Department of Defense News Briefing - Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley

Presenter: Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley

Thursday, July 19, 2001 - 1:30 p.m. EDT

[...]

Q: Yeah, it was reported yesterday that the Pentagon will be meeting with representatives of the Taiwan military out at Monterey? Is that the case? And what will they be discussing?

Quigley: We do frequently meet with representatives of the Taiwan military, in accordance with the terms of the Taiwan Relations Act, again, to discuss issues of interaction and means by which to provide for the defense of Taiwan. But by the same token, as a policy issue, we do not typically provide any details of those meetings. I will say that there have been seven of them in the last four years, since 1997.

Q: Is there a meeting set for this week?

Quigley: I'll go back to my first answer. I'm not going to be helpful as to the details of time, place, content, attendees, other than to say that these meetings do occur, as I indicated, seven times in the last four years.

Q: Okay. And do you have any comment on the House action regarding the $1 million bill for the EP-3?

Quigley: We're aware of it. So far, our activities here continue to be the same in that we continue to go through the bill and find those elements that we consider to be fair and appropriate. I will tell you that we don't agree with all of the items on the list. But on the other hand, we're aware of Congressman DeLay's amendment. We'll monitor its progress through the House and, of course, comply with the law, if it comes to that.

Q: Do you support it or oppose it, though?

Quigley: I'm not going to take a position on that. Until --

Q: The Pentagon has no position on that?

Quigley: We typically do not have a position on draft legislation, and that's what this is.

Alex?

Q: Have the authorities in Taiwan ever replied to the list of items that would be available to them for purchase to provide for their defense?

Quigley: When they would do that -- if it comes to that point, we would do then the appropriate notification and public announcement to the Congress. And up until that point, it would be a private bilateral exchange of information between us and the Taiwanese military and the government. So the means for publicly disclosing what the Taiwanese have come to an agreement upon would be our notification of the Congress, and we are not to that point.

Yes?

Q: (Off mike) -- how it would provide diesel submarines, should they ask for such a thing?

Quigley: We are continuing to work that one.

Pam?

Q: Senator John Warner this morning at a hearing suggested that his committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, would like to receive from the administration a list of amendments to the ABM Treaty that would make the kind of testing contemplated possible without scrapping the treaty. Are you aware of any effort here in the Pentagon to draw up a text for such amendments to be submitted to the Congress?

Quigley: No, but if it was something he's done this morning, I'm sure that process is just starting. I'm not aware of that.

Yes, sir?

Q: I just want to go back to the U.S. military bases in India. (Off mike) -- defense minister for India, Jaswant Singh -- he was asked a question in India, and he said that India has not ruled out for the possibility of U.S. military bases in India. And that -- (off mike) -- something was discussed during his visit here with the U.S. officials. But he said he had not ruled out --

Quigley: The best I can answer -- I take no issue with that. It's just not an issue that is being discussed or negotiated, that I can find, anywhere.

Yes, sir?

Q: Going back to the security dialogue in Monterey, that's going on in Monterey this week, could you tell us who heads the U.S. delegation?

Quigley: No, I will not.

Q: (Off mike.)

Quigley: As I indicated before, I will not provide any details as to date, location, agenda, or attendees, other than to say that we will and have routinely discussed these issue with the Taiwanese.

Q: Is one of the goals --

Q: (Off mike) - -

Quigley: It's a government policy decision that we have taken for several years.

Q: So you're not confirming the meeting?

Quigley: I'm not.

Q: Is one of the goals of the dialogue to increase the interoperability of the two militaries, by any chance?

Quigley: I think I've got to stick with my original answer.

Q: One more question, if I may. (Off mike) -- said the other day that the U.S. armed forces would do their absolute best to carry out the president's directive to intervene in a Taiwan Straits situation, if so ordered.

Wouldn't that be a good idea, to have some kind of interoperability with the Taiwan armed forces?

Quigley: Well, we'll do our best to carry out the directions of the commander-in-chief, whatever the circumstances might be. You can have a philosophical debate till sundown as to what might be the appropriate way of going about doing that, but there are very specific and sensitive particular details that are contained in the Taiwan Relations Act. We comply with those, no more, no less, and that's where I will leave that.

Tom.

Q: On QDR, the secretary yesterday expressed his dissatisfaction with the work of the team looking at force structure. There was a report this morning and the early word, I think, inside the Pentagon said that report had called for 24 carriers and two Army divisions, although it's unclear if it was cut by two or only two Army divisions. Is that report accurate?

And can you also help us understand a little bit more, Admiral, where the disconnect is between the terms of reference and the work of these panels? Of the eight seven are run by civilians, one by the joint staff. The forces panel is run by civilians from PA&E, so who is misunderstanding the terms of reference?

Quigley: Let me try to take those one at a time. One, I do not agree with your term "dissatisfaction." I was in the room yesterday. I did not hear him express his dissatisfaction at all. I heard a very different explanation come out of the secretary's mouth, and I would refer you to the transcript as to how, in this own words, he described that process.

Second, I will not get into any of the parsing of the findings of any of the IPTs. Let the QDR be judged by its final product.

And on the third one -- repeat the third one, Tom. I'm sorry. What was the third question?

Q: Well, the third one goes to how the process works. Of the eight teams, seven of them are being run, managed by civilians, one by the joint staff. So when the secretary says they're either misinterpreting the terms of reference or there are ambiguities that must be dealt with, who is seeing the ambiguity, who is misinterpreting them?

Quigley: I think his description yesterday want to when you get the secretary, the chairman, the service chiefs were the ones that crafted the terms of reference that the IPTs then took as their guidance to begin their work in their particular area, one of the eight that you refer to.

Clearly, the senior group thought that their terms of reference were clear. They were unanimous in their agreement on the content and the wording of the terms of reference. But as the secretary said yesterday, clearly they missed on one, and that was a -- one of the specific terms of reference that gave the tasking to one of the IPTs, that they thought they understood one thing, they came back with an interim result to the secretary and the rest of the senior group, and it was clear there was a mismatch. So the senior group is clarifying further the terms of reference, the choice of words, the phrasing so that it is clear to the IPT what their tasking is. They'll go back, they'll do that again, and we'll move on.

Q: But did the final report reflect the civilians from PA&E who lead that panel, or was that driven by the military?

Quigley: Well, ultimately it's a collaborative process. It has been, it will continue to be. The secretary of Defense is responsible for the Quadrennial Defense Review. So the buck stops there, if you want to look at it that way. But the IPTs are composed of a combination of both services, the appropriate under secretaries' offices, whether it's acquisition or a budgetary issue or a people issue or what have you, as well as members of the Joint Staff. So you have all three of those elements working together under the leadership of a team leader. And then that team presents its findings to the senior group. And ultimately it's the secretary's Quadrennial Defense Review, and you'll have a process where that will be submitted to the Congress. The chairman by statute is obliged to provide a risk assessment of that overall product. And that all needs to happen by the end of September.

Yes, ma'am.

Q: Do you have a pay, then, schedule back to China, the EP-3, if you are going to pay at all?

Quigley: No. We do not.

Q: And not any time soon. Will the House resolution affect the activities here?

Quigley: Well, I believe it's not so much a resolution as it is a proposed amendment. And it is proposed legislation. So it's a -- we're very much aware of it. But it is not into law yet. If it comes to that point, we will, of course, obey the law.

Q: Can I ask one more question? On the meeting with Taiwanese officials, you said they had seven meetings. Is that during the past four years? Is that --

Quigley: Mm-hmm. Since 1997.

Q: Does that mean twice a year, then, regularly?

Quigley: It is not regularly in the sense of every X number of months they will have a meeting. It is not that regular. But it's a constant dialogue back and forth between the United States and Taiwan. When there are enough items on the agenda to be worthy of discussing, then they'll set a meeting.

Q: Would you reveal the level of U.S. officials who --

Quigley: No, I can't.

Barbara?

Q: Can I just go back to Tom's question for a second and make sure that I actually understood? This team -- is it correct that this team is led by civilians, chaired by civilians, whatever, civilian OSD officials? And so when the secretary said yesterday, you know, "they" missed on what -- the product they delivered, since they, civilians, head this team, in fact then what he is referring to is the civilians who led this team missed the product that he wanted to see? Am I understanding that correctly?

Quigley: I don't believe the secretary stipulated which of the IPTs he was referring to.

Q: Well, the one -- but he was referring to one of them that is led by civilian officials?

Quigley: Mm-hm. (Affirmative response.)

Q: Right. Okay.

Quigley: I mean, I don't think anybody's pointing fingers here and making some --

Q: I just want to make sure I understood. So when he --

Quigley: -- deep mystery out of this.

Q: Right. But he did -- the one he referred to generically, let's say, is led by civilians. So he's -- he's not saying that military people missed, he's saying that the civilian head of the team missed? Quigley: In this case.

Pam?

Q: Could we have the terms of reference, if you strip out the -- like two or three classified paragraphs?

Quigley: We are working to try to do just that.

Q: That would make this a lot more understandable.

Quigley: I understand.

[...]