Pentagon Spokesman's Briefing
DoD News Briefing
Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, DASD PA
Thursday, April 26, 2001, 1:30 p.m. EDT
Q: Craig, could you bring us up to date on the status of the
government's damage assessment of the lost - intelligence lost in the
-- (off mike)?
Quigley: Sure. Can do. It is still a work in progress. We have had --
you know the window of time, Bob, that we've had actual access to the
crewmembers. It's basically from the flight that took from Hainan
Island to their arrival back, via Guam, to Hawaii, and then to Whidbey
Island. During that time, they went - started a debriefing process on
the plane en route and continued it on the ground for just a couple of
days in Hawaii.
We learned some things about not only the emergency destruction
process that took place, but also about their treatment and some of
their observations while they were detained by the Chinese.
Then, after a homecoming at Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, they
were all released to be home with their families for the next 30 days.
So the clock stopped, if you will, at the - when the crew members
dispersed to join their families for 30 days, and that ends about the
first part or the middle of May, I believe.
So we have what we have at this point from our understanding of the
debriefings that we've had with the crew, and that tells us that we
still feel that the crew did the best job they could with the time
that they had after the collision and before the plane touched down on
Hainan Island.
It wasn't perfect, but we feel they did the best job that they could.
There is more we need to understand.
So the intentions are that when the crew members come back from leave,
on not only issue but others as well, we will continue with a more
extensive debriefing effort, try to learn everything we possibly can,
take that and then, based on that understanding of what actually may
have been compromised, then analyze that very carefully as to the
damage that may have occurred from compromise, what changes then we
might have to make in procedures, in equipment, things of that sort,
in order to compensate for that possible compromise, and that's kind
of the way ahead.
Q: Did the initial series of debriefings indicate then that the loss
was more serious than initially believed, based on what Secretary
Rumsfeld said, for example?
Quigley: I hesitate to - I hesitate to characterize it yet, because
it is still very much a work in progress. Our understanding is not
complete, and I think I'd like to hold off until we have a more
complete understanding.
Q: Well, Craig, are you saying that, essentially, that your knowledge
of this hasn't really changed since the day the crew was released?
Since then? Has there been any additional --
Quigley: No. It has advanced, Jamie, but not as much as it will once
we have a chance to sit down once again with the crewmembers and speak
to them in more depth. We've taken the information that was provided
and - up until the day of the homecoming at Whidbey Island - and
then our analysts have used that in the past week or week and a half,
whatever it's been, to try to work that ahead and to analyze from
there.
But what we're finding is that the analysts need more information. You
always think of that next good question you wanted to ask before you
let the person out of your sight, and there are good questions,
necessary questions that still need to be asked to complete our
knowledge.
Q: Can you say at this point whether there was, in fact, some
intelligence lost?
Quigley: We feel there was.
Q: And can you characterize that in any way?
Quigley: No, I can't.
Q: And as long as we're on this subject, have you made any progress in
negotiating with the Chinese for a return of the plane, number one?
Quigley: Not that I know of, John. I know that process continues
through our embassy in Beijing, and our views on that are very clear.
I mean, we consider the plane U.S. property and we'd like it back.
Q: And there has been repeated assertions by you and by others in the
government that the flights are going to resume, yet the clock ticks,
the flights do not resume. Can you give us any guidance on what your
thought process is here?
Quigley: Well, we have made no announcement on a schedule, but the
policy decision remains the same.
We have every intention of continuing strategic reconnaissance and
flights around the world. But we'll not provide details on schedules
or locations or things of that sort.
John?
Q: Is it your judgment that it would be prudent to wait until after
the damage assessment before resuming the flights?
Quigley: Not necessarily.
Hunter?
Q: Sir, is it possible that, once the damage assessment is complete,
given that some intelligence was lost, that you will have to make some
significant changes in the types of equipment or the way that
equipment is operated on future Aries II flights elsewhere in the
world?
Quigley: That's certainly - I'm sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead.
Q: That's okay.
Quigley: That's certainly one of the questions we'll need to look at;
is it procedural, is it equipment-related, what are the elements here
that we may need to change? We don't know the answer to that yet, but
that is certainly one of the questions we will pursue.
Yes?
Q: Is there any indication so far at how serious the intelligence loss
was? And also, did the crew have all the tools that they needed on
board the plane to have completed destruction?
Quigley: I can't characterize in some level of severity for you
because our knowledge is incomplete, and I don't want to give a
half-baked answer. We need to have a complete answer. And on the
second part, on the tools available, I don't know. I have not heard
that issue discussed.
Q: You said the process of talking about the plane is continuing
through our embassy in Beijing. I think when there was the special
meeting of the Defense Department team for a few days, they left it
that that meeting of the Maritime Commission that had been scheduled,
I think for this last Monday, would happen but at some later date. Has
that been scheduled yet?
Quigley: I checked on that just before I came in. And no, it's not yet
scheduled. What we hope to do, as one of the topics of discussion for
that meeting when it does get rescheduled, is to discuss procedures
that we might put in place with the Chinese to preclude or at least
reduce the chances of any future collisions. But that is not yet
scheduled.
Q: Have there been any indications that the Chinese have moved the
plane from the last photographs that we've all probably seen? And do
we have any read on where the plane is right now? Is it on the same
spot on the tarmac?
Quigley: I have no indication that the plane has moved.
Alex?
Q: In light of this affair, has there been any change in the decision
by the Pentagon or the administration as far as continuing the
military-to-military relationship?
There are sources in China who say you've suspended it.
Quigley: No, we just have not come to that conclusion yet. Secretary
Rumsfeld keeps that under review. We have very limited mil-to-mil
interaction through the month of May for the next five weeks, and then
everything after the end of May is that portion that Secretary
Rumsfeld said, "Okay, let me take a look at this." And he has not yet
completed his review.
Q: What, for example, are these very limited events that are still
taking place, then?
Quigley: The mutual participation in a multilateral conference on some
military-related subject in some country - (laughter) - as an
example. I said it's pretty thin, okay? It's pretty thin.
What you don't see in there - and I say, by a significant event, what
you don't see as an American military delegation visiting China, or
the flip side of that, a Chinese military delegation visiting the
United States for some fighter base or a naval base or an Army
installation or something. None of that is scheduled through the end
of May.
Q: And scheduled in June and July?
Quigley: There are no schedules developed past the end of May. These
things take a little while to put into place. So you can figure that
if Secretary Rumsfeld finishes the review and sets off on something
after the end of May, then you might not pick up on it right away in
the first part of June, because it's going to take a while to get back
up to speed.
But I'm actually ahead of myself, and we really --
Q: So it's not - you do not agree that the relationship has been
shelved for the time being?
Quigley: There's just not much there in the next five weeks, of
substance. And it is not settled past that point.
Chris?
Q: Well, Craig, maybe you wouldn't consider port calls, since there
isn't usually mil-to-mil contact in those, as mil-to-mil. But are you
saying there wouldn't even be any --
Quigley: We do.
Q: Oh, you do consider it --
Quigley: Yeah, we do consider that.
Q: Are you saying there are no port calls in Hong Kong for the next
six weeks or so?
Quigley: No port calls in Hong Kong for the next five weeks or
whatever it is.
Q: Is that their usual --
Quigley: No, we - they kind of go in fits and starts. I think the
last vessels were there --
Q: Right before.
Quigley: Yeah, six weeks, seven weeks ago, something like that. It's
not even longer than they're - before that --
Q: (Off mike.)
Quigley: You're right; just before the collision occurred. But you can
go weeks and months, even, before another vessel might call there, or
other ports in China as well.
Q: Craig?
Quigley: Yeah, Tom?
(Cross talk.)
Q: What about possible fighter escorts for the EP-3s? Is that under
consideration?
Quigley: No, I won't get into any details on that at all, on any of
the processes or details as to the particulars of strategic
reconnaissance flights.
John?
Q: Admiral, the Chinese have indicated very strongly, in reaction to
the arms sale decision to Taiwan, that they might discontinue
cooperation with us on nonproliferation, and they might even consider
selling weapons to nations with which the United States is not
friendly. I wonder what the Pentagon's view of that is?
Quigley: I won't get into critiquing their motivation. I will clarify
and strengthen and repeat the United States's motivation in providing
arms to Taiwan. These are of a defensive nature and in accordance with
the Taiwan Relations Act. They are always viewed through that lens as
to what types and quantity and level of sophistication that we would
provide to Taiwan. So I will only speak for the United States's
motivation and the strictures that we place on ourselves in providing
arms to Taiwan.
Q: Would it not be a concern to the United States if China in fact did
make good on these - I don't know whether to call them "threats" or
not at this point, but --
Quigley: Well, I think you hit on one of the key elements: it would
very much matter to whom, and what systems - are they offensive or
defensive in nature, in what quantity. Lots of possibilities stem from
that very broad statement of intentions on their part, so you would
just have to wait and see how that played out in the particulars. The
devil there would be in the details.
Jon?
Q: Going back to the EP-3, has the Japanese government made any
representations or asked for any consultations on the issue of these
flights, and particularly the greater intensity of flights out of
Kadena. There are reports in Tokyo that there's some tension about
this.
Quigley: Not that I'm aware of.
....
Q: I'm sorry, just to go back to that damage assessment. Do you know
when it's going to be completed? And at this point, the plane's been
sitting there for almost a month. You know, you haven't completed the
damage assessment, so you're saying you don't know the full extent of
the compromise. Is it possible at this point to even prevent any
compromise, since it's been sitting there for almost a month now,
they've had a look at it?
Quigley: I don't think we know that, exactly. I don't think we know
the extent to which Chinese authorities have been on the plane, nor
their level of activities. We just don't have that knowledge. As far
as a time line goes, once you get an understanding, a better
understanding than we have today from additional conversations with
the crewmembers, you would take that, you would - you would kind of
do the process again that we have had so far - take the additional
information, further analyze that, and then do your assessment from
there. That will probably take some time, but I can't give you a time
frame. It would depend on what we learn.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
