U.S. DEFENSE OFFICIAL PRESS ROUNDTA

[moe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]

FILE ID:97090901.EEA

DATE:09/09/97

TITLE:09-09-97  TRANSCRIPT: DEFENSE OFFICIAL 8/28 PRESS ROUNDTABLE IN BANGKOK


TEXT:

(U.S. fully committed to security of the Asia-Pacific) (4660)


Bangkok -- A delegation of U.S. defense officials is visiting security

leaders throughout the Asia-Pacific region to make sure they

understand the full commitment of the United States to the security of

the region, according to Franklin D. Kramer, assistant secretary of

defense for international security affairs.


During a roundtable discussion with members of the press in Bangkok

August 28, Kramer said: "In particular, as many of you know, we in the

United States Department of Defense undertook our quadrennial defense

review which finished in the spring of this year. It was reviewed and

approved by the Secretary of Defense and by the President. And with

respect to this part of the world, it reaffirmed very much so our

commitment to the Asia-Pacific, to the region, the importance of

forward presence for the United States and the importance of

maintaining a presence of approximately 100,000 forces in the overall

Asia-Pacific. We wanted to talk to the security leaders in all

countries about these issues to make sure that they understood the

full commitment of the United States to the security of the region."


Kramer said U.S. policies toward Burma and Cambodia were subjects of

discussion in Thailand and elsewhere on their trip.


"With respect to Burma," he said, "U.S. policy is well known. We have

grave concerns about the activities of the SLORC, and it's for that

reason that we have the policy that we have. We have a difference to

some extent with the ASEAN countries. That decision has been made by

them. We maintain the same objectives, and I had some extensive

discussions with the National Security Council here as to how to go

forward and achieve those objectives which of course are bringing

about a democratic, free Burma.


"With respect to Cambodia, we really have very much the same policy.

As you well know, ASEAN made the decision not to go forward with the

invitation until after there were free and full, fair elections, which

will take place we anticipate in the spring. The United States is

working very closely with ASEAN, the ASEAN countries on Cambodia, and

we're hopeful that that will take place. I think we all share the full

understanding that use of force is not an appropriate mechanism. It's

very important that the elections be open to all parties, and that

they actually take place in a free and fair way. That certainly is a

shared objective, and I think it's an objective of every country that

I spoke with."


Following is a transcript of the discussion:


(begin transcript)


OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION WITH

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FRANKLIN D. KRAMER


WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 27, 1997


BANGKOK, THAILAND


WILLIAM KIEHL, PAO BANGKOK: Good afternoon. Welcome to the roundtable.

I'd like to introduce the Assistant Secretary for International

Security Affairs of the U.S. Department of Defense, Franklin Kramer.

Mr. Secretary, welcome. I'd appreciate it if you could raise your hand

and be recognized, and then when the mike is in front of you, identify

yourself and your organization. Thanks very much.


ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRAMER: Thanks a lot. As you said, my name is

Franklin D. Kramer. I'm the Assistant Secretary of Defense for

International Security Affairs. I and the members of my delegation

came to Thailand and to the area to have consultations on security and

defense issues. We did so because there have been developments in

United States security policy and also issues that have arisen in the

period of time since we have had a chance for full consultations

previously.


In particular, as many of you know, we in the United States Department

of Defense undertook our quadrennial defense review which finished in

the spring of this year. It was reviewed and approved by the Secretary

of Defense and by the President. And with respect to this part of the

world, it reaffirmed very much so our commitment to the Asia-Pacific,

to the region, the importance of forward presence for the United

States and the importance of maintaining a presence of approximately

100,000 forces in the overall Asia-Pacific. We wanted to talk to the

security leaders in all countries about these issues to make sure that

they understood the full commitment of the United States to the

security of the region.


It's very important for us to work with countries both bilaterally

with our close friends and allies, that certainly includes Thailand,

on these issues, to work in multilateral fora including the ASEAN

Regional Forum where recently at the instance of ASEAN there was added

an additional seat called the one-plus-one-plus-one seat which was a

defense seat and which will give us a chance again to work on security

and defense type issues. We talked about these kinds of questions. We

naturally talked about bilateral issues, and I think it's fair to say

that people were pleased to have the chance to consult on these

matters. They are looking forward to some of the things that are now

ongoing, including the upcoming summit between the United States and

China. We are also looking forward to that summit and expect it to be

quite constructive. And we have had a chance to go over all these kind

of questions. So, I appreciate the chance to have the opportunity to

talk to you here today. I'd be delighted to take any of your

questions, and let me turn this over to you. It's really your

conference.


Q: Asian Defense Journal: Welcome. I'd like to welcome the Secretary

on his visit to Thailand. So very broadly, could you explain what role

does Thailand play as an ally in Washington's policy in the

Asia-Pacific region, and following on from that, perhaps you could

comment on what topics of discussion you had with your Thai

counterparts today? Thank you.


A: As you well know, and everyone in this room knows, we have had

extremely close relations with Thailand for many, many years. As you

said, they are a treaty ally, but beyond being a treaty ally, they are

a close friend. We wanted to discuss generally issues having to do

both with bilateral questions between us and also with regional

issues, and beyond the immediate region through the full scope of the

Asia-Pacific. We talked about, for example, some of the operational

kinds of questions. We had a recently concluded, quite extensive

exercise which is named Cobra Gold. It's been ongoing for a number of

years. It went very, very well this year, and we talked about how to

go forward with that in the future. We talked about the ARF issue that

I mentioned, and how to perhaps discuss in a positive way, how to

build on the fact that we do now have a defense seat. We anticipate

that the Secretary of Defense will be coming to the region some time

later in the year, probably in the November period, and we talked

about that. So, these are just some of the questions that we reviewed.


Q: Daily News: It seems that the United States is driving away Burma

and also Cambodia. In that case, you have any specific policies to get

them back because ASEAN has some kind of worry about that?


A: With respect to both Burma and Cambodia, those were subjects of

discussion both here and elsewhere in my trip. With respect to Burma,

of course, U.S. policy is well known. We have grave concerns about the

activities of the SLORC, and it's for that reason that we have the

policy that we have. We have a difference to some extent with the

ASEAN countries. That decision has been made by them. We maintain the

same objectives, and I had some extensive discussions with the

National Security Council here as to how to go forward and achieve

those objectives which of course are bringing about a democratic, free

Burma. With respect to Cambodia, we really have very much the same

policy. As you well know, ASEAN made the decision not to go forward

with the invitation until after there were free and full, fair

elections, which will take place we anticipate in the spring. The

United States is working very closely with ASEAN, the ASEAN countries

on Cambodia, and we're hopeful that that will take place. I think we

all share the full understanding that use of force is not an

appropriate mechanism. It's very important that the elections be open

to all parties, and that they actually take place in a free and fair

way. That certainly is a shared objective, and I think it's an

objective of every country that I spoke with.


Q: The Nation: Just to follow up on the question of Cambodia. I

understand that the U.S. has given the military assistance to the

Phnom Penh government in the integration program of the Khmer Rouge,

and now we understand that this has been suspended. Do you see any

prospect in the future once the political situation is settled that

this kind of assistance will be resumed?


A: I guess I gave you the essence of our policy. If things change,

then of course our policy could change, but I think it's a little bit

too hypothetical right now to speculate.


Q: Central News Agency from Taiwan: After Hong Kong returned to China,

what's the new policy, defense policy or the straits policy of the

United States, any change or not? And the second question, the

Japanese government has said the U.S.-Japanese defense treaty is

covering the Taiwan Straits, is this true or not?


A: Our policy with respect to China has been consistent. Of course, we

have looked forward to a productive transition with respect to Hong

Kong. We and the Chinese have spoken extensively about that, and we

anticipate that not only that will occur over time from a defense

point of view, so far it's gone forward quite productively, and we

expect that that will continue.


Our policy with respect to the issue of Taiwan has remained constant,

and it has not changed at all in light of the Hong Kong transition.


With respect to the defense treaty, the defense treaty is

longstanding. We are working very closely with the Japanese on the

issuance of what are called defense guidelines. These are guidelines

that are directed towards the defense of Japan and towards the

regional situations affecting the situation of Japan. We issued an

interim set of guidelines in June I believe it was, so that they would

be transparent with respect to what we intended to cover in the

region. All of this is within the context of the Japanese constitution

and the U.S.-Japan security treaty, and we are not in any way

directing these with respect to, to or against any country, which we

have made clear to China, and we anticipate that this will be a matter

that will go forward rather smoothly, and I don't see that there will

be any real significant issues.


Q: The Nation: Sir, was the issue of AMRAAM brought up with your

counterpart today?


A: I don't think so, and the reason I'm thinking, I mean it obviously

wasn't a major issue. These really were policy discussions. We have

been able to. We've obviously talked about AMRAAM in the past. I think

we and the government are in full accord on this, and it's not a ... I

don't think it was even raised.


Q: The Nation (Follow-up): Just a quick follow up. Given the economic

slump here in Thailand, is Washington concerned that Thailand will

look for arms from a cheaper producer, like China or, I mean, what is

Washington's reading of this?


A: Our focus with respect to the economics is to desire the very best

for the people of Thailand with respect to the situation that they

face which is obviously a difficult one. We anticipate that the

government with the assistance that it's getting through the IMF and

otherwise will be able to take the steps that will be necessary to

resolve the situation. With respect to arms sales, the two really are

not related at all. Those are obviously sovereign decisions of the

Thai government.


Q: Daily News: Concerning weaponry, does Thailand have any better

chance for the barter system in buying weapons from the United States?

And also in the meantime, Indonesia is going to buy some, a lot of

warplanes from Russia. Isn't it possible that later on it is going to

have a big competition in weapon selling around this region?


A: If I understand the question correctly, what you're asking in

effect is is there some kinds of arms race going on. We do not think

so. The countries, a number of countries are obviously modernizing.

That happens periodically with respect to militaries. It does not seem

to us that there's any excess purchasing, and we do not think that

there is an arms race. It's simply a question of appropriate

modernization.


Q: Daily News (Follow up): My other question is that we're running out

of money. We're short of money, so we would like to buy more. In the

meantime we should like the barter system. Could it be done?


A:  That was never raised with me.


Q: Vietnam News Agency: Thai newspapers said that Prince Suwaan (sp?)

was accompanied by the U.S. ambassador to the airport for fleeing

Phnom Penh, Cambodia. So what is the role of the U.S. in the Cambodian

situation, and what do the United States looking for from Prince

Suwaan (sp?) in the future of Cambodia?


A: I'm not sure that I entirely understand the question. But assuming

I do, with respect to Cambodia, our position is clear. We think that

there needs to be free elections. We think that there has to be

participation in those election by all appropriate parties. We do not

think it appropriate for the government either in Cambodia or

elsewhere to be changed by the use of force. If those principles are

adhered to, and I think those principles are agreed upon by, certainly

all the ASEAN countries, and explicitly by all of the countries that I

met with during my trip, we think that we can have the kind of result

in Cambodia, assuming the elections take forward, take place next

spring as anticipated, that would be a positive one. It's important

to, not just have a policy, but actually have results, and we'll have

to see if that actually takes place.


Q: Reuters: Just wondering if you could tell us what your policy is

towards the Spratlys, Scarborough Shoal and other isolated rocks in

the region that look that they might be foci for conflicts over.


A: We do not have a position on the merits with respect to any of the

claims. There are as you know many, many different claims to that

area. We do think that any resolution needs to be in accord with

international law, including the principal of the Law of the Sea

Treaty, and we think that it is important for the parties to resolve

these issues themselves by peaceful means.


Q: Bangkok Post: Thailand has employed the first aircraft carrier two

weeks ago. Do you think that it will lead to any increase in arms

races among the ASEAN countries?


A: My anticipation is not. It's not a really a true carrier. It's a

smaller ship, and it's a good system, of course. But having come from

other countries before I got here, an interesting point was that it

wasn't raised at all as a matter of concern by any of the other

countries and obviously if it had been, I was an obvious person to

talk to about that because they knew that I was coming here. I

actually did discuss that briefly with people here and, likewise, they

said that they have not seen it as a matter of concern, and I believe

that it is simply an element of modernization. So no, I don't think

that it will contribute to an arms race.


Q: Asian Defense Journal: So following on to the question about the

arms race, or the purchase of foreign weaponry, is the spice of

Russian arms sales and technology transfers to China, India and now

some ASEAN countries, is that cause for concern, given the very loose

Russian policy of selling its high- technology, irrespective of, for

example, your country has placed restrictions for certain weapons,

AMRAAM being one of them.


A: Well, again, it's a decision of a country itself as to from whom to

buy, what kind of systems that are bought. With respect to the

countries that you mentioned, the transfers have been quite different

between and among them, so it's not precisely comparable. But I think

the, and the Russians over the years have been a supplier of arms in a

number of areas in the world as I'm sure you are quite well aware. I

would say in broad, no, it is not a matter of substantial concern to

us. We, of course, with respect to the AMRAAM missile, have said that

we do not want to be the first to have a "beyond visual range missile"

so called introduced inter-region. So far that has not occurred here

either by the Russians.


Q: Vietnam News Agency: Do you still have the intention to ask the

Thai government for letting afloat ammunition in the Thailand Gulf,

and the second thing is that how about the military satellite

cooperation between Thailand and USA?


A: With respect to the first issue, that did not come up at all in the

talks, and certainly not on my part. With respect to satellite

cooperation, we do have ongoing discussion. That is a possible area of

cooperation, and I think right now it's premature to speculate as to

how that would go. But certainly Thailand is a close ally, and we're

talking about the possibility.


Q: The Nation: Can you say what are the most important security

concern or issue you share with the countries you visited so far?


A: I think the important thing on this really is what I meant to

emphasize in my opening statement is the following: All the countries

in the region including the United States share a substantial interest

in security and stability because that allows all of us to maintain

the economic growth, the political development, the cultural

development that we have been able to achieve, say, over the past 20

years. The U.S. sees the maintenance of that security and stability,

partly resulting from our continued forward presence. I can say that

without exception, that thorough presence was welcomed by each of the

countries which we discussed the issue with. We want to do that in

such a way that we work with each of the countries productively, and

we want to do that in such a way that we can work appropriately in an

overall regional context. We wanted to insure that each of the

countries understood that we are committed for the long term and that

that was the result of a thorough analysis approved by the President

as I mentioned in the Quadrennial Defense Review. That was the

fundamental message.


Q: ITV: The United States supports ARF (ASEAN Regional Forum) role.

What kind of agenda you encourage this country among ASEAN to talk

about security issues? Can you tell us about ARF?


A: Again, I think as you know, the ARF has laid out its own program

already. It talks about having a first stage of confidence building,

moving to a second stage of preventive diplomacy, and even later a

third stage of conflict resolution. We are right now at the confidence

building level I would say. There have been a series of rather useful

sets of meetings. For example, there was one, just to give you one in

the security area, on search and rescue kind of issues. That would be

the kind of thing that the countries have been and are willing to

discuss now. I think one of the issues is to continue forward and to

find things that are useful for all of the members to talk about.

There might be some possibilities further along the search and rescue

line. There might be something in the disaster relief area. There are

other kinds of possibilities, and we will start to work on those.


Q: Central News Agency: During the Chinese Prime Minister Lee visit to

Malaysia and Singapore, after that, Malaysia Prime Minister Mahathir

said he would present a cooperation profile in developing the South

China Sea to the ASEAN with China, in cooperation with China. What is

your view? Is this a threat, security threat to the U.S. defense in

the region?


A: I wasn't in those talks, and so I only have the newspaper reports.

If I understand correctly, the Chinese in effect signaled that they

wanted to work with the countries of the region on the South China Sea

issue, and they wanted to do so peacefully and cooperatively. That, of

course, is a welcome approach. It seems to me that that is in accord

with what I suggested before. We don't have views on the merits of

particular claims, but we think that they need to be worked out, as I

said, in accordance with international law and peacefully resolved by

the parties. Since I wasn't really there, I can't tell you more than

that.


Q: The Australian: How would you generally, how would you categorize

the condition of the American-Chinese strategic relationship in this

region at the moment? It seems to be a good deal healthier now than it

was say twelve or eighteen months ago.


A: I think that the relationship is quite good. I think that is

exemplified by the fact that we are going to have the summit in just a

short period of time. As I think all of you know, Sandy Berger, who is

the National Security Advisor, recently traveled to China. The talks

were quite positive, and we expect that the summit will be a

productive summit between the two presidents, and that we will be able

to continue forward after the summit, and perhaps that President

Clinton will be able to have a reciprocal visit in 1998. But in the

overall, we have been able to have quite good discussions. General

Shali (Shalikashvili), our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

visited China in May. Their chairman visited the United States in

August. Last December, the Chinese Minister of Defense visited the

United States for productive discussions. And so I think that all that

activity indicates that there is a healthy and useful relationship.


Q: The Australian (Follow up): What factors do you think have taken

some of the sting out of the problem with the relationship that we saw

last year? What principal reasons do you see having salvaged that

situation?


A: I can't speculate on the precise internal thinking with respect to

China. But I can indicate what I think are the fundamental interests

on each side that lead to the same conclusion. If one goes back twenty

years, let's say, no country in the Asia-Pacific region has benefited

more from the security and stability in the region than China has. It

obviously established quite a good growth in that period. In order to

do that, they have benefited from the fact that the region is stable

and secure so that they were able to devote their attention to their

internal issues, to economic growth. They were able to receive

considerable investment from outside as an engine of that growth. And

they were able to undertake substantial trade, again as I mentioned,

as an engine and as part of that growth. To receive outside investment

to have substantial trade, it's important to have a stable situation

and to be in a cooperative, productive relationship with one's

neighbors, including the United States. I think the Chinese see their

interest very clearly to continue to develop their own country. And so

strictly from the interest point of view, that leads them to a

conclusion that they want to work with all the countries in the

region, and the United States is an Asia-Pacific country, and it's one

of the countries in the region and I think that's a fundamental basis,

a very important basis, because it is the basis working out of

national self-interest which is a solid basis on which to have a

relationship.


Q: Daily News: What is the real policy for the United States on land

mines? It seems that the whole world tries to stop it, because it is

really dangerous to the world?


A: We are working very hard with respect to that. There's been some

recent developments. And I think that the issue here is one of how to

go forward in a productive way, as you know there were two different

potential fora. The United States will try to work in these fora and

achieve, I think, the same results as everyone. The President made a

substantial announcement some months ago, I lose track, I apologize.

But I think we will do our very best to come to a conclusion.


Q: Thai Rath: In reference to my colleague, I'd like to ask you one

more question. What about the geographical exception for

anti-personnel land mines policy of the United States?


A: As you know, we have a particular security situation in Korea. We

have to work on that. But I think in the overall we are working hard

to be able to come to a satisfactory solution.


Q: The Nation: Did the Thai military brief you about the Cambodian

situation today?


A: We talked about Cambodia. Yes. I think we see the situation, I'm

not sure what the question is, but I think we see the situation the

same. I mean the fundamentals, as I said, are remarkably similar

fundamentals, and even more than a fundamental tactics, the view

between the United States and Thailand and including of the ASEAN

countries, the issue will be to ensure that our policies get good

results, and I think we expect that they will.


KIEHL: We'll take just one more question, and then we have to close

it, please.


Q: The Nation: This is following up on the same thing, do you share

the same military assessment of the situation in Cambodia with the

Thai authorities? The assessment of the fighting situation now.


A: As best I understand it, I guess the answer to the, assuming I

understand your question, yes. I mean, yes.


Q: The Nation: Do you think that the fighting situation will lead to a

no-win situation, or is there going to be one winner or loser?


A: I understand what you're saying. Now, that's just too hypothetical

to be sure. What we have said very clearly is we do not think force

should be used to, be a means of change of government. And that, of

course, is why we, Thailand and the other countries want to insist on

and do insist on free and fair elections, and do insist on the ability

of all the parties to participate in them so that force will not be

the mechanism of change. I'll take one more.


Q: Xinhua News Agency: My question is will the United States think

that it is necessary to conduct more nuclear tests in the near future?


A:  No.  Our policy is clear on that.  Thank you very much.


(end transcript)