NEWSWEEK: Can you describe the threat from China?
Dennis Blair: Countries in Asia are worried about China becoming a bully in the region-whether it be their claims on the South China Sea, their claims on the disputed Indian border, as well as their attitudes about Taiwan and their stewardship of Hong Kong. On the opportunity side with China, there is the tremendous economic opportunity. There are the glimmerings of more representative government in places like elections for village governments in rural areas and fewer restrictions on most Chinese. And there is the increasing economic autonomy of places like Shanghai. There is a hope in the region that China will become rich and benevolent. The fear is that China will become rich and militarily aggressive.
The Pentagon announced recently that military-to-military exchanges between China and the U.S. would come under review on a case-by-case basis. How important do you consider such exchanges?
Military-to-military relations with China are very important. It is important that we stay in communication with the PLA [People’s Liberation Army] on a personal level and it’s more important that we try to involve them in multilateral activities where our interests run parallel. We stand toe-to-toe over Taiwan. That’s no secret to anybody. I find when I go to China about 75 percent of the conversation is me giving lectures on Taiwan and them giving me lectures on Taiwan. But that’s okay. You also don’t want any misunderstandings on Taiwan. I tell them pretty clearly what our policy is and what would happen if it came to any military crisis. There are other things, however that we and the Chinese could and should cooperate on. Most of the things I am talking about are new missions, such as peacekeeping and noncombatant evacuation of civilians from crisis areas…. By and large the Chinese keep more stuff classified than we do. They are oversensitive on that, and they restrict activities more than we tend to do with our armed forces.
How many missiles deployed along the Chinese coast become too many?
[The Chinese] are constructing about 50 a year. I can’t give you a number as to how many are too many. It’s a question of the accuracy, the numbers and the overall military balance. The current situation is that China can do a lot of damage to Taiwan but it can’t take it and hold it…. At some point the threat of damage to Taiwan can be translated into intimidation of Taiwan. And that’s what we’re pledged to keep from happening. We’re not pledged to provide Taiwan with military weapons for it to take offensive action and become independent. We are pledged to provide it a sufficient defense to encourage a peaceful resolution of the issue.
Let’s move to Japan. The new prime minister has advocated revising Article 9 of the country’s constitution that “forever” renounces war and the use of armed force outside of its territorial borders. Is this a stabilizing or destabilizing move for the region?
I think it really depends on the manner in which it is implemented. I believe that there is a way in which Japan can participate in more traditional military activities like peacekeeping and peace enforcement. The real key is how Japan undertakes it.
On the other hand, Japan’s chief cabinet minister said recently that the U.S. should be “prudent” in deploying a missile-defense system. If we take a quick look at Japanese expenditures on the development of theater missile defense (TMD), they are quite small-$24 million. Is development and deployment of TMD a rational choice for Japan?
I think that Japan was particularly struck in August of 1998 when a Taepo Dong missile, launched by North Korea, flew over Japan. I think that it’s a pretty basic policy: if a country you don’t have a very good relationship with has weapons that can target you and there are some technologies out there that have some promise of stopping it, it’s a good idea to participate in their development. The Japanese are going to have to make the same kinds of decisions that [the United States] will in terms of cost-effectiveness versus threat in missile defense.
At this point, do you think that missile defense is either cost-effective or technically viable?
I don’t know. Hitting a missile with a missile is hard stuff. We’ve come close in some tests. We’ve got to pursue it to know, just like any other system. But the basic principle of dealing with a threat to your own citizens as well as your troops is the right thing.
Recently the Chinese have hinted that there is some room to maneuver on the issue of missile defense-possibly as part of a quid pro quo on Taiwan. Is there room for that?
I think there have been some interesting statements recently. The Chinese have previously felt that anything that had the last initials MD was bad. TMD [theater missile defense, intended to protect regional allies such as Japan or U.S. troops in South Korea], NMD [national missile defense], you name it. On my last visit there [in March], I noticed they were beginning to draw distinctions between TMD and NMD. At least they were beginning to think about it in a serious way. We do need to talk about it with them.
