TEXT: 12/11 CINCPAC REMARKS AT CHINA DEFENSE UNIVERSITY
(U.S., China must promote closer military-to-military ties)

Beijing -- The United States and China must promote closer military-to-military ties in order to work towards the goal of building the "constructive strategic partnership," agreed to by Presidents Jiang Zemin and Bill Clinton last month, according to Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command (CINCPAC).

Prueher, speaking at China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) National Defense University (NDU) in Beijing December 11, said "the U.S. Pacific Command's mission is to promote peace, to deter aggression, to respond to crises and if necessary, to fight and win to advance security and stability throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Our vision is to be an active player, partner and beneficiary in pursuit of a secure, prosperous and democratic Asia-Pacific community -- one that includes China as a player, partner and beneficiary."

Prueher said the U.S. strategy is simple and has three aspects:

1) Peacetime engagement or preventive defense. "In peacetime we focus on activities which reassure the region of our commitment and deter conflict."

2) Crisis response. "When specific events threaten to bring about major crises or conflict, the Pacific Command is prepared to respond with military forces to deter violence, to reinforce diplomacy and to position critical capabilities should deterrence fail."

3) Fight and win. "Should all diplomatic efforts fail to deter conflict, we are prepared to fight and win quickly and decisively with minimum loss of life. We prefer to fight with the support of allies and coalition partners, but will fight unilaterally if necessary."

Prueher said close military-to-military relations will not only build the understanding necessary for trust, but will also build a lasting friendship between the two countries.

Prueher said promoting good Sino-American relations is central to U.S. strategy in the Asia-Pacific. "A secure, open, stable and prosperous China is in U.S. and global interests," he said. "We recognize China's enormous challenges and fully support its development."

"We have an opportunity to move our relationship in the right direction if we pursue the right policies now in a balanced, broad relationship based on mutual strength and respect. This is why we believe it is important for our military and China's to work closely together to promote understanding," he said.

Following is the text of Admiral Prueher's remarks, as prepared for delivery:

(begin text)

Pacific Security and U.S.-Chinese Military-to-Military Relations

Remarks prepared for delivery at
China's People's Liberation Army (PLA)
National Defense University (NDU)

Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, U.S. Navy
Commander-in-Chief
United States Pacific Command

December 11, 1997

Good afternoon. Thank you, General Xing, for your kind introduction and warm reception. We are delighted to be in China with you. It is an honor to have the opportunity to speak here at the National Defense University, the PLA's highest level school for military education.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy once remarked: "Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or the present are certain to miss the future." Perhaps as no where else, Beijing is moving towards the future. In the year since we were last here the city has changed remarkably. New construction is impressive. The pace and direction of change are testament to the great energy of China's people and its leaders -- that of Deng Xiaoping's generation and that of the new generation that now continues this great work.

However, change among buildings and roads is surpassed by your change in spirit. Old images which are often ingrained in outsiders can make it difficult to keep up with change in China. It is important for us to visit your country often and see your progress. I am grateful for your invitation, and welcome the opportunity to understand your country better.

We meet today at the end of a remarkable year of development for China, and of laying foundations for what we hope will be a new era in our relationship with you. Future historians are likely to devote special attention to this year. China has successfully navigated the difficulties of transitioning leadership following the passing of Deng Xiaoping. China has managed the reversion of Hong Kong peacefully and is on a path to preserve Hong Kong's special qualities.

China's three historic summits in the last three months have brought a greater peace to the region. Our relations with you have advanced a long way, and we stand at the doorway of an opportunity to establish closer military-to-military ties that will benefit all the region's peoples.

We are privileged to meet together in a time of great anticipation, a time of change. Yet, we should remember that the development of our relations is still a work in progress, a long-haul journey. Historians will have one advantage over us, as history is remembered looking backward, but lived looking forward. They will know the outcome of changes taking place today. However, we are more fortunate. We have the opportunity to craft the future, as we live in a time not only of change, but also of choice. Choices we make today will determine the future our countries will share.

Sino-American relations can still take several paths, from partnership to coexistence to competition. Last month, our Presidents Jiang Zemin and Bill Clinton chose the goal of building a "constructive strategic partnership." The aim of our visit is to promote closer military-to-military ties that must be a part of such a partnership. When President Jiang Zemin visited us last month in Honolulu, he remarked, "before there can be trust there must first be understanding." He is correct. My goal is to deepen that understanding and to broaden it to include the next generation of military leaders.

In a spirit of openness, and to help promote your understanding of us, I will discuss our assessment of the Asia-Pacific region, our strategy and a few comments about how we view our countries' relations into the future. I shall come to the point in order to leave time for your questions.

To begin, let me describe the U.S. Pacific Command. Its assigned area of responsibility extends from the coast of California to that of Africa, spanning 16 time zones and including 43 nations. Our perspective borrows from John Hay, U.S. Secretary of State a century ago, who described the Mediterranean as the ocean of the past, the Atlantic as the ocean of that day, and the Pacific as the ocean of the future. Today we live in that future -- the Pacific Century, and that ocean makes us neighbors. The United States is a Pacific nation, a member of the Asia-Pacific community, your neighbor, and like you, is here to stay.

While U.S. attention sometimes appears to default to Europe, our economic, political and military interests in the Pacific continue to grow. These interests commit us to permanent involvement in the region. The Asia-Pacific region includes over half the world's surface, over half its population, and when combined with the United States, over half the world's economy.

The U.S. along with China and the other Asia-Pacific nations have become interdependent as our trade has grown dramatically over the last generation. Trade with the region accounts for over $500 billion per year, over 37% of total U.S. trade. Despite the economic difficulties which have occupied everyone's attention recently, most economists fully expect the region to eventually resume a sustainable pace of economic growth. America's economic future is merged with this region.

Demographically, millions of America's citizens live along or within the Pacific region. Asian-Americans are the fastest growing sector of our population. Historically, we have been involved in the region since our trade began with you in 1784. In this century, we have fought in 3 wars in Asia. As we look to the future, solving any global problem will require that we work together along with the other nations of the Asia-Pacific.

Militarily, five of America's seven mutual defense treaties are with Asia-Pacific nations. The world's six largest militaries operate in the region. America has an enduring interest to ensure no hostile coalition arises in the Asia-Pacific. It is not in anyone's interest for any state, including the United States, to become a hegemon in the Pacific. All of these interests bind the U.S. to the Asia-Pacific. We, like you, are committed to a secure, stable, prosperous Asia Pacific region and we are committed for the long haul.

The Asia-Pacific region is generally at peace, but is not free from the possibility of major conflict. As Henry Kissinger recently noted about Asia, "Wars, while not likely, are not inconceivable.... Peace will require deliberate efforts." There are no integrating institutions to reconcile conflicting ambitions. So both our nations, along with others, must work to pave avenues for stability and security.

Now, what does the U.S. Pacific Command do? Our military strategy derives from two premises. The first is a notion of confluence: that political, economic and military aspects of security are interdependent and cannot be advanced independently. Relationships among nations can only flourish as each aspect advances together. Advancing military contacts is important, but only one part to advancing the overall relationship. Two great powers which seek to avoid conflict should naturally promote closer military ties.

Our second premise is that security, especially military security, establishes stable conditions that are the prerequisite for economic growth and prosperity. Security makes economic progress possible. In the words of Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, "security is the oxygen that fuels the economic engine of Asia."

By stable conditions I do not imply maintenance of the status quo. Change will continue -- we hope and work for the better -- in economics, in government, and in the ways states relate to each other. What is important is that adjustments take place within the context of political processes rather than diverging to military conflict. For example, China's economic development over the past 25 years has added to the region's stability; but this development has occurred partly as a result of secure conditions, as well as hard work and vision.

In promoting this stability, U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific undergirds regional peace and security. All regional leaders with whom I meet share this view. They understand that the United States works to advance security, but does not seek to control it. We must work closely with others. Cooperation between the PLA and the Pacific Command is vital in extending this stability into the future.

The Pacific Command executes the military component of U.S. security strategy for the region. Those of you who follow U.S. affairs know our strategy undergoes regular revisions. We are in a new era, with new opportunities and challenges. We are looking for the right balance.

Our Department of Defense recently published a new National Military Strategy, copies of which we will leave with you. This strategy is based on the concepts of working together with others to shape regional environments, to respond to crises as they arise, and to prepare for an uncertain future. It will not be the final word in U.S. military planning for the future. Several commissions are examining our efforts and you will hear debates about our strategy in our Congress and the media in the coming months. Such is the nature of our democracy; you can scrutinize our processes.

In our country, debates over strategy sometimes include strident rhetoric and disagreement. These debates are carried out in the open and include thousands of voices. It is often difficult to follow them, and to discount assertions which sometimes harshly characterize the intentions of others. Nevertheless, this open debate is an important part of our democracy and of civilian control of the military. Though sometimes painful, we believe it is one of our nation's strengths, and ultimately results in better policy with greater participation and support. I will be glad to respond to questions you have about this debate.

Debate aside, it is important to understand that our leaders do have a consensus on the form and substance of our Pacific Command strategy. This strategy is one of preventive defense. China has a long tradition of excellence in medicine, with emphasis on prevention of disease. Just as preventive medicine creates conditions that support health, preventive defense supports security and stability.

Sun Tzu wrote that the acme of skill for a general or admiral was to subdue an enemy without fighting. Today, our enemy is not each other, but instability which fuels regional conflict. We are both firemen with a common goal of extinguishing fires before they get out of control. As Sun Tzu suggests, the best firemen not only extinguish fires, but work together to prevent them and the conditions which cause them.

The U.S. Pacific Command's mission is to promote peace, to deter aggression, to respond to crises and if necessary, to fight and win to advance security and stability throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Our vision is to be an active player, partner and beneficiary in pursuit of a secure, prosperous and democratic Asia-Pacific community -- one that includes China as a player, partner and beneficiary.

Our strategy is simple and has three aspects: Peacetime engagement or preventive defense, crisis response, and fight and win. In peacetime we focus on activities which reassure the region of our commitment and deter conflict. Day-to-day these activities take many forms, including meetings, exercises and joint training. Some examples include this visit, U.S. and Chinese port calls, and the exchange of information at conferences such as the Pacific Area Senior Officer Logistics Seminar, which Chinese representatives have attended since 1994. These activities are investment in openness and working with others to promote mutual understanding, trust and confidence.

When specific events threaten to bring about major crises or conflict, the Pacific Command is prepared to respond with military forces to deter violence, to reinforce diplomacy and to position critical capabilities should deterrence fail. Such was the case in early July of this year when factional fighting broke out in Cambodia, potentially putting citizens from around the world at risk. While the violence abated, the presence of U.S. forces in neighboring Thailand served notice to all parties to the conflict of the international community's determination to safeguard foreign nationals in Cambodia. Our effort was carefully tailored to support diplomacy, to lower the level of tensions and to demonstrate to all parties our commitment to a peaceful solution.

A last resort is our ability to fight and win. Should all diplomatic efforts fail to deter conflict, we are prepared to fight and win quickly and decisively with minimum loss of life. We prefer to fight with the support of allies and coalition partners, but will fight unilaterally if necessary. As each of you knows, an able, responsible military is a good guarantor of peace. For the foreseeable future, this strategy will continue to involve a regional network of forward forces and cooperation with other nations.

The Pacific Command has over 300,000 military personnel from all our services: Army, Air Force, Navy and Marines. Our forward presence consists of approximately 100,000 personnel and military assets which reassure the region and enable us to react to potential crises. The Pacific Command can also call upon America's national assets, if needed.

Let me now offer some of our views on the region. As mentioned earlier, we and the majority of the region's leaders consider our forward presence and alliances to be key to regional stability. Our alliances are not directed against any third parties. Our relationship with Japan is a foremost example of this, and is our most important security relationship in the Pacific. The new Defense Guidelines transition our cooperation from Cold War threat-based arrangements to functional arrangements. This review is not intended to give Japan's military a new regional role; and in fact, there is little appetite anywhere in the region for an expanded military role for Japan. We take seriously your concerns about our alliance and are working hard to maintain openness.

Successful management of Sino-U.S.-Japanese relations is critical to the future of the region. Regional stability is a stool which rests upon three legs. A stool with three legs is far more stable than one with two. We welcome your improving relations with Japan. They should help offset your concerns. I know Admiral Natsukawa and Minister Kyuma look forward to seeing GEN Fu Quanyou and Minister of Defense GEN Chi Haotian during their upcoming visit to Tokyo.

The Korean peninsula is the region's most volatile flashpoint. While the likelihood of conflict at present may not be high, the consequences would be severe to all of us. U.S. forces work in close concert with South Korea to deter this possibility. We are also concerned about the potential for weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles on the peninsula. The constructive role China is playing in furthering Four Party Talks and the agreed framework is welcome by all. The U.S. and China, along with South Korea, must be involved in helping the two Koreas reconcile their tensions.

We support the Korean people's aspirations for reunification, beginning with a process of peaceful reconciliation. Reconciliation would replace tension and threat with stability, and be good for the region. The process should proceed slowly, due to the costs and the cultural and economic differences that have built up over the last fifty years. While the pace will ultimately be determined by the Koreans, the United States and China are key to the success of this reconciliation.

In Southeast Asia, the United States welcomes the emergence of multilateral cooperation in ASEAN and the ASEAN Regional Forum. Diverse cultures and internal and external rivalries have historically characterized Southeast Asia. But now because of growing interdependence, our friends in Southeast Asia are working together. The more they do so, the greater will be their prosperity and the lower the tension among them. U.S. military activity in the area attempts to promote this stability and is not an effort to threaten or exclude China. Interestingly, but as you might expect, most of my conversations with military leaders in the last several months center on the economy. I believe this is healthy.

Russia and India are Asia-Pacific powers of vast economic, military and political potential. We seek to include them in broad regional arrangements and dialogue. India is huge, burgeoning, and until recently inward looking. Now India is expanding its ties with its Southeast Asian neighbors. Russia is seeing its share of hard times. It is participating neither in the prosperity nor the security of East Asia. Our efforts are to keep Russia and the FEMD involved for the future. They are doing the best they can for now.

Looking now at our own bilateral relationship, promoting good Sino-American relations is central to U.S. strategy in the Asia-Pacific. A secure, open, stable and prosperous China is in U.S. and global interests. We recognize China's enormous challenges and fully support its development. The challenges of 1.2 billion people and rising expectations are manifest. China is making huge strides and we respect China's impressive achievements, just as we respect China's legitimate interests. Our common goals and interests far outweigh our differences. As General Chi noted during his visit to the U.S. a year ago, "Cooperation is better than conflict; dialogue is better than confrontation." We agree.

Using your phrase of "the world's largest developed nation and largest developing nation," our nations share special responsibility to sustain regional and global stability, openness and prosperity. China will play an enormous role in determining if the next century is one of conflict or cooperation. We encourage on many fronts, but none more than China's participation in the international community's efforts to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Yet, more can be done by all nations. These efforts are profoundly in China's own interests, especially as China expands its trade and reliance on resources from abroad, such as oil.

It would be naive and not candid to ignore differences with China, including the issue of human rights. But, just as in a marriage, what is important is to develop a framework to work through differences while preserving the other parts of our relationship. Our democratic system, certainly not perfect, promotes such dialogue. Frank, constructive dialogue on our differences in values, interests and opinions serves us both well.

We know Taiwan is a core sovereignty issue for China. The U.S. is committed to "One-China," as defined in the three joint communiques. We do not support Taiwan independence or Taiwan membership in the U.N. Moreover, through our Taiwan Relations Act, the American people have committed themselves to peaceful resolution of Taiwan issues. We hope cross-Strait dialogue will resume. The Taiwan question can only be settled by the Chinese themselves peacefully and in due time.

My role is not to lecture anyone, but the following comments are from observations of the last two years.

In my job I meet with all the military leaders of the nations in the region. They all have questions and nervousness concerning China's intentions. My opinion is that regional security is promoted by such frequent authoritative discussion. As military professionals paid to "keep our powder dry" we must be what I refer to as "paid pessimists." China's actions and policy with respect to the South China Sea are examples of issues by which the region measures China's intentions. It seems most important for the PLA to promote a dialogue on their look at the future.

The most important measure of how others perceive China's intentions -- whether new capabilities are seen as normal modernization or dangerous threat is up to you. The spectrum of possible outcomes from an assessment of intent is wide. It ranges from partnership based on mutual security on one end, to a Cold War based on mutual suspicion, where both sides lose, and neither side gains on the other. We, the U.S. and China, have the biggest parts to play and choices to make. Pursuing security without openness in today's world will be needlessly difficult.

We have an opportunity to move our relationship in the right direction if we pursue the right policies now in a balanced, broad relationship based on mutual strength and respect. This is why we believe it is important for our military and China's to work closely together to promote understanding. To overcome doubts about intentions it will not be enough just to conduct visits. Visits and port calls are a good start, but we can and should do more. Doing more will reduce the potential for misunderstanding and miscalculations.

It will be useful to observe each other's operations and to conduct some joint activities. We are prepared to do so, at a pace at which China and the U.S. can both be comfortable. As part of this visit, and in our first Defense Consultative talks taking place in Washington this week, we are presenting a list of proposed contacts for 1998. We look forward to working with you to establish a roadmap which will deepen, broaden and advance our contacts for the long haul. Our children will still be working the relationship of our countries a generation from now. I, for one, am very optimistic that this can work out to our mutual satisfaction and for the benefit of all nations. Whether it will do so is up to how we act.

We consider it especially important to expand contacts to include younger officers, not only our foreign affairs specialists, but also our best middle grade operational specialists. As our former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, noted, "when two generals or admirals meet, it's good for a few years (until they retire). When two lieutenants meet, it's good for 20-30 years." This is why we are especially pleased and grateful to have the opportunity to speak before this group, the future military leaders of China.

My optimism is based on both our military's commitment to act responsibly. How we pursue our military-to-military relationship will significantly define the "constructive strategic partnership" that our leaders have established as our goal. Our military-to-military relationship can help cooperation and building toward issues of strategic importance.

While China is the world's largest developing country, it is also the world's oldest major power. The U.S. is not only the largest developed country, it is the world's youngest major power. Clearly, there is much we can learn from each other. With close military-to-military relations we will not only build the understanding that President Jiang Zemin says is necessary for trust. We will build a lasting friendship that sustains our journey together in the Pacific Century.

Thank you for your attention. I stand ready for your questions and comments.

(end text)

Return to The United States and China Home Page.

Return to IIP Home Page.