17 November 2003
Rumsfeld Says U.S. Troop Adjustments Will Benefit South Korea
Defense Secretary's Nov. 17 joint press conference
U.S. troop adjustments in Asia will reflect new technologies and capabilities and "will strengthen our ability to deter and if necessary defeat any aggressions against allies such as South Korea," says U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
During a November 17 joint press briefing in Seoul with South Korean Defense Minister Cho Yong-Kil, Rumsfeld emphasized: "Above all, nothing we do will diminish our commitment to Korea's security or our ability to fulfill our obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty."
"Any changes to U.S. military posture in Northeast Asia will be the product of the closest consultation with our key allies," Rumsfeld said. "Most important they will result in increased U.S. capabilities in the region."
The United States, the Defense Secretary said, understands that "weakness can be provocative."
Neither the U.S. nor South Korean governments, he assured reporters, "would do anything that would in any way weaken the deterrent and the capability to defend."
"It is not numbers of things, it is capability to impose lethal power where needed, when needed with the greatest flexibility and with the greatest agility," Rumsfeld explained.
Following is a transcript of the press conference, as released by the Department of Defense:
(begin transcript)
U.S. Department of Defense News Briefing
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
[Seoul, South Korea]
Monday, November 17, 2003
(Secretary Rumsfeld Korean Joint Press Conference)
Rumsfeld: Good afternoon. I am delighted to be back in the Republic of Korea. I must say that we had excellent meetings today of the Standing Consultative Group. I attended, participated in one of these meetings some 27 years ago in 1976, more than half of the life of this alliance of 50 years ago. And I must say that after 50 years the U.S./Republic of Korea alliance remains strong and healthy, as is the friendship between our two people.
I would guess, I don't know this, but I would guess we may have had one of the most substantive SCM (Security Consultative Meeting) meetings ever. Our alliance and friendship were forged in battle five-decades ago and today U.S. and Korean forces are once again serving side-by-side in the cause of freedom in the global war on terrorism.
I expressed our appreciation for President Roh's decision to provide additional Korean forces in Iraq and for his commitment, generous commitment of humanitarian support for Iraqi reconstruction.
As the U.S. and Korea look at the 21st century challenges and the (inaudible) security environment we're in, we're working to transform our combined military posture to defend Korea and strengthen security in the prospects for peace on this peninsula.
You've indicated that this may have been one of the most substantive SCM meetings ever. We discussed ways to realign and consolidate U.S. forces based in Korea into two major hubs in two phases.
Tomorrow, I will be visiting Camp Casey, Camp Humphreys, Osan Air Base to tour those facilities and to thank the American men and women who are serving here in Korea.
I have assured the Minister that any changes to U.S. military posture in Northeast Asia will be the product of the closest consultation with our key allies. Most important they will result in increased U.S. capabilities in the region.
Whatever adjustments we may make will reflect the new technologies that are available, the new capabilities and they will strengthen our ability to deter and if necessary defeat any aggressions against allies such as South Korea. Above all nothing we do will diminish our commitment to Korea's security or our ability to fulfill our obligations under the Mutual Defense Treaty.
I look forward to meeting with President Roh later this afternoon.
Thank you Mr. Minister.
Q: The Korean government has decided to or considering sending about 3,000 troops in support of Iraqi reconstruction. We ask the United States was about 5,000 or more than 5,000 troops to perform stability operation there. Were they discussed during the SCM meeting this morning or that there is a (inaudible) view if there are what are the rules (inaudible)?
Rumsfeld: Whether there's what?
Q: What are the differences?
Rumsfeld: First, let me say that we have I think 33 nations with forces on the ground in Iraq and as you know Korea has forces there already. And we are appreciative of President Roh's announcement with respect to troop deployments and the only thing I could add is that it is up to each country to decide in what way it feels most appropriate to provide assistance in Iraq, Afghanistan or the global war on terror.
Given the fact that each country needs to decide the most appropriate way to provide assistance on an activity of this importance there can't be any difference because it's up to the Korean government to make those judgments.
Q: My second question goes to Mr. Cho regarding (inaudible) location issue. The state of a joint communicate that both sides have failed to reach an agreement on this issue, what is the background for this (inaudible)? And what is the respected position of both governments regarding the residual presence of UNC (United Nations Command) and CFC (Combined Forces Command) (inaudible)?
Cho: With regard to the relocation issue both sides have reached an agreement in principle, an agreement in principle on the broader outlines of this issue. However, it must be noted that with regards to the headquarters of the CFC and related facilities we have yet to undertake working level consultation on where exactly to deploy them, but I assure you that we (inaudible) great efforts to make sure that we reach a final conclusion on this matter prior to the end of this year.
This is not an area that simply concerns the area of the land but more pertinent is that this concerns cooperation between CFC and (inaudible) and so forth. So we will make sure that this is brought to a conclusion by the end of this year and make sure that this proceeds without setback.
Q: Mr. Minister I'd like to ask you there's much been reported about and perhaps most controversial over the realignment of U.S. forces within Korea and perhaps even a future withdrawal of some of those forces from South Korea. Sir are you confident of South Korea's military ability to hold the line at the DMZ as American troops are pulled southward and why?
Cho: We are moving forward plans to bring about (inaudible) and the redeployment of 2nd Infantry Division however, our (inaudible) meeting will not make any discussions regarding (inaudible) reduction of U.S. forces, and I believe that we have not yet reached that stage to bring about that discussion.
Q: (Inaudible) if American forces are not there?
Cho: We are moving forward to have to transfer 10 missions currently assumed by USFK (US Forces Korea) in terms of those responsibilities to Korean forces. (Inaudible) eight of them will pose no problems even if they were to be transferred at an early stage to Korean forces. However, I would like to note that with regard to the JSA (Joint Security Area) security (inaudible) and the counter fire headquarters mission we must also take into account the political situation and trends on the Korean peninsula as well as (inaudible) force capability. So I would also state that it would be from the (inaudible) or premature to implement this transfer immediately but none the less will continue to engage in checking our future progress on this matter.
Q: (Inaudible) ask the same question which I not feel to good about but never the less I'd like to ask Mr. Rumsfeld the same question. The question is whether you (inaudible) respect the Korean governments decision
Rumsfeld: I'm sorry I missed this. I'm missing some words.
Q: Question is whether you respect the Korean government decision to send additional troops finally to provide humanitarian support in Iraq and with the number of about 3,000 troops rather than conducting stabilization operations in Iraq? And my second part of the question is in reference to the paragraph 4 of the (inaudible). I see that there is emphasis on the flexibility on the part of the U.S. forces in Korea and (inaudible) this not undermine the deterrent that is (inaudible) but whether this would in fact be the current situation here in Korea? And I understand that there will be rapid mobility requirements on the part of the United States Armed forces in the future but never the less people still constantly talking about the possibility of (inaudible) and I'd like to have your (inaudible) on the prospect of these reductions.
Rumsfeld: My goodness gracious.
First, I think I answered your first question earlier when I said that each country needs to decide for itself, each sovereign nation how it can best contribute to the global war on terror, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq. And obviously we would respect whatever decision this government makes.
With respect to the second part of your question on flexibility of forces, we understand that weakness can be provocative, that weakness can invite people into doing things that they otherwise might not even consider.
This alliance has been successful for 50 years, it is an enormously successful record and it's been successful because we have had the ability to deter and defend and if necessary prevail and that has been well understood. I can assure you it will be well understood in the years ahead and needless to say, neither of our governments would do anything that would in any way weaken the deterrent and the capability to defend.
I think the way to think about it is that what deters and what gives you the capability to defend, are military capabilities. It is not numbers of things it is capability to impose lethal power where needed, when needed with the greatest flexibility and with the greatest agility. And whatever adjustments are made a) will be made in the closest consultation with the government of Korea and second, they will move the alliance stronger with a healthier deterrent and a healthier capability of defending. Let there be no doubt.
Q: North Korea has complained consistently in recent months that it's reprocess has been (inaudible) strengthened it's nuclear deterrent. What's you current assessment of North's nuclear capability? And would you support any security guarantees for North Korea before it gives up any weapons that it may have and to separate programs?
Rumsfeld: As I say, I don't really do assessments of that type the intelligence community does in our country and in other countries. We now that the North Koreans have said, and we know they have a closed society and that that's all we know is there are things we don't know of certain knowledge.
The second part of the question I think what I'll do is, respond this way. The United States, the President and our country are working closely with the Republic of Korea with Japan with the People's Republic of China and other countries, to move along a diplomatic track in the hope that they can persuade the North Korean government to conduct itself in a manner that is peaceful and consistent with the hopes and aspirations of peaceful nations all across the world.
We have good people from each of the countries working hard on what obviously is an important issue. It's an important issue for the peninsula but it's also an important issue for the world because of the problem of proliferation of these technologies. And all I can say is, I wish them well.
Moderator: That concludes today's Joint Press Conference. Thank you.
Rumsfeld: Thank you.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
This page printed from: http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2003&m=November&x=20031117162952esrom0.8802454&t=usinfo/wf-latest.html
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
