Tuesday, March 20, 2001 - 1:00 p.m. EST
Quigley: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I have several announcements this afternoon.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz will host an honor cordon today at 2:30 to welcome Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs Irakli Menagharishvili to the Pentagon. This will be his first meeting with Secretary Wolfowitz. They're expected to discuss Russian troop withdrawals from Georgia, regional security issues and our security relationship with Georgia. The meeting is expected to last about 30 minutes, and the cordon will be held on the steps of the River entrance. [The press advisory for this event is on the Web at http://www.defenselink.mil/advisories/2001/p03192001_p052-01.html ]
Second, the United Kingdom Minister of Defense Geoffrey Hoon will meet with Secretary Rumsfeld here tomorrow. Secretary Rumsfeld will host an honor cordon at 9:30, again at the River entrance. And at 10:30 Secretary Rumsfeld and Minister Hoon will hold a joint press conference here in the briefing room. [The press advisory for this event is on the Web at http://www.defenselink.mil/advisories/2001/p03202001_p054-01.html ]
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark will join his Singaporean counterpart Rear Admiral Lui Tuck Yew in commemorating the new deep draft pier at Changi Naval Base this Friday, March 23rd. USS Kitty Hawk will be the first aircraft carrier to moor at the new pier. This new facility is one of the few piers in the Pacific that is large enough to berth an aircraft carrier and only one of two located in Southeast Asia, the other being Port Klang in Malaysia. The strategic location of Changi pier will enhance regional stability as mooring pierside facilitates maintaining and provisioning carriers and large-deck amphibious ships. [The news release for this event is on the Web at http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2001/b03202001_bt118-01.html ]
Next, the USS Blue Ridge, flagship for Commander Seventh Fleet and part of the Navy's forward deployed forces in Yokosuka, Japan, will make a port call to Shanghai, the People's Republic of China, arriving this Friday, March 23rd and departing March 26th. The port call will provide the crew with a chance for sightseeing, cultural exchanges and to foster goodwill between the U.S. and China.
And finally, we have with us today a group of six government spokespersons from Croatia that are here with us to observe the relationship and communication between the news media and the Department of Defense. Welcome to you all.
With that I'll take your questions. Charlie.
Q: Should we be nice to you today, then?
Quigley: Never required, but always appreciated.
Q: Craig, how is the United States going to respond to NATO's request to add troops to KFOR?
Quigley: Charlie, I'm not sure there's been a request yet. I mean, you all have read the same remarks that I have read from Lord Robertson yesterday. Clearly his words sound to me as if he's leaning in the direction of asking for additional forces from the 19 member nations of NATO. But I will say I have not been able to find anywhere where such a request has actually been made. So I guess that's the short answer to your question. There is a process for that, should the request come, that the U.S. government follows, and certainly the Department of Defense would be a part of that process. But that has not started yet.
Q: Would the United States feel inclined -- would the United States feel inclined, and the United States feel it necessary, to add troops to KFOR now?
Quigley: Well, I wouldn't presume to speak for the president's decision ultimately on that. This is an intergovernmental process that we follow here in the United States. Other countries may do it differently. But the United States government process calls on a variety of agencies and areas of expertise within the government to offer their views on appropriate force levels in addition to the regular six-month review, but this clearly sounds to me again as if this is something that Lord Robertson had spoken of in a different voice other than the regular six-month review.
If it would be helpful, I've got a chart that I think shows the FYROM-Kosovo border. And I can talk a little bit about troop placements and stuff like that. Would that be helpful? I won't take your time if not --
Q: (Off mike) -- Secretary Rumsfeld's view on this question.
Quigley: Again, Bob, he's not going to presume to get out ahead of the president in this regard. We have a process that works pretty well about determining what U.S. force levels should be. I mean, I think --
If you all are not familiar with the process by which NATO goes out and seeks additional or different forces to accomplish a particular sort of a tasking, rarely does NATO go and ask for a particular size of unit.
They will ask for a capability, and then that capability, through NATO headquarters, goes out to all 19 of the NATO nations. And the request is basically something along the lines, NATO has a need to accomplish this sort of capability in Kosovo or wherever, and can any of the member nations accomplish, or fill that need? And then each of the 19 nations debates internally as to if it can, is it willing to, does it have the forces that are ready and trained and appropriately prepared to accomplish that mission, then responds to NATO headquarters with its answer. And then eventually you'll get responses from all 19 of the nations and the NATO headquarters staff will assess those and determine the way ahead from there. So that's kind of how the process works.
Q: Well, Craig, obviously the idea here is not so much to keep peace in Kosovo but to keep the Albanians from crossing the border back into Macedonia, where a civil war is brewing.
Q: How does the United States feel about that, the need to tighten that border going both ways?
Quigley: Yeah, you bet. Very importantly, Charlie, let me address that first, before I turn to the chart here. I will talk about the movement of some additional forces from the operational reserve down to that border, but the U.S. -- this is partly in the United States's sector, as you can see there from the chart, and partly in the German sector, as well. I'll address my remarks here today to only the United States portion of that.
But it's something that we feel is very important, is to keep that border. And border -- if you go to a border between most countries, you'll find some sort of a physical marking, a fence line, something that will mark the boundaries between the two countries. No such marking exists here. You're talking about extremely rugged terrain; the topography is very, very tough -- very hilly, deep ravines, sharply pitched hillsides, things of that sort. Very few roads that go over the region. A lot of traveling by people that live there is done horseback, by mules, things of that sort. The roads that do exist are few and very poorly maintained. So it's just a very difficult section of territory to monitor.
But if I could, let me turn to the chart here for a minute. [The chart is on the Web at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2001/010320-D-6570C-001.jpg ]
This is really the area that we're talking about. From here -- here's the border, going north and south here, between Albania and FYROM over here. So you're talking of this point up to about here. And again, this is, again, the corner of the border, if you will, between FYROM here and Serbia.
The tan or brown color is Kosovo. You can see the national flags there of the various nations' sectors. Here's the United States' sector in Multinational Brigade East. It's outlined there.
The colored border is the ground safety zone. This is the one we've been talking about in the last couple of weeks -- Sector Charlie East. This is that about five kilometer by five kilometer box, the very, very southernmost tip of the ground safety zone, that has now been the FRY police, and military units have been allowed back in there. And so far, they have been conducting themselves extremely well, absolutely in accordance with the agreements, and there have been no incidents between Albanian extremists there and the FRY police and military.
The rest of this colored band here is the rest of the ground safety zone, and that's that five-kilometer band surrounding all of Kosovo.
So the real part of the border here that I can discuss today goes from here, which is the boundary of the U.S. and German sector, between the two, and up here into Sector Charlie East, which is the southernmost part of the ground safety zone -- so this section right in here.
Now you have not only U.S. forces that are a part of that sector; you also have a Polish-Ukrainian battalion that is in the American sector. And just a couple of days ago, the Spanish three-star commander of KFOR directed the deployment of the operational reserve, which is Task Force Viking -- and this is a U.K. company, a Norwegian company, and a Norwegian headquarters element -- down into that part of the border as well.
So you have increased numbers of troops on that border between the FRY and FYROM. You have checkpoints. You have the interdiction of arms shipments as they have come -- either coming or going, into or out of Kosovo; discovery of some arms caches on the Kosovo side of the border; and an increased level of effort in the observation and reporting of activity, from helicopters, soldiers with binoculars, and any other form of observation and reporting that you can do.
So U.S. forces, and the others in our sector there, have stepped up their activities considerably in the last few days to try to neck down the amount of smuggling and movements of people, both north and south, along that section of the border.
Q: So exactly how many U.S. troops out of that sector are down there with the responsibility for patrolling the border?
Quigley: It's three battalions, I believe, David are --
Q: Three battalions at the border?
Quigley: No, no, no. Three battalions in all of our sector, okay? So you have the first -- a battalion of U.S., a Polish- Ukrainian battalion, and then you have Task Force Viking, which is the U.K. and Norwegian companies, plus a Norwegian headquarters company as well, headquarters unit.
Q: So how many troops total is that?
Quigley: I don't have a total number. I know Task Force Viking is about 300, Mik, total additional. Those have moved down there only in the past few days, but they are directly on the border area itself. So you've got 300 more forces.
Now, in the meantime, U.S. responsibilities include the monitoring of activities here on the eastern side of our sector along the Presevo Valley on the edge of the ground safety zone. So that responsibility hasn't gone away by any stretch. But you have raised the profile, raised the level of activity, and raised the numbers of forces that are arrayed along that border there between FYROM and FRY.
Q: How many troops are along that border?
Quigley: I don't have a total number. I know it was 300 more than it was just a few days ago, by the addition of Task Force Viking. Let me see if I can get a number for you.
Q: The State Department yesterday expressed specifically your commitment to guarantee the territorial integrity of FYROM on a bilateral level between USA and FYROM, and also -- (inaudible) -- right now trying to explain to us. And are you planning to take specific steps as the U.S. government for the protection of the territorial integrity of FYROM?
Quigley: I don't feel I'm in a position to respond to that. I think that would be better to the State Department, honestly.
Q: From the military point, how do you plan to give to them guns because FYROM is totally defenseless, and as we said earlier, because of the terrain and the topography. There's a lot of activity right now. Are you planning to use, for example, air power to prevent that kind of move inside FYROM?
Quigley: No, I think at this point our intentions are to continue to operate in a NATO context on the Kosovo side of the border to try to limit as much as we can the movement of people and equipment and weapons back and forth across that border between FYROM and Kosovo.
Q: Is the United States --
Q: But when I asked Mr. Boucher to clarify yesterday, he told me specifically both ways, as a U.S. government and also as a U.S. government in the framework of NATO. So I know NATO -- (inaudible) -- KFOR. But as a U.S. government, as a Department of Defense, are you taking concrete steps to this effect to protect the territorial integrity of FYROM?
Quigley: It is something that you have heard the U.S. government say as well as NATO leadership, that all 19, including the United States, is committed to the boundaries that you see right now. They -- we absolutely believe that the relatively small number of extremists that are carrying this out do not speak for the vast majority of the people of FYROM. It's a -- there are better ways to do this other than armed violence along a section of the country. FYROM is an ethnically diverse country that has developed methods over time of working out and incorporating the opinions and views of many in its local and national government system. That is the way that individuals should have -- should surface their disagreements with whatever policies they don't agree with, not resorting to armed violence.
Q: Is the United States prepared in any way to provide arms to the Macedonian government to help stop this insurgency from the other side?
Quigley: I'm not aware of any decision by the U.S. government to do that, no.
Q: Any move to increase the number of NATO troops inside of Macedonia? There's a report that there are now -- that several hundred German troops have gone into Tetovo. Do you know what that was all about?
Quigley: Well, we have -- I'll draw a rough analogy. A U.S. logistics hub is at Skopje, Camp Able Sentry there, within FYROM. The Germans have a similar sort of arrangement at Tetovo, and that is acting as their logistics head. And it's located on a relatively major north-south road that will allow supplies and other logistics support to move pretty much straight north into their sector of Kosovo. So that's why they are there. And I have read reports of the Germans moving some of their additional equipment and some people both into and out of there. But I would refer you to the Germans as to what actions are actually taken.
But that is the significance to them of Tetovo.
Q: So they're only there because they have a supply op there? They're not there to reinforce the Macedonian military or help them in any way?
Quigley: I won't pretend to speak for the government of Germany. You should ask them what their goals are in moving forces and equipment in and out of there.
Q: How many Americans, by the way, are at Camp Able Sentry right now?
Quigley: I don't know that, either. Let me take that.
Q: Back on these battalions that are down there on the border, the U.S. and the Polish-Ukraine. Have they been there all along, or is this a relatively new deployment?
Quigley: Task Force Viking, you mean?
Q: No, no. The -- that's the 300 additional.
Quigley: That's the 300 additional.
Q: The U.S. battalion and the Polish-Ukrainian battalion that is also down there. How long have they been there? Have they been recently deployed down there?
Quigley: I don't think so. Let me double-check, but I think those are forces that have existed there for some time.
Q: We've been reading wire stories about sending additional U.S. troops down to that border, so I guess the question is, has there been any reinforcement of U.S. troops down on the border?
Quigley: Within the sector, we may have repositioned some closer to the border, but in overall numbers, the numbers have remained the same. But let me check on recent movements, David, down towards the border area.
Q: I don't get the distinction there. You've repositioned some closer to the border?
Quigley: Mm-hmm. (Affirmation.) And if I understand your --
Q: (Inaudible) -- it sounds like you're reinforcing troops along the border.
Quigley: Reinforced, to me, means going to a larger number. I have the freedom to reposition forces within my sector completely at the discretion of the U.S. Forces Commander.
Q: If you took forces from the northern part of that sector and sent them down to the south along the border, I would call that reinforcing the troops along the border.
Quigley: Well, it certainly increases the numbers that you have at any given point in -- you know, and I'm not sure when the U.S. forces were moved, and I'll see if I can find that out for you.
Q: What increase in numbers has there been in U.S. forces along the border, and when?
Quigley: Okay. All right.
Q: How close to the border are they operating, and what are their instructions? What are they specifically supposed to do there? And if it's such an ill-defined border, isn't there a danger that U.S. troops may in fact find themselves in Macedonia, caught up in this -- it's not a civil war, yet -- but this insurgency that's going on there?
Quigley: Well, the answer to the first part of your question is, very close. You can look across the border and you can see the movement of people and animals and look into a village in FYROM from an observation point in Kosovo. So it's a couple of kilometers in some instances where they're very close. The forces -- I will just say that the forces there in that sector are very much aware of the position of the border and try their very best to make sure that they stay on the north side.
Q: And specifically what are their instructions? What are they supposed to do there?
Quigley: They have continued to man checkpoints, to inspect vehicles, to watch for the movement of people going north or south, to look for weapons caches, interdict contraband of all kinds, and to patrol visibly that border area to try to reduce the movement of people and equipment north and south.
Q: And they've been fired at from across the border, and has there been any hot pursuit across the border to stop this fire or return fire?
Quigley: Neither that I'm aware of.
Q: Are they to engage in any fighting other than in self- defense?
Quigley: They have rules of engagement that are in place and understood by all.
Q: Camp Able Sentry is right next to the Skopje International Airport, which is a militarily vulnerable point, potentially, for a force that might move into that area. Have there been any plans to reinforce Camp Able Sentry with U.S. troops coming down from Kosovo?
Quigley: Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q: Craig, if you go back a couple of years to the air war, there was contact between NATO and what was then the KLA. What does the United States know about the composition of these forces, these Albanian forces that are fighting in Macedonia now? What connection do they have to the old KLA? To what extent do they operate in and out of Kosovo? What's basically the U.S. intelligence on them?
Quigley: We think that the overall numbers are quite small. We think that the demographics are of young men who do not have families, who do not have jobs, who are very nationalistic in their views, and whose goal is to disrupt the status quo.
And they're hotheads and they're extremists, by anyone's yardstick.
If there's any comfort to be taken in their activities, we do feel that the numbers of them are quite small and that they do not represent the views of the vast majority of the people living in the FYROM.
Q: And are they from Macedonia, are they from Kosovo, or a mixture of the two?
Quigley: I have not seen that subject treated. I'm not sure that we know.
Q: Has there been any kind of contact with them on the ground?
Quigley: Not that I'm aware of, no. Not at all.
Q: How many -- what's the size of that force? You say "quite small."
Quigley: Yeah. Other than "quite small," we don't have a very good fix on what that number means. But it's in the hundreds; it's not in the thousands or tens of thousands or something like that. But I can't -- we don't have a good handle on the exact number.
Q: And the troops that -- the Viking task force or whatever --
Quigley: Task Force Viking.
Q: Where do they come from? Do they come from --
Quigley: Multinational Brigade Central, the British sector that you see there, and this is an operational reserve that the KFOR commander is free to move where he feels it needs to be moved. And in this case, it was moved down into the U.S. sector along the border.
Q: Do you know what kind of troops they are?
Quigley: Infantry, light infantry.
Q: You said there's 300?
Quigley: About 300, mm-hmm.
Q: Does intel tell us who is training these extremists and who is running them?
Quigley: Not that I have seen, no.
Q: Is there any air power associated with these increased patrols? You mentioned forces on the ground. Are there increased -- is there increased flying in this area as well?
Quigley: We have -- I don't know about numbers of sorties, but we have had helicopters and UAVs at our disposal in that sector from the get-go. And they are focusing more of their looking and observation capabilities along that border in order to get a leg up and see what's going on, with as much warning as possible.
Q: And if they see people bringing items across the border in an unpatrolled or -- a place where there's no checkpoint, are they engaging them?
Quigley: We are moving to interdict people as they would come across the border with weapons or any sort of contraband. And we have, indeed, stopped people and confiscated the contraband that they're bringing with them, and turned them over to civil authorities in Kosovo.
Q: So the helicopters land and troops intercept these people?
Quigley: No, the helicopters just report. They're not landing and taking the action themselves; they report to forces on the ground who then move according.
Q: But given your description of how rugged this area is, and if they're reporting it, are people always able to get there and do something about it?
Quigley: Maybe not initially, but you can watch for awhile. Sooner or later they have to come to a place where they're easier to get to. And as long as you're just watching where they're going and keep track of them, then you just bide your time and choose your landscape accordingly.
Q: How much of that information is being shared with the Macedonians?
Quigley: I don't know.
Q: Is there information being shared --
Quigley: Some, I'm sure is, in order to deconflict activities along that border, Mik, I'm sure. But --
Q: Not in terms of KFOR movements, but in terms of what we may be seeing -- what KFOR may be seeing in terms of movement by these insurgents --
Quigley: On the FYROM side, yes.
Q: Right. Is that information -- let's say it can't be interdicted; is that information then passed on to the Macedonians?
Quigley: If it is, it would be going through NATO channels, and I'm not sure of the mechanics of that.
Q: Does Secretary Rumsfeld discuss this with Secretary Powell?
Quigley: In his daily phone call with Dr. Rice, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld and occasionally the vice president, it has been discussed many times.
Q: What is the contraband that has been confiscated?
Quigley: Mostly weapons. But there's an element of criminal smuggling to this as well, David. And the same would go also for the sector Charlie East there, as you start into the ground safety zone. Knowing full well that the FRY military or police forces were not allowed in there, it was pretty much an avenue of safe movement for not only extremists but also criminals, to any sort of contraband they think they could sell for a profit. And so you're seeing some of each, but a lot of it is weapons that we feel are going to support the extremists and the insurgents.
Q: Another subject?
Quigley: Can I go back to answering one? David, I think this was yours.
Before the 26th of February, there were about 150 U.S. troops near the border area. And then on or about the 26th of February, about 150 more moved to the border area. And that brings us to now about 300 U.S. near that border area.
And someone asked the question -- I don't remember who it was -- on how many at Camp Able Sentry in Skopje. That's about 400 total. And again, those are logistics forces, for the most part.
Quigley: Four hundred U.S., right, Chris.
Q: You don't know the number of Polish, Ukrainian? Is it about the same number, 300?
Quigley: Again, I don't have that one. Maybe another note will walk in before we're done here. But it's about 300 U.S., about 300 in Task Force Viking. And if we don't get it before the end of the brief, Mik, we'll get that number for you as well.
Q: That's 300 along the border, and then the rest of the battalion is scattered throughout that district that's marked on the --
Quigley: Well, the rest of the battalions. I mean, there are additional U.S. forces in our sector, arrayed in other parts of the sector, yes.
Q: Well, a battalion is more than 300 troops.
Quigley: Right. You have elements of a battalion totaling about 300 in that part of the border.
Q: Another subject? Are we finished with this one?
Q: Unfortunately, I want to -- (off mike).
Quigley: Okay. We'll stay in the Balkans for a second. Yes, go ahead.
Q: Do you have anything on the departing U.S. forces from Bosnia, as it was announced it's in process? (Inaudible) -- they left from the area, how many, numbers, et cetera, logistics?
Quigley: I think the turnover of forces is just beginning. I want to say it was started last week sometime. So that process is just beginning now. And there's really nothing different than what we were discussing here when I was briefing last Thursday.
Q: This is a rotation, or they are leaving permanently?
Quigley: You're seeing a rotation take place between elements of the U.S. forces in Bosnia. But some of the forces, as they rotate out, are not being replaced. Apache helicopters is a good example of that, will not be replaced, as these were pieces of equipment and the soldiers to run them at a level above our commitment to NATO. And we just don't see the conditions on the ground anymore in Bosnia that warrant this extra level of forces. So as this rotation takes place, it's a good opportunity to rotate out those forces that we no longer feel we have a need for, and that's Apaches, it's elements of heavy armor, it's some armored personnel carriers. Net reduction of people from about 4,400 down to about 3,550.
Q: On the ground safety zone, the letting FRY forces into Sector C-East, Charlie East, has gone well, I gather.
Q: When do you plan to let them into the other sectors?
Quigley: Well, that would be a NATO decision, and it's something I know they're actively evaluating, but I don't have a time line.
Q: Can we change the subject now?
Quigley: If we do, then I'm going to start here. Any other questions on the Balkans? Go ahead.
Q: Okay. There has been an exchange in correspondence between the secretary and the governor of Puerto Rico.
Q: On March 9th, the secretary wrote to the governor, saying that there was going to be a resumption of training according to existing agreements. The governor of Puerto Rico responded on March 13th saying that she wanted a clarification in terms of what the secretary meant about resumption of training and existing agreements; if that meant that the training would not be resumed until the health studies came in. Last week, I had asked you in the briefing if they were connected, the resumption of training and the health studies, and I believe at that time you had said that you believed there was no link. I'd like to know if the secretary has answered, and if there is a link?
Quigley: I don't think he has answered yet.
Q: He has not answered yet. There was a hearing this morning on encroachment in the Military Readiness Subcommittee in the Senate, and Senator Inhofe said that the issue of Vieques is one of the most critical crises that the Navy is facing at this time. Also, that Vice Admiral Michael Mullen, I believe, of the Second Fleet, has stated that he was concerned that because this latest battle group, the USS Enterprise, has not been able to train in Vieques, it will receive some adequate training, but not up to par. Is the secretary concerned that this battle group has not received the adequate training in Vieques? Is this battle group still going to receive it before deploying at the end of April, for --
Quigley: I think the secretary is always concerned about the combat readiness of U.S. military forces, period. The final resolutions on the training particulars for the Enterprise Battle Group have simply not yet been resolved.
Q: So there is the possibility that training does occur in Vieques prior to the land transfer, for example, that is scheduled for May 1st?
Quigley: I'll stick to my answer.
Q: Craig, two -- (To journalist.) Are you going to change from Vieques?
Q: Does that mean that you could have a carrier battle group dropping inert ordnance in Vieques before it deploys?
Quigley: No, it means that the final details on the training of the Enterprise Battle Group have not yet been determined.
Q: Well --
Q: What did the secretary's letter mean? What did he mean by resumption of training?
Quigley: We have not shared the secretary's letter of March 9th to the governor.
Q: (Off mike) -- I mean, can't you comment on it, tell us what it means?
Quigley: Won't do it from here.
Q: I thought you had announced sort of an alternate set of training arrangements, sort of a Plan B for the Enterprise. Are you now -- that did not include the inner range at Vieques. Is there now some change on that?
Quigley: There's been a lot of training that's gone into the air wing and the surface ships of the Enterprise Battle Group.
Q: But does that involve Vieques? Is any of it going to involve Vieques?
Quigley: It already has. I believe elements trained there in December. Elements used the outer range, exercised just two or three weeks ago, and --
Q: The outer range is not Vieques.
Quigley: And the outer range is not Vieques.
Quigley: But it's all part of the Puerto Rican operating area.
Q: Let's keep it real simple. Enterprise, Vieques -- going to use Vieques before it deploys or not?
Q: The inner --
Q: Inner range --
Quigley: I'll say for the third time, if you wish.
Q: All right. Sure.
Quigley: The final training activities for the Enterprise Battle Group have not yet been resolved.
Q: But we hear that as a change because you told us -- was it a week ago? -- that they would be using the air -- the waters around Vieques, but not using the inner range.
Quigley: That was when they were part of that exercise that I think is now complete.
Quigley: That is -- that was true.
Q: It sounds very much like the Defense Department has changed its mind, and maybe the secretary personally has changed his mind about exactly what training should take place on this, quote, unquote, "inner range." Is that true?
Quigley: You're reading more into this than it deserves. It's a very complicated issue that the secretary wants to take out of the public fora of debate and is going to work this differently than it has been worked in the past. I'm not calling this simple, but he has chosen to work this a different way.
Q: There is an existing presidential directive, the report that the secretary was due to submit to the White House on March 9th, regarding the training that the Navy is going to conduct through May 1st, 2003. Has that report finally been sent to the White House?
Quigley: I don't believe so.
Q: What is the holdup?
Quigley: We're not done with it yet.
Q: Because -- (off mike) -- report?
Quigley: We got it the other day, and I don't think it's moved forward yet.
Q: Change? Two quick questions. We're now, if they began on time, about a half an hour into the court of inquiry in Pearl. Do you know or can you find out for us if Commander Waddle will, indeed, testify today even though he has not been granted partial immunity?
And secondly, a deep draft port in Singapore: is the Navy looking at Singapore to replace what we used to use in the Philippines, as a base for advanced movements and to -- (word inaudible) -- ships and what have you?
Quigley: Well, on the first part of the question, I wouldn't presume to guess what Admiral Fargo would decide. I'm sure he'll make his announcements on --
Q: He decided yesterday.
Q: He decided yesterday. He denied limited immunity. But the lawyer for Waddle is supposed to begin today to determine and state publicly for the court whether or not Commander Waddle will, in fact, testify even though he has not been granted immunity. That should be taking place right now. I'm just wondering could somebody find out for us.
Quigley: I would refer you to the folks out in Hawaii, Ivan.
Q: The second part, the second question --
Quigley: The second part, I don't think you're taking a look -- I don't think anybody's thinking of the pier that's been opened -- or, will be opened Friday as a replacement for the facilities at Subic Bay. Was that the question?
Quigley: That was really an extensive -- truly was an overseas base. You had people -- U.S. military members, families stationed there. Extensive ship repair facilities, logistics support -- just tons of stuff. Aircraft, ships, the works. I think while this is a positive develop that allows you to put an aircraft carrier in one of only a very precious few places alongside a pier in that part of the world, I don't think the plan that anybody that I have heard discuss to develop it to the extent that the former Subic Bay Naval Base was developed, I don't think that's in the cards.
Q: But you've got to begin somewhere, and it could be that we're getting a little bit pregnant with this. Is Singapore in favor of allowing us to expand and build up there, do you know?
Quigley: Well, again, it's just not something that I've heard discussed in any way, shape or form to further develop that beyond just the ability -- you can get resupply. I mean, that's what you get when you get food, parts, fuel, all that sorts of things. It's simply easier to do if you can come alongside a pier to do it. But the very large infrastructure that surrounded the former base at Subic Bay, I have not heard that discussed at all.
Q: Housekeeping. What's the status of the budget? Is it May now? Is it June?
Quigley: I don't know if the president has announced or OMB has announced what date they plan on presenting that to the Congress. I have not heard that.
Q: Thank you.
Q: Just to get back to Singapore, perhaps, Craig? Is the Navy going to take care of its own security at this pier, or has the Singapore government provided extra security?
Quigley: That's a good question, Dale. It's one of those spots around the world, one of dozens around the world that you have to enter into very detailed bilateral discussions with the local Singapore authorities as to who does what.
And at the end of the day, you have to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to the Navy and to the country of Singapore.
So from their perspective, this is a sovereign piece of Singapore over which they do not have any desire to surrender their sovereignty, understandably. And from the Navy's perspective, or other transiting U.S. forces, for that matter, you've got to make sure that you maintain the safety of the equipment and of the people that are using it for however brief or long a period of time. So it's going to be a very detailed discussion to make sure that both parties' needs can be met.
Q: So there is no agreement in place at this point?
Quigley: I think --
Q: (Off mike) -- going in there, I would assume there's some kind of agreement.
Quigley: Yeah, before that first U.S. vessel pulls alongside that pier, you can be sure that the needs of both the Navy, in this case, and the government of Singapore have been met.
Now, you could have a changing circumstance. Six months from now, another ship could go in there; you could have different circumstances politically in the world or in that region, and what was a perfectly fine set of arrangements for the Kitty Hawk's initial visit could not be adequate. And so this is never a done deal; it is never complete. And you have to constantly reassess your security needs to make sure that the measures being contemplated to put in place fit the circumstances that you find at that time. Very complex and really a job never done.
Q: But before the Kitty Hawk, will there be a security perimeter set up, for example?
Quigley: I don't know the particular details that have been agreed to, but -- like a perimeter, and who does it and what distance. I'm just not privy to those details. But they'll be worked out to the satisfaction of both sides before that port visit will take place.
Q: Will it be a liberty call? Will sailors get liberty?
Quigley: I don't have that either, I'm sorry.
THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS PREPARED BY THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE, INC., WASHINGTON, DC. FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE IS A PRIVATE COMPANY. FOR OTHER DEFENSE RELATED TRANSCRIPTS NOT AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE, CONTACT FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE AT (202) 347-1400.