[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESOURCING THE PIVOT TO ASIA: EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC FY 2015 BUDGET
PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 20, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-154
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-016 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
DANA ROHRABACHER, California Samoa
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
TED POE, Texas GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MATT SALMON, Arizona THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina KAREN BASS, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
MO BROOKS, Alabama DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
TOM COTTON, Arkansas ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
PAUL COOK, California JUAN VARGAS, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania AMI BERA, California
STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida GRACE MENG, New York
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
TED S. YOHO, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman
DANA ROHRABACHER, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
MATT SALMON, Arizona Samoa
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania BRAD SHERMAN, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Daniel R. Russel, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
East Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State....... 6
Ms. Denise Rollins, Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for
Asia, U.S. Agency for International Development................ 15
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Daniel R. Russel: Prepared statement............... 8
Ms. Denise Rollins: Prepared statement........................... 17
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 40
Hearing minutes.................................................. 41
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Virginia: Prepared statement.......... 42
Written responses from the Honorable Daniel R. Russel to
questions submitted for the record by:
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California................................. 44
The Honorable Matt Salmon, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Arizona, and chairman, Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere........................................... 45
The Honorable Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California...................................... 47
RESOURCING THE PIVOT TO ASIA: EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC FY 2015 BUDGET
PRIORITIES
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock p.m.,
in room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Chabot. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to
order. This is the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific of the
Foreign Affairs Committee. I am Steve Chabot, the chairman. I
want to thank the gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, for
serving as today's ranking member and I also thank our
distinguished witnesses, Assistant Secretary Daniel Russel and
Acting Assistant Administrator Denise Rollins, for being here
this afternoon.
This hearing was called to assess the Fiscal Year 2015
State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development
budget request for the East Asia and Pacific region. This
region is receiving the single largest proposed spending
increase--at 9.4 percent--compared to any other regional or
functional bureau. Consequently, it is critical that we examine
the administration's priorities in the Asia-Pacific and hear
how this foreign aid budget will achieve the administration's
key regional goals. Of particular interest are those nations
receiving a significant increase in foreign assistance--notably
Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines--and those countries where
human rights abuses are thriving and political turmoil is
surging--Cambodia, Thailand and, again, Burma, to name a few.
The United States has always recognized the Asia-Pacific
region's political, economic, and security significance. Our
long-term presence there is built on promoting stability,
fostering respect for international law, advancing respect for
human rights, and maintaining freedom of navigation and
unhindered lawful commerce in the maritime regions. These
objectives are fundamentally hinged on the United States'
alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the
Philippines; our resilient relationships with Taiwan and
Singapore; and our evolving relationships with Vietnam and
Indonesia.
At the advent of the administration's foreign policy
rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region was the recognition
that this part of the world is the future centerpiece of global
commerce and security strategy. Many here in Congress supported
this effort, and our allies and partners in the region
championed it. However, as we have seen over the past year, in
particular, America's presence in the region is being
challenged and growing tensions are threatening to undermine
the administration's ability to achieve its strategic goals.
Other than the more enduring challenges in Asia such as
nuclear proliferation, human trafficking, terrorism, widespread
corruption, extreme poverty, and natural disasters, we are now
faced with progressively more complex security threats rattling
the region's stability. North Korea's crimes against humanity
and nuclear ambitions continue unabated. A political crisis has
pushed our ally, Thailand, to the brink of disaster. Reports
indicate Burma shows signs of genocide against the Rohingya
Muslim population. And a promulgation of clashes between China
and its neighbors over sovereignty claims in the East and South
China Seas have turned the maritime thoroughfares into
dangerous hot zones of conflict.
Mr. Russel, the last time we saw you we were discussing
this last issue, and I can tell you from conversations since
then that many folks in the region welcomed the more steadfast
assurance that America will stay engaged. However, I do not
think these maritime disputes will go away, nor do I feel China
will stop challenging America's role there. So maintaining a
high level of engagement and directing American resources
toward the region to manage these tensions will not get any
easier, in my opinion, especially with other crises around the
world rearing their ugly heads. The foreign assistance budget
we discuss today needs to support a coherent and cohesive
strategic plan for the region. At the same time, our strategy
itself needs to be judicious and discerning--we should not be
funding projects just because we can.
In Fiscal Year 2015, the administration is seeking an
additional $69.6 million for the Asia-Pacific region. The total
requested budget of $810.7 million will be directed toward
pursuing five objectives, which I hope you will elaborate on
this afternoon.
More specifically, the administration is proposing
providing Burma with an additional $26.6 million. The total,
$88.5 million, is a 90-percent increase in aid compared to
Fiscal Year 2012 assistance levels for Burma. This committee
has long taken an active interest in Burma and, as I have noted
previously, we welcome the tremendous progress seen in that
country over the past 3 years--U.S. involvement has been key.
But today that progress has plateaued and is deteriorating in
some areas.
I am concerned about the $250,000 in IMET assistance the
administration plans to utilize to engage with the Burmese
military. This military has not yet severed its ties with North
Korea, has not halted its fighting in the ethnic areas, is
complicit in abuses against the Rohingya and other ethnic
minorities, and is preventing needed constitutional reforms.
And despite these concerns, the administration has still not
detailed a strategy for future engagement with the Burmese
military, which is unacceptable. Allowing Aung San Suu Kyi to
run in the 2015 election used to be a key benchmark, but now
the fact that Burma can't manage chairing ASEAN and continue
making reforms is enough for the administration to let this
benchmark slide and be pushed down the road a few more years.
Overall, I am disappointed by the administration's engagement
approach with Burma, and I hope that our witnesses will touch
on those areas of concern today.
I am also troubled by the political impasse in Cambodia and
the fact we are seeing very little return for the amount of aid
provided there. The administration has been largely silent
since last summer's election in Cambodia, and should be more
vocal about pushing for an independent, internationally
assisted investigation into the conduct of those elections. I
also continue to be concerned about Hun Sen's brutal crackdown
on protests and rampant land grabbing. In fact, over 2,000
families have been affected by ``a renewed wave of violent land
grabbing'' since the beginning of this year. It is evident that
our democracy programming in that country has not made
sufficient progress, so I would like to know how those programs
are being reassessed.
I also hope today's witnesses will touch on how the
administration plans to deepen relations between our allies in
East Asia and the signing of a new 10-year defense cooperation
agreement with the Philippines. While I have other areas of
concern, I will touch on those issues in my questions so we
have time to recognize other members.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses
this afternoon and I now yield to Mr. Bera, the acting ranking
member of the subcommittee, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, and thank you for
calling this hearing. Obviously, this is timely on the heels of
the President's recent trip to Asia and outlining what our
priorities are as well as the administration's priorities going
into 2015.
One area that I remain very deeply concerned about is
China's unilateral and nationalistic-fueled decrees.
Particularly, we are watching what is happening in the South
China Sea where China had expanded into territorially disputed
waters with Vietnam and within the last month we have watched
these maritime tensions increase, particularly with China's
establishment of a state-owned oil rig in waters claimed,
again, by both China and Vietnam.
The oil rig site also is being protected right now by a
Chinese flotilla so I will be curious as to the
administration's thoughts there, and there have been reports
recently of Chinese vessels ramming into Vietnamese ships and
water-shooting exchanges.
In addition, China has to be held to norms--international
norms where they are coming and territorial disputes are being
negotiated through international means, not through aggressive
unilateral actions as the ones we are seeing in the South China
Sea.
These actions are sparking anti-China protests in Vietnam
where factories thought to be associated with China were
burned, causing injuries and even death. And again, this is a
time for us as the United States to stand with our allies, and
as China enters the modern world it has to negotiate in more
acceptable ways.
And, again, I am very interested in hearing the witnesses'
thoughts on how we might work with our allies to do that. In
addition, you know, we are watching this expansion into the
Yellow Sea--into the East China Sea with unilateral expansions
of the ADIZs.
Particularly of concern with some of our close allies--
Japan, Taiwan, and Korea--with these unilateral expansions
again, you know, I am curious about the administration's
priorities with regards to partnering with our allies there and
sending a strong message that these unilateral expansions are
not the way to go about territorial disputes but rather through
more negotiated forms.
As the chairman mentioned, I am also very pleased with the
10-year defense agreement that was signed this past April with
our close ally and friend, the Philippines. Enhancing security
cooperation is a clear sign to our allies that the United
States remains committed to our friends in the face of these
external threats.
I also want to congratulate USAID on its invaluable role,
closely coordinating with the Philippines Government in
response to typhoon Haiyan. This was a great success story that
demonstrates that investing in aid programs has dramatic and
lifesaving results in post-disaster environments.
And as mentioned previously, I look forward to the
testimony of the witnesses. I look forward to continuing to
work with Chairman Chabot as we solidify and strengthen our
role with our allies in this pivot to Asia.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much for your opening statement.
We will now yield 1 minute to other members who would like to
make an opening statement. I will yield to Dana Rohrabacher of
California, who is the chairman of the Europe, Eurasia, and
Emerging Threats Subcommittee.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Needless to say, this is a vital subject. If we are going to
live at peace and prosperity in the United States we cannot
lose focus of what is going on in China and in the Pacific.
The Chinese ocean and territorial claims just being claims
should have been a tip-off that there was problems ahead. Well,
now we see China beginning to reinforce those claims and which
is leading to confrontations with Japan, Taiwan, the
Philippines, even Vietnam, and let us note that China also has
land claims--huge land claims against India.
This does not spell very good tidings--does not work out a
very good tiding for the United States and the rest of the
world who would like to live in peace and prosperity and
stability not only in that part of the world but the entire
planet.
China and radical Islam now represent the major threat to
peace, stability and prosperity for the entire world and,
unfortunately, in this effort we have seen China arming the
mullahs in Iran. We have sent them give--provide nuclear
weapons technology to North Korea and Pakistan.
These things suggest that the pivot to the Pacific should
have happened a long time ago and the worst news of all is we
may have, with a very not well thought out policy toward
Ukraine, driven Russia into the arms of a dictatorial still-
Communist China, which would be a catastrophe for the rest of
the world in trying to obtain the peace and stability that we
seek.
Thank you very much. I am looking forward to hearing the
witnesses.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, and the gentlelady from
Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard, is now recognized for the purpose of
making an opening statement.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to
both of you here today.
I had the chance just a few weeks ago to go on a
congressional delegation led by the majority leader, Eric
Cantor, to Japan, South Korea and China and it just so happened
that we went on the eve of President Obama's visit and just
want to highlight some of--I think one important takeaway that
I got from that trip but from what I have seen, representing
Hawaii and understanding a little bit about the Asia-Pacific
region as a whole, is the importance of relationships and how
nuanced our relationship is with each of these countries, both
our allies and those who are emerging in many ways and how we
have been able to avoid conflict for quite some time because of
the investment in relationships and really proactive
constructive engagement.
So I look forward to hearing from you as you talk about how
some of the foreign aid dollars that we are investing in the
region and the people in the region can seek to strengthen both
the security ties that we have but also how this best sets us
up for stability, peace and really exploring the potential of
economic opportunity in the region.
And in order to do that, we have to understand the basics
of these nuanced relationships that require a lot of
sensitivity. So thanks so much for being here today.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
I will now introduce the panel we have this afternoon. Not
a stranger to this committee, Daniel Russel is the Assistant
Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and is a
career member of the Senior Foreign Service. Prior to his
appointment as Assistant Secretary, Mr. Russel served at the
White House as Special Assistant to the President and National
Security Staff. During his tenure there, he helped formulate
President Obama's strategic rebalance to Asia. Before joining
the National Security Staff, he served as Director of the
Office of Japanese Affairs and had other various assignments in
Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands and Cyprus. He has also
served as Chief of Staff to Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and
Assistant to the Ambassador to Japan, former Senate Majority
Leader Mike Mansfield. Mr. Russel was awarded the State
Department's Una Chapman Cox Fellowship sabbatical and authored
the book, ``America's Place in the World.'' Before joining the
Foreign Service, he was manager for an international firm in
New York City. Mr. Russel was educated at Sarah Lawrence
College and University College, University of London, U.K. We
welcome you here this afternoon.
We also have Denise Rollins, who has been a member of the
U.S. Senior Foreign Service and has more than 25 years of
international experience. She has served as USAID's Acting
Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Asia since September
2013. Prior to that, Ms. Rollins was Senior Deputy Assistant
Administrator, where she was responsible for overseeing USAID's
Asia portfolio. Prior to her appointment to the Asia Bureau,
she was USAID's Mission Director in Bangladesh. She has
additionally served as USAID's Deputy Mission Director in South
Africa, where she oversaw development programs addressing
health, education, local government, and private sector
development. Before joining USAID, Ms. Rollins served as the
Senior Program Officer at the African-American Institute and a
legislative assistant for two Members of Congress. She is a
native of Detroit, Michigan and we welcome you here, as well.
I won't explain the 5-minute rules. I am sure you are
familiar with our lighting system. You all get 5 minutes and we
get 5 minutes up here. So without further ado, Mr. Russel, you
have the floor for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL R. RUSSEL, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Russel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to
the members of the subcommittee and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the President's 2005 budget
request for East Asia and the Pacific.
I appreciate very much your leadership and your strong
support. I appreciate also the chance to testify alongside of
my colleague, Denise Rollins, the USAID Acting Assistant
Administrator.
Our strategy toward the Asia-Pacific region is built on a
simple premise. As a resident Pacific power and a trading
nation, the Asia-Pacific is hugely consequential to the United
States, to our security and to our economy and that importance
will only grow.
The rebalance strategy begun by President Obama in 2009
focuses on strengthening our alliances, building up the
regional architecture and engaging emerging powers. We have
coordinated and strengthened our ability to take joint action
with our treaty allies in the region--Japan, the Republic of
Korea and the Philippines--all of which President Obama
recently visited just last month, as well as with Australia and
Thailand.
Second, we are helping to build an architecture of regional
institutions and agreements. We were the first nonmember to
dedicate a permanent mission to ASEAN and President Obama
participates annually in the East Asia Summit in U.S. ASEAN
meetings and in AIPAC leaders meetings.
We have upgraded our economic engagement, focusing on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, which is an ambitious high-
standard agreement that will create jobs and growth in the U.S.
and in all member countries.
Together, those elements form a regional architecture of
shared rules of the road that foster mutual understanding and
help countries to resolve all types of disputes peacefully.
Third, we are engaging with emerging powers. We have
regular high-level discussions with Indonesia, India and, of
course, China on a wide range of bilateral and global issues.
We have also deepened our engagement with existing and new
partners like Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia and Vietnam and
we work with our partners both to form closer bilateral
relationships but also to bring them closer to one another.
For instance, through the Lower Mekong Initiative, LMI, we
are helping Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam jointly
to manage a watershed that is crucial to the prosperity, health
and food security of all their citizens. From the environmental
goals of LMI to people-to-people engagement such as President
Obama's Young Southeast Asia Leaders Initiative, our diplomacy
and development work advances America's values.
Allow me to highlight a few specific examples of how the
President's 2015 budget supports our broader policy priorities.
The Fiscal Year 2015 request for the EAP bureau is $1.2 billion
including foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement funds,
all together up 5 percent from fiscal 2013. These additional
resources will help us achieve our security goals, strengthen
our economy at home and advance American values.
For instance, we are requesting $12.5 million of an
increase for international military education and training, a
47-percent increase over 2013 spread throughout the region.
This program builds our influence with the next generation of
military leaders.
We are also requesting additional funds to build the
maritime capacity of our allies and partners, for instance, by
increasing foreign military financing to the Philippines by 57
percent to $40 million.
And as you noted, the request provides over $88 million,
Mr. Chairman, a 43-percent increase to support Burma's
democratic transition by strengthening institutions and
addressing development challenges, and it supports disaster
relief and recovery in the Philippines. To aid the ongoing
rebuilding after super typhoon Haiyan, we are requesting an
additional $20 million in mid to long-term development
assistance. These are just a few of the ways our budget
supports our interest in the region.
Before I close, two quick points please. First, I would
like to take a moment during Asian-American and Pacific
Islander Heritage Month to acknowledge the invaluable
contribution of those millions of Americans.
Second, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, this hearing comes
during a time of significant events in Asia. In the last few
weeks, China's unilateral placement of an oil rig in disputed
waters and the subsequent violence in Vietnam have stoked
tensions between these neighbors.
Yesterday the Department of Justice indicted members of
China's--of the Chinese military for cyber-enabled economic
espionage and theft, and overnight the Thai military declared
martial law.
So there is much to discuss. After my colleague has made
her statement, I will be happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Russel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much for your testimony this
afternoon.
Ms. Rollins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. DENISE ROLLINS, ACTING ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR ASIA, U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Rollins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
of the subcommittee. It is great for me to be here today with
my colleague, Assistant Secretary Russel.
With your permission I would like to submit my written
statement for the record.
Mr. Chabot. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Rollins. Thank you. In recent decades, the East Asia-
Pacific region has experienced an unprecedented period of
prosperity that has lifted 845 million people out of extreme
poverty and transformed the region into a key driver of global
politics and economics.
Home to some of our closest allies and strongest trade
partners and one-third of the world's population, the region
still faces complex development challenges that threaten to
derail committed progress--continued progress.
Our robust Fiscal Year 2015 request of $810 million enables
USAID to continue laying the foundations for lasting progress
in a part of the world vastly interconnected with ours.
Across the East Asia-Pacific, USAID has eight field
missions that provide support to 22 countries. Through the
promotion of inclusive economic, political and societal
progress that creates pathways out of poverty with the world's
most vulnerable people, USAID's assistance expands stable free
societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United
States and fosters good will abroad.
Our approach is fou fold.
First, we are advancing regional cooperation to address
cross border challenges in the areas of trade and investment,
agriculture and food security, environment and water and
health. For example, we are supporting the ASEAN in achieving
economic integration by 2015, which will expand opportunities
for American businesses with our fourth largest export market.
Second, we are addressing regional development challenges
through the three Presidential initiatives--global health, Feed
the Future and climate change. An example is in Indonesia,
which has one of the highest tuberculosis rates in the world.
We have helped introduce a new technology that diagnoses drug-
resistant strains in hours as opposed to weeks which is
enabling more people to start treatment sooner, critical to
preventing transmission and saving lives.
Third, we are leveraging science, technology, innovation
and partnerships to achieve greater cost effectiveness and
impact. For example, in Timor-Leste through a partnership with
Conoco Phillips, we have doubled the number of farmers
utilizing new horticulture techniques that have boosted incomes
by up to 400 percent.
And fourth, in Burma we are supporting important upcoming
milestones such as the scheduled 2015 national election that
presents opportunities to catalyze the country's transition to
a peaceful democratic society and market-based economy. We are
empowering civil society to engage with reform champions within
the Government of Burma to deepen reforms and we are urging the
Government of Burma to address violence and resolve
humanitarian crisis in Rakhine State, which plays a key role in
the country's transition.
In the Philippines, an important development, trade and
security partner, we continue to collaborate through the
Partnership for Growth to address the country's most binding
growth constraints. The Philippines has made great progress,
advancing 35 places in Transparency International's corruption
perception index. We continue to support peace in six conflict-
afflicted areas of Mindanao as well as the ongoing recovery in
typhoon-affected areas.
In Indonesia, the third largest democracy, USAID is moving
beyond the traditional donor-recipient model to an equal
partnership that leverages greater resources from Indonesia to
address development challenges within and beyond its borders.
In Vietnam, accelerating the country's transformation to a
market-based economy is a U.S. priority. USAID is helping the
Vietnamese Government develop legal and regulatory frameworks
that meet global standards and trade commitments. We continue
to support people living with HIV and AIDS while shifting our
program to encourage the Government of Vietnam to take on more
responsibility.
And finally, in Cambodia, USAID programs align with U.S.
foreign policy to support respect for human rights and more
responsive governance. For example, we helped launch an
elections hotline that received over 600,000 calls,
contributing to an unprecedented level of civic engagement
during the run-up to the 2013 elections.
Mr. Chairman, stability and progress in East Asia and the
Pacific matter far beyond the region. Continued USAID
assistance is vital in order to sustain gains that contribute
to increased security and prosperity in a region of the world
closely tied to our own future.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and look
forward to your counsel and questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rollins follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
appreciate both of you being here this afternoon and we will
turn to our questioning now. I will start with myself.
I will begin with Burma first. I am troubled by the fact
that Burma seems to get rewarded by the administration whether
or not it actually honors or meets its past promises and
pledges. It now seems certain that Burma's constitution will
not be amended before the 2015 elections, which means
provisions that allow the military leadership to dominate a
civilian government--that will remain--including the military's
power to appoint 25 percent of the parliamentary seats, dismiss
the Parliament at will, and in effect, choose the President.
Moreover, a provision will remain that disqualifies Aung San
Suu Kyi from running or serving as President. So my question
is, how can the 2015 election possibly be a complete and
accurate expression of the democratic will of the Burmese
people?
Also, the Secretary of State is traveling to Burma for
ASEAN-related events this summer and President Obama is going
there, I believe, in November. Will the administration express
disappointment about this situation and how is the
administration planning to ratchet up the pressure on the
Burmese Government to follow through on their commitments to
reform?
What they have committed to is great. We think it is
wonderful. But the follow through, I think, is lacking in many
instances. Mr. Russel.
Mr. Russel. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is an
incredibly important question and the United States is firmly
and deeply committed to helping to ensure the success of the
important political and economic reforms in Burma.
As you point out, Secretary Kerry will be traveling there
this summer. President Obama is expected to go there in
November, and the need for Burma to follow through across the
board on its reform commitments, including the issue of
building up a credible democratic process and democratic
institutions, among other things, through elections in 2015
that are considered to be fair and equitable, is at the top of
the list of U.S. foreign policy objectives.
These are issues that the Secretary and the President do
and will raise. I myself was in Naypyidaw and had the
opportunity to raise these and other issues, including the ones
you mentioned in your opening statement, including the
treatment of ethnic minorities, particularly the Muslim
Rohingyas in the southwest directly with President Thein Sein.
At the same time, I would note, Mr. Chairman, that Burma
and the success of Burma's reform efforts has great
geostrategic importance for the United States, given Burma's
situation between two important countries, India and China.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Let me move on to my next question--
Cambodia. I think you share the same concerns as many of us on
the committee do about Cambodia's situation--the flawed 2013
election, the crackdown on opposition and dissidents,
widespread land grabbing and the basic fact that Hun Sen has
been in power for almost 30 years now.
Ambassador William Todd has spoken clearly about U.S.
disappointments with the government and the political situation
overall. What I want to ask you is, in the midst of all these
concerns, why did the U.S. go ahead and carry out a joint
military exercise and training session--Angkor Sentinel--with
the Cambodian military including units like the military
police, who have been engaged in the breakup of peaceful
protests? And more worrying, why did the programing include
training in what appears to be urban combat operations
including storming buildings and stopping cars? It seems to me
they have been effectively utilizing these methods to literally
throw people out of their homes and off their land.
The Pentagon is either evading the law or has found a
loophole to allow military training outside of the restrictions
imposed by the 2014 omnibus spending bill passed by Congress
and signed by the President in January 2014. So if you could
respond.
Mr. Russel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we have, as you
noted, consistently and forcefully expressed our concerns about
the 2013 election and both our Ambassador, myself and other
officials meet with both parties including recently opposition
party leaders in Washington to urge reconciliation.
We were somewhat encouraged by the fact that regular
dialogue takes place but not nearly satisfied. With respect to
the exercise you are referring to, Angkor Sentinel, this is an
annual exercise that is a key element in America's efforts to
help build Cambodia's capacity to support international
peacekeeping missions and to provide humanitarian assistance
and disaster relief.
We train, for example, the Cambodian military on the
handling of IEDs, which are a persistent threat in
peacekeeping. We also provide training that has allowed the
Cambodian soldiers successfully to protect themselves and
innocent civilians.
We conduct this program fully in accordance with U.S. law
and U.S. policy, including the Leahy amendment. We review
carefully the practices of the units that may receive
assistance and we do not provide assistance in cases where
there is credible information that those units have committed
violations of human rights.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. My time has expired. The gentleman
from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, and thank the
witnesses again for your opening testimonies.
Secretary Russel, in your opening testimony you certainly
touched on some of the increasing tensions in the South China
Sea and, you know, these have been long-term territorial
disputes that--you know, China has been provocative in the past
but has never done something so bold as to actually move an oil
rig and, you know, plop it down in these disputed territories.
It really is escalating tensions and from everything that I
have been briefed on and have read, China has made every
indication that they do not plan on backing down here. My
question to you, Secretary, is what do you think the best
course of action is at this juncture for the United States and
for our ASEAN partners to help de-escalate these tensions as
opposed to the opposite, from the administration's perspective?
Mr. Russel. Well, thank you very much for the question,
Congressman. It is an important one. We believe strongly that
the best course of action for the United States, for China's
neighbors and for China is a constructive diplomatic dialogue
to manage disputes and where possible to resolve them in ways
that are consistent with international law.
There are two recent developments of particular concern,
one of which you mentioned, which was the troubling and
unilateral decision by China to introduce an oil rig and
accompanying vessels--paramilitary coast guard vessels in
waters disputed with Vietnam, and that strikes observers as
part of a broader destabilizing escalatory pattern of behavior
in which China is advancing its claims through nondiplomatic
and extralegal means.
The second is, you may recall, that the Philippines have
raised concerns about evidence that China is conducting large-
scale reclamation on reefs in the South China Sea which, in our
view, as a significant upgrade or potentially the
militarization of a disputed land feature also has the
potential to raise tensions.
We addressed these issues directly with the Chinese
diplomatically. We have made no secret of our strong belief
that China must use diplomacy, not brute force. We think the
issue is not how strong is China.
We think the issue is how strong is China's legal claim in
the territorial disputes, and we also take no exception to
China's right to make a claim or for that matter the potential
validity of the claim. We do take exception to behavior that is
coercive, intimidating and nondiplomatic.
Mr. Bera. Well, and we would agree that what they are
currently exhibiting is behavior that is coercive,
nondiplomatic and so forth. So I think it is in our best
interest as well as the interest of our friends both in the
South China Sea, and with China exhibiting very similar moves
in expanding the ADIZ in the East China Sea we may see this
pattern occur once again around the Senkaku Islands and our
friends in Japan as well as our friends in Korea and Taiwan.
If we don't respond and if we don't get China to step back
and act in a diplomatic fashion with international norms, I do
fear that this pattern would repeat itself also with the
disputed territorial waters with the Philippines as well.
And, again, I think we have to send them a very strong
message that this is not the way you operate in a modern world
where you have international laws and international norms. What
additional leverage do we have other than just our words?
Mr. Russel. Well, Congressman, President Obama, through his
recent visit to three U.S. treaty allies in north and southeast
Asia and to an important partner, Malaysia, made very clear not
only in word but in deed how committed the U.S. is to stability
in the region and America's determination to stand by the
principles of international law and rules and norms.
At the same time that he affirmed very clearly our
commitments to our allies and our determination to maintain
regional security, he also made clear how important the U.S.-
China relationship is and how committed the administration is
to promoting the peaceful rise of a stable China that is a net
contributor to the well being and the prosperity of the region.
In addition to our diplomatic channels, the--a program and
the criticism that emerges from the international community in
response to unilateral and assertive behavior has without a
doubt an important effect on the calculations of the decision
makers in Beijing, as well it should.
It is not lost on the Chinese that the demand signal for
U.S. presence--economic, political and military--has increased
in proportion to the troubling behavior that has strained
China's neighbors with--China's relationship with its
neighbors.
Mr. Bera. I think I could speak for all of us on this body
and in this committee that we stand with our allies in sending
a strong message that this type of behavior by China is
unacceptable.
Mr. Chabot. I would second that point of view. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me
just say that I, of course, was hoping that this so-called
pivot to Asia was going to result in a much more aggressive and
realistic policy toward what I see is the major threat to
America's security and the free world security and stability
and well being.
And what we have, from what I can see in terms of our
response to these actually acts of violence and arrogant
violence initiated by these--by trying to reinforce or enforce
the claims over these island territories that we have seen in
the last year, that our response basically has been to arrest
five military computer hackers.
That is a joke. Five military computer hackers. I am sure
that the gang--the clique that runs China, the dictatorial and
brutal and murderous clique that runs China, is very impressed
with the courage that we have in arresting the five military
computer hacks.
China--the leadership of China, from what I have read, has
been enriching itself dramatically, very much. How are they
doing that? They are betraying their own people. They are
accumulating--they are accumulating wealth.
Let me just add as my--just ask my first question which is
is there evidence that they--that members of the Chinese
Communist leadership who have been enriching themselves--we
know how wealthy they are--have been involved with the theft of
American technology?
Mr. Russel. Congressman, I am not aware of such activity
but with your permission I will take your question back,
consult with my colleagues and provide a written response. I
would add, if I might, in reference to the arrest of--or excuse
me, the indictment against members of the Chinese military for
cyber theft, this reflects not a response to China's foreign
policy activities.
This reflects the strong commitment by President Obama in
focusing on cyber security and cyber crime to address the
challenge posed by Chinese Government-sponsored cyber-enabled
theft of the trade secrets and sensitive business information--
--
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I would say that he is sending the
wrong message because arresting or indicting five military
computer hackers is so--such a weak response. It will have the
opposite reaction from dictators and brutal--the people who run
China have betrayed their own people.
They are enriching themselves. They brutally stamp out any
opposition. There are no opposition parties there. They still
kill people for believing in God, like the Falun Gong, who they
throw into prison and then have murdered in order to--in order
to take their organs and sell them.
This is not a group of leaders of a country who would be
impressed by the fact that five of their lower echelon have
been indicted. Again, thank you for agreeing to at least look
into that issue to see if the leadership of China are
themselves enriching themselves.
But let us just note, I would hope that a pivot toward--
back toward Asia means that we are pivoting back toward the
people of Asia and not toward some sort of phony--a
relationship that is phony but positive with people who rule
the country like they do in Beijing.
There are--let me see what else I wanted to bring up here
to you--in terms of the Chinese, how much have the Chinese
increased their military power in the last 10 years? What would
you label it? Substantial or medium or what would you say?
Mr. Russel. Well, Congressman, the U.S. still vastly
outstrips China in terms of all indexes of military capability
and, certainly, military spending. That said, China has
embarked in--on active military modernization program that is
troubling in the respect that it is opaque and we and our
allies have called on China repeatedly to show more
transparency in its military planning and programs.
Now, as one step toward that transparency, when Secretary
Hagel recently visited China he was taken to Qingdao and shown
the new Chinese aircraft carrier. That is a small step in the
right direction.
Recently, Chairman Dempsey hosted a visit by the--his
Chinese counterpart, General Fang, with whom I had an
opportunity to discuss the issues both of cooperation with
China such as North Korea and areas of deep concern with China,
such as their behavior in the South China Sea.
Mr. Rohrabacher. One last point and that is showing that
aircraft carrier to our person is not a good sign. It is a sign
of arrogance. It is a sign of take a look, we are becoming
powerful.
This is not something where oh, we are just showing how
open we are. When you start trying to get into the mind set of
a dictator you have to think more like--think of what that
dictator is thinking, not what he would think if he was a
democratically-elected government. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair would note for the record that even though the
United States certainly has a much more powerful military than
the People's Republic of China right now, the administration
has recommended a pretty significant decrease in our military
forces to levels that are pre-World War II and has been pushing
for reducing our number of carriers from 11 to 10.
That has apparently been put on the back burner for the
time being. I think it would be a terrible move because U.S.
power is projected around the world through our aircraft
carriers and China has, by double digits, increased their
military spending over the last 25 years. I think it is a
particular concern.
I would now like to recognize the gentleman from Virginia,
Mr. Connolly, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would note
respectfully, appropo the chairman's remarks, and China does
not have an element in its government that seems to know the
cost of everything and value of almost nothing, wanting to
shrink the size of government philosophically, wanting to slash
investments and obsessed with the debt such that investments
get starved.
That is unique to our Government. Chinese aren't plagued
with that. So no wonder they can proceed apace with a military
budget that has few constraints. And I might also say when I
was listening to my friend from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, I
thought he was describing the Russian Government.
But he is not here to respond to that so I will let it go.
But let me ask you, Mr. Russel, I was heartened that the
administration issued indictments on cyber theft--cyber
security because, frankly, on a bipartisan basis for quite some
time we have kind of winked and blinked at gross and fairly
comprehensive and systematic Chinese intellectual property
theft across the board, not just cyber issues but software,
candy manufacturers, Starbucks coffee.
You know, I have met with so many American companies and
manufacturers who have intellectual property theft problems
that are just blatant. They don't even hide it.
So it is very heartening to have an administration to
finally crack down and show some seriousness of intent. I
assume from your remarks and from that indictment that is the
beginning of a process, not the end of the process.
Mr. Russel. Congressman, the fact of the matter is that it
is not the beginning of a process. It is a step in a very well-
developed ongoing process that is led personally by President
Obama.
As a former staff member at the National Security Council,
I had the experience of participating in many of his meetings
with the Chinese. I accompanied the former national security
advisor to China. I have been now several times in this
capacity with Secretary Kerry.
Our concerns about China's transfer of technology, China's
economic theft and disrespect for intellectual property rights
but particularly, although there has been progress in many of
these areas, the area of concern that we consistently flag has
been government-sponsored cyber-enabled theft of U.S. corporate
information that is then transferred to Chinese companies or
state-owned enterprises and used for commercial gain.
Mr. Connolly. Yes.
Mr. Russel. This is not hacking. This is not cyber warfare.
This is cyber economic theft and we have laid down firm markers
in our diplomatic channels and now the Department of Justice
has taken action based on a a long-standing investigation.
Mr. Connolly. Good. My time is rapidly--but I applaud the
administration for doing it and I hope we do more of it. I want
a robust vibrant relationship between China and the United
States.
I think it is vital for the world, as we move forward. We
have to have a modus vivendi that works for both of us but that
also means that we have to have rules of engagement and setting
down some markers with respect to those rules is long overdue
and I applaud President Obama and the administration for doing
it.
I have one other question, given the time. What--you know,
we look at what seems to everybody in the region including us
to be deliberately provocative action against Vietnam, against
the Philippines with respect to certain islands in the Pacific,
in the South China Sea.
What is your sense of does Beijing ever stop and think
about the risk of miscalculation, that with the best of
intentions or not the best of intentions provocation leads to
escalation, which leads to unanticipated consequences that
weren't intended but can happen because things get out of hand?
I worry about that and I know the United States Government
worries about it but does Beijing worry about it?
Mr. Russel. Well, it is daunting to be asked to speak for
the Chinese and the Chinese leadership.
Mr. Connolly. I was told you could.
Mr. Russel. What I--what I can do, Congressman, is to
attest to the fact that in my many conversations with Chinese
officials and in the Secretary's conversations with Chinese
officials this is precisely the point that we have raised.
Specifically, we have urged China to cooperate with its
neighbors and with its ASEAN claimant friends to front load the
slow-moving code of conduct negotiations by coming to an early
agreement on mechanisms to prevent conflict or to manage
incidents when they occur on the seas and we have offered our
good offices and our experience from the Cold War, frankly, in
avoiding undesired incidents at sea and the like.
At the same time, we have urged China not only to exercise
the restraint that behooves a large, powerful and great country
but also to make more rapid progress in its diplomatic
negotiations.
The United States, as you said, Congressman, very much
wants a positive and constructive relationship with China. We
also want China to have good relations with all its neighbors.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Salmon, who is the chairman of
the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Salmon. Thank, Mr. Chairman. Negotiation of the Trans-
Pacific Partnership, TPP, agreement remains the centerpiece of
the administration's economic strategy in the region. What are
the administration's priorities with TPP at this point and when
does the administration hope to conclude talks on TPP
negotiations?
Mr. Russel. Congressman, I cannot give you a time line and
I will defer to my friend and colleague, Ambassador Mike
Froman, for greater specifics.
But I had the honor of accompanying both President Obama
and Ambassador Froman in the recent trip to Asia, to Japan as
well as to Malaysia where the--where significant progress was
made in the bilateral discussions of TPP, particularly with
regard to market access.
In Japan, we announced a pathway forward on these bilateral
issues and similarly in Malaysia the leaders affirmed their
commitment to a high standard agreement as soon as possible.
I know that Ambassador Froman has just wrapped up a major
ministerial TPP meeting in Vietnam where I believe they made
considerable progress on market access. There is much more to
be done including with Vietnam. In my recent trip to Vietnam, I
reinforced the tremendous importance that the United States
places on Vietnam making progress with regard to issues
regarding labor unions and freedom of association.
Mr. Salmon. Along those same lines, I know in the
President's State of the Union Address this year he identified
TPA as one of his top priorities and I believe that that is
something that could be very easily accomplished in a vote here
in the House but it is kind of dubious in the Senate right now.
Does the administration intend to flex a little bit of
muscle to get that done or are they just going to let it go?
Mr. Russel. Congressman, I know from Secretary Kerry and I
know from Ambassador Froman and from the President himself that
TPA is a top priority for the administration because it is a
key part of the overall economic and strategic agenda.
Now, I also--I also recognize that TPA is not a requirement
for USTR to negotiate and that is exactly what USTR is doing
right now.
Mr. Salmon. Finally, Mongolia's Prime Minister unveiled a
stimulus bill dubbed the 100-day action plan that will seek to
revive the mineral-rich nation's flagging economy.
Prime Minister Norovyn's 50-point agenda promises to boost
infrastructure, mining manufacturing and the development of
small and medium-sized businesses. The bill still needs
approval by Parliament and is part of a renewed drive to
improve the economy after 2 years of slowing growth.
At a recent briefing, the Prime Minister said within these
100 days we believe we should reduce bureaucracy, increase
mining, approve the reissue of exploration licenses and
resolving a dispute over 106 cancelled mining licenses.
Assistant Secretary Russel, what are your thoughts on this
proposed 100-day action plan? Is it a viable plan and is the
State Department engaging with the Mongolian administration on
this plan?
Mr. Russel. Well, Congressman, we are closely engaged with
the Mongolian Government and with important U.S. energy
companies and other stakeholders in discussing the development
of--the responsible development of Mongolia's natural resources
in the Talon Tolgoi mines and elsewhere.
We believe that U.S. companies provide tremendous benefit
not only in technical terms but also with regard to corporate
social responsibility. With your permission, allow me to take
back the specific question about the--about President
Elbegdorj's new economic minerals initiative and provide a
written answer for the record.
Mr. Salmon. That would be very helpful. I yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
Let me follow up on the gentleman's point on TPP and TPA.
During the President's recent trip to the region, enhancing
trade and investment was on top of the agenda and negotiations
for TPP were a key priority in the visits to Japan and
Malaysia, in particular.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though much progress was
made. The U.S.-Japan joint statement noted that a path forward
on important bilateral issues was identified but that a lot of
work is needed to conclude the TPP agreement.
Mr. Abe wasn't willing to give way on sensitive areas for
Japan and Malaysia, doesn't want to give up preferential
treatment for the ethnic Malays and, you know, expanding trade
and investment is one of the administration's top goals to
support the rebalance strategy.
So as Mr. Salmon mentioned, I think the President is going
to have to really put forward considerable effort, maybe
extraordinary effort when one considers that, you know, a
significant member of my Democratic colleagues and a not
significant minority of my Republican colleagues are opposed to
it and I know the unions are quite opposed to it.
So it is going to take some real effort, and I think the
effort is worth it but I would just encourage the
administration to do everything possible. I know it is an
election year and it makes it all that much tougher. But I
think it is important for our economy and certainly important
for the economies of these other countries.
We are both going to have to give a little, maybe give a
lot in some instances, to accomplish this. So I would just urge
you to take that message back to the administration and there
are a lot of us willing to work with the administration on this
one.
You know, we argue and fight and bicker about some things
but this is one--he has a lot of allies on the Hill on this.
Mr. Russel. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
that encouragement and that advice. This is a priority for the
President personally and for the administration. We are all
hard at work at it and the reason that it--the reason that it
looks difficult is because we are committed to a genuinely high
standard trade agreement.
Mr. Chabot. Good. Thank you very much.
Let me turn to North Korea. Last month we held a hearing on
the human rights situation in North Korea following the release
of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry Report and I am sure you are
well aware of the details of that report so I am not going to
go into great detail about the crimes against humanity that are
being committed against the people of North Korea by their own
government.
However, I do want to discuss the administration's
strategic patience policy toward North Korea, which has not
impaired Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions nor decreased the extent
of human rights violations committed by the regime. Evidently,
our sanctions regime is being thwarted and consequently is
quite ineffective. During President Obama's recent visit to
South Korea, he suggested it might be an opportune time to have
tougher sanctions. This committee's chairman, Mr. Royce, has
introduced legislation to do just that, which many of us here
support on both sides of the aisle.
I was wondering if you could clarify President Obama's
comments regarding sanctions against North Korea and whether
the administration will stand behind our efforts to hold the
North Korean regime accountable by imposing the needed
sanctions to cut off Pyongyang's currency supply, for example,
and halt its nuclear ambitions.
Mr. Russel. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no
question but the administration is committed to hold North
Korea responsible for its threatening and troubling behavior.
The U.S., you know, both under Democratic and Republican
administrations, has combined the imposition of sanctions and I
would add that the sanctions imposed in the last 5 years under
the Obama administration are by far the most rigorous in
history, but combine that also with an open hand to an offer to
Pyongyang to improve its relationship with the United States,
predicated on behavior.
And we have simply not see from North Korea behavior that
offers a pathway to a negotiated settlement and for that reason
and because we are not falling for old tricks or accepting
North Korean IOUs we have maintained a increasingly firm line
in close cooperation with our key allies, Korea and Japan, but
importantly made cooperation with China on North Korea a key
component of our bilateral relationship with Beijing.
Cooperation by China will be essential to any effort to
strengthen the existing sanctions regime. The DPRK is one of
the most heavily sanctioned countries on planet Earth and we
have imposed two very significant U.N. Security Council
resolutions in the last 5 years as well as using a number of
domestic authorities.
So I can't speak to the draft legislation itself but we, on
an ongoing basis in the U.S. interagency, consult and consider
on a wide range of additional measures that the administration
can take as well as working hard with partners to get enhanced
implementation of the existing sanctions.
Mr. Chabot. Okay. Thank you. I would also like to mention
we appreciate you and your folks' cooperation and assistance as
we travelled to the PRC and to Mongolia last week. Your people
over there are top flight and we certainly appreciate what a
good job they are doing for our country. So thank you very
much.
Mr. Russel. Well, I appreciate those words. I will pass
them on and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for taking the time and
trouble to visit. It, clearly, was very useful in terms of
foreign policy and in the case of the Mongolian Government I
can attest to their appreciation of your visit.
Mr. Chabot. Good. Just for the record, so maybe people know
we are not trying to make messes that you are going to have to
clean up after we leave. We generally will talk to the Embassy
personnel and your folks for the best questions and topics for
us to bring up with the governments there because we want them
to know that your policies are reflective of not just the
executive branch, but the legislative branch as well. We want
to help in your efforts over there, so thank you very much.
Mr. Russel. We appreciate and welcome your efforts.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bera. Great. I thought we might shift to Thailand.
Obviously, we are watching a rapidly evolving situation in
Thailand and from your perspective, Assistant Secretary Russel,
is there anything that you can enlighten us on in terms of what
do you think the next steps are?
Mr. Russel. Well, thank you, Congressman. The challenges in
Thailand occupy my time and attention and that of Secretary
Kerry and other senior officials both because Thailand is our
oldest and one of our most important partners and allies in
Southeast Asia.
But also because we are deeply concerned and troubled at
the political crisis in an important democracy in Asia.
Yesterday, as I am sure you are aware, the Royal Thai Army
declared martial law.
The army has indicated that this is not a coup, that this
is temporary imposition of martial law to prevent the growing
threat of bloodshed and violence, that it will be in place for
a finite period of time, and we have called on Thai's military
in a strong statement issued at Secretary Kerry's request
yesterday to exercise full regard both for the democratic
process and democratic institutions but also for important
freedoms including freedom of speech, freedom of the press.
We want to see the early restitution of full democracy in
Thailand and our respect for Thailand's democratic institutions
and we think that requires free and fair elections that enable
the Thai people freely to express their political will.
Mr. Bera. Great. Thank you. And it is incredibly important
to us, as you already mentioned. Thailand is one of our oldest
geopolitical allies in the region. Talking about democratic
elections and so forth, in that region in South Asia and India
we just saw a remarkable showing of democracy in action with
the recent elections, you know, with I think over 500 million
folks casting ballots and, you know, I think there--you know,
first off, I would like to take a chance to congratulate the
new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, and welcome, I think, this
body's and the administration's call to renew this partnership
in India as well, as we suggested a few weeks ago, in helping
stabilize not just being a foundation for South Asia but
certainly being a foundation with its partners in Burma and the
surrounding countries.
And, you know, we look forward to working with India to
address and resolve some of the territorial issues in the South
China Sea and India's continuing emerging role as a major
player in the world.
So we look forward to working with Prime Minister Modi as
we address these issues in a regional manner and, as you have
already mentioned, using international norms and international
laws to address these and India certainly has a role. I might
ask your perspective.
Mr. Russel. Thank you, Congressman. In the Department of
State, given our taxonomy, I am not directly responsible for
India and South Asia west of Burma. However, I co-chair a
regular U.S.-India dialogue on the Asia-Pacific region and just
last month held those meetings.
I also participate with my Indian counterpart in the
preparatory meetings for the larger ASEAN Plus meetings
including the East Asian Summit and I respect and hope for
increase in active Indian engagement in East Asia precisely for
the reasons that you have mentioned.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, and I will yield back.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from California, Mr. Sherman, who is the ranking
member of the Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade.
Mr. Sherman. Which subcommittee is meeting now, hence an
excuse not to be here for the entire hearing, and I can testify
to the chairman's effectiveness on his travels to Asia, having
been with him on the trip before his trip that included
Mongolia.
China has been manipulating its currency for many years.
Our response is to whine and complain, and then when some ask
that we do more I am told that well, they used to be taking 2
million jobs away from us through wrongful behavior.
Now it is down to 1.8 million so we have a great policy
success. Now we discover that--we discover--we document that
they have been hacking us for years. We found a new way to
whine and complain.
We indict people who will never be here and who will never
be extradited and thus our response to their hacking is to
deprive a few military officers of an opportunity to visit
Disneyland.
The powers that be in Washington don't want us to do any
more but obviously if we designated China a currency
manipulator that would get their attention. Depriving a few
military officers of a chance to visit Disneyland will not
change Chinese behavior.
The discussion of pivoting toward Asia is not just trade
missions to Japan and teaching Mandarin in our schools. It is a
refocus chiefly of our military and it is not surprising
because we tried to meet the institutional needs of our large
Washington institutions rather than the practical needs of the
American people.
Since the 1890s, every time our military has confronted a
nonuniformed enemy it has been a frustrating and terrible
experience, and since the 1890s every time we have faced a
uniformed military it has been a tremendous success, the most
tremendous success of all being winning the Cold War without
having to fight a major war.
So needless to say, we meet the institutional needs of our
foreign policy establishment by abandoning the war against
Islamist extremism, which is frustrating and long, and
refocusing against a uniformed enemy, the Chinese, and we can
confront them over a few specks by glorifying them and calling
them islands and as true throughout human history dividing
ourselves up into groups, finding something to fight about and
then declaring that these few uninhabited islands--islands so
useless that off the coast of a teeming continent no one has
ever chose to live there--should be the focus of our military
deployments.
So we are going to pivot toward Asia because we are done
with the Middle East and North Africa. I think that is absurd.
We aren't done. We have got a lot to do.
The protection of the United States from 9/11 attacks is
probably more important than who controls islands which, up
until this point in human history, have had absolutely no use
whatsoever, and calling them islands is a wild exaggeration. We
are talking rocks that barely protrude out of the ocean.
Now, as to this Trans-Pacific Partnership, if we negotiate
with the same format that we used for the South Korean
agreement, then goods that are 65, 75 percent made in China,
then finished in Vietnam or Japan, will be able to enter the
United States.
And that is if they admit that they are 75 percent made in
China--if the importer admits that they are 75 percent made in
China--they may well be 90 percent made in China--who would
prove the difference.
What are we going to do, Mr. Russel, to make sure that this
is not a boon to Chinese imports in the United States, knowing
that nothing in TPP will get a single paper clip from the
United States into China?
Mr. Russel. You covered a lot of ground there. Let me
mention two things before I address your TPP question.
Mr. Sherman. I have limited--why don't you address the
question first?
Mr. Russel. Well, the TPP negotiations are among 12
countries not including China that are seeking to institute
very high standards to get----
Mr. Sherman. The question was specifically about rules of
origin, goods that are 65, 75, 80, 90 percent made in China,
then finished in one or more countries and brought into the
United States.
What is in there that stops that other than vague rhetoric
about how it is wonderful to have high standards?
Mr. Russel. Congressman, in the interest of preserving the
limited time, let me take that question and get back to you.
But first say----
Mr. Sherman. Sir, you have got--you got to understand I
have the limited time. I have yielded to you to answer the
question that I have posed rather than to comment on something
else you want to comment on.
Mr. Russel. Fine. I will provide you, Congressman, with a
well-considered written reply.
Mr. Chabot. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. All time has expired and
we want to thank the panel for their testimony here this
afternoon. We thank those for attending.
Members will have 5 days to supplement their statements or
ask questions. If there is no further business to come before
the committee we are adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]