U.S. EMBASSY SUVA
Office of Public Affairs

MR: Oct 26, 2007

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM THE FIJI TIMES

BY
GLYN DAVIES
ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC ISLAND AFFAIRS

Q: The United States has declared 2007 the Year of the Pacific.  Its presence in the region for some years now has been seen by some as insignificant, maybe because its focus has been on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East. Why the sudden and renewed interest in the Pacific region?

A: Actually, the interest is neither sudden nor new.  The United States is a Pacific nation, as Hawaii, Guam, the CNMI, and American Samoa attest.  We have a tradition of strong ties with other Pacific Island countries.  While it’s true that budget constraints and policy priorities during the 1990s limited our diplomatic representation and the assistance we could offer, we are making a concerted effort to expand our engagement and activities in the region.  The region is strategically, economically, culturally, and diplomatically important.  We therefore are making it a priority to work with the countries and organizations in the region to promote good governance, political stability, and economic development.  Total direct U.S. assistance to Pacific Island countries is over US$200 million annually. 

Q:  How significant has the Year of the Pacific been for the region and the US? 

A: We believe the Year of the Pacific reflects and reinforces our commitment to the region. We have undertaken a “whole of government” approach that allows the Department of State to coordinate effectively with the Department of Defense, Coast Guard, Department of the Interior, U.S. Trade Representative, the Peace Corps and other agencies to reinforce our activities in the region.  The Year of the Pacific symbolizes our expanding commitment but it is not a one-year undertaking.  We see it as part of a long-term and sustained engagement with the countries and organizations in the region. 

Q:  The US may have done some things that are tangible, for the Pacific to celebrate or acknowledge this declaration in the past ten months.  What could some of these be? 

A:  Our engagement in the Pacific is about more than just a series of new programs or projects.  However, we have undertaken or announced a number of initiatives that underscore our expanded approach to the Pacific.  They include the following:

• Establishment of a new State Department regional public affairs office in Suva, Fiji to expand education, exchange, and speaker programs, including the reintroduction of the Fulbright Program into the Pacific and eligibility for the Humphrey Fellowship.
• Initiation of a US$65 million Millennium Challenge project in Vanuatu.
• Greater focus on the region’s health concerns, including a senior-level conference on diabetes prevention in the Pacific, which we have planned for 2008, as well as an increase in U.S. health care funding for the Marshall Islands and Micronesia and a substantial increase in U.S. funding for HIV/AIDS programs in Papua New Guinea. 
• Greater focus on regional environmental concerns, including the creation of a project to assist Pacific Island nations in protecting coastal areas from the effects of climate change and a partnership with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) to improve food security through the collection and storage of crops resistant to sea-level rise salinization. 
• The dispatch of a State Department official to work at the SPC for four months beginning in November 2007, including on environmental issues.
• Efforts to increase trade and commercial opportunities via regional workshops to assist Pacific Island companies in maximizing preferential benefits to the U.S. market under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP); individualized GSP consultations for Pacific countries; and a planned video conference with Pacific Island economic officials to discuss U.S.-Pacific trade and develop trade capacity programs. 
• Work to help ensure economic and commercial benefits of the relocation of U.S. forces from Okinawa to Guam – for example, job creation, increased regional commercial activity, and a rise in tourism – will flow to Pacific Islanders.
• Improved maritime cooperation with the Pacific Islands and regional organizations to enhance the protection of maritime resources, including fisheries, and to address other concerns, including search and rescue and transnational crime.   
• A contribution of $1,500,000 to the regional training and technical assistance program that assists Pacific Islands countries in establishing or enhancing their anti-money laundering regimes.
• Assistance for two new tsunami-warning sites in Kiribati to help safeguard the lives and properties of Pacific islanders.

Q:  The US has admitted to being nervous over China’s growing influence in the Pacific region. Could this be the reason for trying to come back more visibly?

A:  The premise of this question is incorrect.  A more active role by China in the region does not mean a diminished role for the United States.  In fact, we believe China can be -- and indeed has been -- an engine of development, and we want to work more closely with China on development assistance.  We think it's very important that we work with all countries engaged in the region to improve donor transparency and coordination so that aid supports good governance and encourages rule of law.

Q:  What does China’s influence in the region mean and is this a threat to the US?  If so, in what ways?

A: China has become a major source of trade, investment, and tourism in the region.  We welcome that and believe China can contribute to the region’s development and security, as it has been doing through its leadership role in the “Six Party” talks on North Korea.  Overall, our view of China's role in the Pacific is broadly representative of our view of China globally.  That is, China can be a positive force in international affairs and to do so it must take a responsible leadership role – whether it is in the Pacific or in places like Darfur, Iran, and Burma.  That means acting in a manner that supports rule of law and international best practices on trade and assistance, and improving its own human rights record and the importance it places on respect for human rights elsewhere.  We continue to encourage China and others to use their influence and foreign assistance in a manner that promotes transparency and good governance in the region, and we are pleased at signs of progress. 

Q:  There have been some suggestions that China could possibly weaken the Pacific Forum or even break it up given Australia and New Zealand’s growing bullying approach towards Pacific nations especially the Melanesian countries – Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.  Are you reading it this way, or what is your comment on this?

A:   We would disagree with these ideas -- not only regarding China, but also about Australia and New Zealand, which are playing very constructive roles in the region.  China’s role was discussed in the previous answers.

Q:  As I understand it the US depends on Australia and New Zealand to watch over the interests of the regional countries but it seems to have failed.  The crisis in the Solomon Islands, the riots in Tonga last year and the coup in Fiji are a reflection of this.  Is this so as far as the US government is concerned?

A:  Again, the premise of the question is faulty.  While the United States shares many of the same interests as Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific, and while we cooperate closely on regional issues, the United States is an active participant in regional matters, and we do not look to others to act on our behalf.  Moreover, we support the Pacific Islands Forum’s efforts regarding RAMSI, returning Fiji to democracy, and strengthening regional institutions.

Q:  What does the US plan to do to reinforce continued stability in the Pacific?

A:  Increased U.S. engagement in the Pacific supports good governance, stability, and economic development in the region.  The initiatives and activities outlined earlier are designed to advance those goals.  In addition, we are regularizing our high-level contacts with Pacific Island leaders.  The Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific Affairs participates in the annual Pacific Island Forum (PIF) Post-Forum Dialogue, including the session that just concluded in Tonga.  The Department’s Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns, has hosted a group meeting with Pacific leaders during the UN General Assembly for the last three years.  This year we collaborated with the East West Center in bringing the Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders meeting to Washington for the first time ever.   

In addition, the United States has helped promote an informal consultative group known as the Core Partners.  This group – currently consisting of the United States, Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan, Korea, the European Union, France, United Kingdom, Italy, India, the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the United Nations – works to support the initiatives of the Pacific Islands Forum and to coordinate common efforts to promote good governance and rule of law in Pacific Island countries. 

Q:  Like Australia and New Zealand, the US placed sanctions on Fiji following the 5 December 2006 events. How long before it will be removed and is it having the desired effect?

A: The United States imposed a series of measures in response to the December 2006 coup in Fiji.  Some, like a cut off of roughly $2.8 million in primarily military assistance, were mandated by law.  Others, such as restrictions on visas for military and interim government leaders and a suspension of lethal military equipment sales, were taken on policy grounds.  In all cases, we have sought to ensure that our sanctions affect the military and interim government and not average Fijians.  For that reason, the U.S. has continued certain assistance programs in Fiji, such as those addressing environmental concerns or women’s rights.  Our suspension of assistance will remain in place until the President or Secretary of State determines that a democratically elected government has taken office in Fiji.  Other U.S. actions taken in response to the coup are subject to further review as circumstances in Fiji merit.
 
In terms of our overall approach to Fiji, we have harmonized our policies with those of Fiji’s neighbors under the auspices of the Pacific Islands Forum.  Thus far the Forum and its members have taken a strong and unified stance on the coup and its aftermath, and we welcome the outcome of discussions on Fiji that took place at the recent Forum meeting in Tonga.  In our view, the unified stance of Fiji’s neighbors, supported by the United States, the European Union, and many others, has been critical in persuading the interim government in Fiji to commit to hold constitutionally acceptable elections in early 2009 and to abide by the results.  We look forward to working with the Forum, its members, and our other partners in the region in supporting the establishment of a clear and credible roadmap for those elections and the immediate restoration of civil liberties and human rights in Fiji. 

Q:  How do you think the US is viewed in the region?

A: The United States is a Pacific nation that has a tradition of strong ties with Pacific Island countries -- from historical and cultural links with the Islands that go back over two centuries; to our trusteeship relations and now Compacts of Free Association with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau; to the diplomatic relations we established with South Pacific nations as soon as they became independent between 1962 and 1980.  We greatly value these ties and are working to deepen them further.  Thus far the responses we have received from the Island states to our engagement has been positive, which we greatly appreciate. 

Q:  I was told that Commander Bainimarama’s movement in the US while there for the general assembly was kind of controlled?  Is this so?

A:  We fulfill our obligations as host nation for the United Nations.  I have no further details to add, as it is longstanding U.S. policy not to comment on individual visa- or visa-related cases.  

Q:  If so, does the same apply to Fiji’s military officer working at Fiji’s mission in New York?

A:  Same answer as above.

###