Transcription
[applause] >> Thank you so much. >> [cheering] [applause] >> Secretary Hexter, thank you so much for your remarks and and the great clarity of your of your message. And if you allow me one comment, we are the Shangri-La which ships searching for wisdom but with a very clear sense that one needs to invest in combat power and capability as you as you so eloquently underlined.
Um We've got about 30 minutes for conversation now and we'll collect a few questions but I see actually that the Minister of Japan Kishi San would like to intervene so I might turn to him first actually and get him to make his comment. Your microphone is live now, Minister.
>> Thank you very much. Pete, Secretary Hexter. Thank you for your remarks and very powerful speech which was strong, not quiet, a clear. >> [laughter] >> I appreciate having close communication with you. I certainly 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 in 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 a 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 chain so the countries in the region can help each other in case of crisis. I believe this initiative is aligned with the arsenal of freedom. Is my understanding correct? Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much Minister Kono. Maybe Mr. Secretary if that's okay if I can invite you to respond to to the Minister straight away and then we group a few questions together. Is that okay? Yeah, absolutely.
>> Well, Minister Kono, thank you for the question, for your friendship, for your engagement. I think our countries and our personal engagement is demonstrative of the kind of commitment the United States has to allies and partners. And we appreciate the extent to which you and your government have stepped up. And I think there's sort of two real ways when I look at how the world may view our commitment to this region. First is through our National Defense Strategy and we very clearly listed four pillars. It was the homeland and the hemisphere, deterring China in in the Indo-Pacific, burden sharing, and then supercharging our defense industrial base. Those are the four and I think too many people were focused on the fact that number one is 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 it 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 has seen a complete change which creates complications for our adversary. So staying focused and bringing renewed energy to Southern Command which had been kind of a sleepy backwater command and now is a war-fighting command in our own home and 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 there's a refocus in what we do in our own neighborhood, but in understanding that a $1.5 trillion uh uh investment from, you know, cis-lunar to subsea 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 of 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 the munitions very soon to ensure that all of our OPLANs 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. But I think it's the exact opposite. Underneath uh our entire approach is a substantive serious uh approach to the 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 uh 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 Min Lee. Chung Min.
>> Thank you, Bastian. 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 a larger deterrence missions. And number two, wartime OPCON transfer to the ROK within the next couple of years. Could you please 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 one or two more in this in this round. And next, please, from China, Wei Feng. Ciao, your microphone is on.
>> Thank you, Chairman. Uh Mr. Secretary, uh I'm Senior Colonel Zhao Weiping 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 a head of the worst 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 peace bring peace in and war out? Bring our cooperation in and confrontation out. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. And we'll take um from the United States, Douglas Greenlaw.
>> Secretary Hagler Secretary Hagseth, 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 that we have a young leaders group here as well, and I want to get in one of the younger voices in the room as well. So, if we can please get from Pakistan, Tanzila Khalil, your microphone is on. And then we'll return to the Secretary.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Recently, it was identified by the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, that Pakistan's potential ICBM capability as 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 test of Agni 6 ICBM with a with a range of approximately 12,000 km, which could potentially place some parts of Europe and America within reach. Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you very much. So, we've got a summary of the themes there as well. So, 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. Not possible. >> [laughter] >> First 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 uh, willing to expand uh, subsea capabilities that produce real dilemmas. Uh, and I think that's, you know, what we recognize is that our undersea uh, warfare capabilities is unmatched un- substantially unmatched and creates 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 um, 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 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 OPLANs and and the responsibilities that US uniform members have had for decades now is honored as we phase over to wartime op op con 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 in the peninsula going forward which is a very good thing. So I appreciate that question. Second question was from Colonel the Chinese military. Thank you for that question. And I think 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 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 inter 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 capabilities and power and how that could be most usefully leveraged in the world today with both powers that 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 manifest in mill to mill cooperation. That in forms like this we maximize the opportunities to confer. 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 actions at sea or actions in the air are perceived differently when there's no communication and when there's an opportunity at the more tactical or operational level to talk about what deconfliction look like. And I think you'll get from the United States is good faith engagement. Clear-eyed but good faith engagement that we we are I understand commander's 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 appended 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 2 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. He came from the business world and has taken that very same business mindset, I think for the first time ever inside the the Pentagon, and has effectively said, "And this is there's 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 will give you long lead times on critical munitions that we're clearly going to be purchasing for 5 to 7 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 a statutory requirement eager committees have given us and we have to be responsible with, but in exchange for 5 to 7 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 of capitalization. $50 that's 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 SM-3s or Tomahawks or our partners do, it's not add another shift to try to eke out another 100. It's build three more plants so that we can 3x, 4x, and 5x the amount of those munitions that we're 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 are 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 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 yeah 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. 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 India and Pakistan, two nuclear-capable countries. I think both sides there are going to see understandable threats coming from the other. Um 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 have been paused uh 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 arms sales for partners?
>> Thank you very much, Tom. Uh we take another question from China, Dong Wang. Your microphone's on.
>> Thank you for a speech, uh Secretary of the Air Force. Um most recently, uh US Forces Korea Commander, um General Xavier Brunson Brunson made a striking remark in a public interview, uh stating that South Korea is, quote and quote, a dagger in the heart of Asia aimed at China. This comment stands in a 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 Bronson's statement represent the official position of the Trump administration? And is characterization of South Korea's role as a dagger aimed at China authorized authorized or endorsed by the Pentagon? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. The General is in the room, so he has an opportunity to perhaps follow up with you in the coffee break. But let me get let me get one or two more questions in for this round. Um and we'll next turn from India to Vipata Vikramasinghe. Vipata.
>> Thank you, Bastian. Secretary had said um how does the Department of War expect to establish equitable cybersecurity partnerships with allies who may lack the domestic intelligence and and technical capabilities? Is there a risk that this may create an over-dependence on the US private sector, which might further perpetuate protection-based model for cybersecurity in the region?
>> Thank you very much. And we take from New Zealand Anna Fifield. Anna.
>> Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I couldn't help but notice that New Zealand was missing from your list of countries there. They have recently outlined a plan to get from 1% to 2% of GDP, a long way from 3.5. Would you consider New Zealand to be a free rider? Thank you.
>> Certainly sharp and clear question. >> [laughter] >> We will take from Australia, which I think was mentioned, and our young leader group liaison. Over to you.
>> Thank you. By order of a risk to the strategic equilibrium, what issues or conflicts in the region is US most concerned about?
>> Okay, thank you very much. And I'll just lob in one final one from Thailand. Panitan Watanayagorn. Your mic is on.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your remarks. Very strong, loud, and super clear. 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 on Thai Cambodian borders. Under your leadership, what can you do about it? And if I may, what can Thailand do more about it in your opinion? Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. So, again, a very rich set of themes to to choose from. Perhaps Mr. Secretary, I'll invite you to address that first point on on Taiwan arms sales, and then we'll take we'll get through the the other questions.
>> Yeah, I would on the Taiwan arms sales I would very much decouple the two and we feel very good about our our stockpiles both how we use them and and in epic theory in this historic moment 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 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 he he wanted me to reiterate how patient he is in ensuring that with America undertaking this kind of historic endeavor any deal will be a good one a great one and he's patient in the pursuit of that because of how the implications of how that sorts out and certainly our department he we were in a cabinet meeting just 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 that ensures they don't get a nuclear weapon they can deal with the guy on my left. That was the only time I've ever been accused of being on the left. And he was pointing at the war department and we're serious about that. We our ability to recommence if necessary is 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 Hun Sen How is fantastic but I would not couple the two in any way at all and 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 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 arms 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. Uh General Brunson on uh on uh South Korea and then I'll take it from there if you want. We I don't know if you can turn this mic on.
>> Yeah, can we turn on General Brunson's uh mic, please? 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 badge, probably. Okay, yeah. There we go. General.
>> Thank you. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for that. Um General >> [laughter] >> 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 East up 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 up con transfer. The position that we have within the peninsula, based on our great allies represented by uh Minister of Defense Hong Gyu Bak, 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 taking to 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 the 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. >> [laughter] >> Thank you. Thank you very much for for that response.
>> [applause] >> Very good. We we've got 2 3 minutes left to get to uh >> I I'd like to give the remainder of my time to the general. >> [laughter] >> New Zealand defense spending, we've got that question on on prioritizing regional challenges and conflicts, and then and then there was a question from Thailand as well.
>> Uh 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 new 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 Marles 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 you 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 uh 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 has continued 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 uh 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 Austin, thank you so much for being at the Shangri-La Dialogue. It's a real pleasure. >> [applause] >> Thank you.