tv [untitled] March 29, 2012 6:30pm-7:00pm EDT
6:30 pm
indicating that they're a rising threat to mainland united states, and it raises the question of what is the president's secret deal to limit our missile defense system. i mean, the president is talking to another world leader about once he gets through the election, his last election, unfettered from the electorate, he will be free to have flexibility on the missile defense system, and we're all very, very concerned what the secret deal could be as we face the rising threat of north korea. is this limits on the deployment of our missile defense system, limits on our use of our missile defense system, limits on our operation of our missile defense system? i mean, clearly you can understand how everyone would be concerned as we look to the news of the rise of north korea and the threat that it provides to mainland of our president making any deal, especially a secret deal, that is only to be revealed after the election and that might affect our missile
6:31 pm
defense system. you are the acting assistant secretary of defense policy for asia and pacific security affairs. what is in the secret deal? are we to be concerned about the effects of limiting our missile defense system, our only protection that we have with respect to the emerging and rising threat of north korea to our homeland? >> congressman, i am not aware of any secret deal. we take the missile -- the growth of north korea's missile capability very seriously. as i indicated, we're working very closely with south korea operationally and with other countries in the region sgr before the time expires since you said are you not aer with a of a secret deal, perhaps it is not a secret deal to you, it is secret to us until it was caught on the microphone with the president, so let me reask you the question. are you aer with a of the deal the president has with medvedev and with russia that would be revealed to us after the election that perhaps isn't secret to you that would limit our missile defense capability either in deployment, use, or
6:32 pm
scope that of course is a serious concern to this community as we look to the rise of north korea? are you aware of the subject matter of the president's missile defense deal, secret or not, with the russians? if you're not, why are you not? >> no, sir, i am not, and i can assure you that we do believe that missile defense and our phase adaptive approach to missile defense in the asia pacific region is very much alive, and it is very much part of our comprehensive approach to deal with the threat posed by the north koreans, and it is something we're committed to and in the closed session i would be happy to describe in detail the steps we're taking. >> doctor, you are an appointee by the president, are you not? >> yes, i am, sir. >> i would greatly appreciate it if you would ask the president what are the details of his deal with the russians concerning missile defense that cannot be disclosed until after the election and please report it back to this committee because we have grave concerns as to a
6:33 pm
president having any restriction on our defensive systems especially with as you have he will kweptly described the rising threat of north korea. i would greatly appreciate that. thank you. mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, both, for being here this morning and general, always good to see you. i guess one concern that i have and others have had as well has been whether or not there is any intention of drawing down further the presence of u.s. troops in theater. is there any plan or are there any contingency plans to do that in light of all of the issues including sequestration that would play into that kind of
6:34 pm
scenario? >> congressman reyes, there are no plans that i am aware of that draws down any forces on the peninsula. we are staying at 28,500. there may be adjustments inside those capabilities, but it is those adjustments would be to improve our overall force posture. there are no plans that i am aware of. >> and in terms of the agreement that we have with the particularly for the stability of the korean peninsula with the south koreans, are there any concerns and i apologize for not having been able to be here. i had another meeting that i have to be at, but are there any changes that we contemplate based on the new leadership in
6:35 pm
north korea in that partnership with the south koreans? >> congressman reyes, first off, i believe the alliance is as strong as it has ever been, particularly our military partnership. the concerns that the south koreans relay to me is obviously they're very concerned about the continued willingness on part of the north koreans to continue to test ballistic missiles, and pursuance of nuclear capability. that causes great angst and concern, and i think right now that's probably one of the biggest things. obviously they have not forgotten the sinking of the chonan that occurred in march of 2010 and the shelling of the
6:36 pm
wipodo island that occurred in november of '10. they're very watchful of that and mindful of it. they have put a lot of emphasis on their military for overall readiness, i will tell you that. >> and in terms of the progress that had been made prior to the demise of kim jong-il, are there any indications that those kinds of efforts or talks are taking place in lieu of the concerns that you just expressed of the sinking and the shelling of the by the north koreans? is there any prospect that those talks of economic opportunities being sought out by south
6:37 pm
koreans at this point? >> congressman, i have not seen any great change as a result of the succession with the new leader. i would welcome any discussion obviously. i think if the parties can discuss their differences, that's always a good thing. i have not seen any change. i defer to dr. lavoy on any policy issues in regard to that. >> i could add to that, congressman. north korea is an author tear an regime, of course, and has political successions that are extraordinarily difficult when you don't have a representative government which is the case there of course. so what we're seeing now and what we anticipate is provocative behavior because unfortunately this seems to be the only way that the north korean regime can try to demonstrate its bona fides to a
6:38 pm
population suffering terribly. they can't meet the needs of the population, the nutritional or other educational or other needs of the population, so they resort to provocative behavior. despite efforts to stabilize relations with the north and to deest ka late tensions on the peninsula following the very dangerous activities in the past, now once again because of an internal political dynamic of north korea, it appears that they're once again inclined to take these provocative steps, most specifically the announced missile long range missile ballistic test fight. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was just going back and forth with my aunt who has a nephew serving under you there in korea, young man named jake butler. forgive me but i know you were the commander of the third id
6:39 pm
and very proud of fort stewart and what you gentleman accomplished, ladies and gentlemen accomplished over there, and representing george well and the united states well. i want to speak just very briefly approximate the ought of robbins air force base and can you speak to the j stars program and what it means in a potential conflict with north korea? >> congressman, first off, in respect to jay stars, that gives us moving target capability without going into the classified portion of it. more importantly, what i am looking for as a commander is i have a set of priority intelligence requirements and i welcome any system that is going to help me answer those requirements. it is an added capability that
6:40 pm
does help us on the peninsula. >> my cousin is honored to serve under you as a commander, his mom wanted to ask why was issuedes live ammunition. i would like to ask why haven't and we'll answer that behind closed doors. thank you, mr. general. i yield the remainder of many i 250i78. >> thank you. mr. andrews. >> mr. chairman, i apologize to you and the witnesses for being tardy, i was in a hearing with the secretary of he had ka i guess and wanted to hear him and no disrespect to you gentleman. thank you for your service to our country. dr. lavoy, within the confines of this public discussion, i wanted to get the thinking behind the lipgage of the missile test that's coming up presumably next month and our decision about whether to execute and follow through on the food aid agreement with
6:41 pm
north korea. i am not sure what i think about that idea but let me play devil's advocate here. one argument might be that linking the two publishes the north korean people without having any significant impact on the north korean leadership, would further intensify anti-u.s. or antiwestern hostility, and therefore strengthen the hand domestically of the north korean leadership to engage in such extra legal and unwelcome activities on the international stage. how would you assess that argument and respond to it? >> well, i can tell you that it is regrettable that the food aid is not moving forward. the north korean population really needs nutritional assistance and we're prepared to provide that to north korea. the real motivation and the
6:42 pm
linkage, this is not intended to be linked to anything else to any movement by the north koreans. however, the fact that north korea so brazenly violated commitments and just so recently agreed to, in the discussions in bejing, and its commitment that announced on february 29th on leap day, and indicates that they're not reliable and we cannot expect them to meet other international commitments including the commitments that they have agreed to that are associated with the provision of nutritional assistance to the needy population in their country. >> i understand the basis, the rationale that they dishonored their agreement so they really abandoned their right to claim what they would get under the agreement. my question really more is whether we think that's going to be effective in altering the behavior of this government or whether it is going to worsen our position. you obviously think it will be effective relatively speaking? >> well, congressman, we don't
6:43 pm
believe that nutritional assistance should be a lever to achieve a political outcome. it is a humanitarian effort that we have intended and it is regrettable this stopped. by the reason again why we're not providing that food assistance at this point is because we have our confidence in their 5b89 to meet their agreements has been diminished. we do not use it as a lever to change their policies. >> they moit see it differently. that's okay. again, within the confines of this public discussion, either of you would be pleased to answer it. how do you assess the role the people's republic of china in dealing with this outlaw behavior by north korea? are they more helpful than not or more harmful than not, neutral? put another way, what do you think the optimal behavior of the prc towards this problem is and how close are they to
6:44 pm
obtaining it? >> congressman, i think as we have discussed already, china has potentially a great deal of influence and probably more than any other country on the regime in north korea, so of course we for a long time have been talking to the chinese, consulting regularly with the chinese, about how best to influence the north koreans and in a manner to effect reforms at home and to conform their international behavior to acceptable standards. objectively we can see that north korea continues to behave outside the rules of normal and acceptable international conduct. so that influence has not been as effective today as we would have liked. we continue to consult with the chinese and with other countries that discuss with the relations with north korea about north korea's behavior, and as our partnership with china deepens,
6:45 pm
we hope china will see the interest in the spirit of this partnership. >> i am hopeful of that, too. unless you see everything as a zero sum game between the u.s. and the prc which we certainly don't, and i hope they don't, this kind of instability in their own region can't possibly be good for the prc, and certainly not good for the rest of the world. i hope that we would continue those efforts to find common ground that would encourage north korea to act within the community of nations. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. west. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member also. i just want to also say steadfast and loyal, general thurman, great to see you again. i want to kind of dovetail off of what my colleague mr. andrews talked about because i was stationed in korea in 1995, camp casey and i think that we continue to see this series of saber rattling and us giving in and more rattling and us giving in and honoring of their commitment ands promises so my
6:46 pm
simple question is do you ever see an end to this pavalovian experiment of international extortion coming out of north korea. >> we certainly hope to see the end to that and doing everything possible to too this but it is a very recall sit trant regime and because of their compulsions which are dysfunctional and out of step with the 21st century t leads them to this provocative behavior and only when they can reform internally can they get international behavior to align to acceptable standards. >> does there come a time when our perceived we nevada unanimous must be ended in order for to us stop the crazy cycle of international extortion? i am just a simple guy from the inner city of georgia and that's how we call it. >> congressman, i wouldn't expect you're a simple guy. let me just say that i wouldn't
6:47 pm
kasht eyes our approach as benevolent or weak at all. >> they perceive it as being weak. >> i am not sure they do, sir. >> there is quotes in the papers coming out. dprk that say so. second request he and dovetailing off my colleague. do you believe the incredible debt situation where china holds 28 to 30% of our debt, the trade and balance situation, we're almost at economic disadvantage against china, does that have an adverse effect of our foreign policy in dealing with north korea? >> as i indicated just a moment ago, we do have a strong partnership with china. we are consulting with china on a range of issues, particularly on north korea because china does have so much influence, and we believe that china can be an effective partner and can the north korean regime han it has
6:48 pm
been to date. >> do you think that china sees itself as being able to be somewhat beligerant because of the fact they do have this control of 28% of our debt and a little bit of a trade imbalance advantage over us? do you think that gives them leverage? >> congressman,ha we talk with china about real world international problems and how to deal with them. >> general thurman, commanders like yourself always taught me two questions, that you have to answer when you are briefing a plan. sir, what do you see as the most dangerous and the most likely courses of action am coming out of north korea? >> thanks, congressman west. the first thing i worry about every day is a o somebody's part that causes a conflict that we hadn't planned for. that's the first thing. secondly, i worry about the a
6:49 pm
symmetric capabilities that the north koreans have, whether it be with special operations, forces, or the introduction of kim bio and in cyber. those are some of the things that i worry about. i think we're postured very well to re pell in an attack. [ inaudible ] mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you.
6:50 pm
mr. pilazzo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. like to thank our witness for thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank our witness for being here this morning. testifying. i had to spend most of my -- this committee and another committee where i'm chairman of space and aeronautics. so i haven't been able to follow the entire line of questioning. but i do want to, well, first of all, i am sure chairman whitman talked about his paycom visit. i was a part of that when we did that in this past august. and it was a wonderful trip and the republic of korea was on there. one of our common denominators of concern was if we moved our posture. maybe retreating or just falling back a little too far for their general welfare that then they would have to deal do whatever they have to do to take care of the security and stability of their population.
6:51 pm
so i guess what i'm saying, i hope we're focussing on china. the president was talking about it being an emerging threat. that and cybersecurity. the middle east. making sure that the shipping lanes around the world are continuously open because our economic and national security depends so much on it. and then you hear we're talking in this very -- another hearing and we hear that, i don't know -- or it is a separate conversation, actually, that the chinese are even building icebreakers to go up into the arctic so they can begin claiming the north seas for those resources. so that causes me some concern and hopefully we'll perhaps continue to focus on their behavior and expose it. and all the while, you know, they are increasing their spending on their military and we're cutting a half a trillion dollars over the next decade and we're staring down the barrels of a double-barrel shotgun stuck
6:52 pm
at our head with the possibility of sequestration. and that scares me. but i guess i'll just switch gears and from a cpa standpoint, i like to see the cost benefit. and i know we're doing some realigning from yongson and moving further back. i had a chance to visit yongson. i didn't have a chance to visit the new site where camp humphries was going to be. are we getting the best value for our dollar? we've kept the peace for them for decades now, and i know typically wherever the u.s. military has been, that footprint is one of the most valuable pieces of property left on that -- in that country. is it -- so are we doing a fair exchange? are they paying for their fair share? are we giving up a nice piece of property just for false appeasement? >> congressman, thank you for that question. first thing i would tell you, i think we're getting a very good
6:53 pm
deal with the iraq government. the property of yongson. we will keep a residual there because that is important with our day-to-day business that we do. i interface daily with the chairman of their military as well as their ministry of defense. so we'll have a small footprint there and, of course, the u.s. embassy will eventually relocate out to yongson on some property there. in regard to the cost, there are shared costs, and i would be more than happy to give you a detailed cost breakout of that so you can see. but i believe we're getting a very good deal. and i believe that the government welcomes u.s. presence. you just spoke of china. we are a stabilizing influence, as long as we're forward
6:54 pm
deployed. and that is something that would need to be factored into all of these discussions because that's important to maintain stability in that region. but i think overall they've been more willing. and you can go back to 1991. they have continued to increase their spending to assist u.s. forces that are stationed there. >> thank you, general. i know on our trip over there that they were very receptive and they were very supportive of u.s. troops and rok. so keep doing a good job. i enjoyed seeing you and hopefully i've already made it aware to chairman whitman i'd like to go on another paycom trip. it's of grave importance and i think that's -- it's important we gather as much information as possible and come back better prepared for hearings just like this. thank you all both. i yield back. >> thank you. ms. hokel?
6:55 pm
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i, just like my colleague, i'm a little disadvantaged. i just came from a mark-up in homeland security. i don't know what went on before me but i think the question i had has been addressed. i was concerned about the overall cost of the realignment of the forces in south korea and how much is being funded by the republic of korea. what are we talking about here? i don't need raw numbers today. i would like them in the future. what is their shared responsibility for it and what kind of numbers does that equate to? first off on yongsan relocation, the rok government is paying for that. there will be some ancillary costs associated with our communications and specific requirements in -- related to our unique requirements for our communications networks. that's the responsibility of ours as well as some of the
6:56 pm
o & m remembers and srm requirements that will be required in the future. the land partnership program, was a u.s. initiative. and that was funded by the u.s. primarily. we did use special measures funding from the rok government to assist in that, but i'd be more than happy to give you the detail cost breakdown. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. >> thank you. miss hartsler. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i was interested in your comments, general, about what keeps you up at night worrying about the operational special ops forces north korea has. their cyber, as well as the weapons of mass destruction capabilities. and those are the things that stood out as me as i read your testimony as well. i have to admit i did not realize that north korea was -- had the world's largest special operations force, over 60,000
6:57 pm
trained and loyal soldiers at the president's beck and call at any moment. so that is very concerning. but i wanted to focus in on the other two areas. you say regarding cyber that the newest addition to the -- their arsenal issy in growing cyberwarfare capability that north korea employs smifticated computer hackers. such attacks are ideal for north korea, providing the regime a means to attack the republic of korea and u.s. interests without atribution. and have been increasingly employed against a variety of targets, including military, government and commercial institutions. so i was wondering, what are we doing to help counter this threat? >> congresswoman, first off, that is correct. what you just read. and it's an area that i have
6:58 pm
placed greater emphasis on to make sure, first off, our networks are properly protected. and i would be more than happy in a closed session to go into the detail capabilities of what the threat is that we see in a closed forum. >> okay. i especially am concerned to hear they have already deployed this against our military. so i'd like to know more about what actually happened there. all right. so let me move to the weapons of mass destruction question saying that you list that as a significant concern and that you assess the capability to manufacture, transport and deliver a variety of persistent and nonpersistent chemicals to include nerve, choking and blister agents. could be delivered through artillery or missile systems. and that if they were to employ them, it could use highly
6:59 pm
pathogenic agents and certainly in dense populations, this would be a tremendous, tremendous problem. so i guess my question, are our current nonproliferation and proliferation programs effective tools to mitigate these threats and what more can we do? so general or secretary -- >> congresswoman, first thing in regard to our protection of our men and women who are serving on the peninsula, i have placed a lot of emphasis on our overall chemical, biological defense training. we train on that, on a frequent basis. i'm confident we have the right capabilities. that's the first thing. secondly, in terms of biodetection, we have placed a lot of emphasis on our installations with our biological detection
124 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN3 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on