Ben Cardin Leads Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing On Indo-Pacific Alliances & Partnerships

4/19/2024

On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing entitled, “Modernizing US Alliances & Partnerships in the Indo-Pacific.”

Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:

https://account.forbes.com/membership/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=growth_non-sub_paid_subscribe_ytdescript

Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: http://fb.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: http://instagram.com/forbes
More From Forbes: http://forbes.com

Transcript

00:00:00Four years ago, America's alliances were in tatters, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

00:00:08We saw a retreat from support for democracy and human rights, a chaotic patchwork of diplomatic

00:00:14grudges and self-defeating trade policies, and demands that our allies pay the cost of

00:00:20hosting U.S. bases.

00:00:22China was filling the vacuum left by the United States' approach to foreign policy that some

00:00:27called America first, but was in reality America alone.

00:00:32Only four years later, our alliances had never been stronger.

00:00:36Their tremendous progress is thanks to the hard work of the Biden administration.

00:00:41The historic Camp David summit with Japan and South Korea, the August agreement with

00:00:46Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, which goes far beyond nuclear submarines,

00:00:53the increased practical cooperation with members of the Quad, Australia, Japan, and

00:00:57India, who share many of our strategic views on China.

00:01:02And just last week, we witnessed the first ever trilateral summit here in Washington

00:01:06between Japan, the Philippines, and the United States.

00:01:10Our alliances in the region don't just reassure nations who live in Beijing's shadows, they

00:01:16also pay off for the American people.

00:01:20Whether it's intelligence sharing on mutual threats or U.S. basing and rotational agreements,

00:01:27we enjoy an enormous benefit from maintaining our Indo-Pacific alliances.

00:01:33Both Democrats and Republicans understand how important this region is.

00:01:38That is why there is bipartisan agreement across Congress on the need to preserve and

00:01:42deepen these alliances.

00:01:44And I'm optimistic that the House will do the right thing and pass the administration's

00:01:49supplemental security package.

00:01:51It not only includes vital funding for Ukraine, but almost $5 billion for the Indo-Pacific.

00:02:00As President Kennedy once said, history has made us friends, economics has made us partners,

00:02:06and necessity has made us allies.

00:02:09Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put us under.

00:02:16The truth is that one of the United States' greatest strategic advantages are our alliances.

00:02:23Who are China's closest friends?

00:02:26Russia, Iran, North Korea.

00:02:29Some of the worst human rights abusers in the world that repress the hope and dreams

00:02:33of their citizens.

00:02:34Meanwhile, we have five mutual defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines,

00:02:41and Thailand.

00:02:43And our partnerships include New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Mongolia,

00:02:48and Taiwan.

00:02:49And the list goes on.

00:02:51No one wants to be left off.

00:02:53Why?

00:02:54It's not just because we have the greatest military in the world.

00:02:56It's because of our values.

00:02:59It's because while others might use debt-trapped diplomacy to buy influence, the United States

00:03:04is working to bring peace and stability and prosperity.

00:03:08It's because we're working to uphold the rules-based international order that has benefited people

00:03:14across the planet.

00:03:16We cannot go back to the days when America was agonizing and even attacking our friends.

00:03:22We cannot succeed with a foreign policy that tells dictators to do whatever the hell they

00:03:26want to our allies.

00:03:29From manufacturing microchips to expanding the operational reach of our military across

00:03:33the Pacific, to combating corruption, to standing up for human rights, the stakes in

00:03:38the Indo-Pacific are simply too high for the United States.

00:03:42We need a robust economic agenda, and we need to show up with concrete alternatives to what

00:03:47our competitors are offering in infrastructure and investment.

00:03:51America's leadership in the world has never been more important.

00:03:54I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

00:03:56We have two very, very distinguished expert witnesses with us today, and we should have

00:04:00an incredibly important discussion.

00:04:02But first, let me recognize the Distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Risch.

00:04:06Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:04:08First of all, let me say that the United States has had a strategic interest in Asia, being

00:04:13open and free, for over two centuries.

00:04:15We opened a consulate in India in 1792.

00:04:18In the 1850s, various U.S. Senators made speeches about thwarting efforts by various colonial

00:04:25powers to dominate the region.

00:04:27A balance of power favorable to the United States protects U.S. interests and allies'

00:04:31sovereignty, advances economic prosperity, and ensures no one has to bow to a bully.

00:04:37However, this balance is being challenged.

00:04:40The greatest threat of regional domination, of course, comes from China, supported by

00:04:43a growing China-Russia strategic partnership.

00:04:46It has been interesting to watch Russia become the junior partner in this relationship.

00:04:52China has improved its strategic posture by creating trade and economic dependencies and

00:04:56seizing territory from the South China Sea to the Indian border.

00:05:02China knows it can get what it wants if it proves U.S. alliances and partnerships are

00:05:07not up to the task when things get tough.

00:05:10Time and again, we've played into their hands.

00:05:12In 2012, the United States stood by as China seized the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines

00:05:17uncontested, a failure we must not forget or repeat given China's growing encroachment

00:05:26on more territory like the Second Thomas Shoal.

00:05:29Weak responses spread the idea that we are unreliable.

00:05:33Left unanswered, our allies' confidence is shaken and we should not be surprised if they

00:05:37seek to engage with China to protect their own national interests.

00:05:41Even in the face of a deteriorating strategic position, we remain unserious about ensuring

00:05:46our alliances can address our shared objectives and contend with shared threats.

00:05:52U.S. allies plead for deeper economic engagement with us, yet the U.S. does not have a substantive

00:05:57economic agenda.

00:05:59The administration's Indo-Pacific economic framework sounds good but delivers nothing.

00:06:05While there are calls for abuse of foreign investments by allies in the United States,

00:06:10we at the same time allow Chinese firms to benefit from U.S. tax credits and to profit

00:06:14off research at U.S. universities.

00:06:16This approach should be reversed.

00:06:19Meanwhile, the administration's approach to allies puts ideology ahead of reality.

00:06:25The last three budgets proposed by the administration prioritize gender and climate over countering

00:06:30China's advantages in transportation and digital infrastructure.

00:06:35The administration instructs allies to stop buying Russian energy and then, at the same

00:06:40time, bans U.S. LNG exports.

00:06:43This ham-handed move is not gone unnoticed by our allies and for obvious reasons is round

00:06:48ly criticized.

00:06:50Numerous political declarations and joint statements obscure the lack of substance in

00:06:55progress with our allies.

00:06:56AUKUS is the most egregious example.

00:06:59I strongly support AUKUS.

00:07:02But the administration announced the security alliance in 2021 but did not negotiate what

00:07:07it meant until after the press release went out.

00:07:09It is now 2024 and we still don't know when any new military capabilities will be produced.

00:07:16To make it worse, the administration refuses to certify that Australia and UK, our closest

00:07:21allies, have the laws to adequately support defense cooperation.

00:07:28But this didn't stop the administration from announcing moves to add a new AUKUS partner

00:07:32last week.

00:07:33Similarly, the administration announced, with great fanfare, a nuclear consultative group

00:07:39with South Korea to deter North Korean aggression.

00:07:43A great idea.

00:07:44A year later, where's the progress?

00:07:47Further, the administration fails to prioritize greater burden sharing.

00:07:50The demands of this security environment are immense.

00:07:54Our partners need to step up and buy more capability and conduct more presence operations.

00:07:59Finally, the administration's Indo-Pacific alliance strategy does not account for the

00:08:04growing China-Russia alignment.

00:08:06Our Asian partners recognize that what happens in Ukraine will affect Asia's future.

00:08:11The administration is politely asking China to restrain Russia rather than imposing effective,

00:08:17strong economic punishment on China for its active role in Ukraine's suffering.

00:08:22That's the only kind of thing that China will understand or respond to.

00:08:26The administration's approach to alliances is not serving our interests.

00:08:30Protectionism over economic engagement, ideology over pragmatism, and form over substance do

00:08:36not advance U.S. interests or give our Indo-Pacific partners strategic options.

00:08:43Initiatives must have concrete actions if they are to help us win this competition.

00:08:48The administration's performance is underwhelming.

00:08:50I look forward to hearing the witnesses' thoughts on these matters.

00:08:54Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:08:56Thank you, Senator Risch.

00:08:57I think we all agree that the Indo-Pacific is critically important to U.S. national security

00:09:01interests.

00:09:02The topic of modernizing U.S. alliances and partnership in the Indo-Pacific is a timely subject.

00:09:09We have two outstanding experts on this subject that have joined us today, and I want to thank

00:09:14both of you for your service and for your being here today.

00:09:18First, we have today Admiral Harry Harris, a decorated four-star admiral who served our

00:09:24country for three years as the 24th Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, Indo-PACOM.

00:09:31Admiral Harris more recently led U.S. bilateral relations with our friends in Seoul as the

00:09:37U.S. ambassador to South Korea from 2018 to 2021.

00:09:42Admiral Harris, it would be difficult to find anyone with more experience than you, have

00:09:45both in the military and diplomatic capacities in the Indo-Pacific.

00:09:50You are a strong advocate for U.S. alliances and realistic regarding the seriousness of

00:09:55our competition with the PRC.

00:09:58Our second witness is Professor Walter Russell Mead, an accomplished academic and historian,

00:10:05currently serving as the Distinguished Fellow in Strategies and Statesmanship at the Hudson

00:10:09Institute.

00:10:10Professor Mead is also the James Clark Chase Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities

00:10:16at Bard College and currently contributes to the Wall Street Journal and its Global

00:10:21View columnist.

00:10:23So we have two very, very accomplished experts.

00:10:27Your entire statements will be made part of the record.

00:10:29You may proceed as you wish.

00:10:31We hope that you can summarize in about five minutes or so so we have time for committee

00:10:36discussion.

00:10:37With that, let me start with Admiral Harris.

00:10:40Thanks Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Risch and distinguished members.

00:10:44It's an honor for me to appear again before this committee.

00:10:48It's been almost six years since I last appeared here for my confirmation hearing to be the

00:10:53ambassador to South Korea.

00:10:54I thought then that that would be my last testimony before you.

00:10:59I thought wrong.

00:11:00Today, I'm honored and even intimidated to testify alongside the esteemed, dare I say,

00:11:07revered Professor Walter Russell Mead, a distinguished strategist, historian, teacher, and prolific

00:11:12writer who understands well the challenges and threats that confront America in the 21st

00:11:18century.

00:11:19So please throw the hard balls at him and toss the soft balls to me.

00:11:23I know I'm time limited here, so let me get right to it by first thanking this committee.

00:11:28That this hearing to examine the issue of U.S. alliances and partnerships in the Indo-Pacific

00:11:34comes immediately after Japanese Prime Minister Kishida's and Philippine President Marcos's

00:11:40visit and two weeks after we celebrated NATO's 75th anniversary sends a powerful signal to

00:11:46the world in general and to our adversaries in particular.

00:11:50This committee's introduction last week of a bipartisan resolution underscoring the strength

00:11:55and the importance of the U.S.-Japan alliance serves as an authoritative reminder that 2024

00:12:02marks 64 years of our formal alliance with Japan.

00:12:06Importantly, this month also celebrates and marks the 45th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations

00:12:13Act, in my opinion, without Congress's active intervention back in 1979 when your predecessors

00:12:19in the 96th Congress crafted the act, Taiwan would have long succumbed to the People's

00:12:25Republic of China, or PRC.

00:12:28Today, 45 years later, Taiwan is democratic, an idea factory, and a global force for good,

00:12:34despite the PRC's unrelenting quest to intimidate, isolate, and finally dominate this beleaguered

00:12:40island.

00:12:41The Cato Institute's 2023 Freedom Index ranked Taiwan as the freest country in Asia.

00:12:48As reference points, Taiwan ranked higher than Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada,

00:12:55and even us.

00:12:56The PRC ranked a dismal 149 out of 165 countries.

00:13:01Unlike our policy of strategic ambiguity, the PRC's intent is crystal clear.

00:13:08We must never allow the PRC to dictate America's Taiwan policy.

00:13:14As this committee knows far better than me, there are very few bipartisan issues in Washington

00:13:19these days, but our national concern about the PRC is one of them.

00:13:22Now I visited Taiwan three times last year.

00:13:25In my opinion, Russia on Ukraine has galvanized them.

00:13:28They get it, but they need our tangible support, not our best wishes.

00:13:33And I'm happy to discuss how this could happen in the Q&A session.

00:13:37Throughout my long military career and my short stint in diplomacy, I emphasize my belief

00:13:43that America's single greatest asymmetric strength is our network of alliances and partnerships.

00:13:49Today we face a security environment more complex and volatile than any I've experienced

00:13:54ever.

00:13:55Today, more than ever, alliances are critical to our national security.

00:14:00Alliances and allies matter.

00:14:03Ambassador Emanuel, our envoy to Japan, put it just this way last Sunday.

00:14:08We're betting on our allies, and they're betting on us.

00:14:12President Reagan once said that we cannot play innocence abroad in a world that's not

00:14:16innocent.

00:14:17This statement is as true today as it was on December 7th, throughout the Cold War,

00:14:21on 9-11, on 2-24, when Russia invaded Ukraine, and on the 7th of October, when Hamas terrorists

00:14:28invaded Israel.

00:14:30Over a thousand Israelis, including women, children, and the elderly, were subjected

00:14:35to unspeakable cruelty, murder, and rape, and hundreds were taken hostage.

00:14:40This is pure evil, and it baffles me and angers me that there are those who seek to

00:14:45justify Hamas's actions.

00:14:48Indeed, the world remains a dangerous place.

00:14:51The unipolar moment following the Cold War is long over.

00:14:54So today, more than ever, I believe that America's security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific

00:14:59are inextricably linked to this network of alliances and partnerships as we face a challenging

00:15:05and precarious crossroad where tangible opportunity meets significant challenge.

00:15:10We find ourselves again in peer competition, not near-peer, but peer competition with adversaries

00:15:17who are developing and deploying cutting-edge weaponry and information disorder to undermine

00:15:22democracy and defeat us.

00:15:24An aggressive North Korea is building and testing nuclear weapons.

00:15:27A revisionist PRC seeks regional, then global, domination.

00:15:32And a revanchist Russia is on the move in Europe.

00:15:35I agree with Professor Meade's piece in the Wall Street Journal where he opined that we

00:15:41get it wrong when we believe that giving in to leaders like Putin will satisfy them.

00:15:46In my opinion, the same can be said of Kim Jong-un and autocrats the world over.

00:15:51Equally concerning to me is the dangerous and growing alignment between the PRC, Russia,

00:15:57and North Korea, and all three with Iran.

00:16:00Maya Angelou once said that when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

00:16:05These autocrats have shown us who they are time and time again, and what they intend

00:16:11to do.

00:16:12And shame on us if we ignore them.

00:16:15Professor Meade asserted over a decade ago that America's Cold War alliances were insufficient

00:16:20then to meet the needs of the 21st century.

00:16:22I agree.

00:16:24So today, in addition to the U.S., Japan, and South Korea trilateral, we have the Quad,

00:16:30we have AUKUS, and the new trilateral relationship involving the Philippines.

00:16:34In my written statement, I talk about specific alliances and multilateral relationships,

00:16:38so I won't go into them here other than to observe that, one, AUKUS is not an alliance

00:16:45to counter an alien invasion, and two, those relationships reflect a fundamental change

00:16:51to America's approach.

00:16:53Moving away from the old hub-and-spoke model of my day, so 20th century, Indo-PACOM is

00:16:59now pursuing lattice-like security arrangements with multiple connections between members.

00:17:04So, Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude my remarks with this observation.

00:17:09The U.S. made two flawed geopolitical assumptions last century.

00:17:14One, we assumed that the PRC would morph into something resembling a global force for good,

00:17:20and two, that Russia would no longer threaten its neighbors of the West.

00:17:25Today, the Russian bear is afoot, and we find ourselves shooting well behind the Peking

00:17:30duck.

00:17:31We must step up our game, or we'll find ourselves outgunned, literally and figuratively.

00:17:36While challenges to our interests in the Indo-Pacific are real and daunting, I believe our resolve

00:17:43is powerful and durable.

00:17:45And while we are bolstered, and we are bolstered, sustained, and strengthened by our allies

00:17:51and partners.

00:17:52Again, to quote Professor Mead, a distracted America still leads the world.

00:17:57I thank this committee and the Congress for your enduring support of our diplomatic corps

00:18:02and our armed forces, and I look forward to your questions.

00:18:05Thank you very much.

00:18:06Admiral Harris, first of all, I very much appreciate your testimony.

00:18:09It's very informative, very helpful, and very different than when you testified before us

00:18:14on your nomination.

00:18:15So, we can see the difference between those types of appearances, but again, thank you

00:18:19for your service.

00:18:21Professor Mead.

00:18:22Thank you.

00:18:23Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rich, distinguished members of this committee, it's a great honor

00:18:28to be asked to speak before you, and especially to testify with either Admiral or Ambassador

00:18:37Harris in both capacities.

00:18:39He is one of America's great public servants.

00:18:42I'll just make five points this morning, and I hope they will contribute to our discussion.

00:18:48First, America's interests are global, but our goal is not global conquest.

00:18:55History teaches that if any country dominates either Europe or Asia, our security and our

00:19:01prosperity here will come under attack.

00:19:05Maintaining this balance of power and ensuring the freedom of the world's sea lanes and communications

00:19:11networks is now, and has been for many generations, the foundation of American foreign policy.

00:19:19These limited goals make American power a force for the freedom of other countries and

00:19:24provide the basis for strong and enduring partnerships.

00:19:29Our goal should be to safeguard these vital long-term national interests at the lowest

00:19:34possible risk and cost.

00:19:37Second, allies are a vital asset.

00:19:42We do not want to fight either Russia or China, or for that matter, Iran, on our own.

00:19:48Fortunately, when great powers try to dominate their neighborhoods, the smaller powers come

00:19:53looking for allies.

00:19:55Today, countries like India, Japan, and, thanks in part to Ambassador Harris' service, South

00:20:02Korea, have awakened to the danger.

00:20:06Sweden and Finland have joined NATO to help check Russia's bid for power.

00:20:11And we all saw literally a miracle last week as Arab air forces joined with the UK, the

00:20:18U.S., and Israel to block Iran's missile and drone attacks.

00:20:24Third, after the Cold War, Americans fell asleep at the wheel.

00:20:31We took our military and economic superiority for granted and thought that the era of great

00:20:37power competition was over.

00:20:39We ignored the danger signs from Russia and Iran.

00:20:44We failed to foresee the consequences of China's abuse of the world trading system or to match

00:20:50its military buildup in its neighborhood.

00:20:53Today, we and our allies are overstretched and under attack.

00:20:58Powers are erupting all over the world.

00:21:01We must get back to the basics.

00:21:05Military power is not the only dimension of American power.

00:21:08But without a solid, hard power foundation, we will not be able to make progress on issues

00:21:15like human rights or climate change.

00:21:18Fourth, we now face an axis of revisionist powers, including China, Russia, Iran, and

00:21:25smaller hostile countries around the world.

00:21:29These countries do not love or trust each other.

00:21:32But their fear and hatred of American power and their hope that we can now at long last

00:21:38be defeated is once again haunting the civilized world and driving them to act in concert.

00:21:46The danger of a downward spiral into a new era of chaos and war is real.

00:21:52We can look at Gaza and Sudan to see what an era like that will mean for the peoples

00:21:59of the world.

00:22:01Fifth and finally, we still have time to turn things around.

00:22:06We are not yet in the position of Winston Churchill who could promise his fellow citizens

00:22:11nothing but blood, toil, tears, and sweat in the darkest days of World War II.

00:22:17We can still deter war while working for peace.

00:22:21And it can be deterred from attacking its neighbors while those neighbors catch up with

00:22:26its economic growth and military might.

00:22:29Russia, Iran, and the fanatical terrorists seeking to revive the ideology of jihadism

00:22:35can be taught that their fantasies of empire cannot be fulfilled.

00:22:41While he was still in college, the young John Fitzgerald Kennedy wrote his senior thesis

00:22:47about Britain's failure to foresee and forestall the terrible tragedy of World War II.

00:22:53Soon after, he published his thesis as the book Why England Slept.

00:22:59After that, he went to war.

00:23:02Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Risch, Honorable Members, I pray to God that no young Americans

00:23:09today will have to write a book about why America slept or to fight in the war that

00:23:17will come if we fail.

00:23:19This distinguished committee does not need for me to tell it that the world situation

00:23:24is dark today and getting darker.

00:23:27But with focus, determination, and the help of our allies, we can still turn this around.

00:23:33And this famous committee, seen of so many of the great debates that shaped American

00:23:39and world history in past generations, can and I very much hope will play a leading role

00:23:46in helping to put the world back on the path to peace.

00:23:50Thank you.

00:23:51Well, thank you for your insight.

00:23:54I think we all need to take your advice and be prepared to act on it.

00:24:01I was interested in both of your comments about our alliances, which is the subject

00:24:07here for the Indo-Pacific.

00:24:11I would agree with you, Professor Mead, that our adversaries don't trust each other.

00:24:17But they have an alliance.

00:24:19Their alliance is not a transparent alliance that we do when we deal with the Quad or we

00:24:25deal with the August agreements.

00:24:30But there is a clear alliance between China, between Russia, between Iran, between North

00:24:38Korea.

00:24:39They are covering for each other and supporting each other.

00:24:43They may not trust each other.

00:24:46And they are forming a very strong block against the national security interests of the United

00:24:54States to promote a value-based, rule-based global systems with democratic institutions.

00:25:02So I guess my first question is, we have a lot of alliances.

00:25:06America is known in the Indo-Pacific for being military forward.

00:25:10But are we doing enough in trade and investment and diplomacy, which is really where I think

00:25:15the battleground needs to be?

00:25:17Our military is there, absolutely important, but we need to avoid, as you said, sending

00:25:24our men and women over in harm's way.

00:25:27So is there a better way to coordinate our alliances in order to meet the challenges

00:25:32that we have today?

00:25:33Let me start, if I might, first with Professor Ritman-Mead, and then we'll go to Admiral

00:25:38Ambassador Harris.

00:25:39Well, absolutely, Senator.

00:25:42You know, in 1980, India's GDP was 65 percent of China's.

00:25:50Today, it's about 17 percent of China's.

00:25:55And that gap that opened up is in some ways the heart of our problem in the Far East.

00:26:02That is to say that China, which at one point was one of a number of powers in Asia, has,

00:26:09thanks to its vast economic growth and its military buildup, become a threat to the system.

00:26:17The best way to assure the long-term stability of the Indo-Pacific, of a free and open Indo-Pacific,

00:26:25without Americans going to war, is to encourage and support the economic growth of countries

00:26:31like India, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, in the hope that at some point, as these countries

00:26:39are more dynamic, powerful, and wealthy, even in Beijing, they'll understand that their

00:26:45dream of dominating the Indo-Pacific is simply not realistic.

00:26:50It's too big for any one country, even China, to control.

00:26:54And so this must always be a core element of our strategy in the region.

00:27:01Admiral Harris, you were our military leader in the Indo-Pacific, and then you became our

00:27:07ambassador to one of the more important – one of the most important countries in the region.

00:27:11So are we putting too much attention into the military and not into diplomacy and economics

00:27:16and trade?

00:27:17Mr. Chairman, I don't think so.

00:27:20I think that we are putting adequate emphasis on diplomacy, the military component, and

00:27:28the economic component.

00:27:29However, I'm not convinced that we're advocating all the time for the right things

00:27:37in those three buckets.

00:27:38Let me get at it just a little bit.

00:27:41I'll add to what Professor Meade said by highlighting that in 1970, the GDP of South

00:27:48Korea was actually less than that of North Korea.

00:27:52And by some measure, South Korea is the ninth-largest economy in the world today.

00:27:59And that's not because of the great communist system that North Korea has.

00:28:05It's because South Korea was provided an umbrella under which it could develop economically,

00:28:11and that umbrella was provided by us.

00:28:15So I think that's an important point.

00:28:17Let me fine-tune this a little bit.

00:28:21We withdrew from TPP.

00:28:24This framework that is being discussed is important, but it's not trade agreements.

00:28:30It doesn't have remedies.

00:28:31We are not a member of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

00:28:37Are we missing opportunities because we're not as aggressive as we need to be on those

00:28:42fronts?

00:28:43Clearly, in my opinion, we are missing huge opportunities.

00:28:48So I advocated in uniform for the United States to become a signatory to TPP, which is kind

00:28:55of an unusual position for a military officer to take, but I did it because of the security

00:29:03relationships between the TPP countries that I felt would have been strengthened had we

00:29:08become a signatory to it.

00:29:10We lost that opportunity, and now there's this thing called CPTPP, which is being driven

00:29:16by Japan, and we're not a signatory to that.

00:29:20We might end up – or not we, it might end up super ironic that China becomes a signatory

00:29:29– a member of CPTPP, which is a free trade agreement.

00:29:33I agree with the ranking member that IPEF lacks the teeth that a free trade agreement

00:29:41or free trade relationship gives.

00:29:43So I'm an advocate for free trade agreements.

00:29:46I believe we need to have a free trade agreement with Taiwan.

00:29:49Different issue, but I think we should have one with Taiwan.

00:29:52And I hope that we become a signatory to CPTPP, not for the benefit of the other 12 countries

00:30:01that are – or 11 countries that are in CPTPP, but because of us, for our own enlightened

00:30:07self-interest, we should become a signatory to these things.

00:30:11And the same with UNCLOS – that's the United Nations Commission on Law of the Sea.

00:30:16We have long been a holdout in signing onto UNCLOS, even though it was President Reagan

00:30:23who actually – and his team who put together the final package for UNCLOS.

00:30:28He had a lot of disagreements with UNCLOS as it was initially crafted and for all the

00:30:34right reasons.

00:30:36So he and his team crafted a version of UNCLOS that would have benefited the United States

00:30:41economically, but here we are today as one of the few countries in the world that are

00:30:48not signatories to UNCLOS.

00:30:49In fact, if you look at the globe of nations that are not signatories to UNCLOS, it starts

00:30:55to resemble an axis of stupidity, because we're not signatories to this thing that

00:31:01China, Russia, and others are signatories to.

00:31:06And they are taking economic advantage of all the things that UNCLOS provides, and we

00:31:11are not.

00:31:12So that is, in my opinion, shooting ourselves in the foot.

00:31:17Thank you.

00:31:18Senator Risch.

00:31:19Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:31:20I'm tempted to take up there, but I got a couple of things I want to talk about first.

00:31:24You know, we're almost a fourth of the way through the 21st century already, and as we've

00:31:28watched this first quarter of a century unfold, it's become apparent, I think, that more and

00:31:35more we've seen two poles develop, and that one pole is the association of the autocracies

00:31:44in the world and the other is the democracies of the world.

00:31:47And as every year goes by, it seems it gets more and more so, and our affiliation for

00:31:54the people on our side is our values, our freedoms, the things that we value.

00:31:59On the other side, I think that they're pulled together, as you guys have pointed out, a

00:32:07hatred for America amongst other things, but also their values of how they think a government

00:32:12should treat their people.

00:32:14I think the challenge for the rest of the 21st century is how the two poles keep from

00:32:19killing each other and exist on the same planet, because they're not going to change.

00:32:23The autocracies aren't going to change.

00:32:25I mean, there's hope, I think, for Iran because of the demographics in the country, but China's

00:32:30not going to change, Russia's not going to change, North Korea's not going to change.

00:32:34So we've got to figure out how we do that.

00:32:40Your thoughts on how we coexist with these countries, we're certainly not changing, they're

00:32:46not certainly changing.

00:32:49Mr. Mead, why don't we start with you?

00:32:53Well I think here we come back to some degree to the thought of George Kennan and thinking

00:32:57about how are we going to deal with the Soviet Union after World War II, a hostile power

00:33:03with expansionist ambitions, morbid suspicion of the United States, a non-transparent political

00:33:11system, and yet in a world of nuclear weapons, the idea of a U.S.-Soviet war was unthinkable.

00:33:20And his analysis, I think, remains useful today, that you can reach agreements, pragmatic

00:33:30agreements with powers like this under some circumstances, but you first have to establish

00:33:38a firm line of deterrence.

00:33:40They have to realize that sort of pushing and poking with a bayonet won't get them any

00:33:47benefits, that your power and your resolve and your alliance network are resilient and

00:33:53strong enough so that they cannot succeed in this other way.

00:33:59And then you can start to talk about areas where you do have real interest.

00:34:04We got through 40 years of the Cold War in this way, not always elegantly, but I think

00:34:12we're going to find that yes, learning to live with countries with whom we have fundamental

00:34:18differences is going to be at least in the kind of year-to-year process necessary to

00:34:25our policy.

00:34:26We can hope for better things.

00:34:29We can, as you mentioned, with Iran.

00:34:32My own experiences of traveling in China before Xi Jinping took things in a different direction

00:34:38was that there are many, many people in China who see the world much more the way we do

00:34:43than the way the current leadership of the Chinese Communist Party does.

00:34:47I am not given to despair, but I think pragmatically we cannot assume that our enemies will suddenly

00:34:55convert to the cause of democracy and human rights and all of our problems will melt away.

00:35:01We need another more substantive strategy for dealing with it.

00:35:05Ambassador?

00:35:06Yeah.

00:35:07So thanks for that question, Senator.

00:35:10I think we have an exemplar to look at, and that's the long Cold War against the Soviet

00:35:17Union, both hugely capable nuclear states that managed to work through the daily differences

00:35:28without trading on the foundational differences between our countries until the Soviet Union

00:35:33collapsed of its own weight.

00:35:36I think it's important that we understand that we are at a fundamentally ideologically

00:35:45polar opposite of the positions that are taken today by the modern China, Russia, North

00:35:53Korea, and even Iran.

00:35:56And we ought not to begin discussions with these countries, in my opinion, trying to

00:36:01negotiate away those foundational beliefs that they hold, just as they shouldn't try

00:36:07to negotiate away our foundational beliefs.

00:36:13An example of that is the Taiwan issue.

00:36:16China is not going to change their mind that Taiwan is a renegade province of China, and

00:36:22we shouldn't try to change that view of theirs because it's a waste of breath, energy, and

00:36:28resources.

00:36:29And they shouldn't try to change our idea that we think that the Taiwan issue should

00:36:35be resolved peacefully by the Taiwanese.

00:36:39Now if we yield to that point in any way, then they're winning and we're losing.

00:36:46I think that we ought to make – we ought to keep this in mind as we make policies at

00:36:53the political level and laws at the congressional level when we deal with these countries.

00:37:01And some examples of this is the Science and Chips Act.

00:37:06Another example is the Congress's – the Senate's actual examination of TikTok and

00:37:14these sorts of things.

00:37:15You know, that falls into the realm of policy and laws.

00:37:20Thank you.

00:37:21My time is up, but I wish we had more time to this.

00:37:22Your comments have been fascinating and certainly open a lot more areas of discussion, but it

00:37:27is what it is.

00:37:28Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:37:29Senator Coons.

00:37:30Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.

00:37:31Thank you to our two distinguished witnesses.

00:37:33I'm grateful that you're offering us your insight and your advice in this important

00:37:38time.

00:37:39In your opening testimony, Mr. Mead, you sounded a dark but important and, I think, timely

00:37:45note by referencing back to John F. Kennedy's book, Why America Slept, and then the consequences

00:37:50that he himself was in combat in the South Pacific a few short years later.

00:37:56Given what both of you have seen, studied, spoken about, I do think it is long past time

00:38:02for us to be more engaged, effective, and purposeful in meeting this moment.

00:38:07And this is timely because right now, today, on the other side of the Congress, the Speaker

00:38:13is making a decision, his caucus is making a decision, about whether we will move ahead

00:38:18with robust funding for security in the Indo-Pacific, for the defense of Israel, for the defense

00:38:25of Ukraine, for humanitarian aid, that in combination will reassure a divided and worried

00:38:32world that the United States intends to still be the indispensable global partner with this

00:38:38network of alliances, this lattice of security arrangements we have.

00:38:43I thought it was a striking development in the last year that both Germany and Japan

00:38:47decided to double their defense spending.

00:38:50In both cases, it has a double-edged sword.

00:38:53It's partly because they lack confidence that we will be the trusted and reliable security

00:38:57partner they have counted on us to be for decades.

00:39:01It's also because, as Prime Minister Kishida said to us in an address to a joint session

00:39:05of Congress, that they recognize that Americans have wearied of bearing so much of the burden

00:39:11of being that guarantor of the free and open global system.

00:39:16We have critical work to do, and I think in the last three years there's been real progress.

00:39:20This was a striking innovation in terms of security and deterrence.

00:39:25The quad has been elevated from a talk shop to a real movement forward.

00:39:29And as you both said in your testimony, our alliances are our absolutely key strategic

00:39:34benefit.

00:39:35Tragically, our past president, unmoored from a sense of history, did not appreciate or

00:39:40invest in those alliances.

00:39:43Many have invested and worked hard, both of you, and you in particular as ambassador,

00:39:48helped bring together Japan and Korea in a way that critically contributes to the regional

00:39:52security architecture.

00:39:54You've referenced some critical failings.

00:39:56The failure to ratify the Convention on the Law of the Sea, which those of us who serve

00:40:01on this committee, we were here for those debates.

00:40:03I only wish we could go back and rerun them and ratify them again.

00:40:07The failure to join CPTPP and to have a real and robust trade and economic agenda.

00:40:14What are the key actions now, looking forward, that each of you would urge us to take, both

00:40:20to strengthen our security architecture in the region to deter the dark possibilities,

00:40:26Mr. Mead, that you laid out, and to better balance what I think is our real strength,

00:40:32which is our economy.

00:40:34We are the world's most innovative country.

00:40:37We have the strongest economic underpinnings of any advanced society right now.

00:40:41Our biggest weakness is our political division, is our inability to show that confidence,

00:40:47that bipartisan strength, that this committee was long known for.

00:40:51What are the key actions you think we must take in this moment to secure our future,

00:40:56Mr. Mead?

00:40:57And then if I might, Admiral.

00:40:59Well, thank you, Senator Coons.

00:41:02Those very useful questions, I hope my answers will be as useful as the question.

00:41:10To give you just two quick things, I would say that we do need to increase our defense

00:41:16spending in ways that are not simply spreading pork around the American economy, but actually

00:41:24focused on the capabilities that we need and that our allies are looking for.

00:41:28If Germany and Japan can do a better job, so can we.

00:41:32Domestically, though, and I think this is important, I agree with all we've been hearing

00:41:38this morning about the need for U.S. receptivity to more trade, fair and free trade agreements

00:41:47with key partners.

00:41:48To do that, we need to be reassuring the American people that our economy is moving forward

00:41:56in a way that benefits them.

00:41:58I'm actually publishing today or tomorrow, depending on, an essay in Tablet Magazine

00:42:04that looks at how we can use some technological innovations to help Gen Z, the Zoomers, enjoy

00:42:11the same kind of access to single family housing and get on the property ladder in the way

00:42:18that past generations have done.

00:42:20I think when the American people see that the door is open to more prosperity for them,

00:42:27we as a country will be able to approach some of these international issues in a more open-minded

00:42:34and, I think, ultimately helpful way.

00:42:37Mr. Chairman, if we might, could we hear from the ambassador?

00:42:40Thanks, Senator.

00:42:43I think there are a half-dozen ways I can respond to your question.

00:42:48I'll start by saying that we should be real aggressive, in my opinion, on laws that affect

00:42:56our relationship with China.

00:42:58Aggressive in terms of holding China accountable and then protecting our country.

00:43:04Again, I go back to the CHIPS and Science Act, I look at what could come down the pike

00:43:09with TikTok and the like.

00:43:12I think that we should sign on to CPTPP before China does.

00:43:18We will be at a significant economic disadvantage if China gets into CPTPP, and we do not.

00:43:27We should sign on clause for all the reasons that I talked about.

00:43:31I think we should reimagine foreign military sales, FMS, and a couple of examples here.

00:43:38We should get the munitions to Taiwan that Taiwan has already paid for, that Congress

00:43:43has already authorized, and we still have not gotten those munitions, those weapon systems

00:43:48to Taiwan.

00:43:50It has taken us eight years to get Harpoon to Taiwan, even though Taiwan has Harpoon

00:43:55and that sale has already been approved.

00:43:59Actually it should not take eight years, it should not take a decade to do that.

00:44:04I think we should increase our defense spending.

00:44:08If you look at it in terms of inflation, our defense spending has actually gone down at

00:44:14a time when we need it more than ever.

00:44:16I think we should look for ways to use foreign weapons manufacturers, shipbuilding, for example,

00:44:24as a bridge to overcome our own industrial deficiencies in this regard in the 2020 timeframe.

00:44:33Not as a permanent solution, but as a bridge solution.

00:44:37Those are just some ideas.

00:44:38I'll stop here.

00:44:39Thank you both.

00:44:40Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the testimony that the hour is late, the need

00:44:44is urgent, and we need to act in a way that shows the bipartisan determination to address

00:44:49things like defense modernization, using trade, and engaging more closely with our allies.

00:44:54Thank you for this hearing.

00:44:55Thank you, Senator Coons.

00:44:56Senator Romney.

00:44:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:45:02China apparently believes that America is in decline, that our social networks are frayed,

00:45:08that our industrial base is not as strong as it once was, that actually there are attitudes

00:45:14of isolationism in the U.S. and unwillingness to work with allies and to support allies.

00:45:21Given the fact that Xi is reported to be a pretty smart guy, wouldn't he be wise to

00:45:26say if that's the case, why don't we just wait out Taiwan, wait out America's weakness,

00:45:31and no reason to invade?

00:45:33I know there are many who feel like invasion could be imminent, but if he really believed

00:45:38that America was in decline, a position I disagree with, but if he were to believe that

00:45:42and also recognize that an invasion of Taiwan would have an enormous economic impact on

00:45:47China given their reliance on Taiwanese semiconductors, is it your view that this – that invasion

00:45:55is a real and imminent threat, or is it that now, actually, they're going to – Xi Jinping

00:46:02is going to wait it out and see how things develop?

00:46:05And we'll – each of you get a chance to speak, Mr. – and then we'll turn to the

00:46:10admiral.

00:46:11Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.

00:46:15Well, I'm not good at reading anyone's mind, and Xi Jinping is not transparent to me.

00:46:23But I do think that what we need to do, the best way to restore predictability and stability,

00:46:31and in fact to get the topic of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan off the sort of international

00:46:37conversation agenda, is for there to be a margin of military superiority sufficient

00:46:45so that it is evident to people in Beijing as well as elsewhere that it's simply not

00:46:51possible for China to successfully attack.

00:46:56And those are not preparations for invasion of the mainland by us.

00:47:00These are defensive preparations.

00:47:03And in that case, China itself will stop talking about Taiwan, stop harassing Taiwan,

00:47:09as much because why do you open a conversation the result of which will simply advertise

00:47:14your weakness?

00:47:15Yeah, yeah.

00:47:16So this would be the way I think we should proceed.

00:47:18Thank you.

00:47:19Admiral?

00:47:20Senator, I think on the one hand, if you look at it demographically, the PRC is upside down

00:47:31in terms of youth and age and the like.

00:47:34So that would – that could argue that sooner rather than later regarding an invasion.

00:47:40But on the other hand, I think that Xi Jinping is no fool.

00:47:44He seeks stability in the international order so that he has time to shape that international

00:47:50order even more to his favor.

00:47:52So that would argue against the likelihood of an immediate attack on Taiwan.

00:47:59I'm reminded, because of my former jobs, of the Davidson window.

00:48:04Phil Davidson was the four-star that relieved me at Indo-Pekin when I retired.

00:48:09And he famously said – or the Davidson window famously ascribes to him 2027 as the timeframe

00:48:17by which China could and will invade Taiwan.

00:48:21I've never put a time certain on that.

00:48:25And General Manahan, General Manahan, who's the Air Force four-star, he said 2025.

00:48:32Well, that's next year.

00:48:34And Davidson window is 2027.

00:48:36I always said that the 2030s was the decade of danger.

00:48:41So I think we're moving in that direction, and we could move to the point that Xi Jinping

00:48:46will balance all the pluses and minuses and could decide, because of the reasons you articulated

00:48:53and because of the demographic upside-down status of his people, that that might be the

00:48:59time to attack Taiwan.

00:49:01So we have time, I believe, Senator, to right that issue by supporting Taiwan and doing

00:49:10the other things I talked about in response to Senator Coons's questions.

00:49:13Thank you.

00:49:14Let me ask, should or are Japan and South Korea thinking about becoming nuclear nations?

00:49:23They're next door to people, North Korea and China, that have nuclear weapons.

00:49:28They look at us as being their source of nuclear protection.

00:49:33But if – are they thinking about becoming nuclear, or should they be?

00:49:38And Mr. Meade and Admiral?

00:49:39Yeah.

00:49:40So I'll start with that, Senator.

00:49:43There are clearly elements inside South Korea and inside Japan that are advocating for their

00:49:52own independent nuclear deterrent.

00:49:55Those voices so far have not been the predominant voices in either country, which is a good

00:49:59thing.

00:50:01There are some in Korea that are advocating for the return of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons,

00:50:07which we removed in the 1990s.

00:50:11I believe that both are bad ideas, that we have to convince them that our extended nuclear

00:50:19deterrence is actually reliable and real.

00:50:23And I think South Korea's – President Yun's visit to the U.S. last year, the outcome of

00:50:30which was the Washington Declaration on Extended Nuclear Deterrence, has gone a long way to

00:50:36quieting those voices that would have South Korea nuclearized, if you will.

00:50:43Mr. Meade, do you have comments on that?

00:50:45Is it – may I continue?

00:50:46Thank you.

00:50:48I believe that – I would hope that we will not see that day, because that day would be

00:50:55an indication that both of those countries no longer trusted the United States' ability

00:51:01to take the lead there.

00:51:02But I think also we would then see this as the beginning of a further proliferation cascade.

00:51:09What begins in East Asia would not stop in East Asia.

00:51:13And personally, I believe the world has too many nuclear weapons already.

00:51:17Thank you.

00:51:18Senator Schatz.

00:51:19Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and thank you to our two distinguished testifiers.

00:51:24Admiral Harris, it's very good to see you again.

00:51:26Sir.

00:51:27It's been too long.

00:51:28It is well known that Hawaii is not covered by Article 6 of the NATO treaty.

00:51:33In fact, I have, with the permission of the Chairman, I'd like to submit for the record

00:51:38a letter from Senator Inouye to Assistant Secretary MacArthur in 1965 on this very topic.

00:51:45Without objection.

00:51:46Admiral Harris, do you think there is deterrent value in making it explicit that Hawaii is

00:51:52covered?

00:51:53Yeah.

00:51:54Senator, good to see you again, and for sure.

00:51:57So the issue, for those who might not be aware of it, is Article 6 defines the geographic

00:52:01area of NATO.

00:52:04Hawaii is not in the geographic area as defined by Article 6.

00:52:09As Article 6 was amended to include Alaska, Alaska is.

00:52:13And also, Hawaii became a state after the Atlantic Charter was signed.

00:52:19I believe that Hawaii in 2024 is far different than Hawaii in 1965, and Hawaii is on the

00:52:28front line of any attack if we were to suffer an attack from China or North Korea.

00:52:35It is on the front line.

00:52:36It will be attacked again, and I don't want to be a part of another December 7th if we

00:52:43can prevent it.

00:52:45Hawaii and NATO, in my opinion, will go a long way to preventing that.

00:52:49It would, in fact, be a deterrent.

00:52:52Now Hawaii is, in 2024, is a state.

00:52:58Hawaii is far different than other countries who have territories globally, those territories

00:53:06of which may not be covered by NATO.

00:53:08Hawaii is a state.

00:53:10States' congressional leaders vote on things like the United Nations, on things like Ukraine,

00:53:19on issues like impeachment, and all of that, unlike perhaps other territories of the United

00:53:28States.

00:53:29So I think that Hawaii's status is different than that of other territories.

00:53:38And therefore, I believe that Hawaii should be covered by NATO.

00:53:44Now the argument against it is, well, all these other countries have territories too.

00:53:48Again, Hawaii is not like these other territories.

00:53:53Well we're not a territory, and thank you Admiral Harris for that.

00:53:56And the other argument that I've heard is that we would be covered by Article 4, but

00:54:01Article 4 just provides for consultation.

00:54:03And so the argument from NATO, and for those that don't want to go through the difficulty

00:54:09of amending this agreement, or even establishing a sidecar explicit multilateral agreement,

00:54:16is that, well, if Hawaii were attacked, and I think this is true, by the way, that certainly

00:54:20we would convene NATO, and then we would, under Article 4, consult.

00:54:27That's cold comfort, isn't it?

00:54:29And I think that for our national security, and also as a matter of principle to treat

00:54:36every one of our 50 states equally, that we have to remedy this.

00:54:41And the argument is also made that various NATO countries have territories all across

00:54:45the globe, territories, not states.

00:54:48That is a different question, and I think it's one that we have to address.

00:54:52My final question for you, Admiral Harris, is just over the last several years, my own

00:54:57judgment is that we, the United States, have done, through the State Department and the

00:55:01Department of Defense, a much better job of engaging with our Asia-Pacific allies in terms

00:55:07of island nations, that when we think about the Indo-Pacific, we usually skip all the

00:55:12way over the Pacific part, and then just go to South Asia, or East Asia, and the sort

00:55:17of trouble areas, right?

00:55:19And one of the things that I think Secretary Blinken and President Biden and Senators Cardin

00:55:26and Risch, through ratifying COFA, through spending time with Pacific island leaders,

00:55:31have done, is to show the respect to other sovereigns.

00:55:35They may be a sovereign with 65,000 residents, they may be a sovereign with 2 million people,

00:55:41but they are still a sovereign country and deserve to be interacted with as if they are

00:55:46not just a place to park our military equipment, and to perhaps have a trade agreement.

00:55:51And I'm wondering if you can speak to the evolution of that, those relationships, and

00:55:56how that impacts our security.

00:55:58Yeah, we did ignore these countries in South Pacific and Central Pacific, and it's shameful

00:56:05that we did.

00:56:06China, on the other hand, has not ignored them, and they work hard at filling the diplomatic

00:56:14and economic void left by the United States.

00:56:18An example is, you know, we have an ambassador in Fiji who's the ambassador to five different

00:56:23countries.

00:56:24He's spread thin throughout that region.

00:56:28And we're starting to correct it, thanks to this committee and the leadership here, by

00:56:32putting a standalone and separate ambassador in many of these countries.

00:56:39We pulled out our embassy in the Solomons in the 1990s, and now we're going to put in

00:56:45a new embassy in the Solomons.

00:56:49In the meanwhile, China successfully filled that void from their perspective.

00:56:55So I agree with you, and I'm glad to see that we're starting to fix the situation now.

00:57:01Thank you very much.

00:57:03Senator Ricketts.

00:57:04Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

00:57:08Admiral Harris, in October at AEI, you assessed that the U.S. is ill-prepared to face off

00:57:15against the PRC in a Taiwan Strait conflict in this decade.

00:57:20You said that our lack of resourcing for the Indo-Pacific, the PRC's upside-down demographics,

00:57:25their own economic challenges, are all factors that could lead the PRC to move sooner rather

00:57:30than later with regard to Taiwan.

00:57:32This makes our alliances and partnerships in the region even more important, as they

00:57:35represent a clear and asymmetric advantage that we have over the PRC.

00:57:40The good news is that many of these alliances, from Japan to Australia, have been upgraded

00:57:44in recent years.

00:57:45However, it's still unclear what the role of these allies and partners would play in

00:57:48a Taiwan contingency.

00:57:50For example, Japan is widely seen by analysts as our most likely U.S. ally to contribute

00:57:57troops to defend Taiwan, but of course that's no sure thing.

00:58:01Admiral Harris, if this is indeed the case, where in fact the next decade there's a danger

00:58:06for a Taiwan contingency, what are your expectations in terms of response we could expect from

00:58:12our allies and partners in the region if there were a contingency like this?

00:58:17Very important question, Senator.

00:58:18I believe that our allies, as we will in other scenarios, they'll make those decisions that

00:58:28best meet their enlightened self-interest.

00:58:32I do believe that Japan understands the full danger presented to them geopolitically by

00:58:40the People's Republic of China, and I think they'll be with us in Taiwan.

00:58:45I think Australia will.

00:58:48Peter Dutton, a former minister of defense in Australia, he famously said several years

00:58:55ago that of course Australia would be with the United States if the U.S. defended Taiwan.

00:59:02But our own policy on Taiwan is not clear.

00:59:06We have this policy of strategic ambiguity, so we can't even tell the Taiwanese nor the

00:59:12Chinese what we would do if China invaded Taiwan.

00:59:16Meanwhile, China has spent the last, for all of its existence really, but heavily this

00:59:23century in telling us clearly what they intend to do with regard to Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't

00:59:29yield to them in return to the fold, if you will.

00:59:34So actually, it's an interesting point you bring up there, Admiral, because I think that's

00:59:37part of our strategy is this strategic ambiguity, to not really say for sure what would happen,

00:59:41so that would give the PRC more difficulty in planning against what we might do.

00:59:46It sounds like, from your remarks, you almost disagree with that strategic ambiguity, or

00:59:49are you suggesting that we'd be more clear about certain things?

00:59:53Help me with that.

00:59:54So I have advocated that we should end our policy of strategic ambiguity in favor of

01:00:01strategic clarity.

01:00:02Now, look, in my opinion, we owe that to three constituents to be clear on the issue of what

01:00:11we will do if China attacks Taiwan.

01:00:14We owe it to the Taiwanese.

01:00:15So they can make those decisions as a country to either arm up or capitulate.

01:00:22We owe it to the Chinese, because they're going to lose a lot of troops in any battle

01:00:29with the United States, a lot of them.

01:00:31So they ought to know what they're getting into.

01:00:32We were very clear with the Soviet Union, and that's an important thing.

01:00:39But the most important constituent, in my opinion, Senator, is the American people.

01:00:43So they need to know what their sons and daughters are signing up for when they sign onto the

01:00:49U.S. military with regard to the question of Taiwan and whether we're going to fight

01:00:54the Chinese over that.

01:00:57And the American people, parents primarily, and those who signed up, were very clear in

01:01:03our understanding during the Cold War of what could possibly happen if the Soviets moved

01:01:10on the plains of Western Europe and across the folder gap and down the Greenland-Iceland-U.K.

01:01:15gap.

01:01:16They signed onto that.

01:01:17They knew that.

01:01:18But they're not clear about China.

01:01:20And we owe it to our own people, I believe, to be clear in that regard.

01:01:25Very good.

01:01:27Just getting back to our allies, do you think that their response would be different for

01:01:32depending on what the contingency was?

01:01:34You know, for example, if this was a blockade versus an outright military invasion, do you

01:01:39think our allies would behave differently with regard to their level of support for

01:01:44what we're trying to do?

01:01:47Potentially.

01:01:48But, you know, there are – but our allies are wondering what we would do if – in any

01:01:53of those scenarios, whether it was an outright invasion or a blockade.

01:01:58And we got to see a precursor of how a blockade might look after former Speaker Pelosi's

01:02:06visit to Taiwan, which is very helpful to us to understand how China might react.

01:02:12And so I'm guessing you're saying we should come up with our own direction for those different

01:02:17contingencies, whether it's blockade or outright invasion, and end this strategic

01:02:21ambiguity and just say, hey, this is what we are going to do.

01:02:24Well, I'll modify that slightly.

01:02:28I mean, I know that Indo-Pecan has those contingencies in planning, but I don't think we should

01:02:34necessarily share what those contingencies are.

01:02:37Okay.

01:02:38But just the general direction of what our level of support is going to be for Taiwan

01:02:41should the PRC do something like that?

01:02:43I think we should defend Taiwan.

01:02:45Yeah.

01:02:46Okay.

01:02:47Very good.

01:02:48We should defend the PRC, which is the Taiwan Relations Act, which doesn't oblige us to

01:02:51defend Taiwan, but it does oblige us to provide for Taiwan's defense, which they pay for,

01:02:59and that we advocate for peaceful resolution of the issue, not a martial resolution of

01:03:07the issue.

01:03:08Great.

01:03:09Thank you, Admiral.

01:03:10Senator Menendez.

01:03:11Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:03:14The PRC's expansion of its military capabilities outside its borders often relies on its foreign

01:03:21aid loans through their Belt and Road Initiative, preying on developing nations that are strategically

01:03:27located in the region.

01:03:30This results in the construction of many dual-use facilities that provide China's Air Force

01:03:35and Navy with potential outstations for future operations while these recipients are left

01:03:40in the infamous PRC debt trap.

01:03:43Admiral Harris, from your perspective, how impactful are economic conditions in relation

01:03:49to the administration's partnership and alliance goals, particularly with regard to nations

01:03:54in the region that may not be as resilient to economic and military influence from China?

01:04:00Senator, I believe that our policies are positive in that regard, but there's a lot more that

01:04:09we could do.

01:04:10And some of the examples I already responded to in Senator Coons' questioning.

01:04:17I think economically we could do a lot more in terms of free trade frameworks and free

01:04:25trade bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements.

01:04:32And China, for sure, is moving to fill all the voids that are – all the opportunity

01:04:38voids that are left by us.

01:04:41Well, when – in the Senate Finance Committee, which I serve, the chairman serves, we have

01:04:49Ambassador Tai before us today.

01:04:51When I get to my questioning, this is going to be one of the things I'm going to ask.

01:04:55We don't have any free trade agreements being promoted in the region.

01:05:01We have a behemoth of an economic challenge with China in this region.

01:05:07You mentioned earlier in your testimony that people will react to their own self-interest,

01:05:12countries will react to their own self-interest.

01:05:14That is not a novel idea, but it is a very clarion idea.

01:05:18So therefore, isn't – wouldn't it behoove us, beyond an economic question, as a security

01:05:26concern to be engaged in free trade agreements in this region to strengthen the economic

01:05:32opportunity to loosen the noose that China has with these countries?

01:05:36For sure, Senator.

01:05:38That's why I advocated for TPP when I was the PICOM commander, because of those – of

01:05:42the security angles that are represented by the countries that would sign on to TPP.

01:05:50Yeah.

01:05:51It was a lost opportunity.

01:05:54Mr. Mead, do you believe a free and open Indo-Pacific is available with a – achievable, I should

01:06:02say, with a foreign policy approach that's based in uncertainty?

01:06:06Sorry, based in uncertainty.

01:06:09Well, uncertainty is irreducible in life, but I would say that the United States needs

01:06:14to be absolutely clear about our commitment to the region on a multidimensional basis

01:06:21– military, economic, cultural in every possible way, deepening our links.

01:06:29Every time I've gone to the region since the 1980s, I've heard people ask me, is

01:06:34America here to stay?

01:06:36Are you really committed to this region?

01:06:39My answer is the first American permanent force in that area was in 1819 when we had

01:06:45sent the U.S. Navy to protect American whalers.

01:06:49I think we are here to stay, but we need to keep getting that message out.

01:06:55So we need to restore a sense of confidence.

01:06:59And in that respect, the United States is the best deterrent our partners have in the

01:07:06region when it comes to Chinese aggression and expansion.

01:07:10Do you believe that if a future administration threatened to retreat from alliances like

01:07:14the trilateral alliance we have with Japan and South Korea or AUKUS, China would continue

01:07:19to be deterred from applying economic and military pressures against allies in the region?

01:07:25I would hope that any president of the United States of any party would understand the value

01:07:29of these alliances and relationships, Senator.

01:07:32I agree with you.

01:07:34And this is why I get concerned when I see what former President Trump said while he

01:07:40was in office, raising questions about our security alliance with Japan, refusing to

01:07:49say what he would do with Taiwan, even though we have a law that pretty much, I think, outlines

01:07:55what we should do with Taiwan.

01:07:58And so while I believe the Biden administration has room to improve, it's undeniable that

01:08:03it has reestablished the United States' position as a reliable global partner, particularly

01:08:08in the region that we're discussing today.

01:08:11And if we have uncertainty, uncertainty invites a response, and that response is not going

01:08:18to be the one that we want.

01:08:20So I hope we make it very clear and indisputable what our positions are, what our presence

01:08:25will be, and what our actions will be in the future.

01:08:28Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:08:29Senator Kaine.

01:08:30Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses.

01:08:33Ambassador Harris, good to see you again.

01:08:35I so enjoyed the opportunity to visit with you when you were in Korea with a CODEL in

01:08:402019, and I'm very happy that you're here today.

01:08:43On the alliance question, I think sometimes those of us on this side of the dais understand

01:08:48some realities, but we don't explain them that well.

01:08:52And I'd like to get into the rapprochement that the U.S. has been able to help forge

01:08:57between the political leadership in South Korea and Japan.

01:09:02When President Biden had the summit at Camp David, the headline here at home was President

01:09:07Biden, you know, has these leaders at Camp David, and it was kind of a ho-hum moment

01:09:11at home because we viewed Japan and South Korea as allies.

01:09:15So it wasn't that surprising.

01:09:17But I think it was a much bigger deal in Japan and South Korea.

01:09:21Talk a little bit about what this closer political relationship between Japan and Korea mean

01:09:27to stability in the region.

01:09:30It means, in my opinion, Senator, and good to see you again, it means everything in the

01:09:35region, especially in Northeast Asia.

01:09:38There is no economic or security issue that can be resolved in Northeast Asia without

01:09:45the active participation and cooperation between Seoul and Tokyo.

01:09:53Without that cooperation, there would be no positive movement and security in the region,

01:10:00and China will move to fill that void.

01:10:03I believe that President Yun of South Korea and Prime Minister Kishida of Japan's outreach

01:10:12to each other, despite considerable domestic opposition, in doing the right thing, demonstrates

01:10:20statesmanship in action.

01:10:23And the significantly improved bilateral relationship and the significantly improved trilateral

01:10:29relationship that's playing out now is the benefit of that.

01:10:35And the big beneficiary of that is stability and prosperity in Northeast Asia.

01:10:42Let me ask you a question about how to calibrate the work we're doing in the region to be a

01:10:47deterrent to Chinese aggression without it being a provocation to China.

01:10:52You talked about the Davidson window, and I'd sort of like to hear each of you respond

01:10:55to this.

01:10:56I think the Davidson window concept is a concept about when China could invade, not necessarily

01:11:03when they will invade.

01:11:04So it's when they believe they have the capacity to undertake military action.

01:11:09And I think the U.S. strategy has been to just push that back a day at a time, a year

01:11:14at a time.

01:11:15And we do that by providing defense support to Taiwan.

01:11:18We do it by creating this latticework of alliances to promote stability in the region, whether

01:11:24it's AUKUS or the Quad, or we're working with Korea and Japan.

01:11:31At some point, one of Xi Jinping's calculations could be, I'm not yet ready, but if I see

01:11:39too many pieces being put on the chessboard around me that might block my ultimate ambitions,

01:11:45I may act before I'm ready.

01:11:47And this has to be probably one of the most careful analyses done every day in the Pentagon

01:11:52and elsewhere in our security establishment, to try to decide what is a deterrent and then

01:11:58what goes beyond deterrent to provocation.

01:12:01Could you share a little, each of you share your own thought on how we try to get that

01:12:04calibration, how we should contemplate calibrating this correctly?

01:12:09It's a very good set of questions, Senator.

01:12:13I would argue that part of what we need to do is to make the picture bigger, that the

01:12:21consequences of a Chinese attack on Taiwan or a full-blown blockade of Taiwan would not

01:12:27just take place in the South China Sea.

01:12:30I think it would be very hard to get commercial shipping in and out of Chinese ports should

01:12:36there be an event of that kind.

01:12:39I don't know that it would be easy for South Korea to trade with the rest of the world

01:12:46if there is a military confrontation in the South China Sea, Japan, Taiwan, and so on.

01:12:54We could be doing a good deal to deter China by showing that we and other countries around

01:13:01the world are prepared to impose a global blockade on China that would exert severe costs.

01:13:10I see that Bloomberg, I believe, has estimated that a war in the South China Sea or over

01:13:18Taiwan could take 10% off global GDP in a first year.

01:13:24A blockade could be almost as eventful.

01:13:28When we think about deterring and staving off and otherwise responding to this kind

01:13:35of threat, we really do need to put together a multidimensional approach.

01:13:41I think if China saw that this was a more serious element of our planning, the temptation

01:13:52to move in a Davidson window or in the scenario you described might be less.

01:13:57Thank you.

01:13:58Mr. Chair, could I have Admiral Harris respond as well?

01:14:01Yes.

01:14:02Thanks, Senator.

01:14:03I'll simply say that from a military perspective, calibration is easy because the military has

01:14:13to be ready all the time.

01:14:14So they have to assume that China is going to attack today.

01:14:19And so they have plans and procedures in place to deal with that.

01:14:23But from a diplomatic or policy level issue, it's far more difficult.

01:14:28And that's the heart of the question.

01:14:30Because like you say, you want to be supportive of our friends, allies, and partners and us

01:14:36and not be provocative at the same time.

01:14:38But that said, I think we should be less concerned about provoking China.

01:14:43I mean, look what China has done to provoke us.

01:14:46The balloon thing last year is a case in point.

01:14:49That that thing somehow was, if you believe China, it was innocuous and unintended.

01:14:53It beggars imagination when you think about it.

01:14:56So we should be less concerned about provoking China than we should be concerned about bolstering

01:15:00our friends, allies, and partners in the region.

01:15:04Thank you, Mr. Chair.

01:15:05Thanks to the witnesses.

01:15:08Senator Coons asked about the importance of the support we have for the Indo-Pacific that's

01:15:13in the Supplemental Appropriation Bill that is hopefully going to be considered in the

01:15:18House by the end of this week.

01:15:23Part of that, of course, the main part of that supplemental is the support for Ukraine.

01:15:28And it was, I think, informative that the Japanese Prime Minister Kishida, in his speech

01:15:35before us, said Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow.

01:15:41So I guess my question to you is how important is the outcome of Ukraine in regards to the

01:15:50calculations being made in security in the Indo-Pacific as it relates to either Taiwan,

01:15:57the China Seas, or other security interests?

01:16:01How much is – are we looking at what's – are our allies looking at what's happening

01:16:06or our enemies looking at what's happening in Ukraine affecting the calculations in the

01:16:12Indo-Pacific?

01:16:13I'll go with my military person first.

01:16:17A great question, Senator.

01:16:20And I believe that we must support Ukraine.

01:16:25And to quote Admiral Stavridis recently, it would be strategic and moral malpractice not

01:16:31to do so.

01:16:32Where Ukraine goes, Poland follows, Moldova follows, the Baltics follow.

01:16:40And so it's important to the stability of Ukraine and more important to the stability

01:16:46of Europe and our NATO allies that we support Ukraine.

01:16:51And in fact, if you look at the cost to Russia today, they have borne enormous costs in terms

01:16:59of material resources and people, and we haven't lost a single U.S. soldier in the fight.

01:17:07So this is Ukraine's fight, but they can't fight it without our support and the EU support

01:17:13and NATO support, the individual countries' support.

01:17:17And so that's why I believe it's so important.

01:17:21I do think that China, Xi Jinping, as I said before, he's no fool.

01:17:25He's watching Ukraine and watching it closely.

01:17:28And he's learning that control of the internet is vital.

01:17:32He's learning that he's got to be wondering if his army, which is trained in the Soviet

01:17:36model, is as bad as Russia's army appears to be, if the PLA Navy, People's Liberation

01:17:44Army Navy, is as bad as the Black Sea Fleet appears to be.

01:17:48And he's learning about all of these things.

01:17:51But to the question of how other countries in the Indo-Pacific view that, they are watching

01:17:56Ukraine and our actions very closely, and they'll take their cues on what we do to – with

01:18:05regard to Ukraine.

01:18:06And if we walk away from Ukraine, I think they will start to consider those things that

01:18:14we talked about earlier in the hearing, because their faith and confidence in the United States

01:18:19to come to their aid could be questioned, even though we're not an ally of Ukraine.

01:18:26We are their allies in these countries in the Indo-Pacific, and they'll be wondering.

01:18:32I think we all agree with that – with your response on that.

01:18:35But we're also frustrated that it's difficult for us to connect the importance of our support

01:18:41for Ukraine to the support of the American people for our engagement in Ukraine.

01:18:46So let me ask both of you a final question.

01:18:50Alliances you've all pointed out are extremely important for us to have in the Indo-Pacific.

01:18:54How do we explain that to Americans so that we have more support for these types of alliances

01:19:02among the American political system?

01:19:05If you could give us a simple answer to that, we'd appreciate it, because we find that

01:19:09our constituents usually will lose them after one sentence.

01:19:12So can you give us an answer in one sentence?

01:19:15Senator, I think – Mr. Chairman, I think experts and people who are deeply engaged

01:19:24in foreign policy often think in terms of hope and what the beautiful things that we

01:19:29can build.

01:19:30Often – it was Dean Acheson who said the average American has less than 10 minutes

01:19:35a week to devote to the study of foreign affairs.

01:19:41At a similar moment at the start of the Cold War, Harry Truman – President Truman realized

01:19:48that the way to get the attention of the American people was to tell them the truth in a way

01:19:54that I think frightened – let's say frightened the pants off them.

01:19:57That's not quite what he said, but close enough.

01:20:00And we need – the world situation is grave.

01:20:05Things could go disastrously wrong in a relatively short period of time.

01:20:11We need to get that message out.

01:20:13It needs to be done by leaders in both parties.

01:20:16This committee played a large role in doing that in the 1940s.

01:20:21We need to level with the American people about just how much trouble we're in, and

01:20:27I think at that point we will begin to see a much more positive and engaged response.

01:20:35We join alliances for us as much as for them.

01:20:41One sentence.

01:20:42That was good.

01:20:43I like it.

01:20:44Senator Risch.

01:20:45Thank you both.

01:20:46It's been – we sit here a lot, spend a lot of time here.

01:20:47A lot of times we get a lot of talk and not much substance.

01:20:55I think today all of us feel we got our money's worth today.

01:20:59Thank you.

01:21:00Absolutely.

01:21:01Senator Kaine.

01:21:02I've been told that Senator Van Hollen is on his way.

01:21:04I don't know if that's accurate or not.

01:21:06I don't want to hold my colleagues up.

01:21:10He's my colleague in Maryland, so.

01:21:14We'll give him a moment or two.

01:21:22I just really want to agree with Senator Risch.

01:21:30We were talking a little bit.

01:21:33The two of you are extraordinary in your wisdom, and we thank you for that.

01:21:38We recognize the seriousness of the situation.

01:21:40It's frustrating to us that we have not been able to be more effective in communicating

01:21:46to our constituents the urgency of these issues.

01:21:50And I think the point that you raised about the PRC looking at the Ukraine campaign and

01:21:57looking at the need to deal with the internet is a good point.

01:22:03We are looking at having a hearing of this committee dealing with how social media is

01:22:08affecting America's foreign policy and national security interests, because it's clear that

01:22:15our adversaries are using social media, our open system, against us.

01:22:20And it is affecting the type of policies that we need to deal with the urgency of the situation.

01:22:27I hope we're able to get the supplemental done this week, but it's already months later

01:22:32than it should have been, and Ukraine's paid a heavy price for our inability to act in

01:22:39a more timely way.

01:22:40So the circumstances are pretty dire, and we have not had – I really don't think

01:22:47the majority of Americans recognize the urgency of the situation.

01:22:52So any advice you have on dealing with the social media, I'd take your advice on that

01:22:55as well.

01:22:56I'm not on social media.

01:23:03So I was on Twitter for a little while, but when I left Korea, I got off of that.

01:23:09And I just don't do social media.

01:23:15I think you're right.

01:23:17You know, not that long ago, Americans were bragging that our open system was going to

01:23:22destabilize these autocracies.

01:23:27And today, we're concerned that these autocracies will actually use our open system – will

01:23:33weaponize our open system against us.

01:23:36That's, I think, a sign of how far the world that we are in is different from the world

01:23:43that we thought we were going to be in 5, 10, 15 years ago.

01:23:49And I look at things like the lack of education in world history in our high schools and colleges.

01:23:57I look at, in general, a sort of lack of understanding of the history, how we got to where we are,

01:24:05so that young people looking at social media have no context within which to see this.

01:24:13We really do need to think about how do we prepare our society so that rather than being

01:24:20overwhelmed and divided by these new technologies and new forms of communication, they actually

01:24:26make us stronger.

01:24:27Agreed.

01:24:28Agreed.

01:24:29I've gotten information from my colleague that he will allow us to close – I don't

01:24:36need his permission, but he will allow us to close the hearing.

01:24:39The record will stay open until the end of business tomorrow.

01:24:43If members have questions, we'd ask that you would answer them for the record.

01:24:47And again, with our sincere thanks to both of you for your help in this important subject,

01:24:54the committee will be adjourned.

01:24:55Thank you.

01:24:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:24:58Thank you.

Ben Cardin Leads Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing On Indo-Pacific Alliances & Partnerships

Category

Transcript

Recommended