*EPF503 09/29/00
Transcript: Press Roundtable with Admiral Blair in Bangkok Sept. 29
(U.S., Thailand cooperate in regional peacekeeping efforts) (5550)
There is a new era of regional multilateral cooperation in which both the United States and Thailand now participate, says the commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific.
During a press roundtable September 29 in Bangkok, Admiral Dennis Blair said the primary example of these cooperative efforts is Thailand's leading role in the peacekeeping force in the United Nations operation in East Timor.
Blair also noted that Thailand and the United States are working to build regional readiness for future missions. One example, he said, is the adaptation of the bilateral U.S.-Thai Cobra Gold Exercise into "a more multilateral, regionally-focused exercise."
Blair also discussed the methamphetamine threat that is originating in Myanmar but "flooding Thailand."
The U.S. Pacific Command and the Royal Thai Army, he said, are responding to narcotics trafficking by "refocusing and redirecting some of our training and exercises together towards the skills that are useful in counter[ing] drugs."
According to Blair, the Thai-U.S. military relationship has a "strong basis" to cope with present and future challenges.
Following is a transcript of the press roundtable:
(begin transcript)
Press Roundtable with USCINCPAC Admiral Dennis Blair
Bangkok, Thailand
September 29, 2000
It is good to be back. In a couple of hours I am going to go to the ceremony in which General Mongkol will turn over to General Sampao the Supreme Commander job. I came here to say goodbye to General Mongkol, who has been a very strong supporter of a good Thailand-US military relationship, and to have a chance to talk with General Sampao who is taking his place. We both agreed that we would continue to keep the US-Thai military relationship strong.
There are several other important issues that are part of this relationship which I have been having discussions on and met with various people about. One of them is the new era of regional multilateral cooperation which the United States and Thailand are both involved in, in the region. I guess the primary example of that is that Thailand is leading the peacekeeping force in the United Nations operation in East Timor. General Boonsang is the commander of the PKF in East Timor and from our point of view he has been doing a very fine job doing that tough assignment, leading the UN and the Thai contingent. The Thai contingent has been performing very well and we're certainly, the United States is glad to be in East Timor, although we don't have ground forces in the UN forces themselves, we do have periodic presence there. Most recently, (we sent an) amphibious task force with a Marine Expeditionary Force that delivered humanitarian and construction supplies throughout the country.
So that's a good regional mission which the United States and Thailand are both involved in. Thailand also is working with us in order to build regional readiness for what I think are the missions of the future rather than the missions of the past. By adapting the bilateral US-Thai Cobra Gold Exercise into a more multilateral, regionally-focused exercise--instead of focusing on defense against a traditional military threat (it is focussed) towards solving common military challenges in the future: from peace enforcement to evacuation of citizens from harm's way, from search and rescue to humanitarian assistance when natural disasters strike. And this transformation at the Cobra Gold Exercise which began in Cobra Gold 2000 earlier this year and will continue through Cobra Gold 2001, is what I think is the way of the future in terms of military cooperation in this area. We don't sacrifice any of the important bilateral skills that we develop, but we add on to them a layer of regional multilateral skills which we found were useful in East Timor, and which we think can be better in the future. So Singapore has joined the exercise and observers from other countries have also been here. We hope to build on that in the future.
The other, the third part of my visit here, has been concerned with the counter drug program which Thailand is involved in with support from the United States. I went up to the Third Army area, third police region, in order to see for myself the sort of work that is being done there on what is really the front lines of this effort. The United States government and the Pacific Command Forces have been involved in working against narcotics with Thailand for many, many years and the work goes across departments. For example, Pacific Command Forces have been training Thai border police units under the Baker series of exercises in the past.
The change recently of course here in Thailand has been the explosion of methamphetamine threat coming primarily out of Myanmar but flooding Thailand. The Thai government has mobilized against it and has given more responsibilities to the Royal Thai Army. We in the Pacific Command who work with the Royal Thai Army are responding by increasing the sort of support we give, primarily by refocusing and redirecting some of our training and exercises together towards the skills that are useful in counter drugs. And in cooperating with the other parts of government in making available the equipment that will be useful in combating drugs while also assisting the Thais with directing some of their purchases of military equipment towards pieces of equipment that are more useful in this area.
So the whole area of counter drugs has been an important part of this visit. In addition to meeting with and talking with Thai military leadership about this and visiting the Third Army up in the north, I also have had some meetings this morning with the chief of police General Pornsak and also with the Secretary General of the Narcotics Control Board here in Bangkok to make sure that I knew the whole range of the counter drug effort in Thailand. We just didn't have a narrow military focus on it. So that's really what I have been up to over the last four days. It has been a good visit. The Thai-US military relationship has a strong basis and I think we have a good idea for what needs to be done in the new future with the different challenges--I think we are going to be doing good things together in the future. Let me stop there and answer questions that may be on your mind or discuss any more points in detail that you have questions about.
Kavi from the Nation: How are other countries responding to the new initiative, particularly from China and others--I think of countries like Vietnam or Indonesia? Thank you.
Blair: I have been discussing this new regional approach with many other countries in the region. For example, I just came from the Philippines before this stop in Thailand and discussed it there with the leadership in the Philippines. They are very interested in joining in--whether to be an observer or to be a participant is not yet determined. The Chinese case is also very important. This is not an exclusive concept, it is very much an inclusive concept. When I was in Beijing in July of this year I explained directly to the Chinese military leadership what was involved and told them that these are the sort of missions that I thought the United States and China could participate together on in the future. The Chinese are thinking about it. We don't have a formal response yet, but I also know from my conversations with other countries that the Chinese are talking with other leaders about it. I have urged the leaders of those countries that are used to working with the United States to explain to the Chinese that they would be welcome in these activities. I know that some military leaders are talking with the Chinese, their Chinese counterparts, about them.
Indonesia is a difficult case now because our military relations with Indonesia are very restricted right now after the East Timor incidents. But I can, for example, point to a couple of things--earlier this year in Cobra Gold observers from the Indonesian Air Force did come to Thailand and observe the air portions of the Cobra Gold exercise which, as I mentioned, had multilateral peacekeeping aspects to it. And so Indonesia was able to observe that. In addition, earlier this year the United States Pacific Fleet CARAT Exercise, which again is an exercise here in Southeast Asia with mostly navy participation, includes six different countries. There was a CARAT phase in Indonesia and it addressed humanitarian missions. These were the same ships that have been doing the twenty-first century missions with other countries in the region, so Indonesia is familiar with the concept. The participation on the United States side is to the extent that our military to military policy allows it. Overall, I would characterize the reaction of countries in the region as positive, but like anything new it's something that they've got to try awhile to see if it meets their needs and to see how we can adjust it in order to be something that is to the benefit to all of our countries. But I am encouraged by the way it is working.
Kavi: So do you expect next year Cobra Gold will be a bigger exercise and do you expect in that process that China will attend and take part in Cobra Gold?
Blair: I hope that China will start in this coming year by sending a stronger observer contingent. In the past, the Chinese Attache attended the opening exercises. I met him there. I think that China can build a larger observer contingent of functional experts who don't simply attend the exercise, but who look at some of the different phases to observe how it's being done, the sorts of international procedures that are being worked out in order to accomplish this common mission. Then China in the future may determine that it is in its interest to join in with the growing number of countries who want to do this sort of activity right and want to do it efficiently and want to deal with the new challenges together. I am optimistic about it.
Atchara of the Bangkok Post: On the drug issue, could you elaborate about the cooperation the US and Thai army will do in the future or in the near future to counter the drugs?
Blair: I think the first cooperation will be mutual training exercises for units involved in the patrol along the border and in working together with the police to intercept drug shipments that come across the borders. I think the earliest stages that you will see will be this sort of joint exercises of small units which work along the border that is the transit zone for these drugs. I think we will also see an increase in the process of using intelligence in order to conduct operations. And then in time you will see more equipment flowing. So I think it will be a logical sequence, starting with training first and leading eventually to equipment.
Another important thing is increased integration of efforts among army, police, and intelligence agencies. The Royal Thai Army has fairly recently gone into the counter drug fight against methamphetamines. The police have been involved in countering heroin, and more recently, methamphetamines for a longer time. So these two organizations have to learn to first coordinate, and then integrate their efforts. As for the United States' part, we support both uniformed agencies in many different functions. We need to integrate our efforts so that they are of the most use to Thailand. So part of what is going on here is the sorting out of the roles of and the cooperative practices of sides within Thailand and within the United States and between ourselves. It is important to get this right so you can get the maximum effectiveness out of your forces. So that is the way I see it unfolding. Thailand is the country that has the lead and we are definitely in support. So, we are offering assistance; Thailand is running the show.
VeeJay, of Associated Press: Admiral, given that drugs have become more of a national security issue than a social issue, do you think that the Thai military will be justified in conducting cross border raids into Myanmar to crack down on drug bases? Thanks.
Blair: That clearly is a very important policy question to be decided by the government of Thailand and it's really not my place to advise on that one.
Tim Johnson from Kyodo News: To what extent would these exercises--the team spirit exercises--be focused on armed intervention for humanitarian purposes and in that context what do you think would be the prospect for Japan also participating in one form or another?
Blair: "Team Spirit" of course was the exercise that we used to conduct in Korea. Cobra Gold is the exercise that we were talking about that was a traditional US-Thailand bilateral exercise. An umbrella concept that you might hear is "Team Challenge"-- regarding the Cobra Gold exercise and other regional exercises like Balakatan with the Philippines and Tandem Thrust with Australia, we are looking to incorporate parts of a multilateral regional scenario across these bilateral exercises. "Team Challenge" is probably the term that you were thinking about. On the question of armed intervention we do intend to have (UN) Chapter Six scenarios in these exercises, which is peace enforcement as opposed to peace keeping, which is Chapter Seven. Right now, for example, the UN operation in East Timor is a Chapter Six peace enforcement scenario. Peace enforcement is part of this scenario--not armed intervention outside of the UN mandate. If you are trying to fish me into saying that we are going to do a Kosovo in Asia...(shaking his head no.) (I'm talking about something that) is UN mandated, has consent of the country concerned. We certainly think that is important in this concept. And to answer the last part of your question concerning Japan and its role, Japan of course is considering its policy for the future which right now is quite limited in terms of peace operations. I think that there are four or five conditions that have to be satisfied according to Japanese law before the commitment of Japanese armed forces to a UN peace operation. I know that within Japan there is a legislative review in process to determine if this [and they are primarily restrictions which had been in place historically] should be carried into the future. That's clearly a decision for Japan to make, but I personally feel that Japan will step forward to take more of a role in these peace operations in the future with fewer restrictions. I think that if it does so gradually in cooperation with both the United Nations and with the other countries in the region that the other countries will, over time, welcome Japan's participation in these exercises--overcoming the historical fears which are based on the past world war.
Question: Regarding the team challenge concept--should we consider that the Team Challenge has already begun with the multilateral participation of Cobra Gold or, if it's not the case, when do you expect that Team Challenge can be launched?
Blair: Team Challenge is a journey, not a one step process. The first step was the evolving of Cobra Gold earlier this year in which a third country joined--Singapore--and in which the scenario shifted from conventional defense of territory to the missions of the future. I think the next step is to knit together exercises which are in different parts of Southeast Asia--I mentioned Balakatan, the Tandem Thrust exercise with the Australians--so that it takes place not just within one country but across a region. This is certainly the way these sorts of activities will take place in the future. As the UN operation in East Timor has taught us--I see it evolving in that direction in terms of more observers and ultimately more participants, knitting together more exercises. I really see this, it's important that this is not just military activity for its own sake, this is to build real regional readiness. Real regional capability to be able to handle these complex problems of the future, whether they be in Asia itself or in other places in the world. I was in India earlier on this trip, first stop on my trip was India, second was Philippines, Thailand is the third. I talked with Indian officers about their experiences in peacekeeping and they said frankly that in Sierra Leone--which they announced their withdrawal from the day that I was in India--that they wanted to learn how to think these things through more deeply at the beginning. They wanted to compare notes with other countries, wanted to share intelligence, wanted to do more consultations with other countries on what's required to do the job. I think cooperation not only with Asian countries within Asia but with Asian countries about contingencies that may take place in the world as under the UN mandates or UN operations. We apply military force and other tools to these complex problems. I think that's the trend of the future. We have also discussed, in several of the countries in which I have stopped, and we didn't have a chance to go into detail here in Thailand, this recent report by Mr. Bahraini from Algeria. He took a hard look at UN peacekeeping and suggested a number of improvements, both in the way that the entire nation building restorative military operation was planned and in the military operation itself. I think that's very much the thinking of the future--what we have to do in order to be able to do these operations well. The military role is only a piece of that and it's the reconstruction of an economy, reconstruction of a government, that really always takes longer and is more complex. I think that these sort of discussions involving not only the military leadership and staff but also the overall political staff is where we need to go in the region.
Shawn Crispin, Far Eastern Economic Review: If I could perhaps just for a moment play devil's advocate here. I was hoping to get your views on this: that rather than the rise of multilateralism, could perhaps the US's move to expand the Cobra Gold exercise send the signal to some Southeast Asian governments that the US is passing the torch for the most part for the greater Southeastern Asian security? And that rather than developing a truly multilateral mechanism that this could instead stoke fears among certain states and add fire to a regional arms buildup instead of developing a more multilateral sort of framework? If we look at the raw nuts and bolts, there are still major obstacles to be overcome in the sense of interoperability of equipment, not to mention political will. What are your fears that perhaps this sends the opposite signal to Southeast Asia that the US is serious about security in Northeast Asia and playing a security role but it is really making a pretense of it in Southeast Asia and that resources will be more concentrated to Northeast Asia?
Blair: I would say that is flat wrong. I think that what the countries of the region need to do is to watch the actions and see how it works out. I very much think that the role of the future involves not the United States being the world's policeman or always being the country that takes the lead in activities, but the United States should play a varying role depending upon the situation on hand within an overall commitment to what are becoming the widely shared views of the international community in terms of what's acceptable and what's not. And I think again, East Timor is a pretty good example in which the United States played a very important role in that effort in doing things that we can do well. Like providing a strategic airlift and transportation to many contingents, including the one here from Thailand. By providing a lot of intelligence support to the coalition, primarily through Australia as the leader, by providing the communications backbone in East Timor which the Australian lead coalition used in the early stages. I'd say just as important is that the United States is committed as a country to the success of that operation. To me that's the role which makes sense for both the United States and the region. Rather than it being a certain excuse for the United States to pull out of the region, it seems to me that it is a more sophisticated way to take advantage of the strengths of various countries in the region to do common jobs. In fact, in a way I think it builds support within my country for a proper US force in the region. When I have explained to many members of Congress and talked to groups of newspeople in the United States and given speeches--when I explained this more sophisticated role for the United States--I see heads nodding yes. It gets away from the old idea of, "well, is this issue exactly a vital interest of the United States or is it not, and if it is we'll go in and take charge and run it, if its not we won't be involved." This gives us a way to approach the more complex challenges which are really international challenges in a way which I think can make sense to people who watch them both in the United States and elsewhere. So it very much offers a positive way forward rather than simply relying on old ways of looking at these things.
I think the big problems around the region which could be major flash points--things like the Korean Peninsula, the Strait, India-Kashmir--are more the legacies of past wars than they are the portent of future conflict. Virtually every single one of those has at least a fifty-year history and there has been open high level warfare in all of them. They have to continue to be managed. What I am talking about, since I think those are the problems of the past rather than problems of future, is a way for countries to develop habit of cooperation. A way to develop knowledge of each other and to develop fairly sophisticated ways to approach them. A way in which there is a sharing of responsibility as well as a sharing of leadership to get the common task done and to keep things from again becoming a major confrontation which results in large scale war. You see a lot of talk about great power rivalry in the future. I've said in remarks in some places, that here in Asia in the future the only great power rivalry that we have to fear is great power rivalry itself. I mean that there are not the big "ism" issues of the past. It's only if we convince ourselves that we're in a great power rivalry that we'll begin to act that way. And acting in cooperation on common tasks seems to me to be a way to develop a new way of thinking about it. I much prefer the commercial analogy of when a buyer and seller both have advantages they do a deal, everyone gets ahead. The win-win proposition. In my business, usually its win-lose and that's not the way of the future. If we can push towards these common goals in which we are cooperating together, I think we develop more of that cooperative mindset and have the chance of building a new future out here rather than going through the old future again.
Bill Barnes, South China Morning Post and Financial Times: How does your security community idea plan fit in with ARF? Because a lot of countries in the region seem to be putting great store in ARF as a way of defusing tensions, as a way of increasing cooperation. Is it a rival or is it something that suggests that perhaps that ARF is not functioning very well as some analysts have suggested?
Blair: I'm trying to emphasize more practical initiatives in my sphere rather than spending time worrying about the initials of the organization that takes the initiative. I personally think that ARF has a good future in terms of the approaches to security, which they have talked about. But as you have pointed out, this has not resulted in a lot of action yet. So I think that ARF is a good forum for working some of these issues out. As I said, I think the strong bilateral defense relationships that the United States has with individual countries--we've got five mutual defense treaties in this part of the world--gives us good knowledge of other countries that we can build on for these regional approaches. I'm sort of an equal opportunity kind of person, I just want to do practical things that are in both countries' interest and I think the ARF would be a good place to generate those ideas and initiatives also.
James East of the Straits Times: I was just wondering if you could outline details of the drug issue. What did the Thais ask for -- any particular types of military equipment, and if you suggested any types of military equipment, and if that whole issue of cross border strikes was at least raised even if there has been no sort of commitment?
Blair: I am not going to go into preliminary discussions on those subjects until they are all decided and they are ready to be announced, it would be all speculation until then.
VeeJay: I have noticed that you mentioned Kashmir and Korea as major flash points, Kashmir more than Korea is believed to be more intractable. Where do you see the problem between India and Pakistan going in the next five or ten years especially since the United States has said that it's a bilateral issue and will not get involved in that? Thanks.
Blair: I took a lot of lessons from what happened in the Siachin glacier conflict, it was really a local conflict between India and Pakistan last year. And what I saw was the international community exerting all its efforts on both sides to stop the fighting and to negotiate a truce. That went for my country, that went for China, that went for Russia, countries that you might have seen either back traditional allies or look for taking short term advantage of the conflict to build a relationship with one side or the other. All of those three major countries in the region, as well as certainly India and Pakistan's immediate neighbors, members of SAARC, just universally put pressure on both sides to stop the fighting and to get back on a diplomatic track.
In the Pacific Command we have a very fine institution called the Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies which is located in Honolulu. We invite senior military officers, ministry of defense officials, and ministry of foreign affairs officials, to come to a two-month seminar to discuss regional problems. Since the beginning we have had both India and Pakistan representatives in all courses. It is very interesting to watch the dynamics in that center. Originally both the Indian and Pakistan officers arrived very much pushing the hard position of both of their governments and clearly that's an issue in which both countries feel very strongly. As the other countries in the region, or rather the other students from other countries in the region, put pressure on them and said, "come on you guys, work on this," you could see the participants in the Asia Pacific Center thinking about it. Saying, "well, maybe there are some ways that we can approach this, or some short term steps, or at a minimum maybe we ought to worry about this thing getting out of hand--because we both now have nuclear weapons. Should they be used, it would cause a lot of damage not only to Indians and Pakistanis, but to a lot of other regions of the world." And you could see this pressure from the outside on these officers, to at least manage and, at best, make progress on this issue. To me that's a little lesson of how over time the international community can bring pressure on two sides of a pretty intractable dispute with a lot of history and a lot of bloodshed behind it to make progress over time. I think realistically that's the way progress will have to be made in that area. So I see no alternative. India and Pakistan themselves have to be the countries that have to solve it between themselves. But the role of the rest of us is to be even-handed in offering what help we can. In that regard, for example, the country of India happens to be in my area of responsibility, the country of Pakistan happens to be in the area of responsibility of the commander of the Central Command who's another US Commander in Chief. Both the Commander in Chief in Central Command and I recommended that we keep a policy that worked with both India and Pakistan. We, the military commanders in the region, think that we need to work with both countries, not shift weight from Pakistan to India or shift weight from India to Pakistan, but work with both of them. So I think that's the way for a long-term solution.
Po Garden, Nation TV: Back on the drug issue--has any progress been made on governments of the other side of the borders, and about the assistance program? Like when, how much the size, and then thirdly about the minority groups issues along the border what's the US position on them?
Blair: I think that the regional progress is probably some of the more encouraging developments in recent months. Not too long ago General McCaffrey visited the region. He went to China, was here in Thailand, and made some other stops. And I also discussed the drug issue with Chinese leaders when I was there. I think that there is a realization in China, certainly at the higher levels, that this drug source that we have in the region, not only of heroin but also marijuana and methamphetamines, is a threat to all countries in the region. That you can't just shut your eyes and think that it is someone else's problem. I think that Vietnam is realizing that drugs pose a threat to Vietnamese as well as to others. In fact there's a regional conference coming up, I think it is next week or next month here in Thailand. Now you can say, "Okay, talk is easy," but to me it's new talk which is going to lead to more cooperation. As governments take it seriously and turn their police forces and armed forces towards it, then the places where these crooks can live get smaller and smaller and they can do less and less. That leaves the sort of outlaw element though, like in Myanmar where the area along the Thai border and other places is fundamentally now beyond the reach of Burmese law. They do not enforce their own laws in that part of world, or in that part of their country right now and this is a very big problem. I did discuss that with the leaders here in Thailand, getting their views and telling them what I thought as a military observer of this situation. As I mentioned, in response to a previous question, whether any of that would result in any sort of more aggressive action from outside of Burma is a question that Thailand itself and other countries have to decide. But I can feel the noose tightening from other countries and I think that is good.
As I mentioned, I don't want to announce here in a meeting here with you all specific things on this program--they will be coming out as we sign off on the last details and work them out. The progress in the area of assistance, training, intelligence sharing, and equipment and integration are all going in the right direction. What I have learned in this business of watching the counter drug effort for a while, is there is no silver bullet in this stuff. It takes long, slogging, detailed work by dedicated people to choke this off eventually. And that's just on the suppression side. And then you have the demand reduction side which, if anything, is the more important--in which you make it just not acceptable or not attractive to citizens of your country to put this stuff in their bodies.
I'm afraid we've run out of time. I enjoyed talking to you and look forward to another visit. Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
NNNN