U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

61–517PDF 2010

RENEWED ENGAGEMENT: U.S. POLICY TOWARD

PACIFIC ISLAND NATIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND 

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010

Serial No. 111–126

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Kurt M. Campbell, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 13

Mr. Derek J. Mitchell, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Asian 

and Pacific Security Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense ............................... 29

Frank Young, Ph.D., Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Asia, 

United States Agency for International Development ...................................... 38

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and 

the Global Environment: Prepared statement ................................................... 7

The Honorable Kurt M. Campbell: Prepared statement ...................................... 18

Mr. Derek J. Mitchell: Prepared statement ........................................................... 31

Frank Young, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................. 40

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 64

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 65

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 66

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Material submitted for the record ...... 68

(1)

RENEWED ENGAGEMENT: U.S. POLICY 

TOWARD PACIFIC ISLAND NATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC

AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m. in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Eni Faleomavaega, 

presiding. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The subcommittee hearing will come to 

order. This is the Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on 

Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment. I am joined by the 

distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman 

from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, and another distinguished and senior 

member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Chris 

Smith from New Jersey. Always a pleasure to have you, sir, join 

us. And also my good friend, the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Jeff 

Flake. 

I am going to begin the hearing this afternoon with my opening 

statement, and I will then extend the same courtesy to my colleagues for their opening statement concerning this oversight hearing, entitled, ‘‘Renewed Engagement: U.S. Policy Toward Pacific Island Nations.’’

On September 29th of last year, American Samoa, my little territory, was hit by a powerful earthquake, which struck below the 

ocean about 140 miles southwest of American Samoa, and about 

125 miles south of the independent state of Samoa. The earthquake, which registered 8.3 on the Richter scale set off a massive 

tsunami with tidal waves up to 20 feet in height hitting these islands, including Tonga, sweeping cars and people out to sea as survivors fled to high ground. In American Samoa, many children running from home unknowingly ran in the direction of the tsunami. 

The neighboring islands of Samoa and Tonga were also deeply affected, and as we pause to remember the lives lost and the families 

impacted, I wanted to once more publicly thank President Barack 

Obama and this administration for the leadership shown during 

this tragedy. I also want to thank the U.S. Secretary of State, 

Hilary Clinton, for her unwavering support. At my request and the 

request of Congresswoman Laura Richardson, Secretary Clinton 

authorized the needed airlift of some 92,000 pounds of emergency 

supplies collected by Samoans and non-Samoan communities in the 

2

Los Angeles area, as well as from our Samoan and Tongan communities in Salt Lake City and St. George, Utah. 

I will note for the record the Obama administration continues to 

stand with us, and on behalf of all Samoans, I thank the administration for its swift response. 

Based on its statements and actions, the Obama administration 

clearly recognizes the rising importance of Asia and the Pacific, 

and has adjusted U.S. policies to reflect emerging realities, including enhanced engagement with the Pacific Island nations integral 

to this region. 

Despite their geographic importance—and by the way, these island nations comprise their exclusive economic zones that cover almost 31 percent of the world’s surface. So they may be small islands with small populations, but they take up literally 31 percent 

of the earth’s surface. their EEZ zones. I might say that I have 

given a little lesson on geography about the realities that we are 

faced with here in the Pacific. But the steadfast friendship with the 

United States and consistent partnership with us and the United 

Nations. Yet, for too long we effectively outsourced our policy making toward the Pacific Islands to Australia and New Zealand. 

Unfortunately, the sometimes imperious attitudes and actions of 

our friends in Canberra and Wellington toward the Pacific Islands 

have fostered a degree of resentment and distrust that has limited 

their influence as well as their ability to represent U.S. views and 

interests. In Australia’s case, moreover, its role may now be further 

constrained by the recent election of a fragile single-seat majority 

coalition government. 

By deferring to the Foreign Ministers of Canberra and Wellington, we have left a vacuum in the Pacific that China has been 

only too eager to fill. And while the People’s Republic of China can 

and should be a force for prosperity, stability, and security in the 

Pacific Islands region and around the globe, Beijing’s rapid rise 

presents a unique set of challenges. It is very much in the interest 

of the United States to develop a coherent, robust, and sustained 

regional policy toward the Pacific Islands, one that recognizes and 

ideally compliments China’s own rise and prominence in the Pacific. 

It was thus reassuring to hear Secretary Clinton last year, in her 

first appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 

pledge to establish, and I quote, ‘‘a more comprehensive approach, 

American approach, to Pacific Island nations.’’ In the 17 months 

since then, the administration has made tangible progress in meeting that pledge. Secretary of State Clinton just held her second annual meeting with Pacific Island leaders 2 days ago in New York, 

and I understand it went very well. 

Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell and Assistant Secretary of Defense Chip Gregson also led a high-level U.S. delegation to the August Pacific Island Forum’s post-forum dialogue in 

Vanuatu. As of this week, we have a resident ambassador to Palau 

for the first time, and at long last an agreement on the compact. 

The Defense Department is continuing its Pacific Partnership program to provide humanitarian and other assistance, which has 

been extremely successful. And unless there has been a change—

and I will seek clarification on this in my questions—USAID will 

3

be reopening offices in Fiji and Papua New Guinea after a 15-year 

absence. I might also note with interest that the response that I 

received in talking to the Pacific Island nations concerning the Pacific Partnership initiated by our country was that it was tremendously successful. And I want to pose a question to my friends for 

the administration. I hope it is not going to take another 40 years 

before we have another Pacific Partnership program for these island countries. 

These are all important steps, and the administration deserves 

credit for seeing to it that Secretary Clinton’s pledge has already 

borne fruit. But if we seek to play a role in the Pacific commensurate with our interests, we have far more to do. After so many 

years of U.S. neglect, Pacific Island nations need and deserve further tangible evidence that the United States is committed to enhancing its engagement with the region for the long term. Toward 

that end, I believe that we should institutionalize the Secretary of 

State’s annual New York meeting with our Pacific Island leaders. 

And when the Secretary makes her visit to the Pacific later this 

year, postponed due to the earthquake in Haiti, I hope she will 

visit at least two Pacific Island states in addition to Australia and 

New Zealand. 

My invitation to her to stop in American Samoa still stands. 

Such a visit would support efforts to strengthen U.S.-Pacific Island 

relations, as well as American Samoa’s position as an integral 

member of the region. It would also give the Secretary a chance to 

thank the thousands of Samoan men and women who serve in the 

armed forces and who put their lives on the line every day in the 

most dangerous parts of the world on behalf of our great nation. 

American Samoans, as well as fellow citizens and residents of the 

territories of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, 

and those of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands and the Republic Palau all make the same 

sacrifices as all other members of the U.S. military. In fact, they 

serve our country in uniform at higher per capita rates in my understanding of fellow states and territories. They also suffer a 

greater number of casualties per capita. I was able to honor the 

sacrifice of one of our brave soldiers from the Federated States of 

Micronesia when I attended his funeral services in Pohnpei. 

In other areas, I believe the United States should institutionalize 

its participation in the Pacific Islands Forum by creating an ambassador-level position for this important regional organization, 

just as we now have for ASEAN. U.S. participation in the Pacific 

Islands Forum should also include Congress, and I will do my utmost to ensure that my colleagues make an effort to attend the 

next post-forum dialogue event, which I understand is going to be 

hosted by New Zealand. 

The Pacific Islands Forum is particularly important because it 

provides smaller island states a means of voicing their opinions 

independent of Australia and New Zealand, as well as the United 

States. The organization carries out its mission of strengthening regional cooperation and integration. Moreover, this organization is 

more inclusive than the South Pacific Forum—which it replaced in 

2000—and currently has 15 members, namely, Australia, Cook Islands, FSM, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, 

4

Papua New Guinea, the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, 

Kingdom of Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu; two associate members, 

New Caledonia and French Polynesia; and three observer states, 

Tokelau, East Timor, and Wallis and Futuna. 

Meanwhile, we should move quickly to ensure that President 

Obama’s planned participation in the Pacific Islands Conference of 

Leaders next year in Hawaii takes place. The significance of America’s first Pacific President attending that conference cannot be 

overstated. 

We should also enlarge the international visitors leadership program and other exchanges for Pacific Islanders so they can interact 

more often with their American counterparts. We should increase 

the presence of Peace Corps volunteers in the region, offer more 

Fulbright scholarships to Pacific Islanders, and increase funding 

for the U.S.-South Pacific scholarship program currently run under 

the auspices of the East-West Center. 

The U.S. Navy’s Pacific Partnership program, which has been so 

successful, should be annualized and expanded. This past summer, 

the hospital ship Mercy treated more than 1,000 Palauans. And 

two summers ago, 15,000 residents of FSM received medical attention. I sincerely hope that the Defense Department understands 

the value of this program, and does not make our friends in the 

region wait again for another 40 years or more. 

USAID’s return to the region offers a chance to assist crucial 

country-level and regional projects, including those directed at the 

extraordinary and potentially existential challenges that climate 

changes poses to Pacific Island nations. The administration should 

seek to leverage its programs in global warming by complementing 

ongoing efforts of existing regional organizations such as SPREP 

and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, as well as new programs being developed at the East-West Center with funding from 

NOAA. 

The United States should also help strengthen the region’s economy through promotion of bilateral trade and investment, including 

encouraging the Pacific Agreement and Closer Economic Relations—that is a mouthful; in other words PACER—to provide maximum economic benefits to Pacific Island nations. 

On the difficult issue of Fiji, my own view, based on four trips 

there since the constitutional crisis last year, and extended discussions with all sides, is that U.S. engagement is absolutely essential. 

The countries problems are multidimensional, resulting from Fiji’s 

unique colonial history, complex ethnic mix of indigenous Fijians 

and Indo-Fijians, intra-indigenous Fijian chiefly, provincial and 

traditional rivalries among families and clans and districts, and religious disagreements. 

Clearly, the Australian and New Zealand policies of sanctioning, 

isolating and punishing Fiji have not only failed, but have been 

counterproductive. Indeed, with the travel bans that the two countries have imposed and their victories in excluding Fiji from key institutions of the region and beyond—including their attempts to 

end Fiji’s vital contributions to U.N. peacekeeping operations 

around the world—Fiji has moved ever closer to China. 

China has been more than willing to step in to provide soft loans, 

investments, and now even peacekeeping training for Fiji’s miliVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:19 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\092910\61517 HFA PsN: SHIRL
5

tary, at the same time as their tourists are heading to Fiji in even 

greater numbers. 

I understand that during her meeting with Pacific Island leaders 

Monday, Secretary Clinton spoke to Fiji’s Foreign Minister about 

developing a bilateral dialogue. I encourage both sides to move forward expeditiously on such a dialogue. I would also encourage the 

exploration of new multilateral discussions with Fiji, perhaps 

through the Melanesian Spearhead Group or another venue in 

which Pacific Island nations take the lead. 

I wanted to note for the record it has been my privilege over the 

years to know one of Fiji’s most outstanding citizens, among the 

first citizens of Fiji to graduate from Sandhurst, and who later became the leader of all Fijian military forces under the administration of the late Prime Minister, Ratu Maru. This gentleman was 

never in any way connected to the current interim government, yet 

when he applied to go to New Zealand to have both of his knees 

operated on, he was denied that opportunity simply because he was 

a former leader and community leader in Fiji. I am making reference to Mr. Paul Manueli. And as far as I am concerned, that 

was an absolute act of shameful and disgraceful for New Zealand 

to deny this prominent citizen of Fiji the privilege of going to have 

both of his knees operated on in New Zealand. And do you know 

where he had to go? He had to go to India to get the operation 

done. That is absolutely ridiculous. 

In engaging Fiji, we should recognize that the interim Prime 

Minister, Frank Bainimarama, has not altered the plans he outlined in his Strategic Framework for Change to draft a constitution 

reflecting the country’s culture and history, to enact electoral reforms that will establish equal suffrage, and to hold free, fair, and 

democratic elections by the year 2014. In fact, he has reaffirmed 

that position over the past year, and personally, in my latest meeting with him in Fiji. 

On my last trip to Fiji in August, the chairman of the Strategic 

Framework for Change Coordinating Committee personally briefed 

me on the blueprint for implementing Fiji’s plans for elections in 

2014. The focus currently is on economic and social matters. In 

2012, Fiji will take up the constitutional and electoral issues, with 

elections 2 years later. 

In my meeting with Prime Minister Bainimarama, during the 

trip, I suggested Fiji perhaps take up the constitutional, political 

and electoral reforms now rather than wait 2 years, and that perhaps our Government could give assistance in providing the proper 

and appropriate advice to give the committee, the examining committee, the opportunity to review, and what would be the best options available then for them to pursue eventually leading toward 

the election of 2014. 

I think we should take Prime Minister Bainimarama at his word 

when he says he wants to end Fiji’s coup culture once and for all, 

and we should offer suitable resources to facilitate the reform of its 

electoral process, redraft its constitution, ensure successful elections, and build strong institutions capable of sustaining democracy 

and stability. Again, I do sincerely thank the administration for 

moving our policies in the Pacific in the right direction, and for proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:19 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\092910\61517 HFA PsN: SHIRL
6

viding essential assistance not only to my territory, but the countries that were affected by the tsunami and the earthquake. 

The witnesses with us here today have helped lay the foundation 

for progress in U.S.-Pacific relations, and now is the time to use 

that foundation to develop a sustained, robust, and comprehensive 

American approach to the Pacific Island nations. 

I would like to turn the time over now to my good friend, the 

gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith, for his opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]

7


61517d-1.eps
8


61517d-2.eps
9


61517d-3.eps
10


61517d-4.eps
11

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Faleomavaega, thank you very much for 

permitting me to sit in on your subcommittee, and I do appreciate 

it. You used the word ‘‘courtesy.’’ I think you define the word, so 

I want to thank you again for that. For years, I chaired the International Ops and Human Rights Committee, and you sat on that 

committee, and you never ceased in bringing attention and the 

spotlight to the Pacific Island nations, and you always reminded us 

of the other nations in the region that suffered so horrendously 

from the detonations by France of nuclear weaponry, which caused 

untold damage to people, the ecological damage that was done that 

continues in the region. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentleman yield? I recall distinctly 

when President Chirac, then former President Chirac, decided to 

break the moratorium on nuclear testing, and decided that he 

wanted to explode eight more nuclear bombs in French Polynesia. 

I believe I was on the floor about 20 times trying to share this not 

only with our colleagues, but with the American people. Such a terrible decision by the country having the fourth largest arsenal of 

nuclear weapons. And they said, ‘‘Oh, we need to test eight more 

nuclear bombs in the Pacific, but not in France. As for the Pacific 

and the natives, the heck with them,’’ they said. That is really the 

attitude that they took. It is okay to test the bombs in the Pacific, 

but not in France. 

But at any rate, I was on the floor about 20 times protesting the 

nuclear tests. And so when President Chirac appeared, I think in 

a joint session, I think 170 members decided not to join President 

Chirac for his speech. I felt that the whole world community was 

up in harms. But despite all of that, the reason for France to do 

this was to pay back the nuclear lobby for their support of the 

President. Now, that is about as critical a national security issue 

as I can think of. They decided not only to break the moratorium, 

but to explode more bombs, even though it was totally unnecessary. 

I thank the gentleman, and I also want to say for the record that 

you, sir, have always been the champion of the people whose 

human rights were violated. Whatever country, whatever region, 

wherever it is in the world, I consider you truly a friend of those 

whose rights have been severely abused. And anywhere in the 

world, my friend, Chris Smith, is always there, and I want to 

thank you for that. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I will say, 

and I say this strongly for the record as well, you are the undisputed leader for the Pacific Island nations, and they could have no 

better friend because I remember all those years, year in and year 

out, nobody else was paying attention to it, and you were, and you 

certainly rallied the members when Chirac was here to express our 

displeasure. 

So I thank you for that leadership. As we all know, my former 

chief of staff on the subcommittee was our first ambassador to East 

Timor, Joseph Rees, and we have shared many, many concerns and 

issues together with you on how to address the ongoing——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And thanks to your leadership, we were 

able to pass a human trafficking law. As it so happens, I had a little problem in my own district with human trafficking, and we took 

care of that. 

12

Mr. SMITH. As I think you know, the first prosecution—then I 

will yield back. But the first prosecution that occurred under the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act was in your area. So that was 

in 2001, and that law is hopefully having a real impact, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. Let me just say also, here to raise, 

Mr. Chairman, a very important issue—and I will be asking Assistant Secretary Campbell to address issues relating to the left-behind 

parents. I know it is not the immediate subject matter of today’s 

hearing, but it has to do with Japan and the ongoing terrible 

human rights abuse of American children, 136 that we know of, 

that are registered with the State Department. And we are talking 

about obviously an issue where left-behind parents have been forcibly separated from their own children, and in many cases if they 

try even to make contact, certainly physical contact, they are in 

grave peril if they go to Japan to do so. And today or yesterday, 

but the vote will be today, the House will vote on a resolution, as 

I think you know, Secretary Campbell, that calls on Japan—it first 

condemns this situation. It is the strongest language we could have 

possibly put into a resolution because, frankly, the time is up. People are fed up, and the parents certainly, and the children are 

being hurt. 

We know that abducted children are hurt severely, psychologically, and in every other way. I know that you know that so 

very well. So time delay is denial, and those children are being, we 

believe, irreparably harmed in some cases. The resolution also calls 

for creating a mechanism by which the left-behind parents can be 

reunited with their children. We all know that, you know, this is 

not a custody issue. I remember when we were dealing with the 

David Goldman case, and even with these cases, some people in the 

press just say, oh, that is just a custody issue. No. Custody issues 

are decided in the place of habitual residence. This is abduction. 

This is kidnaping, and it is very, very severe, and it is a very significant human rights abuse. 

So I would hope, you know, I will have a few questions as we 

get to the Q&A part, and I look forward to your answers. And 

again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having me on the panel, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

And I just want to say that we are deeply honored to have with 

us this afternoon some very distinguished leaders representing the 

Obama administration. The gentleman to my extreme left is my 

good friend, Kurt Campbell, the Assistant Secretary for the Bureau 

of East Asian and Pacific Affairs. Secretary Campbell has served 

in this capacity since June of last year. Previous to that, he was 

the CEO and co-founder of the Center for the New American Security, concurrently served as director of the Aspen Strategy Group 

and chairman of the editorial board for the Washington Quarterly. 

Dr. Campbell has served in several capacities in government, formerly as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the 

Pacific, director on the National Security Council’s staff, deputy 

special counselor to the President for NAFTA and the White House, 

and a former White House fellow at the Department of Treasury. 

And for his service, he received the Department of Defense Medal 

for Distinguished Public Service. He also co-authored several books 

13

and so many articles that it is difficult for me to read them all. The 

gentleman received his bachelor’s degree from the University of 

California at San Diego, and also in musicology from the University of Erevan in Soviet Armenia. He received his doctorate in 

international relations from Brasenose College at Oxford University, where he was a Distinguished Marshall Scholar. 

The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Derek 

Mitchell, was appointed in April 2009. Before that, Mr. Mitchell 

served as senior fellow and director of the Asian division of International Security Programs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, having joined the center in January, 2009. Secretary Mitchell was the special assistant for Asian and Pacific affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1997 to 2001. 

He served in various posts in Hong Kong, Taiwan, as well as 

Japan. He was also a senior director for the Philippines, Indonesia, 

Asia, Brunei, and Singapore. 

Mr. Mitchell received a master of arts degree in law and diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, a bachelor’s 

degree from the University of Virginia, studied Chinese language 

in Nanjing University in China and authored several books. I am 

very, very happy that he is able to join us this afternoon. 

Also with us is senior deputy assistant administrator for the Bureau of Asia at USAID, Dr. Frank Young. He currently leads the 

Asia Bureau of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and 

is currently acting senior deputy assistant administrator, and prior 

to this appointment, he served as a contractor working on the 

Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. He is a 29-year 

veteran of the U.S. Senior Foreign Service. Dr. Young retired from 

USAID 5 years ago. He served as a senior expert for the Department of Defense partnership to cut hunger and poverty in Africa. 

And before his retirement from USAID, he served in a wide range 

of senior management positions in Ghana, as well as in other countries, the Philippines, in India, and other parts of Africa. 

Dr. Young holds a Ph.D. in comparative politics and a master of 

arts in diplomacy, all from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He has a master’s in science from the 

University of the Pacific in Stockton, and he taught at the War College where he is currently an adjunct faculty member. 

I tell you, you gentleman are so high-rank, I don’t know what to 

do with you. But I do want to say sincerely, thank you for taking 

the time from your busy schedules to testify in our oversight hearing this afternoon. And at this time, I would like to have Secretary 

Campbell, if you could, begin. Without objection, all of your statements will be made part of the record. And if you have any additional materials that you would like to submit for the record, it will 

be done. 

I am beginning to feel like Ramses, it will be done, and it will 

be—Secretary Campbell, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT M. CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an 

honor to be before you today and to be with my colleagues here. 

14

I want to thank you as a true son of the Pacific for all the commitment you have given to our nation and to this extraordinarily important region. I also want to thank, frankly, Congressman Smith 

for his comment, entirely appropriate. It is very important that we 

raise the profile of this issue. I was actually going to begin my 

statement by pointing out individuals, parents that I have gotten 

to know over the course of the last year. And I want to say a word 

about that, if you will allow me, before I go into my testimony. And 

I appreciate your interest not only in this matter, but in the important matters that we are discussing today in terms of the Pacific 

Islands. 

One of my responsibilities at the Department of State is to interact with this extraordinarily dedicated, patient, and frankly courageous group of parents. My first meeting with them was about a 

year ago. I went into the meeting. I was woefully ill prepared, did 

not understand the issues, did not understand the history. And I 

remember coming out of that meeting and saying, that is never 

going to happen again. I am never going to let this group of people 

and this issue down. And I have tried since then to work, put together a task force at the State Department, and generally raise 

our game in terms of this critical issue. And I would agree with everything you said, and I would go a step further, that in many respects these children have been unlawfully separated from their 

parents, and this is a result of Japan, our closest ally in the Pacific, 

not signing the Hague Convention, and it is a problem. And frankly, I stand with no one in terms of my strong commitment to 

Japan. 

I have worked my entire professional career on sustaining a 

strong relationship with Japan. We have raised this appropriately 

and responsibly at the highest levels last week in New York. We 

are going to need to see some progress on this issue. And so I 

thank you for your leadership on this. It is entirely appropriate to 

raise it. I just want to commend you for that, and for the extraordinary fortitude and persistence of these parents, who persist in an 

environment that I am not sure I could personally tolerate. And so 

I want to just tell you of my personal commitment to this issue, 

and I will do everything possible. I will be in Japan next week. I 

will raise it with all of my Japanese interlocutors, and I share your 

desire to see progress on this as we move forward. And I thank you 

and your colleagues for raising this issue to the attention of the 

U.S. Government and our Japanese friends. 

Let me just say a few things, if I can, Mr. Chairman. I would 

like to submit my full testimony for the record, so I don’t need to 

go through it in great detail, if that is all right. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you. With me today is an enormously committed group of friends from the State Department. We are a small 

team. You know the Shakespearean, a few small, but the people 

who work on the Pacific Islands are truly dedicated professionals. 

They care deeply about the people of the islands. They care deeply 

about the American heritage there. And I have to say, no person 

more than you has helped us, both in terms of advice and suggestions and the occasional prodding, and sometimes that prodding is 

15

quite direct, but it is appreciated and sometimes necessary as we 

focus on these issues. 

I want to say generally, Mr. Chairman, we talk a lot about stepping up our game in the Asia Pacific region, but too often we focus 

on the A part of this and not enough on the P part of it, the Pacific 

part. And what we have seen over the course of the last generation 

is a systematic walking away from some of the critical commitments the United States has made, both in terms of blood and 

treasure, over generations in the Asia and Pacific region. And I 

think one of the things that we need to be very clear about, it is 

in the American strategic, moral, political, and economic interests 

to have a strong relationship with these island nations and the peoples of the Pacific. And I thank you for your leadership, and I ask 

that you continue it. It gives us heart and sustenance as we go forward. 

We have tried over the course of the last many months to step 

up our efforts. You have articulated several of those matters, and 

you have put a few ideas on the table, which frankly I think are 

excellent, which I would like to follow up with you on directly. But 

I just want to just say a few words of what we have accomplished 

to date. 

First of all, it was terrific to be with you a few months back in 

Vanuatu. I know neither of us really wanted to leave, it was so 

lovely there. We were there for the Pacific Islands Forum. I think, 

as you know, Mr. Chairman, you were an official guest, and next 

year we would like to see more Members of Congress at that session. And frankly, it was the largest multi-agency group we have 

ever brought to the Pacific. Very grateful to have my colleague and 

dear friend, General Gregson, with us, who has a particular interest in renewable energy and security issues in the Pacific, and he 

has followed up on many of the issues that he discussed when he 

was out there. 

I want to commit to you that I will participate and I will bring 

a similar delegation next year to New Zealand. We need to make 

this a regular feature of our diplomacy, and you will be pleased to 

know, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of the session on Monday 

with the Pacific Island leaders, Secretary Clinton committed to a 

yearly process of dialogue at the United Nations, where we will discuss issues of mutual concern and interest. And frankly, that was 

your idea, your suggestion, and we are grateful to be able to follow 

up on that. 

So our high-level diplomacy I think is in place. As you indicate, 

Secretary Clinton will be traveling to the Pacific in about a month. 

We will be going to Papua New Guinea and New Zealand and Australia. And I take on board your suggestion, and I will be back in 

touch with you about our final travel plans. But I just want to underscore our strong commitment to not only stepping up our diplomatic game in Asia, but in the Pacific as well. 

I also must say that all of the nations of the Pacific complimented us on our commitment to step up our game in terms of 

USAID, and I think Dr. Young will have more to say about that, 

and I am very grateful for the support and the strong interest at 

USAID for new and important programs in the Pacific. You will 

note that we are focusing more and more of our attention not just 

16

on health and education, which are critical components of the 

health of the societies of the Pacific, but increasingly on the challenges of climate change, not only on issues associated with the direct immediate impacts, but also on some of the specific issues associated with energy. 

What is interesting about the Pacific Island nations, no countries 

on the earth have a greater intensity of sunlight for potential uses 

for solar energy, but also for wind energy as well. No nations have 

a lower utilization rate. So there is almost a complete reliance on 

imported fuels and the like, and working with a variety of agencies 

inside the U.S. Government, we want to seek to take steps to reverse those trends. 

I must also say my general experience, Mr. Chairman, is of a 

close partnership with Australia and New Zealand, and that together we have been able to advance mutual interests on a whole 

host of issues. So I will have 1 minute or 2 on Fiji at the end, and 

I hear very clearly your concerns in this respect. 

We have a number of programs that are in play throughout the 

Pacific. I won’t highlight all of them, but I will just refer to a couple, just to underscore our larger commitment. When we were both 

in Vanuatu, we had the chance to go via the road, the completed 

road, which was funded under-budget and ahead of schedule by the 

Millennium Challenge Corporation. We are seeking other opportunities for that kind of innovative program commitment in the Pacific. Despite the fact that these are very small nations, the bang 

for the buck is enormous. Overall, American per capita investment 

and aid assistance is comparable with any place in the world, and 

among any group of nations. And so we are proud of our overall 

commitment. I believe that one of the critical challenges for the 

United States, and indeed of other like-minded nations, is that 

much of the assistance that is flowing into the Pacific from a variety of countries and places, from Japan, from Australia, from New 

Zealand, from the United States, from the EU, from the multilateral development banks, and the international financial institutions is extraordinarily poorly coordinated, and we need a better 

mechanism that will allow us to make sure that critical health and 

other issues are dealt with, and that resources are used appropriately going forward. 

I thank you for your kind words on disaster relief. There is a lot 

of discussion about, you know, rising nations in the Asia and Pacific region. I will just point out by an order of magnitude the country that has stepped up in Indonesia after the tragic in tsunami, 

in Samoa, in the Philippines after the floods, in Vietnam, time and 

time again it has been the United States. So it is a little bit like 

who are you going to call when you have a problem. It is the 

United States. Our commitment to humanitarian assistance, to 

strategic engagement remains very strong. 

I also thank you for your kind words about innovative programs 

like Pacific Partnership. We heard last Monday from all the leaders 

how the visits of the hospital ships are—I want to thank my friend 

Derek Mitchell for his support for this particular program. The hospital ship spending a few days in port has a greater public diplomacy dimension than almost anything that we do. We have also 

put in place innovative programs like the Shiprider program. This 

17

is the largest expanse of oceans, the last basically unspoiled fishing 

stocks in the world. There is a lot of illegal activities underway in 

these oceans. It is impossible for the small, many impoverished, 

states to police these claims. Through the Shiprider agreements 

that the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard have managed with a 

number of states, we have been able to assist them in policing 

these vast waters. We are looking for other ideas and suggestions, 

and indeed to increase the applicability of such programs going forward. 

So we are pleased with some initial steps, but we cannot pat ourselves on the back. We must recognize that we are in the very beginning stages of a recommitment in the Pacific that will take a 

year, perhaps decades. It must be bipartisan. We must recognize 

that this is in the strategic interests of the United States, and that 

when we have circumstances where big countries withdraw, it 

leaves uncertainty about the future in terms of directions of other 

kinds of engagement. 

I must also say that we face an enormous challenge with respect 

to Fiji. It is the center sort of architecturally of transportation and 

the like in the Pacific. I hear very clearly your instructions and 

your suggestions associated with dialogue, and you are correct that 

at the Pacific Leaders Forum, Secretary Clinton very graciously engaged the Foreign Minister and indicated that is a high on the 

American priority to figure out if there is a way that we can be 

helpful in engaging diplomatically. I must also say we are stepping 

up our coordination and dialogue with New Zealand and Australia, 

whom we also believe have key critical interests in Fiji as a whole. 

So we have enormous health challenges, climate change, problems of education, problems of poverty. We have done a lot in the 

region. We have concluded the compact with Palau. But we have 

much more to do. We look forward to working in close consultation 

and collaboration with our sister agencies, both at the Department 

of Defense—I want to commend, if I can, Admiral Willard and Admiral Walsh. Both of them have traveled widely in the Pacific. 

They are on the front lines of our engagement, and they have done 

a terrific job. And also, I look looking forward to working closely 

with our colleagues in USAID as they go forward in terms of their 

overall recommitment to the Pacific. 

I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman. This hearing was your 

idea. Frankly, I can’t remember the last time we have had such a 

hearing, too far in between sessions, and we stand ready to work 

closely with you and your colleagues on a strong, bipartisan executive legislative commitment in the Asia and Pacific region. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]

18


61517a-1.eps
19


61517a-2.eps
20


61517a-3.eps
21


61517a-4.eps
22


61517a-5.eps
23


61517a-6.eps
24


61517a-7.eps
25


61517a-8.eps
26


61517a-9.eps
27


61517a-10.eps
28


61517a-11.eps
29

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and I deeply appreciate your testimony. Secretary Mitchell, for your statement. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DEREK J. MITCHELL, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ASIAN AND PACIFIC 

SECURITY AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Representative Smith, thank you for the privilege of appearing before 

you today, and thank you as well for your opening statements and 

for your work on behalf of the Pacific Island nations. Before I 

begin, let me add my voice to yours, Mr. Chairman, of respect and 

condolences to the people of American Samoa on the anniversary 

of the earthquake last year. I hope it does demonstrate that we will 

be there for the Pacific Island nations in their time of need, in the 

good times as well as bad. 

It should go without saying that as a Pacific nation, the United 

States has national interest throughout the entire Pacific Islands 

region. Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the countries in the Pacific are all important U.S. partners and contributors to common security. The 

Pacific Islands region is often overlooked and undervalued, as you 

have stated, despite its enormous geography, rich fisheries, and 

unique geopolitical position. 

However, as there are significant DoD equities in the Western 

Pacific, we see a unique and important opportunity to reinforce 

U.S. defense engagement in the region. The region is becoming an 

increasingly valuable base for projecting U.S. military power into 

the Asia Pacific region. Aside from Guam, which gets much public 

attention nowadays, the department places high priority on the 

Freely Associated States with whom we have defense obligations 

under our respective compacts, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. 

The compact agreements assign to the United States full responsibility for defense of these states, and the DoD takes its bilateral 

defense relations seriously. We also value the rights afforded under 

the compacts, and will continue to defend these nations and exercise our right of strategic denial of third parties to operate in these 

states. 

At the same time, we should not forget that our defense commitment to the Freely Associated States plays an important role in the 

defense of our homeland here in return. The department continuously seeks creative ways to shape and influence the regional security environment. We believe we must have a sustained presence 

in the region in order to maintain political and military leadership 

in an evolving strategic environment. 

Our engagement in the Pacific Island region continues to focus 

on developing partner capacity and capability to improve maritime 

domain awareness through maritime surveillance, information 

sharing, joint patrolling, and infrastructure development. Currently, the U.S. has six cooperative maritime U.S. Coast Guard 

Shiprider agreements, as Secretary Campbell talked about, with 

Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Cook Islands, and Tonga. These Shiprider agreements allow the Coast Guard and island law enforcement officers 

30

to embark on selected Coast Guard aircraft and vessels to help patrol the waters within U.S. exclusive economic zones, and in the 

200-mile EEZs of participating Pacific Island states. While these 

Shiprider programs have been considerably successful, DoD is currently considering ways to expand these agreements to the U.S. 

Navy and to include other Pacific Island states. 

Overall, the department’s security assistance efforts focus on 

three components: Maritime security, humanitarian assistance and 

disaster relief, and training opportunities. On the latter, the department deeply appreciates and will continue to consider 

Vanuatu’s and Palau’s offer to host U.S. military training. We also 

envision possible increased bilateral and multilateral training in 

Guam, CNMI, and the compact states. 

On maritime security and humanitarian assistance and disaster 

relief, the department, through the implementation of strategic engagement and security cooperation programs will continue to work 

to empower the Pacific Island countries to take responsibility into 

their own hands, building their capacity to address non-traditional 

security threats, such as illegal fishing and transnational crime, as 

well as respond effectively to natural disasters and defend their 

land and sea borders. At all times, we will work in partnership. 

Perhaps the department’s most successful engagement tool has 

been humanitarian assistance programs. These programs include 

the Pacific Air Force’s annual large-scale humanitarian mission Pacific Angel and Operation Christmas Drop, the largest running organized air drop in the world and one of the largest charity efforts 

in the Pacific. 

We will continue to build on the success and we understand the 

value of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Partnership program to operate 

medical and engineering projects in remote, underserved communities throughout the entire Pacific Islands region. We will take 

back the notion that you lay out of expanding this annually. 

As you stated, in August 2008, the Pacific Partnership medical 

personnel treated more than 15,000 locals in the Federated States 

of Micronesia. Pacific Action Team, based in Palau, comprised of 12 

military personnel, will continue to coordinate a range of humanitarian and civic action projects in health, education, and infrastructure. 

We also look forward to working with these nations on broader 

international security initiatives. As you have stated, Mr. Chairman, our special defense relationship with the compact states allows for their citizens to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. They 

serve at a higher per capita rate and fall at a higher per capita 

rate than American citizens, and serve in both Afghanistan and 

Iraq. A number of them have fallen alongside American troops on 

the battlefield. These nations should know that the Department of 

Defense recognizes their sacrifice, and is indebted for their enormous contributions to U.S. and global security. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense will 

continue to work alongside partners like Australia, France, Japan, 

and New Zealand to coordinate our security activities for this region, but we will not outsource our engagement. As a Pacific nation, the U.S. bears special responsibility to provide sustained and 

effective defense engagement to ensure peace and stability in the 

31

Asia Pacific. It is therefore imperative that the department continue to nurture existing relations with the North Pacific while 

deepening and expanding our defense and security bilateral and 

multilateral relations with the South Pacific. 

So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]


61517b-1.eps
32


61517b-2.eps
33


61517b-3.eps
34


61517b-4.eps
35


61517b-5.eps
36


61517b-6.eps
37


61517b-7.eps
38

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Secretary Mitchell. Our Deputy 

Assistant Administrator for USAID, Dr. Young, please. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK YOUNG, PH.D., SENIOR DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, UNITED 

STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a statement which 

has been submitted, and I request it be included in the record. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection, all your statements will 

be made part of the record. 

Mr. YOUNG. And I have brief oral remarks drawn from that 

statement, which I would like to deliver, with your permission. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please proceed. 

Mr. YOUNG. Chairman Faleomavaega, Representative Smith, I 

am pleased to have this opportunity to present the U.S. Agency for 

International Development’s views on renewed engagement in the 

Pacific. First, let me join my colleagues in thanking you for your 

passionate commitment to the region, and thank you for your leadership in focusing U.S. attention to the Pacific, a region of growing 

geopolitical importance to the United States. We share your commitment, and appreciate the opportunity to discuss our programs 

and strategies for strengthening our partnerships in cooperation 

with Pacific nations. I likewise join my colleagues in expressing 

condolences to the people of Samoa on the anniversary of the disastrous earthquake, and note that USAID stands ready to respond 

with other U.S. Government agencies in case such a disaster ever 

occurs again. 

From a development perspective, we know that nations in the 

Pacific are among the most vulnerable to the adverse effects of 

global climate change, as well as some of the least able to respond. 

We know these changes affect life and livelihoods in many countries in the Pacific, threatening catastrophic warming and resourcebased instability. In the Pacific, climate change threatens the very 

existence of some island nations, and is, hence, the top priority for 

this region in this century. I associate myself with your remarks, 

Mr. Chairman, where you called it an existential threat, a sentiment echoed by the Secretary a couple of days ago. 

Many Pacific Islanders already experience the effects of sea level 

rise: More frequent storms due to climate change, and other extreme climate events that can impact water, coastal, and marine 

resources, and of course, agriculture. To try to avert the worst-case 

scenarios, USAID, in collaboration with the Department of State, 

is leading U.S. Government efforts to ensure that the least developed states in the Pacific region are better able to adapt to the 

changes in practical and life-saving ways as they grow their economies. 

To make sure we focus our efforts appropriately, USAID will engage governments and residents in setting priorities and designing 

programs to address critical climate-affected needs, such as water 

catchments, mangrove conservation, crop adjustments to salt intrusion, and possibly land and migration impacts. 

In this fiscal year, 2010, we have $3 million for climate change 

adaptation work in the Pacific region, and the State Department 

has an additional $9 million that will be programmed in coordinaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:19 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\092910\61517 HFA PsN: SHIRL
39

tion with USAID. An additional $9.5 million in USAID funds for 

global climate change is proposed for Fiscal Year 2011. 

I met earlier this month with Director General Jimmie Rogers of 

the Secretariat of the Pacific Community to review his ideas for advancing a shared effort on global climate change. Tomorrow, David 

Shepperd, director of the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environmental Program, will be reviewing SPREP’s new 5-year strategy 

with our global climate change team at USAID. We expect these 

discussions to lead to a number of shared activities in the region. 

USAID has also noted threats to health represented by the very 

serious HIV/AIDS problem in Papua New Guinea. USAID has been 

notably active there, implementing a bilateral assistance program 

valued at $2.5 million a year that focuses on reducing that country’s HIV/AIDS prevalence rates. Papua New Guinea also benefits 

from regionally funded programs to protect tropical forests, and 

with the Solomon Islands participates in USAID and Department 

of State funded Coral Triangle Initiative. 

USAID has also been active in responding to natural disasters in 

Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Fiji, and is poised 

to do so in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated 

States of Micronesia. Since 1995, USAID has implemented the Pacific Islands disaster program, which aims to improve the disaster 

management ability of local and national disaster management 

agencies and individuals. And currently, USAID supports a fulltime officer in Majuro to provide disaster preparedness, recovery, 

and reconstruction in the event that a disaster occurs in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. 

Looking forward, Mr. Chairman, USAID currently has a senior 

officer, a former USAID mission director, traveling in the Pacific 

region for 3 months to lay the groundwork for expanding our partnerships in the region to work on global climate change issues, and 

to examine opportunities to work with government and non-governmental organizations on health challenges in Papua New Guinea. 

I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in almost 15 years that we have a senior official from USAID traveling 

the region for this purpose. This official will also examine effective 

and appropriate ways to support and manage our activities in the 

region and he will report his findings to USAID by the end of this 

calendar year. 

Mr. Chairman, USAID remains committed to renewing strong 

partnerships in the Pacific region and to finding the most effective 

ways to develop and sustain these partnerships in light of the 

budget constraints faced by USAID and all government agencies. 

Our commitment to engage and intensify activities that address the 

significant challenges faced by nations in the Pacific region remains strong. 

We look forward to carrying out that commitment, and to working with Congress to ensure that our interests and those of the people of the Pacific region are well served. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

40


61517c-1.eps
41


61517c-2.eps
42


61517c-3.eps
43


61517c-4.eps
44

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Dr. Young. At this time, I would 

like to defer to my good friend from New Jersey for his 5 minutes 

of questions. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman, thank you very much again for that courtesy. Secretary Campbell, thank you for your very strong words 

and your obvious empathy with the plight of the left-behind parents. It is refreshing and encouraging, to say the least. 

I would just note for the record, Mr. Chairman, that several leftbehind parents are here with us today, and one grandparent whose 

children are unlawfully detained in Japan, and that includes Patrick Braden, whose daughter Melissa was abducted; Commander 

Paul Toland, whose daughter Erika was abducted; Chris and Amy 

Savoie, Isaac and Rebecca; Captain Lake, Mary Victoria; Douglas 

Berg, Gunnar and Kaisuke; and Nancy Elias, who is a grandmother of Jane and Michael Elias. Michael Elias is a decorated veteran of Afghanistan. She is here as well. And I just want to say 

very briefly that none of these people live in my district, and I 

think it underscores the fact that so many of us are rallying behind 

them, most of them who do not have somebody from our own districts, because this could be any one of us. And once you meet—

and I know you have that same feeling, Mr. Secretary. Once you 

meet one of these individuals and hear them tell their story—when 

Patrick Braden walked into my office after the David Goldman case 

got some visibility—and I was very involved with that—we sat 

down, and he told his story, and I was almost in tears because I 

have a daughter named Melissa. And you begin thinking, what if 

that were me. Except for the grace of God, there goes any one of 

us. And then he said, would you join us at the embassy of Japan 

for a very dignified protest, very silent. It was a prayerful protest. 

And out came a birthday cake for little Melissa, and we sang 

‘‘Happy Birthday.’’ And we couldn’t even get a meeting with the 

ambassador. You know, we called, I tried, and, you know, frankly, 

it is not all that hard to meet with an ambassador. But there was 

this arm’s length approach that was being taken. 

Again, Japan is a great friend, a great ally with whom we have 

so much in common. So it is bewildering, to say the least, how they 

are mistreating American children, 136 that we know of, in over 

90 cases. You know, in the case of the Eliases, I met them at a 

rally for David Goldman. They felt so left behind. Here is a case 

where the wife—you know, the judge says, you can’t have—you 

know, surrender the passports. So she apparently goes to another 

consul, gets passports, and takes off with those two children. I 

mean, that is such a violation of all things diplomatic, and certainly international law and U.S. law, and I wish Japanese law. 

So just a couple of very brief questions. Secretary Campbell, you 

have indicated that child abduction cases have been raised to first 

tier priority, and if you could speak to that, that would be helpful. 

Secondly, do you believe that pressing to resolve the cases with 

U.S. arrest warrants sidestep the battle that obviously is going on 

within the Government of Japan? Because obviously there is a debate going on. Our hope is that it comes down fourscore on the side 

of resolving these cases, and joining the international consensus. 

I mean, the Hague Convention has been with us for decades. it 

would seem to me that it is about time, you know—and I say that 

45

knowing—I work very closely with UNHCR, a former high rep, who 

is Japanese. She gets it with people who are separated. How is it 

that the Government of Japan doesn’t get it with kidnaping or 

child abduction. At both the G8 meeting in Ontario as well as last 

week at the United Nations, did President Obama raise the issue 

with Prime Minister Kan? And if you can reveal anything that he 

said, it would be very, very helpful and encouraging. So did he 

raise it before, and did he raise it last week? 

And finally, is there any thought being given of putting together 

some parents to meet with the foreign ministry people? You know, 

seeing is believing. You can’t sit for 5 minutes with a left-behind 

parent without your heart just coming out of your chest for them. 

And again, and I can’t stress this enough, child abduction is child 

abuse. We all know it. The evidence is compelling that when there 

is a child abduction, that boy or that girl or those siblings are severely hurt. The information on that couldn’t be more clear. So if 

you could answer those questions, I would deeply appreciate it. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Congressman. And I 

frankly had the same sense that you did, and the more I have been 

involved in this issue, the more I believe it is one that—really it 

is one of our first tasks at the State Department, is the protection 

of our citizens. And I believe that this is a group of people that 

have not received the support that they need to, either from our 

Government, but also from the Government of Japan. And so I am 

committed to this, and I will try to answer your questions as best 

I can. 

It has been raised at very high levels. I am not going to go into 

great detail, but I will say the meetings that I am most familiar 

with are those with Secretary Clinton, and she has raised them 

very purposefully with her counterparts. I will say that the former 

minister of foreign affairs, Minister Okada, was a very strong supporter, and helped us enormously inside the Japanese Government. 

And I will say that the new government has a different attitude on 

these issues, and I think personally I see progress, but we need to 

see that progress both increase and move more rapidly over the 

course of the coming months. 

One of our biggest problems has been an educational issue in 

Japan, frankly. I find that when I interact with colleagues and 

friends inside Japan, the lack of knowledge or sometimes the 

wrong views or not a very clear picture of this issue pervades. It 

is very much in our interest to try to reverse that, to increase the 

profile, and to humanize this problem. I think sometimes the leftbehind parents are not well understood in Japan. Japan is a deeply 

compassionate society. And remember, the original marriages here 

were often as a consequence of a merger between our two cultures. 

I want to make sure that Japanese colleagues and friends know 

more about this issue because I am convinced that once they do, 

they will have a similar sense that both you and I have. I think 

there are some common sensical steps that we can take. I also believe that we need to go beyond simply the Hague Convention. It 

is not clear how that would apply to previous cases, and I think 

we have to address those. I think we also have to address them urgently. 

46

You have your experiences; I have mine. I met a father who had 

not seen his daughter for 16 years. And again, I don’t know how 

you go on in some respects. So, yes, we owe it to them, and we have 

to do more. We have, as I said, put together a task force inside our 

U.S. Government that works on this, much more consequently than 

we had before. I was disappointed again, as I said, in my own performance and some of my own colleagues. We will not let that happen again, and we raise it at every opportunity with our Japanese 

interlocutors. 

I am looking forward to including some high-level people in that 

group going forward. We will be discussing this with a new Japanese Foreign Minister next week in Tokyo. I will say at this juncture I would give this a little bit more time at the diplomatic level. 

I think that you are seeing some signs of movement. And I will just 

give you one example, if I could quickly, and I am sorry to go on 

so long, Congressman Smith. 

One of the longest running issues between the United States and 

Japan has been the prisoner of war issue. The men who survived 

the Bataan death march and then worked as almost slave labor, 

frankly, in a number of Japanese factories during the latter part 

of the Second World War. It had been impossible to find a way forward on this, and I will just tell you, after some very good work 

by some young officers at the State Department, for the first time 

a group of prisoners of war now in the twilight of their lives, late 

80s, went to Japan 2 weeks ago and received a formal apology from 

the minister of foreign affairs. 

Mr. SMITH. My father was combat veteran in New Guinea, and 

saw some very terrible things. So he has passed on, but he would 

appreciate it. I do have to run and vote. It is actually on the resolution. We debated it yesterday; it is being voted on now. If you could 

answer, did Obama raise it? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Congressman, I think it would be best—we are 

encouraged not to speak directly about the private discussions between the President and other leaders. It is a matter of record because the Secretary in her outbrief has indicated that it was raised 

with Foreign Minister Okada. I think I will leave it at that, if I 

could. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Congressman Smith. I do have 

some follow-up questions for our witnesses, and I appreciate your 

patience. Hopefully, we can get this out of the way so you can return to your important work in your respective offices. 

Secretary Campbell, you have given an overview of our policy toward the Pacific region. As you know, for the last 20 years, I have 

been a lonely witness crying in the forest to try to get Washington 

to pay a little more attention to the Pacific region. And I do want 

to say thank you again, for the record, to you and Secretary Clinton for the important decision that you made, after 15 years of 

USAID absence, that now that this is coming back as a reality. 

I remember distinctly when we decided to remove USAID from 

the Pacific. It was because of the new East European countries that 

were coming in, and we needed more resources to get them settled, 

and our embassies established along with and our diplomatic relationships. I think there were about 15 new East European counVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:19 Dec 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\092910\61517 HFA PsN: SHIRL
47

tries, including countries in Central Asia, as well as in Eastern Europe. So it was quite understandable; we know that. 

Secretary Campbell, in your overview of the Pacific, in terms of 

the changes that have occurred, do you see a real danger of the 

United States losing its influence in this region if we don’t pay 

more attention to the problems affecting the island nations? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Honestly, Mr. Chairman, I do, I do, and I am concerned by that. And I think it would be fair to say that several of 

the leaders last week or earlier this week in the sessions with Secretary Clinton spoke of travels far afield to the Middle East, other 

Asian capitals. They are being courted quite aggressively. It is not 

a secret. If you look at the voting records of groups of nations, no 

group of nations votes more with the United States than the Pacific 

Island nations historically, none. More than Europe, more than 

Latin America, more than Asia. And it is extremely important that 

we not take these islands for granted, diplomatically, politically, 

strategically. 

And so I think benign neglect has its consequences. And power 

dynamics are changing in the Asia and Pacific region, and so I 

think that is a factor that comes to play here. However, we don’t 

want to see an environment of, you know, seeing the Pacific as a 

chessboard. That is not the right way to think about the Asia Pacific region. We have strong historical, moral, and other reasons, 

health, economic, to be involved overall. 

But the truth is, this is a group of nations that wants to be closer 

with the United States. They study in our universities. They serve 

in uniform in our armed forces. They play on our football teams, 

you know well, sir. I think with a remarkably modest investment, 

we can have enormous dividends. And so we are not asking here 

for dramatic changes. We are asking for some specific steps that 

can be taken that will have enormous dividends for the United 

States. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I appreciate that. One of the critical issues 

that now seems sometimes forgotten in terms of our overall foreign 

policy toward the region—I make particular reference to Micronesia. As you know, in the mid-1970s, the situation in Micronesia 

was critical. So we took the initiative in negotiating these compact 

of free associations with these three distinct Micronesian entities, 

the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands. 

Immediately following World War II, what we did was just simply told the United Nations that they were a strategic trust as far 

as the United States was concerned. And they became our little 

back yard, as we told the United Nations and the Soviet Union, 

‘‘Hands off.’’ Uncle Sam is putting its imprint here, and that we are 

to have this special relationship with these island entities in Micronesia. 

At the time, when we organized the Congress of Micronesia and 

all these other things, we were accused by the former Soviet Union 

of colonialism. But in the process, we then turned to negotiating 

successfully these compacts of free association. And part of the relationship, in terms of the negotiation process, was that these island nations were willing to be part of our overall defense against 

48

potential enemies or adversaries that we might have to face in the 

future. 

You know we got kicked out of Subic Bay and Clark Air Force 

Base on the Philippines, and so it became more critical than ever 

that Micronesia, especially Guam, as it currently is, one of our 

strongest military presences on that island. But Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia were also 

part of that equation. I know that there has been a lot of media, 

and even by some of our friends in the administration from previous administrations looking at saying that we are giving a lot of 

money to these compact republics, and to the point where we become a little micromanaging in terms of some of the things that 

these island countries really need. 

The point I wanted to make is that we sometimes have conveyed 

the view that we must administer their programs, that we need to 

look into every little crevice to figure out the problems that they 

have. And then we expect to make decisions on their behalf. I am 

concerned about that. 

I do want to thank you, Secretary Campbell, for your leadership 

in working through the negotiations with our friends from the Republic of Palau, as we discussed in Vanuatu. Of course, the President and members of his delegation brought to my attention some 

of their concerns about the negotiations. I just wanted to share 

with you some of these concerns that my friends in Palau have conveyed to me, that inflation adjustment in the compacts is currently 

in place for the Marshalls and also for FSM, but it is totally absent 

for Palau. 

I would deeply appreciate if you could revisit the issue of inflation adjustment. If it is good for the Marshalls and FSM, I don’t 

understand why it would not be good also for Palau to have a similar type of convention or assistance. Also, on the question of the 

postal service programs that are currently being provided for 

Palau, I would really appreciate your review again of the issue. 

Perhaps we can re-explore that issue with our friends from the Republic of Palau. 

There is also the question of periodic audits, again as a service 

that our Government provides for the Marshalls and the FSM, but 

not for Palau. I think the problem we have here, Mr. Secretary, is 

if it is good for FSM and the Marshalls, why shouldn’t it be also 

good for Palau? And I am not suggesting that Palau has got 50 million people. I mean, there are probably less than 20,000 people 

there. And I don’t think a periodic audit is going to be so complicated a service that perhaps you can work in making improvements on that. 

On the issue of the Marshall Islands, I believe that our friends 

in the Department of Defense need to look at the issue of OTEC. 

I think OTEC has been pursued for a good number of years by our 

friends from the Marshall Islands. We have already launched a 

couple of OTEC power generation systems from the ocean. As I had 

discussed this issue with some of our friends from the Marshalls, 

it is a very expensive technology. 

But I believe we are doing this in Diego Garcia now. The military 

is doing this, and if it was possible to do it in Diego Garcia, maybe 

Mr. Mitchell can help me with this. Maybe something similar could 

49

also be done in Kwajalein, where some 12,000 people live in Ebeye, 

probably the most densely populated place on this planet. I would 

appreciate a comment from Mr. Mitchell concerning the OTEC program. Is that really a serious issue that our friends in the Defense 

Department can pursue? 

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that. The Department of the Navy, I know, is very, very serious on this issue. They 

are—they view the issue of energy security as essential to national 

security, particularly in the island states, recognizing the cost prohibitiveness of other sources of energy, the normal sources of oil 

and such. So they are doing intense investigation into the commercial viability of this ocean thermal technology. 

They have found in fact that in Diego Garcia, it was not such, 

and they have terminated that project in Diego Garcia. What they 

are looking to do is have a demonstration project in Pearl Harbor 

by 2017. So they are—this is something I think you can talk to the 

Navy directly about. I would sort of defer to them on this. They 

are, though, very seriously looking at it, but just have found that 

the cost and the commercial viability in the near-term simply isn’t 

there. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. As I had mentioned, I did visit the OTEC 

pilot program in Kona, on the big island, where they draw cold 

water from 3,000 to 4,000 feet. And the benefit derived from the 

OTEC technology is that it not only produces water, but also provides electricity. These are two components that are critically needed in a place like the Marshall Islands, where they have no mountains, and no mountains, no moisture, and no moisture, no rain, 

and so has a limited amount of water in their capacity. And their 

hope is that OTEC will provide these very important resources, if 

OTEC technology can be done. 

As I have suggested to them, it is a very expensive technology, 

not only to maintain, but even to have around. But that being the 

deal with the Department of the Navy, we will have to pursue that 

continually. 

Dr. Young, again I thanked Secretary Clinton and Secretary 

Campbell for sharing with us the Secretary’s decision. Maybe you 

can help me even with something further. Is USAID still independent from the State Department in its operation? Because it always seems to be a running battle for all the years that I have 

known that our foreign policy stays with the State Department, 

and that our USAID assistance programs is somewhat of an independent semi-independent agency where it doesn’t necessarily follow the politics. Can you enlighten me on this? Are you still independent or semi-independent from State and Secretary Clinton’s 

authority? 

Mr. YOUNG. It is a difficult question for me to answer, Mr. Chairman. I am actually perhaps not the best person to direct this question to. The administrator of USAID does report to the Secretary 

of State. The Secretary of State is in charge of all U.S. foreign policy. And Administrator Shaw is her chief advisor on issues involving development. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You say chief advisor, but not chief administrator. 

50

Mr. YOUNG. He administers the USAID program, sir, yes. He 

does the USAID program. But——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So who does he take orders from? 

Mr. YOUNG. We all take orders from the President, Mr. Chairman. But he works under the guidance and direction of the Secretary of States. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Guidance and direction? 

Mr. YOUNG. Of the Secretary of State. But he also provides recommendations to the Secretary of State on the best alternatives 

and options for pursuing the President’s initiatives in development, 

particularly as laid out in the President’s recent Presidential Policy 

Directive (PPD) on global development that was released last——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So you say that the administrator of USAID 

is entitled to give his own opinion directly to the President? 

Mr. YOUNG. Not necessarily, sir. He does talk to the President, 

sir, as does the Secretary. But he works in close cooperation and 

close consultation with the Secretary. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am a little concerned, Dr. Young, because 

I have been thinking about your statement, every word, every 

phrase. 

Mr. YOUNG. I know you have. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Every comma. And I noticed that you said, 

we are going to have a presence in the Pacific, but not necessarily 

offices, even though we have said publicly——

Mr. YOUNG. Right. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA [continuing]. We are going to have offices in 

Port Moresby and Suva. Can you enlighten us as to exactly what 

USAID is going to do? 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would. As you know, 

in the congressional budget justification for Fiscal Year 2011, 

USAID proposed to open an office in the South Pacific, presumably 

in Suva. That proposal is in our Fiscal Year 2011 request to Congress. The nature and the timing of it is going to depend on the 

appropriation that USAID receives. We are already enhancing our 

engagement in the South Pacific and in the Pacific region, as I 

mentioned in my testimony. We have a senior foreign service officer 

spending 3 months there traveling and visiting each of the partner 

countries that we are proposing to do programming with, particularly in the area of global climate change, meeting with governments, with regional organizations, and with private sector partners. He will be returning shortly after Thanksgiving, and we expect a report from him by the end of the year. 

We expect that he will be able to give us a lot more detail about 

what is the best approach to enhance our engagement consistent 

with our commitment to engage in a more robust set of activities 

in the Pacific. How we do that right is under intense discussion 

within USAID. We are committed to an enhanced presence. I think 

we have already demonstrated that through this gentleman’s trip. 

But the exact timing and the nature is going to depend on the appropriation we receive. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Young, with all due respect, our friends, 

the People’s Republic of China, have already announced $600 million in assistance programs for these island nations, $600 million 

in soft loans, grants, assistance, whatever it is, and we are diddling 

51

over whether or not we should have USAID conduct a study for 3 

months? I could have told the gentleman. He didn’t even have to 

go to the Pacific. Tell me. I have been sitting here for 20 years babbling my mouth off asking where is USAID when it is so critically 

needed for these island countries? 

So we are going to study and study and study, continuing studying the programs until when? How long is this going to be? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, his mission goes beyond studying. It 

is to frame some of the programs that we will actually implement 

beginning in 2011. He needs to come back, and should come back, 

with specific designs that he has come up with in consultation with 

the partner governments and regional organizations. And I am discussing some of those with Mr. Rogers and the gentleman that will 

be coming tomorrow from SPREP, so that we can put the flesh on 

these bones and get the programs started in 2011. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I might suggest, Mr. Young, the bones are already there. You just completed a $50 million embassy, a new 

embassy, in Suva, Fiji. So you don’t need to build another building, 

if that is what you are concerned about. You can even house two 

or three staffers right now in that huge embassy that we have in 

Suva. I am very concerned because when this announcement was 

made by Secretary Clinton, I would say that it was received with 

a positive response by Pacific Island countries. But now, and with 

all due respect—this is nothing personally against you—I am hearing a different tone. You are saying, ‘‘Well, yes, we are going to be 

present there, but we don’t know how much presence we are going 

to have.’’

My concern, Dr. Young, is that we don’t need to study this. We 

know the problems there. You could have asked Secretary Campbell. You could have asked me. You could have asked DoD. What 

are the needs of these island nations? We don’t need to study it 

again. I can tell you right now without even having to talk to your 

friend that has taken 3 months to do this study. 

Now, may I ask you, this friend of USAID who is doing this 3-

month study, is he familiar with the Pacific? Has he worked on Pacific issues? 

Mr. YOUNG. I believe he served very briefly in the Pacific, but 

this would have been back when we still had an officer there 

through the mid ’90s. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So in other words, he is getting on-the-job 

training himself. 

Mr. YOUNG. He is also a very professional officer, Mr. Chairman, 

who has been a mission director in several other countries and 

knows how to frame and develop programs. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What is your best recommendation in terms 

of how much money USAID plans to put into these two offices, both 

in Port Moresby and Suva, I assume? 

Mr. YOUNG. The request to Congress for Fiscal Year 2011, Mr. 

Chairman, is $12 million, $9.5 million, or approximately $9 million, 

for climate change and adaptation, $2 million to $2.5 million for 

HIV/AIDS, and $1 million for disaster——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So a $58-billion proposed budget for the 

State Department, and only how much for USAID to do its programs? 

52

Mr. YOUNG. Over a 2-year period, as the Secretary stated, ap- proximately $21.5 million; for Fiscal Year 2011, it is approximately 

$12 million, but that is from USAID itself. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am not trying to suggest that we compete 

with the resources that China is putting in to help the Pacific Island countries. But you know, Mr. Young, with all due respect, we 

are going to be the laughingstock of the Pacific. It is a joke. 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I take your point strongly. We are 

doing our best to ramp up as quickly as possible, within the budget 

constraints that we face, and all of us will face in the government. 

I agree with your premise, and I think my statement makes that 

clear. I will definitely take your message back to the agency as we 

continue our internal deliberations. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, Dr. Young. A $900-million embassy 

that we just built in Baghdad, and in return, we are just going to 

give $12 million to help these island countries. I am not a mathematician, Dr. Young, but I sincerely hope that our friends in 

USAID are going to be a little more serious about this issue. Maybe 

we never should have announced that we were going to the Pacific. 

Of course, I have been screaming bloody murder about this issue 

for the last 20 years. 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Fifteen years since we left, maybe that 

might be a better way of saying it. Well, I am very concerned. I 

realize that with the budget cutbacks in the $3.8 trillion proposed 

budget, it is a matter of priorities. We are trying to consider seriously where we need to cut, and what essential services. 

Maybe Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Campbell can help me on this. I just 

don’t see the logic in all of this that we have announced that 

USAID is coming, but now we call it a presence, without necessarily following up seriously with having people in place to do the 

programs. 

Care to comment on that, Mr. Mitchell? Do we need a USAID 

presence in the Pacific? Maybe you don’t. Maybe Dr. Campbell may 

have a different view, too, on this. 

Mr. MITCHELL. To be honest, I should probably defer on that. We 

certainly need a presence on the military side and the defense side. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me give another——

Mr. MITCHELL. A very comprehensive——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me give you a perspective. I remember 

when we were negotiating these Micronesian compacts. And with 

all due respect, when the question of Micronesia was considered, 

former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger comes up with a statement concerning Micronesia over whether it really is in our interest. Do you know what he said? There are only 90,000 people. Who 

gives a damn? 

If that is the attitude that we continue to have by our Government leaders toward these Pacific Island countries and their needs, 

then is it any wonder then they say, well, maybe we need to seek 

elsewhere if the benevolence of this great country, America, just 

doesn’t seem to have sufficient resources to assist us? Secretary 

Campbell, do you care to comment on that? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. First of all, thank you for your commitment and 

passion on this issue, if I could, Mr. Chairman. Let me say at our 

53

session last week—sorry again, earlier this week with Secretary 

Clinton, every one of the leaders and Foreign Ministers and others 

raised the issue of the USAID commitment. And it was frankly 

very welcome. I was very pleased. 

I will tell you that Dr. Young is extremely committed to the Asia 

and Pacific region. I believe he is taking very careful notes. I think 

he has heard—I think we have heard very clearly your very strong 

views on this. And I think we will take this back, and I look forward to reporting back to you very, very soon on the direction 

ahead. I think that is fair, isn’t it? 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, absolutely. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Gentlemen, please don’t take this as a personal attack on your leadership and service. I realize that we must 

have priorities in how we are going to cut the pie, and competing 

interests come from all different parts of the world. And it is not 

an easy task, I realize that. But I am at a loss over whether 

USAID is actually going to be giving any form of assistance to 

these island countries. 

What would be your view if we are going to end up spending another year-and-a-half still studying the situation, Dr. Young? 

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman, I don’t see us taking another yearand-a-half to study the situation. I expect the programs will be obligated and commitment and people on the ground working during 

Fiscal Year 2011. This gentleman’s efforts in the field right now 

are to put concrete programs together that can be either contracted 

out or grants or assistance provided so that we can move resources 

into place where they need to be moved. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you share with us examples of the kind 

of programs that USAID currently provides? 

Mr. YOUNG. From the Fiscal Year 2010 appropriation, we do not 

have any programs yet operating on the ground, except for the 

HIV/AIDS program. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, no. What I mean is a laundry list of programs that USAID currently engages in in dealing with different 

regions. Let us take Asia as an example. I am sure USAID has a 

large presence there. 

Mr. YOUNG. Oh, absolutely, sir. We have missions in 13 countries, but we also oversee programs in 12 other countries where we 

don’t have presence. I can provide you complete digests and lists 

for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information referred to follows:]

54


61517e-1.eps 61517e-2.eps
55


61517e-3.eps 61517e-4.eps
56


61517e-5.eps 61517e-6.eps
57


61517e-7.eps 61517e-8.eps
58

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please. 

Mr. YOUNG. I don’t have that with me. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please, without objection, sir, that will be 

provided for——

Mr. CAMPBELL. Can I ask you one thing, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Please. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. One of the things that we have heard very clearly 

from you and others—and I think the truth is that we have raised 

some expectations here, and we have heard the applause. And now 

it is going to be very important that the United States takes steps 

to ensure that there isn’t a letdown. And there have been a lot of 

letdowns in the Pacific, and I think Dr. Young and I and Mr. 

Mitchell hear very clearly your views and the views of others on 

this, and we commit to work closely with you to make sure that 

we have a way forward that follows through on the kinds of things 

the United States has already announced. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I might also add, Dr. Campbell, that in 

terms of raising expectations, a gentleman by the name of Barack 

Obama was born in the Pacific. He was born in the state of Hawaii. 

Every Pacific Islander somehow has a sense of affinity with him 

saying, ‘‘Hey, he is one of us. He was born in the Pacific.’’ You 

know what I also say? He is the first President of the United 

States who at least knows where the Pacific Ocean is. And I say 

this was somewhat of a satire, to the extent that he literally was 

born and raised in Hawaii, despite all the birthers that go around 

saying that he was born either in Kenya or in Indonesia. I remember distinctly 2 years ago, there was a national blog saying that I 

was a special agent of Barack Obama who went to Indonesia, 

which I did; attended the school that he went to; which I did; and 

that my mission from Barack Obama was to make sure there was 

no record whatsoever indicating that he was born in Indonesia. 

And I said, wow, that is one way to make yourself famous, by being 

an agent of Barack Obama to get rid of any records suggesting that 

he was born in Indonesia. Of course, Kenya also seems to be the 

other place they are always coming up with. 

I sincerely hope that given his Pacific experience of being born 

and raised on an island community that he does have a sense of 

appreciation for what island people go through. I don’t want to 

compare the state of Hawaii with the issues affecting or confronting a lot of the Pacific Island nations because those nations 

don’t have the resources readily available to our friends in the 

state of Hawaii. 

Dr. Campbell, on the Chinese presence in the Pacific. I remember 

a couple of years ago, one of the Assistant Secretaries of State testified before my subcommittee, and he had expressed very serious 

concerns about the checkbook diplomacy that China and Taiwan 

were conducting throughout the Pacific. And I said, wait a minute. 

What about the billions of dollars in cash that we ended up giving 

to the Iraqis that we could not even account for? So we are accusing China and Taiwan of checkbook diplomacy. What about cash diplomacy where we cannot even account for what we did in Iraq? 

My concern is that China is also a Pacific nation. And these 

countries work closely with China because of China’s willingness to 

give the kind of resources and assistance that these countries need. 

59

And the unfortunate situation is that the question comes back to 

me as someone representing our national Government, over what 

the United States is doing about this. 

Well, I must say that it is somewhat embarrassing that we 

haven’t been doing very much. And I deeply appreciate, Dr. Campbell, your assessment in saying that we have not been doing very 

much. And I think also in line with it has always been our conventional policy to lean and depend almost entirely on whatever New 

Zealand and Australia tell us what to do because then we depend 

on New Zealand and Australia and their resources to give whatever 

foreign assistance programs that they can give. And I suppose that 

also represents our form of giving or giving assistance, which I 

think our island leaders are a lot more astute in understanding 

what is really going on here. 

And I don’t want to put China and these island countries as a 

yo-yo, making it a political football as to who is going to be the 

higher bidder in giving assistance to these countries. I don’t think 

that is what the island leaders want themselves. But the fact of the 

matter is, if we are not there, then you give them little choice but 

to deal with the realities of who they need to deal with, just as it 

is true with many of our friends and countries in Southeast Asia, 

Northeast Asia, and Central Asia. If they don’t see any presence 

or any seriousness of commitment coming from our own Government, then they will have to make decisions accordingly in dealing 

with China. 

Now, one of the ironies, Dr. Campbell, is that while there seems 

to be some sense of concern from our friends in Australia, telling 

these island countries to be careful of China, and yet they had a 

free trade agreement with China exporting billions of dollars in 

minerals and all of that. It kind of makes the island leaders say, 

‘‘Are we that stupid, seeing what you guys are really trying to do 

here?’’

I wanted just to share that with you, the feedback I get from 

some of our island leaders in meeting with them. Of course, they 

are not going to come out openly and tell you these things, Dr. 

Campbell. But I just want to pass them along. I am just the messenger. I think we honestly really do need to do a better job than 

what we have been. And again, Dr. Young, I am not trying to beat 

up on you. But, please, I just wanted to get better assurances that 

we are not just going to have presence in these island countries, 

but we are going to be there, lock, stock, and barrel, with whatever 

assistance that is needed. 

Now, is it staffing that you are having problems with? Let me 

know. I will be happy to make recommendations of some excellent 

people who are not necessarily U.S. citizens who can help us. The 

secretary of the Pacific Commission has done an excellent job in 

identifying so many of the various programs and issues that these 

island countries are confronted with so seriously, not just climate 

change. My gosh, not just climate change. 

The problem of our fisheries and the tuna industry alone, which 

my own little territory is totally impacted by. Our expertise and 

the problems of seabed minerals. We are the only country that has 

not signed on to allow the Sea Convention. I remember a couple of 

years ago, I think a Norwegian firm was contracted by the Cook 

60

Islands government to conduct a survey of what is contained on the 

seabeds of some 3 million square miles of EEZ zone belonging to 

the Cook Islands. And as a result of that survey, they found out 

there is approximately at least over $200 billion worth of manganese nodules contained in the seabeds of the Cook Islands, whose 

population is less than 20,000 people. I don’t know if you are getting my message here, Dr. Young. Don’t look at numbers to think 

that that is the basis of how we are going to deal with these island 

countries. If 31 percent of the entire earth’s surface is contained 

among these 15 island countries, I think we ought to pay a lot 

more attention to them. Just looking at the population numbers, 

Papua New Guinea with 7 million, and then the populations are 

so spotty, I realize, that they don’t have the numbers as far as people. But they are human beings nevertheless. And I just think 

what a tragedy it would be, that with all the tremendous amount 

of resources, the technology and knowledge in our universities and 

colleges, that if we are able to host some 690,000 foreign students 

attending American colleges and universities, you would think it 

might be possible USAID could do the same in getting more Pacific 

Island students to attend our colleges and universities. 

I have always been very curious as to why the Fulbright Scholarship program has not been very successful to the extent that we 

are not giving enough opportunities to those island students who 

could get better training than they are getting now. 

Gentlemen, I know I have talked a lot. But I just wanted to 

share those concerns with you. Assuming I get reelected in November, you are going to see my ugly face again here in this podium. 

I don’t know what is going to happen come November, but I do 

want very much to thank the three of you for being here. Dr. 

Campbell, I do want to thank you. We just held a hearing about 

2 weeks ago on West Papua. And please convey that message also 

to Secretary Clinton that we just sent a petition letter to the White 

House, to President Obama, and it was signed by 50 Members of 

Congress expressing our very serious concerns about not only 

human rights violations, but the lack of real attention by the Indonesian Government toward giving special autonomy or more autonomy to some 2.2 million West Papuans. A sad, sad commentary not 

only of our own involvement, but complicity with the United Nations that these people were never given the opportunity for selfdetermination, as it was given to the people of East Timor a couple 

of years ago. 

I want to share that concern with you, Secretary Campbell. I sincerely hope that we will continue the dialogue. Again, thank you 

for your interest in wanting to engage and to dialogue the interim 

government leaders, Prime Minster Bainimarama and his people. 

I know there have been some serious doubts expressed about the 

upcoming elections of 2014. Again, just in good faith and absolute 

confidence that we will hold the election. And if not, we will cross 

that bridge. 

I just cannot see how any other way can justify otherwise that 

we don’t do these reforms and all of this, and I was there personally to see Prime Minister Bainimarama, and I believe he is very 

earnest and sincere in what he is trying to do in meeting those 

61

goals and having that national election come 2014. If I live that 

long, I would like to see that. 

But again, gentlemen, I want to thank you for your patience, and 

I sincerely hope that we will continue this dialogue and see what 

comes next after the elections. Thank you very much, gentlemen. 

The hearing is over. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(63)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

64


61517n.eps
65


61517m.eps
66


61517f-1.eps
67


61517f-2.eps
68

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. 

FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA, AND

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT


61517g-1.eps
69


61517g-2.eps
70


61517h-1.eps
71


61517h-2.eps
72

Æ


61517h-3.eps