Defense Secretary Dr. Mark T. Esper participates in a news conference at the NATO defense ministerial conference in Brussels, October 25, 2019.
Transcript
Well good afternoon everyone, I first want to thank Secretary General Stoltenberg, and his team, for putting this ministerial together. Over the past two days, we’ve had a number of very candid and productive discussions on a wide range of issues related to our shared security. First among those is the situation in Syria. The current halt in operations along the Turkey-Syria border is a welcome measure. We now call on Turkey to abide by their commitments to address the humanitarian crisis, to protect religious and ethnic minorities, to investigate allegations of war crimes, and to maintain control of ISIS prisoners. The Alliance remains unified in our efforts to preserve the defeat of ISIS and we must work together to ensure they are unable to reconstitute. The United States will maintain a reduced presence in Syria, to deny ISIS access to oil revenue as we reposition for the next phase of the Defeat ISIS Campaign. The Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan continues to build the capabilities of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. I shared with the Alliance my assessment from earlier in the week, when I visited our troops and Afghan partners there. It is clear the NATO Alliance remains fully committed to the Resolute Support Mission. Along with our objective of ensuring terrorists are never again able to attack our homelands from Afghanistan. We all agree, the best way to achieve this outcome is through an enduring political settlement. As we adapt to changing conditions in Afghanistan, we are looking for ways to better optimize our core structure. Our goal is to maintain a sustainable force that meets the requirements of the mission. We will continue to consult with our allies, along with the Afghan government, to refine the way ahead in Afghanistan. In addition to discussing operational matters, we also focused on those issues most important to the future of NATO. I reiterated the importance of equitable burden sharing, and pushed our allies to meet their pledge to invest 2% of their GDP in to defense by 2024. The fact is, we’re only as strong as the investments we are willing to make towards our common defense. We also discussed the NATO readiness initiative, which is a critical step to re-instilling a culture, a culture of readiness throughout the Alliance. We are getting very close to our goal of Four-30s by 2020. And, I expect that by the leaders’ meeting in December, we will have 100% of the contributions identified. I appreciated our discussion last night on NATO-EU cooperation, hybrid threats and the challenges China poses to our security. It’s important that EDF legislation and PESCO guidelines for third state participation permit the United States and other non-EU NATO allies to take part and lend our expertise to these initiatives. We need to pursue efforts that compliment NATO activities and facilitate NATO-EU cooperation, not ones that are competitive and duplicative. I also expressed our concerns about the deepening integration of Chinese telecommunications within European infrastructure. Chinese telecom firms are closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party, and have a legal obligation to provide technical support and assistance to the government. NATO allies must carefully consider the long-term risks in the choices they make regarding 5G networks. The Alliance relies on secure and resilient communications for intra-operability, intelligence sharing and military mobility. I am pleased that NATO is moving forward to more thoroughly asses the long-term challenges that a growing, and more assertive China presents to the Alliance. In closing, I want to make clear, the United States’ commitment to NATO is iron-clad. In joining together, we form the most powerful military alliance in the world. Our willingness to defend one another has been the bedrock of our security since the Alliance was first established. And, it will continue to preserve our collective security well into the future, provided we commit to investing in it. I’ll now be happy to take your questions, thank you.
[Host] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If I could just get a comment on some of the updates that have taken place in the last few days. There has been some reporting saying that the United States is considering sending a couple hundred additional troops, which would include tanks, to protect U.S. troops that are now gonna stay, to deny ISIS the oil facilities. Is that something you’re considering? Have you confirmed that? What are the numbers? And, just to follow up, if you could explain the U.S. strategy in Syria, and what that is, because, since Saturday there have been different iterations from: “All 1,000 U.S. troops are going to western Iraq.” To, “We’re gonna keep a residual force.” To, “We may actually send more troops.” If you could just clarify what the position is.
I will state again what the position is, again, we are withdrawing from northeastern Syria, that was the direction of the President. That deliberate withdrawal began with the removal of the less-than 50 troops, or so, from the immediate zone of attack. We are now in what we call the phase II withdrawal. Ultimately, we always intended, as the President directed, to maintain a presence at the Al-Tanf garrison. As I’ve said, over the past several days, we are also considering how we might reposition forces in the area in order to ensure we secure the oil fields. We are now taking some actions, I am not going to get into the details, to strengthen our position at Deir al-Zour to ensure that we can deny ISIS access to the oil fields, because, we want to make sure that they don’t have access to the resources that may allow them to strike within the region, to strike Europe, to strike the United States. Otherwise, all the other enforcers are intended to return home.
[Host] (speaking off mike) …in the middle.
[Reporter 1] Thank you Mr. Secretary. If you could just give us a few more details, there has been a lot of discussion about an armored unit going in. Is that what you think is necessary? Has that been approved by the President? And, can you tell us, does this just involve securing the oil from ISIS, or does it also involve allowing CT to do strikes, et cetera, to control ISIS?
So, we are reinforcing that position, it will include some mechanized forces, again, I’m not gonna get into details. But, the mission in Syria remains what the mission in Syria began with. It’s always been about defeating the ISIS coalition, so that is the core mission. That mission remains unchanged. The specific measures we are taking with regard to the reduction of oil fields is to deny ISIS access to those resources. If ISIS has accesses to the resources, and therefore the means to procure arms, or to buy fighters, or whatever else they do, then it means it makes it more difficult to defeat ISIS. So, this is all nested underneath the Defeat-ISIS Campaign.
[Host] All right, Teri Shultz.
[Teri] I thank you, Teri Shultz with Deutsche Welle. You said yesterday morning that you had not a chance to really get many details on the German proposal for a potential international monitoring mission in, what might be, an eventual safe zone. You’ve had time now to speak with allies, to speak with the German Defense Minister herself. What is your view of this? Do you think it has a future at all if a UN mandate is necessary, and, is the U.S. willing to press Turkey to bring Russia in on an international agreement, which would have to start at the security council. If a UN mandate is necessary?
Well, we had a brief conversation, I did, with the German Defense Minister. I wish I had had more time, but the Secretary General runs a very rigorous schedule, and we barely have time to breathe. But, as I said yesterday, it’s a proposal. I think it deserves consideration. For many years the United States has been talking about European partners and allies stepping up to address problems, I put that in that set, and so I think it should be considered. But, to be clear, it’s not something that the United States intends to participate in with regard to ground troops.
[Teri] (speaking off mike)
I’m sorry, I missed the second part of your question.
[Teri] … the United States would be pressuring Turkey to, given it’s new agreement with Russia, to make this possible. Especially with Russia, and its veto, at the security council.
Well, I don’t know, really, what that is yet. So, until we have a chance to see the details and think it through, I’d be speculating. So, I’d want to take it, study it first, and I’d want to consider it with, also alongside the Secretary of State, to make sure that we’d come up with a U.S. Government position.
[Host] Sir, right there.
[Japanese Media] Thank you, everybody. My name is Bill Nakamura, Wake Fonekai, Japanese Media. I have a question about China. You said the biggest threat in the long-term, is China insecurity welfare Do you think the other NATO member countries share the assessment you have? Share the same assessment as you have? And, let me clarify on 5G. Are you telling that other NATO countries to exclude Chinese technology from the Siberian communication infrastructure? Thank you.
So, I can’t speak for all the NATO countries, but, I will tell ya, collectively I think United States has come to a, we realize, later than we probably should have, that China is in a strategic competition with us, and, has some maligned purposes with regard to where they want to take the global international order, and, arguably, some of our NATO allies, many of our NATO allies, are maybe coming late to that realization is possible. I think for all of us, it’s an education process. During my first NATO ministerial here in June, I made that point in a couple different sessions. I made it again at different times here these past couple days, and again, I think you have to look, there’s probably a spectrum of where each country is on this issue. But, to us, it’s a very serious, long-term strategic challenge we need to deal with. It’s not that we’re looking for China to be an adversary in the future, but, their trajectory is not one that we think supports the common values, the common interests, all those things in defense of the international order, that have really secured our prosperity, our values, and our security for the last 70-plus years.
[Host] All right. We’ll go right down here, in the front row.
[Afghan Media] Thank you, I am (afghani name) from Afghan Media Press. The United States announced that the new rounds of peace talks will soon restart, but, will the United States push Taliban for a ceasefire before negotiations resume?
I’m not, those are sensitive diplomatic negotiations, if, and when, they begin, I’m not gonna get in front of our state department. Obviously, we think that a, uh, a reduction in violence is very important as we consider and conclude an agreement.
[Host] (speaking off mike) …one last one, Nancy Youssef.
[Nancy] Mr. Secretary, you said that defeating ISIS remains a core mission. Can you help us understand why that core mission demands ground troops for defending oil fields, and not doing things like, securing Iraqi prisoners and some of the other measures that you were doing? And, also, could you offer some specifics? Has the President been presented with a plan for these additional troops and some of the mechanized forces, if so, and you said that it was being considered, when do you anticipate we’ll have more specifics on when a decision has been made?
Yes, you said Iraqi prisoners, I think you meant ISIS prisoners. Yeah, so, we are in close contact with the SDF on the ground. The SDF has assured us that all, within the area under their control, all ISIS prisoners are being secured. That’s good news. I’ve spoken to the Turkish defense minister, he informs me that all the ISIS prisoners, uh, prisons in their area are under their control, and actually informed me that they’ve been able to re-collect some of them. So that’s good news. Yeah, that’s news for you, see? I think the other part of this, too, the second part is, the securing of the oil fields. The commanders make their assessments on what troops to bring, or what forces, based on the threat they see. And so, we are always managing the force, adapting it to those measures. That’s why we think the need for that, in terms of that location, to have forces available.
[Nancy] (speaking off mike)
That’s what the, you should follow up with the Turkish defense minister. But that’s, they informed me that they had re-collected some of the, that 100 that we estimated were released.
[Host] All right guys, thank you very much.
Thank you.