http://video.state.gov/en/video/4762948416001 Citation : QUESTION: South China Sea. A couple of questions. Yesterday, several senior officials, including Secretary Kerry, yesterday said placing the missile in South China Sea by China ¨C they implied that China didn¡¯t live up to its commitment not to militarize South China Sea. And he also mentioned when President Xi Jinping ¨C when he was in the Rose Garden with President Obama, made the commitment, no militarization in South China Sea. However, when you go back to the transcript, the Chinese president didn¡¯t mention South China Sea as a whole; he was specifically referred to Spratly Islands per se. So do you make distinction between the Spratly Island Chinese president make, and the islands that ¨C where China placed the missiles? MR KIRBY: I think that¡¯s a lot of dancing on the head of a pin. And it isn¡¯t just President Xi¡¯s comments that lead us to the view that China has said that they don¡¯t intend to militarize. Foreign Minister Wang Yi has said as much in his meetings with Secretary Kerry, and they were specifically talking about the South China Sea. So I know we often go back to President Xi¡¯s comments, but those comments have been echoed by other Chinese leaders, too, with respect to the South China Sea. So I think we¡¯re on pretty firm ground in terms of being able to say that the Chinese have said one thing and, yet, appear to be doing another. And as the Secretary said yesterday, we see no indication that that sort of effort, this militarization effort, has stopped. And it¡¯s doing nothing, as we¡¯ve said before, to make the situation there more stable and more secure. In fact, it¡¯s having quite the opposite effect. QUESTION: But Mark yesterday, he said ¨C he answered to Matt¡¯s question, he said ¨C will the U.S. send any warships and fighter jets to South China Sea ¨C ¡°it¡¯s not militarization but freedom of navigation.¡± Why can¡¯t the U.S. send commercial ships to South China Sea to exercise freedom of navigation instead of sending warships? And how do you define militarization? MR KIRBY: Okay. All right, let¡¯s take this one piece by piece. First of all, having a ship, whether it¡¯s a warship or otherwise, sail in international waters to get from point A to point B, or even just simply demonstrate that you can do that in international waters, is a far cry from putting missile systems or artillery pieces hard on a beach that have a semi-permanent or if not permanent presence. That¡¯s different. And who exactly are these pieces of artillery designed to shoot at? Who? A ship ¨C a Navy ship operating in international waters is completely within international law. We have ¨C our Navy has a fundamental obligation to represent our interests around the world and to support freedom of navigation, and will continue ¨C as the Secretary has said and I believe Secretary Carter has said, we¡¯re going to continue to fly, sail, and operate in international airspace and international maritime space as needed to do what we need to do to protect our national interests in that part of the world as we do in any other part of the world. That is a far different exercise of military ¨C of the military instrument of power than is the emplacement on basically fabricated territory of artillery pieces. QUESTION: But that Woody Island ¨C that island in the south where the missiles are, actually it¡¯s a natural island. MR KIRBY: Okay, so it¡¯s a natural island. I¡¯m not going to dispute geography with you. But putting surface-to-air missile systems there, I don¡¯t know how you can look at that and say that¡¯s not militarization. Now what do ¨C now what some people say is, well, it¡¯s self-defense. Self-defense against who? What¡¯s the purpose for it? And ¨C okay, so it¡¯s clearly a militarization of a piece of beach that prior to didn¡¯t have military weapons systems on it. QUESTION: But the Chinese defense minister was arguing that, first of all, those missiles, those weapons have been on that island for years. And secondly, China actually regard that island as their territory. So it¡¯s just -- MR KIRBY: They regard ¨C they seem to regard quite a bit as their territory, as I understand it. QUESTION: But talking about where the missiles are on that particular island, China regard it as its sovereignty. And it¡¯s just like the U.S. has right to put weapons on Guam. MR KIRBY: Yeah, but you have to make these decisions in place and time as well, and there¡¯s enough tension right now in the South China Sea over these disputed claims that we continue to believe militarization of ¨C whether they¡¯re manmade or natural features ¨C is not conducive to lowering the tensions. And it certainly has no role in what we believe should be the solution, which is work these things out ¨C these claims ¨C diplomatically and through international law, through an international process. So whether it¡¯s manmade or not, whether it¡¯s ¨C whether there have been in the past years systems ¨C weapon systems put on these features or not ¨C again, irrelevant. You have to consider it in place and time now. QUESTION: John -- MR KIRBY: And so we have an obligation ¨C back to your question about the Navy ¨C we have an obligation, as we do everywhere around the world, to exercise freedom of navigation in accordance with international law. And every mission that we have conducted thus far in the South China Sea has been in accordance with those international obligations. QUESTION: Regardless if -- QUESTION: John, are -- QUESTION: -- China have the sovereignty and the administration rights on the island or not? MR KIRBY: You have to put it in place and time. And in so many of these cases, the sovereignty is an issue of dispute. But let¡¯s just say hypothetically that the sovereignty wasn¡¯t in dispute. You still have to put the militarization in context of the tensions which are going on right now. QUESTION: John. MR KIRBY: Yeah. QUESTION: One other thing the Secretary said yesterday was they¡¯re going to have high-level discussions with the Chinese. Are you aware if those have happened? And regardless if they have or haven¡¯t, are you aware of any Chinese officials telling Americans that ¨C American officials that, indeed, yes, that this missile system is in place and has been in place on this island? MR KIRBY: I¡¯m not aware of either. I¡¯m not aware of either. QUESTION: So the premise in the question is that the Chinese have said, yeah, they¡¯re there. You¡¯re not aware if the Chinese -- MR KIRBY: No. QUESTION: -- have said that to you? MR KIRBY: I¡¯m not. QUESTION: Okay. But the other thing is, is that you can make the argument that your sailing ¨C that the U.S. sailing military ships and flying military planes into this region/area is simply an exercise of ¨C is an exercise of U.S. national interest and promoting or protecting freedom of navigation. But surely, you can understand that from the Chinese perspective, it raises tensions, no? MR KIRBY: I was waiting. I thought there was more to your question. QUESTION: Surely you can understand, yes or no, that from the Chinese perspective, that is also militarization and it raises tensions? MR KIRBY: It¡¯s not militarization, and the Chinese have expressed their concerns about it, but our answer to it is simply that these are -- QUESTION: ¡°We¡¯re right and you¡¯re wrong.¡± MR KIRBY: No. QUESTION: That¡¯s ¨C well, no, that literally -- MR KIRBY: No, no, no. QUESTION: This is the part ¨C it may very well be that the U.S. military, when it goes and it sails around these islands in a time of heightened tensions is acting -- MR KIRBY: Which are heightened why? Which are heightened why, Matt? QUESTION: Well, what ¨C it doesn¡¯t matter why they¡¯re heightened. MR KIRBY: Yes, it does matter why they¡¯re heightened. QUESTION: Look, it may very well be the case that this is purely innocent and not military, but that¡¯s not the way it is seen -- MR KIRBY: I never said it was innocent. QUESTION: -- by the other side. MR KIRBY: Never said it was innocent. The United States has -- QUESTION: It¡¯s not a threat? MR KIRBY: -- five of seven ¨C five of seven of our security treaties are in the Pacific ¨C five of seven. QUESTION: Mm-hmm. And none of them cover this specific area. MR KIRBY: And we have ¨C well, I think -- QUESTION: They could if sovereignty ever was ¨C was ever decided over these places. MR KIRBY: We have serious treaty obligations and security commitments in the Asia Pacific region. The situation is growing tense. I don¡¯t disagree with your analysis there. And the chief reason is because of the fabrication of manmade features -- QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: -- by China and the militarization of them. That¡¯s the chief reason. So let¡¯s be clear about why things are getting tense or not. And we have significant obligations ¨C obligations that, because they¡¯re security treaties, must be backed up with a robust and healthy military presence. QUESTION: Well, that¡¯s fine, but -- MR KIRBY: And that is what ¨C and that is what the military is doing. QUESTION: Your treaty obligations to the Philippines, to whoever else, do not include areas that are not under their sovereignty. They don¡¯t include the area ¨C these kinds of areas. MR KIRBY: Whoa, whoa, whoa. No, no, no. QUESTION: And unless I¡¯m mistaken, the United States has never ratified the Law of the Sea ¨C the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. MR KIRBY: But we still act in accordance with it, even though it hasn¡¯t been ratified. We still live up to it. And Matt, the obligations that we have ¨C the treaty obligations ¨C they¡¯re not defined by geographic ¨C specific geographic GPS coordinates, okay? We have an obligation to the Philippines, we have an obligation to Japan, we have an obligation to South Korea. Yes, those are nation-states and yes, they have geography, but the treaties themselves don¡¯t say that you¡¯re only going to defend them in this part of the water and not another part of the water. QUESTION: Okay. But I guess my question is, though, is that if ¨C it may ¨C you¡¯re demanding that the Chinese accept your explanation on this, just as you demand that other countries, like Russia, demand ¨C accept your explanation for NATO moving towards the East as not being a threat. But they perceive it as such, and that ¨C and because they perceive it as such, that raises tensions. So I don¡¯t understand how it is you can ¨C they¡¯re ¨C tensions are not just being raised because of Chinese militarization or the reclamation of land there. They¡¯re also being raised by the response. Now, chicken-or-egg question it is not, yes. But the fact of the matter is the tensions are rising, and when you sail military ships or put military aircraft in there, it doesn¡¯t reduce the tension. It just makes the tension rise more. And I don¡¯t see why -- MR KIRBY: The tension with China I think (inaudible) -- QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. MR KIRBY: -- because our allies and partners, I think, find pretty comforting and reassuring U.S. military presence in the region, which will continue, okay? QUESTION: Okay. But you don¡¯t have tensions with that. MR KIRBY: So let¡¯s talk about whose tensions we¡¯re talking about, and I think it¡¯s great that you feel comfortable speaking for the Chinese Government. I don¡¯t, so I won¡¯t ¨C I won¡¯t ¨C I won¡¯t -- QUESTION: (Laughter.) I¡¯m not speaking for the Chinese Government. MR KIRBY: I¡¯m not going to characterize how they¡¯re viewing each and every flight or navy ship that sails through the South China Sea. But you said it¡¯s, ¡°You want them to accept your explanation.¡± It¡¯s not just the United States¡¯ explanation. It¡¯s the explanation, it¡¯s the view of the ¨C much of the rest of the international community about what the prime source of tension is there, and that is the further reclamation of features and the militarization that we¡¯ve seen on many of them. That¡¯s the prime mover here. QUESTION: But these are new missiles that were putting ¨C were they? I thought my colleagues at the back said it was not -- MR KIRBY: I don¡¯t have ¨C I mean, I don¡¯t -- QUESTION: -- that they had been there for a long time, so I¡¯m a little curious, because I thought they were new. MR KIRBY: I think ¨C well, I ¨C look, I¡¯m not going to speak for what -- QUESTION: No, are they new? I mean -- MR KIRBY: -- Chinese officials have said about how long. I don¡¯t know -- QUESTION: Okay. MR KIRBY: -- how long this particular island had had systems put on it and taken ¨C I don¡¯t know. I¡¯ve not seen it. All I can tell you is we¡¯ve seen imagery that certainly suggests the very recent placement of surface-to-air missile systems. I¡¯m not an expert on Chinese weaponry so I wouldn¡¯t be able to tell you exactly, like, what model or make they are or how new they are ¨C again, not the point. The point is that militarization of these features does nothing to reduce tensions. And look, this is a relationship that¡¯s too important. We¡¯ve got to ¨C we want to see and welcome a peaceful, prosperous rise of China. They¡¯re a regional leader and a global leader in a rapidly growing economy. And they have and can exert positive leadership and influence. And you know we talked a lot about North Korea and a role that China can play there ¨C a very useful role that, frankly, no other nation in the region can play. And that¡¯s what we want to focus on, is working through these tensions and trying to strengthen what could be a very strong relationship with a very powerful nation. And these kinds of activities aren¡¯t doing anything to help us get to that end, and that¡¯s what we really want to focus on. I¡¯ve really got to go. I got to --