U.S. Relations With the People's Republic of China (2007)

U.S. Department of Defense
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

News Transcript

Presenter: Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell

November 28, 2007

DoD News Briefing with Press Secretary Geoff Morrell from the Pentagon

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

Q: Geoff, the Chinese foreign minister said to President Bush this morning that the Kitty Hawk, the refusal to allow it into Hong Kong port was a misunderstanding. Has the PLA explained to this building how the misunderstanding happened, first of all? And second of all, was the Kitty Hawk or any of its ships involved in monitoring the Chinese naval exercises that took place off the coast of Taiwan?

MR. MORRELL: In answer to your second question, I don't have the answer to that.

In answer to the first question, I do not believe we have gotten an explanation beyond what I think the foreign minister shared with the president today. He may have shared that also -- I think there was a dinner for the foreign minister a couple of nights ago attended by Ambassador Edelman. That may have been expressed at that meeting too. It may have been characterized in a similar way; that is, that it was a misunderstanding. I don't know that that's a satisfactory explanation. But the explanation is really due to the families of those sailors who, at great personal cost, had made arrangements to go visit their loved ones over Thanksgiving and in Hong Kong expecting the Kitty Hawk to port there as planned.

I can tell you, Dmitri, that the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense David Sedney, in charge of that region -- in particular, China -- has called in today the Chinese DATT to issue a formal protest, an official protest, complaint, about the incident. And you know, it's baffling to the extent that these port calls into Hong Kong have been taking place, you know, for decades now, 50 years or so. And even -- yeah, and there have been incidents over the years in which -- have been occasions over the years in which our carriers have not been allowed to dock there, but they were for pretty obvious reasons at the time.

For example, after the Belgrade bombing or in the wake of the P-3 incident. There was a temporary halt to port calls there. There does not seem to be such a reason at this time that's obvious or apparent to any of us.

So it is baffling. It is -- it's regrettable. And we have not to date received a sufficient explanation as to why it took place.

Q: Follow-up, Geoff? (Cross talk.) Given that they had -- the Chinese had refused access to the minesweepers the day before or two days before, whichever it was, was the Navy concerned that this might happen or --

MR. MORRELL: I think you'd have to direct that question to the Navy. I haven't gotten into those kind of details with the people involved. I know you had a chance with Admiral Keating and I think Admiral Roughead yesterday -- CNO Roughead, so I -- but I don't have any insight on that. Sorry about that.

Q: Can you clarify?

Q: Did the --

MR. MORRELL: (Inaudible) - Let me go to Jim.

Q: Did the protesting include the incident with the two minesweepers or was it only the Kitty Hawk?

MR. MORRELL: In my conversation with DASD Sedney, I believe it's directed at the Kitty Hawk, but I can try to get greater clarity for you on that.

Q: (Off mike) - The Navy considers the incident with the minesweeper actually --

MR. MORRELL: I know, yeah.

Q: -- more serious --

MR. MORRELL: Let me try to find that out for you.

Q: Okay.

MR. MORRELL: I'm happy to do that.

Q: On that exact point, with this question of misunderstanding, that only applies to the Kitty Hawk as far as I know. Has there been even that much explanation with regard to the minesweepers?

MR. MORRELL: I'm not aware that there has.

Q: So misunderstanding only applies to the Kitty Hawk?

MR. MORRELL: This is a conversation that took place at the White House just a little while ago in which the president had the foreign minister over there. I've seen the press accounts from that meeting. I've seen my colleagues who work at the White House offering that the Chinese had explained it as a misunderstanding or described it as a misunderstanding. That's the extent of my knowledge of their explanation at this point.

So I think you want to take it up with your colleagues over there.

Jim.

Q: There was a report that the Chinese acted as they did because they were upset about a sale or upgraded missile defense systems to Taiwan, and by the fact that they weren't given a heads up by Secretary Gates when he was in Beijing.

MR. MORRELL: I'm not aware of the reason for their decision not to allow us to dock in Hong Kong.

I'm not -- it's not been articulated to us. If it was because of the Patriot missile upgrades that have been in the works for quite some time with Taiwan and -- you know, I don't now that -- it wasn't, I don't believe, incumbent upon Secretary Gates to relay that information. I think it was part of the normal -- what I believe took place there is that the State Department, as is their responsibility, has to update Congress as to foreign military sales of this nature, and it was sort of the normal reporting process to the Hill.

Q: The secretary didn't give the Chinese a heads-up that that was coming.

MR. MORRELL: I think those sales have been in the works for months. I mean, I don't know that there was any news to share on that count. But I don't recall that coming up at any of our meetings with the Chinese.

Q: Okay.

MR. MORRELL: Yeah, Jeff.

Q: This protest, does it ask the Chinese to do anything specifically; for example, issue an apology, reimburse the sailors' families who paid for hotels?

MR. MORRELL: I don't believe so. I think this is the kind of thing that goes on on a mil-to-mil basis. I think we are expressing officially our displeasure with the incident.

Q: Is it possible to get the language of the protest?

MR. MORRELL: I don't know that it is.

Yeah, Louie? But Jeff, come back to me later on. I have some other news for you, on your favorite subject. (Laughter.)

Q: I just want to clarify. This is a demarche, or this is --

MR. MORRELL: No, I don't think we issue demarches. I'm not an expert on this sort of diplomatic stuff, Louie. I think that's a State Department sort of official government communication. We have relationships with -- on a military-to-military basis in which we sort of communicate, and I think this is -- we are expressing our displeasure by calling in the defense attache from the Chinese; General Chao, I believe, is his name. So that's what's happening this afternoon.

Okay, Tom.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]

Q: Back to China. Two questions. First of all, when the Kitty Hawk backed away from Hong Kong after being turned away, did it do so through the straits of -- the Formosa Strait, the Taiwan Strait?

MR. MORRELL: I don't know. I don't.

Q: Second question. When the secretary was in China --

MR. MORRELL: Did you have a chance to ask Admiral Keating this yesterday?

Q: (Off mike) -- didn't.

MR. MORRELL: Okay. I was just -- or Admiral Roughead. Those are good questions for the guys who run those kind of things.

Q: When the secretary was in China earlier this month, he talked at some length about his desire to increase mil-to-mil contacts of one sort or another. I'm wondering what the status of that is, and specifically, whether the Chinese have rejected or spurned any specific invitations or opportunities that we have offered them.

MR. MORRELL: I'm aware of no hiccups at all in our efforts to increase military-to-military cooperation, exchanges with the Chinese. I think that's why this incident is so baffling to us, because there was no indication at all prior to the Kitty Hawk being refused entry to the port of Hong Kong that there was any reason or any cause for concern.

Now, I guess we can point to the fact that those other naval ships were denied entry there or denied safe harbor there in the midst of that storm, but prior to those incidents, there was no indication at all -- and aside from those incidents, there is no indication at all -- that there was any hurdle in our efforts to have greater cooperation on a military-to-military basis.

Q: The Chinese have not rejected, to your knowledge, any invitations that we extended to them.

MR. MORRELL: No, no, no. Yeah.

Q: What's the status of this defense hotline that Secretary --

MR. MORRELL: Well, we just got back -- we got back a couple of weeks ago, I think, although it may be longer than that, because they all run together. But I don't know -- I don't have any updates for you on the establishment of the defense hotline between Beijing and Washington, but I don't have any sense that it's not moving forward. I have no indication that it is not moving forward.

Q: (Inaudible) -- shows the very need for this type of communication, right?

MR. MORRELL: I don't know that communication was an issue here. I'm not privy to all the details, but I don't know that it was -- the issue was a lack of communication. I think the issue -- I mean, it was certainly communicated to the Kitty Hawk that they couldn't dock there. But I think that the hotline is meant for more of an emergency situation than denying entry to a port. But perhaps it could be used for those purposes, too.

[ ...Intervening Text... ]