Press Conference with General Peter Pace, USMC
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
United States Embassy Press Center
Beijing, China – March 23, 2007

General Pace: Thank you all very much for this opportunity to be with you and thanks for your time today.  I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the wonderful citizens here in China through the media.  It’s been a great privilege for me to make my very first visit to China, and certainly to be here as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  It gives me a chance to come to listen, to learn about ways that our two militaries – the military here in China and the military in the United States – can work together in the future to provide for the security and prosperity of the 1.3 billion Chinese and the 300 million Americans who look to us to work together to find ways to help both of our countries prosper in the future.

I’ve had very good meetings so far.  I am looking forward to the rest of my time here.  I met with General Guo and General Cao and General Liang yesterday.  I had a chance this morning to meet with Minister Li.  In each of those meetings and out this morning at the AMS group of scholars, I had a chance to meet with each of them and have a very good, open dialogue about what’s possible and to have discussions about the kinds of military activities that we can do together that will help build trust and competence.  School houses, for example, where you have a chance to have some of our younger officers exchange positions with each other.  Exercises where we can observe each other’s activities.  Humanitarian and relief at sea operations that might be able to build trust and confidence amongst our forces. 

Basically, what I am looking to do is to find ways that the military in China and the military in the United States can foster understanding between our militaries in a way that would help foster understanding between our countries, so that we can become the partners for the future that I believe is in the best interest of both China and United States.

So with that I will stop and answer your questions.

Embassy Press Officer:  Now we’ve got a full house, we’ve got two wireless microphones, and I ask that you remember to state your name and organization before you ask a question. 

Question:   Thanks.  Bob Saiget with AFP.   First off, on the Taiwan issue.  China’s come out with the new military budget.  The United States has said they want more transparency, but it seems pretty clear that they are talking about protecting Taiwan, which they say is within their territorial integrity.  Have you seen any way forward with the Taiwan issue than this?  And then tomorrow, there will be a vote in Congress about a possible pullout from Iraq in September 2008.  Do you have any views on that, and have you made any kind of recommendations to some of those Congressmen who are going to be voting?

General Pace: Well, not surprisingly in each of my discussions here with the leaders I just mentioned, the issue of Taiwan came up.  It’s clearly a fundamental issue for the government here in China.  We should respect the fundamental nature of that issue.  President Bush has been very clear in what he has said about Taiwan and China, that as a nation, we support the one-China policy, the three Communiqués, the Taiwan Relations Act, and the peaceful resolution.  And President Bush has also said that he does not support Taiwan independence.  I think that’s a very clear statement of the position of the United States, and I had the chance to reiterate that with each of my colleagues here in China. 

With regard to the vote in the Congress of the United States, I’ll be watching, as you will, to see what happens.

Question:  Good Afternoon.  Ed Lanfranco, UPI.  On the issue of transparency, did you at all discuss with the Chinese the anti-satellite missile test in January this year?  And also, the Chinese and the Russians are going to be holding a joint military exercise.  Will the United States be an observer to that exercise?

General Pace: Yeah, we talked about transparency in a lot of ways, and I used the example of the anti-satellite test as how, sometimes, the international community can be confused, because it was a surprise that China did that.  And it is– wasn’t clear what their intent was.  When things are not clear, and when there are surprises, then it tends to confuse people and raise suspicions.  I think that is one of the areas that we can work harder between the two militaries -- to make sure that, as best we can, we tell each other what we are doing, why we are doing it, how we are doing it, what our intents are, so that it’s clear to each other where we are going why we are going there.

The second part of the question was….?

Question: The Sino-Russian joint military exercise.

General Pace:  Ah.  We know that they are going to have that exercise.  Because it’s a multilateral exercise that involves more than China and Russia, I know that there will be a dialogue amongst the nations that are participating.  Those nations will determine whether or not they invite other countries to come observe, so, to my knowledge, they have not yet had that dialogue amongst the participating nations and therefore it’s premature for me to discuss whether or not we are going to get invited, because we’ll have to have to wait and see if we get invited.

Question: Did you ask to be invited?

General Pace: I did not ask to be invited.  I did mention to them that we have knowledge of the exercise, and that kind of exercise – both the kind that we conduct, where we have invited the Chinese to come observe, and the kind of they are conducting with others, if their partners agree to do it – that those kinds of opportunities to have observers from both sides goes a long way in helping transparency.

Question:  Thank you.

General Pace: Thank you.

Question:  Thank you.  From the Straits Times.  A quick follow up question on the anti-satellite test. Did the Chinese, then, tell you what their intentions were in conducting the test, and did they share more information about the test with you?

General Pace: No, they did not.

Question:  I am with CNN.  You mentioned that Taiwan is a fundamental issue to the Chinese government.  To the best of your knowledge, do you think— do you believe that the Chinese will go to war if, say, Taiwan declares independence now, today?

General Pace: That’s way out of my lane.  The Chinese government is a sovereign government and a sovereign nation.  I can simply state to you that we, as a nation, have been very open and very direct in our dialogue about what I have already mentioned.  Our president has spoken clearly for the United States, and I have reiterated that to my counterparts here, but I would not presume to speak for the Chinese government.

Question:  But as a worst case scenario, are you prepared for that?

General Pace: I believe that there are good faith efforts amongst all the leadership to prevent that.  And that’s what we should focus on, not how to fight each other, but how to prevent military action.  That’s what my government is focused on, that’s what my Chinese counterparts here have said their government is focused on, and I think that’s where we should expend our energies.

Question:  I am with China Xinhua News Agency.  Just now you said that the governments are trying to prevent the war, but I know in February the Defense Ministry announced a plan to sell Taiwan over 400 missiles.  What do you think of this plan?  Will the United States finally sell those weapons to Taiwan?  And what’s the purpose of that?  Thank you.

General Pace: I don’t know the specifics of the particular arms arrangements.  I do know that my country is determined to help to find a proper, peaceful solution to the Taiwan issue along the lines that I’ve already mentioned, which is one China, the Three Communiqués, the Taiwan Relations Act, a peaceful solution and that we do not support Taiwan independence.  Inside of each of those things that have been very well articulated by my president, we are working as best we can to be helpful, to help find the best way forward.

QUESTION:  From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.  Is the U.S. generally worried about the Chinese military build up?  And I suppose in particular, like the J-10 fighter jets are being rolled out.  What do you think they are for?  Does this sort of thing worry you?

GENERAL PACE:  I think what we would all like to have on both sides is more transparency, understanding what other countries are doing.  From my perspective, purely as a military man, purely as a military man, without specific regard to one country or another, when you analyze potential threats, you look for two things:  (1) what is the country’s capacity; and (2) what is the country’s intent? 

Now clearly, both China and the United States have enormous military capacity.  But equally clearly, neither country has the intent to go to war with the other country.  So absent intent, I don’t find threat.

To ensure that there is not miscalculation, then you want to focus on how do you foster the kind of information flow that allows individuals, institutions and countries to understand each other better.  And that’s one of my primary purposes here to find out what are the academic opportunities, what are the military-to-military opportunities, that would allow us to have more of our younger officers, more of our senior officers, have the education opportunities to get to know each other, to have the opportunities to work side-by-side and observe side-by-side what the others are doing -- so that over time, you build up an understanding of what is important to the other person, why they are doing what they are doing, what’s important to their country, what’s not, and how what your country does impacts what they do.  So that over time, you build up a trust and confidence that allows then for more transparency.

All countries are going to have some military secrets.  Even best friends keep something from each other.  So this is not about being completely open about everything.  But it is about making sure that budgets, for example, not only are represented by dollars or whatever the denomination is in someone else’s country – not only how much of the nation’s resources are being put into the budget, but what is that money buying?  What is the intent of that money?  I think the more we are able to share that kind of information, the more comfortable we’ll be with each other as we go forward.

QUESTION (follow on):  And the jets?  The J-10 fighter jets?  Are you worried about those?

GENERAL PACE:  I don’t know enough about that.  Sorry.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  I’m with Al-Jazeera.  On the schedule, you might visit Shenyang, which is the place for North Korea.  Is the visit there related in any way to the North Korean issue?  And secondly, you focused on your bilateral military-to-military relations with your Chinese counterpart.  Did you have any chance to talk about future security in the world, especially in Central Asia and in the Middle East like Iraq and Iran?  Thank you.

GENERAL PACE:  First of all, where I’m going are the places where General Guo and General Liang invited me to go.  And they have -- in the relatively short period of time I have available, they are trying to get me out to see as many things as I can see in as short a time as I can do that.  And therefore, it makes sense that Shenyang, which is very close by, is one of the regions I’ll be going to.  And I’ll be going to others as well.  So from that standpoint, it’s really a time-distance factor on how much we’re going to see.  I really appreciate the fact that my Chinese counterparts are trying to get me to see as much as they possible can in a short period of time.

We did not get to the point in our discussions of being able to talk about specific areas because we had relatively short periods of time to have the discussions we had.  By the time we got into the dialogue of transparency and trust and openness and how do we work together to facilitate more military-to-military contact – by the time we got done with those discussions, we pretty much were out of time and didn’t focus in on specific regions.

Clearly, if you are able to do the things we did talk about, then the understanding of what is important for each of our countries in each region of the world will become more apparent.  When you understand where other people’s concerns are, when you understand why they think the way they think, and you are able to put together history, present and potential future, then you are able to have a much better dialogue and work much more closely together and prevent the misunderstandings that I think are --  The biggest fear I have of the future is miscalculation, misunderstanding based on misinformation.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  I’m from China Daily.  Japan and Australia signed a comprehensive strategic text on March 13.  The landmark security arrangements enable the Japanese military force to do more and go further beyond its territory.  Do you have any fear that the Japanese military will be out of U.S. control one day?  In your opinion, is the Australian-Japanese pact positive or negative to the security of the Asia-Pacific area?  And I have another question about –

EMBASSY PRESS OFFICER:  Can we just limit it to one question for now?  A lot of people want to ask.  Thank you.

GENERAL PACE:  First of all, we’re talking about sovereign nations.  Japan is a sovereign nation.  Australia is a sovereign nation.   China is, so is the United States.  So I disagree with your comment about might Japan get out from underneath the control of the United States, because Japan is not currently under the control of the United States.  Japan is a sovereign nation.

The fact that Australia and Japan have determined that their agreement is good for their citizens in both countries is their business.  From my perspective, the opportunity that we have collectively – Australia, Japan, China, the United States – is significant from the standpoint of what we are able to do for our citizens.  Each of the countries, those four countries, has enormous amounts of trade going on between various countries and amongst the countries.  The more that we depend on each other for our economic prosperity, the less likely it is that we will look for ways to come into conflict with each other.  And I think that the more that we are dependent on each other, the more that we will gain understanding and preclude the possibility.

For Japan and Australia to do what they’ve done, that is their business.  They have made their own decisions, and they have determined that it’s good for those two countries.  We should also look to how might we partner – China, the United States, Australia, Japan and others -- how might we partner together to increase stability in the region and increase economic activity so that people of all countries can live better lives tomorrow.

QUESTION: Thank you.  From the Associated Press.  The confidence-building measures you said that you brought up.  What sort of response did you get to those – things like training and rescue exercises?  Was anything sort of firmly agreed on?  And could you tell us about the general tenor of the talks, the atmosphere.  Was there any time when things might have gotten a bit tense, say over Taiwan or some other issue like that?

GENERAL PACE: Thanks.  I came to listen and to learn about ways to cooperate.  I appreciate the opportunity to clarify, because the ideas I talked about were ideas that General Liang, my counterpart here in China, offered in his initial comments yesterday.  He had a list of things talking about service academies like West Point sending cadets here and China sending their cadets back to West Point.  Captains and majors and lieutenant colonels at our various service level schools having a chance to visit each other’s schools, exercises like we’ve talked about, to be able to observe and/or participate depending on which was a proper M.O. for that.  Those were all things that General Liang mentioned in his opening comments to me, which I was very pleased to hear and which I quickly agreed to study with him to see what we might be able to do together in the future.  

No, as far anything getting tense.  I have been welcomed as a friend, and I have been treated as friend, to include speaking very openly and candidly, as you would to a friend about things that you agree about and things are obstacles.  We had very good, open, candid, calm discussions about things that are obstacles to us having closer relations, and then we talked about how, as military men, we might be able to help our countries work our way through those obstacles so we can do better in the future. 

QUESTION: (Inaudible) is this a big change in the Chinese attitude?  They’re being more proactive?

GENERAL PACE: I’m thinking because this is my first visit, so I have not had the opportunity before to sit eye-to-eye with my Chinese counterparts and have a dialogue.  So, for me, this is really a baseline.  For me, this was a very good open discussion and one that I found very encouraging from the standpoint of what General Liang and General Guo were saying, so I believe that the Chinese military wants to have good relations with the United States military.  I believe and I know that the United States military wants to have good relations with the Chinese military, and I’m committed to working toward that end so we can do better for both our countries.

QUESTION: Hi.  I’m Yui with NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation.  Did you discuss establishing hotlines between U.S. and China when you talked with the Chinese officials?  And a quick follow-up question on the anti-satellite weapons: in your opinion, why do you think that China conducted an anti-satellite weapons test?

GENERAL PACE: I think it is a really good idea to work toward having a hotline, or whatever you want to call a direct telephone link between the military here -- either at the senior civilian level or the senior military level here – and the senior civilian or senior military level in the United States.  It’s simply, put very importantly, one more way to ensure that if there’s miscalculation or if there’s misunderstanding, that you can pick up the phone quickly and make a phone call.  That’s why visits like this are so important.  Last July, General Guo came to the United States, and he was visiting and being hosted by Secretary Rumsfeld, and I had the opportunity then to meet with him and talk with him.  Then I come here and I meet with him and I talk with him again, and we have some understanding of each other’s personalities.  If you then have telephone line that you can pick up quickly and talk to somebody, instead of picking the phone up and talking to somebody you’ve never met before, you’re talking to somebody whose face you can imagine in your own head when you’re talking on the phone, who recognizes you and your voice, who has some understanding of trust and confidence between the two of you.  So the visits make it possible then to have the kind of phone line that you’re talking about, that can help both nations quickly overcome whatever misunderstanding there might be.  So I’m a very strong supporter of that kind of a link. 

With regard to why a Chinese anti-satellite test was conducted, you really have to ask the Chinese government.  I am not a spokesman for them. 

EMBASSY PRESS OFFICER:  We have time for one last question.

QUESTION: Shai Oster from the Wall Street Journal.  Would you describe the anti-satellite test as a setback in Chinese-U.S. relations, and is this sort of a trip to rebuild the trust that had been lost? The relations between the two countries have been quite rocky in the past.  We had the Sarajevo bombing and the spy planes, and now the satellite.  The other thing is, how far away do you think these two countries are from establishing such a hotline that you endorse.  Did that come up in the discussions you had during this trip.  And also, one last question: budget.  What do you think the real budget is?  Sorry.  What do think the real military budget is in China?

GENERAL PACE: The last answer is I don’t know.  I won’t try to guess.  Again, with regard to the military budget, it is not so important what the exact number is.  It’s important what capacities are being built and why and what do we understand with each other about how those things stand.  I’m sorry. What were the first two again?

QUESTION: Was the hotline issue raised, how far away from establishing it? And then: would you describe the anti-satellite as a setback that you’re now trying to rebuild the trust lost. 

GENERAL PACE: We did talk about the possibility of a hotline and we agreed that we should continue to talk government-to-government about that with the intent of trying to find a way to make it happen because the Chinese military understands as well as I do that the opportunity to pick up the phone and talk to somebody you know and smooth out misunderstandings quickly is a very important part of relations between two countries. 

With regard to the anti-satellite test, I think what I said already really is fundamental.  And that is that it’s confusing to the international community why the Chinese did it and what their intent was.  So, from that standpoint, understanding before folks do something – what they’re going to do, why they’re going to do it, how that fits into their plans – is all part of the transparency that I think helps people understand.  And you know, you don’t have to agree or disagree with any particularly country’s objectives, but it’s very helpful to understand what those objectives are and why they are going that direction so you can better – well, transparency’s the word – the more transparency, the more understanding.  And it’s better to understand and not agree than it is to be confused and not understand why.

QUESTION: But they didn’t offer any clarity on that?

GENERAL PACE: No.

EMBASSY PRESS OFFICER:   OK, thank you very much.  Thank you, General Pace. 

GENERAL PACE: Thank you.

##