Back to Library Main Page
 
Back to Bush's Cross Strait Policy
    EXCERPTS OF THE MEDIA ROUND TABLE WITH DOD ASSISTANT SECRETARY PETER W. RODMAN

DEFENSE DEPARTMENT MEDIA ROUND TABLE WITH ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS PETER W. RODMAN

ALSO PRESENT: ADMIRAL CRAIG QUIGLEY, USN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY

THE PENTAGON, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA

AUGUST 21, 2001

 

[...]Q Okay, and a quick follow-up. Deputy Secretary of State Armitage was in Australia last week and he was asked about whether the United States expected Australia to join with the United States in the event of a conflict across the Taiwan Strait. Do you agree with that position?

MR. RODMAN: He asked the Australians?

 

Q He was asked about it and said that he expected that it would be in Australia's interest to join with the United States in the defense of Taiwan.

MR. RODMAN: Yeah, I don't want to put words into the Australians' mouths or -- it's not something I'd want to characterize. We have a close alliance with Australia. And I saw this at first- hand. I was with Secretary Rumsfeld in Australia at the beginning of the month, with Secretary Powell. And it is one of the closest relationships we have, I think, in the security field. Australia has been a good friend. And the fact that both Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld went out there says something about the closeness of it and the fact that we do see eye to eye on a whole lot of strategic subjects. They've been with us in every conflict in the 20th century. At least that's what everybody was saying. And I'm not going to talk about war plans or who's committed to what, and I don't want to put words in their mouth. I have every confidence that we and Australia are good friends and allies, and I don't want to say any more than that. Yes, sir.

 

Q I'm Jay Chen (ph), Central News Agency, Taiwan. Mr. Secretary, the Chinese have conducted what some papers have described as one of the biggest war games in recent years along the southern coast of China. I'm wondering whether the Pentagon has seen anything worrying to either the United States or to Taiwan or to other neighbors in the region. And related to that, if I may, as you know, the previous administration has had little success in persuading the Chinese to show some restraint in their missile deployment against Taiwan. Can we expect to see similar efforts along that line under the Bush administration?

MR. RODMAN: Well, let me take the second question first. I, too, have not seen restraint in China's missile deployments, and it is certainly something we raised with them. They raised the question of missile defense, and I think a reasonable answer to make to them is, well, the missile defense is prompted by the fact that there are missiles. The exercises -- again, I wouldn't characterize them. They have done exercises on a regular basis. I'm sure they learned something from it. You know, they're modernizing their forces. They're exercising their forces. But, you know, we're watching them closely, and perhaps we can learn something from that exercise too. But I certainly don't see an imminent threat of a conflict. I think these are exercises. We have seen regular exercises before. Yes, sir.

 

[...] Q Sir, Vincent Chen (ph) with the United Daily News, Taiwan. I'm just wondering, have you decided on the new (pattern ?) to replace any arms sales made into Taiwan yet? My second question is about there are some reports saying that this administration is having closer mil-to-mil contacts with Taiwan. Can you confirm that?

MR. RODMAN: The arms sales question, as I understand it, is we're trying to make it a more normal relationship; that we don't save everything up for an annual presentation, but that issues would come up as they come up. And I'm not aware of anything that has come up in the last few months, but I think that is the new pattern that's supposed to replace the old pattern. I think we're all still trying to digest what was discussed at the last round. We have contacts with the Taiwanese military, regular contacts of different kinds. There were some conversations in Monterey. I think that was a month ago; well, several weeks back. And, you know, I think we think that communication is important. It doesn't serve anybody's interest for us and Taiwan not to be able to communicate on security matters. It is something we're still looking at. You know, how to handle these contacts is something we're looking at. I don't have -- there are no decisions to announce yet, but I think we value that relationship. We think, again, there's a general interest that is served by having contact and being able to communicate, and in addition to the interest that the United States has expressed many times, including in the Taiwan Relations Act, that, you know, our intention to deter the use of force. So that is an often-expressed American interest.

 

[..]Q You've talked -- John Hall (ph) of Media General. You talked a little while ago about communications with Taiwan. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about the difficulty of the play there. Is it hard to deal with the Taiwanese with China looking over our shoulder, and with restrictions on movement? MR. RODMAN: Well, it has just been that there have been limits on the rank -- level of people that are, you know, we permit to engage with them. And those are self-imposed limits. And you know there's some cost I suppose if you don't have communications at a high political or military level. But, again, I am not predicting any imminent change, but I am saying we are looking at the issue of our contacts with Taiwan from a practical point of view -- not necessarily to change -- I mean, we are not proposing to change the basic resource of the United States vis-a-vis the three communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act. But we are looking at practical issues in our relations with Taiwan, both as I say the practical issue of improving our understanding of each other's thinking and strategic outlook, and also to strengthen deterrence, which is a clearly stated objective that we have. That's what I meant. I mean, you were referring yourself to the restrictions we've placed on contacts, and that's what I meant. It's something we are looking at.

 

Q Are they able to come into the building here? What is the highest rank of a Taiwanese officer -- MR. RODMAN: Well, we have –

 

Q -- who can come in to the meeting room?

MR. RODMAN: I think the chief of staff has often come, but he's not in the building. And that's been a previous -- that's been the past practice. And I may be wrong on that.

 

[...]Q A follow-up arms control -- I mean arms sale question. What is the status of the Taiwan package that was announced in April? What systems would you logically see coming down over the next five or six weeks that Taiwan would send in a formal letter of law, a letter of request?

MR. RODMAN: Yeah, I couldn't anticipate what -- I think -- you know, this is still under discussion with them, and I wouldn't predict what would come out. It again may be my ignorance on the issue, but I couldn't give you an answer at this point. Yes?

 

 Q What's the administration's thinking now on a possible theater missile defense system and the possible inclusion of Taiwan in that?

MR. RODMAN: It's premature. We are not at the stage of looking into that. Yes?

 

Q Sir, are you going to -- Vincent Chin (ph) with the United Daily News of Taiwan. Are you going to have a new East Asia security report this year? And if there is going to be that kind of report, what will you focus on on the report?

MR. RODMAN: Well, there's no plan at the moment to do a new report. I am familiar with the reports you are talking about. It's something that my office has been responsible for. I think we are spending this calendar year getting on our feet and getting into business. And we haven't yet made any decisions about drafting new reports. I think -- I mean, on the face of it I think they are a useful contribution, and it's something -- you know, the new administration ought at some point to present its concepts in every geographic area. But there is certainly nothing in the works right now.

[...]

 


Any question? Please email: home@fapa.org or Call: (202)547-3686