Joint Press Conference with Secretary Gates and Minister MacKay From Ottawa, Canada

MODERATOR: At this time I would like to invite the Hon­or­able Peter Mack­ay, min­is­ter of nation­al defense, and U.S. sec­re­tary of defense, the Hon­or­able Dr. Robert Gates, to the stage.

MIN. PETER MACKAY: Thank you very much, Cap­tain. And first of all I want to thank my friend, Sec­re­tary Robert Gates, for his fifth vis­it to Cana­da and also for his per­son­al flex­i­bil­i­ty in help­ing to rede­fine the scope of our meet­ings today. As you’re prob­a­bly aware, it’s unfor­tu­nate that our Mex­i­can col­league, Sec­re­tary of Defense Gen­er­al Gal­van, was unable to join us today due to ill­ness. We are hope­ful that we can sched­ule this tri­lat­er­al meet­ing as soon as pos­si­ble.

Clear­ly work­ing togeth­er, defense insti­tu­tions in Mex­i­co, the Unit­ed States and in Cana­da have a lot to con­tribute to the secu­ri­ty of North Amer­i­ca. For our part, our dis­cus­sions today, we’re focused on bilat­er­al, hemi­spher­ic and glob­al issues.

TRANSLATOR: Cana­da and the Unit­ed States are part­ners for a long peri­od of time, in terms of defense and our bilat­er­al rela­tions are very sol­id. Threats to our secu­ri­ty are extreme­ly com­plex and for this rea­son we must work togeth­er even more.

MIN. MACKAY: Today, I feel con­fi­dent in say­ing that Sec­re­tary Gates and I were suc­cess­ful in strength­en­ing and expand­ing the already strong defense rela­tion­ship that exists between our two coun­tries and in improv­ing our bilat­er­al coor­di­na­tion to effec­tive­ly address threats to our com­mon secu­ri­ty. Sec­re­tary Gates and I also addressed impor­tant issues relat­ed to the secu­ri­ty of our hemi­sphere, includ­ing the strate­gic role played by the great states of Ore­gon and Wash­ing­ton. We dis­cussed a sit­u­a­tion in Mex­i­co and Cen­tral Amer­i­ca and about how we can help our part­ners in the region. We also pledged to have our armed forces con­tin­ue to sup­port the impor­tant work of civil­ian law enforce­ment agen­cies encoun­ter­ing illic­it activ­i­ties such as nar­cotics, human traf­fick­ing and pira­cy, and of course mil­i­tary pro­cure­ments like the F‑35 pro­gram.

On the bilat­er­al front, we dis­cussed our bilat­er­al efforts through NORAD as well as new chal­lenges fac­ing our defense and secu­ri­ty insti­tu­tions such as mar­itime domain aware­ness which now falls under NORAD, and ways to make our mar­itime approach­es safer and cyber threats, and to that end empow­er­ing the Joint Per­ma­nent Board on Defense to con­tin­ue its impor­tant work. The sec­re­tary and I also dis­cussed impor­tant glob­al issues. Afghanistan of course fig­ured promi­nent­ly in the dis­cus­sion, NATO, and glob­al chal­lenges like Iran. We also touched on his recent vis­it to Chi­na and issues relat­ing to Rus­sia.

TRANSLATOR: The threat to our secu­ri­ty does not respect the bor­ders, and for this rea­son we shall con­tin­ue to work togeth­er.

MIN. MACKAY: Hemi­spher­ic or glob­al prob­lems. Nei­ther the Unit­ed States nor Cana­da, nor Mex­i­co for that mat­ter, can afford to work in iso­la­tion. What Sec­re­tary Gates and I dis­cussed today will deep­en the unique part­ner­ship between our coun­tries on impor­tant defense issues and ulti­mate­ly increase secu­ri­ty for our cit­i­zens and our coor­di­nat­ed con­tri­bu­tions to glob­al secu­ri­ty.
Bob.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES: Thank you, Peter. Thanks as well to the peo­ple of Ottawa for their warm hos­pi­tal­i­ty dur­ing this vis­it, the hos­pitabil­i­ty con­sid­er­ably warmer than the weath­er.

I too regret that Mex­i­can Defense Sec­re­tary Gal­van is not feel­ing well. We sure­ly wish him a speedy recov­ery and look for­ward to future oppor­tu­ni­ties to ini­ti­ate tri­lat­er­al dis­cus­sions.

Min­ster Mack­ay and I agreed some time ago that despite the Unit­ed States and Canada’s fre­quent engage­ment in multi­na­tion­al secu­ri­ty forums such as NATO and our ISAF talks, there remains a need to strength­en the U.S.- Cana­di­an bilat­er­al defense rela­tion­ship. I’m glad we were able to con­tin­ue that dia­logue with today’s pro­duc­tive dis­cus­sions.

In our meet­ings, Min­is­ter Mack­ay and I fol­lowed up on the issues raised last week at the 226th meet­ing of the Per­ma­nent Joint Board on Defense, a bilat­er­al forum whose longevi­ty is a tes­ti­mo­ny to the endur­ing nature of the U.S.-Canada alliance. We dis­cussed expand­ing our coop­er­a­tion in the Arc­tic, coor­di­nat­ing our mar­itime secu­ri­ty assis­tance to Caribbean allies, and shar­ing our best defense prac­tices for sup­port­ing civil­ian author­i­ties. The Cana­di­an military’s work dur­ing last year’s Olympics is an admirable exam­ple of how to pro­vide this kind of sup­port.

Peter and I agree that increas­ing­ly the threats we face on the North Amer­i­can con­ti­nent, from transna­tion­al crim­i­nal orga­ni­za­tions includ­ing NARCO traf­fick­ers to nation­al dis­as­ters, require a high lev­el of coor­di­na­tion among mul­ti­ple agen­cies in our two gov­ern­ments. Last Octo­ber, the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­ri­ty and Pub­lic Safe­ty Cana­da par­tic­i­pat­ed in a joint exer­cise in strength­en­ing cyber defense. Mov­ing for­ward, we’ll exam­ine togeth­er how the advanced defens­es of our mil­i­tary net­works might also be applied to pro­tect crit­i­cal civil­ian infra­struc­ture.

I was also grate­ful for the chance to reit­er­ate the Unit­ed States Government’s strong com­mit­ment to the joint strike fire, the F‑35, which con­tin­ues to ben­e­fit from Cana­di­an col­lab­o­ra­tion dur­ing devel­op­ment. Despite some recent adjust­ments to the pro­gram, I am con­fi­dent that the F‑35 will be the back­bone of our tac­ti­cal air force fleet for years to come, and I’m pleased that the Cana­di­an mil­i­tary will make it theirs as well.

And of course our mil­i­taries col­lab­o­rate most close­ly in Afghanistan. The Unit­ed States is deeply appre­cia­tive of Canada’s lead­er­ship and hard-fought and hard-won vic­to­ries in RC South. No coun­try has suf­fered more fall­en heroes pro­por­tion­ate­ly than has Cana­da, and I extend our country’s sym­pa­thy, prayers and admi­ra­tion to their fam­i­lies. As Cana­di­an forces begin tran­si­tion­ing from a com­bat role to one focused pri­mar­i­ly on train­ing the Afghan police and mil­i­tary, I’m con­vinced that they will be just as suc­cess­ful in this new capac­i­ty. As I’ve said many times before, train­ing the Afghan secu­ri­ty forces is the pil­lar of our strat­e­gy and key to our ulti­mate suc­cess.

Mov­ing for­ward, we will also con­tin­ue col­lab­o­ra­tion in mul­ti­lat­er­al forums such as last fall’s con­fer­ence of the Defense Min­is­ters of the Amer­i­c­as in Bolivia to pro­mote region­al insti­tu­tions and agree­ments that coor­di­nate human­i­tar­i­an assis­tance and dis­as­ter relief, the val­ue of which we saw so clear­ly when respond­ing to the tragedy in Haiti. The Cana­di­an — U.S. alliance is strong and endur­ing. It increas­es the safe­ty of our peo­ple at home and serves as the bedrock foun­da­tion of our efforts to pro­mote peace and secu­ri­ty in North Amer­i­ca, the west­ern hemi­sphere, and through­out the world. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Mack­ay and thank you, Sec­re­tary Gates.

I’d like to invite reporters to now raise their hand, and if you have a ques­tion, I remind you to lim­it your­self to one ques­tion. Please iden­ti­fy your­self and your media agency and to whom you are address­ing your ques­tion to.

TRANSLATOR: I now invite the jour­nal­ists to raise your hands should you have a ques­tion, and I would remind you to lim­it your­selves to one ques­tion. Please indi­cate the press agency that you rep­re­sent and spec­i­fy the per­son to whom you are ask­ing the ques­tion.

Q: Robert (inaudi­ble) from CDV News. A ques­tion to Sec­re­tary Gates.

Giv­en the cost over­runs and delays in the devel­op­ment of the F‑35, Mr. Sec­re­tary, how many F‑35s will be built and how will it affect Canada’s unit costs includ­ing in-ser­vice main­te­nance? And you know the lib­er­al par­ty, if elect­ed, say they will pull out. What would be the effect of that, of pulling out of the F‑35?

SEC. GATES: Well, we have a num­ber of inter­na­tion­al part­ners, and we have every inten­tion of a very large buy in the Unit­ed States. I think our ulti­mate goal by the time the pro­gram is com­plet­ed is some­thing on the order of 2,3[00] or 2,400 F‑35s for each of our three ser­vices — for the three ser­vices com­bined. Our cur­rent pro­gram, even after the adjust­ments to the pro­gram, is to have 325 air­craft built by 2016. We have made some adjust­ments to the pro­gram. We have thor­ough­ly reviewed the pro­gram.

The new pro­gram man­ag­er, Admi­ral Ven­let, took sev­er­al months toward the end of last year to review every sin­gle aspect of this pro­gram, 120 dif­fer­ent tech­ni­cal experts going into every cor­ner of the pro­gram. We have added about $4.5 bil­lion of U.S. funds to the sys­tem devel­op­ment bud­get to in fact make sure that we stay on the sched­ule that we now have sub­se­quent to the adjust­ments made last fall. So I’m fair­ly con­fi­dent that we are mak­ing good progress. Both the Air Force and Navy vari­ance — Cana­da is buy­ing the Air Force vari­ant — are actu­al­ly pro­gress­ing quite well. It is the short take­off ver­ti­cal land­ing air­craft that’s encoun­ter­ing some chal­lenges and the one that I’ve in essence put on pro­ba­tion. But the Air Force vari­ant as well as the Navy vari­ant are pro­ceed­ing. There don’t seem to be any sig­nif­i­cant tech­ni­cal chal­lenges so I have a lot of con­fi­dence in this pro­gram going for­ward.

We are work­ing very close­ly with the man­u­fac­tur­er in terms of cost, and par­tic­u­lar­ly dri­ving the cost down. There are no cost increas­es in the pro­gram for this year, and in fact we have nego­ti­at­ed a con­tract for the next major buy that rep­re­sents a decrease in cost, and we are going to keep work­ing on this.

Obvi­ous­ly, hav­ing all of our part­ners con­tin­ue to be with us in this pro­gram is very impor­tant, and I’m pleased at the num­ber of our allies who are going for­ward with the F‑35. It is a true fifth-gen­er­a­tion fight­er. It will give us sig­nif­i­cant capa­bil­i­ties. It will con­tin­ue the inter­op­er­abil­i­ty that has been at the heart of our NORAD rela­tion­ship for decades now. And so with­out get­ting into domes­tic affairs in Cana­da, I would just say that my hope is, that for all of our sakes, that all of our part­ners con­tin­ue to move for­ward with us on this pro­gram.

Q: Hel­lo. Bob Burns with Asso­ci­at­ed Press. May I ask a ques­tion of Sec­re­tary Gates?

I take you to a dif­fer­ent region if I could. In the Mid­dle East and North Africa, where there’s been a spread­ing wave of civ­il unrest from Tunisia, as you know, to Egypt, a major U.S. ally, to Yeomen and pos­si­bly beyond. I’m won­der­ing if you could tell us what you make of this sit­u­a­tion, where you see it head­ed, and does this unfold­ing sit­u­a­tion put at risk U.S. and nation­al secu­ri­ty inter­ests in the region?

SEC. GATES: We obvi­ous­ly have a num­ber of close friends and allies in the region with whom we work very close­ly on a wide array of issues, not just in the region but glob­al­ly. At the same time, the Unit­ed States has been clear that the human and polit­i­cal rights of peo­ple are fun­da­men­tal, and the eco­nom­ic chal­lenges that face many of the peo­ple in the Mid­dle East, as well as else­where, are impor­tant as well. And there­fore, we encour­age reform across the board that address­es these chal­lenges and look for­ward to con­tin­u­ing to work with these gov­ern­ments.

Q: Mur­ray Brew­ster with the Cana­di­an Press.

Min­ster Mack­ay, we’ve been hear­ing that the train­ing mis­sion in Afghanistan is going to be Kab­ul-cen­tric, and I’m won­der­ing if you can explain exact­ly what Kab­ul-cen­tric means and whether Cana­di­an train­ers will be restrict­ed to Kab­ul or will the go where NATO needs them?

MIN. MACKAY: Well, Mur­ray, thank you.

The inten­tion obvi­ous­ly is when we say Kab­ul-cen­tric to mean just that, that the num­ber of forces some­where in the range of 950, as you know, will flow after July into that train­ing mis­sion. That tran­si­tion will start to occur con­sis­tent with the par­lia­men­tary motion, con­sis­tent with the prime minister’s under­tak­ing. And Kab­ul-cen­tric means that based on our abil­i­ty to secure the type of facil­i­ty nec­es­sary, which, as you know, is a sta­t­ic behind-the-wire-based facil­i­ty, it will be in the capi­tol, in Kab­ul.

Now, we have looked at a few loca­tions in the near­by region, that is to say, in the North, that are in close prox­im­i­ty to Kab­ul that would also facil­i­tate the type of train­ing that we’re under­tak­ing. And we’re in nego­ti­a­tions right now with NATO, with our allies, our clos­est allies, includ­ing the Unit­ed States, to deter­mine specif­i­cal­ly some of the more urgent types of train­ing that are required.

But the feed­back that we’ve received thus far, and our chief of defense staff, Walt Natynczyk, is in these dis­cus­sions right now with Admi­ral Mullen, his coun­ter­part, as well as with Gen­er­al Petraeus, we’ve received of course a lot of direct feed­back as to where we can opti­mize that effort, where we can put Cana­di­an knowl­edge, know-how, skill and resources to the task of train­ing Afghan nation­al secu­ri­ty forces. And some of that, as you’re well aware, involves police train­ing, mil­i­tary police train­ing, in addi­tion to the clas­sic mil­i­tary train­ing that’s going on now.

We have now rough­ly 300 Cana­di­an sol­diers ded­i­cat­ed to the task of train­ing, but that is in a dif­fer­ent con­text, of course, down in the south. In RC South they are par­tic­i­pat­ing in OMLT and POMLT train­ing, so oper­a­tional men­tor­ing and liai­son for police, and that is more clear­ly in the field and out­side the wire. That train­ing will cease in July. We’ll being the sta­t­ic, on the base train­ing in and around Kab­ul.

MODERATOR: We’ll now take one last ques­tion.

Q: Thank you. Mr. MacK­ay, I’d like to know about the F‑35s, if we can come back to this sub­ject mat­ter. Your gov­ern­ment has been telling us that if we don’t pur­chase them that Cana­da will be exclud­ed from the pro­gram. I’d like to know if you dis­cussed this and what the answer was.

I can just repeat in Eng­lish. I’d just like to know if Cana­da was to decide to not buy F‑35, does it mean that we’re out of the pro­gram? Thank you.

MIN. MACKAY: (Trans­lat­ed.) First of all, it’s clear that it’s the inten­tion of our gov­ern­ment, the gov­ern­ment of Cana­da, to pro­ceed with the pur­chase. This is a sol­id deci­sion, as far as I am con­cerned, for the gov­ern­ment, and so there­fore as far as I am con­cerned, it’s a deci­sion that involves a lot of under­stand­ing on behalf of the gov­ern­ment, the air force more par­tic­u­lar­ly, and it’s a deci­sion which is nec­es­sary because, as you well know, for the peri­od until 2020, there were strong pos­si­bil­i­ties in terms of an oper­a­tional gap. If we make the deci­sion now to replace all the air­craft, the CF-18s, then there’s a cer­tain risk, as far as the deci­sion is con­cerned, to delay the pur­chase.

Also, because the deci­sion of pre­vi­ous lib­er­al gov­ern­ments began this over­all process, Cana­da had a pref­er­en­tial posi­tion in this process as far as the price is con­cerned and the pri­or­i­ty in the pro­duc­tion line. So there­fore it’s a pity the gov­ern­ment now is deal­ing with a sit­u­a­tion which in my opin­ion, the oppo­si­tion, the head of the lib­er­al par­ty – that we’re play­ing a polit­i­cal game. And it’s a risk for the Cana­di­an forces, for the secu­ri­ty of our coun­try, as well as for the future con­tract is con­cerned. Because, as I said, we had a pref­er­en­tial posi­tion in this process and, as Sec­re­tary Gates stat­ed, in order to pur­chase a fifth gen­er­a­tion air­craft there is no oth­er air­craft with the same capa­bil­i­ties, with the same equip­ment on the plane, on the air­craft, and it’s a deci­sion which in my opin­ion, with an awful lot of impli­ca­tions for the future, if the future gov­ern­ment should decide to can­cel this project, this con­tract.

Q: Mr. MacK­ay and thank you Sec­re­tary Gates, excuse me, we’re very tight on time.

MIN. MACKAY: Just very briefly, Cap­tain. What I’ve indi­cat­ed is, look, our gov­ern­ment has tak­en the deci­sion to pro­ceed with a process that began under the pre­vi­ous lib­er­al gov­ern­ment – in fact, you could go back to 1997 when this process to pur­chase the F‑35 real­ly began, there was invest­ments made at that time and since that time – some­where in the range of $168 mil­lion to be part of this con­sor­tium. And my fear, in addi­tion to los­ing a pref­er­en­tial place in the pro­duc­tion line, is can­celling the con­tract now could, in fact, result in an oper­a­tional gap where, if around the year 2017, 2018 when we’re start­ing to take deliv­ery of the F‑35, our F‑18s are going to be tak­en out of use, and so there is a very, shall we say, a sweet spot in terms of the deliv­ery time and the invest­ment that allows us to be in that pro­duc­tion line, that glob­al sup­ply chain of, as Sec­re­tary Gates has said, when we start tak­ing deliv­ery.

And we need this air­craft. It is the only fifth gen­er­a­tion air­craft that has the capa­bil­i­ties, the onboard equip­ment, the stealth capa­bil­i­ty, the weapons radar sys­tem that is inter­op­er­a­ble with our col­leagues, our allies in the Unit­ed States through NORAD. It is an air­craft that will allow us to face what future threats may exist. And this is where we’re into the realm of spec­u­la­tion. But clear­ly, we have a respon­si­bil­i­ty under NORAD, we have a respon­si­bil­i­ty to Cana­di­ans. And – I’m quick to add – we have a respon­si­bil­i­ty to the young men and women who fly and main­tain these air­craft to give them the prop­er equip­ment and tools to do the impor­tant job that we ask of them. It’s also extreme­ly good for our Cana­di­an aero­space indus­try.

Cana­da will be part of this con­sor­tium that allows Cana­di­an aero­space com­pa­nies to bid on the glob­al sup­ply chain of these air­craft. That takes us well beyond what tra­di­tion­al­ly is described as indus­tri­al region­al ben­e­fits that would lim­it us to the pro­duc­tion of 65 air­craft. By being part of this con­sor­tium, and nine coun­tries, pos­si­bly more, we’re look­ing at being able to sup­ply parts for air­craft in excess of, poten­tial­ly, 3,000 or more. So that, in my view, opens up greater com­pe­ti­tion, but greater oppor­tu­ni­ty for Cana­di­an aero­space and gives us cut­ting edge tech­nol­o­gy when it comes to the air­craft that we need for the 21st Cen­tu­ry.

Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Min­is­ter MacK­ay. Thank you, Sec­re­tary Gates. This con­cludes the ques­tion and answer ses­sion. The min­is­ters will now gath­er for a pho­to on the left side of the stage.

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

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter

Team GlobDef

Team GlobDef

Seit 2001 ist GlobalDefence.net im Internet unterwegs, um mit eigenen Analysen, interessanten Kooperationen und umfassenden Informationen für einen spannenden Überblick der Weltlage zu sorgen. GlobalDefenc.net war dabei die erste deutschsprachige Internetseite, die mit dem Schwerpunkt Sicherheitspolitik außerhalb von Hochschulen oder Instituten aufgetreten ist.

Alle Beiträge ansehen von Team GlobDef →