{ "error": "", "type": "text", "title": "Department of Defense Press Briefing by Secretary Esper - China, North Korea, Japan, and South Korea", "slug": "department-of-defense-press-briefing-by-secretary-esper-china-north-korea-japan-and-south-korea", "text": "
\"Earlier this month, I traveled to the Indo-Pacific region on my first overseas trip. Many of you traveled with me. That region is our priority theater, so it was important to demonstrate my commitment to our allies and partners there and to hear firsthand from my foreign counterparts and heads of state.<\/p>\n
Together, we are committed to defending our shared values and upholding core principles such as respect for all nations' sovereignty, adherence to international rules and norms, and to our mutual security.<\/p>\n
It is clear that China is engaging in -- in a deliberate strategy to undermine the stability of the region. It is clear the values and behaviors of the Chinese Communist Party do not align with the vast majority of states.<\/p>\n
Throughout my many conversations with foreign leaders, time and again they emphasized the need for the United States to continue to show leadership throughout the Indo-Pacific in order to preserve the freedoms we all enjoy.<\/p>\n
We will continue to expand our defense activities throughout the region in close cooperation with our allies and partners, while pressing for equitable burden-sharing from them, as well. [...]<\/p>
Q: Thank you again for doing this briefing, sir. I really appreciate it.<\/p>\n
North Korea has been launching a salvos of missile tests recently. I know that the White House has downplayed them because they -- they don't violate the agreement with Kim Jong-un. But strategically, I mean, are they a concern for you that they are developing what they call the new weapons? And do you think that they're just pushing the limits of that agreement?<\/p>\n
And then just a follow up, if I could, about this new submarine missile.<\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: You know, we were -- we -- I talked about this on my trip to the INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command], I had this -- discussions with both my counterparts and the heads of state in both Japan and Korea about these tests. And obviously we are concerned about their short-range ballistic missile tests. We want to understand what they're doing, why they're doing it, et cetera.<\/p>\n
But on the other hand, we're not going to overreact. We want to take a measured response and make sure that we don't close the door to diplomacy.<\/p>\n
At the end of the day, this -- we -- we will get to an irreversible, verifiable, complete denuclearization of the -- of the peninsula. The best way to do that is through a political agreement.<\/p>\n
So we don't want to close the door by overreacting to -- to their tests and what they're doing. [...]<\/p>
Q: And then one quick, to follow up on Luis\u2019 question. Secretary Esper, on North Korea, since it seems that these short-range missiles have been a response to the U.S.-South Korean exercises -- computer-based exercises, what does that say about the future for any larger-scale military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea? Will there ever -- will we ever get back to the point where there is a large-scale, tens of thousands of troops, weeks-long military exercises?<\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: Well, the key is to make sure we're doing things that we need to do to preserve our readiness. And I've had this discussion a couple times with Gen. Abrams on the peninsula, the chairman may have -- I'm sure has as well; may want to comment.<\/p>\n
And just, you know, two weeks ago, when I was in Seoul, he and I talked about that. He feels that the training and exercise plan we currently have underway is sufficient to maintain our readiness on the peninsula with our ROK [Republic of Korea] allies. [...]<\/p>
Q: -- recently -- yes, exactly. So -- and when you were there, you seemed pretty hopeful that you would get some kind of resolution to the South Korea-Japan spat. Obviously, we saw South Korea pull out of that military intel-sharing agreement. So I'm wondering if you see -- what you see the path going forward. Do you see that there's a possibility of resolving this with little impact to military operations?<\/p>\n
And then, General, for you, are you seeing any impact to military operations due to getting out of that pact?<\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: So, yeah, at the time, I was and I remain very disappointed that -- that both parties are engaged in this. And I expressed that to my counterparts, as I met with them in Tokyo and Seoul, and of course encouraged them, urged them to work it out between them.<\/p>\n
And, look, I am a half-glass-full person as well. I'm hopeful that they'll get beyond this, because, as I articulated to them, look, we have common threats facing us, North Korea and China, and bigger threats, and we're stronger when we all work together.<\/p>\n
And I think -- again, when you look at the ledger, we share more interests and values and things in common than we do not. And I -- I want to build upon that, and hopefully resolve this quickly, move forward and get back on the important track we need, and that is really thinking about North Korea in the near term, and China in the long term, and how do we work together, how do we broaden our partnerships, strengthen our alliance and make sure we're prepared for the future.\"<\/p>", "quote": null, "citation": "