08 January 2002

Adm. Blair Says N. Korea, China Retain "Threat of Force"

Most nations in the Asia-Pacific region have designed their military forces for self-defense and protection of national sovereignty, according to Admiral Dennis Blair, Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command.

However, North Korea and China maintain the ability to launch offensive attacks, he said in a January 8 speech entitled "Regional Security Cooperation" at the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The U.S. military leader said it was unfortunate that not all nations in the region abide by the principles contained in the Vancouver Declaration, which calls for the renunciation of the threat or use of force "except in self-defense."

The Korean peninsula and the Taiwan Strait are places where the "threat of aggression plays a significant role," Blair said.

North Korea, despite a collapsing economy and endemic starvation, retains a policy of providing for its military forces before any civilian needs and has moved much of its military near the demilitarized zone so it is "more capable of a sudden attack against the Republic of Korea," he said.

Similarly, China "retains the threat of force if Taiwan does not meet certain conditions," Blair said.

The Beijing regime, he said, "is deploying missiles and modernizing its armed forces with the stated purpose of intimidating Taiwan."

Defense of the nation is the "fundamental mission of all of our armed forces," Blair said.

However, he added, countries have different priorities in accomplishing that mission.

As the Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Pacific Command, Blair said his most pressing task is combating terrorism, while his Australian counterpart would probably list stopping illegal immigration as a priority item.

Similarly, his Thai counterpart might cite stopping the narcotics trade, while the Philippine defense chief would say stopping hostage-takers, Blair continued.

What all those missions have in common, Blair said, is that their solution "is beyond the resources and authority of any single country and its armed forces."

Such foes, with worldwide networks of support, can only be defeated by international cooperation, Blair said.

While the Asia-Pacific region does not have "well-developed arrangements for regional military cooperation," Blair said, regional cooperation is "the key to success against these threats to the security of all of our citizens."

Turning directly to America's war on terrorism, Blair said current U.S. military operations "thus far have defeated al-Qaida forces in Afghanistan and their Taliban protectors."

The next phase of the campaign against international terrorism, he added, "will be different."

The United States and its allies in the fight against terrorism in the region will need a "sustained" campaign as al-Qaida "looks for places to establish new cells, and training camps -- or other terrorist networks seek to expand" in the region.

"Our common goal is to destroy international terrorism and its support structure in our part of the world, and to ensure that outside groups do not move in and take root here," Blair said.

Following is a transcript of Admiral Blair's speech:

Distinguished Parliamentarians, Your Excellencies, thank you, and good afternoon. It is a genuine pleasure to address this distinguished forum today on the importance of regional security cooperation. We salute Charles Morrison and the East-West Center. For years, this center -- funded in part by the U.S. Congress -- has brought together people from the Asia-Pacific region for dialogue and study. It is most appropriate that Asia-Pacific Parliamentarians choose to convene here.

I am sure that former Prime Minister Nakasone and the other founders are proud of today's Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum. Over 10 years the membership has expanded, and the Forum has contributed directly to improvement in the governance of Asia-Pacific nations -- and, as called for in the 1997 Vancouver Declaration, to -- "constructing a peaceful and prosperous Asia-Pacific common house."

I am very pleased to see the strong representation from the U.S. Congress at this event. Our elected representatives' presence here reflects the reality -- that the United States is a Pacific nation.

My remarks this morning are based on my interactions with military leaders and armed forces in 43 nations in Asia and the Pacific and Indian Oceans. I know there are also representatives from other American nations on the Pacific in this forum. Perhaps my observations apply to your armed forces as well. I will cover three main points this afternoon, from my perspective as a senior military commander in the region. I will tell mostly a "good news story." I believe that in the Asia-Pacific region, the values, missions, and standards of performance of all our armed forces -- are coming together in a way that is good for the region.

My three main points are these:

-- First, there is an overall trend in the region towards smaller, more professional armed forces -- under political control.

-- Second, the primary focus of armed forces in the region is still on sovereignty and self-defense.

-- And third, there is growing multilateral cooperation among armed forces in the region.

So, let me first discuss the trend towards smaller, more professional armed forces, under political control:

Over recent decades, power has shifted from military to political authorities. Military leaders and forces play a smaller role in politics. They have transferred many internal and border security tasks to police forces.

Think back 20 years ago to the roles of generals in the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and other nations. The trend is striking.

There have recently been changes of government in Indonesia and in the Philippines, in which the armed forces remained in the barracks, playing no direct role.

For the past three years, I have had the honor of hosting a conference of the Defense Chiefs of the Asia-Pacific region. The discussions take place in closed session, and the Chiefs are candid.

There is strong agreement among all the Chiefs on the qualities they seek in their armed forces:

-- They seek armed forces of volunteers, motivated by patriotism, well educated, and technologically savvy;

-- They seek officers and soldiers continually educated and trained during their service, including schooling in the military educational systems of other countries;

-- They seek compact armed forces with modern equipment, rather than larger, but poorly equipped forces;

-- They seek armed forces removed from internal politics, responsive to authorized political control of their governments; and

-- They seek armed forces accountable for their actions to their people.

Not all armed forces in the region reach all these goals. There are many reasons. One is lack of central government funding. When they are not adequately funded for salaries, operating expenses, and modernization, armed forces turn to other sources of revenue.

Some armed forces are involved in business. Some Army units are stationed in regional cities and perform regional government functions for pay. In many countries, officers supplement their very low salaries by running personal businesses, or taking cuts of government contracts. Individual soldiers, with pay inadequate to take care of their families, sell their weapons and ammunition and take payments for services rendered, or even extort them. All these practices are bad for the armed forces themselves, and for the countries they serve.

My recommendation to you parliamentarians is this:

-- Insist on professional conduct from your armed forces,

-- And at the same time, fund them properly.

If governments insist on accountability, and provide resources to match the size and mission of their armed forces, this favorable trend towards smaller professional armed forces in this region will continue.

A former justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, once wrote, "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable."

Let me now turn to my second point, focusing on the primary military missions -- of protecting national sovereignty -- and self-defense.

At one time, nations thought that they could improve their prosperity through armed conquest. Thankfully, modern nations know that peace is much more effective than war -- in providing prosperity for their people. A robust capability for self-defense by all nations in the region is good for the region as a whole. Incentives for aggression are reduced, and peaceful resolution of disputes is encouraged.

Unfortunately, not all abide by the principles contained in the Vancouver Declaration, which calls for -- "renunciation of the threat or use of force except in self-defense." There are two places in the Asia-Pacific region -- in which the threat of aggression plays a significant role.

North Korea retains its "military first" policy -- in spite of dire economic circumstances. In recent years, it has moved its forces forward, so they are more capable of a sudden attack against the Republic of Korea.

And China retains the threat of force if Taiwan does not meet certain conditions. It is deploying missiles and modernizing its armed forces with the stated purpose of intimidating Taiwan.

With these exceptions, however, military programs in most countries are primarily for self-defense. I do not see arms races in the region. The development of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan is a special case. Countries need to maintain a basic force structure for defending their sovereignty and interests. Equipment wears out, and replacement systems are more expensive. In general, force levels are going down in the region.

Protection of national sovereignty includes defeating separatist movements and insurgencies.... The armed forces of this region realize that military means are not the entire solution to defeating insurgencies. They understand that military forces must be applied both with discrimination -- and under careful rules of engagement; and they must be held responsible for following those rules. In this region, the armed forces of the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India, and Nepal are dealing with significant separatist movements -- and other countries with lesser insurgent movements.

When I talk with the leaders of these armed forces, they tell me that their troops cannot stop insurgencies with military means alone. Governments must also provide just political arrangements, and economic assistance to impoverished regions.

These military leaders also understand there is no other form of military action more difficult at the tactical level than counter insurgency. To be effective, it requires very disciplined, mature, well-trained troops, with good equipment. Unfortunately, some countries send poorly trained and equipped units to the field to fight rebel forces. The result too often is indiscriminate shooting by inexperienced troops, and has even included a complete loss of discipline by these units. Some have joined in the very violence they were sent to stop. My recommendation to you parliamentarians is to provide the political and economic components of policies, which deal with insurgencies. Also, ensure that your troops sent to deal with rebel forces are adequately trained, equipped and led; -- and hold them responsible for their actions.

The third and last trend is increased multilateral cooperation among armed forces in the region.

Defense of the nation is the fundamental mission of all of our armed forces. However, if you ask the regions' Chiefs of Defense what are now their most pressing tasks, they would answer as follows:

-- My answer would be -- "Combating terrorism."

-- The Australian chief would add -- "Illegal immigration."

-- The Thai Chief would answer -- "Countering narcotics."

-- The Philippine Chief would reply -- "Stopping hostage-takers."

But what all these missions have in common -- is that their solution is beyond the resources and authority of any single country and its armed forces. These enemies draw on worldwide networks of support, and use international borders to their advantage. These foes can only be defeated by international cooperation. The Asia-Pacific region does not have well-developed arrangements for regional military cooperation. Yet, regional cooperation is the key to success against these threats to the security of all of our citizens.

The armed forces of the region have shown they can cooperate well together: In East Timor, Australian, Philippine, and Thai commanders have led a force that includes units from many regional armed forces, and others from outside the Asia-Pacific region. This force has successfully provided the security needed for East Timor to emerge as a new nation.

Many of the armed forces in the region also train for other United Nations peacekeeping operations, and participate in them regularly.

Cooperative efforts have also succeeded in other areas:

-- Many nations in Asia have come together to counter illegal drug trafficking.

-- Nations across the region are beginning to cooperate effectively against piracy, particularly the growing piracy around the Strait of Malacca.

-- The number of multilateral exercises on missions such as submarine rescue and maritime mine clearing -- grows each year.

However, all the military leaders in the region would tell you we have a long way to go. Our armed forces need the support of their governments to continue to work together in multinational operations.

Over the past several months, countering international terrorism has been our first priority in the U.S. But the events of 11 September also accelerated security cooperation among Asia-Pacific nations and their armed forces on many fronts.

We all realize that no government is safe from groups like al-Qaida that use suicide attacks to kill as many innocent citizens as possible. We know that international cooperation is vital to long-term victory over international terrorism.

The coalition of Asia-Pacific nations that has come together to fight terrorism has been strong:

-- All nations in the region provided diplomatic support.

-- Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and many others -- offered and provided forces -- for operations in Afghanistan, for stronger defense at home, and for logistic and humanitarian support.

-- Many others provided access and overflight for U.S. forces moving to South Asia and the Middle East.

Operations thus far have defeated al-Qaida forces in Afghanistan and their Taliban protectors. The next phase of the campaign against international terrorism will be different.

There is no second Afghanistan here in our region. All our governments oppose international terrorism. However, we will need a sustained regional campaign -- as al-Qaida looks for places to establish new cells, and training camps -- or other terrorist networks seek to expand in Asia and the Pacific. Our common goal is to destroy international terrorism and its support structure in our part of the world, and to ensure that outside groups do not move in and take root here. The unprecedented coordination among armed forces, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies has dramatically increased the number of terrorists hunted and arrested, and has put them on the run. Coordinated aggressive pursuit of terrorists and their support is the key to victory.

The needs for coordination are different with different countries:

-- With many countries, like Malaysia and Singapore, we emphasize sharing information, and their security forces track and arrest terrorists in their countries.

-- In Thailand, we are finding that our cooperation on countering drug trafficking translates directly into capability to combat terrorism.

-- In the Philippines, the U.S. is offering more extensive training and support to make Philippine armed forces more capable of defending their sovereignty against internal threats with international terrorist links.

These nations and others in Southeast Asia are cooperating among themselves against terrorism.

The United States is also looking for ways to improve effective cooperation with security forces in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Nepal. I am convinced that we will be successful.

Let me conclude.

We seek an Asia-Pacific region that solves its disputes peacefully as it improves the lives of its people. We seek a region that cooperates against terrorists, drug lords, international criminals, and natural disasters that threaten regional security and peaceful development.

Professional, competent, properly funded, and properly trained armed forces under political control of their governments can contribute a great deal towards a peaceful and prosperous Asia. I urge your support as parliamentarians -- for a future like this -- for our part of the world.