Remarks Before the Guam-U.S. Asia Security Alliance (GUASA) 2013 Conference

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before this very distinguished group here on Guam. I first want to recognize the leadership of Carl Peterson, Joe Arnett, Juan Carlos Benitez, Gerry Perez, John Brown of GUASA as well as Paul Giarra and Carl Ford for organizing this event.  I have always believed it is important for opinion makers and leaders alike to come to Guam to better understand our strategic value and enjoy and appreciate our culture and history.

GUASA was formed several years ago by a group of civic-minded individuals on Guam with a keen interest in advancing broad goals of security in the Asia-Pacific region.  Much of the immediate focus is on the realignment of elements of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force from Okinawa to Guam but there are broader and more complex issues that are of interest to us.  The realignment of Marines is part of a broader U.S. military strategic shift in the region.  It is part of what we now call the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. 

The realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam and now the Air Force’s Pacific Airpower Resiliency strategy have come under intense scrutiny and second-guessing by some in the U.S. Senate.  While I continue the fight to protect the current budget request it is prudent for us to take a step back and think about the broader strategic implications of what we are doing in our region of the world.  If you look at the last several years of report language in the defense authorization and appropriations bills, there are comments that call into question the true cost of the realignment as well as the costs of other moves in the region, such as the rotational presence of Marines in Darwin, Australia, or additional Marines in Hawaii.  Although the language is crafted in a way to thwart the Administration’s military rebalance efforts in the Asia-Pacific region, it does allow us to step back for a moment and contemplate the broader strategic implications of what we are trying to achieve with the rebalance.  In a broader context, the language from the Senate seems to miss the whole point of the broader strategic implications of the rebalance effort. 

I am hopeful that at the culmination of this forum and in any future meetings of GUASA, here on Guam and hopefully in Washington later, there develops a document that more clearly highlights the strategic benefit of the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region and the critical role that Guam, CNMI and the greater Micronesia region has been playing and will continue to play in this strategic rebalance effort.  I believe GUASA and the attendees here this week have an opportunity to address the broader concerns that are evident in the language promoted by the Senate.  I know that you will use the next several days to better articulate the value of the broader strategic importance of the rebalance.  Additionally, to those who may be uninformed or misunderstanding of the benefit to our island, I hope that this group and others like it will continue to engage in dialogue that allows our fellow residents to better appreciate the significance of Guam and our pivotal role in national security.

This afternoon, I would like to provide my perspective on the value of this strategic rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region from a Congressional perspective.  I also want to discuss the importance that Guam, and the broader Marianas region, play in this rebalance. 

For those who call Guam home, we know that our patriotism is second to none.  When visitors first arrive at our airport, they see a banner that states “We Support Our Troops”.  I ask where else in the United States do you see such clear evidence of our patriotism and support for our men and women in uniform?  Indeed, our island has played a significant role in the military history of the United States, from World War II to the present.  Our community embraces our men and women who serve in harms way.  In fact, our National Guard boasts the largest National Guard per capita than any other National Guard in the United States.  This patriotism and service, in part, helps make Guam and the broader Marianas region a great location to be the hub of activity for this rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region.

Some of the most tangible and evident actions of this rebalance is the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam as well as military infrastructure developments on Guam like the Air Force’s Pacific Airpower Resiliency strategy and a permanent missile defense presence on island.  The realignment is just one small part of the overall rebalance but it is an important component of our future military posture and for our local community.  Due to a variety of concerns, cost being a major issue, the size and scope of the realignment has shifted downward after the Japan and U.S. “2 plus 2” security consultative committee in April 2012.  While I had concerns with this proposed change, I believe the revised realignment plans are more sustainable for our community. A smaller footprint of Marines will mean a smaller impact on our infrastructure and is something that our community is more comfortable with. The smaller impact on our community is something leaders in Washington are focused on, and, with local support, could show a stronger resolve as we make resourcing decisions for the realignment.

In the first months of next year, the Navy will release a draft Environmental Impact Statement that will build off the previous Record of Decision and make recommendations on the preferred location for housing Marines on Guam and a training range.  This coupled with significant progress in Japan by Prime Minster Abe on the Futenma Replacement Facility will send positive signals as we deliberate on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.  As I stated earlier, the realignment is one of the most tangible aspects of our rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region, and our inaction on this matter has cost us significant political capital.  Indeed, the report produced last year by the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region highlighted that Congressional inaction and cuts to Guam military construction funding had cost us political capital with our Japanese allies and planted the seeds of doubt about our rebalance strategy with other allies in the region.  It is important for our community and other opinion leaders to highlight this point to leaders in the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.  It is also important to highlight that the revised “2 + 2” agreement with Japan allows for Government of Japan funds to be used for construction of facilities that will enhance U.S. and multi-lateral training in the Marianas region. This part of the revised agreement is important to highlight in getting Congress to act in a more reasonable manner on the realignment.  Improving our training capabilities in the Marianas region could be one of the most important and long-lasting benefits of the realignment.  We are severely restricted in how and when we can train in Japan and Okinawa so building modern and robust training facilities in the Marianas is critical to our future readiness in this region of the world.  I think this point is often understated and would help Members of Congress better understand the longer-term rationale for this realignment and some of its tangential benefits.  I understand that some in Congress will always have concerns about the cost of the realignment, indeed the entire rebalance, however the cost of inaction is far greater in my estimation.

Additionally, the last couple of years the U.S. Senate has raised concerns about the cost and scope of the Air Force’s Pacific Airpower Resiliency strategy.  This program would harden certain facilities at Andersen Air Force Base and ensure facilities existed to disperse aircraft and personnel in the event of a contingency.  The on-going and so-called divert E-I-S is part of this overall strategy.  Andersen Air Force Base has re-established itself as a hub for many Air Force activities over the past decade, highlighting the strategic importance of this location that were keenly evident during the days of the Vietnam conflict.  Andersen has facilitated the Continuous Bomber Presence that has supported actions in Korea as well as Operations Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.  Air power is absolutely critical to our rebalance strategy in the Asia-Pacific region.  If the rebalance strategy is about shaping the environment in this region of the world long range strike, airlift and re-fueling capabilities are critical to keeping a peacetime operation.  Long range strike, in particular, is critical to influencing decisions of actors in the Asia-Pacific region.  Again, this point was reiterated in last year’s CSIS report.  And, again, this will take resources; it will cost us money to make these investments.  The actions of the U.S. Senate send a contradictory message to our allies.  Cutting or placing restrictions on funding for the Pacific Airpower Resiliency strategy further calls into question our resolve to carry out this strategy.  Andersen Air Force Base is absolutely critical to all future roles the Air Force will play in this region of the world.  Unfortunately, this program that has broad based support has been lumped into the same discussion about the Marine realignment.  Although it is a separate program that supports an entirely different mission the misrepresentation of our comprehensive regional strategy allows doubters of the rebalance to lump this program together with other more controversial aspects of the rebalance.

Ultimately, the rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region is going to force leaders in our country to face the hard truth – we have limited resources and we must prioritize those resources.  If we are serious about the rebalance then we’ll have to take risk in other areas that we might now be prioritizing.  Some have suggested the rebalance would require us to abandon allies in other regions of the world but that is simply a false premise.  If we value the strategic rebalance then we will have to take risks in certain programs.  This strategy is the right one for our country in the coming century.  The Asia-Pacific region accounts for a significant amount of trade and economic potential for the United States.  In fact, in testimony before Congress Admiral Sam Locklear, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, stated, “One-third of the world's bulk cargo and two-thirds of its oil shipments now pass through the Indian Ocean. Nine of the world’s ten largest ports are here, and the Indo-Asia-Pacific is the engine that drives the global economy. China, Japan and India are three of the world’s largest economies. Last year alone, there was over eight trillion dollars of two-way trade.” I recognize the realignment of Marines to Guam and other initiatives of the rebalance will cost the United States significant amounts of capital but it is simply the right thing to do.  We cannot let short-term costs cloud the long-term benefits of this strategy.  Moreover, we cannot let perfect be the enemy of good when making these fact-based decisions that are necessary for our national security interests.

Our country has never been good about determining when or where the conflict will occur, nor have we been good at determining how that conflict will be resolved.  In October 2010, Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated, “We’re pretty lousy at predicting where we’ll go.  We’re pretty lousy at predicting the kind of warfare we’ll be in, if the last 20 years, or so, serve as an example.”  In May 2012, Major General H.R. McMaster further highlighted this point by stating, “We have a perfect record in predicting future wars—right?  And that record is 0 percent”.  It should be noted that the rebalance is not about fighting the next war—it is about shaping the environment to deter the next conflict.  By providing and investing in the right resources, we can shape and encourage our allies and competitors, alike, to make the right decisions in the future.  The United States is a force of good across the world but specifically in this region.  We are and will remain a Pacific power and now we need to prove that by putting the right amount of resources into a wide array of programs.  It is also important to highlight that the rebalance is more than just a military exercise.  The rebalance is about putting the resources of a whole of government into this region.

The National Guard State Partnership Program is an area where this whole of government concept overlaps.  The National Guard State Partnership Program links U.S. States with partner countries around the world for the purpose of supporting the security cooperation objectives of the geographic Combatant Commanders.  The State Partnership Program aims to promote access, enhance military capabilities, improve interoperability and enhance the principles of responsible governance.  This program leverages the military and civilian capacities of our National Guard and shares that expertise with allies across the globe.  Started as a program to assist former Eastern European block nations, the program has grown to support 65 countries across the globe.  In fact, the Guam National Guard is partnered with the Philippines and has provided medical support training to the military and direct support to Philippine citizens.  The 254th Red Horse squadron helped some civic construction projects and the Guam Guard has provided other assistance to Philippine authorities in order to build their internal capacities.  The Guam partnership highlights the beauty of the State Partnership Program.  The program leverages the historical and cultural ties of Guam and the Philippines all the while provides the Philippine military and civilian leaders with critical training.  This cost effective program buys us goodwill with allies across the region.  It also helps us build deep and long-lasting ties between militaries.  This cross-training helps build mutual trust, respect and understanding—something that would be critical if our countries were to respond to a crisis or other contingencies in the region. 

The importance of this program to the overall rebalance is underscored by fact that U.S. Pacific Command is holding a conference on this very program in April.  The conference was intended to discuss how it can support the broader Combatant Commanders goals for the region and the rebalance.  Countries in the Asia-Pacific region like Malaysia yearn to establish a program, and other allies like Vietnam look to expand their current program.  Yet, we must step back and determine how will we expand this program, set our ultimate goals and look at how we can best leverage limited resources?  These questions draw attention to a deeper issue with the rebalance strategy.

I believe that the strategic underpinnings and importance of the rebalance are well recognized and understood on Capitol Hill.  Many Members of Congress understand that we’ve spent the better part of two decades, mired in conflict after conflict in the Middle East.  The matter now moves to a matter of implementation and how are we executing this strategy.  As I’ve mentioned, we have allies and Members of Congress wondering where are all the resources that are intended for this rebalance strategy.  We risk advancing this strategy without a more tangible demonstration of resources to core rebalance efforts.  In particular, as we move towards near imminent action in Syria, more and more of our Asian allies question whether we can sustain this strategy--my answer is unequivocally yes.

One way to ensure that resources are put towards this rebalance strategy is for the Administration to put forward an implementation plan that can be utilized by Embassy staff, the Combatant Commanders and other government and non-governmental entities operating in the Asia-Pacific region.  Chairman Randy Forbes, Chairman Rob Wittman, Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa and I sent a letter to National Security Advisor Susan Rice asking her to lead an effort to develop such an implementation plan.  If there were a clear plan that outlined priorities in the rebalance effort I believe this could empower all levels of government workers to take initiative and find creative ways to support the rebalance.  Moreover, they would have clearer guidance on what programs and initiatives to fund in their annual budget submissions.  This could help to demonstrate to our allies that we are serious about the rebalance and putting real resources to this strategic imperative.  An implementation plan followed by supplemental budget data would also help Members of Congress see what resources are really going towards the rebalance and given that there is broad bi-partisan support for the strategy, I believe that this supplemental budgetary data will help to further solidify the support. 

The plan will also help Members better understand where we are going with the strategy.  As I discussed earlier, the Senate has cut Guam funding, in part, because they don’t understand the totality of the strategy.  Over the past four years, the Administration has outlined what the rebalance strategy includes.  From day one, the Administration reaffirmed its commitment to the old realignment strategy.  After several years the rebalance strategy began to morph and culminated with the President’s address in Australia that talked about a rotational presence of military in Singapore, Australia and the Philippines combined with a legacy and robust permanent presence in Guam, Japan and Korea.  While I fully support the rebalance strategy, my main criticism of the strategy is how it was rolled out to the Congress and U.S. public.  It was done in an ad hoc manner that took advantage of certain circumstances instead of a comprehensive manner.  I believe this, in part, is why Congress is skeptical about committing resources to activities like the realignment of Marines from Okinawa to Guam.  At this point I believe an implementation strategy will not only help empower government employees to know where to put resources but it will help Members of Congress better understand the totality of this strategy and give them a better understanding of what efforts are being prioritized. 

At the same time, we must also be pragmatic.  As I have told the people of Guam on numerous occasions, there are very real and difficult budget conditions in Washington.  While I remain optimistic in finding a long-term solution to our debt and deficit issues, the headlines speak otherwise.  We must be realistic with our allies that while we can prioritize programs associated with the rebalance they may not be to the level they expect.  Ultimately it is going to come down to leaders making difficult decisions to prioritize the funding initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region, but it won’t be at the levels first anticipated at the beginning of this Administration.  Furthermore, we must also find ways to be more cost effective with our initiatives and leverage programs that have demonstrated cost effectiveness like the State Partnership Program among many others.

Case in point, the U.S. Pacific Command places a priority on military-to-military engagements and multi- and bi-lateral training efforts.  Our bi-lateral exercises are stretching the resources and capabilities of U.S. Pacific Command.  We must seek more opportunities to move from bi-lateral training and exercises to larger scale multi-lateral exercises.  This seems like a minor issue but it will help U.S. Pacific Command better leverage its limited resources all the while still achieve its larger military objectives with these training opportunities.  I understand that there can be historical issues that would impede certain multi-lateral training exercises.  For example, there have been significant challenges in getting our Asian allies to join broader multi-lateral training exercises because of the lingering tensions from World War II.  I understand the challenges associated with getting certain allies past their history but the United States must absolutely play a role in getting these critical allies to engage in greater multi-lateral training.  It is important to the future of our military alliances, especially in East Asia. 

In a time of fiscal austerity, our soft power and diplomacy is also critical in the region.  Last year, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and that marked the first time the United States had sent such a high-level delegation to the PIF.  The last several years have also seen other firsts with high-level attendance at ASEAN Conferences, East Asia Summit, APEC and other diplomatic engagements in the region.  It may sound simplistic that the United States send a high-level delegation but it is a sign of respect and importance in our Asian cultures.  We must continue to engage in the forums in the coming years–it is a sustainment strategy that will further highlight our commitment.  I also believe that in the coming years the United States should start to develop very manageable goals at these conferences whether it is outlining plans to assist nations or provide certain resources we want to show tangible results to political leaders in Washington as well as our allies in the region.  For example, there is no reason the United States cannot be a leader in green energy in the Asia-Pacific region.  While China extracts natural resources from many Asia-Pacific nations, we can provide a viable alternative.  We can show nations that we are serious about providing support from Export-Import Bank of the United States to encourage development of green energy in this region.  Not only are we demonstrating an alternative to China but we’re also addressing a key problem for many Asia-Pacific countries which is the cost of energy development and distribution. 

As you can see there are many aspects of this rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region.  Beyond our military posture, I believe I have demonstrated that Guam and the Marianas and broader Micronesian region play a critical role in supporting and sustaining this strategy.  Guam and the CNMI will be home to a robust military presence and improved training facilities.  Our central location that is easily accessible by many of our allies in the region and our unique geography, particularly in the CNMI, make this an ideal area to develop these training ranges.  Andersen Air Force Base has played and will continue to play a critical role in this rebalance.  The size and capabilities of this base are significant and programs designed for hardening will help to enhance its capabilities to support U.S.- and allied interests in the Asia-Pacific region.  The Air Force fights from its bases so these investments will make Guam critical to supporting our long range strike capabilities that will help shape a peaceful rise of countries in this region. 

The challenges of time and distance in the Asia-Pacific region are well known and misunderstood by many.  Guam and the CNMI are U.S. territories not foreign soil.  Being a U.S. territory gives U.S. policymakers freedom of movement to employ military and other resources without first asking for permission.  The benefit of freedom of movement is often misunderstood and undervalued but is a critical tool for our policymakers and that is one of the key reasons that the Marianas can project U.S. power to shape the environment.  Guam played a critical role in supporting U.S. efforts during every war since World War II.  In addition, Guam played a critical role in accepting Vietnamese and Kurdish refugees. Navy assets on Guam aid in support to civilian authorities through search and rescue operations and have responded to other contingencies in the region.  In particular, Guam has helped to support contingency planning for humanitarian operations in the last decade and has supported a continuous bomber presence that supports our troops on the Korean peninsula and has supported OIF and OEF operations.  The Guam National Guard and members of the active duty military from the greater Micronesia region and CNMI have served honorably in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Horn of Africa.  As we move into the 21st century and begin to operationalize the rebalance strategy Guam, the CNMI and greater Micronesia region and all our residents will continue to play a critical role in the history of our great nation. 

I appreciate that the GUASA Conference on Guam is taking a careful look at this important point.  GUASA will help to further rebalance efforts in putting together a white paper that can more clearly articulate the strategic importance of the rebalance.  I believe such a document can help to build off last year’s CSIS assessment of the rebalance strategy and help to fill the void in Congress about what the rebalance truly entails.  However, your efforts cannot simply end with the production of a document that outlines the value of Guam, CNMI and the greater Micronesia region to the rebalance strategy—it must be followed by a robust and sustained effort in Washington, D.C.  A robust coalition of business interests, strategists and well known think tank officials, along with other interests here in the islands, is needed to get Congress to do the right thing and resource this rebalance strategy appropriately.  I remain committed to resourcing the rebalance and my actions are evident in the strong support that the U.S. House of Representatives has for rebalance initiatives, but that is only part of the equation.  As budgets get tighter and the decisions get harder, there must be involvement from others to remind Congress why we are investing resources in the rebalance strategy.  And, whatever action we may take in Syria will further complicate the message of why we need to resource the rebalance.  But, I remain optimistic that a continued partnership will bear fruit and the United States will follow through on its commitments to our allies in the Asia-Pacific region.

Let me conclude with some statements from Dr. John Hamre in a letter to Congress introducing last year’s CSIS report.  He stated, “America’s national security depends on a stable and peaceful international order, especially in Asia.”  He goes on to state, “The repositioning of forces in the region has strategic consequences that will shape the trajectory of the next three decades. We need but currently lack an operational framework to match that strategic imperative.”  I appreciate that this conference is working to highlight the importance of Guam, CNMI and the greater Micronesia region to this strategic plan.  I look forward to continue working with all stakeholders to continue moving the rebalance strategy forward and putting real resources to this important initiative.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these issues before this distinguished group.  Si Yu’os Ma’ase for your hard work, dedication and commitment to our national security.