Hearing of the Senate Armed Service Committee - The United States Pacific Command and United States Forces Korea Budget
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming these two distinguished public servants.
Indeed, Admiral Keating does go back a way. I think we were on the same watch -- (chuckles) -- long time ago. General Bell, you and I have discussed Korea. You're knowing of my interest in that strategic part of the world, myself having spent the winter of '51, '52 there. And I commend both of you for your long service and thank your families.
And Mr. Chairman, I think you've covered basically the same points I have in mind, so I'll put my statement in the record so we can proceed directly to the witnesses.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. JOHN WARNER (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Chairman, we note that General Bell will be stepping down, and I'd like to comment. I have vivid memories of earlier appearances in this hearing room when we assessed the challenges that faced you in the first years of your distinguished service there, and I recall very well that in the Army we were experiencing, particularly among younger officers, that they would rather leave the Army than face another tour in Korea, given the harshness of the weather and oftentimes families couldn't accompany them.
But you turned that around, and I understand -- I had a visit this week with your successor, General Sharp, and he gave you full credit for that. How did you do it?
GEN. BELL: Well, Senator, thank you for the compliment. I don't know that I deserve that much. I think we've seen a turnaround in attitude about serving in Korea, I think, principally because it is a vital national interest for America, and I've tried to craft with the service members there how important their service is.
I mean -- and I think they realize that. Part of it's just attitude about why we're there today. We are there to deter; let there be no doubt about it. That's our principal mission, to deter North Korean aggression.
But I also think the mission goes much broader than that. As Tim Keating has said, the U.S. engagement in that area of the world, given the situation that we see developing in East Asia, is vital. And I think that we've been able to instill in our young service members a sense of duty about the future of the United States. Twenty-five percent of our trade flows through that area; 25 percent of the world's GDP is generated in that area. This is a vital place for us.
SEN. WARNER: I think you've answered the question. But you did a lot to make that happen.
GEN. BELL: Oh, thank you.
SEN. WARNER: I remember some declined to take on their first major command as maybe a battalion commander rather than go there at the time.
GEN. BELL: Those were different days.
SEN. WARNER: I'm quite concerned about the -- you said that 2012 would be the shift of the responsibility in the command structure.
GEN. BELL: Yes, sir.
SEN. WARNER: Run a quick mathematics. I was scribbling it down. The war started in 1950; this is 2008. That's 58 years. And you're saying it's going to take another four --
GEN. BELL: Right.
SEN. WARNER: -- for them to come to the realization that they're going to step up and take a greater degree of responsibility for the defense of that peninsula. And that's in the face of -- South Korea today is, I believe, the 11th strongest economy in the world.
GEN. BELL: Yes, sir.
SEN. WARNER: Now maybe they've been spending a little too much time on building up the economy and not enough on the military. But I find that -- is that 2012 locked in place, or -- there was a target of 2009.
GEN. BELL: Yes, sir.
SEN. WARNER: What happened to that?
GEN. BELL: General, I was a proponent of 2009. I thought in 2006 that we could effectively do this over a three-year period of transition both in terms of training and assisting our ally to execute high-level battle command. Their formations are very competent; they're very good. It's an impressive military, one of the best in the world. But at high-level battle command, they've allowed the United States -- they've allowed, we've certainly pursued that -- to be the theater command structure apparatus, to have the theater command structure apparatus. And it takes quite a bit to train high- level battle staff to function. So I said 2009.
SEN. WARNER: General, three, two years is a long time to train some senior officers to take over the command. I must express a degree of indignation and disappointment. And I don't know quite if it rests on your shoulders. It rests on basically the South Korean government's shoulder to take it over. I think it would be a matter -- a sense of pride for them to do it.
GEN. BELL: Well, I think it is --
SEN. WARNER: After all, we're relocating a number of our forces down the peninsula, away from the DMZ, to add somewhat of an element of security and for other reasons. I can't understand why they don't step up and accept that challenge.
GEN. BELL: Senator, I will tell you that the secretary of Defense of the United States and the minister of National Defense of South Korea agreed in -- last year that the year 2012 would be satisfactory to both of them. I have a very good timeline worked out now with the South Korean military.
SEN. WARNER: General, I've made my point. You've made yours.
GEN. BELL: Yep.
SEN. WARNER: And you did your best.
Admiral, I picked up on your colloquy with the chairman here. I'm concerned about the lack of transparency with the Chinese. You'd think that they might take a(n) element of pride on growing, as they have, with their military professionalism, the size of their forces. And I think, in response to the chairman's question why you didn't say it directly, you inferred that the current size of the force structure that they now have and that their -- matter of fact, I think they increased their defense budget this year. Am I not correct in --
ADM. KEATING: Yes, sir.
SEN. WARNER: That force structure goes well beyond the size of force structure that might be needed just to, as you say, "protect that which is ours." Do you not agree with that?
ADM. KEATING: I do agree, Senator.
SEN. WARNER: Now, your predecessors, again, having had the privilege -- I've been in this chair for a number of years -- made efforts, I recall distinctly, of urging that we do an incident at sea type of agreement that we successfully had with the Soviet Union in the height of the Cold War --
ADM. KEATING: Sir.
SEN. WARNER: -- when tensions between our nation and then the Soviet Union and the European nations and some -- we put that aside and realized the military necessity for rapid communications between the Soviet Union, the United States and other NATO nations, and it was done. And I remember very well, Mr. Chairman, you and I, together with Senator Nunn, worked on the hot line to the Soviet Union, whereby we literally had a phone on CINCPAC -- excuse me -- the NATO commander's desk and back here in the Pentagon, with a direct line in to the senior elements of the military of the Soviet Union.
Have you explored the possibility of a hot line? I mean, these people have got to remove themselves from the Dark Ages if they want to be respected, I think, by other military powers.
ADM. KEATING: Yes, sir. The secretary of Defense has just concluded technical discussions with counterparts in the People's Republic of China. The hot line will likely be in place and functional, I'll say within two months.
SEN. WARNER: Well, that's encouraging news.
ADM. KEATING: Well, yeah, yes, sir, it is. (Chuckles.) It's not the end-all, as you'd expect, but -- (inaudible) -- it's a step --
SEN. WARNER: Well, it's an improvement and a step forward.
ADM. KEATING: On the INCSEA agreement, you have -- we took your advice, and we've sat -- we have engaged with the People's Liberation Army Navy, PLAN, as recently as four or five days ago, within the past week. Our J5, Major General Conant, has been in Shanghai with his counterparts for the marine consultative agreement discussions.
Not very productive, and a lot of political back and forth -- not much hardcore military yes and no, but it's a step in the direction that you recommend for us. And we cite as an example that we got it done with the Russians in times of increased tensions. So we have that underway. It is going to take a while, but that is our goal, to have something very similar to the INCSEA Agreement.
SEN. WARNER: Well, I take that as, at least, some progress. But it's in the -- it's in the mutual interest of the United States and China -- and indeed, China and other nations in that area to have it, because sometimes, mistakes are made at a flashpoint, and they should avoid that mistake. I'm not suggesting the mistake is on their side, it could well be on the side of another military power. But instant communications to determine the nature of the problem and the corrective measures that should be taken can save lives.
ADM. KEATING: I couldn't agree more.
SEN. WARNER: I listened carefully. You sort of said a few things about Taiwan and the relationship. That always concerns me. We have the Taiwan Relations Act in this country, and I'm concerned that Taiwan thinks that's a 9-11 dialing, "The United States, come rescue us." What is the current status of that situation now, the degree of tension -- the degree of armaments that each are building up? And your professional judgments, the likelihood that anything could happen by way of an outbreak of the use of force.
ADM. KEATING: I think it very unlikely, Senator, that anything will happen across the strait. It is our overarching concern when discussing with Taiwan or China, we want to maintain stability in the region, across the strait in particular. There has been significant military buildup by the People's Republic of China on their side of the strait. The Taiwan officials certainly notice that. We caution both sides against untoward military activity. The Taiwan election, as you know, is on the 22nd of March. The two leading candidates both advocate a more moderate, less bellicose approach in their dealings -- in Taiwan's dealing with the People's Liberation -- with the People's Republic of China. So we're cautiously optimistic that a little bit of the steam will leave the kettle after the 22nd of March. We do then have that period of transition between election and inauguration, which is in late May. So there'll be a period of a couple of months there where we'll continue to watch very carefully cross-strait tensions. I think it very unlikely that any hostilities will break out.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
SEN. WARNER: I'm going to ask you two gentlemen to describe for the committee the current maritime protection we have in place against North Korea exporting what we have reason to believe are weapons of mass destruction, and your respective responsibilities in that area. General?
GEN. BELL: Sir, there are two things, of course. The U.S. has been the leader in both. First is the PSI, the Proliferation Security Initiative, which the U.S. pursues and retains the right to board ships that are -- and mostly it's ships -- that are leaving North Korean waters, heading into international seas if we choose to.
SEN. WARNER: Now. where do we do that interdiction, in international water or the territorial water?
GEN. BELL: Well, first, Senator, I'm not aware of any actual execution of the PSI authorities in the recent term, but the United States reserves the right to do that. And it would be in international waters, yes, sir. So if there were a ship that was suspected to contain some kind of missile capability and it was on the high seas, through this PSI mechanism the United States has the right to board -- or with our allies, if they would assist us. I know Admiral Keating is very aware of this procedure.
SEN. WARNER: You have the command and control of those ships within your area of responsibility?
ADM. KEATING: I do, sir.
SEN. WARNER: And under what authority does the United States exercise its right to board ships, in international water, which embark from North Korea?
ADM. KEATING: It is that Proliferation Security Initiative, Senator. We have not --
SEN. WARNER: Clear authority there.
ADM. KEATING: Yes, sir.
SEN. WARNER: International authority.
ADM. KEATING: Correct.
SEN. WARNER: And we do maintain a ship on station for that purpose.
ADM. KEATING: We don't maintain, for that express purpose, a ship on station, Senator. But we have --
SEN. WARNER: You have assets you can call upon in short order to get up there, and can and have.
ADM. KEATING: Can and have.
SEN. WARNER: Good.
General, it's important that we cover, given that the military in your command are relocating, the issue of family housing. This is one that I have followed with great interest. I observe, in the hearing room today, your able staff assistant -- (name inaudible) -- who has been working on this for many years.
What's the status of that now?
GEN. BELL: Sir, we are dead in the water at this moment on family housing that we agreed to provide in a 2004 agreement with the Republic of Korea. Fundamentally they agreed to build almost all the facilities that we would need in the vicinity of Pyeongtaek, Camp Humphreys. We call it now Garrison Humphreys.
We agreed to provide the majority of the family and senior leader quarters for those who are there on one-year tours. Our approach to that was build-to-lease, a build-to-lease mechanism. We also have the potential for a military construction approach. Neither of those have been considered favorably here in Congress.
I will tell you, the Army this year is pursuing yet a third option, and that is a full privatization approach without any lease guarantees with South Korean or frankly international companies.
SEN. WARNER: But do you find that the dead-in-the-water situation is largely owing to congressional inaction or executive branch decision making?
GEN. BELL: Sir, over the period of 2004 till 2008, in my view, it has been a shortcoming in three areas.
First, we did not properly articulate the requirement at U.S. Forces Korea. I can show you the history of that, and that's our -- that is, you know, a lick on us.
SEN. WARNER: Articulated to the Congress?
GEN. BELL: Back in 2004 and 2005, I see no history of effectively articulating it in a way that you could deal with it. 2006, we began to properly articulate the requirement that we had signed up for. We had a lot of resistance in the administration, a lot, both in the building, in the Pentagon, and also at OMB.
When we finally worked our way through that in 2006 and did submit a proposal that was in the National Defense Authorization Bill, it was taken out last year.
SEN. WARNER: Here in the Congress?
GEN. BELL: Yes, sir, it was.
SEN. WARNER: So again it looks like the burden is on the Congress if this thing is to be straightened out.
GEN. BELL: Well, we're going to try a different approach, not just with Congress but to see if we can get a privatization effort going that may work for us.
SEN. WARNER: My last question, Mr. Chairman, relates to Australia.
It's interesting to note that Australia is a nation that has participated with U.S. forces in every single international combat situation we've had since World War I. Am I correct on that, Admiral?
ADM. KEATING: I believe you are, sir. Yes, sir.
SEN. WARNER: Give us your own view now as to the -- you've got a new Labor government, in Australia, has decided with respect to its continued participation in the coalition of operations in Iraq.
Similarly, did the Australians indicate there would be any changes in the level and character of the Australian contribution to NATO ISAF mission in Afghanistan? Bring us up to date on those.
ADM. KEATING: We were in Australia two weeks ago, three weeks ago, Senator, for the -- what's called Australian ministerials. Their minister of Defense, their chief of Defense Staff. Our secretary of Defense, our secretary of State -- it was in this case Secretary Negroponte, Admiral Mike Mullen and I represented the United States. During the course of two days of discussions on a wide variety of topics, the Australians expressed their continued support for Operation Enduring Freedom, their drawdown of forces deployed, though not complete withdrawal, of forces in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.
The theme that was unmistakable from our allies was a continued emphasis from them on fighting and winning the global war on terror, working carefully with us at Pacific Command on those countries that are closer to them,that are less solid, that are very fragile -- Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and the Solomon Islands foremost among them. They are working carefully with us, in collaboration with us on their relations with Indonesia. So I came away from that day- and-a-half session reassured that the new government and their new policies were largely consistent with those of their predecessors and were in support of, in particular, U.S. Pacific Command strategy and goals.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I'd like to submit for the record a question on India. I'm not sure our record today has your full dissertation on the India-U.S. military-to-military cooperation.
ADM. KEATING: Be happy to take it, sir.
SEN. WARNER: Thank you very much.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source