U.S. Department of State
Daily Press Briefing
INDEX
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1999
Briefer: JAMES P. RUBIN
|
CHINA |
|
|
10,11-12 |
Reported Chinese Missile Buildup Across From Taiwan |
|
10-12, 20-21 |
US Defensive Arms Sales to Taiwan |
|
13 |
Department's View of Taiwan Security Enhancement Act |
US DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DAILY PRESS BRIEFING
DPB #143
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1999, 12:45 P.M.
(ON THE RECORD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on The Washington Times report suggesting that the Chinese are about to deploy short-range missiles across from Taiwan?
MR. RUBIN: Yeah, on the missile buildup story, there was a gross mischaracterization of the position of the State Department in such a story. Anything anybody can do to fix that will be appreciated and welcomed.
The United States continues to monitor the situation in China closely. The characterization of the State Department's views is wildly inaccurate. We have made clear to the Chinese Government our concerns regarding Chinese missile developments and their influence on the situation in the Taiwan Strait. We have a strong interest in maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. That is why we have approved defensive arms sales to Taiwan in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.
Among the items Taiwan has already purchased has been technology for Taiwan's Modified Air Defense System, MADS, which you asked me about yesterday, which has some limited anti-aircraft and anti-missile capabilities. In addition to this system, the United States has sold Hawk, Chaparral and Sky Guard surface-to-air missiles as well as vehicle-mounted Stinger Avenger systems. We will continue to monitor the military balance in the Taiwan Strait closely, and meet our obligations to provide Taiwan the arms it needs for an adequate defense. And we have made very clear that no decisions on theater missile defense systems have been made, other than for the protection of American forces. We do not preclude the sale -- possible sale -- of such systems to Taiwan in the future. Our interest, however, is in preserving peace and stability in the region, and any final decision will be made on that basis, especially in light of the fact that theater missile defense is a system still under development. It would be premature to make such a decision at this time.
QUESTION: Are you satisfied with their response? It sounds like you found a way to try to make the people in Taiwan a little more secure. But at the root of the problem, what China is doing, the State Department has been habitually concerned about it --
MR. RUBIN: You wouldn't know that from some of the characterizations --
QUESTION: It's like on Chechnya. I mean, do they pay any attention to what you say?
MR. RUBIN: I think we have made significant progress over the years with respect to China's proliferation policies. We are not in the position to dictate all the goals that we want - that they be achieved, and we will continue to express our concerns in that regard.
QUESTION: When you talk about theater missile defense, I am a little confused as to whether you consider the really low-end systems, such as the Patriot -- whether you consider that in your answer theater missile defense. And in the things you have ticked off -- Hawk, Chaparral and Stinger -- none of those have any capability that I know of against ballistic missiles.
Do they have any weapons systems from us that do have any capability against ballistic missile systems?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, the MAD system, the Modified Air Defense System, which has some limited anti-aircraft and anti-missile capabilities.
QUESTION: What part of that is from us?
MR. RUBIN: Well, they have purchased technology for their modified air defense system, and I would have to get precise detail on the specific technological origination of every particular technology. But what I'm suggesting is that they have purchased - presumably with our support - the technology that has a limited anti-missile capability.
QUESTION: OK, well, the other part of my question was, you said no decision had been made on theater missile defense systems.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: I'm just wondering whether you consider a small area defense system, such as the Patriot, whether you consider that under that umbrella? Or is that something that is below that threshold.
MR. RUBIN: I will have to get you an answer to that considered question. Hopefully, my answer will be as considered as your question.
QUESTION: Still on this subject. Can you comment on the substance of the story which is that China is expanding - it's deploying nearly a hundred missiles at Yangang?
MR. RUBIN: I take it that's another one of those intelligence reports, and I wouldn't want to do that.
QUESTION: But you won't criticize that aspect of the story? You'll criticize the way the State Department's position is characterized. But you are not commenting on the substance of the story, correct? Because it's an intelligence matter?
MR. RUBIN: No, that's not correct.
QUESTION: All right what's wrong about that?
MR. RUBIN: Because the position about the State Department wasn't derived from intelligence sources.
Q I know it - I didn't say that. What are we talking about? We're missing each other here. When I asked about the substance of the story, you took issue with the way the State Department is portrayed in the story.
MR. RUBIN: Right, and I was prepared to get into the substance, in fact --
QUESTION: Agreed, and you got into --
MR. RUBIN: -- because it wasn't based on intelligence matters.
QUESTION: Right. What you've done for Taiwan is not based on intelligence matters.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
QUESTION: But so far as that substance - the real point of the story - the State Department, the Administration has no comment because it involves intelligence, correct?
MR. RUBIN: Precisely.
QUESTION: Good.
QUESTION: Yes, Mr. Rubin, when you talk about the MAD system, I wonder if the US is also providing Taiwan - is the advance version of the Patriot, which is PAC-3. This is question number one. I have another question which relates to a story that appeared last Friday in The Washington Times, also - to the effect that there was a conference - a military conference between Taiwan and the US prior to the annual spring - annual military purchase conference. During the conference Taiwan's request for submarines was rejected, as in the past. But what interests me was the fact that the story also alluded to something like an anti-Taiwan faction in the Clinton Administration. It even pointed the finger at people like Sandy Berger, NSC Director, and Ken Lieberthal, he's the top China aide, and also people in this building like Roth - Assistant Secretary Roth, and Susan Shirk. So my question is, do you have any comment on that story, and also on my first question?
MR. RUBIN: Good questions. Let me suggest the following: First of all, with respect to what specific systems we might have under consideration for future defense cooperation pursuant to the Taiwan Relations Act, I am not in a position to comment. We and Taiwan have agreed that we will not comment on discussions we are having, as to what we might or might not provide in the future. So I wouldn't be able to answer the first question for that reason.
Secondly, the two A's - part A of your second QUESTION: I think the same answer applies. In other words, it's fair to say that we have been talking to Taiwan. We do discuss with them, regularly, the ways in which we can meet their legitimate security needs, and we discuss that at a technical level and the specific ideas discussed, we're not prepared to discuss publicly.
Thirdly, part 2-B of your QUESTION: I think it's fair enough to say that that kind of labeling is facile, and misunderstands the complexities of the US-China relationship and the Taiwan question, and doesn't comport with what I know to be the views of various officials. I have no reason to think that Mr. Roth or Mr. Berger are anti-Taiwan in any way, shape or form.
QUESTION: Jamie, same subject. What is the Administration's position on the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act?
MR. RUBIN: We have opposed that law under the basic formula that, if ain't broke, don't fix it. We have a very good working system, and a set of communiqués and laws deal with the US-Taiwan military relationship. We believe it has served us well, and served America's interests well. Therefore, we don't support changing it in principle.
With respect to some of the specifics, some of them are already being done. Others of them, we believe, could have harmful effects, both in giving Taiwan a false impression of what would happen, and/or giving China unnecessary advantage or knowledge. So we don't think that the proposal is wise. We think that our US-China policy has been working fine, thank you.
With respect to Taiwan, I would remind anyone concerned that in 1995 we acted in a certain way based on our laws and our consideration of what was right for the national interest, and that we have promoted dialogue between China and Taiwan, and we will continue to do so.
QUESTION: Your opposite number in China, Mr. Sun, the foreign minister's spokesman had some comments that seemed to be directed at an unnamed presidential candidate saying that a statesman with vision and a sense of responsibility must clearly see the overall interests of China-US relations. Do you have any comment on his remarks?
MR. RUBIN: Well, unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that the foreign minister in China has privileges that I don't have - so the Foreign Ministry spokesman in China has privileges that I don't have, which is to comment on the development of the campaign.
I certainly think that we believe that vision, and what's in the national interest, may not comport with what the Chinese think. That wouldn't be the first time we've had profound disagreements with China about their vision for their future without full respect for human rights of the people of China, and what damaging effect that would have on them.
So we have a very, very profoundly different view than the Chinese Foreign Ministry or the Chinese Government about their vision for the future. So they're entitled to their views, but I think it would probably behoove them to spend more time worrying about their vision, than worrying about the vision of American politicians.
QUESTION: You focused on human rights. Would you include that posture to Taiwan as something where your vision and theirs might be somewhat at odds?
MR. RUBIN: I think we've spoken in the past about our opposition to the threat of force in that regard, or the use of force -- our firm opposition to that. So that would certainly be a difference.
............(The briefing concluded at 1:45 p.m.)
(###)
[end of document]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
