{ "error": "", "type": "text", "title": "Secretary Esper Media Roundtable - China", "slug": "secretary-esper-media-roundtable-china", "text": "
\"Q: On Huawei, you made a very impassioned case downstairs earlier on in this case. It looks like, from everything that we can see from our German colleagues here that Germany is trying to move its way to something close to what Britain decided a few weeks ago, which is keep Huawei on the periphery but not in the core. <\/p>\n
Is that an acceptable position, to your mind? <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: I don't know because I haven't studied their position and what it means. So I think we have to take a close look at that. But the concern still remains that if countries choose to go the Huawei route, it could well jeopardize all the information-sharing, intelligence-sharing that we've been talking about. And that would undermine the alliance, or at least, you know, that -- our relationship with that country. <\/p>\n
So I can't offer a comment until I've had a chance to have our experts look at it and brief me. <\/p>\n
Q: And China, like Adam said, it has come out I guess Wang Yi, after your speech, responding to Pompeo and Esper, this is Josh Rogin tweeting out: \"B.S. and lies.\" That was Wang Yi's reaction to it. Do you think your message is getting through to the Chinese at all? What messages -- the need for more cooperation or the dangers of 5G or Huawei? Any evidence at all? <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: Well, I didn't hear the minister's comments or Josh's, for that matter. I hope our message is getting through. We've -- I've conveyed the message privately to my counterpart, and I've conveyed this same message multiple times publicly, because it's critical to our national defense, our strategy. It's at the top of our list for our strategy. <\/p>\n
So I hope they will listen. I know they're hearing it from other countries, because I talk to my counterparts. And the message is the same, respect our sovereignty, follow the rules, obey international norms. <\/p>\n
Q: What about domestically the message of how to approach China? We've had a year where...<\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: Domestically in their country or in our country? <\/p>\n
Q: In the United States, after a year where, you know, General Dunford was saying things like, anybody that does business with China is helping the PLA, and kind of a much harder stance, versus, you know, the battle of China...<\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: Well, I'm not sure...<\/p>\n
(CROSSTALK)<\/p>\n
Q: ... if you're Silicon Valley and others. <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: Yes, I'm not sure Dunford said it that way. So I'm not going to comment on what he said. It either was a context -- I know he and I share many of the same views, but I think there is -- I just met earlier with a bipartisan group of -- bipartisan, bicameral group of members of Congress. And I know nearly all, maybe all share my concerns and our views. <\/p>\n
And if they are a reflection of the American people, then I think that says a lot, that we're all concerned about China's trajectory, about the current leadership, and about what it could mean to our future. <\/p>\n
STAFF: Let's get to our international press. Go ahead? <\/p>\n
Q: Hello, (inaudible) from the Financial Times. Talking about doing business with China, the British government is in talks with China about providing this high-speed railway at network. So this is just a few weeks off the Huawei decision, there's now another big deal on the table. Are you concerned about that? <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: I just don't know enough about it to comment. I don't know what that would mean. I don't know what the technologies involved are. You know, I have a little bit of history understanding dual-use export controls and what could it mean, you know, if you have the technology that goes into a commercial system, can it be applied to a military system? <\/p>\n
So I just don't know enough about it to comment. I would scrutinize these things though for sure. <\/p>\n
STAFF: The gentleman next to her? <\/p>\n
Q: (inaudible) from The Economist. Can I just ask about NATO and China. NATO put China in its final statement to the summit for a first time in a very prominent way. Off the back of your meetings, can you elaborate on what is tangibly being done within the alliance to address China in a bit more detail than we've had so far possibly? <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: Yes. I mean, as I recall, I'll have to kind of dig back through our notes and see if a -- one of the outcomes of the leader summit was to form -- was to bring people together to look at details as to how we move forward in terms of addressing the challenge from China. And I think that's... <\/p>\n
Q: And is there any progress on that? <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: We didn't discuss it in detail at this meeting. I think it's -- because this meeting was -- the London meeting was, what, seven weeks ago? So there hasn't been time for much progress to be made, if you will. But those were the things -- I think the important thing was NATO made a statement about China. And that's significant. And from here it's about building on that work. <\/p>\n
I've attended three or four defense ministerials so far and China has come up at every single one of these. <\/p>\n
Q: Are there particular steps you would like to see, the alliance? <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: I'm going to pause right there because I think, you know, in the spirit of the alliance, what we like to do is talk about these things together and agree together, and then move forward. [...]<\/p>
Q: Yes. Hi, my name is (inaudible), German Public Radio. Going back a little bit and looking at the conflict itself, (inaudible) always tells us it's important for him that people talk to each other and not at each other. And we talked about the American-Chinese (inaudible). <\/p>\n
Do you feel that this conference does its job? Did you get enough situations where you can really talk to people behind closed doors? <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: Yes, I think the value of these conferences, as I found in so many of them, is not just what happens on the floor but what happens off the floor where you can have side meetings, bilaterals, if you will. So during my just two days here, I've met with many of my counterparts from countries I often don't have a chance to see. <\/p>\n
I've met with business. I've met with think-tankers. I've met with members of Congress. So these are fora to have those types of conversations. And you tend to talk about the conversation of the day, the issue of the day. And so I think it's a great opportunity to exchange views and discuss those things. <\/p>\n
Q: And the Chinese especially? <\/p>\n
SEC. ESPER: I have not -- my counterpart is not here from China. But I do try and have frequent contact with him. He and I have spoken on the phone a couple of times. We met -- last time we met was in Bangkok, I think. It's important to have that dialogue. I reached out to him early in my tenure to have that connectivity and to begin exchanging views. It's a great way to not just improve understanding, but to -- if something happens I have somebody I can call up immediately to make sure there's no misperceptions or misunderstandings. <\/p>\n
So we have to keep the dialogue up. It's important -- I'm a big believer that no matter what, you should continue dialogue and have those lines of communication open.\"<\/p>", "quote": null, "citation": "