 You all have been remarkable. You've been here all day. It's been quite a good conference. We started the day with John Negroponte, and he came back to join us. And of course we're all wanting to have a chance to hear Senator John McCain. Just to share with all of you at my table, Ernie Bauer was saying that he travels extensively, of course, through Southeast Asia. And he said in his last trip, he says, my gosh, he said, you know, who are we down to now? He said to Senator Cohen, who he was with. He said, there's nobody left now in the Senate except John McCain. Well, my experience is that's all you need, actually. And I have to tell you a personal true story. When I was over in the Defense Department, I'd been nominated to be the Deputy Secretary. And there was one Senator who had some objections to my nomination. And he said some things on the floor of the Senate that were hurtful to be perfectly candid. There was only one Senator that was willing to go down to the floor of the Senate to confront this Senator with the truth. And that was John McCain. I worked for the Democrats. I'm a Republican, actually. I worked for the Democrats in the Senate, and I was appointed to the Clinton administration. Only one Senator went down to defend my reputation, and that was John McCain. And I learned at that moment what it meant when Martin Luther King talked about the content of character, to be judging people by the content of their character. And I learned something about loyalty and honor that day that's been a lesson I'll have for the rest of my life. And so it's an incredible privilege for me to introduce to you tonight this remarkable man who has done so much for this country and for Southeast Asia, the honorable Senator John McCain. Thank you, John. Thank you, John. Thank you very much, John, and thank you for... You know, it's the first time I ever found out you're a Republican. That's incredible. Thank you, John, and thank you. And I went down because I had had to the floor of the Senate to defend this good and decent and honorable public servant because it happened to be true. And the reason why I said I didn't know you were Republican because during your tour in the Senate and in the Pentagon, I didn't know whether you were Republican or a Democrat or a libertarian or a vegetarian. I only knew that you were dedicated to the national security of this nation. So I would like to say that it's always great to return to CSIS. And I think CSIS is unique in its nonpartisan and informed way that they help us inform America's thinking about the world and our leadership in it. As many of you know, I just returned from Southeast Asia and before I turn to the topic of this conference, I'd like to offer some brief impressions from my visit to Burma. It was really quite an experience for me because the first time that I'd been allowed to return to the country of Burma or Myanmar, depending on what you want to call it, in 15 years. It's been 15 years since I'd been allowed to return. And it is one indication that this new civilian government could represent a change from the past. Another noteworthy challenge and another noteworthy change was the new capital, Napidao. Massive government buildings, marble strewn palaces, brand new hotels, 18-lane highways. And the strange thing about it, no one is there. No one is there. I was on this 18-lane highway and ours was the only car on the road. The buildings were nearly empty. It was a dislocating, and I might say even an Orwellian experience. And it certainly was a sad contrast with the crushing poverty in Rangoon. I visited a private AIDS clinic that was overflowing with people. Many orphaned children who need more care than is available. I went to a service, a place that's run by a former famous Burmese actor and his wife that offers free funerals for departed souls whose families are too poor to provide their loved ones with the dignity of a decent burial. It breaks your heart, and it makes you wish the government would devote similar levels of enthusiasm and resources to the development of their nation as they did with the construction of their capital. Nonetheless, in my meetings with the first vice president, two speakers of parliament, they're cursed with not one but two speakers, and others. It was clear that this government wants better relations with the United States. I stress that my government and I share this aspiration, and that such a feat is not impossible. After all, the United States and Vietnam have improved our relations, which I know a thing or two about anything is possible. However, the main point I stressed is that any improvement of relations would need to be built not on talk, but on actions by both sides. The United States should be willing to put every aspect of our policy on the table and to make tangible changes that the government in Nay-Pidao asked of us. But this can only be done in conjunction with concrete actions on their part, especially those steps called for by the UN Human Rights Council, releasing all prisoners of conscience, providing the Red Cross unfettered access to all prisons, commencing a real process of national reconciliation that involves ethnic and political opposition parties, including the National League for Democracy, and guaranteeing the safety and freedom of movement of Aung San Suu Kyi. I had the opportunity to see the lady on my visit, and the reason I remain hopeful for the Burmese people has a lot to do with her. Yesterday was Aung San Suu Kyi's birthday, and she expressed this hope. And I quote, If I were asked what I would wish on my birthday, I wish for peace, stability, and prosperity in the country. This amazing lady remains an inspiration to her people and to me. And I agree with her that this is not the time for the United States to lift sanctions. We should also work to establish a UN commission of inquiry, which has nothing to do with retribution and everything to do with truth and justice for the Burmese people. From Burma, I went to Singapore for the Shangri-La Dialogue, where one of the main topics of discussion was the subject of this conference, Maritime Security in the South China Sea. This issue inspires intense emotions among the states with competing claims to these waters and territories, as I know you've covered today. And the circle of experts who truly understand the historical and legal intricacies of these claims is rather small. I'm from Arizona, where we know how complex it can be to fight over water and land use. I'm also an old Navy man who has spent much of my life traveling and working on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region. And I am increasingly concerned, as you are, that the South China Sea is becoming a flashpoint. The past few years have seen a rapid escalation of tension between these states in this volatile and disputed maritime region. I need not review all of those incidents for this audience. Of course, it is important for all parties to practice restraint and to be sure our ASEAN partners will need to make compromises, especially among one another, to reach a peaceful and mutually beneficial outcome, as many of them will acknowledge. That said, this situation needs a little straight talk. One of the main forces exacerbating tensions in the South China Sea and making a peaceful resolution of these disputes harder to achieve is the aggressive behavior of China and the unsubstantiated territorial claims that it seeks to advance. I take no privilege in saying this. I believe one of the foremost U.S. national interests is the maintenance and enhancement of productive relations with China. I want China to succeed and to develop peacefully. And I believe there's no force in history that condemns our countries to conflict. Indeed, the scope of our global cooperation is broader than ever before, including on issues of maritime security, which is plain for all to see in our common operations off the Horn of Africa. What troubles me? And I'm sure many of you are the expansive claims that China makes in the South China Sea. The rationale offered for these claims, which has no basis in international law and the increasingly assertive actions that China is taking to enforce its self-described rights, including in waters within 200 miles off the coast of ASEAN countries as was the case recently in separate incidents involving Vietnam and the Philippines. China's so-called nine dotted lines map claims all of the islands in the South China Sea as sovereign Chinese territory and all of their territorial waters as China's exclusive economic zone. Furthermore, certain Chinese interpretations of international law would erode the long-standing principle of freedom of navigation, twisting it from a concept of inclusion that fosters open access to a concept of exclusion that would restrict access. Some in China are even referring to this doctrine as, quote, legal warfare. Why should this matter to the United States of America? This is a question that many Americans will ask, especially when we are committed to three conflicts already and when our national debt has literally become unsustainable. Why should America care about the maritime disputes of foreign nations half a world away? There are certainly economic reasons for remaining engaged. The South China Sea region is an important source of jobs and natural resources that benefit many Americans. However, perhaps the larger consideration is the strategic one. The world's geopolitical center of gravity is shifting to the Asia-Pacific region, a region in which many states are rising at once in wealth and power. This creates friction between them where old disputes remain unresolved. The United States has a national security interest in maintaining a favorable strategic balance in this vital region. And central to that is defending the universal freedom of navigation and open access to the seas as a foundational principle of the international order. Efforts to deny freedom of navigation in the South China Sea pose a serious challenge to the rules-based international order that the United States and our allies have sustained over many decades. If these efforts were to succeed, if persistent bullying enabled one state to impose its territorial claims by force and to turn the South China Sea into a virtual no-go zone for the commercial and military vessels of other nations, including the United States, the effects would be dire. It could set a dangerous precedent for weakening international law in ways that ill-intentioned actors would no doubt apply elsewhere. It could create a troubling incentive for rising powers everywhere to take by force what peaceful legal means cannot secure for them. And it would bring us closer to a day when the U.S. Navy judges that it can no longer safely access and operate in the Western Pacific. What then should the United States do? Let me offer a few suggestions in closing. First, regarding the U.S. position in the South China Sea, we should recognize that where possible, a policy of clarity may be more stabilizing than a policy of ambiguity. I applaud Secretary Clinton for stating that rival claims in the South China Sea should be resolved through multilateral negotiations and that we will seek to facilitate those negotiations. Most Asian states welcome that statement. Ultimately, this is about China's relations with its neighbors, not China and the United States. Nonetheless, it is helpful for us to continue clarifying the U.S. position. So other countries know where possible, which claims the United States accepts, which ones we do not, and what actions we are prepared to support our policies and partners, especially in the Philippines, which is a treaty ally. Second, the United States should assist our ASEAN partners in resolving their own disputes in the South China Sea as a means of fostering greater ASEAN unity vis-a-vis China. China seeks to exploit the divisions among ASEAN members to play them off each other to press its own agenda. Resolving the competing maritime's claims among ASEAN states as Malaysia and Brunei have recently done would enable our partners to establish a more united front. Third, the United States needs to help our ASEAN partners to build up their maritime defense and detection capabilities to develop and deploy basic systems such as early warning radar and coastal security vessels, remedying this lack of capacity and enhancing our joint exercises would provide for a more common operational picture in the South China Sea and a better ability to respond to threats. Fourth, the United States Senate needs to take a hard look at the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. I know this is unpopular among many conservatives. I've had doubts about it myself. But the fact is, successive administrations of both parties have adhered to the convention's basic structures and done so without a seat at the table. Meanwhile, states like China are working within the convention to advance fringe views that aim to deny access to international waters. This leaves the United States to rely on the good graces of foreign powers and its own superior force to ensure U.S. rights of navigation. But these conditions cannot be taken for granted, which is why the U.S. Navy strongly supports the convention and the added legal guarantees it offers to our naval operations. Thus, for national security reasons, the Senate needs to decide whether it is finally time to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. Fifth, we need to shift U.S. regional force posture to put greater emphasis on emerging areas of competition, especially the Indian Ocean and South China Sea. I've joined with my colleagues in the Armed Services Committee Senators Carl Levin and Jim Webb in calling for a timeout to reevaluate our basic plans in Japan and Guam. And I've done so not to withdraw America from Asia, but to enhance our commitment to regional security. It is not Congress's place to devise regional basing arrangements, but as new realities and cost overruns call our current plans into question. Congress must ask the hard questions. Our goal should be to move toward a more geographically dispersed force posture in the Asia-Pacific region, as Secretary Gates has described, and a centerpiece of that effort will always be our basing commitments with our historic allies, Japan and Korea. Finally, the United States must continue to make the necessary investments in our defense capabilities, especially naval forces, in order to remain the world's leading military power. We are now facing enormous domestic pressures to cut spending, including defense spending, and some reductions are certainly necessary. Reasonable people can disagree about how deep those cuts should be, but when the President pledged recently to cut $400 billion in defense spending over 12 years with no strategic rationale for why this figure was chosen, or what risks it would entail, and with the Secretary of Defense only being told about it the day beforehand, I think reasonable people could also agree that this is no way to plan for our national defense. We must be guided by strategy, not arbitrary arithmetic. The events now unfolding in the South China Sea will play an decisive role in shaping the development of the Asia-Pacific region in this century, and the United States must remain actively engaged in that process. In this regard, I am troubled by recent statements made by some of my colleagues in Congress and some of the Republican presidential candidates suggesting a desire to withdraw from the world and reduce our commitments abroad. America has made that mistake before, and we should learn from this history, not repeat it. After all, history shows us that Americans themselves are the greatest beneficiaries of the rules-based international order that is upheld by U.S. power and leadership. We abdicate that role at the world's peril and our own. If those of you who are visiting from the Asia-Pacific region only take one message back home with you, let it be this. There's always been an isolationist trend in the United States, but Americans have rejected it before, and I believe they will reject it again now. There will always be a solid base of support in America for a strong internationalist foreign policy. That isn't going anywhere, and neither is America. We will not withdraw or be pushed out of the Asia-Pacific region. We will stay engaged there, committed to our friends and allies, and together we will succeed. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Senator McCain. Your remarks really capped a day off, and as if you were here all day long, actually. They were tremendous. Thank you very much. Let me open the floor for questions. As we have been working today, I just ask that you introduce yourself and your affiliation when you raise the question. Start here. I'm Caitlin Antrim. I'm with the Rule of Law Committee for the Ocean. Senator McCain, I can't tell you how pleased it is, pleasing it is, to hear you say good things about the Law of the Sea Convention. We're looking at this year as the chance to get it through, and I'd like to thank you for your comments and ask if you will take in advice, not just from the Navy, which has been a strong supporter, the State Department, but also turn to American industry and environmental groups to get the full picture of why so many people support this convention. Thank you, and let me say that for someone who has been in the Arctic, in fact, one of the more interesting experiences I ever had was going to Svalbard, Norway. There's no doubt that we have finally found the Northwest Passage, and that entails all kinds of challenges and new aspects of the Law of the Sea. I have to be very blunt with you. I'm going to have to make sure that we have conservative support if we bring it up the Law of the Sea Treaty up before the United States Senate. We really cannot afford to have it defeated. If it were defeated, then I don't think it would ever have another opportunity for many, many years. I intend to spend the next few weeks, time during the next few weeks, of going around to see my friends who inhabit think tanks that may not be quite as centrist as CSIS is and try to get their thoughts and their ideas and their proposals. I think there's a growing awareness of this whole situation. You mentioned environmentalists but there is an aspect of global warming or what is taking place in the melting that argues for it. But the other argument, of course, is what we've been discussing and that is freedom of navigation and exploitation in oceans around the world, including the South China Sea. Thank you. Tiger Zhang from the Stimson Center. Just now you mentioned the U.S. should push forward for a multilateral negotiation which is very different from the bottom line. I would say that the China probably is considering which is multilateral talk. So are you suggesting that the U.S. would or must play a part in that multilateral negotiation either as a mediator or whatever? Thank you. You know, I'd like to see the United States play a role of encouraging multilateral negotiations whether the United States can play a useful role by being actively engaged in it. Frankly, it's something that judgment that I would not want to make certainly at this time because it would have to depend on the format, the venue, all of the things that go into a set of serious negotiations. I think the key element here is not so much what the U.S. does or not do. It's what the other nations do. It's whether Vietnam and the Philippines can reconcile their differences and present a common front. It's whether all of the, frankly, the nations in the region can negotiate with China with a common set of principles and goals. I know that's a blunt statement, but that's really what this has got to be all about and where the United States can play a role in resolving those differences so that a united front can be prevented is where I think we can be most helpful. Yes, Senator Bill Jones from Executive Intelligence Review. On a topic that's going to be before you which doesn't have to do with your discussion tonight, the House has already introduced, again, re-instoring the Glass-Steagall Amendment. I know you talked about poverty in Burma. You realize the conditions in the United States are getting worse from day to day, and Glass-Steagall could be in help in dealing with this. I was wondering, are you going to support again to sponsor the amendment as it comes up in the Senate? Thank you. Yes, I am and will and will continue to support it, but I also have to tell you that it's probably one of those that will pass the House and not have 60 votes in the Senate. That's just the reality, but I will certainly support it. I think it was one of the greatest mistakes made in recent history was the repeal of that very important piece of legislation. Thanks for the question. Thank you. Suha from China Proper University at Beijing. I do place your points in your speech on enhancing the developing relations between China and the United States, and we are already discussing a lot of the maritime security issues today. So I'm curious about your definition of the common ground and sharing interests between China and the United States in terms of the maritime security. Thank you. I think common ground between the United States is a relationship based, and I know some of this sounds like a boilerplate, but I think it's a relationship based on mutual respect, on mutual appreciation for the role that both our countries can play on the world stage, a commitment to helping resolve the world's disputes and the situations that we find arising throughout the world. But I also think that our relationship is also based, as it is with every other country, on certain aspects of human rights. And our hope at the time of the normalization of relations between our two countries, I happen to be one of the few remaining living Americans that was at the great hall of the people in the ceremony of the normalization of relations between our two countries. And I have to tell you very frankly, we had expected greater progress in some areas towards human rights and democratization. So I think that the world, not just the United States, has every right to expect progress in some of those areas. One of the officials of the Chinese government was here recently, and I asked them when they were going to allow Twitter in their country. I didn't get an answer. So I think we need to understand that the success of our relations will also, to some degree, be affected by the fundamentals of human rights progress on certain aspects of democratization and freedom. And I do not, I repeat, do not foresee a scenario where the United States and China would have some kind of conflict, whether it be a cold conflict or a warm one. There's no possibility in my view of that. But I do think that our relations, to some degree, must be impacted by certain internal aspects in your country. And finally, just categorically state that I think that the Arab Spring is misnamed in that I believe that this movement that we are seeing throughout the world is not confined to the Arab world. And so, but again, I want to emphasize every president, whether they be republican or democrat, and every administration that I could envision is committed to better, to good and better relations between the United States and China and is not interested in confrontation. But at the same time, I believe republican and democrat administration will continue its advocacy for democracy, human rights, and all of the things that has characterized American exceptionalism. Two more, if you like. Thank you. My name is Bing Wu. I'm with Phoenix TV China. My question is you mentioned the multilatory to solve the disputes. Could you be more specific to the multilatory discussion? And also, you made several suggestions to the U.S. what the U.S. should do. Could you also advise what should China do? Thank you. In Singapore, I heard the speech given by the Chinese Defense Minister given in Singapore at the Shangri-La Conference. And I was very encouraged by a lot of the things that he had to say, both in his speech and during the question-and-answer period. I don't think there's any doubt that ASEAN has turned into a very important organization. And I believe that ASEAN could play a key role. It's got all of the infrastructure there to be a vehicle to help move these relationships along and discussions between the affected countries of the South China Sea. So I would say that ASEAN is a very convenient and appropriate place to resolve differences amongst members and also for China to be a part of discussions with ASEAN. Could I do one more? Yes. Do you want to follow up? Okay. I hope that the words of the Chinese Defense Minister which were, I think, very powerful. This was a very important platform from which he spoke that's a very prestigious situation. And I hope that his words about willingness to sit down and talk with other affected nations in the South China Sea will come to fruition. I hope that his words that they are not interested, that China is not interested in hegemony in the South China Sea, that they are, that all of his speech, frankly, to me were encouraging as a matter of national policy of China as he articulated. What I worry about is, frankly, is the assertion somehow that it will be China that decides the fate and the future of the South China Sea rather than all of the affected nations in the region. I would like to see that statement of national policy by China. Thank you. First, I would like to sincerely thank Senator John McCain for the time that you serve in Vietnam. And I'd like to sincerely thank your position today, your platform that you said you would side with Senator Jim Webb from the Democratic Party on the same position toward the Southeast Asian Sea. I would like to propose that we coordinate the Southeast Asian Sea. And I would also like to thank you. That's a good idea. Thank you from all the Asian nations, Asian nations. Thank you, Senator. I would like to also thank you for making the human rights issues the main important points between the US and China dialogue on behalf of all the Chinese people and all the Southeast Asian people and Asian peoples as well. Thank you. Thank you. I would like to ask my questions. Oh, good. Would you interview that the Republican Party may win the elections in 2012 to promise to keep your position today to support the Asian nations in the dialogue to promote security, peaceful development, human rights, and multilateral dialogues with China for the sake of international peace? Would you advocate for the uncrossed at Congress to be passed soon? And would you, please, would you advocate for a sustainable peace in Southeast Asian Sea as if it is a very important part of global security and peace? Thank you. Well, thank you, and thank you for those kind words. I'm glad we called on you. First of all, let me say that, and I want to be clear, human rights is a part of the United States policy. It is not the only part. Let's please, let me make it very clear, but it is one of a number of principles that the United States adheres to in the conduct of its foreign policy and national security policy. I'm pleased at the progress that has been made in Vietnam, but I have to give you some straight talk. There has got to be in Vietnam addressing the corruption, this ship-building situation in Hai Phong is an embarrassment to the country because it's an example of corruption. And I would like to point out that the treatment of minorities in Vietnam has not been at the level that it should be in my view. And so I think progress still needs to be made. And I want to emphasize again, human rights is not the only aspect of American national security policy, but it is a part of it and our interests are our values and our values are our interests. Let me just say again about the Republican Party. In my remarks that I've written, my prepared remarks, I have mentioned that I am worried. I am worried about a war-weary America that has now some involvement in three wars, although not as much as I had wanted. In Libya I wanted us to use more American air power, but that's another subject for another day. But they are war-weary. We are an unsustainable fiscal situation. So I understand why the United States citizens and my fellow citizens in Arizona who are very hard hit by this economic recession are tempted to say, look, stop spending all this money overseas. Stop our involvement. We don't need any more ships or airplanes or tanks or whatever. And it's the job of the President of the United States and other respected leaders to explain to the American people why it's important, why, as Secretary Gates said the other day, we cannot withdraw out of Fortress America. That was Secretary Gates's comment the other day. And the consequences of our failure to engage is we have seen before in history. We cannot repeat the lessons of history, otherwise we are doomed to repeat them. And the reason why I'm here and the reason why this conference is so important is because the historic shift of the world's economy from Europe America to Asia, it's a fact. And so our emphasis and our interest in Asia have to be dramatically increased. And we also need to recognize the major, major role that the world's emerging superpower, China, is going to play. And we're still feeling our way forward in our relations with China, but I want to emphasize again, I do not see a confrontation between the United States and China, which means that we will have our differences and we will have serious differences from time to time, but not to the point where it's not in the interest of both countries to have a meaningful and important relationship for the good of all mankind. I want to thank you again for being here tonight and I want to thank all of our friends from around the world and I hope you do spend a lot of money while you are here. Thank you very much.