Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20151020 :

CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings October 20, 2015

The case. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you both for testifying today. Admiral, in your testimony you point out that we insist that all Maritime Claims be deraved from naturally formed land features in accordance with International Laws reflected in the law of the Sea Convention. Are we at any kind of a disadvantage because we havent been a signatory to the law of the Sea Convention . Senator, i believe we are at a disadvantage because we dont have the moral high ground that other countries who are cigna tors, including china and russia have. So when china makes these outrageous claims in the South China Sea, and the philippines challenges one of those claims and we support the philippines right to make that claim, at the same time were not a signatory, that looks strange. When russia makes claims in the Arctic Circle and they tell us, you have no standing on which to complain because youre not a signatory to the law of the sea, it puts us at a disadvantage. Thank you. I agree. I would hope that we would reevaluate our position and become a signatory with most of the rest of the world of the law of the Sea Convention. Senator reed raised the threat from north korea, second shear. Earlier, they assessed north korea has the ability to launch a missal that could be capable of hitting the u. S. From a mobile launcher. We saw right before secretary carter visited japan that they launched two shortrange missiles. You talked about china and their waning influence with north korea. Are there other measures that we ought to be taking with respect to north korea . Should we have any sense of optimism about the recent overtures between north and south korea where they seem to be talking a little more . Thank you, senator. Thats an important question. We certainly support the efforts by the north and south to conduct senior level dialogue. As with past efforts to conduct such dialogue, i think we need to be very cautious in how we view the prospects. But i view this current effort to be a direct outcome of the very robust position the rok took in negotiations with the north to resolve the issue precipitated by the north korean provocation of august 4th. So i think its very important that they have embarked on this effort. Were just going to have to be very cautious. We support the rok very strongly in this effort. More generally, our approach to north korea is a combination of diplomacy and pressure. And as we go forward toward a possible north Korean Missile launch, for example, were going to be engaging our Six Party Partners and were going to be considering what extra pressure we might put on north korea should they decide to conduct that missile launch. I assume you dont want to talk publically about what those pressures might be . We put a great many sanctions on north korea and further sanctions would be one possibility. Did you want to add anything . Sure. I will add that i think the key is to be ready for all outcomes regarding north korea from a position of strength. I tend to be a pessimism when it comes to dealing with the capabilities of other countries. So, again, its best to be cognizant of all outcomes. We strengthen south koreas ability and their bmd systems and that is why i personally believe that its important. The Missile Defense system. Thank you. Theres been a lot of discussion today and earlier this year for the last decade the u. S. Has flown with impunity in iraq and afghanistan with no threat to any air weapons. He noted that our capabilities to do that will be threatened in the future as china has been able to field more capabilities. I guess i would say, do you agree with that assessment . Can you talk about what that new technology that china is developing and our ability to stay ahead, how thats going to be affected by sequestration. We have a technological edge over them and almost every in almost every way. Im confident in our ability to take the fight to china if it should come to that. I hope it doesnt. That said, we have to maintain that technological edge. They are growing in their capability and their technological capability. Thats of concern to me. I think we need fifth Generation Fighters, for example. We need to have a lot of them. Thats joint strike fighter, the f35. We need to continue to upgrade our fourth Generation Fighters with fifth generation capabilities, because we have a lot of them. I think thats important. Secretary shear, i know im out of time, but you just may want to add what you think if cuts go back into affect for fiscal year 2016 what that would do to our ability to continue to have that technology. Were certainly concerned about the possible affects cuts may have both on Current Operations and our ability to develop the new technologies we need to maintain our military dominance in the region. Thats something that secretary carter is extremely interested in. Our Defense Innovation initiative is designed to develop those capabilities. Were going to need to counter area access and denial strategies and to maintain our superiority in the region. So were committed not only to deploying our best capabilities to the region now. Were committing to devising the technologies we need to maintain our edge. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you gentlemen for being here today. We appreciate it very much. It was reported earlier this week that japan will be providing 832 million in infrastructure aid to vietnam and another 1. 7 million worth of ships and equipment to them as well to help counter the rising of china. I am very glad that our allies are improving their relationships to counter the chinese aggression. Both japan and vietnam are key allies for us here in the United States and developing that Strong Security and Economic Partnership with both japan and vietnam will allow us to better check chinas aggression in that region. So for both of you, if you would, please, how will this new agreement between vietnam and japan improve that security situation in that region . And also, under the Southeast Asia Maritime Security initiative, what specifically is the department doing to build partner capacity and capability in vietnam and in other Southeast Asia nations . Thank you, senator. Thats a great point. We strongly support japanese efforts to coordinate with us in building partner capacity, particularly with vietnam, the philippines and probably in the future malaysia. This is something that i worked on with my japanese colleagues while i was ambassador. Im delighted to see that it has come to fruition for the japanese side. Were interested in taking similar actions as you state in our Maritime Security initiative, which is in the fy16 ndaa. Thats a fiveyear 425 Million Program that we greatly appreciate the committees support on this effort. Under that initiative, we hope to not only improve physical capacity of our partners in, say, providing, for example, coast guard vessels, but we want to improve their institutional capacity. We want to improve their sustainability. Thats something very important with the philippines. We want to improve their professionalism. So this would be a very broad Program Designed to raise the level of particularly of the Maritime Law Enforcement capabilities of our partners in the region. Senator, i was at vietnam as my previous assignment. I just returned to the philippines a few weeks ago. I welcome japans overtures and their efforts to improve the capacity of the of both countries, vietnam and the philippines. I think vietnam presents an ideal opportunity for us as we work more closely with them. I think that that is another indication of the response of the region to chinas bad behavior in the South China Sea where countries that previously that were at odds with us or leaders of the movement are coming to us for assistance and are opening themselves up to us. Thats one of the costs that china has to bear for its bad behavior. Very good. Thank you. You have mentioned both of you, the philippines several times. They have proven to be a great ally, whether its the global war or terror, hurricane humanitarian relief efforts and so forth. Are there specific steps that we can take or should be taking with the philippines at this time to further develop those relationships . You are right, senator. More can be done. When the president was in manila last year, he stated publically that our commitment under the mutual defense treaty to the philippines is iron clad. That no one should have any doubt about the extent of our commitment under that treaty. To increase capabilities to train and operate with them and to overall strengthen their ability ore cyst chinese coercion. Thank you so much briefing you gave me last month in honolulu. You mentioned admiral, that north korea is the greatest threat you face as Pacific Commander and noted that chinas inpluns in north korea is waning. Is there another country, ie, russia, thats stepping into this vacuum in relationships with north korea . I dont know any sources where they have had some relationships with them because of their histories. But i believe that today, the greatest threat i face is north korea. But today in my opinion, is not a threat to the United States as russia is. In the pacific, russia has a long coastline. At least two major naval bases including one for their Ballistic Missile submarines. Two major air bases and then a host of smaller operating bases in the pacific. So, those are things i worry about. We read that they have recently improved Infrastructure Projects in what the japanese call the northern territories and there have been numerous visits to these remote locations by russian leaders, so there are becoming active in that part of the world, not to mention the arctic. I agree with the admiral on his assessment of the activities and let me suppress our strategy is designed to encompass russia as well as china, as well as other challenges in the region. What do you make of russias russias activities . Does it have further reaching consequences . I confess, im not familiar with all the details on the kinds of infrastructure that russia is building in the north territories, but we support the japanese claim to the northern territories. And we would be concerned if the russians used this infrastructure to further militarize or to bolster their military strength in the region. Admiral harris, i was in okinawa last month because part of the Indoasia Pacific rebalance to this part of the world involvements the closing of futenma facility. And most recently the governor of okinawa prefecture claimed that hell proceed with canceling the landfill permit for developing the alternative facility. What does this proclamation mean for the government of japan and the futenma replacement facility project we need to get on with . Senator, we have a longstanding treaty, mutual security treaty, with japan. And part and our obligation in that treaty is to provide security for japan. Japans obligation, one of japans obligations under that treaty, is to provide bases from which to operate and do that. Okinawa is critical for our ability to defend japan and our posture in the asiapacific region. It is a Japanese National effort and a decision whether to override or overcome governor onagas objection to the futenma replacement facility. They are working on that and thats their obligations under the treaty for us. If i may add to that briefly, senator. We greatly appreciate the support the government of japan has given to the effort to find a replacement for futenma facility. We appreciate their effort to get construction going for the futenma replacement facility. And we were glad this week when we were informed by the japanese government their constructionrelated activities have begun at the hanoko site for the replacement facilities. So, while there may be delays as a result of the governor of okinawas actions that you expect that the japanese government will continue to proceed with the replacement facility . I do, senator. And i want to stress that as we move forward on construction of the futenma replacement facility, we, of course, as we always do, we will continue to consider okinawan sensitivities with regard to the general issue of our presence and our operations in okinawa. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you, admiral harris and ambassador scherer for all you do. Thank you for being here to answer our questions. Admiral harris, you said that we need to ratify the law of the sea treaty in order to acquire some type of moral high ground particularly relative to russia and china. Im having a hard time seeing why it is that a country that like the United States, that has used its power, its blood and its treasure, to protect navigation all over the world for 200 years, has to in order to gain some moral high ground ratify this particular treaty. Can you help me understand that . Sure, senator. The lack of signing the treaty doesnt affect our ability to be the strongest nation on the earth. But the lack of signing that treaty puts us at a disadvantage in discussions with most of the other countries in the world that have signed the treaty and moral standing, if you will. So, we lose nothing by signing signing off on the treaty. But we lose a lot by not signing it. And what is the it that we lose . And part of what im asking in connection to that, you know, youve got one of the claims is it might help us solve the South China Sea territorial disputes. But all the nations in the South China Sea, including china, you know, that have coast line along the South China Sea, are members of the treaty. Theyre all parties to the treaty. The philippines has brought a lawsuit against china under the treaty and china, as i understand it, has basically ignored it. How does that mean that this fixes the problem if we suddenly ratify the treaty . Well, i dont think it would suddenly fix the problem. But, as you said, the philippines has brought a case against china in the hague and the International Tribunal for law of the sea, on the claim itself and the second issue is whether the tribunal has jurisdiction to even judge that case. And we have supported the philippine right to take the claim to the International Tribunal and, in fact, weve praised them for doing so. And yet were not a signatory to the treaty itself. And if you shift to the arctic, if you look at the outrageous claims that russia has made in the arctic ocean, theyre making those claims under their interpretation of the law of the Sea Convention. And when we criticize them for those claims, they say that we have no standing to do so. And, you know, the the i would submit that most of the rest of the world who also has signed off on the treaty would probably share that opinion or at least part of it. On the other side, you know, we have agreed as a policy to follow the precepts in the United Nations conventional law of the sea. So, we have that for us, but were not a signatory to it. And, again, i would say in my opinion we lose nothing by signing it. And we lose a lot of moral high ground in this if you will by not signing it. But if were following the precepts in the treaty, not withstanding the fact that we havent ratified it and therefore were not formally a party to it, i struggle with how that changes the moral high ground, particularly when i dont think theres any country on earth that has a greater claim to moral high ground particularly when it comes to navigational issues, when it comes to naval issues, than the United States, which for 200 years has kept shipping lanes open and safe. Can you tell me what navigational rights, if any, does the navy lack today that it would suddenly have if we were to ratify that treaty . Sir, the navy would lack nothing whether we ratify the treaty or not. The United States would gain standing by signing off on the treaty. And that standing how with would that standing benefit us in a material way relative to our interests in that part of the world . Well, in some cases under the the convention sets up a framework for ocean exploration, for example, and it says that, you know, without getting into some of the real particulars, you go out to 200 miles and thats your continental your exclusive Economic Zone and then out beyond that is the open ocean zone if you will. And there are companies today, american companies, that wont explore out in that region beyond the 200mile exclusive Economic Zone because theyre not sure whether any competing claim will have an effect on them or whether they would lose in this International Tribunal or other places. So, i think that we lose in Economic Opportunity by not signing off on the treaty because it places in jeopardy the legal question, not the not the military or the strength question, but it places in jeopardy the legal question of what happens out beyond the exclusive Economic Zone for our companies that would gain an economic benefit from that. Okay. I see my times expired. I dont doubt the sincerity of your feelings on this. I would take issue with one aspect of what you said, though, that regardless of what benefits you might see from this, i would

© 2025 Vimarsana