U.S. Relations With the People's Republic of China (2007)

REMARKS BY ADMIRAL TIMOTHY J. KEATING, COMMANDER, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, WASHINGTON, D.C. TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2007

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

So I've been here a hundred days. What are the things that keep me awake at night? The answer is nothing. I don't worry about much in our area of responsibility. We've been on the road more than half the time we've been there. For what -- I don't want this to be travel log, but I've been to Japan three times, South Korea, the People's Republic of China, the Philippines, Solomons, Guam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore. So we've moved around a good bit, on purpose.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

The economies are improving. We went to the People's Republic of China, spent two and a half days in Beijing. I had been there in 1985. We went in 2007. Huge contrast, stark contrast as, in my mind, best characterized by Tiananmen Square in 1985, thousands and thousands of bicycles all going one way as folks went to work in the morning; thousands and thousands of bicycles as folks went home at night. Today, not so many bikes, an awful lot of automobiles. There are energy demands associated with that change from bicycles to automobiles -- hence the People's Republic of China's military statement that they just want to protect those things that are rightfully theirs: sea lines of communication to provide assured access to oil coming through the Straits of Malacca.

Half of China's oil comes through the Strait of Malacca. 95 percent of the oil to South Korea, Japan, China and Taiwan -- 95 percent of that oil comes through the Strait of Malacca. How important is that waterway to the world, to those of us in the Pacific -- not lost on Singapore, Indonesia and Malaysia. Their work -- contrast it to what we experienced in 1985. Their work today is increasingly collaborative. They're friendly. They understand the challenges they have; they understand their differences.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

Back to the People's Republic of China for a couple minutes. Some folks would figure that we at Pacific Command spend a fair amount of our time kind of worrying PLA, the People's Liberation Army, but we don't. We don't worry about it. We're watching them, we're interested. They're watching us, they're interested in us. It makes sense.

While there we spent some time with China's military leaders. They emphasized their interest in the Taiwan independence issue. We emphasized our U.S. government's policy. They accepted our position. We listened to their position. We kind of agreed to maintain this somewhat ambiguous position on our part, and they understand it. And that was okay.

We talked a little bit about anti-satellite tests. Our hosts were slightly less than eager to discuss this, but we did, and we noted that we didn't know that this was necessarily consonant with the countries whose stated is peaceful rise. The military officials with whom we spent time talking emphasized their interest only in defensive military capabilities. The People's Liberation Army: We only advocate defensive capabilities. Their white paper this year emphasizes that. They took some exception to some of the statements made in the Department of Defense white paper published shortly after our visit.

So there is a difference between the way the People's Liberation Army and the Pacific Command view Chinese military development and Chinese military capabilities. The Chinese will point out their energy demands are significant for oil and coal. Much of the trade that they enjoy with other countries -- Australia, a prominent partner now in terms of trade with China. This Congress moves through the maritime domain, and China wants to develop a blue-water navy, they say, simply to protect their right to use the maritime domain. As for the United States of America, it's hard to argue that position.

They're interested in developing an aircraft carrier, said the People's Liberation Army officials with whom we met. We had some interesting discussions about development of aircraft carriers. Some of us are not unfamiliar with them. I've flew on Archie Manny's (sp) wing a number of times on and off aircraft carriers. We said to them, essentially, knock yourselves out. It ain't as easy as it looks. (Laughter.) It's very difficult technology to master. It's taken us a long time. It is an expensive, time consuming, sophisticated, dangerous undertaking. They acknowledged that and said we reserve the right to develop aircraft carriers if we so choose. They said to us there is no more prominent and visible signal of a nation's resolve and might than an aircraft carrier coming into a port.

That has a certain unique naval perspective to it, but it's hard to argue that.

They also pointed out how effective the USS Abraham Lincoln was in the aforementioned tsunami relief operation, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. They said they would use an aircraft carrier for that purpose.

Our Chinese guests said, "Here's what we'll do. You take care of the Eastern Pacific, we'll take care of the Western Pacific, and we'll just communicate with each other." (Laughter.)

That is a notion -- (laughter) -- shall we say.

But in the room -- we said when they -- "You want to see an aircraft carrier? We'll show you." They have been on the USS -- was it Harry S Truman? When I had -- was fortunate enough to have the Kitty Hawk Battle Group, some senior Chinese military officers came out and watched us conduct flight operations just off of Hawaii.

They have been on the bridges of nuclear-powered submarines. They have been in the control rooms. They have been in the CINCPAC Fleet Command Center. So there's a certain amount of, okay, you know, this is -- you want to develop a military capability, defensive though you profess it to be, that -- this is kind of what you can expect. This is the price of admission, if you will.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

And we go back to China and to South Korea and Japan and recognize how dependent they are, if not just for energy but on -- for many of the products they consume and many of the products they produce and export on the maritime domain. And the same holds true for the air domain.

So Keating's perspective in the year 2007 is different than it was in 1985. Things in the Pacific are better. We're on an upslope. There are challenges to be sure. There are terrorist groups afoot. We're working with host nations to reduce if not eliminate all of them and we're making progress there.

We're worried a little bit about North Korea. We watch North Korea carefully. The six-party talks -- I talked to Ambassador Hill just last night. His view, to characterize it, is we're making progress. It isn't necessarily a breakneck pace, but little associated with North Korea is. But there is measurable progress being made. Japan, China, Russia, South Korea, the United States -- they're all -- we are all very interested in doing what we can to provide a nuclear-free peninsula.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]