Questions and Answers
Dr John Chipman
Mr Secretary, thank you much for those strong, measured, and moving words. Your message about inspiring further multilateral cooperation in this region has no doubt fallen on very interested ears. The debate is now open. Those of you who would like to make comments or raise questions, please raise your flags.
Professor Zha Daojiong, Professor, Department of International Political Economy, School of International Studies, Peking University, Peoples Republic of China
Secretary Gates, sir, thank you for that masterly ‘tour de raison’. You mentioned various challenges, but you have not mentioned Iran. Partly, this may be because you do not regard Iran as necessarily Asia-focused, or exclusively Asia-focused. However, how would you characterise the challenge of Iran? How would you balance the multilateral approach that you have advocated for international cooperation with a ‘hub and spokes’ approach in tackling this particular challenge?
Secretary Robert Gates
I think in many respects the challenge posed by Iran parallels that of North Korea. You have two regimes that are pursuing both long-range missiles and nuclear weapons capability. Both regimes are acting in contravention to a number of UN Security Council resolutions, and are determined to pursue their policies without regard to the views of the international community. North Korea is obviously further along in these endeavours than Iran. However, they both pose very difficult challenges. The reality is, a diplomatic and peaceful solution in both cases requires significant international multilateral cooperation, and a willingness to impose genuinely tough sanctions that bring home to both countries real pain for their failure to adhere to international norms. Without that kind of multilateral cooperation, with the international community working together, the options for dealing with these countries become more limited and consequential, particularly when they engage in provocative behaviour. These are problems that should and must be dealt with in peaceful ways. The consequences of conflict in either place, in both regions, are enormous to contemplate. With respect to Iran, my view is that the same kind of tough meaningful sanctions are by far the preferable outcome, if they bring home to the regime just how isolated it is in the world, and perhaps help to change its course. Frankly, more needs to be done in both cases.
Yoichi Kato, National Security Correspondent, The Asahi Shimbun, Japan; IISS Member
Mr Secretary, I would like to ask you about nuclear balance in the region. What do you think the impact of the new round of talks between the United States and Russia has been on the reduction of nuclear arsenals? On the regional strategic nuclear balance, do you think that China also has to be asked to be ‘on board’ with these efforts to reduce nuclear arsenals, in order to maintain a secure nuclear balance in the region? Is so, how do you do it? Thank you.
Secretary Robert Gates
It seems to me that the question of reducing nuclear arms needs to be sequenced. The reality is that the United States and Russia have vastly more nuclear weapons than any other states in the world, including China. It seems to me that the United States and Russia have to take the lead in further reducing the nuclear weapons that they have. However, if the goal as the President has articulated it is ultimately to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons around the world significantly, and reduce proliferation, ultimately all nuclear states have to be a participant in that process. However, at least initially the United States and Russia have to set an example of their willingness to address this. Frankly, there is such a gap between the number of nuclear weapons either the United States or Russia have, and the number that China or other nuclear powers have, the United States and Russia ought to ‘get on with it’ first, before turning to a more multilateral approach to see if we can bring down the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world.
Professor Han Sung-Joo, Chairman, Asan Institute for Policy Studies; former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Korea; IISS Member
Mr Secretary, the recent second North Korean nuclear bomb test seems to have been very powerful and potent, much more so than the first. The earlier rocket launch, even though it failed to put the object into orbit, seems to have reached a very long distance. You mentioned that the transport of nuclear material by North Korea would represent a grave threat. How much do you think that North Korea’s nuclear capability now represents a direct military threat to the United States? If not now, when do you anticipate that North Korea will be a direct military threat in terms of nuclear weapons?
Secretary Robert Gates
I do not think that North Korea’s nuclear programme at this point represents a direct military threat to the United States. I think that the combination of their progress in developing nuclear technology, and their progress in developing multi-stage long-range missiles, is a harbinger of a dark future. What is now central to multilateral efforts, with respect to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is to try to peacefully stop those programmes before they do in fact become a ‘clear and present danger’, as the expression goes: not just to the United States but to others here in the region. However, I think the progress they have made gives urgency to the effort to try and bring enough pressure on the North Koreans so that they change their path. We have to be tough-minded about this. I think that everyone in the room is familiar with the tactics that the North Koreans use: they create a crisis, and the rest of us pay a price to return to the status quo ante. As the expression goes in the United States: ‘I am tired of buying the same horse twice.’ Personally, I believe that this notion that we buy our way back to the status quo ante is an approach that we ought to think very hard about. There are perhaps other ways to try and get the North Koreans to change their approach.
Manish Tewari, National Spokesperson, Indian National Congress
Mr Secretary, in your remarks, you referred to the stake that nations around the world have in the stability of Afghanistan. It is over seven years since there has been an international presence in Afghanistan. If you were to make an assessment of what has been achieved over those last seven years, and what needs to be done, I think it would be very enlightening indeed. During your remarks you referred to India. My second question would be around the fact that you would expect India to be a net provider of security in the Indian Ocean in the coming years. Would you like to amplify on those remarks? Thank you.
Secretary Robert Gates
Despite the challenges that we face now, the reality is that the Taliban do not represent the government of Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not at present a safe haven for terrorist groups who would launch attacks against the United States and other countries. Afghanistan does have a democratically elected government, however imperfect. In contrast to the period from the departure of the Soviets in the late 1980s, until 2003, the international community very broadly recognises the importance of paying attention to Afghanistan and being willing to invest in Afghanistan for the future. There have been some significant successes in Afghanistan, in that respect. By the same token, everyone here is aware that the Taliban and affiliated organisations are now challenging us again. These include the Hakani Network, Gulbaddin Hekmatyar, and a variety of others along with al-Qaeda, operating along the Afghan-Pakistan border. It is one of the centrepieces of the administration’s new approach to dealing with this, to treat that border area as a broad problem that has to be dealt with in a unified way. There are a lot of challenges in front of us in Afghanistan. I went through a lot of the needs that Afghanistan has. It is a desperately poor country: the fourth or fifth poorest country in the world. However, there is potential. 35 years ago, before all the wars, Afghanistan was an agricultural exporting country. It exported something other than poppies. There is potential there. However, we are in for a hard slog.
With respect to India’s role, I think that the example of India’s participation in the counter-piracy operations off the horn of Africa and in the Gulf of Aden is an example. What we see in India is a great power that has tremendous potential to be a major player in bringing international security and stability in a lot of places, as a part of the international community.
Professor Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar, Deputy Chairman, Indonesian Institute of Sciences, Indonesia
Thank you, Secretary Gates. My questions relate to your remark about acceptance of regional norms. Is the United States going to accede to the Asian Treaty of Amity and Cooperation any time soon? If so, after that accession, will the United States seek to become a member of the East Asian Summit? Thank you.
Secretary Robert Gates
As I indicated in my remarks, we have moved a fairly considerable distance since the new administration has come into office. As Secretary Clinton has said, we are now prepared to negotiate accession to the treaty. I think this is more in the Secretary of State’s lane than mine. However, my guess is that we would take these things a step at a time: we would get accession to that treaty, before we start talking about the next one.
Kishore Mahbubani, Dean, Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore
Mr Secretary, I was really heartened by your message, when you called for greater multilateral cooperation and greater respect for international law. However, my question goes back to relations between the United States and China. Last night I mentioned to Prime Minster Rudd that we have a rather unusual situation, where the relations between the world’s greatest power, the United States, and the world’s greatest emerging power, China, are actually very positive and stable. Would you share the assessment that it is unusual to have this positive and stable relationship between these two powers? If you wanted to make the security and defence dimension of this relationship even better, can you suggest two or three specific confidence-building measures that could help achieve this?
Secretary Robert Gates
I met General Ma Xiaotian this morning. We talked about focussing on areas in which we can cooperate and work together, and having an open dialogue about those areas where we may have differences. I will not speak for him, but I support the opening of a defence-based strategic dialogue between the United States and the People’s Republic, as a first measure. I originally proposed this in 2007, when I was in Beijing. I think that a consistent conversation or dialogue that explores our respective strategic thinking, military programmes, and where we are headed, would provide greater transparency and only advance the interests of both countries. It would advance stability both in the region and globally. I am optimistic that we have had a start on that kind of a dialogue. There is already that kind of a dialogue on the diplomatic side. When they were in London for the G20, President Obama and President Hu Jintao underscored the importance of strengthening the relationship, and noted that the military-to-military relationship was lagging, along with other elements of the relationship. I am personally committed to seeing if we can make greater progress on the military side. I think that kind of dialogue would be a good opening step in terms of confidence building.
Dr John Hillen, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, Global Strategies Group (North America) Inc; former Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, Department of State , USA
Mr Secretary, since you have been Secretary of Defense you have challenged the Europeans to make greater military contributions in Afghanistan, and many people in the US have expressed disappointment in the result over the past couple of years. Does your vision for increased multilateral cooperation in Asia, increased bilateral ties in Asia, increased capacity building in Asia, in any way substitute with increased Asian capabilities in scenarios like Afghanistan for the European military contribution that seems to be diminishing in these cases, or are those apples and oranges, and both sides need to be worked separately?
Secretary Robert Gates
I think that the difference is, and perhaps the reason why I have been tougher on the Europeans in this respect than on a number of countries in Asia, is the fact that the leaders of the NATO alliance, both in Bucharest and then in France, and before that in Riga; three successive NATO summits have declared a success in Afghanistan to be the alliance’s highest priority. What has concerned me has been the difference between the rhetorical emphasis on the importance of success in Afghanistan, and the capabilities that many of our allies are prepared to put forward. Now, there are a lot of our allies that are there in very large numbers; the British, the Germans, the French, the Italians, the Spanish, and so on, but there is still a great need. The reality is there are something like 32,000 European and partner nation troops in Afghanistan right now; that is up about 10,000 over the last 18 months, so it is not like people have been sitting with their hands in their pockets. However, the need is greater than the commitments that have been made, and the areas where I believe at this point many nations can make a contribution that would be invaluable, would be in the areas of the kinds of civilian expertise that I described in my remarks earlier.
The reality is even for the US it is one thing for us to be able to surge a significant number of military forces, but our civilian capacity is limited. We are going to surge that as well, and hundreds more US experts, diplomats and others will be flowing into Afghanistan in the months to come, but that is far short of what the need is in Afghanistan, and so that is an area where I think everyone can be helpful. I would add that the ultimate solution in terms of security in Afghanistan is the growth, size and capability of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police; we are accelerating that, but it is very costly. The US will put billions of dollars into this effort over the course of the next several years.
Afghanistan for a considerable period of time will never be able to afford the size army and police that are required to take on the security challenges in the country, and so the more nations that can contribute to the Afghan National Security Force’s trust fund, under the auspices of NATO; Japan has made a big commitment, South Korea has made a big commitment, a lot of countries are making contributions in this area, but much more can be done for the long-term.
Barry Desker, Dean, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang, Technological University, Singapore; IISS Member
Secretary Gates, I must confess to a sceptical view; I do not see the emergence of an international consensus on dealing with North Korea, and would argue that this has grim consequences for Japan in particular. Is there not an increasing risk that Japanese insecurities could result in the Japanese development of a nuclear capability and further undermine the NPT regime?
Secretary Robert Gates
The likelihood of that at this point is remote; I would invite my Japanese colleagues to respond to that, because that is their business. I think that while we worry about the consequences of instability inside North Korea we also have to worry about the consequences of North Korea’s behaviour creating instability in the region and provoking its neighbours into taking defensive actions, because North Korea continues to pursue these missile and nuclear capabilities. This has to be the impetus in terms of the six party talks, and in terms of other endeavours, to try and get the North Koreans to change their course, because the truth of the matter is, if they continue on the path they are on, the consequences for stability in the region are significant. That poses the potential for some kind of an arms race here in this region, and everyone in this room knows that is a bad thing and would have negative consequences of its own.
Dr Dana Allin, Editor, Survival; Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy and Transatlantic Affairs, IISS
Mr Secretary, a substantial part of your remarks were devoted again to the threat of terrorism, and as you know this is a problem that has been rather politicised in the US, partly around the question of whether the fight against it should best be conceived as a war. I do not think there is a simple answer to this, but from your rather unique perspective could you say something about what has been learned, what has changed, and what is the same in the Obama administration’s approach?
Secretary Robert Gates
Firstly, to paraphrase Trotsky; you may not be looking for war, but war is looking for you. The reality is whatever you call it, and it is a waste of time to get bogged down in semantics. The reality is we have violent extremists in a variety of places around the world who are trying to attack stability and security in a number of different nations. Their principle targets at this point appear to be the US and Europe, but, as I indicated in my remarks, there has been a lot of evidence of this kind of activity here in Asia as well. Whether you call it a war, a fight, or a campaign, or whatever else, the reality is these violent extremists continue to exist, they continue to plan, and it requires the cooperation of all countries in terms of trying to bring this challenge under control. Can we eliminate it altogether? Probably not, but can we get it to levels where our people are secure and safe, and they represent a nuisance rather than a real threat? That requires a level of intelligence sharing and cooperation in operations that, frankly, is one of the great advances that I have seen since returning to Government. The progress that has been made over the past six or seven years in terms of countries cooperating is one of the reasons that these attacks have been fortunately few and far between, because of this level of international cooperation. I am not much interested in what you call it; I just want to get it under control.
Dr Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, Assistant Professor, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Pakistan
Secretary Gates, you have referred to Afghanistan and its effects on international politics, but you did not refer to the fact that the Pakistan armed forces have been combating with the terrorists. Do you have any tangible plan to assist Pakistan to multiply their armed forces capacity with modern weapons to combat these terrorists in the Iran-Pakistan border on the Pakistani side?
Secretary Robert Gates
Firstly I would say that we have been very encouraged by the actions of the Pakistani government and the Pakistani security forces in recent weeks, and especially encourage by the broad statement of political support by the nation’s various political leaders in support of what the army is doing in the north western part of the country. We are very sensitive to Pakistan’s sovereignty, and we are eager to be helpful, but only as the Pakistanis want us to be helpful, and we are prepared to do whatever we can to provide training and equipment, and other capabilities, to the Pakistanis, and are in those conversations as we speak, but the actions of recent weeks have been most encouraging.
Admiral Bill Owens, Chief Executive, AEA Investors (Asia) Limited, USA; IISS Member
Mr Secretary, given the complexity that you referred to with respect to the Chinese-American relationship, and the fact that it is one of the most important relationships in the world, to take Kishore’s question just one step further, I wonder if you could gaze into the future 10 years about what kind of a national security relationship you would like to see between the US and China?
Secretary Robert Gates
Long experience in the intelligence business has made me very cautious about predicting the future, especially since we so often got it wrong. We used to divide the things we wanted to know into two categories; secrets and mysteries. Secrets represented information that was knowable and potentially stealable, and mysteries were the unknown; the question you have asked is more of a mystery than a secret. Obviously I could paint some kind of idyllic picture of the US-Chinese relationship 10 years from now, that would be everybody’s hope, but it depends on both countries making wise decisions as we go forward on a range of economic, security and other issues, as long as both countries have as a priority the positive development of the relationship in a way that benefits everybody. That requires leaders in both countries who are willing sometimes to make courageous decisions in terms of the relationship. The variable above all, as it is in most situations, is the wisdom of the leaders of both countries, and if we are both blessed with wise leaders for that 10 years, then the kind of idyllic scenario that we would like to see will develop, but these kinds of things are not linear, and we will just have to see. We have our hopes, and I suspect that both sides have their hopes, those hopes were expressed by President Obama and President Hu in London, and we will just have to keep working on it, to ensure that the outcome in 10 years is where we all think it ought to be.
Admiral (Retd) Arun Prakash, Former Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee and former Chief of Naval Staff, India; IISS Member
Secretary Gates, referring back to Afghanistan, you rightly invoked multilateral cooperation in handling this problem, because it has ramifications for the whole region, if not the world. Pakistan needs to be given full assistance and cooperation in tackling the problem that she faces; it is a huge problem, but there is an impediment and even a distraction in the concept that seems to be prevalent, that there is an existential threat to Pakistan from India. No one would contemplate messing around with Pakistan, because it would immediately invoke a huge economic demographic security problem for India. As a longstanding military man I can say with honesty that we have never contemplated any such plans, but this reassurance needs to be conveyed to Pakistan, so that it can focus fully on tackling this huge problem. Perhaps in your future deliberations or consultations with Pakistan you can ask the question; what does India need to do to convey reassurance to Pakistan that there is no threat from India? A corollary to this is who do we reassure, because the president of Pakistan has more than once said that he does not see a threat from India, so there is somebody else who needs to be assured, and perhaps you would like to apply your mind to that particular issue?
Secretary Robert Gates
My own view is that India has conducted itself with great sophistication and care over a period of considerable turbulence, including Pakistan’s political crisis last year, and in response to the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. My own view is that the willingness of the Pakistani government, and the Pakistani military, to take action in the western part of the country is partly the result of coming to understand that what was happening in the western part of the country represented truly an existential threat to the existence of the Pakistani government and Pakistan’s democracy. By inference, if you will, there is an indication that they became convinced that was a more immediate threat than the situation with India; for 60 years the Pakistani army has been focused on that one perceived threat. The fact that they have taken the kind of action with the sized forces they have in the western part of the country demonstrates that they understand there is a more immediate threat to the country; I applaud them for that, and I also applaud the Indian government for the way it has conduct itself over the past year or so.
Farooq Sobhan, President, Bangladesh Enterprise Institute, Bangladesh
Secretary Gates, I was recently in Washington and there was an overriding opinion there that Pakistan was the far greater problem currently, and that to really get stability in Afghanistan you needed first to solve the problems in Pakistan. The second point of view that was expressed was that you need Iran to also ensure stability in both Afghanistan and in Iraq. Which do you give greater importance to, Iran’s nuclear programme or Iran’s cooperation in achieving stability in the region?
Secretary Robert Gates
Firstly, our overriding concern right no with respect to Iran is their continuing nuclear programme, and their defiance of the UN Security Council resolutions. Where they are headed with this programme is a source of great concern to a number of countries, including many not just in the immediate region. The reality is Iran is basically playing both sides of the street, in both Afghanistan and Iraq; it, on the one hand, tries to cultivate positive diplomatic and political relationships with the two governments, it tries to expand economic relationships, but at the same time it is supplying weapons and training to those trying to overthrow those governments. I would say that, with respect to Afghanistan, the amount of that assistance, as best we can tell, is pretty limited, but it exists nonetheless. In terms of Iran’s role in Afghanistan, I would say that it is obviously a concern, but at this point at least it pales by comparison with our concern over their nuclear programme.
Peter Qiu, Commentator, Phoenix TV; IISS Member
Secretary Gates, you mentioned before that the US is not going to recognise the status of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state, and we all appreciate this position. What does it mean exactly for the US in terms of the next step, which could be done, which might be done, when in reality we are seeing that after two nuclear tests North Korea is a de facto nuclear weapons state? In the last six or seven years the joint international diplomacy in terms of the six party talks has so far failed, so what does that mean exactly for the US if you are not going to recognise North Korea as a nuclear weapons state; what could be done? Are you saying the US is going to start talking with Pyongyang or is diplomacy the only option in solving the problem in the Korean Peninsular?
Participant
When talking about the Afghanistan war you listed a very long list of the countries that have provided support and cooperation to the US, but China was not on the list, does that mean that China has not done enough or that you are not satisfied with China’s efforts in the past? What would you expect China to do in the future in this regard?
Secretary Robert Gates
Firstly, regarding the next steps on Korea, the next step really is a political one, and it is that we will be reacting to the other four members of the six party talks, other than North Korea, to talk about where we go from here with the six party talks. We will be sending a high ranking team out here to talk to several governments about the next steps, and we have to reassess. The reality is that given the objectives of the six party talks that were established some years ago, it would be hard to point to them at this point as an example of success. The countries engaged need to think freshly about where we go from here. One of the great virtues of the six party talks is the involvement of Russia and China in discussing these security issues relating to North Korea, and so there is very little interest in walking away from the six party talks, but we need to talk about how they can be more effective, and how we can reach a better outcome than we have reached so far.
With respect to China and Afghanistan, all I can say is that we would welcome China’s help in Afghanistan, whether it is a contribution to the security fund, or in a number of these civilian areas of expertise. This is one of these places in the world where all contributions are welcome, and we would welcome China’s help there as well.
Dr John Chipman
Mr Secretary, thank you very much for a tremendous contribution to the debate here at the Shangri-La Dialogue, and for your personal commitment to multilateral defence diplomacy in this region. I would ask everyone in the hall to recognise your personal efforts in the usual way.
