Transcription
Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Secretary Hex. Thank you so much, uh, for your remarks and the great clarity of your message.
Um, and if you'll allow me one comment, that we are the Shangri-La Dialogue, uh, uh, uh, searching for wisdom, but with a very clear, uh, sense that one needs to invest in combat power and capability, as you, as you so eloquently, uh, underlined.
Um, uh, we've got about, uh, 30 minutes, uh, for conversation now. Um, and, uh, we'll collect, uh, a few questions, but I see, actually, that the Minister of Japan, Koisumi, uh, son, would like to, uh, intervene. So I might turn to him first, actually, and, uh, get him to make his comment. Your microphone is live now, Minister.
>> Thank you very much, uh, Pete, Secretary Hexes. Uh, thank you for your remarks and very powerful speech, uh, which was strong, not quiet, and clear. I appreciate, I have been in close communication with you. I safely feel the unwavering commitment by the US, but sometimes I feel some countries might underestimate the US commitment. Can you give us the message to us, the region? And also, when tensions occur between allies and like-minded states, even tensions are slight, there will be someone attempting to drive a wedge between us. I feel the US commitment is unwavering, which might be underestimated by some countries, but you are here with us today. That speaks the strong message. Japan has recently revised its policy on the transfer of defense equipment and technology. I have been advancing defense equipment cooperation with Australia, the Philippines, and New Zealand, and Indonesia too. We are making those efforts to establish resilient supply chains so that countries in the region can help each other in case of crisis. I believe this initiative is aligned with their arsenal of freedom. Is my understanding correct? Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Minister Koisumi. May, maybe, uh, Mr. Secretary, if that's okay, if I can invite you to respond to the minister straight away, and then we group a few questions together. Is that okay?
>> Yeah, absolutely. Well, Minister Koisumi, thank you for the question, for your friendship, for your engagement. I think, uh, our countries and our personal engagement is demonstrative of the kind of commitment the United States has to allies and partners, and we appreciate, uh, the extent to which you and your government have stepped up. Uh, and I think there's sort of two real ways, uh, when I look at how the world may view our commitment to this region. First is through our national defense strategy. Uh, and we very clearly listed four pillars: It was the homeland, the hemisphere, uh, deterring China in the Indo-Pacific, burden sharing, and then supercharging our defense industrial base. Those were the four. And I think, uh, too many people were focused on the fact that number one is the homeland and hemisphere. For us, that was a reorientation toward a forgotten aspect of our defense strategy. We had a wide-open southwest border that allowed 20 million illegals to pour across our borders that the Department of War was focused on securing. We've got a cartel problem of foreign terrorist organizations where we can't just defend at the border, but we need to defend in depth. So, we've created the America's Counter-Cartel Coalition, working with allies and partners in Central and South America to holistically get at the counter-cartel challenge. Key terrain like the Panama Canal is something we lost focus on, we're refocused on, and, and, and Venezuela's seen a complete change, which creates complications for our adversaries. So, staying focused and bringing renewed energy to Southern Command, which had been kind of a sleepy backwater command and now is a warfighting command in our own home hemisphere, was something we had to do institutionally. But if you look at our defense planning guidance or our national defense strategy, we are funding toward exercising toward and planning toward the most difficult problem set, which is power projection into this region and working with our allies and partners. So, there's a refocus in what we do in our own neighborhood, but in understanding that a $1.5 trillion, uh, investment from, you know, CIS-lunar to sub-sea is what's required in order to deter the next conflict. And then I think the second aspect is that, um, people want to conflate that we have global obligations with turning our backs to this region. And that's why I've made more trips here than anywhere else and have met and will continue to meet with individual countries and in collective settings like this to demonstrate we are quietly but very strongly working by, with, and through allies based on our mutual commitments to strengthen our capabilities out here. We still have global obligations to ensure that, say, Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. We're focused on that. We can do two things at one time. We're supercharging our defense industrial base so that we're building 2x, 3x, 4x munitions very soon to ensure that all of our O plans are properly funded throughout the world. So, I think because there's been a lot of talk previously in the US government about pivots that were never real, uh, there's an instinct to want to look at this and say that it is not. When I think it's the exact opposite. Underneath, uh, our entire approach is a substantive, serious, uh, approach to the Pacific, uh, while also ensuring we maintain our obligations around the world. So, thank you for your question.
>> Excellent. Thank you very much. We'll group a few questions together now. Um, the list is extremely long already, so I'll, I'll, I'll pull out a few, uh, and, uh, first in this round, please, uh, from Korea, Dr. Chung Lee, Chung Min.
>> Thank you, Bastian. Uh, Mr. Secretary, thank you for your positive remarks on the ROK-US alliance. South Korea's defense spending this year increased 8.2%, and we are fully committed to every single matrix you mentioned on a self-reliant defense posture. In this regard, my question to you, sir, is twofold. Number one, President Trump said yes to President Lee's request for American support in building nuclear-powered submarines for the ROK Navy for larger deterrence missions. And number two, wartime OPCON transfer to the ROK within the next couple of years. Could you please, uh, uh, enlighten the audience on these two aspects of the strong and stronger US-ROK alliance? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Chung Min. We'll, we'll take, uh, uh, one or two more in this, this round. Um, and, uh, next, please, from China, Bin Xiao. Your microphone is on.
>> Thank you, Chairman. I'm Mr. Secretary. Uh, I'm Senior Colonel Jawe Bin from China. You just mentioned in your speech that during President Trump's historical visit to China, the two countries have agreed upon a new definition of China-US relations, which is constructive strategic stability. So, what's the implication of this new definition for US-China military-to-military relations, in particular, as head of the West Department? How would you implement the consensus reached by the two heads of states in real tangible steps rather than peacocking?
>> Yes. So, so how would Pete bring peace in and or out? Bring, uh, cooperation in and confrontation out. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Um, and we'll take, um, from the United States, Douglas Greenlaw.
>> Secretary Hegseth, uh, thank you for your principled leadership of the Department of War. Under your leadership, the Pentagon has placed a major emphasis on the key core principles like lethality, reconstruction of the defense industrial base, including accelerating innovation by leveraging private capital and commercial technology. What would you like to see from private capital to help scale these innovations, including internationally, so they can be useful not just to the US, but to the defense posture of the Indo-Pacific?
>> Thank you very much. Let me, I see there's a, we have a young leaders group here, uh, as well, and I want to get in one of the younger voices, uh, in the room as well. So, uh, if we can get, please, uh, from Pakistan, Tan Tanzilla Khalil, your microphone is on, and then we'll return to the secretary.
>> Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr. Secretary. Um, recently, it was identified by the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that Pakistan's potential ICBM capability is a future threat for the US. I wanted to seek your comment on how do you assess India's long-range missile capability, particularly in terms of the recent, uh, test of Agni-6 ICBM within a range of approximately 12,000 kilometers, which could potentially place some parts of Europe and America within reach. Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you very much. So, uh, we've got a, a summary of the themes there as well. Um, uh, so, Mr. Mr. Secretary, can I invite you to weave your way through these, through these various comments?
>> I can't weave as well as my boss can. Uh, not possible. First, on on, uh, on Korea, I see General Brunson is here, our, our commander, uh, who does a phenomenal job there, ensuring that partnership is, is realized and deepened every single day. Uh, and I think it really does, um, exemplify the kind of partnership. And that's why I led with the remarks about what, uh, what South Korea's done. Uh, I was there when, when the president talked about nuclear power, uh, submarines. I think it's an important capability. I think we're looking for allies willing to expand, uh, sub capabilities that produce real dilemmas. Uh, and I think that's, you know, what we recognize is that our undersea, uh, warfare capabilities are unmatched, substantially unmatched, and create a lot of strategic dilemmas for potential adversaries, wondering where we are and what our capabilities may be. Allies and partners seeking similar capabilities, uh, in their own defense and in regional stability makes a lot of sense to us. So, I think when you're, when you're working with and talking to President Trump, someone who's willing to think outside the box and and shake up sort of a stale view of what may or may not be possible, expand the Overton window, asks like that are important. And I think you'll see an acceleration in our willingness to come alongside countries that want to run quickly. Now, there's challenges and how we get past them will require collaboration, but we're very much committed to that. Uh, and then as far as wartime OPCON transfer, uh, the general and I have, you know, spent a good chunk of time recently talking about that. We met recently in the Pentagon, uh, with your minister of defense, uh, on that very topic. And frankly, it's, uh, it's a breath of fresh air for an ally to want to take more control more quickly. And that is an instinct we want to continue to incentivize. And I think we have to find the balance of where our military op plans and and the responsibilities that US uniform members have had for decades now is honored as we phase over to wartime OPCON transfer for the Republic of Korea, which we welcome the fact that they want that. And I think it provides even more optionality for both the Koreans and the United States there on the peninsula, uh, going forward, which is a very good thing. So, I appreciate that question. Uh, the second question was from, um, Colonel, uh, the Chinese military. Thank you for that question, and I think, uh, I, I was there when, when the conversations were had about constructive strategic stability. I think that was a great framing from both leaders about what, uh, they want from that relationship. And I think it's hard to understate the importance of the, you know, books have been written about the importance of interpersonal diplomacy and how strong it can be. I think in this particular case, it's quite meaningful. I think there is a mutual respect, a recognition of of capabilities and power, and how that could be most usefully leveraged in the world today, uh, with both powers that I, I, I want to reassure this audience, it's, I think it's real. I think it's substantive, and I think it's meaningful for the history of peace in the region in the world. What he has communicated to me is that that manifests in mil-to-mil cooperation, uh, that in forums like this, we maximize, uh, the opportunities to confer. Uh, I wish my counterpart was here at this conference, but I look forward to other options when we can cross paths and communicate, talk about things where often, uh, actions at sea or actions in the air are perceived differently, uh, when there's no communication than when there's an opportunity at the more tactical or operational level to talk about what deconfliction should look like. And I, I think what you'll get from the United States is good faith engagement. Uh, clear-eyed but good faith engagement, uh, that we, we are, um, I understand commander intent, and President Trump has said, we're going to establish this type of framework, and I think it's important for peace in the world. Uh, the third question was about defense, uh, innovation and private capital's role. I, we're the static model of how the United States of America procured weapons and acquired weapons was insufficient for the modern age. You effectively had five prime contractors who were append, in some cases, not all cases, but in too many cases, appendages of the Pentagon bureaucracy and had been grown accustomed to meeting the, you know, cost overruns, the time overruns, uh, and and the congressional, uh, annual system that gave everyone excuses to perpetuate that. Didn't give us enough fast enough, always seeking the 100% solution that arrived a decade later, as opposed to the 90% solution that we get in the hands of warfighters, uh, two years from now. And so, uh, I think the one of the unsung heroes, uh, of our department is my Deputy Secretary of War, Steve Feinberg. He's our secret weapon. He came from the, truly, if you don't know him, you should get to know him. Uh, he came from the business world and has taken that very same business mindset, I think for the first time ever, inside the Pentagon, and has effectively said, and this is, there's a lot of micro aspects to this macro approach, but if you want to do business with the Department of War, we'll make a trade with you. We'll give you long lead times on critical munitions that we're clearly going to be purchasing for five to seven years, or platforms we're going to move into platforms, we're going to move into ships, we're going to move into airframes, you name it. You know, we're going to be buying these, and Congress has been willing to move into multi-year procurement for us, which is a statutory requirement, eager committees have given us, and we have to be responsible with. But in exchange for five to seven years of orders, we're demanding that those companies invest in, uh, their own infrastructure. So, these companies are paying for new factories, new, new lines, new production facilities to the tune of $50 billion of capitalization. $50 billion is not coming from US taxpayers. It's coming from companies who would otherwise, in a, in a world of private incentives, made those investments, but it's become cozy and easy to get the taxpayers to pay for that and then pay for the munitions as well. And we've just done it the same way. So, over the next two or three years, we're going to see hundreds of production lines coming online for critical munitions, so that if we need more Patriots or THAADs or SM3s or Tomahawks, or our partners do, it's not add another shift to try to eke out another hundred. It's build three more plants so that we can 3x, 4x, and 5x the amount of those munitions that we are creating, uh, which, which gets skin in the game for those companies as well. And through doing that and opening up our bureaucracy, which we go to war with our bureaucracy every single day, our job is to make sure we don't have five prime contractors by the time I'm done, but we've got 10, 15, or 20 who are able to compete on an equal footing. And now you really are building an arsenal. And then if you add on top of that, co-production with partners around the world who want to do the same, now you're building a global arsenal of freedom that we require. Uh, we, we, we take responsibility, our, our, we take very seriously our responsibility as the foundation for Western defense. But the more rich countries who have robust manufacturing capabilities get into the defense business because of the reality of the moment, uh, the more options we're all going to have. And so we welcome that and want to be a leader there. Uh, the final question was about India, Pakistan, and, uh, I, I mentioned India here, but I very easily could have mentioned Pakistan and the role that the, the Field Marshal and the Prime Minister are playing, uh, in peace negotiations. Uh, I think an unexpected development and and a true friendship developing there, which I think is important. And you saw that in the ability of the president to come together on on brokering a peace between, uh, India and Pakistan, two nuclear-capable countries. Uh, I think both sides there are going to see, uh, understandable threats coming from the other. Uh, maybe some of which we see differently, and countries are going to want to develop ICBM threats. But we're not pointing a finger, at least from our view right now, at either country and calling them a threat, uh, to us, and we're grateful for, uh, you know, in each of their lanes, the benefits they've given, uh, to, to peace around the world.
>> Excellent. Let us get one, one more round of of comments and questions in. Um, and, uh, if I can ask for crisp, short questions so that we can get to, uh, answers. Uh, first one in this round from the United Kingdom, Tom Beckett.
>> Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. Um, noting the, um, applauding the, the, uh, defense procurement changes that you're making in the, in the Pentagon. On the 22nd of May, the acting secretary of the Navy said that the $14 billion FMS to Taiwan had been paused to preserve stocks for Epic Fury. Looking to the future, that's fine. In the here and now, how do you reconcile that with expedited arm sales for partners?
>> Thank you very much, Tom. Uh, we take another question from China, Dong Wong. Your microphone's on.
>> Thank you for your speech, uh, Secretary Access. Um, most recently, uh, US Forces Korea Commander, uh, General Zavier Brownson, made a striking remark in a public interview, stating that South Korea is, quote unquote, a dagger in the heart of Asia aimed at China. This comment stands in stark contradiction to the spirit of a constructive China-US relationship of strategic stability which our two presidents agreed to build during President Trump's most recent visit to China, which you also just referred to in your speech. President Trump, in particular, has also repeatedly emphasized his desire to forge the best possible relationship with China. My question is simple: Does General Brunson's statement represent the official position of the Trump administration, and his characterization of South Korea's role as a dagger aimed at China, authorized or endorsed by the Pentagon? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Uh, the general is in the room, so, uh, he has an opportunity to perhaps follow up with you in the coffee break. Um, uh, but, uh, let me get, let me get, uh, one or two, uh, more questions in, uh, for this round. Um, and we'll next turn, uh, from India to Vipat Vikram Singh Vatab.
>> Thank you, Bastian. Uh, Secretary Hexet, um, how does the Department of War expect to establish, uh, equitable cybersecurity partnerships, uh, with allies who may lack the domestic intelligence and and technical capabilities? Is there a risk that, um, this may create an overdependence on the US private sector, which might further perpetuate a protection-based model for cybersecurity in the region?
>> Thank you very much. And we take from New Zealand, Anna, if you feel Anna.
>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Uh, I couldn't help but notice that New Zealand was missing from your list of countries there. Um, they have recently outlined a plan to get from 1% to 2% of GDP, a long way from 3.5. Would you considering New Zealand to be a free rider? Thank you. Certainly sharp and clear question. Um, we will take, uh, from, uh, Australia, which I think was mentioned, uh, uh, and our young leader group, Leon, over to you.
>> Thank you. By order of a risk to the strategic equilibrium, uh, what issues or conflicts in the region is the US most concerned about? Okay, thank you very much. Uh, and I'll just, uh, lob in one final one, uh, from Thailand, Panitan Watanayagop. Your mic is on.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your remarks. Very strong, loud, and super clear. Uh, in Thailand, I think Thai public opinion about the US is not good, giving the fact that we are one of the oldest allies and benefited a lot more from trade, surprisingly. On the other hand, public opinion about China is not that bad. Still very good, giving the fact that the Chinese scammers are doing a lot of damages to Thai public and a lot of Chinese weapons, um, on Thai, uh, Cambodian borders. Um, under your leadership, uh, what can, uh, you do about it? And if I may, uh, what can Thailand do more, uh, about it, in your opinion? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. So again, a very rich, uh, uh, theme set of themes to to choose from. Uh, perhaps, Mr. Secretary, I invite you to, uh, address that first point on, on Taiwan, arm sales, and then we'll take, we'll get through the, the other questions.
>> Yeah, I would on the Taiwan arm sales, I would very much decouple the two. Uh, and we feel very good about our, our stockpiles, both how we use them and and, uh, in Epic Fury in this, uh, historic moment. And I, and I don't think enough has been, enough credit has been given to President Trump for his willingness to take on this global threat, uh, and do so through Admiral Cooper and our CENTCOM commander in, in a devastatingly effective way. And, and, you know, status as of right now is that, um, any deal will be a good deal. And I had a chance to talk to President Trump this morning. Uh, he, he wanted me to reiterate how patient he is in ensuring, uh, that with America undertaking this kind of historic endeavor, uh, any deal will be a good one, a great one, and he's patient in the pursuit of that, uh, because of how, uh, the implications of how that sorts out. And certainly our department, um, he, we were in a cabinet meeting just, uh, a couple of days ago, and the president said, hey, it will be a great deal. And if Iran doesn't want to make a great deal, uh, that ensures they don't get a nuclear weapon, they can deal with the guy on my left. And that was the only time I've ever been accused of being on the left. Uh, and he was pointing at the War Department. And we're serious about that. We, our ability to recommence, if necessary, is, uh, we are more than capable. Our stockpiles are, are more than suited for that, both there and around the globe, because of how we balance exquisite and and more plentiful munitions. So, we're in a very good place and I wouldn't, Hunga is fantastic. Uh, but I would not, uh, couple the two in any way at all. And I, I feel good about not only where we are, but where we are in future production rates as well. And I think there's been a lot of false reporting, uh, with the wrong motives about where we might be. The United States of America, and we're in a very, very strong position and feel only better about where we're going in the future. Any decision about future Taiwan arm sales, as the president said, will rest with him. Uh, and as a nature of that relationship, and certainly having been, um, been there for those meetings in Beijing, there's no change, uh, in our status there. So, just to clarify, uh, on, on, uh, since the good general was name-checked, I don't know if he wants to say anything. I would always give the floor to, uh, an esteemed American general, General Brunson, on, uh, on South Korea, and then I'll take it from there if you want.
>> I don't know if you can turn the mic on.
>> Yeah. Can we turn on General Brunson's, uh, mic, please? Uh, uh, can you press the button on the, I think if we can get some support here, please. Uh, we need to insert the, uh, batch, probably.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Mr. General.
>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you so much for that. Um, gentlemen, if you could please raise your hand, the gentleman who asked the question, that I might look at you directly. What I said was trying to describe the operating environment, because what's incredibly important in being strong and quiet is about being able to describe the environment wherein we're working. If you remember the Prussian philosopher, military philosopher, Clemens, talked about Korea being a dagger pointed at Japan. The difference is, is we have to change our perspective, which is why the Eastup map is important. By changing our perspective, we take into account how others might see us in the region. We've got to be strong. We've got to have the right capabilities within the Republic of Korea. But we have to understand that those things still exist, and you have to combat those things every day. What I was trying to do in a place of learning was talk to war college students about how we have to change our perspective and think about where we are. Then I can advise not only my service secretary, service secretary, but then my secretary, my boss in the Department of War, on what things we might do. The secretary also mentioned OPCON transfer. The position that we have within the peninsula, based on our great allies represented by Minister of Defense Anubach, who's right here in the front row, is important. But what's also important is that we have the right capabilities at the right place in the right time, but also take into account our perspectives. I'm encouraged by the fact that my president and my secretary went to China. That is tremendous, and that we might have increased relationships where we might talk. And we have to remember that when we're talking to students, we want them to understand and appreciate other perspectives other than our own. So many times, in in over the course of my career and the secretary's career, we've thought blue and red. Well, now there's a green there where we might have in this green space the opportunity to talk and to have military thought. The only way there will be philosophers in the future wearing uniforms like myself will be that we enter into the field of ideas and we challenge ideas. And I'm okay with the challenge of ideas, but we have to remember that context will always be king, and we have to take remarks contextually. And I would encourage that you listen to the entire podcast as well as the speech that I gave to the war college students, which was pretty good.
>> Thank you. Thank you very much for. That's why we gave him the mic.
>> Very good. We, we've got two, three minutes left to, uh, uh, get to, uh.
>> New Zealand, uh, defense spending. We've got that question on on prioritizing, uh, regional challenges and conflicts. And then, and then there was a question from Thailand as well.
>> There was a question on cybersecurity as well. Um, I think what you've seen from our operations is how central we've made that capability, how important it is, how decisive it can be. And now that we're moving into the brave new world of AI and what it enables, uh, the United States has incredible private sector advantages there that we intend to responsibly harness, which would require, um, understanding how they work and how they can be utilized offensively or defensively, but responsibly, and working with partners to, on cyber and those cyber relationships is going to be a huge part of how we enable partners, whether it's AI or not. Uh, New Zealand. I appreciate the question. I, listen, I mean, if I'm being honest, I don't, 2% is not enough. And so 2% is freeloading, but I don't have anything against New Zealand. I want partners to step up. It was, I didn't intentionally leave it off my list. I look forward to working with the new defense minister there and enhancing those capabilities. I think, uh, that relationship has been a very fruitful one for a very long time. But I think, uh, as my friends Richard Morals and and John Healey know, I'm probably the most blunt with our closest friends about what our capabilities are and where they need to be to ensure that we're locking arms and shields considering the threats of the world. And we can't just say, "Oh, we've been friends for a long time, so let's work together." It's, we've been friends for a long time, so you better have the same capabilities we do, because if we don't, our alliance is meaningless. Uh, and and and that's the kind of realism President Trump has asked me to inject into, uh, into all relationships. Uh, I can't remember the last question.
>> There was a question on on Thailand, public. Yeah.
>> Yeah. I had a great meeting with, I mean, one of our oldest allies, almost 200 years, uh, and and and I think played a very constructive role and is continuing to try to play a constructive role in how that conflict gets resolved. Had a great meeting yesterday with the Minister of Defense, and I think we found some, from some, some public ways and some private ways that we can deepen our partnership, uh, meaningfully. So, certainly very committed to that relationship.
>> Fantastic. Secretary Hex, thank you so much for being at the Shangri-La Dialogue. It's a real pleasure.
>> Thank you.