Remarks
Kurt M. Campbell
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Institute of Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University
Bangkok, Thailand
October 10, 2011
Dr. Thitinan, Moderator: His Excellency, Dr. Kurt
Campbell, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
Affairs, Ambassador Kristie Kenney, Excellencies, distinguished members
of the media, distinguished academics, members of the public, students,
good afternoon and welcome to our distinguished public lecture today by
Dr. Campbell.
I want to first apologize for the wait. We had some volatile weather
in Thailand and Dr. Campbell has come at a critical time for us here. We
had ominous flooding disaster in many provinces affecting millions of
lives. So I hope that your presence will chase away the rains and keep
the water level slow.
Now on the logistics, Dr. Campbell has graciously agreed to speak for
20 minutes or so. We have plenty of time for Q and A, up to 40-50
minutes, so please prepare your questions and comments, if necessary,
but please keep them concise and to the point. The topic today is U.S.
engagement in Asia, not just with Asia but in Asia. And I know that Dr.
Campbell will be able to speak the gamut of the issue that we are
concerned with. In Asia, we are very concerned with a number of
issues -- the world economy is wobbly, the debt crisis in Europe,
economic difficulties in the U.S. and many other challenges in the near
term.
In Asia, we’ve been resilient. I’ve been to a number of seminars in
Asia. The two ordering paradigms that are uncontested are that the
international system is going through change. The post-second World War
institutions no longer can respond to the growing challenges and
requirements that we have today. And also in Asia, we have the most
vibrant region but it does not have a vehicle and architecture and
apparatus for resolving conflicts and discord. We can see that in the
South China Sea, a lot of noise in the South China Sea now, a little bit
calm now but unresolved. We have a number of other issues in the
region -- the Korean Peninsula and the, of course, what happens now in
Burma, Myanmar. There are some movements that portend perhaps positive
change but I know that you’ll be able to address that. We want to know
about many things here.
I want to thank the U.S. Embassy and Dr. Campbell for being
accessible and the U.S. as a major power that is the most accessible and
it communicates the most. And it’s also a great power that has power.
We have a number of great powers in the region. We live in a region with
an organization called ASEAN. It’s very important to us in Thailand and
in the neighborhood what happens to ASEAN. ASEAN now has a goal of
having community by 2015. I think that in the ideal world, ASEAN would
like to maintain neutrality and not having any major power around but
since we have to have the major powers, ASEAN insists on a centrality in
regional architecture formation. So a number of issues, and I know that
we sent out the bio, the breathtaking bio of Dr. Kurt Campbell. He’s in
fact a professor, formerly a professor at Harvard University, John F.
Kennedy School, and I suspect that he’ll return to something like that.
He has been in and out of government. His expertise is wide-ranging. It
is very impressive, among his many hats, he has been the founder,
co-founder, of the Center for A New American Security. He has been the
Henry Kissinger Chair of National Security at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies in Washington. He is an accomplished author,
having written and co-authored books on foreign policy, American roles
in Asia, terrorism and even climate change. So his expertise is
enormous. I last had conversation with Dr. Campbell in Washington last
April and he discussed at a dinner on Myanmar and the two Koreas --
future prospects of Myanmar and the two Koreas -- and I know that Dr.
Campbell is a personable, sincere man with a steep expertise in issues
that affect our lives and our times. So without further ado, please join
me in welcoming Dr. Kurt Campbell.
A/S CAMPBELL: That was wonderfully gracious. Thank
you very much. I’m very grateful to be here, to be back in Thailand and
have an opportunity to spend the afternoon with you. Before I get
started, just to go through my remarks, I just want to take a few
moments on behalf of the United States government and indeed all
Americans to reach out to the people of Thailand to offer our most
sincere condolences for the tragedy of the floods that is occurring as
we speak. We are following the situation extraordinarily carefully. I
look forward to having discussions later this afternoon with senior
members of your government and we are committed to do anything we can to
support. We’re watching it carefully. We are in close consultation with
the authorities here and we stand by to be of assistance.
I just want to take a moment, if I can, to pay my respects and
strongest possible support to America’s best. We have sent our finest
ambassador here. I think all of you had a chance to get to know her. She
is a one woman State Department. Kristie Kenney has served with
enormous distinction. I can’t imagine a better person to trust this
important relationship with, and I thank her for her service and all the
people at the U.S. Embassy for what they are doing.
I’d like to just make a few general remarks about U.S. policy in Asia
and then hopefully talk specifically about the partnership of Thailand
and some of the hopes that we have over the course of the next several
months. Obviously, we celebrate your successful election and we’re
working closely with the new government, seeking to build deeper ties on
our relationship that is remarkable and historical. Let me first say
that this period of American engagement in Asia probably will best be
understood only in retrospect because it’s difficult to understand the
full scope without looking at it in a global basis. And what I would
suggest is the United States is in a process now of one of the most
important transitions -- repositioning, rebalancing of American foreign
policy priorities in our history.
And what you will see over the course of the next few years is the
United States responsibly shifting its resources and capabilities more
from the Middle East and South Asia towards Asia and East Asia as a
whole. I think we understand quite deeply and profoundly that the
majority of the history of the 21st century will be written in the
Asia-Pacific region. Clearly, although we have enduring important
responsibilities in the Middle East and South Asia, we recognize that
the future is here and as we think about the major sets of developments
that we want here, we want a major chapter devoted to an enduring and
strong American presence in the Asia-Pacific region. So we are committed
to taking these steps to transition from the Middle East and South Asia
more towards Asia and the Pacific as well.
Now, when you think about that kind of transition, you think well,
that can’t be that difficult at a fundamental level. But if you look
historically at the United States, you will recognize that this is an
extraordinarily challenging endeavor and there are many things that
could take it off course and we have to be vigilant to several of them.
One is that it would be difficult to imagine a more demanding period
than the period that we are living in with respect to the Middle East.
Enormous changes, the Jasmine Revolution, ongoing conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan and numerous challenges on a daily basis. We will continue
to play a strong role in the Middle East and South Asia but again, the
demands, the importance of the Asia- Pacific region beckons.
A second reason is the call to come home. If you look historically at
American major endeavors on the battlefield, like after the First World
War, after the Second World War, after the Korean conflict, after
Vietnam, there is a tendency on the part of Americans, and even on the
part of some strategists, to come home, to focus more attention on
domestic pursuits. Now clearly, we believe and we argue forcefully that
because America’s future is so inextricably connected with the Pacific
and with Asia, it is essential that we remain engaged strongly, and that
we find that when we withdraw from global politics on this sort of
order that very bad things tend to happen.
So we would argue strongly against isolationist voices and that
commentary that suggests that the United States should reposition itself
more towards domestic endeavors. And I think we’ll be successful on
both counts.
When you ask yourself a question about an American engagement with
deep consequences, what are the elements of that and how is it being
advanced in a course of American diplomacy? I’d like to go through
several aspects of what we start to do over the course of the last
couple of years. And what I expect future Secretaries of State, future
Presidents to follow through on.
One of the things that we are grateful for is that I know all of you
follow some politics, at least, in the United States. Clearly, there is
enormous controversy around almost every issue in politics in the United
States. However, we have been the beneficiaries in Asia of generally a
bipartisan commitment. One of the things that we have seen over decades
is the belief that the core principles of American engagement are
consistent with both political parties, and we are grateful for that and
we seek to build on that and hand that off to a new administration in
good shape, with a desire to see those policies continued. The basis of
how we seek to proceed at the Asia-Pacific region is maintaining a
strong security in political alliances. And we believe that those
alliances are in no way inconsistent with other aspects of architectural
development that my colleague talked about in his very nice
introduction.
So if we look at our relationships with Japan, with Korea, with
Thailand, with the Philippines, with Australia and our other strong
political partnerships like with Singapore and the like, we believe that
those relationships are central to an enduring American century of
purpose in the Asia-Pacific region. But these alliances require constant
attention. A great Secretary of State, George Schultz, once talked
about it as if it were gardening, the idea that you need to get out all
the time to work to ensure that the garden was healthy. I think it’s a
useful metaphor but in many respects it goes beyond that because it is
not simply maintenance of something that is existing. Asian
architecture, in terms of our bilateral relationships, requires constant
updating and our reflection of new challenges that we face on a daily
basis.
Later this week, the Korean president will be coming to the United
States. I think it’d be fair to say that U.S.-Korean relationships have
never been stronger. And obviously, we have worked very closely over the
course of the last two years with the new government in Japan. I think
there’s now a deep recognition in Japan across the full spectrum of
political leadership, that a close relationship with the United States
is an essential feature of a successful Japanese foreign policy and we
believe that in order to operate effectively in the Asia-Pacific region,
we also need a closer relationship with Japan.
Each one of these alliances we seek to nurture, to update and to
support and one of the reasons that I’m here meeting with our Ambassador
and our interlocutors in Thailand are to take those steps over the
course of the next year to ensure that our extraordinarily vibrant
relationship with Thailand grows and keeps pace with the challenges of
the 21st century. So the top of what we’re doing is sustaining these
security partnerships.
Secondly, we recognize fully and fundamentally that we need to extend
our relationship building beyond this traditional core of key partners.
And, so, that is the reason why we work so closely with a broad range
of players in the Asia Pacific region to develop a new kind of
capabilities and new relationships.
President Obama spent a good part of his youth in Indonesia, and that
has given us really enormous unprecedented opportunities to develop a
different kind of relationship with Indonesia. We’ve consequently
developed a comprehensive partnership which seeks to build the much
closer relationship between the United States and Indonesia.
India is a country that increasingly looks to the future, to the Asia
Pacific region. And we believe that the current Indian government
policy of looking east is one of the most important contributions that
India can make to develop commerce and global prosperity. We have been
working closely with India to ensure that as they deepen their ties and
relationships in the Asian Pacific region that we do it in such a way
that we build trust and confidence. The United States has been deeply
involved in trying to engage India in a variety of what we might call
mini-lateral meetings. We will seek discussions between the United
States, India, and Japan, and we have begun discussions about how we
advance important conversations including the United States, India, and
China -- the three great emerging powers of the Asia Pacific region, but
it doesn’t stop there.
Virtually, every country in Asia currently is involved in a deep
strategic set of interactions with the United States. Malaysia, New
Zealand -- the country that we have remarkably little connectivity with
militarily or strategically for 25 years -- has now seen a renaissance
in relations with Washington. All the countries of ASEAN and indeed as
what was noted in the introduction, we have started also to reach out to
Nay Pyi Daw to try to develop a new kind of relationship with
Myanmar -- Burma.
In addition to these critical relationships, clearly it is of vital
importance for the United States and China to work together in the 21st
century. It is among the most important relationships and we spend an
enormous amount of time on economic, on political, on cultural, on
strategic issues. And I would simply say that on virtually every level
we have started to build a stronger, deeper, more comprehensive and more
positive relationship between the United States and China. We fully
recognize that this is among the most complex relationships that the
United States has ever had with any country and will take remarkable
effort to ensure a possible forward-looking agenda in the future.
After the stop in Thailand, I’ll be going to Beijing to be meeting
with my counterpart Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai for what we call
the Asia Pacific Consultations. This is part of the process to deepen
our understanding of mutual perspective on critical issues like the
developments on the Korean peninsula, the situation in Southeast Asia,
the role of North Korea cross-Strait dynamics. Every aspect of Asian
security, politics, and economics will be discussed. And we are seeking
to find those areas where the United States and China can work together
productively, and, just as importantly, identify those areas where the
mistrust or the potential for accident or miscalculation, and seek to
focus on our effort to prevent incidents or developments from escalating
that could in some way risk larger relations between our two great
nations. So, I just want to underscore that the United States is very
much committed to ensuring a strong progressive partnership between
Beijing and Washington.
In addition to these political and strategic ties, I think it is
clear that one of the most important things that Asia looks at for the
United States is that we continue to play a role as an open optimistic
engaged trade and economic partner. And clearly the events of the last
week or so, I think, underscore our enduring commitment in this regard.
President Obama submitted three important trade agreements to Congress
last week. We’re expected to create a trade agreement which is the most
significant trade negotiation that the United States has had for decades
to be voted on Wednesday before the arrival in the United States of
President Lee Myung-bak. In addition, we are looking for APEC to make
consequential efforts towards a framework agreement between all the key
partners in the so-called Trans Pacific Partnership. This, we believe,
is an extraordinarily important 21st century trade agreement that have
enormous possibilities for the region and the participants in this
overall organization.
We believe that as you look at the Asia Pacific region and you look
at what’s necessary over the course of the next several years, a major
re-balancing in which Americans need to save more and frankly, Asians --
and in particular China and others -- need to invest more and purchase
more products from places like the United States. And that re-balancing
can be one of the most important contributions to stability on the
global economic scene.
But I will say all of my conversations in addition to our important
security role, almost every country looks to the United States to
continue to play a strong and confident role on the economic side. And
we recognize that there are concerns about the United States, but I
would simply state to you clearly that if you look over the history of
the last 25 or 30 years, there have been a number of times when
observers have counted us out or down. After the Vietnam War, there was a
belief that the United States had lost and we were withdrawing from the
region permanently. At the end of the Cold War, there was a belief that
we had exhausted ourselves and that we would be unable to play a
consequential and deep role in the Asia Pacific region.
And more recently, there had been conversations about whether the
United States had finally met its match on the global scene and that we
would somehow withdraw. I would simply say that the United States has
deep enduring qualities, including our ability to innovate, to modernize
our efficiencies, and our educational systems are such that we, I
believe, are destined to play a strong critical, primary role in the
Asia Pacific region for decades to come. And I think that one of the
reasons that we are involved in the global re-positioning is to send
this critical message.
So, in addition to the strategic and economic dimensions of our
engagement, one of the important points that our hosts underscore is
that there has generally been a lack of critical deep institutions over
the course of the last several years in Asia. There are a number of
important institutions, but they have yet to find their full footing on
some of the important security, political and economic issues.
Last year we were extraordinarily grateful that the United States was
invited to join the East Asia Summit. After APEC in Honolulu, President
Obama will be going to Bali to meet with the other leaders of the East
Asia Summit. We are seeking to make a major effort to build and help
support the institutions of Asia in the 21st century and there are
several of them.
Perhaps the most important one that gets the least attention as an
Asian institution is actually the G-20. It’s remarkable how the Bush
administration and the Obama administration had made the transition from
the G-8, which was essentially a European architecture, to the G-20,
which with fully half of its members from Asia play a critical role on a
variety of fronts in terms of sustaining engagement in the Asia Pacific
region. We have joined the East Asia Summit. We’ve started to play a
major in the ASEAN Regional Forum. We found that of late the ASEAN
Regional Forum has played a critical role in providing a venue for
discussions for issues of maritime security and the like. And we look
for that process to continue.
In Bali, the President will also host his ASEAN counterparts for the
third U.S.-ASEAN Leaders’ meeting. And in that session, we will advance a
number of major new initiatives. The United States is working with a
number of states. We send a large number of English trainers throughout
Southeast Asia to advance the teaching of English. We are working to
support what we call the Lower Mekong Initiative. The Mekong is one of
the world’s great rivers and it’s under siege - environmentally there
are lots of challenges. We have a sister river with the Mississippi. And
we work closely with a number of countries and global institutions and
international financial institutions to support work aimed at improving
the health and understanding the dynamics associated with the Mekong.
These institutional commitments are extraordinarily important because
we believe for Asia to play its critical role in the 21st century, we
need better, more sustaining institutions to help support dialogue
cooperation across a range of issues. And we are confident that the
region is prepared for a period of intense institution building. The
United States wants to be part of that.
In the past we’d been somewhat ambivalent about whether we want or we
need to be engaged. I would say that the new American approach is if
it’s an important setting, if you’re talking about critical, political,
strategic or economic issues, we’d like to sit at the table. And as
such, we are committed to playing a vital role in these meetings.
In addition to all of these, we obviously want to sustain what we
think is one of the most important contributions that we bring to the
Asia Pacific region, and that is our security presence. We have provided
the peace stability, working with partners and allies for the better
part of the last half century. And I would argue that in many respects
the last 30 or 40 or 50 years in which we’ve seen remarkable progress
economically and politically in many ways have been underwritten by the
full presence of the United States and we will seek to continue that
effort and to diversify it. So, you’ll see over the course of the next
several months and the next few years efforts on the part of the United
States to diversify our capability from a small number of bases in
Northeast Asia to a range and myriad of different kinds of arrangements
throughout Southeast Asia and also with Australia, as well.
So, taken together what we believe this suggests is a full-court
effort to step up our game with a full and deep recognition that the
United States needs to play this kind of decisive role in the most
critical region on the planet.
Now, with respect to Thailand, we’re here over the course of the next
day or so, and then again later in the year when the President has an
opportunity to meet with the new prime minister to engage deeply with
the new leaders of Thailand to underscore our commitment to this
partnership and to find areas and arenas where we can deepen our
cooperation and find new venues for our work together. We’re thrilled by
the success of recent elections. We’ve followed the developments here
closely.
And I am very grateful to be able to be here with you today. I think I
probably have talked long enough that I have at least given you a
little bit of a sense of what we are seeking to accomplish. I will tell
you at a personal level I cannot imagine a greater chance and the
service in this capacity at this time when the United States is prepared
to fulfill its destiny of continuing a strong role in the Asia Pacific
region. Thank you all very much. And please if you will, when you ask
your question and if it’s a statement, just put at the end ‘Aren’t I
right?’ or something like that. Or, identify yourself, so I’ll know who
you are and we’ll have a better conversation. So, thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you. Assistant Secretary Campbell
has given us an extensive survey of the global landscape and the
regional review. Also, I…
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Campbell for a substantive survey…
MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Campbell for a substantive survey…
A/S CAMPBELL: Thank you.
Moderator cont’d: On the global landscape and the regional
development on video. Also I think the basketball analogy is apt. The
U.S., if I may summarize your remarks, is engaged in a full court
exercise, not just bilateral man to man, but the U.S. treats the region
as a region. This has been a recent development that our neighborhood
appreciates. The floor is now open to questions and comments. Please
just identify yourself very briefly and go ahead. The first comes from
Marawan Makar of Interpress Service.
QUESTION: Good afternoon. Yeah, it’s a question
about Burma/Myanmar. A couple of, -- a few days ago the Burmese
government signed what seems like a peace agreement with the United Wa
State Army. The U.S. Government considers the UWSA a narcotic
organization and has banned it. My question to you is would you
encourage these talks in the spirit of promoting dialogue given that
you’ve got them on the banned list and also concerned secondly that the
UWSA may be a Trojan horse of the Chinese given the strong ties between
the UWSA and the Chinese government?
A/S CAMPBELL: Let me, if I can to answer your
specific question with a broader answer, if I may. As you know two years
ago after an extensive review, the United States decided to try a
different approach with respect to our diplomatic efforts with regard to
Burma. We have been engaged in a number of conversations with the
previous government and subsequently since the recent elections. Now I
think it would be fair to say the elections themselves were flawed in
many critical ways and we have continuing concerns about a number of
developments inside the country. But, it is also undeniably the case
that there are dramatic developments under way. There has been a very
consequential dialogue between the leader and between Aung San Suu Kyi.
She has had some guardedly careful remarks, but nevertheless remarks
that underscore her commitment to a process of dialogue -- ongoing
discussion with the leadership of the country. We have certain
[inaudible]... We have made clear our desire to see continuing progress
on issues such as prisoner releases and what we would consider to be
important aspects of dialogue between the central government and various
ethnic groups inside the country. And, obviously we have clear red
lines with respect to the proliferation concerns and relationships that
have existed in the past between Burma and North Korea. We have stated
clearly that we are prepared for a new chapter in our relations, and we
are watching carefully developments on the ground. And I think it would
be fair to say we will match their steps with comparable steps and we
are looking forward over the course of the next several weeks to
continuing a dialogue that has really stepped up in recent months. So, I
would say we are careful. We are watching the situation closely. There
are some developments that clearly demand greater attention and focus.
We are in deep conversations with our partners in ASEAN, in Europe, and
elsewhere. One of the issues will be discussing this afternoon with Thai
authorities are their assessments. Obviously Thailand has enormous
insights into the situation on the ground. I look forward to hearing
those from our/my counterparts directly. It’s too early, too soon, to
make any final judgments, but at the same time, it’s also too soon to
dismiss them, as well. So, we are in the midst of a deep diplomatic
process which I expect will continue.
MODERATOR: Yes, second question from the ambassador of Poland.
QUESTION: Yes, I am the ambassador from Poland. Just
one question sir, if possible, on the South China Sea, which become a
sort of an internal Chinese lake, if you look at Chinese maps right now.
How do you see the future of this area because it has become a flash
point and one of the major points or agendas of all regional meetings
recently? Thank you.
A/S CAMPBELL: Yes, well, first of all just let me
say that I think there is a deep recognition in Asia that its prosperity
rests on maritime security and the confidence that freedom of
navigation, freedom of the seas will be respected. The United States has
clearly articulated our national interest in this regard, and
determination to maintain peace and stability. Secretary Clinton has
welcomed the diplomatic process that we’ve seen to date between ASEAN
and China. We believe that it’s an important first step and we’d like it
to continue. There are a number of workshops and interactions that are
under way in the region which we think is important in terms of
improving communication and, if at all possible, removing areas of
potential mistakes or miscalculations. We recognize that these are long
standing issues. We think that questions associated with sovereignty
need to be resolved using the criteria carefully set up in the law of
the sea. The United States is not a claimant, so we do not take
particular positions. Our primary interest is in the manner in which
issues are discussed. We insist they are done in a way that does not
involve coercion or threats, and we welcome a diplomatic process that
underscores the larger commitment that all Asian-Pacific countries have
in the maintenance of peace and stability.
MODERATOR: OK. The next question from Professor
Wiwat Mugandee. Professor Wiwat taught American Foreign Policy here at
Chulalongkorn University for many years.
QUESTION: Well, thank you, Dr. Thitinan. Welcome.
A/S CAMPBELL: Thank you. It’s an honor to see you again, sir.
QUESTION cont’d: Distinguished speaker, I would like
to thank you for the sensible and encouraging statement. There’s no
better policy than engagement and I think that you are correct. But how
you going to convince the people in this part of the world, or the
countries in this part of the world, your willingness will be matched by
your resources, given the situation that you have troubled economy at
home, at the moment. It might be better later on. And also given the
emerging “mutual” politics of regionalization that intensify relation of
ASEAN countries together more than ever? I think the United States have
to put more effort against the tide of this regionalization. How would
you bridge the gap between your intension and your capability? Thank
you.
A/S CAMPBELL: Thank you, sir. As expected, an
excellent and thought provoking question. I thank you for it. Let me say
I think the United States has many advantages in the set of
circumstances you lay out. First and foremost is I have been working on
Asia for at least a little while, most of my career, about 25 years. I
have worked in this particular capacity for three years. I have never,
ever seen a situation in which the United States’ role has been more
encouraged. In fact, every single country that we visit says, not only
“welcome,” but, “when are you coming again?” So there is an enormous
desire to have the United States more deeply engaged. And that has not
always been the case. I think, secondly, we come with a deep recognition
that every country in Asia wants to improve its relationship with
China. We recognize how important it is, and that is not geo-strategy,
it’s geography. Every country wants a better relationship with China. We
understand that and we support that. And we believe that a good
relationship with the United States can help support a country in its
overall efforts to have a good relationship with China. So, I think that
under riding fact has been an enormous advantage for the United States
going forward. Secondly, let’s keep in mind it’s not as if the United
States is starting from scratch. We have decades of experience in the
Asia- Pacific region, and lots of periods in the past where you
questioned whether we would have the staying power to maintain our
capability. I think it is undeniably the case that over the last couple
of years we have dramatically stepped up our game and I would believe
that that will continue going forward. In fact, I have to say one of the
most, you know, in an environment of anxiety that we all live in, I
often get the question, “Will you be able to continue this level of
engagement?” Let me just say that’s a lot better question than, “Will
you have any engagement at all?” So, I like that fact that there’s at
least a recognition that we have stepped up our game. And then lastly, I
think it’s important to recognize the last year or two have been
challenging economically for the United States. But at the same time, we
have demonstrated time and time again an ability to recover and come
back stronger. And I fully believe if you look at every indicator with
respect to efficiencies and business capacities to regroup and engage, I
think the United States has every reason to be confident, and Asia has
every reason to be confident in American capabilities. I will also say,
that, remember for decades the United States has largely been a self --
sufficient economy. Most of our products, goods and services, have been
sold inside the United States, or in the immediate vicinity. We are in
many respects now just on the verge of the beginning of finding
substantial export markets in the Asia-Pacific region. Clearly sectors
-- aerospace and the like -- have been successful, but I believe we are
on the verge of a dramatic increase in our economic and political
engagement in Asia. And I am very confident about that. And I would also
say that some of our efforts that we are undertaking at the State
Department recognize and reflect the new qualities of what’s necessary
for the Asia-Pacific region. Here I want to commend -- one of the things
Ambassador Kenney is fantastic about is realizing that new age
diplomacy is not issuing scripts with, you know, wax/seals, it’s much
more innovative, using new kinds of technologies and capabilities. The
United States last year -- President Obama, Secretary Clinton launched
an initiative that will, over the course of four years, see the number
of American students going to China to the level of about 100,000. That
is a dramatic increase from just over a few years in the past. I think
there is a recognition at every level that if you want to be successful
you need to understand more about China. This is not simply a program
that brings government resources to the table. In fact remarkably few
government resources are involved. This is a public-private partnership
where American foundations, other companies have made massive
contributions in order to support this overall endeavor. We think
increasing this level of exchange between students, between
universities, underscores our commitment to the region as a whole. So,
I’d say quite honestly, I am confident, at a strategic level, that the
United States grasps the importance of this moment. And I can only tell
you what I believe and where I think the United States will go. I think
the two things that I would underscore is look at our history and also a
recognition that the evidence is in our performance. And, I would
simply say watch our performance, watch this space. OK?
MODERATOR: Yes. Peter Jansen, from DPA. Please.
QUESTION: I’m sorry.
MODERATOR: Excuse me. You’re next. Peter Jansen.
QUESTION: Peter Jansen, DPA.
A/S CAMPBELL: Hi Peter.
QUESTION: Just a follow up question on
Myanmar/Burma, Burma/Myanmar. You said you were ready to match every
step that the government takes with your own step. Could you possibly
spell out what some of those steps might be because obviously
everybody’s waiting for an amnesty? It might happen very quickly. People
are waiting to see if NLD will join the by-election that might happen
fairly soon. But, can you just sort of give us some idea of what’s in
store here and what we can expect?
MODERATOR: Dr. Campbell, excuse me, let me
interrupt. Let me take a round on Burma/Myanmar, I know there are a lot
of concerns about the recent movements. Any other questions or comments
related to recent movements in Burma/Myanmar? Please. Tell us your name.
QUESTION: [Inaudible]) One more question is that you
mention about the new relationship with Myanmar. What kind of a
relationship do you expect to have with Myanmar in the near future?
MODERATOR: And then there was one or two more. Hassina Koyokoyi, a journalist, and then you, sir.
QUESTION: This is Miata from the BBC Burmese
Service, Bangkok bureau. My question is, you are going to China to meet
with your counterpart, so where is Burmese policy between your relation
with China? And then my second question is when will you go again to
Burma to discuss with Myanmar officials to increase more cooperation or
diplomatic ties between Myanmars? I mean sir, will you appoint
ambassador level soon between two countries? And my third question is
recently the Burmese government suspended the Myitsone damn project,
it’s a very huge project in Myanmar. So, is it possible that for you to
lift the sanctions?
MODERATOR: OK. We’ll take this as a round on Burma/Myanmar. Would you like a piece of paper, Dr. Campbell?
A/S CAMPBELL: I don’t need it because I am not going
to answer all those questions. So, I…just to be blunt. So, I appreciate
the chance. Let me underscore a couple of points, if I can. First of
all, we do discuss the situation in Burma with a variety of countries,
including all of the countries in Southeast Asia, many of which have
passed consequential messages for us. We also discuss this with European
countries, with Northeast Asian countries, with India, and also with
China. In the past, our discussions with China have been to urge Chinese
leaders to underscore in their interactions with Nay Pyi Daw that the
leaders take this opportunity to engage and to establish and new kind of
relationship, not only with the United States, but with the
international community, and take the necessary steps. We’ve explained
why we think such a move in actually in China’s best interest and that
it is not in China’s interest to have Burma be an outcast and shunned
globally. And, we also have underscored the potential for refugees that
could cross into China and that instability there is not in their
interest. We’ve had useful discussions with counterparts in China, and I
think that’s probably all I’ll say in this respect. And we know that
they have deep interactions in Nay Pyi Daw on a regular basis. Secondly,
I think it would be fair to say that the pace of our diplomacy both in
the region, with Europe, Northeast Asia has stepped up very, very
substantially in recent months as we watch carefully at every
development whether it be the suspense of the damn, whether it be the
dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, other elements within debates in the
parliament, we watch all of those steps very carefully. And I will
underscore, and clearly state we have also had discussions with
representatives of the government. I think at this stage I am
comfortable only saying the United States is prepared to match the steps
that have taken, have been taken, and we are in the process of
consultations inside the U.S. government, also with key players on our,
in our legislative branch on Capitol Hill. We still think it’s early,
and there is much that is left to be done. And we have enduring
concerns, but at the same time we have to reflect on what appears to be
substantial steps that are underway inside the country, and we hope this
will lead Burma towards a better future. And, if they take that path,
the United States and other countries would like to support them towards
that better future. I don’t think I can….and I know that there will be a
lot of other questions, I’m not going to get into other specifics on
this, and I’ll apologize, but we’re right in the midst of some of this
discussion and I think that’s as good as I can do for you here today.
MODERATOR: It’s understood. Good. Thank you. Hassina Koyokoti?
QUESTION: Hi Ambassador Campbell. Hassina
[inaudible], freelance correspondent. We appreciate that you can’t get
into specifics, but could you outline for us the steps that need to take
place before you will match, have comparable steps. For instance, what
will Myanmar/Burma need to do before sanctions will be lifted? And
you’ve talked about the substantial changes taking place in
Burma/Myanmar. How surprised are you by these changes? And if you could
also give us some information about Burmese leader Thein Sein, how much
of his own man is he? And, how much of a domestic backlash do you expect
from the hawkish factions in the….in Burma/Myanmar? Thank you.
A/S CAMPBELL: Those are hard questions. I’m not
going to lay out again the answer matching for matching. We have
consistently said over the course of several years the areas of our
concern, and I think I articulated those at the outset, but I will
quickly go through them again. Obviously we’d like to see continuing
sustained dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD. We would need to
see progress in terms of some of the domestic diplomacy with regard to
continuing abuses and challenges with respect to ethnic groups inside
the country. We have enduring concerns both past and present on
interactions with North Korea that are antithetical to UN Security
Council, or rather that are in violation of UN Security Council
resolutions. There are a number of other issues associated with
political prisoners and the conduct of political life inside the
country. Now, it would be fair to say that, compared to what we’ve
experienced in the past, there are clearly changes afoot. But we’re at
the very early stages of that process and we are looking to see whether
they will be sustained, whether they will continue, and whether they
will grow. So, we understand very clearly what the areas that we’re
looking to in terms of sustained progress and we’ve communicated those
areas clearly to our interlocutors, and there’s no secret on this.
That’s been the case for many years. And we stand vigilant in terms of
seeking true progress in each of these areas. I think it would be fair
to say that we do not, we cannot know about the internal politics inside
the country. And, we have attempted to engage across a number of
sectors and to keep as many lines of communication open as possible,
but, you know, the process of what goes on behind the scenes is still in
many ways a mystery to us. And then simply, I have had a chance to meet
Thein Sein, I met him when he was the prime minister in the previous
government and we had a short meeting, and it would be difficult for me
to make any assessment, but several people who have met with him
consider him a very serious interlocutor and a man prepared to engage
differently. And, we’re in the process of playing that out.
MODERATOR: Thank you. I think the gentleman over here had a hand up.
QUESTION: My name is Joe Masler. I am columnist with
the Thai Manager magazine [inaudible] 360 Degrees. My question is more a
general question, it refers to a statement you made earlier. You
clearly stated that there is hardly any shared point of view among the
two major parties in the U.S. on any major political issue, but you
stated that in terms of Asia there is a common ground and bipartisan
engagement. So, the objectives may be the same, the direction may be the
same, but I assume there are some differences on the steps which might
be taken to achieve both directions. And, as we have a next year
election in the U.S., and there might be, let’s just assume for one
second there is a change in political leadership, can you briefly
outline what are the major differences in terms of its engagement in
Asia between the two major parties in the U.S.? And what changes might
occur in case there is a change in political leadership next year?
Thanks a lot.
A/S CAMPBELL: First of all, there’s no manual for
how to have a job like mine. One of the few things that people teach you
though is don’t answer hypothetical questions. So, I will simply give
you a broader answer, but I’m not going to get into a speculation about
our coming political season. I would simply say if you would look at
most of the key foundations of our approach in Asia, there’s a strong
bipartisan commitment to a, to an enduring defense and security set of
cooperations in the Asia-Pacific region. That is undeniably the case.
They were strengthened in the Clinton and the Bush and now the Obama
administrations. So a very clear determination in that respect. The
Korea free trade agreement that was just signed by President Obama was
negotiated during the Bush administration. The major engagement with
India in the Asia-Pacific region was first launched by President Bush.
It was one of his most strategic endeavors to bring India into the
international community, and it was sustained and continued and
diversified under this administration. I believe all the critical
components: trade, economics, strategic and political, there is broad
consensus in terms of how to overall engage in the Asian-Pacific region.
And, I would simply say, if you look at China-U.S. policy, probably the
most challenging and consequential aspect of diplomacy, for the United
States in the Asian-Pacific region, the succession of eight presidents
has essentially made a commitment towards an engagement strategy which
recognizes that a good relationship between the United States and China
is in the best interests in all players and that the Asian-Pacific
region is big enough for the both of us.
MODERATOR: Yes. Zhan Kiti. Professor Kiti from Thammsat University’s faculty of political science.
QUESTION: OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for
Dr. Campbell. Well, I have a question regarding regional institutions. I
think you mentioned in your statement that the U.S. wants to be a part
in regional institution building for regional cooperation in East Asia,
and in the upcoming East Asia summit that will be taking place in
November. So, my question is, what would you expect for institution.
What kind of institution that U.S. expects to be, to have in East Asia,
specifically during the East Asia summit? Will the U.S. propose
something for institution building because it’s the first time the U.S.
came to take part in the summit so I guess the U.S. may come up with
some big proposal? Thank you.
A/S CAMPBELL: Thank you. It’s an excellent question.
Let me try to answer it. First of all, one of the most important things
that the United States did at the outset -- Secretary Clinton -- was to
try…sign the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation which allowed us to engage
in a more substantial way with ASEAN. And we recognize, as our
chairperson has indicated, that ASEAN is at the core of the most
important developments and institution building in Asia. We support that
and we believe that is a critical fact. You will note that in recent
years the country that was the first to send an ambassador to ASEAN in
Jakarta was the United States, an outside ambassador. And we believe
that this attempt to establish a workable secretariat is a critical
component to putting down deeper roots in terms of institution building
as a whole. Now the question that you ask about the United States coming
to the East Asia Summit is a delicate one because we are new comers to
an institution that is already well established. I will tell you one of
the wonderful things about working for President Obama is, I’ve been
around a lot of political leaders in my life, but I’ve never been with
one who is a better listener. A better…He has the best ability of anyone
I have ever seen to really listen, seriously listen to what others
around him are saying and to get the flow of conversation. In many
respects he understands the ASEAN way. And so when the United States
comes to the East Asia Summit, we intend to engage on the five subject
areas that have been established over the course of several years. And
we believe that we’ll bring some critical contributions to each of these
areas, but in addition, we will carefully, carefully suggest that there
might be other areas that we could expect to see dialogue and
discussion among all the critical countries. I think the United States
would like to have a discussion in the EAS on the importance of
maintaining maritime security. I think one of the challenges that we
have faced in terms of the dramatic natural disasters that have hit Asia
over the course of the last several years, think about it, the tragedy
of Aceh, the nuclear horrors of Fukushima, and now the terrible flooding
of Thailand. We need to be able to take steps in advance, all the
countries of Asia, that will allow us to respond more comprehensibly
together to meet challenges of either a region or a specific country. So
we will come to the table with some ideas on humanitarian cooperation
in advance of crisis, not just after. And frankly, we have enormous
areas of lessons learned from this recent experience of trauma that has
taken us through Asia. And lastly, if we look at common challenges like
proliferation, we all have an interest ensuring that nuclear weapons,
not nuclear technology, not proliferate in the Asia-Pacific region. I
think there are steps that our countries working together that we can
take that will limit those challenges. So, I think the United States
will come with some ideas. We will advance them carefully, but we will
advance them in the spirit of a partner, someone who will listen to the
concerns of others and will be clear about our desire to work together
in an environment in which we all share principle interests, again in
the maintenance of peace and stability and prosperity.
MODERATOR: OK. We have time for perhaps one or two more.
A/S CAMPBELL: I will try to do my best to remember
questions. So if you want to take a few questions, I will try to
remember them and answer them. I see the gentleman here with the black
t-shirt has been very patient.
MODERATOR: We’ll take the last round. Jerry Harmer from AP TV, then we’ll take Simon in the back and this lady over here.
QUESTION: So this morning, as you may be aware, an
American citizen faced the Thai court here, charged with insulting the
Royal Family. I’m wondering do you have any specific concerns about that
case and the implications of that case and will you be making any of
your concerns clear during this visit?
A/S CAMPBELL: First, thank you for your question. I
would simply say that members of our embassy team were there today in
the court. We do have a strong belief in freedom of the press and we
will continue to raise this case directly with Thai authorities. I think
that’s probably all I’ll say about it at this juncture.
MODERATOR: Simon. Tell us your full name, Simon.
QUESTION: [Inaudible] And just to follow on from
that, there’s a separate case say filed against another U.S. citizen in
California with a separate legal action following on in the U.S. from
that, so maybe you could comment on that too. Two other quick ones. Why
is the U.S. not selling Taiwan the more advanced model F-16s it’s been
seeking? And also, can you give an overview of what’s going to be
discussed when the Korean president comes to the U.S. later this week?
A/S CAMPBELL: OK. Three very diverse….Let me try to
go back. On the first question, sir, I don’t have enough information
about that to give you, so I’ll try to make sure that our embassy
directly provides information on that first case which I am just not
aware of and I apologize for that. The…when President Lee Myung-bak
comes to the United States, I think there are a range of things that we
are going to want to discuss. One of the most important things that has
happened in recent years is what we would refer to as a global Korea.
Korea has been one of the most successful countries in Northeast Asia,
but they are working more and more with the United States and other
countries in the international realm. One of the countries that was most
engaged and entrepreneurial in the aftermath of Haiti was Korea with
ideas for creating manufacturing sites that would work cooperatively
with the United States and Korea. They have been deeply engaged with us
in a variety of areas in the Middle East and in Asia as a whole. So, I
think we are going to want to talk about how the United States and Korea
can make sure that we have opportunities for close cooperation in a
whole range of new challenges. In addition, I think, obviously, our two
countries will talk about where we are in terms of our engagement with
North Korea. It’s very clear that the North Koreans in the past have
tried to split us, split our alliance, to create tension. One of the
things that we’re extraordinarily proud of is that the United States and
Korea have never had a closer alignment. We’ve never been closer and we
have orchestrated and cooperated in every aspect of our diplomacy with
respect to North Korea. And, we share a very clear determination that we
are only interested in serious efforts on the part of North Korea. We
will not resume a diplomatic path that has failed in the past. We need
to see sincere, clear efforts and a different kind of determination to
proceed ahead with de-nuclearization. On the situation on Taiwan, I
think you may have seen, I had the good fortune to testify on Monday
before the, or Tuesday I guess, House Armed Services….House Foreign
Affairs Committee, and I think we stated very clearly there that we take
the preservation of peace and stability across the Taiwan Straits as
one of our most important contributions to the Asian-Pacific region. We
abide very closely by the foundational aspects of our relationships in
the western Pacific in that regard, the three communiqués of the
Taiwanese Relations Act, the so-called Six Assurances, we believe those
have been the foundation for our engagement and they have served us well
over the course of many years. Taiwan enjoys prosperity, security, and
frankly an unprecedented level of dialogue across the Taiwan Strait and
that is due in no small part to the U.S. role in terms of our engagement
with the key players across the Taiwan Strait. We welcome the diplomacy
that has taken place in recent years and we believe that the steps we
have taken to provide defense articles to Taiwan have been the
appropriate ones, and I would simply say that if you look at the arms
sales in 2010 and 2011 that have been made by the Obama administration,
they are more than any other two comparable years since the signing of
the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979. So we think we’ve done the right
thing, we have ruled nothing out for the future, and we are prepared to
support in the maintenance of peace and stability going forward.
MODERATOR: Thank you, last question from the lady in the pink shirt, did you have a question? Please go ahead.
QUESTION: My name is Mani Shan, I am RFA Laos
Service. My question is very specific regarding Laos. Since you know
it’s hard for me, you know, to have somebody to talk about it very, you
know. And my question is what is the status of the relationship between
Laos and the U.S. in terms of the present and in the future? Will there
be any more cooperation in the future?
A/S CAMPBELL: First, thank you very much, and I
appreciate the question. One of the best trips I’ve had the opportunity
to take as an Assistant Secretary was to visit Laos to launch a new
strategic dialogue that is taking place between the government of Laos
and the United States, and we’ve had a return visit as well, and we’re
looking forward in the coming months to have another opportunity to sit
down with our Laotian counterparts. There are a variety of areas that we
are working on together. One is enduring issues associated with health.
And those programs continue. We also believe that there are steps in
terms of unexploded ordnance, the legacy of the Vietnam War, that there
are important things that the United States and Laos can do together and
we have worked together in those areas. We have worked on some cultural
and educational exchanges. Obviously, we’re in a different budgetary
situation than we have been in the past, but nevertheless I think our
government is committed to take the necessary steps to improve our
communication and our engagement. Laotian students and military officers
have had a chance to study at the Asia-Pacific Center in Hawaii and
we’re looking always for areas we can support a better and a deeper
relationship between our two countries. I, frankly, have enjoyed those
discussions as much as any I’ve had and I look forward to continuing
them looking forward. I can take one more question.
MODERATOR: Last one. Mr. Tomora, of Japan Overseas Development Corporation.
QUESTION: Thank you very much Ambassador Campbell.
My name is Tomorrow, from JODC, which is a Japanese government
development agency. And my question is related, Dr. Campbell, and
especially I am very interested in how the United States would propose
or get engaged in economic pillars of this ASEAN and East Asian
integration, especially in terms of connectivity. The United States
would have big benefit by the contribution of the United States,
plentiful knowledge, but I have not yet seen concrete proposal or
orientation from the United States in terms of economic pillar, so I’m
very interested.
A/S CAMPBELL: Thank you, it’s an excellent question.
And I would simply say that we recognize the new effort toward
connectivity is extremely important. And the United States needs to join
in this effort and that when President Obama hosts the next round of
the U.S.-ASEAN Summit, which will be our 3rd meeting since he’s taken
office, in Hawaii, that we will have a few specific suggestions with
respect to a potential American role in supporting connectivity.
Ultimately, we believe getting the American business community engaged
and excited on these matters is extraordinarily important and I must
take the opportunity to thank our Japanese colleagues. They have been
among the most reinforcing and encouraging in terms of urging the United
States to participate in this regard and we intend to do so. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you. In 1988, let me bring this to a
conclusion this way, the late professor Samuel Huntington published an
article in Foreign Affairs, it was called “The U.S. and the World,”
something to that effect, but its subtitle was “Decline or Renew?” At
the time, the global sentiment was that the U.S. was in decline. Of
course, in the 1990s the U.S. showed resilience and an inner-strength
for innovation and eventually from scleroses and politics and a stagnant
economy, it recovered and became robust in the late 1990s. And in the
last 10 years, there have been some doubts. I have to tell you, Dr.
Campbell, that there is a net regional perception that the U.S. is down.
But I think that people in this region do not count the U.S. out.
Perhaps down but not out and the rest remains to be seen. Thank you very
much for taking time from your very busy schedule and providing access
to us.
A/S CAMPBELL: I would simply say, historically, those who have bet against the United States have lost a lot of money. [Laughter.] Thank you.
MODERATOR: This is a summit season. [applause] This
is a summit season. The last quarter of this year, and I think we have
many people in Thailand and in ASEAN wondering what will happen next, so
thank you very much for your time, for taking the time to come here
straight from the rain and standing up for an hour and a half -- two
hours -- please join me in thanking Dr. Kurt Campbell.
Nguồn: http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2011/10/175241.htm
