• Military

• WMD Menu                           

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

DoD News Briefing

NEWS TRANSCRIPT from the United States Department of Defense

DoD News Briefing
Rear Adm. Craig R. Quigley, DASD PA
Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 1:30 p.m. EDT
Q: How will this incident affect the Pentagon's recommendation as for what types of defensive weapons the United States should sell to Taiwan?
Quigley: I think we're looking at them as two separate incidents. You have an accident, and the purpose of the meeting on the 18th in Beijing is to discuss the four agenda items that I just mentioned, but all of those are related to the accident. And on this hand, you have the Taiwan Relations Act, which is spelled out in the law as to what our motivations are in discussing and eventually agreeing to sell legitimate defensive weapon systems to Taiwan.
So you're really talking two different issues there. The one is driven by recent events, and the other has its basis in the law.
Q: But the fact that China appeared to be acting hostilely toward the United States over the last two weeks has no bearing on to what extent the United States aids Taiwan in its defense?
Quigley: Well, we need to go back to what Secretary Rumsfeld said from this room on Friday afternoon. I don't think anybody believes that the Chinese pilot took off that day with the intention to collide with the American EP-3. He was flying too aggressively. We think that is the case, based on the fact that he made a total of three passes, and the last one perilously close, and ended up with a collision. But it wasn't the goal was to have a collision. So you're talking about an incident here of aggressive flying versus compliance with the law, and we look at it as two separate events.
Pam?
Q: But what happened after that could be construed as a hostile act. China kept 24 of our service members for 11 days. So doesn't that influence the way the Pentagon views China as a potential adversary both for the U.S. and for Taiwan?
Quigley: Well, again, I was trying to respond to Jamie's questions, and they relate to the sale of arms to Taiwan. And that is rooted in the law, the Taiwan Relations Act of 1982. And it calls for us to take care of the legitimate defensive needs of Taiwan.
Q: By assessing the threat posed by China, and at the Pentagon, I mean, the threat is considered capability plus intention and motivation. And didn't the actions the last two weeks in China - doesn't that indicate something about intentions?
Quigley: I don't think that - we certainly don't believe that the Chinese should have detained our aircrew for 12 days. But neither do I think - I have not heard anybody discuss that in any way of a threat towards the United States interests. We don't agree that they should have detained the aircrew, and we think they should release the aircraft immediately.
But I put a big difference between their conduct in those two regards and somehow being perceived as a threat to the United States.

....
Q: Craig, is the issue of arms sales to Taiwan currently on schedule? In other words, do you plan to advise Congress and Taiwan on April 24th on what weapons that you would be willing to sell the Taiwanese?
Quigley: I believe the Defense Department will discuss with the Taiwanese representatives on the 24th. I don't believe that the notification to the Congress will go until after that, the next day or couple of days, I believe.
Q: I see. But it is on schedule now?
Quigley: Yes, sir.
Q: The administration has said that defensive weapons to Taiwan is in great part driven by the offensive capabilities of China, offensive threats by China against Taiwan. Will not the issue of the two ballistic missile bases pointed against Taiwan be brought up in this meeting at all, will not be discussed?
Quigley: You mean the one in Beijing tomorrow? I believe it is focused pretty much exclusively on the incident surrounding the EP-3.
Now, the factors you mentioned, all factors of Chinese offensive capabilities that could possibly be threatening to Taiwan would be a factor in the other decision, Charlie, and that would be what are the legitimate defense needs of Taiwan, but not an issue for the discussions on the 18th, to the best of my knowledge.
Q: Can you give us a sense of whether all the Pentagon players have finalized their recommendations in terms of what the Pentagon thinks Taiwan should need for the following year, or is that still a work in progress as we speak?
Quigley: It's still a work in progress, below the level of the deputy secretary.
Q: Okay, and could you give us a reality check on the Aegis destroyer, in terms of how soon in can be in Taiwanese waters with Taiwanese sailors on it, if in fact Bush took that step? There's been a lot of public --
Quigley: That's a hard one to answer. It would depend on - the United States has chosen a particular hull form on which to build an Aegis weapon system. And if you go back to beginning of the program, it was the Ticonderoga class cruisers, that has now evolved to the Arleigh Burke destroyers. There's no particular magic that that has to be the hull form on which you put an aegis combat system. So do you want one larger, smaller, do you want the exact same design? And it gives you a different answer to the question depending on what you come up with as far as the requirements go. So I don't think I can give you a good answer.
Q: Is it a minimum of three, four, five years before they would get - it would see any type of aegis-equipped vessel?
Quigley: Minimum, I would think. It could be more than that, even. Depending on the design specifics and licensing agreements, it could be longer than that. But it really would depend on, what do you want this thing to look like? And if I have to start from scratch in designing a system - a vessel, that's going to be longer still. So it's just a lot of permutations and combinations there.
Q: So that's not something they could have in the next year or two, basically?
Quigley: No, no.
Alex.
Q: Reports in the Taiwanese press say that the commander in chief of Taiwan's Navy has just completed an 11-day visit to the United States, during which he met with General Shelton, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, and also, apparently toured an Aegis-class system, whether it was a vessel or not, I'm not sure. Do you have any details on that visit?
Quigley: No, I don't know. Let me take that. I don't know if that was done - if he'd have gone down to Norfolk or something, I don't know. Let me find out. [Yes, Adm. Li Jye recently visited the United States, including an Aegis platform.]
Tom.
Q: There was a joint communiqué in 1982 with the United States and China under which the United States agreed not to sell, qualitatively or quantitatively, more weapons to Taiwan; something to that effect. Do you know whether the United States still feels constrained by the terms of that communiqué?
Quigley: Yes, we still adhere to the terms of that communiqué in '82.
Q: And how does that jibe with the contemplation of the Aegis-equipped destroyer, for example? Wouldn't that be a qualitative increase in the weaponry?
Quigley: I don't know as if we've ever acknowledged that the - I mean, in our - we have agreed with Taiwan over the years that we