to re-emphasize or reaffirm here that the determination of the Chinese side to safeguard our own sovereignty and territorial integrity is as firm as a rock, and it is unshakable. It is the request from our people and their government, as well as a legitimate right of ours.
Meanwhile, it has always been our view that we need to find appropriate solutions to the issues we have through consultations and negotiations among the parties directly concerned with peaceful means, in particular with the diplomatic means, as mentioned by the Secretary just now, on the basis of respecting historical facts and international law. This is our set policy, and this position will remain unchanged in the future.
And another thing I would like to let you know is that as a signatory party to the UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China will of course honor our international obligations enshrined in this document. And on China’s development on some of the islands and reefs in Nansha, this is something that falls fully within the scope of China’s sovereignty. However, regarding the concerns from the parties on this matter, we hope to continue to have dialogues to better our mutual understanding. We are having such dialogues with the United States, and we are also continuing the talks with the ASEAN countries. And we will continue with this practice of conducting dialogues on this matter.
China and the United States do have differences on the South China Sea issue, but we also have a lot of agreement. For instance, we both hope to maintain peace and stability of the South China Sea, and we are both committed to the international freedom of navigation enshrined by international law. And we are both for settlement of the disputes through dialogues and consultation in a peaceful way. And as for the differences, our attitude is it is okay to have differences as long as we could avoid misunderstanding, and even more importantly, avoid miscalculation.
We welcome the positive remarks made by the Secretary on the AIIB. The AIIB is a multilateral institution, so naturally, its operation will be observing international rules. And the AIIB is also ready to carry out cooperation with other multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank. You also raised the question on the relationship between the AIIB and the TPP.
And I wish to tell you here on this is that the defining feature of the AIIB is its openness. And for TPP, we’ll hope, as the Secretary has said just now, will be an open institution so that it will dovetail with the existing multilateral trading regime for the promotion of free trade in the world.
You also asked questions on the Iranian and nuclear – Korean nuclear issues. Secretary Kerry has said a lot on them already. What I would like to add is that as members – permanent members of the UN Security Council and as key members of the nonproliferation regime, China and the United States have the responsibility to work together with the rest of the international community to uphold the sanctity of the international nonproliferation regime, and use diplomatic means to find appropriate solutions to those nuclear issues to achieve lasting peace and stability in the regions concerned. We stand ready to work together with all countries in the world on those issues. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: I just have one question for the foreign minister. I want to know if “Talk and talk and walk the walk” rhymes as well in Chinese. (Laughter.)
FOREIGN MINISTER WANG: (Laughter.)
MR LU: (Via interpreter) That’s the end of the press conference. Thank you for coming.
Joint Press Availability With Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
Remarks
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Beijing, China
May 16, 2015
MR LU: (Via interpreter) Friends from the press, good afternoon. Just now, the two foreign ministers have held their dialogues, and they are ready to meet with you and take up your questions. Now, I would like to give the floor to Foreign Minister Wang first.
FOREIGN MINISTER WANG: (Via interpreter) Friends from the press, good afternoon. Just now, I have held a constructive meeting with Secretary Kerry, where the two of us had candid and in-depth exchange of views on China-U.S. relationship and other issues of mutual interest, and we reached a lot of agreement.
Two years ago, when the two presidents met in the Sunnyland, they agreed to build a new model of major country relationship between China and the United States. Over the past two years, thanks to the concerted efforts of both sides – in particular, thanks to the personal commitment and promotion of the leaders of both countries – this new model of relationship has made much headway in terms of both conceptual development and of the actual practice. Last year, China-U.S. two-way trade reached 555.1 billion U.S. dollars, and the stock of our two-way investment exceeded 120 billion U.S. dollars. More than 4.3 million people traveled between the two countries last year. All these numbers have set record highs in history.
Our two countries have maintained frequent contacts at the top and all the other levels, and we have had productive cooperation in important fields ranging from economy, mil-to-mil exchanges, people-to-people exchanges, and also a contact between localities. The two sides have also carried out close communication and coordination on important international and regional issues.
In September this year, President Xi will be paying a state visit to the United States. The most important task for the meeting between Secretary Kerry and me today is to make preparations for the presidential visit and to compare notes with the other side. Just now, together with Secretary Kerry, we exchanged views concerning the arrangement of events, the agenda items, and the outcomes of this visit. Both of us are of the view that this visit by President Xi to the United States is the paramount priority for China-U.S. relationship this year, which will have far-reaching and major implications for China-U.S. relationship in the days ahead. The two sides will continue to work in close tandem with each other, make careful plans, accumulate outcomes, and build up the atmosphere to make sure that the visit is smooth-going and successful.
To achieve this, we have to work together to make sure that the seventh round of the China-U.S. S&ED – the Strategic and Economic Dialogue – and the sixth round of the High-Level People-to-People Consultation between China and the United States, to be held in the United States in the latter half of June this year, to be as productive as possible. We need to further deepen our economic and trade cooperation and speed up the BIT, the bilateral investment treaty negotiations. We hope the U.S. side will take concrete measures to ease civilian-use high-tech export control vis-a-vis China.
We need to continue to maintain the good momentum of the growth of our military-to-military relationship and follow through on the mechanism of notification of major military activities between the two sides, and reach an early agreement on military aircrafts covered by the code of safe conduct for maritime and air encounters.
We need to strengthen dialogue and cooperation in the legal and the law enforcement field, and try to make new progress in the pursuit of fugitives and the recovery of their criminal proceeds. We need to strengthen communication, coordination, and cooperation on international and regional issues, including the Iranian nuclear issue, the Korean nuclear issue, Afghanistan, and the prevention and control of the Ebola epidemic, so as to continue to add new strategic dimensions to this new model of relationship – major country relationship between China and the United States.
We need to strengthen communication on Asia Pacific affairs and jointly explore the prospect of harmonious coexistence and win-win cooperation between China and the United States in this region. We need to continue to strengthen our communication and coordination on climate change to jointly ensure the success of the upcoming climate conference in Paris later this year. Meanwhile, we need to also work together to advance our bilateral practical cooperation on climate change.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and the end of the World Anti-Fascist War. As allies and victory parties during the Second World War, China and the United States have common interests in upholding the outcomes of the victory of the Second World War and also upholding the existing international order with the United Nations at its center.
Both sides are of the view that we have far more common interests than differences between us, and dialogue and cooperation always represent the theme of our bilateral relationship. Both sides need to act in a spirit of mutual respect, seeking common ground while shelving differences, and address the differences and sensitive issues between us in a constructive manner. China also expounds its principled stance on such issues related to Taiwan and Tibet.
China-U.S. relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships in the world, and our two countries jointly shoulder the responsibility and obligation to uphold both peace and promote world development. As long as both sides continue to act in the principle of non-confrontation, non-conflict, mutual respect, and win-win cooperation, and stay committed to the path of building a new model of relationship – major country relationship between China and the United States, we will be able to usher in a bright prospect for China-U.S. relationship and bring more benefits to the people in both countries and enduring peace and prosperity for the world.
MR. LU: (Via interpreter) Thank you, Minister Wang. Now Secretary Kerry, the floor is yours.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, thank you very much, Minister Wang. I’m really delighted to be back in China and I thank you very much for your generous welcome today. You and your colleagues have gotten our trip off to a very constructive beginning and I appreciate the comments you made about the importance of dialogue and the importance of working through disagreements, and mostly building on the areas where we agree that great progress can be made.
As Foreign Minister Wang said, we’ve just had a very productive meeting, and one of the reasons that we’re late is that it took longer and we dug into a number of issues in depth, and we’ll continue in a few moments over lunch.
This is my fifth visit to China as Secretary of State, and the reason for that is simple. As I’ve said previously, before President Obama and I traveled to Beijing last fall, the relationship between the United States and China is certainly one of the most consequential, if not the most consequential relationship in the world. In recognition of that and America’s commitment to Asia, Under Secretary Sherman traveled here a few months ago. Deputy Secretary of State Blinken was here about a month ago. I am now here about a month before we have our economic and security dialogue to take place in Washington. And other high-level visits are continually taking place, including military-to-military as well as the Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson was here recently, and Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz was scheduled – had to delay, but will also be here soon.
And there are three key meetings that we are all working on together to prepare for in order to build success. One is the Security and Economic Dialogue that will take place in June in Washington. Two is the summit between President Xi and President Obama to take place in September. And three is the global meeting that we are working on together regarding climate change in Paris in December.
So thanks to focused diplomacy and the leadership that President Obama and President Xi have displayed, today our nations are collaborating to address not just bilateral and regional matters, but some of the most complex global challenges that the world has ever seen. That includes our work together on curbing the disease Ebola, it includes our work together regarding the DPRK – North Korea – and its nuclear program, and it also includes our work together with respect to the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Foreign Minister Wang and I have already spent time discussing some of that today, and I’m personally grateful for his personal commitment and hard work, the contributions they made – China made to Lausanne, to the discussions there and the negotiations, and now to the ongoing discussions. But from the moment those talks began, China has been playing an important key role as a P5 member. Our nations remain closely aligned in this effort. We are united along with the rest of our P5+1 and EU partners. We all understand that unity has been the key to getting where we are today, and it will be the key to completing a good deal and seeing it fully implemented.
We still have a long way to go. Many technical issues remain to be resolved. But we will continue to work hard as the June 30th deadline approaches. And we are all united and committed to do all we can to finalize an agreement that cuts off all of Iran’s pathways towards enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon, and gives the international community confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively peaceful.
On another nonproliferation challenge, we have consistently agreed in all of our meetings since I became Secretary of State and we have met that North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs are a threat to regional stability, and we have consistently agreed to enhance cooperation to bring about North Korea’s denuclearization. As with Iran, Foreign Minister Wang and I have always agreed that a mix of negotiations and pressure are needed to address this challenge, and North Korea needs to live up to its international obligations and commitments. And it is obvious that North Korea needs to recognize that it will not succeed in developing its economy or breaking out of diplomatic isolation if it continues to reject denuclearization.
The United States and China are also cooperating more closely than ever to address climate change, one of the greatest threats facing our planet today. Last fall, our respective presidents came together to announce our countries’ greenhouse gas commitments, the reductions, and we continue to call on other nations around the world to set their own ambitious targets. And we agreed this morning that as we get closer to the UN Climate Conference in Paris later this year, the United States and China, the world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters, will elevate our cooperation and coordination so that we can reach the kind of global agreement that we will need to ultimately address this threat.
We’re looking forward to building on our cooperation in other areas as well, including international development assistance and the fight against violent extremism. We welcome China’s increased engagement with Afghanistan and its support of an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process. Together, the United States and China are committed to supporting political cohesiveness and ensuring Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists.
And there are many other issues that we are working on together – trade, bilateral investment treaty, any number of different considerations on a global basis. But even as we work on these many, many issues, obviously, there are also areas where our nations have differences. And Foreign Minister Wang and I discussed those as well. We discussed our mutual interests and principles on how to handle maritime disputes in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. The United States has stated that we are concerned about the pace and scope of China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea. And I urged China, through Foreign Minister Wang, to take actions that will join with everybody in helping to reduce tensions and increase the prospect of a diplomatic solution. And I think we agree that the region needs smart diplomacy in order to conclude the ASEAN-China Code of Conduct and not outposts and military strips.
And I think one of the things that characterizes the strength of – or the growing strength of our relationship and the willingness to cooperate is the fact that on a maritime dispute or on other issues – cyber issues or human rights, other areas – where we may have differing opinions, we don’t simply agree to disagree and move on. Both of our nations recognize the importance of talking to each other candidly about those disagreements and trying to find a cooperative road ahead.
It’s only by talking through differences on a regular basis that you can actually work to narrow them over time. And that is the mark of an effective partnership. So I look forward to continuing my discussions with Foreign Minister Wang through the day, and also to the meetings that I’m going to have with State Councilor Yang Jiechi, with Premier Yi, with Vice Chairman Fan, and tomorrow with President Xi. These discussions will help us to build this cooperation and this relationship. And these conversations will set the stage for what we are confident will be a productive Strategic and Economic Dialogue in June, and certainly for President Xi’s trip to Washington this fall.
There is no question but that our nations share extraordinary opportunities that are looking at us as we build the history of this century. We have a lot to accomplish together in the coming years. As two of the world’s major powers and largest economies, we have a profound opportunity to set a constructive course on a wide range of issues that will affect everybody all across this planet. So the United States looks forward to continuing to build this relationship, to work with China, to build on our partnership of today, in order to create the most constructive future that we can, and not just for the people of our two countries but for millions of people around this planet who depend on great and powerful nations to help set high standards of behavior and of aspiration. Thank you.
MR LU: (Via interpreter) Well, thank you, Secretary Kerry. And now, Foreign Minister Wang and Secretary Kerry, though their time is very limited, they will be happy to take two questions from the floor. Firstly, I would like to ask one American journalist to ask one question to Secretary Kerry.
MS HARF: Great. The U.S. question is from David Brunnstrom of Reuters. The microphone is coming to you.
QUESTION: Thank you very much. I wonder if I could ask both sides about your different visions for Asia Pacific prosperity, namely the TPP and the AIIB, and what the prospects are of China joining the former and the United States the latter at some point in the future. And to follow on from that, one of the dangers in the future to bilateral cooperation and regional prosperity posed by tensions in the South China Sea, and particularly the possibility of U.S. patrols inside China’s 12-mile limit around the Spratly Islands.
And could I ask the Secretary to clarify, does the United States plan to carry out these patrols? And for the foreign minister to tell us how China would respond in the event of those patrols taking place?
I know this is a long question, but I wanted to also add on North Korea. I wondered if you could tell us if you share concerns about the latest missile test there and whether you see the prospects of a deal on Iran’s nuclear program opening the way for one on North Korea in the future. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me try to address all four questions – (laughter) – as quickly as I can.
With respect to the AIIB, there’s an enormous amount of misunderstanding, but let me try to be clear. There is a pressing need to enhance infrastructure investment throughout Asia as well as around the world. And the United States welcomes new multilateral institutions, including the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, provided that they share the international community’s strong commitment to high-quality standards, including genuine multilateral decision making, ever-improving lending requirements, and environmental and social safeguards. Those are the high standards that apply to global financial institutions.
And we will continue to engage directly with China and with other countries in order to provide suggestions as to how the AIIB can best adopt and implement these particular standards. But with that, we welcome the AIIB, and we encourage it to co-finance some projects with existing institutions like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. And we are confident that under those circumstances, it can make an enormous difference, and we would strongly encourage it, as we talk today, to embrace a percentage of its allocation to – a significant percentage to clean energy, alternative energy, renewable energy, to sustainable environmental and other kinds of projects. And because of climate change in the United States, we are ending any funding – public money – that funds coal-fired power projects because of their impact on the climate. And we encourage China and other countries to do the same.
Now on the TPP, we welcome any country – we have a group of countries now come together to negotiate, but we welcome any country to come in to meet the standards of the TPP, and ultimately account for a standardization of the way in which people will approach trade, development, and investment. And I want to emphasize this – the TPP is not in opposition to anyone, any region, or anything. It is a proactive effort to raise the trade standards and transparency accountability of doing business on a global basis. It will set high standards on issues like labor, the environment, state-owned enterprises, intellectual property protection, in a part of the world where we believe those standards are still in flux and being determined. And this will help to create the rules of the road in a way where everybody benefits.
You may ask, “Why is that?” Because in today’s knowledge economy, in the knowledge economy of a global marketplace, stronger intellectual property rights protection actually encourages greater industrial production and it encourages foreign direct investment because it provides accountability for people’s investments. And what we have found in the United States, where today, we’re blessed to have unemployment below 5 percent, and where – around 5 percent, excuse me – and where we have enormous growth and innovation and entrepreneurial activity taking place, we believe that these standards encourage foreign direct investment in technology-intensive industries; it supports higher wages; and it fosters technology transfer and innovation.
Now I’ve taken a little longer than I wanted, but let me come very quickly to Korea and Iran. China is a vital partner in the Six-Party process with a very unique role to play because of its economic, diplomatic, and historical ties with North Korea. We share the common goal of peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula, and we agree on the need for denuclearization in a peaceful manner. President Xi and President Obama affirmed their fundamental agreement and commitment to the denuclearization of Korea – North Korea in their public comments at the bilateral summit last November. So we intend to remain deeply engaged with China, which has unique leverage, and we appreciate many of the steps China has taken already over the past two years to implement the UN Security Council sanctions. But we will continue to work to make it absolutely clear to the DPRK that their actions, their destabilizing behavior, is unacceptable against any international standard.
And I’m sure that Foreign Minister Wang would join me in expressing the hope that if we can get an agreement with Iran, that that – excuse me – that if we can get an agreement with Iran, that that agreement would indeed have some impact or have a positive influence in describing how you can come to the realization that your economy can do better, your country can do better, and you can enter into a good standing with the rest of the global community by recognizing that there is a verifiable, irreversible denuclearization for weaponization, even as you could have a peaceful nuclear power program. And hopefully, that could be a message, but whether or not DPRK is capable of internalizing that kind of message or not, that’s still to be proven.
QUESTION: Sorry, can I just follow up?
MS HARF: I think we’re a little tight on time, sorry.
SECRETARY KERRY: Four is enough. (Laughter.)
MR. LU: (Via interpreter) Now I would like to ask one Chinese journalist to ask one question to Foreign Minister Wang from CRI.
QUESTION: (Via interpreter) From China Radio International. My question is: Recently, some American experts, scholars, and media are of the view that Chinese proposals, including the Asia security concept, the AIIB, setting up the Silk Road Fund and the maritime and land Silk Road initiative are all geared to challenge the position and role of the U.S. in the Asia Pacific region and squeeze the United States outside of Asia. How do you look at this issue?
SECRETARY KERRY: We look – is that for me?
FOREIGN MINISTER WANG: That question for me. Okay. (Via interpreter) Well, such notion does crop up frequently, but I have to say that the fact we are seeing is there are more and more interaction between China and the United States in Asia, and our cooperation is becoming increasingly more close. And the Asia Pacific region has become the priority place for China and the United States in their effort to put in place a new model of major country relationship. And I talked about a whole range of cooperation items with Secretary Kerry just now, and many of them are issues in Asia.
China is a member in Asia, and very naturally, we need to contribute our share to Asia’s peace and development. To achieve this, China has framed a series of important and positive proposals, including the Asia security concept and the land and maritime Silk Road initiatives and so on, which testify fully to China’s readiness to work with all countries for Asia’s peace and stability. These, of course, have been very widely, warmly received and supported by countries in Asia. Asia, of course, in the first place, is the Asia of the Asian people.
Meanwhile, we always believe that Asia should be an open and inclusive Asia, because only inclusiveness and openness could make sure that Asia would always keep abreast with the rest of the world for enduring peace – for enduring development and prosperity. Take the AIIB as an example. Right now, it has got 57 founding member countries, and among them, 23 are from regions outside of Asia. This shows fully that when we talk about openness and inclusiveness, we are not simply talking the talk; we are actually walking the walk.
The United States is an important country in the Asia Pacific region, and we welcome a positive and constructive role of the U.S. in Asia Pacific affairs. And we stand ready to strengthen communication and cooperation with the U.S. side on this. As globalization continues to grow, today’s world is a world of cooperation instead of confrontation. It is a world of win-win outcomes instead of a zero-sum game. President Xi has proposed to build a new model of international relationship with win-win cooperation at the center. And I believe China and the United States are fully capable of continuing to strengthen strategic communication at both the bilateral and at the international levels, and carry out useful cooperation in all regions in the world, including the Asia Pacific, so as to continue to make our due contribution to world peace and prosperity.
Just now, the Secretary talked about maritime issues. Though the journalist violated the rule that one question only, but I respect your right to ask questions, so I would like to add a couple of words on this. Firstly, I would like to re-emphasize or reaffirm here that the determination of the Chinese side to safeguard our own sovereignty and territorial integrity is as firm as a rock, and it is unshakable. It is the request from our people and their government, as well as a legitimate right of ours.
Meanwhile, it has always been our view that we need to find appropriate solutions to the issues we have through consultations and negotiations among the parties directly concerned with peaceful means, in particular with the diplomatic means, as mentioned by the Secretary just now, on the basis of respecting historical facts and international law. This is our set policy, and this position will remain unchanged in the future.
And another thing I would like to let you know is that as a signatory party to the UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China will of course honor our international obligations enshrined in this document. And on China’s development on some of the islands and reefs in Nansha, this is something that falls fully within the scope of China’s sovereignty. However, regarding the concerns from the parties on this matter, we hope to continue to have dialogues to better our mutual understanding. We are having such dialogues with the United States, and we are also continuing the talks with the ASEAN countries. And we will continue with this practice of conducting dialogues on this matter.
China and the United States do have differences on the South China Sea issue, but we also have a lot of agreement. For instance, we both hope to maintain peace and stability of the South China Sea, and we are both committed to the international freedom of navigation enshrined by international law. And we are both for settlement of the disputes through dialogues and consultation in a peaceful way. And as for the differences, our attitude is it is okay to have differences as long as we could avoid misunderstanding, and even more importantly, avoid miscalculation.
We welcome the positive remarks made by the Secretary on the AIIB. The AIIB is a multilateral institution, so naturally, its operation will be observing international rules. And the AIIB is also ready to carry out cooperation with other multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and the Asia Development Bank. You also raised the question on the relationship between the AIIB and the TPP.
And I wish to tell you here on this is that the defining feature of the AIIB is its openness. And for TPP, we’ll hope, as the Secretary has said just now, will be an open institution so that it will dovetail with the existing multilateral trading regime for the promotion of free trade in the world.
You also asked questions on the Iranian and nuclear – Korean nuclear issues. Secretary Kerry has said a lot on them already. What I would like to add is that as members – permanent members of the UN Security Council and as key members of the nonproliferation regime, China and the United States have the responsibility to work together with the rest of the international community to uphold the sanctity of the international nonproliferation regime, and use diplomatic means to find appropriate solutions to those nuclear issues to achieve lasting peace and stability in the regions concerned. We stand ready to work together with all countries in the world on those issues. Thank you.
SECRETARY KERRY: I just have one question for the foreign minister. I want to know if “Talk and talk and walk the walk” rhymes as well in Chinese. (Laughter.)
FOREIGN MINISTER WANG: (Laughter.)
MR LU: (Via interpreter) That’s the end of the press conference. Thank you for coming.
Friday, April 17, 2015
FACING CHALLENGES: THE U.S. DOD SHIFT TO ASIA-PACIFIC
Right: Defense Secretary Ash Carter speaks with Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III at U.S. Pacific Command headquarters at Camp Smith, Hawaii April 12, 2015. Three days later, Locklear joined other Defense Department leaders on Capitol Hill for a hearing on maintaining the U.S. military’s technological edge. DoD photo by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Sean Hurt.
Asia-Pacific Shift Creates Opportunities, Security Needs
By Cheryl Pellerin
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, April 15, 2015 – The Defense Department’s ongoing rebalance to the thriving Asia-Pacific region comes with many opportunities and a few pressing requirements: to upgrade security relationships, maintain specific military capabilities and redouble efforts to boost U.S. technological superiority, defense officials said today.
Christine Wormuth, undersecretary of defense for policy, testified before the House Armed Services Committee on implications for aspects of the department’s Asia-Pacific rebalance of losing military technological superiority.
Joining the undersecretary were Navy Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. Forces Korea.
The past seven years have been a time of tremendous change and opportunity for the Asia-Pacific region, Wormuth told the panel.
“As nations there rise and become more prosperous,” she said, “it's created a lot of opportunity at the same time that dynamism in the region has created a much more complex security environment in which we are now operating.”
Challenges in the Region
The department faces several challenges in the region, including those that come from China, she said.
“China's very rapid military modernization, its opaque defense budget, its actions in space and cyberspace and its behavior in places like the East and South China Seas,” she added, raise serious questions for the department.
China's expanding interests are a natural part of its rise, Wormuth said, but its behavior in the maritime domain, for example, has created friction for its neighbors.
“The government's efforts to incrementally advance its claims in the East and South China Seas and its extensive land reclamation activities, particularly the prospect of further militarizing those outposts, are very concerning to us,” she said.
China and North Korea
The United States and China are not allies, but they don’t have to be adversaries, Wormuth added, noting that the department is speaking with China about its concerning actions and about activities to improve understanding, especially through military-to-military engagement with the People’s Liberation Army.
Elsewhere in the region, she said, DoD’s greatest concern is North Korea's pursuit of ballistic missiles and its weapons of mass destruction program.
Other challenges in the region, Wormuth told the panel, “are magnified by a growing range of nontraditional threats, such as the increased flow of foreign fighters both to and from Asia, the trafficking of illegal goods and people, and devastating natural disasters such as the cyclone we saw last month in Vanuatu.”
DoD is focused on the rebalance along several lines of effort, Wormuth said.
Strengthening Security Relationships
These include strengthening security relationships with allies and partners, including Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines, and strengthening new relationships in South and Southeast Asia. These include Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam.
The department also is investing in its partnership with the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which leads an effort to build a more robust regional security architecture, the undersecretary said. The U.S-India relationship also is an important partnership, she added.
The department is updating its forward presence, putting more assets into the region and using its assets in new ways, Wormuth said.
“We've developed a more distributed model for our Marine Corps that is reducing our concentrated presence in Okinawa [by] relocating Marines to Australia, Guam, Hawaii and mainland Japan,” she added.
Sustaining the U.S. Technological Edge
The Navy is working on its rotational-presence concept, including being on track to have four littoral combat ships rotating through Singapore by 2017. Two ships are already there, the undersecretary said.
And the Army will initiate its first rotational deployment of a brigade combat team to the Korean Peninsula later this spring.
“We're making significant investments to sustain our American technological edge into the future in the air, land, sea and undersea domains,” Wormuth added, investing in precision munitions and working on new capabilities for operating freely in space and cyberspace.
In his remarks to the panel, Locklear said that the United States is a Pacific nation, but also an island nation.
“We rely very heavily on power projection, which means we have to be able to get the forces forward [and] sustain them forward,” he said.
U.S. forces “rely heavily on systems that several decades ago weren't even known about or thought about too much, and that exist now in the cyber world and in the space world,” Locklear said.
Dominant Military Power
Such systems also could reveal vulnerabilities that the department will have to pace with technological advancements, the admiral said.
“It's my assessment that we remain the most dominant military power in the world in all aspects,” Locklear said. “And I think that not a country in the world would disagree with that today, even though I think they would recognize that … the relative gap between how good we are versus how some of the other forces may be developing is shrinking.”
But Locklear said he believes the United States clearly has the best ships, the best submarines, the best aircraft carriers, “and the best people running them in the world.”
He added, “What’s important to me is making sure that the force we have, number one, is dominant … and it needs to be technologically superior across multiple domains.”
Relevant in All Domains
From space to cyber to air to integrated air and missile defense, to sea, maritime, subsurface maritime, the admiral said, there are technological challenges as all the militaries of the world get better in these domains. “We must continue apace to be relevant in the domains that allow us to project U.S. power in defense of U.S. interests,” he said.
In his remarks, Scaparrotti focused on the Korean Peninsula.
The North Koreans are developing asymmetric capabilities, he said, “and specifically orienting on what they consider to be some of our vulnerabilities, and through their development they are trying to close our dominance.”
Specific asymmetric capabilities that Scaparrotti said he thinks about most are North Korea’s ballistic missile capability and the continued ability to counter it, along with its intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
Maintaining Dominance
“Many of our adversaries are becoming more proficient in determining how to work inside our capabilities -- our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities -- and also how to use deception and other means in order to limit the advantage we have today,” the general said.
The Defense Department has to continue to develop its capabilities, to change its posture, its concepts and its employment to ensure that we maintain dominance, Scaparrotti added.
“My top concern is that we will have little to no warning of a North Korean asymmetric provocation, which could start a cycle of action and counteraction leading to unintended escalation,” Scaparrotti said.
This underscores the need for the alliance to maintain a high level of readiness and vigilance, he added, noting that last year the alliance took significant steps to improve its capabilities and capacities to deter aggression and reduce operational risk.
Steadfast Strategic Partner
“But our work is not done,” the general said. “In 2015, we will maintain this momentum by focusing on my top priority -- sustaining and strengthening the alliance -- with an emphasis on our combined readiness.”
Strengthening the alliance includes ensuring the rapid flow of ready forces into Korea in the early phases of hostilities, he said, and improving ISR capabilities and critical munitions.
Based on both nations’ national security strategies, Scaparrotti said, the United States will continue to be a steadfast strategic partner to South Korea, “and South Korea is poised to be a long-lasting and important ally to America.”
DEPUTY DEFENSE SECRETARY WORK SPEAKS ABOUT SPACE DOMAIN
Air Force Gen. John E. Hyten, commander of Air Force Space Command, right, and Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James, center, greet Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work as he arrives at the Scitor Complex to attend and speak at the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colo., April 15, 2015. DoD photo by U.S. Air Force Master Sgt. Adrian Cadiz.
Work: Space Domain Presents Challenges, Threats
By Jim Garamone
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
ABOARD A U.S. MILITARY AIRCRAFT, April 16, 2015 – In a candid and passionate speech, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work yesterday asked members of the space community to help the United States maintain its edge in the space domain in the 21st century.
Work spoke to more than 200 people from industry and government at the annual Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
The space domain is an increasingly important area for the U.S. military, the U.S. government and the American people, the deputy secretary said.
‘Space Architecture Faces Increasing Risks’
“Space architecture faces increasing threats and together we must think about those challenges,” Work said in his speech.
The world is seeing a reemergence of strategic competition, which was dormant since the end of the Cold War, a senior defense official said, speaking on background.
Since the end of the Cold War, space has been a relatively benign environment, but that has changed, the official said. China, for example, tested an anti-satellite capability in January 2007, destroying one of its weather satellites as it traveled more than 500 miles above the Earth, the official said.
Russia also has capabilities that could reach into space, and the United States can no longer assume that space will not be contested, the official added.
Work stressed that the U.S. national security space architecture is resilient, but it is facing increasing threats, and America must think about and act on those challenges.
‘Space is Deeply Enmeshed in Our Force Structure’
“Space is deeply enmeshed in our force structure and is central to our way of deterring, assuring and warfighting,” the deputy secretary said.
The U.S. military cannot be complacent and must emphasize space control as challenges arise, he said.
Officials said that to maintain dominance in space, the United States “must consider all space assets, both classified and unclassified, as part of single constellation. And if an adversary tries to deny us the capability, we must be able to respond in an integrated, coordinated fashion.”
The deputy secretary stated the ultimate goal for the United States is to maintain space capabilities, through all phases of conflict, regardless of actions to deny the ultimate high ground.
The symposium was a perfect place for such a candid talk, the official said on background. Those in the space industry know they are important to the nation, “but it was a call for them to think hard about the future of national security in space.”
Work asked the audience to look at how the nation thinks of deterrence and stability in this emerging world where space assets might be held at risk.
“It was a really positive and candid interchange,” the official said. “It was not your average bureaucratic speech. [Work] was very animated and passionate about this issue. Space, cyber, [and] nuclear are core issues for us as a nation.”
Protecting Space Assets
In an environment where space assets are at risk, “you want to be able to be sure that the [space] community is thinking about how to protect them and the services they provide,” the official said. Industry and government must work together on the design and architecture of space systems, the official said, to make them perform better and make them less vulnerable.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Work have consistently stimulated strategic thinking in the department, and this has cut across all domains, the official said, noting a common factor in the domains is the contribution from space.
“You can’t be serious about strategic thinking and about deterrence in the 21st century if you are not talking about space,” the official said.
Looking at the core elements of what DoD does to defend America, its allies and its interests, it is clear that space is increasingly important, according to the official.
“Strategy dictates that if something is getting more important to core objectives it has to place higher on your hierarchy of needs,” the official said. “It’s important that we manage it in the right way.”
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
TROOPS AND TAXPAYERS THANKED FOR SUPPORT BY AFGHAN PRESIDENT GHANI
Right: U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, left, shakes hands with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani at the Pentagon, March 23, 2015. Carter hosted Ghani and Afghan Chief Executive Dr. Abdullah Abdullah for a visit. During remarks in the Pentagon's courtyard, Ghani thanked U.S. service members and veterans who served in Afghanistan for their efforts and sacrifices. DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Sean Hurt.
Afghan Leader Thanks U.S. Troops, Taxpayers for Support
By Cheryl Pellerin
DoD News, Defense Media Activity
WASHINGTON, March 23, 2015 – Taking the stage with U.S. leaders early this morning in the Pentagon courtyard, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani thanked U.S. troops and all Americans for their support of his country.
Senior officials joining Ghani included Afghan Chief Executive Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work, and other senior officials.
During his introduction of Ghani, Carter told the audience that the Afghan president is here on behalf of all Afghans “to thank all the Americans whose service has kept the United States secure and given hope and opportunity to his countrymen.”
Ghani has deep ties to the United States, the secretary added, naming the Afghan president’s attendance at American University in Beirut and Columbia University in New York, and teaching posts at the University of California-Berkeley and Johns Hopkins University in Maryland.
Easing the Afghan Transition
Later, as a scholar, Carter said, Ghani studied state-building and breaking the cycle of conflict.
“As a practitioner at the World Bank and the United Nations,” the secretary said, “[Ghani] applied those lessons, managing large-scale economic development projects in countries like India and China, and helping ease the transition in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban.”
In his career and in his leadership of Afghanistan, Ghani demonstrates that public service is a public trust, Carter said.
“Along with Dr. Abdullah, President Ghani has made clear to the Afghan people that, for all the assistance that the United States, our military and the international community can and will furnish, Afghanistan's future is ultimately for Afghans to grab hold of and for Afghans to decide,” the defense secretary said.
Paying Tribute to the Fallen
Addressing the audience after Carter’s introduction, Ghani said, “I want to first pay tribute to … [the] 2,215 Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice. To more than 20,000 American soldiers who have been wounded in action … [and] close to a million American service men and women who have gotten to know my country.”
American troops have been in Afghanistan’s most-remote valleys and on the highest peaks, in parched deserts and beautiful valleys, he said, “but also in the most demanding situations. Each one of you has left a legacy, but I also understand that Afghanistan has marked you.”
Ghani added, “When you wake up at night, sometimes you're not sure whether you're back there or here, but what gratifies me as the president of Afghanistan is what I've had the honor to hear repeatedly from American veterans, ‘I have left a piece of my heart in Afghanistan.’ Thank you,” he said to applause.
Each service member deployed to Afghanistan also left a memory in the heart of every Afghan that they encountered, Ghani added.
'Not There Just to Fight'
“You were not there just to fight. … You built schools, you built dams, you build roads, and while the physical infrastructure [has] changed lives, it is the attitude [of caring, discipline and sacrifice] that you brought with it. … The Afghan people, but particularly the Afghan security forces, honor that attitude,” the Afghan president said.
The U.S. combat role in Afghanistan ended on Dec. 31, 2014, and the legacy is a proud Afghan security force “that has dealt with the best of you and emulates the best of your example,” he said.
Ghani told the Pentagon audience that he will name a section of the Marshal Fahim National Defense University in Kabul, where he said generations of Afghans will be trained, in honor of Army Maj. Gen. Harold J. Greene, who served as deputy commanding general of Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan.
Greene, whose widow was in the audience this morning, was the first U.S. general officer killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He and more than a dozen others were killed and more were wounded in an attack at the military academy by a lone gunman in August 2014.
Tribute to Tough Partners
Ghani also paid tribute to “tough partners” Carter and Kerry, and to President Barack Obama for their long-standing support of Afghanistan.
And he thanked the American taxpayer, the men and women who are making “your hard-earned dollars available for Afghanistan. And because of that, the government of national unity … is committed to account for every single one of those dollars and pennies.”
This phase of the U.S.-Afghan partnership with the defense community is about building systems, procedures and processes, Ghani said, so the right leadership and the dedicated staff can use those resources for the best purpose.
Speaking Truth to Terror
“We are not going to be a burden,” Ghani added.
“We do not now ask what the United States can do for us, if I can play on President [John] Kennedy. We want to see what Afghanistan will do for itself and for the world. That means we are going to put our house in order,” he said.
He called Afghanistan a front-line state, adding, “We die on a daily basis. … We die, but we will never be defeated.”
Terrorism is a threat, Ghani said to applause, “but we, the people of Afghanistan, are willing to speak truth to terror by saying, ‘No, you will never overwhelm us, you will never subdue us, we are going to overcome.’”
Partnership is Foundational
In this endeavor, he said, “our partnership with the United States is foundational because we will be the first line of defense for freedom globally.”
The Afghan president added, “Thank you. God bless the friendship between the United States and Afghanistan.”
Monday, February 23, 2015
COMPANY, OWNER AND EMPLOYEE CHARGED WITH ILLEGALLY EXPORTING AND IMPORTING MILITARY ITEMS
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Arlington Heights, Illinois, Company and its Owner and Employee Charged with Illegal Export and Import of Military Articles
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S. Attorney Zachary T. Fardon of the Northern District of Illinois, Special Agent in Charge Gary Hartwig of Homeland Security Investigations Chicago, Special Agent in Charge James C. Lee of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Chicago Office and Special Agent in Charge Brian Reihms of the Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Service in Chicago announced today that an Arlington Heights, Illinois, company, its president and a former employee were indicted on federal charges for unlawfully exporting and importing military articles, including components used in night vision systems and an M1A1 Abrams tank, which is the main battle tank used by the U.S. Armed Forces. The defendants were charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in January and made public this week.
Vibgyor Optical Systems Inc., a company located in Arlington Heights, purported to manufacture optics and optical systems, including items that were to be supplied to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Instead of manufacturing the items in Illinois, as it claimed, Vibgyor illegally sent the technical data for, and samples of, the military articles to manufacturers in China, then imported the items from China to sell to its customers—including DOD prime contractors. Bharat “Victor” Verma, 74, of Arlington Heights, Vibgyor’s president, and Urvashi “Sonia” Verma, 40, of Chicago, a former Vibgyor employee and owner of a now-defunct company that operated as a subcontractor for Vibgyor, were also charged in the indictment.
According to the indictment, between November 2006 and March 2014, the defendants conspired to defraud the United States and violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The AECA prohibits the export or import of defense articles and defense services without first obtaining a license from the U.S. Department of State and is one of the principal export control laws in the United States. Under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, any person seeking to import items designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions Import List is required to obtain a permit to do so from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Vibgyor won subcontracts to supply optical components and systems to DOD prime contractors by misrepresenting the location of manufacture of the items it supplied. Bharat Verma falsely claimed that the items Vibgyor supplied were manufactured in domestically, when they actually had been manufactured in China, based on information illegally exported to Chinese manufacturers. In addition to illegally providing technical data for a military item to China, Urvashi Verma attempted to ship an example of one of the military items to the Chinese manufacturer.
“The Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations are vital to preventing embargoed countries from gaining access to our sensitive military technology, and to ensuring that our armed forces are not issued substandard equipment,” said U.S. Attorney Fardon. “Where companies and individuals seek to violate the AECA and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, we will not hesitate to act."
Vibgyor, Bharat Verma and Urvashi Verma are charged with one count of conspiracy to violate both the AECA and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations; one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States—each offense is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment—and one count of violating the AECA, with a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine up to $1,000,000. Vibgyor and Bharat Verma were also charged with international money laundering, an offense with a maximum possible sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine up to $500,000. The defendants are scheduled to be arraigned Friday, Feb. 20, 2015, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier.
The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Casey Arrowood of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Diane MacArthur, Bolling W. Haxall and Shoba Pillay of the Northern District of Illinois.
The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
Arlington Heights, Illinois, Company and its Owner and Employee Charged with Illegal Export and Import of Military Articles
Assistant Attorney General for National Security John P. Carlin, U.S. Attorney Zachary T. Fardon of the Northern District of Illinois, Special Agent in Charge Gary Hartwig of Homeland Security Investigations Chicago, Special Agent in Charge James C. Lee of the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) Chicago Office and Special Agent in Charge Brian Reihms of the Department of Defense Criminal Investigative Service in Chicago announced today that an Arlington Heights, Illinois, company, its president and a former employee were indicted on federal charges for unlawfully exporting and importing military articles, including components used in night vision systems and an M1A1 Abrams tank, which is the main battle tank used by the U.S. Armed Forces. The defendants were charged in an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in January and made public this week.
Vibgyor Optical Systems Inc., a company located in Arlington Heights, purported to manufacture optics and optical systems, including items that were to be supplied to the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD). Instead of manufacturing the items in Illinois, as it claimed, Vibgyor illegally sent the technical data for, and samples of, the military articles to manufacturers in China, then imported the items from China to sell to its customers—including DOD prime contractors. Bharat “Victor” Verma, 74, of Arlington Heights, Vibgyor’s president, and Urvashi “Sonia” Verma, 40, of Chicago, a former Vibgyor employee and owner of a now-defunct company that operated as a subcontractor for Vibgyor, were also charged in the indictment.
According to the indictment, between November 2006 and March 2014, the defendants conspired to defraud the United States and violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The AECA prohibits the export or import of defense articles and defense services without first obtaining a license from the U.S. Department of State and is one of the principal export control laws in the United States. Under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, any person seeking to import items designated as defense articles on the United States Munitions Import List is required to obtain a permit to do so from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Vibgyor won subcontracts to supply optical components and systems to DOD prime contractors by misrepresenting the location of manufacture of the items it supplied. Bharat Verma falsely claimed that the items Vibgyor supplied were manufactured in domestically, when they actually had been manufactured in China, based on information illegally exported to Chinese manufacturers. In addition to illegally providing technical data for a military item to China, Urvashi Verma attempted to ship an example of one of the military items to the Chinese manufacturer.
“The Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations are vital to preventing embargoed countries from gaining access to our sensitive military technology, and to ensuring that our armed forces are not issued substandard equipment,” said U.S. Attorney Fardon. “Where companies and individuals seek to violate the AECA and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, we will not hesitate to act."
Vibgyor, Bharat Verma and Urvashi Verma are charged with one count of conspiracy to violate both the AECA and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations; one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States—each offense is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment—and one count of violating the AECA, with a maximum possible penalty of 20 years in prison and a fine up to $1,000,000. Vibgyor and Bharat Verma were also charged with international money laundering, an offense with a maximum possible sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine up to $500,000. The defendants are scheduled to be arraigned Friday, Feb. 20, 2015, before U.S. Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier.
The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Casey Arrowood of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Diane MacArthur, Bolling W. Haxall and Shoba Pillay of the Northern District of Illinois.
The public is reminded that an indictment contains only charges and is not evidence of guilt. The defendants are presumed innocent and are entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
U.S. OFFICIAL'S REMARKS ON BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE IN EAST ASIA
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
02/21/2015 12:53 PM EST
Ballistic Missile Defense and Strategic Stability in East Asia
Remarks
Frank A. Rose
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Federation of American Scientists
Washington, DC
February 20, 2015
Introduction
Thank you all very much, and a special thanks to Bruce and Chuck for having me here today to address this important workshop.
I’m told that this group is exploring China’s potential interest in and deployment of strategic ballistic missile defense and what that means for U.S. and allied security.
At the State Department, we’re taking a hard look at it as well, and in particular, the role of ballistic missile defense in achieving the overarching goal of strategic stability between the United States and China.
Overview of Strategic Stability with China
Before discussing China’s interest in developing a BMD system and the possible implications of such an effort, I’d first like to provide an overview of what the United States is doing to ensure a stable U.S.-China strategic relationship in the region.
As stated in the Nuclear Posture Review, the United States is committed to maintaining strategic stability in U.S.-China relations and supports initiation of a dialogue on strategic stability and nuclear postures aimed at fostering a more stable, resilient, and transparent security relationship with China.
During the Cold War, many associated strategic stability with what we called “mutual assured destruction,” the notion that the incentive to initiate nuclear use would be discouraged by the fear of suffering unacceptable retaliatory damage. This notion, of course, is ill-suited and too narrow to fully capture the U.S.-China relationship given our multifaceted and shared interests. In today’s world, strategic stability encompasses much more than just nuclear relations and reflects the fact that the U.S.-China relationship, which has both elements of competition and cooperation, is not adversarial.
The strategic relationship between the United States and China is complex, and we each view stability differently. Thus, it is important that we have frank and open dialogue about how our nations define and view strategic stability and how we perceive our nuclear postures and policies impacting this balance. As part of these discussions, the United States is willing to discuss all issues, including missile defense, space-related issues, conventional precision strike capabilities, and nuclear weapons issues, with the goal of improving the conditions for a more predictable and safer security environment.
A sustained and substantive discussion of our national approaches to maintaining effective deterrent postures and modernization of associated strategic capabilities can increase understanding, enhance confidence and reduce mistrust.
Overview of China’s BMD Activities
As you’re all aware, China is continuing to develop its BMD capabilities.
Although China does not say much about its BMD programs, China publicly announced that it conducted ground-based mid-course BMD tests in 2010, 2013, and 2014. I’ll say more about the 2014 “BMD” test later. Chinese state media has stated that such tests are defensive in nature and are not targeted at any country.
I was in Beijing earlier this month, and the message I delivered was clear: It is important that our governments have a sustained dialogue on the role that our BMD systems have in our respective defense policies and strategies. We would welcome an opportunity to learn more about how BMD fits into China’s defense policy and strategy.
More broadly, a sustained dialogue would improve our understanding of China’s strategic perspective and enhance China’s understanding of U.S. policy and strategy. Institutionalizing discussions of strategic issues is a prudent long-term approach to strengthening strategic stability and exploring means for strengthening mutual trust and risk reduction.
To encourage that dialogue, we have taken and will continue to take steps to keep China informed about developments in U.S. BMD policy.
Potential Chinese BMD through the Lens of the U.S. Experience
The U.S. experience with BMD and specifically with our Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, or GMD, provides a useful lens for examining the challenges the Chinese would face in developing a BMD capability to threaten our nuclear deterrent.
We have been clear that our homeland BMD capabilities provide for defense of the U.S. homeland from limited ICBM attack, and are purposely not intended to affect Russia’s or China’s strategic deterrent. The GMD system is designed to support that policy, and it is not scaled, intended, or capable of defending the United States against the larger and more sophisticated arsenals of Russia and China. GMD is designed to protect the U.S. homeland only from limited ICBM attacks from states such as North Korea and Iran.
The U.S. experience with BMD suggests that attempting to develop a comprehensive homeland BMD system to defend against ballistic missile attack from China or Russia would be extremely challenging – and costly - given the size and sophistication of Chinese and Russian ICBMs. This owes to several factors, including the relatively low number of GMD interceptors and the sophistication and large numbers of Russian and Chinese missiles.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated this publically on May 18, 2010, in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he said that trying to eliminate the viability of the Russian nuclear capability would be “unbelievably expensive.”
Given these factors, we could potentially expect a notional Chinese equivalent to the GMD system to provide at most a limited defense of the Chinese homeland, which would not counter the U.S. strategic deterrent and therefore would not undermine strategic stability.
This is for the same reason that GMD does not impact strategic stability: the number of interceptors is low and they are not designed to deal with complex threats, and developing a comprehensive system to cope with a full-scale attack from another nuclear-armed great power would be expensive and ultimately unsuccessful.
Relationship to ASAT Testing
There is a another important aspect of China’s BMD program that bears discussing, which is its connection with China’s anti-satellite, or ASAT, weapons program.
On July 23, 2014, the Chinese Government conducted a non-destructive test of a missile designed to destroy satellites in low Earth orbit. However, China publicly called this ASAT test a “land-based missile interception test.”
Despite China’s claims that this was not an ASAT test; let me assure you the United States has high confidence in its assessment, that the event was indeed an ASAT test.
The continued development and testing of destructive ASAT systems is both destabilizing and threatens the long-term security and sustainability of the outer space environment. A previous destructive test of the Chinese system in 2007 created thousands of pieces of debris, which continue to present an ongoing danger to the space systems—as well as astronauts—of all nations, including China.
The destructive nature of debris-generating weapons has decades-long consequences: they can increase the potential for further collisions in the future, which only create more debris. A debris-forming test or attack may only be minutes in duration, but the consequences can last for decades. It is for these reasons that the United States believes testing debris-generating ASAT systems threaten the security, economic well-being, and civil endeavors of all nations.
Space systems and their supporting infrastructures enable a wide range of services, including communication; position, navigation, and timing; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and meteorology, which provide vital national, military, civil, scientific, and economic benefits. Other nations recognize these benefits to the United States and seek to counter the U.S. strategic advantage by pursuing capabilities to deny or destroy our access to space services.
The use of such ASAT weapons could be escalatory in a crisis.
China’s ASAT program, and the lack of transparency accompanying it, also impedes bilateral space cooperation. While we prefer cooperation, it will by necessity have to be a product of a step-by-step approach starting with dialogue, leading to modest CBMs, which might then perhaps lead to deeper engagement. However, none of this is possible until China changes its behavior with regard to ASATs.
Conclusion
As many of you know, one of my biggest priorities as Assistant Secretary is to look over the horizon a bit and begin to structure our Bureau to address the emerging security challenges of the 21st Century.
For me, that means an increased focus on developing a stable strategic relationship with China, while at the same time reassuring our Allies.
Managing the U.S.-China relationship will take a lot of time and effort, and we won’t always be successful. It’s a challenge. But as Secretary Kerry likes to remind us, it’s important for us to get caught trying, and that’s what we intend to do.
Thanks very much.
02/21/2015 12:53 PM EST
Ballistic Missile Defense and Strategic Stability in East Asia
Remarks
Frank A. Rose
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Federation of American Scientists
Washington, DC
February 20, 2015
Introduction
Thank you all very much, and a special thanks to Bruce and Chuck for having me here today to address this important workshop.
I’m told that this group is exploring China’s potential interest in and deployment of strategic ballistic missile defense and what that means for U.S. and allied security.
At the State Department, we’re taking a hard look at it as well, and in particular, the role of ballistic missile defense in achieving the overarching goal of strategic stability between the United States and China.
Overview of Strategic Stability with China
Before discussing China’s interest in developing a BMD system and the possible implications of such an effort, I’d first like to provide an overview of what the United States is doing to ensure a stable U.S.-China strategic relationship in the region.
As stated in the Nuclear Posture Review, the United States is committed to maintaining strategic stability in U.S.-China relations and supports initiation of a dialogue on strategic stability and nuclear postures aimed at fostering a more stable, resilient, and transparent security relationship with China.
During the Cold War, many associated strategic stability with what we called “mutual assured destruction,” the notion that the incentive to initiate nuclear use would be discouraged by the fear of suffering unacceptable retaliatory damage. This notion, of course, is ill-suited and too narrow to fully capture the U.S.-China relationship given our multifaceted and shared interests. In today’s world, strategic stability encompasses much more than just nuclear relations and reflects the fact that the U.S.-China relationship, which has both elements of competition and cooperation, is not adversarial.
The strategic relationship between the United States and China is complex, and we each view stability differently. Thus, it is important that we have frank and open dialogue about how our nations define and view strategic stability and how we perceive our nuclear postures and policies impacting this balance. As part of these discussions, the United States is willing to discuss all issues, including missile defense, space-related issues, conventional precision strike capabilities, and nuclear weapons issues, with the goal of improving the conditions for a more predictable and safer security environment.
A sustained and substantive discussion of our national approaches to maintaining effective deterrent postures and modernization of associated strategic capabilities can increase understanding, enhance confidence and reduce mistrust.
Overview of China’s BMD Activities
As you’re all aware, China is continuing to develop its BMD capabilities.
Although China does not say much about its BMD programs, China publicly announced that it conducted ground-based mid-course BMD tests in 2010, 2013, and 2014. I’ll say more about the 2014 “BMD” test later. Chinese state media has stated that such tests are defensive in nature and are not targeted at any country.
I was in Beijing earlier this month, and the message I delivered was clear: It is important that our governments have a sustained dialogue on the role that our BMD systems have in our respective defense policies and strategies. We would welcome an opportunity to learn more about how BMD fits into China’s defense policy and strategy.
More broadly, a sustained dialogue would improve our understanding of China’s strategic perspective and enhance China’s understanding of U.S. policy and strategy. Institutionalizing discussions of strategic issues is a prudent long-term approach to strengthening strategic stability and exploring means for strengthening mutual trust and risk reduction.
To encourage that dialogue, we have taken and will continue to take steps to keep China informed about developments in U.S. BMD policy.
Potential Chinese BMD through the Lens of the U.S. Experience
The U.S. experience with BMD and specifically with our Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, or GMD, provides a useful lens for examining the challenges the Chinese would face in developing a BMD capability to threaten our nuclear deterrent.
We have been clear that our homeland BMD capabilities provide for defense of the U.S. homeland from limited ICBM attack, and are purposely not intended to affect Russia’s or China’s strategic deterrent. The GMD system is designed to support that policy, and it is not scaled, intended, or capable of defending the United States against the larger and more sophisticated arsenals of Russia and China. GMD is designed to protect the U.S. homeland only from limited ICBM attacks from states such as North Korea and Iran.
The U.S. experience with BMD suggests that attempting to develop a comprehensive homeland BMD system to defend against ballistic missile attack from China or Russia would be extremely challenging – and costly - given the size and sophistication of Chinese and Russian ICBMs. This owes to several factors, including the relatively low number of GMD interceptors and the sophistication and large numbers of Russian and Chinese missiles.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated this publically on May 18, 2010, in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he said that trying to eliminate the viability of the Russian nuclear capability would be “unbelievably expensive.”
Given these factors, we could potentially expect a notional Chinese equivalent to the GMD system to provide at most a limited defense of the Chinese homeland, which would not counter the U.S. strategic deterrent and therefore would not undermine strategic stability.
This is for the same reason that GMD does not impact strategic stability: the number of interceptors is low and they are not designed to deal with complex threats, and developing a comprehensive system to cope with a full-scale attack from another nuclear-armed great power would be expensive and ultimately unsuccessful.
Relationship to ASAT Testing
There is a another important aspect of China’s BMD program that bears discussing, which is its connection with China’s anti-satellite, or ASAT, weapons program.
On July 23, 2014, the Chinese Government conducted a non-destructive test of a missile designed to destroy satellites in low Earth orbit. However, China publicly called this ASAT test a “land-based missile interception test.”
Despite China’s claims that this was not an ASAT test; let me assure you the United States has high confidence in its assessment, that the event was indeed an ASAT test.
The continued development and testing of destructive ASAT systems is both destabilizing and threatens the long-term security and sustainability of the outer space environment. A previous destructive test of the Chinese system in 2007 created thousands of pieces of debris, which continue to present an ongoing danger to the space systems—as well as astronauts—of all nations, including China.
The destructive nature of debris-generating weapons has decades-long consequences: they can increase the potential for further collisions in the future, which only create more debris. A debris-forming test or attack may only be minutes in duration, but the consequences can last for decades. It is for these reasons that the United States believes testing debris-generating ASAT systems threaten the security, economic well-being, and civil endeavors of all nations.
Space systems and their supporting infrastructures enable a wide range of services, including communication; position, navigation, and timing; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and meteorology, which provide vital national, military, civil, scientific, and economic benefits. Other nations recognize these benefits to the United States and seek to counter the U.S. strategic advantage by pursuing capabilities to deny or destroy our access to space services.
The use of such ASAT weapons could be escalatory in a crisis.
China’s ASAT program, and the lack of transparency accompanying it, also impedes bilateral space cooperation. While we prefer cooperation, it will by necessity have to be a product of a step-by-step approach starting with dialogue, leading to modest CBMs, which might then perhaps lead to deeper engagement. However, none of this is possible until China changes its behavior with regard to ASATs.
Conclusion
As many of you know, one of my biggest priorities as Assistant Secretary is to look over the horizon a bit and begin to structure our Bureau to address the emerging security challenges of the 21st Century.
For me, that means an increased focus on developing a stable strategic relationship with China, while at the same time reassuring our Allies.
Managing the U.S.-China relationship will take a lot of time and effort, and we won’t always be successful. It’s a challenge. But as Secretary Kerry likes to remind us, it’s important for us to get caught trying, and that’s what we intend to do.
Thanks very much.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
5TH ANNIVERSARY OF NOBEL PRIZE LAUREATE LIU XIAOBO'S CONVICTION IN CHINA FOR INCITING SUBVERSION
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Fifth Anniversary of Liu Xiaobo's Conviction
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 24, 2014
Nobel Peace Prize laureate and writer Liu Xiaobo today spends the fifth anniversary of his conviction for “inciting subversion” in prison, serving out an 11-year sentence.
The United States remains deeply concerned that China continues to incarcerate Liu Xiaobo and hold his wife, Liu Xia, in extralegal house arrest.
Liu Xiaobo is a courageous and eloquent spokesperson recognized throughout the world for his long and non-violent advocacy for human rights and democracy in China.
We reiterate our call on China to release Liu Xiaobo and to remove all restrictions on Liu Xia.
We also urge China to release all individuals detained for peacefully expressing their views, including Ilham Tohti and his students, and Pu Zhiqiang, Gao Zhisheng, Yang Maodong, Gao Yu, and Xu Zhiyong.
In addition, we request that Chinese leaders guarantee them the protections and freedoms to which they are entitled under China's international human rights commitments.
I raise human rights concerns in each and every one of my conversations with President Xi and other Chinese leaders, because it is too important to stand in the way of China's emergence in the community of nations.
Fifth Anniversary of Liu Xiaobo's Conviction
Press Statement
John Kerry
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
December 24, 2014
Nobel Peace Prize laureate and writer Liu Xiaobo today spends the fifth anniversary of his conviction for “inciting subversion” in prison, serving out an 11-year sentence.
The United States remains deeply concerned that China continues to incarcerate Liu Xiaobo and hold his wife, Liu Xia, in extralegal house arrest.
Liu Xiaobo is a courageous and eloquent spokesperson recognized throughout the world for his long and non-violent advocacy for human rights and democracy in China.
We reiterate our call on China to release Liu Xiaobo and to remove all restrictions on Liu Xia.
We also urge China to release all individuals detained for peacefully expressing their views, including Ilham Tohti and his students, and Pu Zhiqiang, Gao Zhisheng, Yang Maodong, Gao Yu, and Xu Zhiyong.
In addition, we request that Chinese leaders guarantee them the protections and freedoms to which they are entitled under China's international human rights commitments.
I raise human rights concerns in each and every one of my conversations with President Xi and other Chinese leaders, because it is too important to stand in the way of China's emergence in the community of nations.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
SEC CHARGES AVON PRODUCTS INC. WITH VIOLATING FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged global beauty products company Avon Products Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by failing to put controls in place to detect and prevent payments and gifts to Chinese government officials from employees and consultants at a subsidiary.
Avon entities agreed to pay a total of $135 million to settle the SEC’s charges and a parallel case announced today by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
The SEC alleges that Avon’s subsidiary in China made $8 million worth of payments in cash, gifts, travel, and entertainment to gain access to Chinese officials implementing and overseeing direct selling regulations in China. Avon sought to be among the first allowed to test the regulations, and eventually received the first direct selling business license in China in March 2006. The improper payments also were made to avoid fines or negative news articles that could have impacted Avon’s clean corporate image required to retain the license. Examples of improper payments alleged in the SEC’s complaint include paid travel for Chinese government officials within China or to the U.S. or Europe as well as such gifts as Louis Vuitton merchandise, Gucci bags, Tiffany pens, and corporate box tickets to the China Open tennis tournament.
“Avon’s subsidiary in China paid millions of dollars to government officials to obtain a direct selling license and gain an edge over their competitors, and the company reaped substantial financial benefits as a result,” said Scott W. Friestad, an Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Avon missed an opportunity to correct potential FCPA problems at its subsidiary, resulting in years of additional misconduct that could have been avoided.”
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the improper payments occurred from 2004 to 2008. Avon management learned about potential FCPA problems at the subsidiary through an internal audit report in late 2005. Avon management consulted an outside law firm, directed that reforms be instituted at the subsidiary, and sent an internal audit team to follow up. Ultimately, however, no such reforms were instituted at the Chinese subsidiary. Avon finally began a full-blown internal investigation in 2008 after its CEO received a letter from a whistleblower.
The SEC alleges that Avon’s books and records failed to accurately record the details and purpose of the payments. In some instances, payments were concealed by falsely recording the transactions as employee business expenses or as reimbursement of a third-party vendor. In other instances, the records for the payments set forth almost no detail at all. The resulting books and records did not allow a reviewer to ascertain the government official or state-owned entities that received the payments or the purpose for which the payments were made.
The SEC’s complaint charges Avon with violating Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Avon, which neither admitted nor denied the allegations, agreed to pay disgorgement of $52,850,000 in benefits resulting from the alleged misconduct plus prejudgment interest of $14,515,013.13 for a total of more than $67.36 million. In the parallel criminal matter, Avon entities agreed to pay $67,648,000 in penalties. Avon also is required to retain an independent compliance monitor to review its FCPA compliance program for a period of 18 months, followed by an 18-month period of self-reporting on its compliance efforts. Avon would be permanently enjoined from violating the books and records and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws. In reaching the proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval, the SEC considered Avon’s cooperation and significant remedial measures.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Paul W. Sharratt and Roger Paszamant and supervised by David Frohlich. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged global beauty products company Avon Products Inc. with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by failing to put controls in place to detect and prevent payments and gifts to Chinese government officials from employees and consultants at a subsidiary.
Avon entities agreed to pay a total of $135 million to settle the SEC’s charges and a parallel case announced today by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.
The SEC alleges that Avon’s subsidiary in China made $8 million worth of payments in cash, gifts, travel, and entertainment to gain access to Chinese officials implementing and overseeing direct selling regulations in China. Avon sought to be among the first allowed to test the regulations, and eventually received the first direct selling business license in China in March 2006. The improper payments also were made to avoid fines or negative news articles that could have impacted Avon’s clean corporate image required to retain the license. Examples of improper payments alleged in the SEC’s complaint include paid travel for Chinese government officials within China or to the U.S. or Europe as well as such gifts as Louis Vuitton merchandise, Gucci bags, Tiffany pens, and corporate box tickets to the China Open tennis tournament.
“Avon’s subsidiary in China paid millions of dollars to government officials to obtain a direct selling license and gain an edge over their competitors, and the company reaped substantial financial benefits as a result,” said Scott W. Friestad, an Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement. “Avon missed an opportunity to correct potential FCPA problems at its subsidiary, resulting in years of additional misconduct that could have been avoided.”
According to the SEC’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the improper payments occurred from 2004 to 2008. Avon management learned about potential FCPA problems at the subsidiary through an internal audit report in late 2005. Avon management consulted an outside law firm, directed that reforms be instituted at the subsidiary, and sent an internal audit team to follow up. Ultimately, however, no such reforms were instituted at the Chinese subsidiary. Avon finally began a full-blown internal investigation in 2008 after its CEO received a letter from a whistleblower.
The SEC alleges that Avon’s books and records failed to accurately record the details and purpose of the payments. In some instances, payments were concealed by falsely recording the transactions as employee business expenses or as reimbursement of a third-party vendor. In other instances, the records for the payments set forth almost no detail at all. The resulting books and records did not allow a reviewer to ascertain the government official or state-owned entities that received the payments or the purpose for which the payments were made.
The SEC’s complaint charges Avon with violating Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Avon, which neither admitted nor denied the allegations, agreed to pay disgorgement of $52,850,000 in benefits resulting from the alleged misconduct plus prejudgment interest of $14,515,013.13 for a total of more than $67.36 million. In the parallel criminal matter, Avon entities agreed to pay $67,648,000 in penalties. Avon also is required to retain an independent compliance monitor to review its FCPA compliance program for a period of 18 months, followed by an 18-month period of self-reporting on its compliance efforts. Avon would be permanently enjoined from violating the books and records and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws. In reaching the proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval, the SEC considered Avon’s cooperation and significant remedial measures.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Paul W. Sharratt and Roger Paszamant and supervised by David Frohlich. The SEC appreciates the assistance of the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
SEC CHARGES U.S. TECH FIRM IN CASE INVOLVING PAYMENTS TO CHINESE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
FROM: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Billerica, Mass.-based global manufacturer of scientific instruments with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by providing non-business related travel and improper payments to various Chinese government officials in an effort to win business.
An SEC investigation found that Bruker Corporation lacked sufficient internal controls to prevent and detect approximately $230,000 in improper payments out of its China-based offices that falsely recorded them in books and records as legitimate business and marketing expenses. The payments enabled Bruker to realize approximately $1.7 million in profits from sales contracts with state-owned entities in China whose officials received the improper payments.
Bruker, which self-reported its misconduct and provided extensive cooperation during the SEC’s investigation, agreed to pay approximately $2.4 million to settle the SEC’s charges.
“Bruker’s lax internal controls allowed employees in its China offices to enter into sham ‘collaboration agreements’ to direct money to foreign officials and send officials on sightseeing trips around the world,” said Kara Brockmeyer, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit. “The company has since taken significant remedial steps to revise its compliance program and enhance internal controls over travel and contract approvals.”
According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, a Bruker office in China paid more than $111,000 to Chinese government officials under 12 suspicious collaboration agreements contingent on state-owned entities providing research on Bruker products or using Bruker products in demonstration laboratories. The collaboration agreements did not specify the work product that the state-owned entities had to provide in order to be paid, and no work product was actually provided to the Bruker office by the state-owned entities. Certain collaboration agreements were executed directly with a Chinese government official rather than the state-owned entity itself, and in some cases Bruker’s office paid the official directly.
According to the SEC’s order, the other improper payments involved reimbursements to Chinese government officials for leisure travel to the United States, Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. These officials often were responsible for authorizing the purchase of Bruker products, and the leisure trips typically followed business-related travel for the officials funded by the company. For example, Bruker paid for the purported training expenses of a Chinese government official who signed the sales contract on behalf of a state-owned entity, but the payment actually was reimbursement for sightseeing, tour tickets, shopping, and other leisure activities in Frankfurt and Paris. Bruker also funded some trips for Chinese government officials that had no legitimate business component. For example, two Chinese government officials received paid travel to New York despite the lack of any Bruker facilities there, and also to Los Angeles where they engaged in sightseeing activities.
The SEC’s order finds that Bruker violated the internal controls and books and records provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company agreed to pay $1,714,852 in disgorgement, $310,117 in prejudgment interest, and a $375,000 penalty. Bruker consented to the order without admitting or denying the findings, and the SEC considered the company’s significant remedial acts as well as its self-reporting and cooperation with the investigation when determining a settlement.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Asita Obeyesekere and Mark Albers of the Boston Regional Office. The case was supervised by Paul G. Block of the FCPA Unit.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Billerica, Mass.-based global manufacturer of scientific instruments with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by providing non-business related travel and improper payments to various Chinese government officials in an effort to win business.
An SEC investigation found that Bruker Corporation lacked sufficient internal controls to prevent and detect approximately $230,000 in improper payments out of its China-based offices that falsely recorded them in books and records as legitimate business and marketing expenses. The payments enabled Bruker to realize approximately $1.7 million in profits from sales contracts with state-owned entities in China whose officials received the improper payments.
Bruker, which self-reported its misconduct and provided extensive cooperation during the SEC’s investigation, agreed to pay approximately $2.4 million to settle the SEC’s charges.
“Bruker’s lax internal controls allowed employees in its China offices to enter into sham ‘collaboration agreements’ to direct money to foreign officials and send officials on sightseeing trips around the world,” said Kara Brockmeyer, Chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s FCPA Unit. “The company has since taken significant remedial steps to revise its compliance program and enhance internal controls over travel and contract approvals.”
According to the SEC’s order instituting a settled administrative proceeding, a Bruker office in China paid more than $111,000 to Chinese government officials under 12 suspicious collaboration agreements contingent on state-owned entities providing research on Bruker products or using Bruker products in demonstration laboratories. The collaboration agreements did not specify the work product that the state-owned entities had to provide in order to be paid, and no work product was actually provided to the Bruker office by the state-owned entities. Certain collaboration agreements were executed directly with a Chinese government official rather than the state-owned entity itself, and in some cases Bruker’s office paid the official directly.
According to the SEC’s order, the other improper payments involved reimbursements to Chinese government officials for leisure travel to the United States, Czech Republic, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy. These officials often were responsible for authorizing the purchase of Bruker products, and the leisure trips typically followed business-related travel for the officials funded by the company. For example, Bruker paid for the purported training expenses of a Chinese government official who signed the sales contract on behalf of a state-owned entity, but the payment actually was reimbursement for sightseeing, tour tickets, shopping, and other leisure activities in Frankfurt and Paris. Bruker also funded some trips for Chinese government officials that had no legitimate business component. For example, two Chinese government officials received paid travel to New York despite the lack of any Bruker facilities there, and also to Los Angeles where they engaged in sightseeing activities.
The SEC’s order finds that Bruker violated the internal controls and books and records provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company agreed to pay $1,714,852 in disgorgement, $310,117 in prejudgment interest, and a $375,000 penalty. Bruker consented to the order without admitting or denying the findings, and the SEC considered the company’s significant remedial acts as well as its self-reporting and cooperation with the investigation when determining a settlement.
The SEC’s investigation was conducted by Asita Obeyesekere and Mark Albers of the Boston Regional Office. The case was supervised by Paul G. Block of the FCPA Unit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)