[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF EAST ASIA AND
THE PACIFIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND
THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 3, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-115
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-272 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas
DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee CONNIE MACK, Florida
GENE GREEN, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
LYNN WOOLSEY, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas TED POE, Texas
BARBARA LEE, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
VACANT
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
DIANE E. WATSON, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESS
The Honorable Kurt M. Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State....... 7
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific and the Global Environment: Prepared statement......... 4
The Honorable Kurt M. Campbell: Prepared statement............... 10
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois: Prepared statement................. 27
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 48
Hearing minutes.................................................. 49
REGIONAL OVERVIEW OF EAST ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific
and the Global Environment,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Subcommittee will come to order. This is
a hearing of the Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on
Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, and today we have
as our special guest the assistant secretary for East Asian and
Pacific affairs, the Honorable Kurt Campbell. As is the
practice, the chairman and the ranking member usually give
opening statements, and in the process, we should be getting
more members coming in from their respective offices. The
ranking member, my good friend, Congressman Manzullo, is tied
up in a markup at the Financial Services Committee, but I am
sure that he will be here shortly.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us today. I appreciate
your efforts and those of Secretary Clinton and President Obama
in upgrading our relations with the Asia Pacific region. Your
collective efforts have delivered demonstrable positive
results. Indeed, with few exceptions I believe this
administration has done an excellent job in its first year
managing relations with this most dynamic and important region.
For example, despite the challenges posed by China, this
administration has defied the practice of many of its
predecessors by getting off to a positive start with Beijing.
Beijing's relatively mild response to weapons sales to
Taiwan and the visit by the Dalai Lama, I believe, reflect a
maturation of our ties, particularly as a result of the
Strategic and Economic Dialogue and other high-level
interactions, as well as relative calm in the Taiwan straights
with President Ma's election. However, there is also cause for
concern regarding issues ranging from Copenhagen to Google. Yet
I believe the maturation of the United States-China
relationship also suggests China's own interest in peace and
security as the country attempts to maintain internal social
stability by meeting the economic, and increasingly, the social
and political demands of its 1.3 billion citizens.
There is no doubt that China's artificially weak currency
and the country's position on Iran will pose difficult problems
this year. Yet, if both sides hew to the positive, cooperative
and comprehensive United States-China relationship as agreed
last year, I believe we should be able to work things out.
Meanwhile, as the Congressional Research Service has noted,
``Relations between the United States and South Korea arguably
have been at their best state in nearly a decade.'' Last year's
joint vision statement provided an important marker in the
evolution of the bilateral relationship toward a truly global
orientation.
On North Korea, our two countries are working as closely as
ever, which is critically important in transferring any wartime
operational control from the United States to Korea in the near
future. With Seoul chairing the G-20 this year, the Republic of
Korea has a vital role to play in supporting international
growth and development. That said, I am concerned that if the
Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement remains in limbo, the effect
could become increasingly corrosive. That is why I fully
support the timely passage of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade
Agreement. United States-Japan ties, a subject this
subcommittee will address specifically in a hearing in 2 weeks,
remain on a solid footing despite a degree of media
hyperventilation over basing issues, host nation support and
potential changes in Japan's foreign policy.
With the Democratic Party of Japan in power for the first
time in 50 years, we need to demonstrate patience, a word you
have wisely reiterated in recent weeks. So long as we are
guided by our shared interests and our broad, deep and enduring
ties, I believe we will find mutually satisfactory answers to
basing and other issues, especially the problem with Okinawa.
In Southeast Asia, your team has made important strides in
reversing the previous administration's neglect of the region.
Last year's initiation of a long-needed policy change
permitting United States engagement with Myanmar, which you
personally led, and Secretary Clinton's signing of the ASEAN
Treaty of Amity and Cooperation set the stage for enhanced
relations with the region.
President Obama's participation in a first-ever U.S.-ASEAN
Summit and his personal links to Indonesia, including his trip
there to launch the U.S.-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership
later this month, will further bolster our ties. However, I
urge you, Mr. Secretary, to make continuing human rights abuses
in West Papua a priority as we develop the partnership.
Meanwhile, our alliances in Thailand and the Philippines remain
robust, as do our diplomatic, economic and security relations
with Singapore and Malaysia. United States interactions with
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia have become increasingly
cooperative, and the fact that Vietnam is chairing ASEAN this
year offers an effective means of strengthening ties.
Our relations with Cambodia have deepened, particularly
after last year's lifting of the ban on direct assistance to
the Cambodian Government and on Export-Import Bank financing
for United States companies seeking to do business in Phnom
Penh as well as in Laos. As we discussed last week, I strongly
advocate forgiving Cambodia's debt in order to improve that
country's economy and to address the legacy of war. Toward that
end, I also believe we should take a more proactive stance in
funding demining operations in Laos and in addressing the
tragic effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam. In addition, I hope
we can compliment our diplomatic, political and strategic
overtures in Southeast Asia with real progress on trade,
including on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, on other
initiatives with individual Southeast Asian countries and ASEAN
as a whole, and ultimately a free trade area for this region.
In the Pacific, the administration has been on the right
track with Secretary Clinton's meeting with Pacific Island
leaders during the U.N. General Assembly. As you noted, Mr.
Secretary, her commitment to holding such meetings annually is
a great improvement. Your having moved forward on returning
USAID to the Pacific Islands through the $13 million requested
for Fiscal Year 2011, an initiative I have pursued for more
than a decade, I believe, will have an important, positive
effect. As you know, Mr. Secretary, I have been screaming for
the last 20 years about the fact that we have not had a USAID
presence in the Pacific.
I look forward to Secretary Clinton's rescheduled trip to
Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, and, as you
mentioned in our discussion, her plans to stop in American
Samoa as part of the trip, which, as you indicated, she was
slated to do originally. Following up on our discussions, I
have also invited her to stop over as I believe such a visit
would support your efforts to strengthen United States-Pacific
Island relations and American Samoa's position as a regional
leader. It would also give her the chance to thank the
thousands of Samoan men and women serving in the Armed Forces
during a year that will be marked both by rebuilding efforts in
the aftermath of the devastating earthquake and tsunami, and by
the 110th anniversary of the United States flag being raised in
American Samoa. Our people in the military services put their
lives on the line every day in the most dangerous parts of the
world. In fact, in Iraq we have a higher per capita combat
mortality rate than any other U.S. State or territory.
I applaud Secretary Clinton in meeting her objectives to
deepen our historical ties, build new partnerships and work
with existing multilateral organizations. As she has aptly
stated, ``America's future is linked to the future of the Asia
Pacific region, and the future of this region depends on
America.'' I am very, very happy that we are joined this
afternoon by one of our distinguished colleagues and senior
members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and our former
ambassador to the FSM, my dear friend, Congresswoman Watson
from California, for her opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega
follows:]Faleomavaega statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Watson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I feel this is
a very timely hearing so we can look to the state of affairs in
East Asia and the Pacific. Samoa is such an important part of
that region, and I look forward to returning again. In these
last few months we have seen a considerable change in the
region. Japan saw a shift in leadership for the first time in
50 years from the liberal Democratic Party to the Democratic
Party of Japan. North Korea left negotiations and carried out a
nuclear test. Though the administration has made some strides
with respect to building a more positive relationship with
China, there is a long way to go, increasingly complicated by
the friction of the Sino-United States economic relations.
With this changing environment in the region it is
important to reevaluate our strategy in order to maintain some
stability. Therefore, I thank you, Secretary Campbell, for
coming to answer our questions and to address some of these
changing issues. I also, again, thank the chairman, and I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Congresswoman. I appreciate
your testimony. Again, our subcommittee is very honored to have
with us assistant secretary for East Asian and Pacific affairs,
Secretary Campbell. Secretary Campbell was appointed and
nominated by President Obama and he became assistant secretary
in June of last year. A very, very distinguished record. A
history in the Asia Pacific region, a former associate
professor of public policy and international relations at the
John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Dr.
Campbell served in several capacities, also as deputy assistant
secretary of defense for the Asia Pacific. Also was a director
on the National Security Council staff as a White House fellow,
an officer in the Navy. What hasn't he done?
Received his bachelor's degree from the University of
California in San Diego and his doctorate in international
relations from Oxford University's Brasenose College, and was a
distinguished Marshall Scholar. Mr. Secretary, I again thank
you for coming, and I am going to give you the floor. Please
share with us your wisdom. I am sure that my colleagues and I
will have some questions and comments on the state of affairs
in this important region of the world, the Asia Pacific. Mr.
Secretary?
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT M. CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ms.
Watson. Thank you both for your leadership on these issues and
your commitment. I cannot imagine a more timely hearing than to
discuss American strategy and our commitments in the Asian
Pacific region. Before I get started, I would like to ask that
my full testimony be submitted for the record. It is rather
lengthy and detailed and I don't want to read it. I would
rather us have a conversation.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection. Any other ancillary
materials you would like to submit for the record, Mr.
Secretary, you are more than welcome.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you. I will do so. Mr. Chairman, I
think the truth of the matter is the United States faces both
challenges, real challenges, but also opportunities in the
Asian Pacific region, and now we have the opportunity to look
back over the last year to what we have accomplished and some
of the things that we would like to work on in the time ahead.
First of all, let me say that one of the most significant
issues that we deal with is that when we look back on this
period in 20 or 30 years, I think there will be no doubt that
although we are importantly engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and
in issues in South Asia, the truth is, I think, really the
fulcrum of history, the most dynamic region of the world, the
most important issues for our prosperity and our role in global
politics, those issues are playing out in the Asian Pacific
region.
It is absolutely essential that the United States convey to
the key players in the Asian Pacific region that we are here to
stay and that we are going to play a dynamic and continuing
role in all aspects of foreign policy, national security, the
promotion of human rights and our values, trade, economics in
the region going forward. It is absolutely essential. I have to
say, Mr. Chairman, there really wasn't a word in your
statement, or yours, Ms. Watson, that I would disagree with. I
think I would associate myself very strongly with everything
that you have said. You will have noted that from the outset of
the administration our senior team, the President, the
Secretary and other senior officials, Secretary Gates and
others, have tried to make clear not only with their words, but
their actions, about their strong commitment to the region.
Secretary Clinton's first visit as Secretary of State was
to the Asian Pacific region. During the first year in her
capacity as Secretary of State she visited the region four
times and she will have a similar record in the period ahead.
She has taken enormous steps not just in Northeast Asia, but
also in Southeast Asia as well. I must also say that she has a
vision of drawing India, a critical country for the United
States, one of the arriving nations in global politics, to
bring India more closely into our discussions and our dialogue
associated with critical issues in the Asian Pacific region.
President Obama visited, important visit to Southeast Asia for
APEC.
Also the first ever, as the chairman indicated, U.S.-ASEAN
Summit in Singapore, and also important discussions with our
friends in Japan and South Korea, and I think an important
visit to China as well. In the coming weeks he will be making
another visit to Asia where he will stop in Guam, an American
protectorate. The chairman has given us excellent advice about
how to think about that trip. Also, stops in Indonesia where he
spent time as a young person, and Australia as well. We are
looking forward to that, and I think it is another opportunity
to reaffirm our strong commitment to the region as a whole. We
face not only traditional challenges of the kind that we faced
for decades, questions about an uncertain set of circumstances
on the Korean peninsula, we still face challenges there, we
have the responsibility of the maintenance of peace and
stability across the Taiwan Straight, and we also face the
challenge of terrorism in Southeast Asia in various forms.
In addition, we face new challenges, such as the challenge
of climate change. Some of our partners and friends in the
region believe that this is one of the greatest challenges of
the 21st Century. I would concur with that assessment, and I
know that will be one of the issues that the President and the
Prime Minister in Australia will be discussing in a couple of
weeks' time. In some specifics, Mr. Chairman, I would say that,
as you indicate, we have a new government in Japan, really the
first fundamental transition in government power in Japan, in
over half a century. We are working very closely with our
partners in the new government. I must underscore that they
have taken several steps that the United States deeply
appreciates.
Today, they are the largest supporter of assistance to
Afghanistan. They have stepped up in a big way. In many
respects, more significant and substantial investments than
some of our traditional partners in Afghanistan. They have been
very supportive in the wake of the Copenhagen meetings in terms
of following through with critical, credible steps in terms of
trying to deal with the potential consequences of climate
change. We are also working closely on issues associated with
our security relationship. I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, like
you, I am confident that we will find a way forward to work
through our issues on Okinawa. We share many of the same goals.
We want to reduce the burden on the people of Okinawa, but at
the same time, we believe the maintenance of American forces in
Japan is a cornerstone of our commitment to the Asian Pacific
region.
The only thing I would disagree with, you said our
relations with Korea are the best they have been in 10 years. I
would say how about ever. This is the best I have ever seen
relations between Washington and Seoul. The summit that I
witnessed between our two leaders was the best I have ever
experienced. I must say we are deeply grateful for the very
substantial commitment that we get on a range of issues from
our South Korean friends. Their recent commitment to
Afghanistan, their increase in support for a variety of
investment and humanitarian assistance in the Asian Pacific
region and elsewhere is much appreciated.
I think you and others have rightly underscored the
challenge of the relationship with China. We will have much
more to discuss about that in the question and answer. I would
just simply say that we recognize that this is probably the
most complicated and complex relationship that the United
States deals with on a daily basis. There are going to be
issues that we work closely on, there are going to be issues
that we need to cooperate, but there are also going to be
issues on which the United States and China disagree. We are
working closely with our friends in Beijing on a range of
issues currently. At the top of the list are critical issues to
the United States. I would argue, and we would argue, to the
global community they include Iran, North Korea, climate change
and also continuing efforts to ensure that we are seeking a
true recovery economically.
There are a range of issues that our two sides deal with.
As you have underscored, Mr. Chairman, we have had a recent
period of some disagreements, but we are confident that we are
going to be able to maintain positive momentum going forward.
There is a substantial ballast in our ship in United States-
China relations and we recognize the importance of this
relationship. We are also committed to maintaining peace and
stability across the Taiwan Straight. You will have noted the
steps that we have taken in this regard in recent weeks, and we
stand by those. You have also seen a substantial increase in
our commitments in Southeast Asia. We have a comprehensive
partnership with Indonesia that the President will launch in a
few weeks.
Secretary Clinton underscored her commitment to the region
through a MeKong Delta initiative. We have signed the Treaty of
Amity and Cooperation. We are in deep discussion with our
friends in Southeast Asia about the next steps associated with
architecture. We talked about that, Mr. Chairman, when I met
with you last week. Clearly, the United States wants to play a
role in the multilateral institutional discussions in the
region, and we will have more to talk about in the near future.
We are also engaged in a careful dialogue in Burma. We
recognize the challenges there. We have not lifted our
sanctions.
We have very clear guidelines about how we would like to
proceed, and we call on the government there to continue to
take steps to hopefully lead to a dialogue inside the country
and also to release political prisoners and to stop some of the
violence against indigenous groups, including ethnic
minorities, and of course the longstanding call on the part of
the United States to release Aung San Suu Kyi.
Our relationship with Australia is outstanding, and we have
taken recent steps to make sure that we are working more
actively with the new government and new friends in New
Zealand. Then again, as I underscored at the outset, Asia as a
region is growing in many respects and India's role in this
respect is critical. So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would
just say we have our work cut out for us and enormous
challenges. The region still looks to the United States for
leadership and for commitment, and we will continue to try to
provide that as we move forward. Thank you for this
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell
follows:]Kurt Campbell deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We are joined
now by the distinguished ranking member of our subcommittee,
the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo. I would like to
offer him time if he has an opening statement that he wishes to
share with the committee.
Mr. Manzullo. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this
important hearing, and welcome, Mr. Secretary, to this hearing
today. I recall with fondness the special relationship that we
had with Ambassador Chris Hill, former assistant secretary of
Asia, when he held the same position. We know that we are going
to have the same close working relationship with you. In fact,
in April of this year the ambassador from Thailand is coming to
my district to talk about Southeast Asia issues, and we are
very much looking forward to that and sharing his insight with
the students, and faculty and the community at Rockford
College. Asia Pacific region is one of the most important areas
of the world for the United States.
Maintaining good relations in Asia are important not only
for geopolitical reasons, but for its vital economic trade and
jobs-related purposes as well. According to the East West
Center, Asia accounts for 27 percent of total export related
jobs in America. Given the fact that America's export sector
accounts for almost 40 percent of total gross domestic product,
it is vital that we get our relationship with Asia correct. The
congressional district I have the honor to represent depends
heavily on exports and foreign direct investment to maintain
the jobs that we desperately need. I want to thank the
administration for doing a good job at managing broader United
States-Asia relations. The administration's focus on Southeast
Asia, in particular, is a step in the right direction.
However, with regard to Burma, China and Japan, the record
is a little mixed. The administration needs to be tougher on
Burma and scrap its misplaced efforts to engage the military
junta. Burma's conviction of Nyi Nyi Aung, an American citizen,
on trumped up political charges is the largest example for why
we need to end this pointless engagement exercise. Burma will
not change regardless of how much we want it to. We have all
followed the travails of Aung San Suu Kyi and the continuous
harassment that she has had. I think the administration needs
to be a lot tougher on Burma. The administration needs to act
more assertively with Beijing to ensure that America's
interests are not negatively impacted.
China continues with this business as usual attitude when
it comes to important issues, such as currency manipulation,
intellectual property rights violations and lack of religious
freedom. Despite the administration's efforts to reset
relations with China, it is clear the leaders of China care
more about protecting their country's own interest than to
forge a new relationship. The cyber attack on Google is the
perfect example of this relationship imbalance. Though, to be
sure, we have worked with China and seen just a little bit of
good light with regard to intellectual property challenges and
know that they are engaged in that, but we really need more
help from the U.S. Government to encourage China to continue to
protect intellectual property rights.
Concerning Japan, the administration must act quickly to
correlate and lay out a long-term ramification of protracted
uncertainty on basing at Okinawa. I strongly encourage the
administration to make it crystal clear to the Japanese
Government that Congress expects it to honor the preexisting
agreement. I would also state that accompanying the ambassador
from Thailand will be the ambassador from Japan, giving
tremendous honor to Rockford College, appearing at a joint
session dealing with economic and economic viability in Asia
and Southeast Asia, so we are very much interested in the State
Department working in that area, and, Mr. Secretary, very much
interested in working with you on an even closer basis. I know
I can speak for my chairman, but we would love to have coffee
with you some morning with the members of our subcommittee and
talk about a variety of issues. Is that correct, Chairman?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Absolutely.
Mr. Campbell. I would welcome it. I have had the
opportunity to do that with the chairman, and any time we are
available. I do very much appreciate your support for this kind
of endeavor.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo
follows:]Manzullo statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. I would like to turn the time
now to our good friend, the gentlelady from California, for her
questions.
Ms. Watson. Thank you. In the State of the Union the
President spoke of strengthening our relationship with Korea.
In her statement last week, Secretary Clinton also mentioned
the importance of our Korea relationship. The budget request
includes an economic support fund with $2.5 million for North
Korea for democracy promotion and human rights programs. In
your statement you noted that the administration is committed
to building a more dynamic relationship with South Korea, and
our ranking member also did. Can you expand on the plan? How
will you measure the effectiveness of your strategy? What is
the administration's posture on China's role in the Korean
peninsula? Are there plans for the Korean FTA?
Believe me, in my brief trip last August that was our
number one topic when we got to South Korea, the FTA. I have
met with visiting delegations that have come from Korea, and we
had to go there, we do an exchange, and I told them we probably
wouldn't be able to take up the FTA last year, but we certainly
are going, after we get past our other issues that we are
dealing with now, we will look at an FTA. They are very, very
interested. So can you just bring us up, these issues?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you so much. Let me try to talk
collectively on all the issues that we confront and our
opportunities on the Korean peninsula. Let me just say that the
President mentioned the free trade agreement in the State of
the Union, the Secretary has on several occasions, and when we
met with President Myung-bak in Seoul in November he made a
very passionate and very committed plea to the United States to
take this opportunity to engage with South Korea, and that
South Korea had enormous opportunities with China and
elsewhere, but this was really the opportunity for the United
States to take an important step. I found the argument
extraordinarily persuasive. I am optimistic, as you indicate,
that just as the President and the Secretary has said, that we
will be taking this up in due course.
Ms. Watson. I have the largest South Korean community in
the whole United States, about 160,000, and Korea town is right
where my office is located so I am in dialogue with them all of
the time. One of their issues was the balance of trade. We have
to wait on our turn when we deal with these policies as a
caucus on the floor, but I certainly am going to be doing all I
can to see that we get to a good discussion and a policy. I
know that the chair is also very interested, and the ranking
member, too, so we are going to be doing all that we can.
Mr. Campbell. Great. I appreciate that very much,
Congresswoman. I must say, when I met with the chairman and
other members, they have also made clear why they think this
agreement would be good for Korea, very good for the United
States. Clearly, there are probably some issues that have to be
discussed, but overall I think there is a deep appreciation
about how important this is to American strategy, to American
commitment in the region, and we take this very, very
seriously. I must say, I personally appreciate your commitment
and support of this overall endeavor. In terms of North Korea,
obviously we face enormous challenges. We are trying to put
forward as part of the Six-Party framework an approach that
makes very clear to North Koreans that they must come back to
negotiations, they must commit denuclearization and must abide
by the commitments they have made in the joint statement in
2005, and that that is the essential next step.
I think we have been very patient, honestly, and I think
Secretary Clinton's general concept of strategic patience has
been applicable here. We are lock step with South Korea, Japan
and other countries in our strategy and our desire to make sure
that North Korea takes applicable steps to bring them in line
with the commitments they have already made in 2005. At the
same time, we remain very concerned about the human rights and
the tragic circumstances that North Koreans continue to live
under brutal circumstances. I have worked closely with your
members, Senator Brownback and others on the other side of the,
the other body, on strategies for how the United States can
support people, refugees and others who have left North Korea.
We have worked very closely with the South Korean
Government on efforts at assisting refugees to be resettled
inside South Korea, and we are also looking at opportunities
for educational exchange for newly arrived North Koreans who
make the successful transition to South Korea to have the
opportunity to come to the United States for purposes of study.
This is a very real and challenging set of problems and we
accept them head on. The South Koreans are very generous in
their support for resettlement, and we think our primary
commitment in this regard is to support South Korea in this
overall effort, but we take it seriously. We have had dialogues
with China about steps that we would like to see them take in
assisting.
Many of the people who flee North Korea go through China
and we think that is absolutely essential. We talk with Chinese
friends about the Korean peninsula, about North Korea,
particularly in the venue of the Six-Party framework, and I
think our general goal, of course, is to bring North Korea back
in line with its earlier commitments associated with the Six-
Party Talks. Still, lots of work to be done and enormous
challenges on the peninsula going forward.
Ms. Watson. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can I use a few more
minutes? I had some questions about Japan.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Sure.
Ms. Watson. Okay. The change in government from the liberal
Democratic Party to the Democratic Party Japan has altered the
United States-Japanese relations in the last year. The planned
relocation of the U.S. Marines Futenma Air Station to Okinawa
has stalled. I was on the island of Okinawa many years ago for
2 years. The reason why there wasn't a real big push to get us
out of there is because we were about 95 percent of their
economy. The Okinawans worked in our residence, they worked in
our PX, they worked in our officers' quarters and so on, so we
had a pretty good feeling, but now I know things have changed.
I do read that there are demonstrations from time to time for
us to leave.
What is the state of our security relationship with Japan
in light of its geopolitical vulnerability to North Korea? How
does the new regime in Japan affect United States-Japan
relationships with respect to global warming, Six-Party Talks
and the upcoming Japanese hosted APEC summit?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Again,
critical questions about Japan. I would say that Japan is an
essential partner of the United States in the Asian Pacific
region. We just cannot accomplish nearly what we need to unless
we have a strong partnership between Washington and Tokyo. We
have tried to walk a careful path when it comes to Japan and
our issues associated with Okinawa and other aspects of our
security relationship. On the one hand, we have tried to be
very firm and clear about what our expectations are and what we
believe is essential for the maintenance of our mutual security
and to best allow for the United States to play its role as the
guarantor of peace and stability in the region.
At the same time, we expect a new government, it is natural
to ask questions, to explore new opportunities and new choices,
and it is incumbent on us as a partner to work with them
through that process, not to be dictatorial, but to act as a
partner, to listen and to consult. That is what we are in the
process of doing. Okinawa is very difficult politics. We
appreciate that and we understand it. We have made very clear
to the central government that we still believe that the
current plan that was negotiated several years ago is the best
way forward. At the same time, we remain open to other
suggestions and ideas. I must say, many of these we have also
looked at as well. We still think this is the best way forward.
In addition to these issues, however, Japan is one of our
closest allies on a range of issues, including steps to prevent
and deal with global climate change, they are supportive of our
endeavors in Afghanistan and they are close partners when it
comes to thinking about how to successfully engage North Korea.
So I must say that I think some of the rhetoric and discussions
about United States-Japan relationship is indeed, as the
chairman said, a little bit overblown. This is one of our
closest global partners. Frankly, we think that there is just a
natural chemistry and a natural and strategic rationale for our
two countries to work very closely together. So we are trying
to be patient and firm at the same time, and also clear about
how critical we believe this relationship is as we go forward.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentlelady from California. I
have about 200 questions I wanted to ask you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Campbell. Well, we better get started quick then.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Shortened down just to a couple, Mr.
Secretary. Looking in terms of the numbers, I believe you have
quite a responsibility with this region in the world. My guess
tells me that you have responsibility for well over 2.7 billion
people in terms of geographical responsibility. Am I correct on
that, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Campbell. I am not sure they would all feel that way,
but, I mean, in terms of the region, the region that I am
working on does indeed extend from Japan all the way down to
Australia and New Zealand. It does encompass the largest
population groups, the most dynamic economies and some of the
greatest challenges that are confronting global politics today.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I have a question for you concerning a
country that is not even on the radar screen in terms of our
national priorities. I believe that we really dropped the ball
in not correcting some of the things we have done wrongfully
against this country. In the first place, this country never
attacked us and they never declared war against us. We are the
ones who simply went over there and bombed the heck out of
them. I am talking about the country of Laos, Mr. Secretary. We
dropped 270 million bombs on this country, approximately 2
million tons. About 80 million of the bomblets from the cluster
bombs failed to detonate. As a result of this bombing we did,
some 50,000 Laotians died.
It is my understanding that one of the problems that we
have had is that when our pilots, whatever their bombing
missions--whether it be up north, Vietnam, or wherever--had to
come and just drop them off. And it happens to be that poor
Laos and Cambodia were caught. My point is that I wanted to
share with you a very serious concern, Mr. Secretary. Total
U.S. direct funding to help deal with unexploded ordnance, Mr.
Secretary--and I am talking about 80 million bombs that failed
to detonate--has amounted to only $176,000. This is absolutely
outrageous, and it is not the America that I know.
Total U.S. donations to the UNDP, supposedly through the
damage trust fund for some 11-year period, is only $3.1
million. It would take approximately 100 years to complete
this. If this is the rate that we are spending on helping the
Laotian Government correct this, what I consider an injustice,
really, on our part, and that we never seem to just--they just
seem to fly away and never seem to bother with it. The fact
that this country with a small population of only 4 million
people and we are not giving the proper assistance that these
people really need. Approximately 300 people, children and
women especially, die as a result of getting hit with
unexploded ordnance. I want to ask you, Mr. Secretary, is the
State Department going to review this dismal record? In my
opinion, given the bombs that we dropped on this country,
shouldn't we make a little better donation to help clean up the
place? Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Campbell. I would, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, and I
thank you for your passion and commitment on this particular
issue. I must also tell you that in my meetings with Senator
Webb and others in the other House, they have also raised this
issue with me. I will be in Laos next week and I expect these
issues to come up directly. I would like nothing more to be
able to work with you to assist with my department to try to
get some more support. I, too, believe that this is not only a
critical issue strategically, but it is also a critical moral
issue, and so I think it makes sense. I want to tell a story on
me that I don't think is particularly favorable, but it will
give you a sense of some of the challenges that we occasionally
face at the State Departments.
One of my first briefings still kind of learning the ropes,
I had come from the Department of Defense and we have a
different set of zeros, and so very able, incredibly committed
staff started briefing me on some foreign assistance efforts. I
am looking at something and I saw it, I said, well, this looks
about right. I think, you know, $22 million for this particular
effort is correct. There was kind of silence. So finally
someone got up enough courage and said, well, actually, you
know, Curt, it is $22,000. Right? So we have some very real
challenges here and lots of competition for scarce resources. I
must say, given, Mr. Faleomavaega, your commitments,
Congressman, and Senator Webb's and others, I think there is
room for a greater dialogue between the executive branch and
our friends on Capitol Hill on this issue. I must also say I
think a small amount of money can go a long way here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I could not agree with you----
Mr. Campbell. I think we are actually in violin agreement
here. I would love to work with you to see what we can do going
forward. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Please. I think that perhaps we spent
almost $1 billion in building that embassy that we have in
Baghdad. Over $900 million in building an embassy there for 15
million people.
I note with interest that the President is going to go to
Indonesia this month. I don't know if you were aware, but there
was a national blog during the Presidential election that
claimed I was a special agent for then-Senator Barack Obama.
And when I visited Indonesia and the school that he attended
when he was young--which I did visit--my assignment was to make
sure that there was no record whatsoever indicating that Barack
Obama was born in Indonesia. Unbelievable. The birthers are
really at it thinking that this is really God's honest truth.
Mr. Secretary, there has been one issue that I have been
following for years, and that is the situation in West Papua. I
don't want to get into the history of how Jakarta and the
dictator Suharto just went and took over West Papua by force.
Then, they got 1,000 West Papuan chiefs to vote 100 percent to
be with Indonesia, which was an absolute sham. There was no
question. Even the United Nations observers who went there
wrote a report saying that this was a sham. Lately, the West
Papuans have been looking at a document that was supposedly
meant to help them. It was called a special autonomy law that
the Indonesian Government passed in 1991 under President
Megawati.
To this day, Mr. Secretary, I have no idea if the
provisions of this special autonomy law for West Papua have
been implemented. In fact, I have every reason to believe they
have not done anything to implement the provisions of this
important law. Then there is also the latest development. I
think someone in the State Department or the Department of
Defense fully supports giving military training to Kopassus.
Now, there has been a lot of harm done in terms of the Kopassus
presence not only in West Papua, but all over Indonesia. I
would appreciate if you could follow up on this and see where
we are with the needs of the people of West Papua.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am going to withhold my question. I
want to yield to my good friend from California, Mr. Royce, if
he has an opening statement or questions.
Mr. Royce. I do. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I
will just make a couple of points. Asia right now is half of
the world's economy and is rather aggressively pursuing
regional economic integration. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce
tallies 168 agreements in force in Asia. We are a party to
merely two of those, Australia and Singapore. So I am glad when
I hear you say that the President is talking more about the
importance of trade, but I think we need concrete action. I
think, for example, the Korean-American Trade Agreement, KORUS,
that would be one example. The Europeans are stepping in and
doing that same agreement while we are locked out. That means
that American workers and American consumers lose in the long
run if we are not engaging in these trade agreements in Asia.
I think the second challenge here is to make human rights
part of the strategic outlook, and that also concerns me
because whether we are talking about China, or Vietnam, or
North Korea, or Burma--and I think for a minute just about what
I have seen in the last few months in Vietnam and the
crackdowns there and the press reports that come across my
desk. There are 17 activists that were recently convicted in 1-
day show trials. In North Korea there are some 200,000
political prisoners who are rotting away in the gulags there.
We all monitor China's assaults on individual freedom and on
free speech of their citizens, and what is happening in Burma
concerns us all. I think that we often get caught up in the
question of the here and now.
Will China sign on to Iran's sanctions? What is North
Korea's latest demand? What we are missing is the big picture.
We are missing that often these abuses against their own people
are more indicative of the direction in which these countries
are headed, and frankly, the need for us to do more to hold
them to account. That needs to be better ingrained in our
policy. I will give you an example. As far as putting Vietnam
back on the list of countries of particular concern, I would
say at a time when the Commission on International Religious
Freedom reports about what is happening to the Catholic Church,
what is happening with detentions, and threats, and harassment
and violence by what they call contract thugs against religious
leaders; at a time when police officers beat and shock
prisoners with electric batons, according to the Human Rights
Watch; at a time when the Buddhist church is terrorized by
undercover police and by local communist officials, and it is
across the board, whether it is Protestant, or Buddhist, or
Catholic, now is the time, in light of these abuses, to relist
Vietnam on the CPC list.
Now, legislation I have authored has gone over to the
Senate to attempt to affect that. These are steps that you,
frankly, could take, and should take. I will ask you about
that. Then, I am also concerned about the Philippines. I am
concerned about the elections there. I have been engaged in the
past in these election observer efforts overseas and elections
in May are approaching there. Past polls have been hampered, of
course, by accusations of corruption. I have heard from the
Filipino community in southern California that they are
concerned about that upcoming election and that it may be
similarly hampered if there aren't election observers. So I
would ask you, what is being done to lay the groundwork for
this election, whether it is observers or other actions, to
help ensure a fair process? Is NDI, IRI, are these institutions
going to be there on the ground to help monitor? I would
appreciate your response.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Congressman Royce, and
thank you for coming today. On the first point let me just say
that when you travel around Asia and spend time in Asia the
Asian friends look to us for many things. They are grateful and
appreciative for our role as the provider of peace and
stability. Our four deployed forces play a critical role in the
prosperity that that region has enjoyed for the last two
generations. They are also supportive of our deep commitments
to democracy and human rights. I think if you look at one of
the great achievements of American foreign policy, it is the
trend of democratization and the greater respect for human
rights.
You see that in countries like South Korea, Indonesia and
other countries in Southeast Asia, so I accept that very
clearly. It is also the case that Asian trends really look to
the United States to be a leader on economic issues and on
trade. That is just undeniable. That is something that in every
meeting I have with my Asian interlocutors, the issue of what
the American commitment is in this respect. Now, I think the
President has tried to say a couple of things, and I think the
administration is trying to work on others.
He has in almost all his senior meetings, Congressman,
tried to underscore that there is going to have to be a
rebalancing of sorts between Asia and the United States going
forward, that over time that--first of all, it is not going to
be possible to return to what we might call the status quo
antebellum whereby very inexpensive Asian capital comes into
the United States under good terms and that we buy relatively
inexpensive Asian products leading to a massive trade
imbalance--that as we go forward, the United States is going to
have to save more and Asians are going to have to buy more
American goods, that is absolutely clear, and that, in
particular, we have got to see some of the big economies
stepping up to assist in this respect.
I think that what we are seeing, both with the free trade
agreement and the TPV formula are prospects and possibilities
of substantial improvements in American economic performance in
the Asian Pacific region, so I am with you. I support that, and
I think that is the right way forward. I must also say, and I
think you will appreciate this, in the current environment, I
mean, the President has made very clear it is hard sometimes to
defend and explain trade when you are dealing with very
substantial problems associated with unemployment, but
nevertheless, I do believe that this is a strong area----
Mr. Royce. Let me interject there and say that there are
some estimates that 345,000 jobs could be lost if Europe signs
this trading agreement with Korea and the United States does
not. So I understand the rhetorical position that it is hard to
argue this point, but at the same time, if we are left out of
trade agreements and Europe fills the breach, that means the
loss of jobs.
Mr. Campbell. Congressman, and I will tell you very
clearly, many of our Asian friends have made the point that
this is a closing window. They want the United States in the
game. I must say, the challenge is not just from Europe, it is
from China, it is from other countries, and it is a very real
and deep challenge. I think one of the arguments that we have
got to be clear about is the one issue that I would disagree
with you on is I think you can't look at this picture in terms
of Asia in its totality. You have got to break it up. There are
components of Asia and of our trade agreements that are very
good for the United States, and there are some areas that are
much more challenging. Obviously, China is in a very
challenging position, but Australia, we have a very substantial
surplus, and many studies of other trade agreements or
prospective trade agreements suggest that they could be very
good for the United States.
Mr. Royce. Let us move on because I wanted to quickly get
your thoughts on the Philippine election, if we could, on that?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you. I mean, look, we have some history
with Philippine elections. They are periods that require
greater American and international vigilance in advance of
those elections. We are taking those steps and we are doing a
variety of things, let me just say. One, we are trying to keep
our ears open. We hear lots of reports, and we think it is
important to make sure that we have a good sense of what is
going on on the ground. We are looking at, you know, the new
voting machines, all of those things. We have very high-level
dialogue with our excellent ambassador and others, with the
Filipino Governments deg., with the appropriate
authorities about what are expectations are in terms of the
upcoming election, and we also expect that there will be
substantial external observers, including those from the United
States.
There is a discussion between not just the Republican
National Institute and the Democratic National Institute, but
other groups as well associated with the United Nations. So I
think we have enough warning, enough knowledge, and also, the
Philippines is so important to us it is critical that this
election go through in a smooth way, in a way that Filipinos
and Americans can be proud and work together going forward.
Mr. Royce. And the CPC list, as it affects Vietnam,
countries of particular concern, given the----
Mr. Campbell. I am aware of your letter, Congressman, and
what I would like to ask is the opportunity to get back to you
in due course. This is an issue that will be taken up in the
next several weeks in the United States Government. I must say,
we face a very real challenge in the Asian Pacific region on
some of these issues. One of the great concerns is that we have
I would say a bit of a dichotomy with Vietnam, very real
concerns about backsliding on issues of human rights and
religious issues in recent years, but at the same time, this is
a government that sees that it wants a closer relationship with
the United States for strategic reasons.
One of the things that we have tried to argue with them, it
is going to be very hard to have that kind of relationship
unless they take specific steps to improve their situation at
home. So I understand that, and I guess what I would like is a
little bit more time to be able to process. I am going to be in
the region next week. I will have some specifics, and I would
promise, if you will allow me, to get back directly in touch
with you.
Mr. Royce. I will, certainly, Assistant Secretary Campbell.
I would just ask you to remember, unless we exert leverage,
given what has happened there in terms of human rights abuses
and the way they basically took advantage of a situation to
then clamp down and beat senseless a lot of pro-democracy--and
not even just pro-democracy activists, we are talking about
everything from young people using the internet to Buddhist
monks who simply want to practice their faith. I have been to
Vietnam and talked to some of these political prisoners about
what they faced and what has happened to their countrymen,
including the loss of life on the part of some of the Buddhists
in Vietnam as a result of these beatings. So let us exert a
little leverage in this, and we can do it with a CPC list re-
designation. Thank you very much, Assistant Secretary Campbell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. The gentlelady from
California.
Ms. Watson. I want to move to the environment, and I am so
pleased and proud to see that the Secretary also went down to
Chile. You know, we witnessed this weekend probably an
earthquake in Chile of biblical proportions. I mean, I think in
many ways it was worse than the one in Haiti. That earthquake
led to hundreds of deaths, like it did in Haiti, and also
threatened Pacific islands and nations in direct danger of a
massive tsunami. Hawaii and Japan both waited with baited
breath as swollen waves passed by their respective shores.
Clearly, tsunamis pose potential collateral damage to many
islands and ports, even when the epicenter of disaster is far
off. It looks like we are really having trouble in our Pacific
areas. So what plans are underway to improve forecasting,
detection, preparation and evacuation? I did see the Secretary
saying that she bought equipment for communications and so on.
So if you could just expand on that for us? There have been
reports of repression on ethnic minorities in Burma--well, let
us have you deal with Chile, and then we will go on to Burma.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Watson. I
think that when it comes to certain kinds of natural disasters,
typhoons, earthquakes and the like, the United States has a
multifaceted strategy for how to try to deal with these
challenges. The truth is we have learned a lot since 2004 since
the tragic tsunami hit Indonesia and other countries in
Southeast Asia. First, there is now a much more comprehensive
set of sensors on the floor of the Pacific and using other
instruments that allow us to better predict how and when a
seismic event might lead to tragic tsunami-like waves.
Ms. Watson. Let me just ask you to put a pen in that. We
went to Aceh afterwards and there was a gentleman there who had
predicted this level of tsunami and so on, and I think that he
was criticized and really fired from his job. So after it hit,
and there was so much destruction. In fact, we flew over by
helicopter and we just saw ripples in the water where islands
have been. They couldn't even tell the number of people because
the last time they took the census there had been more babies
born. Just swept off of the globe. And so they found him to be
right. So he was the one that was on the air. We heard his
predictions and all. I see that our Secretary, as I mentioned,
took communication equipment over. So I am just wondering if
the people are more in tuned with the forecast. Go ahead.
Mr. Campbell. I think the problem in parts of Indonesia,
and Malaysia and elsewhere is that there was insufficient
warning, and, in fact, knowledge. This complex sensor system
that has now been activated in the Pacific gives us a much
greater clarity and more warning time. So, if you will recall,
after the Chilean earthquake we had several hours in which to
prepare in Hawaii and other American protectorates, and we got
the word out to Japan and other countries. So I would say in
many respects that the recent event indicates that our
preparedness has improved substantially. If I can mention just
one last thing, Congresswoman, but the truth is what we have to
be prepared is to respond. We have had our horrible rains in
the Philippines this year, terrible cyclones, other situations
in Guam, in American Samoa and elsewhere.
Ms. Watson. In California, my State.
Mr. Campbell. That is right, but in the Pacific, by far and
away, despite all the discussion about rising powers, it has
been the United States by more than any other country that has
been able to provide humanitarian assistance, to get our forces
there on the scene rapidly and to provide necessary steps
toward recovery. We are very proud of that. I think that record
over the last 6 to 8 months in this respect is quite
substantial. We intend to keep those efforts up as we move
forward.
Ms. Watson. I know that on one of the Hawaiian Islands they
did have a system, and at the time of the tsunami hitting
within that region of Aceh the system had not been completed
around to that side of the delta, so you are informing us now
that they have completed it.
Mr. Campbell. I don't know about every aspect of it, but
almost all the critical components, these are sensors on the
bottom of the Pacific that are able to detect shifts in
pressure, that they are now in place. So they were able to
track very clearly what was the tidal aftermath of the seismic
event on the shore of Chile. Yes.
Ms. Watson. I hear that in the Hawaiian Islands they hardly
had a wave.
Mr. Campbell. Yeah. Well, you know, the truth is that there
were a lot of questions about whether in Hawaii the emergency
authorities overreacted and that put people on higher ground
and in various, you know, safe areas. You know, I think that
kind of question is just wrong. Clearly, it is much better, you
know, to take steps that potentially prepares for the worst. If
it doesn't occur, it is a few hours of inconvenience. So I was
very proud of the steps that both the government of Hawaii and
other parts of the Pacific as well and our commanders, our
Pacific commanders took important steps to ensure that we were
well-prepared.
Ms. Watson. Well, the tragedy there on Aceh was the fact
that the waves come in and then they recede. Children and
fishermen ran to pick up the fish that were there, and then
here comes the water 500 miles an hour. I think many people saw
the pictures of boats up against the hillside.
Mr. Campbell. Horrific. Yeah.
Ms. Watson. Thirty to 40 feet high. Hotels, you know, just
flooded that had five and six floors. So it is better to be
over prepared and get to higher land than to allow----
Mr. Campbell. Yeah. I agree. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Watson [continuing]. Nature to take over. Okay. Thank
you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. We are also joined by another
distinguished member of the committee, my good friend, the
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Secretary, just a couple questions on a couple little areas
here. I notice in your overview that you have stated that
restrictions on the Export-Import Bank, I guess it is, U.S.
Export-Import Bank financing of U.S. companies, the prohibition
on them from doing business in Laos and Cambodia have been
lifted. I know Cambodia. Cambodia does have now opposition
parties. There has been some freedom of speech, even though it
is still in the grip of a tough guy who is less than
democratic. But Laos? Are there any opposition parties
permitted in Laos?
Mr. Campbell. Let me say that, as you know well,
Congressman, we have very real challenges of governance in many
parts of Southeast Asia. We believe that it is in American
interest given the nature of some of the strategic challenges,
economic challenges that we face in the Asian Pacific region
that we need to step our engagement in Southeast Asia, and to
do it carefully and not to in any way send a message that the
United States does not care about the----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, maybe you can tell us the progress
that you have seen in Laos. You say you have taken the step now
to eliminate the prohibition from the U.S. Export-Import Bank
in financing business investments in Laos. What are the steps
that you can point to? Do they have freedom of religion there?
Do they have freedom of the press? Can you tell us now that
they have ceased their persecution of the Hmong people? Are any
of those things you can point to?
Mr. Campbell. I would try to answer that question this way,
Congressman. I do believe that one of the missions of American
engagement on the business side, that when the United States is
involved responsibly in terms of our business activities in
Southeast Asia, that our values go with it. So I do believe
that there is a desire in Laos, a careful one, to have a better
relationship with the United States. I also agree with you
completely that they are at the very earliest stages of any
kind of progress in some of the issues that you and I care
about.
The truth is it has only been a couple of years, only a few
years ago that Laos had almost no interest in the outside
world. To the extent that they had outside external engagement,
it was primarily with China. So they have said, look, they want
to develop a careful relationship with the United States. The
truth is, Congressman, this is not like we are opening the
flood gates----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, but you haven't made----
Mr. Campbell. I am sorry. Let me just get it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Sure.
Mr. Campbell. This is just meant to be a very careful
initial step to see if we can begin some progress. I share many
of your concerns about the domestic situation inside the
country, but at the same time, I feel very strongly that the
United States needs to step up its game in Southeast Asia.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Secretary, my suggestion to you is
that if indeed we move forward and take a step, like ending
this prohibition on Export-Import Bank financing, and we don't
expect something specific to see, you know, freedom of the
press, freedom of religion, opposition parties, well then, we
have sent exactly the wrong message to dictatorships. If the
only thing they have to do is treat the American ambassador
better and have little teas and things for us, that is not the
right message. It is how they treat their people, not how they
curtsy up and kiss American diplomats on the cheek. Let us go
to China. We have had a one-way free trade relationship with
China for a number of years.
Most of us would think that that has been unacceptable and
it has resulted in $1 trillion of wealth being transferred from
our country to their country. Your administration is not
responsible for this. You are responsible for what happens now.
The Clinton and Bush administrations before you are responsible
for maintaining that policy, especially the Clinton
administration, which made most favored nation status with
China a permanent situation. We also now see that they have
stolen, they continue to steal our technology, there have been
massive transfers of technology, making them more competitive,
even with our businesses that have stayed here, and we now see
a major build up of their military. Still, they have no free
press, no opposition parties, people are still being arrested
for their religious convictions, et cetera, in China. What does
the administration, what specific things, are we demanding of
the Chinese for us not to start trying to call into question
this one-way free trade that we permitted?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you, Congressman. Well, first of all,
let me just say that I think the President, our Secretary and
others have been very clear that for the United States to have
an effective relationship in the Asian Pacific region,
particularly with China, there needs to be rebalancing, and
that we cannot return to a situation where Asians provide
relatively cheap credit to the United States and that we buy
inexpensive goods from Asia, that we can't return to that
status quo antebellum, and that the United States must save
more in this process, and we must be able to export more to
China going forward.
Now, there are a whole host of discussions that are ongoing
on issues associated with trade and currency which are really
not part of my purview, but I will say there is a deep
understanding that the current situation is in imbalance and
that there will need to be, as the President indicated, some
rebalancing going forward. We have stated clearly that we
believe that, you know, the relationship with China is
important. We are trying to work with China on a range of
issues, including on climate change, on Iran, on North Korea
and the like, but at the same time, we are trying to send a
very clear message that we will stand by our issues that are in
American strategic interest and our core values.
So you will have noted a few weeks ago that we made one of
the largest sales, as demanded by the Taiwan Relations Act, to
Taiwan, we have also had an important meeting, a spiritual
meeting, with the Dalai Lama, and we will continue to take
steps, as Secretary Clinton did, to speak out on issues, like
internet freedom. I think we recognize that this is a
relationship that is going to have elements where we probably
are going to be able to work together, hopefully effectively,
but there is going to be areas that we are going to continue to
have substantial disagreement as we go forward.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Is our country still accepting the
designation of the Uighurs as being terrorists?
Mr. Campbell. I think there was a specific organization
during the Bush administration--I believe it was in 2002 or
2003--that was deemed on a particular list, Congressman. I do
not know the status of that now, and I will get back to you on
that.
[The information referred to follows:]
Written Response Received from the Honorable Kurt M. Campbell to
Question Asked During the Hearing by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher
The United States designates certain organizations and individuals
for inclusion on terrorism lists based on credible information, but the
United States does not designate entire ethnic groups as terrorists.
Uighurs are an ethnic minority group who principally live in western
China and Central Asia.
A small minority of Uighurs have been associated with the East
Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM, a.k.a. Eastern Turkistan Islamic
Party, ETIP), which the United States, after careful review of
information, designated for placement on the Terrorist Exclusion List
(TEL) in 2002. A TEL designation bolsters homeland security efforts by
facilitating the U.S. Government's ability to exclude aliens associated
with entities on the TEL from entering the United States. In addition
to the TEL designation, in 2002, the United States designated ETIM
under Executive Order 13224. The consequences of that E.O. designation
are that all ETIM-related property and transactions under U.S.
jurisdiction are frozen and all U.S. persons engaging with or for the
benefit of ETIM are subject to civil and/or criminal liability. Also in
2002, ETIM was added to the UN Security Council Al-Qa'ida and Taliban
Sanctions Committee's Consolidated List of individuals and entities
associated with al-Qa'ida or the Taliban. In April 2009, the Sanctions
Committee added ETIP leader Abdul Haq to the Consolidated List, and in
August, the United States designated Haq under E.O. 13224 for support
to al Qa'ida.
Mr. Rohrabacher. One last question, Mr. Chairman, and that
is the Falun Gong are clearly the object of repression in
China. We have documented many stories of people being picked
up, and whatever it is, that the communist Chinese Government
there, or just say the Chinese dictatorship, however you want
to label it, has focused in on the Falun Gong. Christians don't
have freedom of religion, Muslims don't, the Tibetans don't,
the Uighurs don't, but the Falun Gong, they definitely don't
have rights there and they are being picked up. What have we
done? For example, have we investigated the charge that the
Falun Gong has made that some of their people have been
arrested and that there have been human body parts sold from
the prisons in which their people were incarcerated?
Mr. Campbell. Congressman, I actually don't know about that
issue. I would put that also to the list, and I promise I will
get back to you directly. I know we have raised issues of human
rights with Chinese authorities, and on this particular issue I
am just not aware of the information. I will get back to you.
[The information referred to follows:]
Written Response Received from the Honorable Kurt M. Campbell to
Question Asked During the Hearing by the Honorable Dana Rohrabacher
In the 2009 China Country Report on Human Rights Practices we
reported that the Chinese police continue to detain current and former
Falun Gong practitioners. Falun Gong members identified by the
government as ``core leaders'' have been singled out for particularly
harsh treatment, and there are reported cases of killings,
disappearances, and arbitrary arrests of Falun Gong practitioners and
their lawyers. Further, Falun Gong members continue to face tight
restrictions on their freedom to assemble, practice religion, and
travel.
With regard to organ harvesting, as the China Country Report also
details, in 2007 a Chinese official acknowledged that the Chinese
government harvested organs from executed prisoners. Since then, new
regulations came into effect in China that include a ban on the trade
of human organs and on live organ transplants from persons under the
age of 18. The regulations also stipulate that the donation of human
organs for transplant should be free and voluntary. The new
regulations, however, make no specific reference to the extraction of
organs from death penalty prisoners and we have no data about how
effectively they are enforced. Although we are aware of Falun Gong
allegations regarding organ harvesting atrocities, we are presently not
aware of credible evidence that Falun Gong prisoners are targeted for
organ harvesting.
Promoting greater respect for human rights, including religious
freedom, is among our key foreign policy objectives in China. We
continue to urge the Chinese government to be more accountable to its
citizens and treat its people in accordance with its constitution and
international obligations, as well as universal human rights standards.
Mr. Rohrabacher. You have been here first year, you know,
we have got the first year under your belt.
Mr. Campbell. 7 months for me.
Mr. Rohrabacher. 7 months for you. We are looking forward
to working with you.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I would hope that this administration
takes advantage of the opportunities we have to come to grips
with some of the challenges in these relationships that I have
outlined in my questions. So thank you very much.
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank the gentleman from California. I do
have a couple of questions, Mr. Secretary. Please be patient. I
believe it was last year that our Government conducted the
Pacific Partnership Program, which I think consisted of a mercy
hospital vessel that went all over the Pacific with scores of
doctors and trainers visiting about six or seven different
island countries and giving vaccinations and medical treatment.
I would like to suggest that the administration continue
the program. My concern--which I have mentioned to some of our
friends in the administration--is whether we will have to wait
another 40 years for something like this to happen. It is a
positive program, it has never been done before, and I would
strongly, strongly urge the administration to continue the
program. I think it goes a long way to help the island nations.
Following what Congressman Royce stated earlier about the
free trade agreement with South Korea, we have all known that
one of the problems mentioned as an issue was auto parts. That
was mainly raised by our friends from the Michigan delegation.
The thing that I see as a positive feature of the free trade
agreement with South Korea is that you are talking about
potential exports from our country of between $11 billion and
$20 billion, which means more jobs, exports going to this
country. We don't have to worry about labor issues and we don't
have to worry about health hazards. I was just wondering, what
is the administration's position? Are we serious about
continuing the dialogue or negotiation with the South Korean
Government to pass the free trade agreement between South Korea
and the United States?
Mr. Campbell. Thank you very much, Congressman. I think you
know that the Pacific Partnership Program was extraordinarily
successful. It is one of several initiatives that we have tried
in the Pacific in recent years that, frankly, have exceeded
really our most optimistic expectations in terms of success.
Let me give you another one. We have an ocean rider program
whereby, you know, many of the Pacific Island nations have vast
territorial seas in which there are sometimes illegal fishing
and other acts that are done in these areas that are
antithetical to their interests but they can't patrol, they
can't protect their natural resources.
When a national from their military or coast guard or other
rides on an American ship, we are then able, with their
authority, to actually stop and to sometimes take action
against those that are violating fishing rights and the like.
With the fines and others that have come from this program it
has been terrifically successful for a number of states in the
South Pacific, and your staff has been instrumental in helping
this program. We look to continue it going forward.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I might also mention, Mr. Secretary, that
there is the latest development now among certain Pacific
Island nations, about five or six including the Solomons, FSM,
the Marshalls, Papua New Guinea, wanting to establish some kind
of a cartel similar to OPEC, but controlling the sale and the
catch of tuna. You are talking about a $4-billion industry that
doesn't go to the benefit of these island nations. There is now
organized what is called a Nauru Agreement. A summit was held
about 2 weeks ago in Palau by these island nations to establish
an OPEC-like organization so they can get more of the benefits.
The problem here is that most of the fishing is done by
foreign countries or foreign companies. The island nations get
a pittance as a result. Of course, my own little territory is
impacted by the fact that we at one time processed tuna there
for the largest processor in the world. No longer. Thailand is
now doing this. Definitely I want to work with your office
concerning the Oceans Program, see how we can help the island
nations to develop this.
Mr. Campbell. I agree with that, Chairman. I would just say
that I think our goals in this respect our twofold. Not only do
we want to see more of the profits go to the Islanders, but at
the same time, I think we have to recognize this is one of the
last stocks of healthy tuna in the world and that we have a
really critical responsibility to make sure that this fishing
resource is treated in a way that allows for the best ability
to sustain this critical natural resource going forward. If I
can, just on the, I do believe, as I indicated, the meetings
between President Myung-bak and President Obama left me quite
optimistic. I think the President stated very clearly of his
desire to have necessary discussions going forward.
They didn't put a particular timetable at that juncture,
but I believe that the United States Government and the Korean
Government will take the appropriate steps in the near future.
I am still quite confident that we will get this agreement
done. I know how important it is to Korea, but I also think
increasingly it is very important to the United States. I
accept very clearly some of the statements that you and others
have made about the potential benefits that will come to the
United States.
Mr. Faleomavaega. On the Korean issue, and especially on
the situation with North Korea, I make an observation. I know
that our policy is to try to tell North Korea to cut its
nuclear program. But how do you denuclearize a country that
already has nuclear bombs? Are we consistent in terms of our
policy in putting pressure on North Korea? Did we do it against
Pakistan? Did we do it against India? I don't think so. What I
wanted to find out from you is if we think that North Korea is
so unstable that we have to denuclearize the country when they
already have about eight or nine nuclear bombs?
Mr. Campbell. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, there are
examples in global politics of countries that have willingly
given up nuclear weapons because they believe that they find
themselves in a better circumstance strategically after that. I
would put in that category, although Libya never made it to the
final step, but Libya abandoned its nuclear programs, South
Africa did, the Ukraine did, other countries, as former parts
of the Soviet Union that had major sort of components
associated with the Soviet nuclear arsenal, and so I first of
all think that it is entirely appropriate for the international
community and the United States to call for denuclearization in
North Korea, not simply because we have concerns about North
Korea, and those are very real.
We have seen them proliferate a vast amount of equipment
and capabilities that are antithetical to global maintenance of
peace and stability. We have concerns about many of the actions
that they have taken, and we have concerns about the very
nature of their government. Also, I think an acknowledged
nuclear state in Northeast Asia would pose very significant
challenges to the maintenance of the kind of relationships we
want with both Japan and South Korea. So, no, I am completely
comfortable and I think that the approach that we have taken is
the appropriate one. We have made very clear that if North
Korea wants to join the family of nations, if they want to work
with us on economic growth, on greater integration in the
booming economies of Northeast Asia, then they must take
several steps. One of them is denuclearization. We also want to
see progress on specific economic, and also human rights
issues. We think that is the appropriate approach. I must tell
you, Congressman, on this issue we have rock solid support from
the South Koreans, Japanese and others as we go forward.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am a little puzzled to the extent that
probably I am one of the few members who has ever been to the
Marshall Islands where we bombed that island archipelago to
bits and pieces. We detonated 67 nuclear bombs on the Marshall
Islands including the first hydrogen bomb. To this day, we
still have not provided justice to these people. I really would
like to work with you in making sure that we give better
treatment to the people in the Marshall Islands. We still have
not done them justice. I also visited the island of Mururoa
where the French Government detonated almost 200 nuclear
weapons in the atmosphere, on the surface and below it. Just
really, really one of those episodes.
I think it was 2 years ago when I was invited by the
President of Kazakhstan to visit Semipalatinsk where the Soviet
Union exploded its first atom bomb in 1949. And guess what?
That place is still radioactive since the Soviets detonated 450
nuclear devices there, including the most powerful hydrogen
bomb ever exploded. That was not in Kazakhstan, but some 1.5
million Kazaks ended up exposed to the horrors of nuclear
radiation, similar to what happened to the Japanese when we
dropped the bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So I have this
sense of contradiction that I wanted to share with you. On the
one hand we are telling these countries not to develop nuclear
weapons, but the five permanent members of the Security Council
continue to have their own nuclear weapons.
My question: Is it right for these five permanent members
of the Security Council to tell the rest of the world not to
have nuclear bombs, but it is okay for the five to have them?
That is where I am a little puzzled myself. I can understand
deterrence; I can understand making sure that we are always
prepared and dealing from a position of strength. But with
Iran, why are they motivated to develop an atomic bomb? Because
Israel has one, even though Israel will never admit or deny it.
Then the Arabs want to have a bomb, too. So it goes on and on.
Where will it stop, or when will it stop? Of course, then al-
Qaeda and the terrorists will stop at nothing and will try to
get a bomb that can be taken in a suitcase or a dirty bomb that
is just as bad, if not worse. So I just want you to walk me
through how it is possible for some countries to continue to
have nuclear weapons but the rest of the world cannot.
Mr. Campbell. Let me try, if I can, Congressman, just to
make three points. We have gone a little further afield in
terms of our specific patch here, but let me try to----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, North Korea.
Mr. Campbell. No, no. Let me try to specifically suggest. I
think one of the things that President Obama has underscored,
and he has been very much influenced by some elder statesmen,
many of whom served during the Cold War and others, and he
believes, as do many others, that it is absolutely critical on
the part of the United States, and indeed other leading
nations, to reduce the significance of nuclear weapons in our
global strategy. I think you will see at the upcoming nuclear
summit and through a variety of other programs and policies of
the United States that we are attempting to do that. We are
trying to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in our global
strategy.
At the same time, we recognize that these weapons have been
invented, they exist. The most important deal, if you will, the
arrangement that is underscored in the Nonproliferation Treaty,
is that at the same time that the established nuclear weapons
must reduce their arsenals in order to ensure that other states
do not try to build them. We have seen one part of the
arrangement essentially fulfilled, but, as you underscore, the
arsenals over the Cold War of the United States and the Soviet
Union went up. You are going to see some specific steps,
hopefully, after an agreement with Moscow that the United
States and Russia will reduce its nuclear arsenals, so I
actually think that that is a very important step as part of
fulfilling this essential bargain. We think strengthening of
the Nonproliferation Treaty is an essential component to global
security.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Especially with 90 percent of the nuclear
weapons now in existence in the possession of the Russians and
us.
Mr. Campbell. I accept that. I think we have to reduce
those. We also recognize the very real worries about a nuclear
weapon that would end up in the hands of a terrorist. Now, on
the specific issues of the legacy issues in the Pacific, I must
say I agree with you. I think the United States has some unique
responsibilities associated with dealing with some of the
horrific challenges, but also, the enduring commitments to the
Pacific region. When we have met before I underscored to you I
think when people say Asia Pacific they focus more on the
former than on the latter, and I think, you know, see how we
do, but I will say, you know, I have been in here 7 months, we
have got a new, you know, AID office in the Asia Pacific, we
are going to try to work on the compacts, we are going to try
to make sure we have high-level visits, we need to work with
these countries and these places on climate change and on
continuing issues of health and HIV. Those are continuing
challenges of the United States, and we cannot shirk these
responsibilities. I would add to them the challenges of the
Marshall, and Bikini and the like. So I hope that I will be a
good partner for you in this endeavor, Congressman, and I share
your sense of concern about these historical matters.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Secretary, I know you have been very
patient, and I deeply appreciate your patience and all the
questions that have been raised. I deeply appreciate your
presence, and I wish you all the best on your upcoming trip.
Please, let us do this again. Thank you very much.
Mr. Campbell. I will come back and let you know how things
go. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Minutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
