# Micronesia - United States Department of State

- Micronesia HomeReportsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices&#8230;Micronesia				hide	document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", function(event) {	if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}});																							2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Micronesia																																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																																																																																							Download Report																																																							Translations																																																																 In this section										/																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																																													EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																															Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																																									a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																																											b. Disappearance																																																																											c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																																			Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																																																		d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																																			Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																																																		e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																																			Trial Procedures																																																								Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																																																		f. Transnational Repression																																																																											g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																																											h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																																																	Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																																									a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																																			Internet Freedom																																																																																																																		b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																																											c. Freedom of Religion																																																																											d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																																											e. Protection of Refugees																																																																																	Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																																									Elections and Political Participation																																																																																	Section 4. Corruption in Government																															Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																															Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																																									Women																																																																											Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																																											Children																																																																											Antisemitism																																																																											Trafficking in Persons																																																																											Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																																											Persons with Disabilities																																																																											Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																																																	Section 7. Worker Rights																																																									a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																																											b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																																											c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																																											d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																																											e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																																																																							EXECUTIVE SUMMARY				There were no significant changes in the human rights situation in Micronesia during the year.There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses.The government sometimes took steps to identify, investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who committed human rights abuses, but impunity was a problem.																														Section 1.													 Respect for the Integrity of the Person												    																																																a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings										There were no reports the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings, during the year.In January a Yap State court convicted two local men (one a former police officer) for the 2019 murder of Rachelle Bergeron, a foreign national who was the acting attorney general for Yap State. Separate charges of murder and associated acts were with the Yap State Supreme Court, while the national Supreme Court addressed counts of weapons and ammunition possession. Observers believed the killing could have been related to Bergeron’s work as acting attorney general.																																				b. Disappearance										There were no reports of disappearances by or on behalf of government authorities.																																				c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses										The law prohibited such practices, and there were no credible reports that government officials employed them.																Prison and Detention Center Conditions						There were no significant reports regarding prison or detention center conditions that raised human rights concerns.Administration: There was no prison ombudsperson to respond to complaints. Authorities permitted prisoners and detainees to submit complaints to judicial authorities without censorship and to request investigation of credible allegations of inhuman conditions, but they rarely investigated such allegations.Independent Monitoring: The government was obliged to investigate and monitor prison and detention center conditions. The government permitted visits by independent human rights observers and foreign diplomatic officials conducted monitoring visits to the detention centers in Yap and Kosrae during the year.																										d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention										The law prohibited arbitrary arrest and detention and provided for the right of persons to challenge the lawfulness of their arrest or detention in court. The government generally observed these requirements.																Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees						Warrants were required for arrests, and authorities advised detainees promptly of the charges against them. Authorities generally observed the requirement to bring detainees before a judge for a hearing within 24 hours of arrest. Courts released most arrested persons on bail or after they relinquished their passports. Detainees generally had prompt access to family members and lawyers. A shortage of trained lawyers prevented many accused persons from receiving adequate legal representation.																										e. Denial of Fair Public Trial										The constitution provided for an independent judiciary, and the government generally respected judicial independence and impartiality.																Trial Procedures						The law provided for the right to a fair and public trial, and an independent judiciary generally enforced this right.						Political Prisoners and Detainees						There were no reports of political prisoners or detainees.																										f. Transnational Repression										Not applicable.																																				g. Property Seizure and Restitution										Not applicable.																																				h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence										The constitution prohibited such actions, and there were no reports that the government failed to respect these prohibitions.																																					Section 2.													 Respect for Civil Liberties												    																																																a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media										The constitution provided for freedom of expression although it did not refer specifically to speech, the press, or other media.																Internet Freedom						The government did not restrict or disrupt access to the internet or censor online content.																										b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association										The constitution provided for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and the government generally respected these rights.																																				c. Freedom of Religion										See the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report at  https://www.state.gov/religiousfreedomreport/.																																				d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country										The constitution provided for freedom of internal movement, foreign travel, emigration, and repatriation, and the government generally respected these related rights.																																				e. Protection of Refugees										The government had no occasion to cooperate with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees or other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.Access to Asylum: The law did not provide for granting asylum or refugee status, and the government had no system for providing protection to refugees.																																					Section 3.													 Freedom to Participate in the Political Process												    																						The constitution and law provided citizens the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage.																										Elections and Political Participation										Abuses or Irregularities in Recent Elections: National congressional elections in March were widely reported to be fair and free of abuses and irregularities.Participation of Women and Members of Marginalized or Vulnerable Groups: No laws limited participation of women or members of historically marginalized groups in the political process; however, cultural factors in the male-dominated society limited women’s representation in government and politics. There were notably few women in the upper ranks of government. Women held two of nine cabinet-level positions. Three women were elected in the March congressional election, but Congress refused to seat one of the three, a decision challenged in the courts and undecided as of year’s end.The country was a multicultural federation, and both Congress and the executive branch included persons from various cultural backgrounds.																																					Section 4.													 Corruption in Government												    																						The law provided criminal penalties for corruption by officials, and the government generally implemented the law effectively, but some officials reportedly engaged in corrupt practices with impunity. There were anecdotal reports of corruption.Corruption: The Attorney General’s Office had primary responsibility for combating government corruption. The office operated somewhat independently, with sufficient resources. The public auditor referred some corruption cases to the Department of Justice during the year.																											Section 5.													 Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights												    																						Although there were no official restrictions, no local groups concerned themselves exclusively with human rights. Women’s associations throughout the country addressed the rights of women and children, and government officials were often cooperative and responsive to their views.																											Section 6.													 Discrimination and Societal Abuses												    																																																Women										Rape and Domestic Violence: Sexual assault of women or men, including rape, was a crime. There was no specific law against spousal rape. Sexual assault involving a dangerous weapon or serious physical or psychological harm to the survivor was punishable by a maximum nine years’ imprisonment in Chuuk and 10 years’ imprisonment in the other three states. If neither a dangerous weapon nor serious physical harm was involved, the assault was punishable in all states by a maximum five years’ imprisonment. Crimes within families went largely unreported due to the social stigma and family pressure associated with domestic violence, and authorities rarely prosecuted cases. According to police and women’s groups, there were several reports of physical and sexual assaults against women outside the family context. A foreign national serving as a senior official of the government was arrested and charged with multiple crimes including sexual abuse, human trafficking, sexual servitude of a minor, criminal solicitation, prostitution, and kidnapping, among others.Traditionally, extended families addressed domestic violence, abuse, and neglect by a complex system of culturally defined familial sanctions. Traditional methods of coping with family discord, however, were breaking down with increased urbanization, monetization of the economy, and greater emphasis on the nuclear family. No institution replaced the traditional system or directly addressed the problem of family violence.The national government operated shelters in Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae available to all survivors of sexual, domestic, and human trafficking crimes. The Pohnpei Department of Public Safety’s program against domestic violence included a hotline to handle domestic violence cases. The national government hotline on human trafficking also reported receiving domestic and sexual assault calls. Local women’s groups and religious organizations provided counseling and support services for domestic violence survivors within their communities.Other Forms of Gender-based Violence or Harassment: The law did not prohibit sexual harassment; anecdotal reports suggested it occurred.Discrimination: Women had equal rights under the law, including the right to own property, and there were no institutional barriers to education or employment for women. The government enforced the law effectively. The largest employers were the national and state governments, and they paid women and men equally for equal work although this was not mandated by law. Women were underrepresented in all employment sectors except for services.Societal discrimination against women continued, however, and cultural mores encouraged discriminatory treatment of women. Examples included many instances of women being pressured to drop out of school if they became pregnant, and being discouraged from returning to school if they became mothers.Reproductive Rights: There were no reports of coerced abortion or involuntary sterilization on the part of government authorities.The government provided support to survivors of sexual violence in the form of counseling and legal and medical assistance, including emergency contraception and postexposure prophylaxis, in partnership with nongovernmental organizations. Social stigma, community pressure, physical remoteness, and poor communications all hindered access to the limited contraception and reproductive health services available in the health-care system.																																				Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination										The constitution provided for equal protection under the law regardless of race or ethnicity. The law did not provide protection against employment discrimination based on national origin. There were no known cases of racial- or ethnic-based discrimination during the year.The national and states’ constitutions barred noncitizens from owning land, and foreign investment laws limited the types of businesses they could own and operate.																																				Children										Child Abuse: Child abuse was illegal, although the constitution provided for a right of parental discipline. There was no data on enforcement of the law by the government. Cultural attitudes regarding parental discipline limited reporting of abuse or neglect. There were no shelters for child victims of domestic abuse.Child, Early, and Forced Marriage: The minimum legal age for marriage was 18.Sexual Exploitation of Children: The law set a maximum penalty of 30 years’ imprisonment and a substantial fine for child trafficking. The states’ statutory rape laws applied to children aged 13 or younger in Yap and Kosrae, 15 or younger in Pohnpei, and 17 or younger in Chuuk. The maximum penalty for conviction varied by state: in Chuuk and Pohnpei, it was five years’ imprisonment and a fine, while in Kosrae and Yap it was 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine. The age of consent also varied by state: in Pohnpei and Chuuk it was 18, in Kosrae and Yap it was 15. Only Pohnpei had a statute prohibiting child pornography. Chuuk and Pohnpei had provisions against filming explicit movies of underage children, but Yap and Kosrae did not. Chuuk and Pohnpei imposed a penalty of six months’ imprisonment for such abuses. There were no prosecutions for child pornography during the year, and enforcement against child trafficking was inconsistent.																																				Antisemitism										There was a very small Jewish community, and there were no known reports of antisemitic incidents.																																				Trafficking in Persons										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics										Criminalization: The law did not criminalize consensual same-sex sexual conduct between adults. Neither did the law criminalize other sexual or gender characteristic-related behaviors. No laws were applied disproportionately to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.Violence and Harassment: There were no criminal justice mechanisms to aid in the prosecution of bias-motivated crimes against members of the LGBTQI+ community. While there were no official reports of violence or harassment, there were unofficial reports on the killing of a foreign-national gay man in Kosrae in the early hours of April 6. Kosrae police arrested two men whom prosecutors charged with multiple crimes, including murder. Initially the crime appeared to be a hate crime, but motives for the crime were unclear. Widespread discrimination and stigma could prevent LGBTQI+ individuals from reporting incidents to authorities or nongovernmental organizations.Discrimination: The law did not prohibit discrimination, including in employment, based on sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics; nor did it recognize LGBTQI+ individuals, couples, and their families. The culture stigmatized public acknowledgment or discussion of certain sexual matters, including sexual orientation and gender identity. Persons rarely publicly identified as LGBTQI+.Availability of Legal Gender Recognition: There was no legal process by which individuals could update their gender markers on identity documents to bring them into alignment with their gender identity, nor was there a nonbinary gender marker available.Involuntary or Coercive Medical or Psychological Practices: There were no reports of the practice of so-called conversion therapy to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.Restrictions of Freedom of Expression, Association, or Peaceful Assembly: There were no restrictions on speaking out on LGBTQI+ matters such as so-called antigay propaganda laws, “hate speech” laws, and no restrictions on the ability of LGBTQI+ organizations to legally register or convene events such as Pride festivities.																																				Persons with Disabilities										Persons with disabilities could access education, health services, public buildings, and transportation on a limited basis. Government information and communication on disability concerns was not always provided in accessible formats. The law prohibited discrimination against persons with physical and intellectual disabilities in public-service employment; however, there were reports of employment discrimination against persons with disabilities, who had little opportunity for gainful employment. The National Disability Policy mandated accessibility to public buildings and services for persons with disabilities and provided for access to information and communications for persons with disabilities. The law provided for access to health services and education for persons with disabilities. Enforcement of these laws and provision of services was uneven.By law students with disabilities had the right to separate education and training until age 21, but there were no separate education facilities. The government provided children with disabilities separate education in mainstream schools and at home if necessary and if foreign funding was available.The government held some persons with mental disabilities deemed to be a threat to themselves or to others in jails because of a lack of psychiatric care facilities or community-based support services. These persons, not suspected or charged with any crime, were housed separately from criminal convicts or suspects, and state health departments provided free medication and treatment.																																				Other Societal Violence or Discrimination										The traditional hierarchical social system affected contemporary life. Authorities sometimes continued to underserve low-status communities.																																					Section 7.													 Worker Rights												    																																																a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining										Although federal law did not prohibit workers from joining unions, there were no unions. Most private-sector employment was in small-scale, family-owned businesses or in subsistence farming and fishing. No nongovernmental organizations focused on unions or labor matters.Under the constitution citizens had the right to form or join associations and government employees could form associations to “present their views” to the government without being subject to coercion, discrimination, or reprisals. Federal law was mute on trade unions, collective bargaining, antiunion discrimination, and the right to strike.																																				b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor										See the Department of State’s Trafficking in Persons Report at:  https://www.state.gov/trafficking-in-persons-report/.																																				c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment										The law did not prohibit the worst forms of child labor. National and state laws did not establish a minimum age or prescribe limits on hours or occupations for employment of children. There were no reports of employment of children for wages, but children often assisted their families in subsistence farming and family-owned shops. Penalties were not commensurate with those for analogous serious crimes and penalties were rarely applied against violators. There were no confirmed reports during the year of the worst forms of child labor.																																				d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																														e. Acceptable Conditions of Work										Wage and Hour Laws: The national minimum hourly wage for employment with the national government was above the official estimate for the poverty income level. Three of the country’s four states had no set minimum wage laws; the minimum wage in Pohnpei State was less than the poverty level. It was unclear whether these provisions applied to part-time workers.Federal and state laws set a standard eight-hour workday and a five-day workweek, with premium pay for overtime. There were no legal provisions prohibiting excessive or compulsory overtime.Occupational Safety and Health: The law required that employers provide a safe workplace; implementing regulations were appropriate for the country’s main industries. It was unclear if these provisions applied to part-time workers. Occupational safety and health (OSH) experts responded to workers’ complaints but did not independently identify unsafe working conditions. Workers could remove themselves from situations that endanger health or safety without jeopardy to their employment.Wage, Hour, and OSH Enforcement: The Public Health and Environmental Protection Agency enforced OSH standards. The Department of Justice’s Division of Immigration and Labor enforced wage and hour laws for foreign workers, and the Department of Administrative Services was responsible for Micronesian workers. The government did not effectively enforce OSH or wage and hour standards, but the tax system monitored the minimum wage effectively through random audits. Penalties were commensurate with those for similar crimes but were rarely applied against violators. The number of labor inspectors was sufficient to enforce compliance, and inspectors had the authority to make unannounced inspections and initiate sanctions.Approximately one-half of workers were in the informal economy where wage, hour, OSH, and other labor laws and inspections did not apply, predominantly in subsistence agriculture and fishing.																																				    							View report by:																				Afghanistan											Albania											Algeria											Andorra											Angola											Antigua and Barbuda											Argentina											Armenia											Australia											Austria											Azerbaijan											Bahrain											Bangladesh											Barbados											Belarus											Belgium											Belize											Benin											Bhutan											Bolivia											Bosnia and Herzegovina											Botswana											Brazil											Brunei											Bulgaria											Burkina Faso											Burma											Burundi											Cabo Verde											Cambodia											Cameroon											Canada											Central African Republic											Chad											Chile											China (Includes Hong Kong, Macau, and Tibet)											Colombia											Comoros											Costa Rica											Côte d&#8217;Ivoire											Croatia											Cuba											Cyprus											Czech Republic											Democratic Republic of the Congo											Denmark											Djibouti											Dominica											Dominican Republic											Ecuador											Egypt											El Salvador											Equatorial Guinea											Eritrea											Estonia											Eswatini											Ethiopia											Fiji											Finland											France											Gabon											Georgia											Germany											Ghana											Greece											Grenada											Guatemala											Guinea											Guinea-Bissau											Guyana											Haiti											Honduras											Hungary											Iceland											India											Indonesia											Iran											Iraq											Ireland											Israel, West Bank and Gaza											Italy											Jamaica											Japan											Jordan											Kazakhstan											Kenya											Kiribati											Kosovo											Kuwait											Kyrgyz Republic											Laos											Latvia											Lebanon											Lesotho											Liberia											Libya											Liechtenstein											Lithuania											Luxembourg											Madagascar											Malawi											Malaysia											Maldives											Mali											Malta											Marshall Islands											Mauritania											Mauritius											Mexico											Micronesia											Moldova											Monaco											Mongolia											Montenegro											Morocco											Mozambique											Namibia											Nauru											Nepal											New Zealand											Nicaragua											Niger											Nigeria											North Korea											North Macedonia											Norway											Oman											Pakistan											Palau											Panama											Papua New Guinea											Paraguay											Peru											Philippines											Poland											Portugal											Qatar											Republic of the Congo											Romania											Russia											Rwanda											Saint Kitts and Nevis											Saint Lucia											Saint Vincent and the Grenadines											Samoa											San Marino											Sao Tome and Principe											Saudi Arabia											Senegal											Serbia											Seychelles											Sierra Leone											Singapore											Slovakia											Slovenia											Solomon Islands											Somalia											South Africa											South Korea											South Sudan											Spain											Sri Lanka											Sudan											Suriname											Sweden											Switzerland											Syria											Taiwan											Tajikistan											Tanzania											Thailand											The Gambia											The Netherlands											Timor-Leste											Togo											The Bahamas											Tonga											Trinidad and Tobago											Tunisia											Turkey (Türkiye)											Turkmenistan											Tuvalu											Uganda											Ukraine											United Arab Emirates											United Kingdom											Uruguay											Uzbekistan											Vanuatu											Venezuela											Vietnam											Yemen											Zambia											Zimbabwe															Build A Custom Report																						On This Page				search													>																										EXECUTIVE SUMMARY																Section 1. Respect for the Integrity of the Person																																							a. Arbitrary Deprivation of Life and Other Unlawful or Politically Motivated Killings																																																						b. Disappearance																																																						c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Other Related Abuses																																																				Prison and Detention Center Conditions																																																																																				d. Arbitrary Arrest or Detention																																																				Arrest Procedures and Treatment of Detainees																																																																																				e. Denial of Fair Public Trial																																																				Trial Procedures																																												Political Prisoners and Detainees																																																																																				f. Transnational Repression																																																						g. Property Seizure and Restitution																																																						h. Arbitrary or Unlawful Interference with Privacy, Family, Home, or Correspondence																																																			Section 2. Respect for Civil Liberties																																							a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media																																																				Internet Freedom																																																																																				b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association																																																						c. Freedom of Religion																																																						d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country																																																						e. Protection of Refugees																																																			Section 3. Freedom to Participate in the Political Process																																							Elections and Political Participation																																																			Section 4. Corruption in Government																Section 5. Governmental Posture Towards International and Nongovernmental Monitoring and Investigation of Alleged Abuses of Human Rights																Section 6. Discrimination and Societal Abuses																																							Women																																																						Systemic Racial or Ethnic Violence and Discrimination																																																						Children																																																						Antisemitism																																																						Trafficking in Persons																																																						Acts of Violence, Criminalization, and Other Abuses Based on Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression, or Sex Characteristics																																																						Persons with Disabilities																																																						Other Societal Violence or Discrimination																																																			Section 7. Worker Rights																																							a. Freedom of Association and the Right to Collective Bargaining																																																						b. Prohibition of Forced or Compulsory Labor																																																						c. Prohibition of Child Labor and Minimum Age for Employment																																																						d. Discrimination (see section 6)																																																						e. Acceptable Conditions of Work																																																									Tags																					Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor																								Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																								Micronesia
- Digital Press Briefing with Taylor V. Ruggles, Department of State Senior Advisor for COFA Implementation, and Keone Nakoa, Department of the Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs Taylor V. Ruggles, Senior Advisor for COFA Implementation, U.S. Department of StateKeone Nakoa, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs, U.S. Department of the InteriorMODERATOR:  Greetings from the U.S. Department of State’s Asia Pacific Media Hub.  I would like to welcome journalists to today’s on-the-record briefing with Taylor V. Ruggles, the U.S. Department of State’s Senior Advisor for COFA Implementation, and Keone Nakoa, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs.  Senior Advisor Ruggles and Deputy Assistant Secretary Nakoa will provide an overview of the recent enactment of U.S. legislation providing approval and funding to bring into force new assistance agreements related to the Compacts of Free Association between the United States and, respectively, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, collectively referred to as the Freely Associated States.The speakers will also discuss what is contained in the new agreements, the uniquely close nature of the U.S. relationships with the Freely Associated States, and the positive impact that the compacts continue to have on people in the Freely Associated States.With that, let’s get started.  Senior Advisor Ruggles, thanks for joining us.  I’ll turn it over to you for your opening remarks.MR RUGGLES:  Great, thank you, and good evening from Washington; good morning to those of you on the other side of the date line.  We’re really thrilled to have this opportunity to speak with you all about the recent passage by the U.S. Congress of legislation related to the Compacts of Free Association, or COFA.  The enactment of this legislation is really a historic occasion and one worth celebrating.On March 9th, President Biden signed into law the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2024, and this represents another milestone in our deep and abiding relationships with the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau, collectively known as the Freely Associated States.  As Secretary Blinken said following the law’s enactment, “Our special and uniquely close relationships with the Freely Associated States, underpinned by the Compacts, have been an anchor of U.S. engagement in the Pacific for decades,” and now, “We look forward to working with our partners in the  over the next two decades of COFA-related cooperation.”In the case of the Marshall Islands, it’s important to note that action by the Nitijeļā, their parliament, is required to approve the agreements.  I understand that the Nitijeļā is considering the COFA-related agreements this week and that the foreign minister tabled the legislation on Monday.  So we’ll be excited and interested to follow that process.I’ll just note that the enactment of this legislation by the United States provides approval and funding for new assistance agreements between the United States and each of the Freely Associated States.  In total, the new COFA-related agreements include $7.1 billion in assistance for a full 20 years.  The long-term nature of the package is a reflection of the unwavering U.S. commitment to these key Pacific partners and affirms our shared visions for the future.To our friends in the Freely Associated States, we acknowledge that the past few months have been uncertain at times.  We’ve heard your concerns about the need to get COFA-related agreements done, and frankly, we shared them.  Getting COFA-related agreements across the finish line was a top priority for the administration, and we worked hard with the Congress, with the White House, our overseas embassy teams and interagency partners, especially the Department of the Interior, to make that happen.  And with continued strong bipartisan support in Congress for these agreements, we got it done.Now, while the impetus for our discussion today was the recent successful passage of the legislation, it might be worth recalling that this is a – in this historic moment, where we came from, and why the compacts received such bipartisan support.  I think DAS Nakoa will provide a little bit of historical context of our relationships that date back to World War II – the Freely Associated States – but if I can just touch on some recent history, I’ll mention that these agreements, the economic assistance agreements, are only renegotiated every 15 to 20 years.  So starting in the 1980s, this was the third iteration of such negotiations, and the legislation that President Biden signed on March 9th concluded a process that began nearly five years ago when then-Secretary Pompeo announced the start of negotiations to extend the Compact-related assistance.The negotiations picked up pace when President Biden appointed Ambassador Joseph Yun as Special Presidential Envoy for Compact Negotiations in March of 2022, and throughout ’22 and into 2023, we were gradually able to reach agreements with our FSM, Palau, and RMI counterparts on a range of agreements establishing the parameters for U.S. economic support for the next 20 years.  And this includes funding in key areas including environment, health, education, infrastructure, and more.One thing I wanted to underscore is the flexible nature of the funding that’s provided through the COFA-related agreements.  It reflects the kind of relationship the United States maintains with the Freely Associated States, one of partnership, not prescription.  We believe the economic package contained in these agreements is going to play a vital role in building and maintaining a brighter, more prosperous future for the people of the Freely Associated States.I’ll just also add that while the topline figures and the nature of COFA-related assistance over the next two decades is now secured, we’re continuing negotiations with the Marshall Islands and Palau for federal programs and services agreements.  So those remain active and ongoing.In terms of protocol, there’s a process for these agreements to formally enter into force, with the United States and each country required to take certain steps.  For FSM and Palau, an exchange of diplomatic notes effectively brought them into force.  Earlier today, Deputy Secretary Kurt Campbell and FSM President Simina exchanged notes, and last Friday, March 15th, President Whipps of Palau and our ambassador in Palau, Joel Ehrendreich, exchanged notes.  And as I mentioned before, the next step for the Marshall Islands is that their legislature will consider the new agreements in the Nitijeļā.I’ll just conclude saying these are very carefully negotiated agreements that reflect the hard work of our teams together, and we believe they provide an excellent framework through which we will propel our partnerships forward in continued support of a more secure, stable, free, and prosperous Pacific.So let me stop there and turn it over to my friend and colleague, DAS Keone Nakoa from the Department of the Interior.MR NAKOA:  Thank you, Taylor, Senior Advisor Ruggles.  I appreciate it.  Aloha.  This is Keone Nakoa, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs.  And I am here on behalf of the leadership at the Interior who joins Taylor and the rest of the world, really, in applauding the finalization of the amendments to the COFA, Compacts of Free Association, which would provide another 20 years of economic assistance to the FAS.The $6.5 billion of assistance is critical for economic stability and quality of life for people in the FAS, which is the FSM, the RMI, and Palau.  The packages will provide an economic assistance of $3.3 billion to the FSM; $2.3 billion to the RMI; and $889 million to Palau – all over the span of 20 years, or through FY2043.The funding will provide support for basic public service deliveries such as health and education, improve infrastructure, and bolster the health of the Compact Trust Funds previously established for each of the FAS.  Congress also included $634 million over the next 20 years to ensure the continued provision of U.S. Postal Service to the FAS.As recently stated by Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, “Strong ties between the United States and the Pacific Islands form the foundation of our engagement and presence in the Pacific. The provision of 20 years of new economic assistance sends a clear signal of the United States’ commitment to the long, historical relationships we have held with the Freely Associated States.”The FAS have been important to the U.S. national interest in the Indo-Pacific for more than 75 years, and the Interior has played an important role in that relationship, starting during the UN Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.The new amendments in the – to the Compacts of Free Association deepen our relationships with the FAS over the coming decades and serve as a clear signal of the United States commitment to achieving and maintaining a free and secure Indo-Pacific region.  Interior has proudly served as a lead domestic implementing agency, providing and administering funding for the U.S. Government to the FAS under the Compacts of Free Association for the last four decades, during compact one from 1986 to 2001 for the FSM and RMI, and then compact two from 2003 to 2023; and then for Palau from 1994 to 2009, and 2010 through 2024.We believe the new Compacts maintain strong U.S. oversight over every taxpayer dollar being proposed, and at the same time we have carved out room to accommodate FSM, Palau, and RMI requests for more autonomy and flexibility in framing the annual budget proposals for the effective expenditure of economic assistance.As Senior Advisor Ruggles mentioned, through the Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs, we have a long history of serving and working with the FAS through the administration of Compact funding and also through the administration of other discretionary funds that Congress has provided to the OIA for insular areas, which includes the FAS.The Joint Economic Committee with the FSM and the Joint Economic Committee with the RMI, JEMCO and JEMFAC, currently are chaired by Assistant Secretary Carmen G. Cantor and have been chaired for the Interior for more than the past 20 years – or I’m sorry, for the past 20 years.  I am also currently serving as the Compact Trust Fund Committee chair for the FSM and for the RMI, and this committee has also been chaired by the Interior for the past 20 years as well.Every year, the OIA administers discretionary assistance and funding outside of the Compact that provides important support to the FAS as their populations – and their populations in additional ways, including through Close Up and Junior State foundation, Prior Service Benefits Trust Fund for retirees, TAP and MAP funds to the FAS, and support for regional groups such as the Island Government Finance Officers Association, the Association of Pacific Islands Public Auditors, and the Executive Leadership Development Program.Another important piece of this passage was the inclusion of CIFA, the Compact Impact Fairness Act, which passed with the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act of 2024.  Through this measure, Congress addressed longstanding challenges for citizens of each of the FAS who chose or choose to reside lawfully in the United States as provided for under the Compact agreements.  This law restores eligibility for key federal programs for the FAS individuals while they are lawfully present in the United States – an important long-term solution to the financial impacts that some FAS communities have – may have on U.S. state and territorial governments.  Restoring access to federal public benefits will address gaps in needed social services for families and have a significant impact on the communities where they reside.The law also ensures that the federal government provides without significant additional administrative costs a significant portion of the financial burden currently being borne by state and territorial governments of the FAS – or for the FAS communities.  Benefits and compensation from the federal government will be available to FAS individuals in whichever state or territory within the United States they choose to reside.The COFA, though previously negotiated between our respective administrations, as Taylor mentioned, must also be passed and approved by our respective legislative bodies.  The Congress of the FSM and the National Congress of the Republic of Palau, or the OEK, have both passed the Compact of Free Association Amendments Act, and as we speak the legislation is being deliberated by the national parliament of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Nitijeļā.  We applaud the quick legislative action that has already been conducted in the FSM and Palau, and we look forward to a fruitful and positive response from the RMI as they conduct their own democratic process.In closing, the Department of the Interior is proud to partner with the Department of State in honoring and upholding the U.S. Government’s commitments to the FSM, RMI, and Palau, and we look forward to carrying out our responsibility to implement these cornerstone agreements for the next 20 years and beyond.MODERATOR:  Thank you so much, Deputy Assistant Secretary.  We will now turn to the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  Our first question came in in advance from Mar-Vic Cagurangan from the Pacific Island Times, based in Guam, who asks:  “Regarding CIFA, some of the benefits that are now available to COFA migrants, such as the Supplemental Security Income, do not apply to U.S. citizens living in Guam or other territories.  Will FAS migrants living in Guam be eligible for SSI?  If yes, then how does the U.S. Government intend to address the apparent distortion?”MR NAKOA:  Thank you for the question.  It’s important, and I appreciate raising awareness on this.  I think there’s been some confusion about what benefits CIFA transfers or transmits in the past.  So to be clear, CIFA will not provide eligibility to FAS communities living in Guam or anywhere else where the local residents do not also include those benefits.  Essentially, CIFA just places the COFA communities in the same shoes as the residents living in whatever state or territory that they choose to reside.  So in California they have the benefits that any California resident would have, in Hawaii the same, and in Guam the same.  Hopefully that is able to shed some light on what CIFA does or does not do.  But happy to answer any follow-ups.MODERATOR:  Okay.  The next question comes to us from Dave Rising at the Associated Press, based in Bangkok, Thailand, who asks:  “In February, the presidents of Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands wrote a joint letter expressing their concerns that the COFA agreements had not yet been implemented, suggesting that the delay had opened the door to, quote, ‘undesirable opportunities for economic exploitation’ by China.  Does this put the U.S. at a disadvantage as it now works to implement COFA?  What obstacles now need to be overcome?  And more broadly, how great is the U.S. fear of these three nations falling under – more under Chinese influence and what can the U.S. do to counter this?”MR RUGGLES:  Thank you.  I’ll take that.  I’ll note that we have really a unique and special relationship with the Freely Associated States, arguably one of the closest relationships possible between sovereign nations.  Their citizens serve in the U.S. military.  They can travel and work freely in the United States.  Our military provides for the national defense of these countries.  We’re as close as countries can be, and this has been a longstanding relationship that the Compact has underpinned.  And so this relationship really supports the security, stability, freedom, and prosperity throughout the Indo-Pacific.We understand the past several months have been frustrating for and uncertain for our friends in the Pacific.  We heard their concerns about getting COFA done, and frankly, we shared those frustrations and that priority.  It was a top priority for this administration, top levels of the State Department, the Interior Department, the Pentagon, working with the Congress, the White House to secure that bipartisan support in Congress.And I’ll just note that for observers of the United States, clearly there are a number of national security priorities that are still being hammered out with Congress.  But I think it’s notable of all these that COFA is the one that made it through.  I think that speaks volumes to the bipartisan support and importance that COFA holds for the United States.And so these agreements have a total of $7.1 billion in funding for a full 20 years.  There’s not going to be annual appropriations.  This locks in place assistance numbers for 20 years.  And we believe that the economic package in these agreements is going to play a vital role in building and maintaining a brighter future for the people of the region.  And we’re – continue to be committed to work with the Freely Associated States to preserve an open, secure, and prosperous region.I’ll just say that our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific does not exclude any country, but we’ll continue to build on this already strong relationship and of course follow any developments closely, working closely with our regional partners.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Okay.  Next we’ll go to the live queue.  We have Cleo Paskal from The Sunday Guardian, based in New Delhi.  Cleo, you should be able to unmute yourself now.QUESTION:  Oh, there you go.  Can you hear me?MODERATOR:  Yes, we can.QUESTION:  Okay, great.  Thank you.  First of all, congratulations to you both and to the entire team for getting this through.  I know it was a tough haul, and you did a great job.  Two questions.  One, is there still an option for universal basic income in the RMI agreement?  And how was the congressional logjam over funding broken?  Did it involve an offset?  Thank you.MR RUGGLES:  Thank you, Cleo.  You have played a – you’ve been a great partner and voice in highlighting the importance of the COFA, and appreciate your support and engagement on these important relationships.  I just wanted to acknowledge that.The agreement with the RMI as with the other two countries was designed to reflect the priorities of the – of our Pacific partners, the Freely Associated States.  And so in negotiating – and I’ll invite DAS Nakoa to maybe elaborate, but I’ll just say that in negotiating the agreement with RMI, they wanted to at least preserve the option of having some sort of direct individual support distributions for the population.  We’ll need to sit down with them on the implementation phase and through the Trust Fund Committee that DAS Nakoa chairs and the JEMFAC that Assistant Secretary Cantor chairs to go over those priorities.  But it’s a bit premature to (inaudible) since we haven’t had those discussions.In terms of offsets, I don’t have direct knowledge of that part of the agreement.  The Office of Management and Budget handled the negotiations with the Hill on getting the final agreement, so I might refer you to them or to contacts on the Hill on what finally secured the deal.  But again, we’re just happy it made it through and thrilled at the overwhelming support.  Thank you.MR NAKOA:  Thank you.  This is Keone Nakoa.  First, I want to echo Taylor’s comments to thank you and a lot of your work.  I don’t know that there was perhaps any single specific thing, but there was kind of, like, a groundswell of support.  I’m not sure how much to credit any individual, but I know people were definitely paying attention to some of your articles and there were several letters from FAS, from ambassadors, from other countries, and there was also a very strong championing of several members of Congress, particularly of Senate Natural Resource – or House and Senate Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Relations, and HASC and SASC.  So I think it was a culmination of a lot of support.From what I understand, there was no specific offset provided other than things that were contained within the continuing appropriations act in general.  And I believe, yes, there – I’ll have to consult the letter of the RMI Trust Fund Agreement, but there is the possibility to have distributions that would resemble universal distributions.  But that’s something that Nitijeļā would have to pass or have additional action if they wanted to access, and then there are specific pieces of the Trust Fund Agreement that would need to be satisfied.MODERATOR:  Okay, I think we have time for one last question.  We have Jessica Stone from VOA, based in Washington.  Jessica, you should be able to unmute yourself now.QUESTION:  Okay, thank you so much and thanks for doing this call, guys, and congratulations to both of you as well.  I wanted to drill down a little bit on the nuclear legacy in the RMI and how that is being handled.  As I reported a few months ago, that was a major sticking point.  I wonder if that’s still your view on it that that was really the thing that had to be settled to get the agreement signed.  We all know the congressional saga, but I’m curious how you view handling the nuclear legacy in the RMI going forward.MR RUGGLES:  Hey, thanks, Jessica.  I think just objectively this is a sensitive issue, and we remember just on March 1st we commemorated Nuclear Remembrance Day.  And I’ll just say that the United States has long recognized the effects of the nuclear testing program and has accepted and acted on its responsibility.  But the – in negotiating the agreements with RMI, as I mentioned in response to Cleo’s question, it’s really a desire to be responsive to RMI’s priorities and needs while at the same time observing and respecting the fact that we have this agreement from 1986, the so-called Section 177 Agreement where we reached a full and final settlement concerning those issues.And so I don’t want to be – I don’t want to belabor the point.  As I said, the Nitijeļā is considering legislation.  I think we’ve found an agreement that is robust and provides great discretion for the Government of the RMI to respond to the needs, the health, environmental needs of its population.  I don’t want to convey the impression that this is a closed chapter or that this is not something that will continue to pop up, that we’ll need to work through together, but I do think that the negotiators on our side, led by Ambassador Yun, have crafted an agreement that respects the interests and priorities of both countries.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Oh, I’m sorry.  Senior Advisor Ruggles, thank you so much.  If you have any closing remarks, I’ll turn it back to you now.MR RUGGLES:  Oh, thank you.  I’ll just say, one, I appreciate the interest.  As I said, we had President Simina of FSM in town today.  It was a great opportunity meeting with the Deputy Secretary, and I know he also met with Secretary Haaland in Interior and the Peace Corps director and many other meetings that they’ll have this week.  We certainly are going to be looking for other opportunities to highlight and celebrate implementation of COFA.  I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the deliberations in the Marshall Islands, so we’ll watch that process carefully and look forward to working with all three governments moving forward.But really, a historic moment and I’m pleased that we’ve passed this milestone.  So thank you.MODERATOR:  Thank you, Senior Advisor Ruggles.  Deputy Assistant Secretary Nakoa, if you have any last words, please go ahead.MR NAKOA:  Thank you so much.  And I just really want to echo what Taylor just said.  Very much appreciative of all the work of everyone on this call and the interest in this topic.  I think that was definitely a piece of how Congress – or why Congress acted.  And very much looking forward to implementation stage of this next third generation, or compact three, or however it’s being called – working with the United States and the Freely Associated States.So there’s a lot more to come, a lot – a very busy year ahead of us.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  That brings us to the end of our time for today.  Thanks for your questions, and huge thanks to Senior Advisor Ruggles and Deputy Assistant Secretary Nakoa for joining us.  We will provide a transcript of this briefing to participating journalists as soon as it’s available, and we’d also love to hear your feedback.  You can contact us at any time at AsiaPacMedia@state.gov.  Thanks again for your participation and we hope you can join us for another briefing soon.  Take care.
- Deputy Secretary Campbell Meets with President of the Federated States of Micronesia Simina HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases&#8230;Deputy Secretary Campbell Meets with President of the Federated States of Micronesia Simina				hide		if(window.jQuery) {		jQuery( document ).ready(function() {			if (jQuery(".bc_middle").hasClass("collapse")) {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});				jQuery(".bc_hide").click(function(){					jQuery(".bc_hide").toggleClass("visible");					jQuery(".bc_middle").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_ellipse").toggle();					jQuery(".bc_content").toggleClass("noflex");					jQuery(".block_breadcrumbs_content").toggleClass("noflex");				});			} else {				jQuery(".bc_ellipse").hide();			}		});	}																										Deputy Secretary Campbell Meets with President of the Federated States of Micronesia Simina																																		Readout																														March 18, 2024																																							The below is attributable to Spokesperson Matt Miller:‎Today, Deputy Secretary Kurt Campbell exchanged diplomatic notes with President of the Federated States of Micronesia, Wesley Simina, to bring into force new COFA-related agreements.&nbsp; They discussed our deepening partnership which is furthered by the newly enacted COFA legislation. &nbsp;Deputy Secretary Campbell and President Simina discussed our shared priorities in the Pacific including climate change, environmental protection, and methods for protecting Pacific ecosystems. &nbsp;They also spoke about ways to cooperate on our shared vision for a free, open, and flourishing Pacific Islands region.						Tags																					Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																																														Climate and Environment																															Deputy Secretary of State																																Indo-Pacific																															Micronesia																								Office of the Spokesperson
- On the Enactment of Compact-Related Legislation Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateThe Department welcomes the enactment of legislation providing approval and funding to bring into force new assistance agreements under the Compacts of Free Association (COFA). Passage of this legislation, which was signed into law by the President today, serves as another milestone in our relationships with the Freely Associated States (FAS) of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau.This step follows the successful negotiation of the Compact-related economic assistance agreements between the United States and the Freely Associated States.  The 20-year duration and commitment of $7.1 billion of mandatory funding is reflective of our steadfast commitment to these strategically important partners.  We appreciate the continued strong bipartisan support for COFA in Congress.Our special and uniquely close relationships with the Freely Associated States, underpinned by the Compacts, have been an anchor of U.S. engagement in the Pacific for decades.  Extending Compact-related assistance is a critical component of the Administration’s Pacific Partnership, Indo-Pacific, and National Security Strategies.  We look forward to working with our partners in the Freely Associated States over the next two decades of COFA-related cooperation.
- The Federated States of Micronesia National Day Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateOn behalf of the Government of the United States of America, I extend my warmest wishes to the people of the Federated States of Micronesia as you celebrate your 37th Independence Day on November 3.Since establishing bilateral ties, the Federated States of Micronesia and the United States have enjoyed an enduring friendship and shared vision of a free, open, resilient, and prosperous Pacific Islands region. Through our Compact of Free Association and the recently concluded Compact-related agreement renewals, we have reaffirmed our commitment to achieving a prosperous and secure future for the FSM and the region at large. As we look toward the future, the United States is committed to collaborating and supporting your leadership to safeguard the unique and threatened ecosystems of the Pacific Islands and Ocean.The United States looks forward to continuing its friendship with the Federated States of Micronesia and sends its congratulations as you celebrate this special day.						Tags																					Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs																								Micronesia																								Office of the Spokesperson																								The Secretary of State
- The United States of America and the Federated States of Micronesia Signed the 2023 Federal Programs and Services Agreement Office of the SpokespersonYesterday, the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia signed the 2023 Federal Programs and Services Agreement on the continuation of essential programs and services provided by U.S. agencies to the Federated States of Micronesia. The conclusion of this Agreement is an affirmation of our close and continuing partnership.Special Presidential Envoy for Compact Negotiations Joseph Yun signed the Agreement for the United States and Chief Negotiator Leo Falcam, Jr. signed for the Federated States of Micronesia.JCRP Chair Asterio Takesy, Charge d’affaires Jackson Soram of the Federated States of Micronesia, and U.S. Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary for Insular and International Affairs Carmen G. Cantor attended the signing at the State Department in Washington, D.C.The Federal Program and Services Agreement was signed as part of the negotiations related to Compact of Free Association and confirms the shared desire to strengthen the special and historic partnership between our nations.
- Digital Press Briefing with Daniel J. Kritenbrink, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Dr. Mira Rapp-Hooper, Special Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for East Asia and Oceania Daniel J. Kritenbrink, Assistant SecretaryBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsDr. Mira Rapp-Hooper, Special Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for East Asia and OceaniaMODERATOR:  Greetings from the U.S. Department of State’s Asia Pacific Media Hub.  I would like to welcome journalists today to the on-the-record briefing with Daniel J. Kritenbrink, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and Dr. Mira Rapp-Hooper, Special Assistant to the President and National Security Council Senior Director for East Asia and Oceania.  The speakers will provide a readout on the U.S.-Pacific Islands Forum Summit.With that, let’s get started.  Dr. Rapp-Hooper, I’ll turn it over to you for your opening remarks.DR RAPP-HOOPER:  Thanks so much, and thanks to you all for being here this evening, this morning.  We’re glad to have the opportunity to read you out the President’s really consequential summit of Pacific Islands Forum leaders here in Washington just a few days ago, and thrilled to be joining my friend and colleague Dan Kritenbrink to do so.As you know, this week, leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum were all in Washington for the second-ever U.S.-Pacific Island Leaders Summit.  By all accounts, this was an extremely successful and productive visit for the PIF leaders and for the President.  I’ll start with a brief recap of the leaders’ engagements over the past few days, and then I’ll discuss in brief some of the key deliverables that were announced over the course of the summit before handing the floor over to Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink.In advance of the formal meetings that took place in Washington, we got our summit started early on Sunday when Pacific Island Forum leaders took a trip from New York on a special Amtrak train down to Baltimore.  In Baltimore, the leaders attended a Baltimore Ravens game, where they were recognized for their role as American friends in the Indo-Pacific.  They even made it onto the field, where they were recognized before the game began.After the game, they toured a Coast Guard cutter ship in the Baltimore Harbor, the USS Forward, and had a meeting and opportunity to exchange views with Commandant of the Coast Guard Admiral Linda Fagan on key issues to Pacific Island leaders, including combating illegal fishing and effectively managing maritime domains.Following the Pacific Island Forum leaders’ trip to Baltimore, the leaders came to Washington, where they were hosted by President Biden at the White House on Monday for the second-ever U.S.-Pacific Summit.  They also attended a climate roundtable hosted by Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry as well as a dinner hosted by Secretary Blinken and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield about which Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink will say more in just a moment.On Tuesday, the leaders also met with members of the philanthropic community, U.S. businesses, and members of Congress.  We closed out the summit with a reception hosted by our friends at the Australian embassy, emphasizing the depths of our people-to-people ties.  And I look forward to Dan speaking to those engagements in a bit more detail very soon.At the summit with PIF leaders on Monday, President Biden reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to shared regional priorities and to deepening our cooperation, including to tackling the climate crisis, advancing economic growth, promoting sustainable development, countering illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and expanding our people-to-people ties.Before getting into the deliverables that we unveiled on Monday, I’d first like to take a step back and recognize the milestones of engagement with PIF countries that we have passed over the course of the last couple of years.Just in the last year, we have opened new embassies in the Solomon Islands and Tonga in record time, thanks in no small part to the extraordinary work of our colleagues at the State Department.  We opened a USAID regional mission in Fiji and are returning the Peace Corps to the region after years of relative absence.  We are enhancing our engagement with the Pacific Islands Forum as the region’s leading institution, and we continue to expand U.S. cooperation and assistance programs throughout the region.At this year’s summit, we announced expanded ties with our recognition, our diplomatic recognition, of the Cook Islands and Niue, and the establishment of diplomatic relations with both of these Pacific Island nations.Since last year’s summit, this May, Secretary Blinken met with the Pacific Island Forum leaders in Papua New Guinea, and at this week’s summit, the Biden-Harris administration has continued to show that we are delivering on our promises.  All told, we have now announced a commitment to work with Congress towards over $8 billion in new funding and programs for the Pacific Island region.  And again, this is just in the last year.On Monday, President Biden announced a new slate of activities, including plans to work with Congress to request and provide nearly $200 million in new funding.  These programs seek to address the priority issues we hear about from Pacific Island leaders, including the climate crisis – which is existential for many of our Pacific Island friends – and we always stand shoulder to shoulder with them as they work to meet the challenge to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.The President on Monday also reaffirmed his commitment to the security of the Blue Pacific Continent, and to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, the United States has announced that it will provide over $11 million to bring cutting-edge maritime domain awareness technology to the Pacific through the Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness to help improve the maritime picture and law enforcement information analysis and provision amongst our Pacific Island friends.We’re also delivering on our promise to invest in the prosperity of the region.  As the President has announced, we will invest an additional $40 million working with Congress to expand our Pacific Islands Infrastructure Initiative.  Through this initiative, we’re bringing technical assistance and project preparation work needed to identify commercially viable projects through partners in the U.S. Government, including the U.S. Trade and Development Agency.These are just a few of the key initiatives announced as part of our summit.  One more that I’d flag that we’re happy to go into during our question-and-answer period involves a new microfinance facility that will offer small and micro loans to Pacific Island businesses so that entrepreneurs there have the chance to thrive.  And these deliverables we are working towards illustrate the depths of our collaboration with the Pacific Islands and the promise of expanding our partnership for many years to come.As President Biden has said, the United States is and will long remain a proud Pacific nation.  And as a Pacific nation, the United States is here for the long haul and will continue to deliver on our promises to our partners in the region.I’ll hand the floor over to Dan to talk more about Secretary Blinken’s consequential engagements with the PIF leaders throughout the summit.  Dan, over to you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Mira, thanks so much, and good evening, everyone.  I think, as my esteemed colleague Dr. Mira Rapp-Hooper has outlined, this was a tremendously successful summit that I think demonstrates further the breadth and depth of America’s commitment to the Pacific.  And Mira, I thought that was really a tremendous rundown of a momentous series of events related to the U.S.-Pacific Islands Forum Summit.I thought that I would focus my remarks a bit more narrowly on some of Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s significant engagements with the Pacific Island leaders here in Washington, and then also mention briefly the engagement involving the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry’s meetings during the summit as well.As Secretary Blinken put it, our engagements were designed to show that we’re seizing on the possibilities of this moment to build a more secure, resilient, inclusive, and prosperous Pacific region.As Secretary Blinken also said on Monday night, the fundamental fact is this:  Our fates are tied together.  We’ve long been committed development partners to the Pacific Islands, and we’re excited to bring new energy and resources to the Pacific, working with partners in the Pacific Islands on our shared goal of meeting Pacific priorities and supporting Pacific institutions.We saw this last week, last Friday at the UN – at the end of the UN General Assembly High-Level Week, when Secretary Blinken hosted a Partners in the Blue Pacific ministerial in New York.  And at that meeting on Friday, we aimed to highlight the tremendous work we’ve done to advance more effective and efficient cooperation and engagement with our Pacific partners, designed to strengthen Pacific regionalism and to facilitate and encourage other partners and institutions to engage and consult with the Pacific.  And of course those efforts flowed nicely into the Pacific Islands Forum Summit itself, which began, as Mira indicated, on Monday.I think a clear sign of our commitment to the Pacific region came through the establishment of diplomatic relations with both Niue and the Cook Islands.  Following an announcement from President Biden earlier on Monday, Secretary Blinken hosted Niue Premier Dalton Tagelagi and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown for two separate signing ceremonies here in the State Department Treaty Room to make these momentous occasions.  These historic announcements reaffirmed our joint commitments to deepen our cooperation as equal and sovereign partners, guided by respect, genuine engagement, and partnership.  We fully anticipate working even closer with Niue and the Cook Islands on our shared priorities, which include the climate crisis, renewable energy, Pacific regionalism, and good governance, among many others.Secretary Blinken then had the pleasure of joining the millennium compact corporation CEO Alice Albright and iKiribati President Taneti Maamau for a signing ceremony for an MCC-Kiribati threshold program grant agreement that will provide up to $29.1 million to promote safe, accessible, decent, and inclusive employment opportunities for Kiribati workers, both in Kiribati and across the region.  This will be the United States’ largest direct grant investment in Kiribati to date, and it is an agreement that we believe will deliver clear results and benefits to people in the Pacific Islands and solve real challenges to shape our future.I wanted to mention, also on Monday evening, Secretary Blinken hosted really a spectacular dinner here at the State Department in the newly renovated Benjamin Franklin Room, which was an opportunity for the Secretary and other leaders across the U.S. Government to meet with all of the Pacific Island leaders and to discuss in more detail ways that we can expand our cooperation in the future.  The Secretary was delighted to host the banquet with his co-host, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield – of course, America’s Permanent Representative to the UN – and at the dinner, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield announced that she will be America’s representative to the next Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Summit in November of this year.I think the final event of the summit, the two-day summit, for Secretary Blinken was his meeting with representatives from the Freely Associated States.  Namely, he met with Marshall Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ading, he met with Federated States of Micronesia President Simina, and with Palau President Whipps.  That was on Tuesday, late Tuesday afternoon.During the meeting, the Secretary took the opportunity to underscore the strong people-to-people ties and shared history underpinned by the Compacts of Free Association between the U.S. and these three Freely Associated States.  The Secretary commended the dignitaries for the progress in the negotiations on the compact-related agreements, which we believe signals a new era in our partnerships that will help advance a secure, free, and open Pacific.  And we look forward to further progress on these Compacts of Free Association agreements in the months to come.Finally, of course, climate change, as Mira indicated, was a major topic of discussions since it is such an existential challenge, and we recognize it, as our partners do, as the single greatest threat facing the Blue Pacific.Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry met with Pacific leaders on Monday to discuss the climate crisis and ocean resilience.  Secretary Kerry reiterated the United States’ new policy on sea-level rise and statehood that President Biden had earlier announced as well as new investments in strengthening early warning systems and sustainable development.So in the interest of time, why don’t I stop there.  I know that Mira and I will be delighted to take your questions.  Thanks.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  Thank you, Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink.  We’ll now turn it over to the question-and-answer portion of today’s briefing.  The first question will go to Ralph Jennings from the South China Morning Post in Hong Kong, who sent his question in advance:  “How does the recent U.S. engagement with the South Pacific help offset China’s economic influence in the region?”ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Mira, do you want to take that one first or you want me to dive in?DR RAPP-HOOPER:  I’m happy to take that one, Dan.ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Please.DR RAPP-HOOPER:  And I’ll turn to you in just a moment to add your thoughts.  Thanks for the question.  I would say just as a topline matter, when we’re working with our Pacific Island friends, we’re really not focused principally on China.  We’re focused on what the United States can offer as a likeminded partner to this group of countries.  And we are very focused on delivering positive, attractive alternatives to these countries that can help them and their people thrive.  But it’s really about what we stand for together alongside our Pacific Island partners, not about who or what we’re against.But with that in mind, I will note that, as the President announced, our $200 million in new programs for Pacific Island Forum nations do include some really consequential new programs that we believe are going to help our friends in the Pacific to generate the economic dynamism that they’re looking for to offset and combat climate change and to continue their recovery from the pandemic, where they were especially hard-hit.Just as a few examples, we’re stepping up our infrastructure efforts.  Specifically, as I mentioned, the President announced $40 million to new infrastructure projects in the Pacific Islands.  He also announced that the United States will be undertaking new submarine cable projects in the Pacific Islands to build secure, reliable connectivity amongst Pacific Island nations and to ensure that our friends there have the basic digital infrastructure that they need, like reliable, speedy internet on which so many businesses and individuals rely.  And of course, that submarine cable work builds on work we have been doing in recent years, including with the East Micronesia Cable, where we’ve already begun work to improve high-quality and more reliable secure communications for over 100,000 people in the Pacific Islands.  So infrastructure is a big part of our work.We are also delivering a new Millennium Challenge Corporation project with the Government of Kiribati, which is intended to advance economic growth in Kiribati in partnership with the International Labor Organization and American Councils of International Education to bolster and promote safe, accessible, and inclusive employment opportunities for Kiribati workers.Through the Quad, we are partnering with the Government of Palau to implement the deployment of a new ORAN network that is a next-generation, secure mobile network to help Palau get the secure connectivity that it needs.  And as we mentioned at the top of the call, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency is working throughout the Pacific Islands to identify through its technical work opportunities for more viable projects in the months and years to come.So this is just a sampling of the work that we’re doing to try to bring the economic tools we have to bear to help Pacific economies thrive, but I’ll hand it back to Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink to see what he might like to add.ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Mira, that’s a brilliant answer.  I – all I could really do is foot-stomp what Mira has already said.  We approach the region from the perspective of advancing our affirmative agenda – the shared interests and values that we hold in common with our Pacific partners.That’s our focus, not any notion of focusing on a third party.  And as we often say, we have a regional strategy.  We’re focused on our affirmative agenda.  And I think if we continue to deliver benefits to our partners in the Indo-Pacific, I’m very confident and optimistic about our future together.In particular, as Dr. Rapp-Hooper has indicated, our entire approach to the Pacific is predicated on meeting our Pacific Island friends where they live.  In other words, in conversation with our Pacific partners, we have understood clearly what their needs and concerns and interests are, as outlined very clearly in the Pacific Islands Forum’s 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent.  And by design, our work and the work of our other partners through the Partners in the Blue Pacific is specifically designed to address the needs that they themselves have outlined in their strategy.Again, that is the focus of our efforts, not any third parties.  Thank you.MODERATOR:  Okay.  The next question is going to go to Rurika Imahashi, who submitted the question on the chat, the Q&amp;A box here on Zoom.  “Our understanding is that the Marshall Islands parliament will soon certify the compact deal with the U.S.  What is the U.S. understanding on the development of the agreement?”  So we’ll answer that part.ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Mira, why don’t I take an initial stab at this one and we’ll ask you, obviously, to add anything else that you would like.DR RAPP-HOOPER:  Sounds good.ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  I guess what I would say to any friends with questions about the compacts, I would just simply underscore that the compacts remain of vital importance to the United States.  I think they recognize our deep and historic ties to the three Freely Associated States.  I think they embody the strong ties between the peoples and the governments of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau.  And we remain very optimistic about the progress that we’ve made in the compact-related negotiations.I know when Secretary Blinken sat down with the leaders of the three Freely Associated States, he really commended them for the progress that we’ve made.  I think as everyone is tracking, we signed COFA-related agreements with Palau in May and with the Federated States of Micronesia in May, and we’ve made tremendous progress with our friends in the Marshall Islands.  We’re confident that we will conclude all of these agreements very soon and we will continue to build out these incredibly significant relationships that are central to everything we hope to achieve in the Pacific.And I think, as friends are tracking, that these compacts really are extraordinary agreements that are 20-year agreements in duration, and again, we’re confident that we will conclude them and implement them very soon.But, Mira, would you like to add anything to that?DR RAPP-HOOPER:  Not much that I could add, Dan, except just to foot-stomp the point that we believe we are well on our way; we’ll soon be at a successful conclusion and very much look forward to being able to mark that milestone after months of really terrific cooperation with all of the Freely Associated States.  That’s all for me.ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Yeah, and maybe just one final comment.  I think Mira’s comments reminded me that I do want to recognize that obviously this work is all being done at the direction of President Biden and Secretary Blinken, but our Special Presidential Envoy for Compact Negotiations Joe Yun and his team have also done a brilliant job and I really commend them.  And as Mira indicated, we’re very close and look forward to implementing them very soon.MODERATOR:  The next question will go to Stephen Wright from Radio Free Asia’s BenarNews Service.  Stephen, I also see that your hand is up.  If you’d like to unmute and ask your question, please go ahead.  Yeah, please go ahead and unmute.QUESTION:  Yeah, thanks.  Prime Minister Sogavare didn’t attend the recent summit and subsequently he said the U.S. should show respect to Pacific Island leaders and not lecture them at summits.  What do you think that shows about the progress of U.S. and Solomon Islands relations?  And are there any plans to have an ambassador at the new but smaller embassy in the Solomon Islands?DR RAPP-HOOPER:  Thanks very much.  This is Mira; I’m happy to take a first crack at this, and Dan, perhaps I’ll pass to you just on the embassy piece.We were disappointed that Prime Minister Sogavare was unable to attend the summit in Washington.  We did reach out, including at the very highest levels, to encourage him to join us for this terrific conversation that we’ve been laying out for you here, this opportunity to engage amongst friends, and we’re disappointed that he declined to do so.I don’t have much to say about the specific comments except to note, I think as we have been throughout this call tonight, that the conversation with the President, with the Secretary of State, with every cabinet official and member of Congress at the Pacific Island Forum leaders met with was collaborative, constructive, forward-looking, and I think most importantly involved an incredible amount of listening by U.S. Government officials to continue to refine their understanding of what our Pacific Island Forum friends are most looking for from us.So that’s the approach that we’re going to continue to take.  We continue to believe that it’s the right approach.  We feel that our three really dynamic days of programming show that we’re on the right track, and we look forward to continuing that work on the road ahead.Dan, over to you.ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Thank you, Mira.  Maybe specifically on the question regarding our presence in the Solomon Islands, I’ll just note that we were excited and honored to open our new U.S. embassy in Honiara in January of this year, which was less than one year after Secretary Blinken announced our intent to do so.  Really excited about the work that our embassy colleagues there, led by Chargé Russ Comeau – excited about the work that they’re doing, again, to build our friendship and our ties with the people of the Solmon Islands and ensure that we work to deliver tangible benefits to our partners there.Of course, any new first step in opening an embassy involves staffing it, and of course our chargé d’affaires currently leading our embassy efforts there, and we recognized him for his really stellar work there.I would simply say at this point we have taken a number of steps internally to identify the U.S. ambassador, the next U.S. ambassador to the Solomon Islands, and I don’t have anything to announce to you this evening.  But I hope we’ll have something to announce in the near future, but we are certainly working towards that end.  Thank you.DR RAPP-HOOPER:  Dan, if I may just jump in really quickly to add one additional detail.  I did want to note, as Dan noted, the – our wonderful Chargé Russ Comeau in the Solmon Islands was given a really important inaugural award at the dinner so graciously hosted by Secretary Blinken during the Pacific Island Forum Summit.  That inaugural award commemorates intrepid diplomacy in the Pacific Islands, and Chargé Comeau really embodies that to a T.  He has been just absolutely indefatigable in working to build U.S.-Solomons ties.I underscore that because I do want to make clear that the purpose of an award like this is to continue to draw attention to and raise up Americans who are doing their utmost on the ground to build ties with the Pacific Islands.  And I think the fact that we’ve established this award this year, that it was given by the Secretary of State, is just yet another demonstration that we are continuing to create incentives, recognize achievements so that Americans continue to step up and deliver on our promises throughout the Pacific.MODERATOR:  Okay.  I realize that we’re running a little bit over.  We started a few minutes late, so we’ll take a couple more questions.  We have one from Daniel Hurst from The Guardian.  “To what extent is the United States concerned about the newly announced comprehensive strategic partnership between Timor-Leste and China?  Why or why not?”ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Perhaps I can take an initial crack at that one and then ask Mira to chime in.  Look, I think as we indicated earlier, our message to partners in the region is that we’re not asking countries to choose.  We’re in the business of trying to ensure that countries have the ability to make their own sovereign decisions and their own choices free from coercion.My second point would be, as indicated earlier, we’re focused on our affirmative agenda in the region, including with friends in Timor-Leste, and we’ll continue to do that.  We’ll focus on how we can further build out our friendship and partnership with counterparts in the region, including Timor-Leste, and focus on the great work that we can do together.But again, we’re not in the business of asking countries to choose, and I don’t really think it’s beneficial to try to get into some kind of a comparison game or comment on engagement of other partners with the PRC.But, Mira, what would you like to add to that?DR RAPP-HOOPER:  Nothing to add, Dan.  I’m in violent agreement.MODERATOR:  Great.  We are – let’s see.  If the speakers are okay, can we take one more question?ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Absolutely.  Please.MODERATOR:  Great.  Great.  And this one is from Mar-Vic Cagurangan from the Pacific Island Times, based in Tamuning, Guam, who sent it in advance:  “How will a federal shutdown affect the Compact of Free Association, COFA?  Will the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Marshall Islands, and Palau continue to receive funds throughout the shutdown?  Do you think this affect – this will affect the U.S. credibility with the Freely Associated States?”ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  Mira, perhaps I could provide an initial answer on this one as well and then be happy to turn to you.  Yeah, I really do appreciate the question, and I’ll just underscore what I mentioned earlier.  We’re really excited about the progress we’ve made in the compact negotiations and we’re confident that all of these agreements will be concluded soon.The issue that you raised here was discussed in some detail in the meeting between Secretary Blinken and the three leaders from the Freely Associated States, and I can assure you that we are in very close and constant communication with our friends both in the Freely Associated States and with leaders on Capitol Hill to make sure that we have a plan going forward under all circumstances that will allow us to meet our obligations under the compacts.I think, as friends may be tracking, that the draft Compact of Free Association agreements, the draft legislation on the Hill includes authority to continue programs and services at the same levels provided under current agreements until the new agreements are in place so as to avoid a lapse in services.  And we’re also working very closely with our friends so that if there were to be any kind of a lapse in appropriations that we can take the appropriate mitigating steps wherever possible to minimize any possible impacts on our friends in the Freely Associated States.But I think that I can assure you we’re in close and frequent contact with our friends in the Freely Associated States and I’m confident we have a plan to work through any contingency.Mira, what would you like to add?DR RAPP-HOOPER:  Nothing to add, Dan.  Thanks so much.MODERATOR:  Thank you.  And for our closing remarks, I’d like to turn it back to Dr. Rapp-Hooper.DR RAPP-HOOPER:  Thanks so much, folks, for joining us this evening.  I think from this conversation you’ve gotten a pretty good lay of the land of the incredibly substantive set of conversations that took place in Washington this week.  The point I want to emphasize before we let you go is that for us, this project, this promise to renew our ties, renew our commitment to the Pacific Islands, is really about much more than a three-day summit.  It’s about delivery on the promises that we’ve made in the last two years, which I think we showed in spades this week, but on delivery on those new conversations and those new commitments that have been made just this week.We have clear instructions from the President, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, and many others to move out expeditiously on everything that we announced alongside our Pacific Island friends earlier this week, and we intend to literally put our money where our mouth is and deliver on everything that we seek to do together in the Pacific, whether that is providing finance so that friends in the Pacific can more quickly and readily adapt to climate change or providing micro and small loans to entrepreneurs and small businesses so that women leaders in particular can get the financing they need to allow them to contribute to increasingly dynamic Pacific economies.So we’re really just still in the opening chapter of the new Pacific story that we’re writing here under the Biden administration, but we feel like we have made tremendous progress in just the last two years, and we are emerging from this week’s summit energized and ready to hit the ground running with this new set of programs and new set of promises, and we look forward to being back in touch to share more about how this exciting work is all going.MODERATOR:  And Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink, I’ll turn it over to you for any closing remarks.ASSISTANT SECRETARY KRITENBRINK:  I can’t say it any better than that.  Beautifully summarized by Mira.  Really grateful to all of our friends in the media for joining us here tonight.  And as Mira indicated, we’re committed to now implementing all of the agreements and the objectives that we’ve set out flowing from this latest summit, and very optimistic, again, about our future ahead with friends in the Pacific.  Thanks again for joining us tonight.MODERATOR:  That brings us to the end of our time today.  Thank you for your questions and thank you to Assistant Secretary Kritenbrink and Dr. Rapp-Hooper for joining us.  We will provide a transcript of this briefing to participating journalists as soon as it is available.  We’d also love to hear your feedback, and you can contact us at any time at AsiaPacMedia@state.gov.  Thank you again for your participation and we hope you can join us for another briefing soon.
- Secretary Blinken’s Meeting with Marshall Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ading, the FSM President Simina, and Palau President Whipps Office of the SpokespersonThe below is attributable to Spokesperson Matthew Miller:Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken met today with the Republic of the Marshall Islands Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Jack Ading, the Federated States of Micronesia President Wesley Simina, and Palau President Surangel Whipps, Jr., in Washington, DC. The Secretary underscored the strong people-to-people ties and shared history that are underpinned by the Compacts of Free Association between the United States and the three countries, collectively known as the Freely Associated States (FAS). The Secretary commended the FAS dignitaries for the progress in the negotiations on Compact-related agreements, which signal a new era in our partnerships and help achieve a secure, free, and open Indo-Pacific.
- Secretary Blinken, FSM President Simina, Palau President Whipps, Jr., and Republic of the Marshall Islands Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Ading Before Their Meeting Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of StateWashington, D.C. Treaty RoomSECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, good afternoon.  It’s a real pleasure to welcome our colleagues from Palau, from Micronesia, from the Marshall Islands.  We’ve had a, I think, very, very invigorating couple of days working with all of our colleagues from the Pacific Islands, but it’s particularly good to be here with our colleagues as we are working on the important compacts that I think we’ve made tremendously good progress on, and we’re really grateful for that.These compacts of free association really go to the heart of our collective security, our collective prosperity, and they build on decades and decades of friendship, of collaboration, people-to-people ties.  But the compacts that we’ve been negotiating I think so effectively really take us into a new era, and I’m grateful to the presidents, the foreign minister for the terrific work that we’ve been able to do together.  So we’re committed to getting this done and committed to strengthening even more the compacts of free association that we enjoy with Palau, with Micronesia, with the Marshall Islands.Thank you all very much.
- United States Welcomes Five New Champions in Global Methane Pledge Office of the SpokespersonToday, the United States and the European Union welcomed Canada, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Germany, Japan, and Nigeria as Champions of the Global Methane Pledge (GMP) .The group of champions — already leaders in methane reduction efforts — are uniting to support and galvanize further progress by the 150 countries and other partners participating in the Global Methane Pledge.  As champions, they will continue to spur domestic action in their respective countries.The GMP was launched by United States and the European Union at COP26 in 2021 and has now been endorsed by 150 countries that have committed to take voluntary actions to contribute to a collective effort to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030.  As underscored in recent assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) convened Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), and the International Energy Agency, achieving this 30 percent reduction is critical for keeping a 1.5°C future within reach, preventing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions, boosting global crop yields by 15 million tons, and preventing the loss of 60 billion work hours associated with heat exposure.More information on recent Global Methane Pledge accomplishments can be found on the Global Methane Pledge website  and the GMP COP27 fact sheet.