Embassy of the United States

Question & Answer Session
by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill

The Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy
May 22, 2006

KISHORE MAHBUBANI:  Thank you very much.  I’m sure we’ll have some questions from the floor, but if you don’t mind, can I start by asking you the first hopefully difficult question.  I was just in Tokyo about ten days ago having a discussion on the region, and after listening to the discussion it struck me that the relations between Japan and China seem to be going through a very difficult phase.  And at the same time relations between Japan and South Korea also seem to be going through a difficult phase.  So I was wondering whether there’s any kind of pressure in Washington, D.C. for the United States to play some kind of role in trying to see what it can do to diminish tensions both between Japan and China, and Japan and Korea, because all three of them in a sense are good friends of the United States.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Well, first of all, let me make the point that Japan is indeed not only a very close friend, but also a very good ally.  We have a very special relationship with Japan.  We discuss issues throughout the world.  We work together with Japan very closely in the United Nations.  We work together with Japan on issues like Middle East peace.  We work together with Japan on economic development questions in Latin America and Africa.  It is a very special relationship for us.  We want to see Japan have a good relationship with its Northeast Asian neighbors.  It gives us no pleasure whatsoever to see the problems that have emerged between Japan and China and between Japan and the Republic of Korea.  So the first point is we really want to see those relationships improve.  The second point is these countries are adults.  Japan is an adult.  China is an adult.  We believe that they should be able to work out these issues.  We do not see a role for the United States as a mediator in these problems.  We feel that these countries have a great stake in better relationships, and we feel they will follow their interests and find their way to improving these relations.  And finally, I’d like to make the point that although you’re correct that there have been some serious political issues, economically these countries remain very close.  If you take a flight from Tokyo to Beijing, or from Seoul to Tokyo, you’ll see the airplanes full with businessmen who are doing a lot of business with each other.  So I think economically the countries are doing well, but clearly, politically they need to work on the issues.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI:  Thank you.  Next question.  Please identify yourself with a short question, please.

Question:  Does the West promote human rights for altruistic reasons at a time when Europe is rewriting its Human Rights Act to combat terrorism, and which Richard Howard said would fatally undermine the West’s moral authority to criticize regimes abroad.  I took this question from a book called Can Asians Think? by Dean Mahbubani.  Please comment.  Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Oh, I see.  I think the age-old challenge is always to balance the rights of the individual with the power of the state.  And obviously, we have faced some enormous challenges to our well-being, and indeed, one could say to the very survival of our systems.  So, we need to make sure that we can protect our citizens, protect not only their rights, but also their livelihoods and our ability to continue as the open societies that we are.  So this is always going to be a struggle.  There will never be a perfect solution to it.  It probably is an ongoing issue that we can talk about ten years from now.  But I do believe that speaking out about fundamental freedoms, speaking out about people’s human rights – human rights that are enshrined in the United Nations Charter – I believe that is still the right thing to do and I don’t see those rights as being constrained by our efforts to deal with terrorism.

Question:  Good afternoon.  Ambassador, I have two small questions.  First of all, if I may play the role of the devil’s advocate.  Come the year 2008, hypothetically, if Mrs. Hillary Clinton goes to Capitol Hill as the president, how do you think that Mrs. Hillary Clinton would sit well with China, which is practicing a polity unique or peculiar to itself, and that is the political superstructure is firmly in the hands of the communists whereas the economic infrastructure is anything but communism.  Now, how well do you think she will sit with a China of that polity?  Question number 2:  Ambassador Hill, do you think the realpolitik of the future allows for a compromise between America and China?  Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Okay.  First of all, with respect to the Hillary Clinton administration, I’m a career diplomat and I don’t interfere in internal political matters, especially my own.  So, I’m not sure I can help you too much on the results of the 2008 elections.  And don’t forget we have a by-election in 2006 coming up in November, and then after that there will be lots of advice and analysis of what 2008 will be, and I don’t know if Hillary Clinton is even running.  What I do know is that we have had quite a long succession of U.S. administrations with a policy toward China which involves fundamentally a willingness to engage.  And I am sure that the next administration – whoever comes into office in January of 2009 – will follow such a policy.  I anticipate the U.S. will be very engaged with China.  As I tried to suggest in my formal remarks, we have a great interest in making sure that we can work with China across the board.  China is a very important partner of ours.  So, I’m sure whatever administration comes in, you’ll see a real continuation.  There will be lots of different opinions about China.  And even today, with the administration we’ve had for almost six years, you can get different opinions about China.  It’s no secret.  China is a very complex subject and many Americans have not really formulated their views on China.  China is very dynamic.  And often some people see the glass half full and others see the glass half empty.  So what I can assure you is we will be continuing to engage with China.  I think 2008 is going to be a very important period for China because of the Olympics.  China is really going to be on display.  China’s domestic scene will be on display with the Olympics in 2008.  So I think we can look forward to some really interesting times with China.  But I can assure you whatever U.S. administration there is in January of 2009 will want to engage.

Question:  The New York Times has reported that the U.S. is bringing a new formula to the Six-Party nuclear talks, namely giving the carrot of a peace treaty.  Is that accurate, or is there any new formula you are bringing to the negotiating table?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Well, first of all, the basis of our approach toward the DPRK is the Six-Party negotiations which resulted in a September agreement in Beijing where we laid out a set of principles.  So what we would like to do is see that set of principles implemented.  One of the principles there has to do with the desirability of replacing the armistice that has prevailed on the Korean peninsula with a peace mechanism to be worked out by appropriate players at an appropriate forum.  So we very much stand by that.  And so, I would say – with due respect to the New York Times – that it was really not new ‘news’ that the United States is prepared to see the full implementation of the September agreement.  Our problem was, the day before that article appeared, and remains – the day after that article appeared – that the DPRK has currently refused to attend the talks.  They’ve essentially boycotted the Six-Party process and they’ve done so on the basis that the United States has continued to really protect itself against financial irregularities, against illicit activities carried on by the North Koreans.  It never said in the September agreement that we would stop trying to protect ourselves against these illicit activities.  It never said that it would be okay for the DPRK to, for example, counterfeit the U.S. dollar.  So we have pursued these issues.  And for the DPRK to use these issues as a reason not to come to the denuclearization talks, I think is really unfortunately an excuse.  I think what the DPRK is concerned about is whether they are in fact prepared to implement the agreement, and the agreement calls for the DPRK to get rid of all of its nuclear programs.  So, in answer to your question, there is nothing new in this article that was in the New York Times.

Question:  How hopeful are you to resume the Six-Party talks this year?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Well, I don’t like to make bets in games that I’m a part of, so we’ll have to see.  In know that the Six-Party talks make a lot of sense, not only to us, but also to the DPRK.  We’re prepared to go there.  I’d be prepared to go there this afternoon.  I know all the other parties are prepared.  But we need all six, and to date, the DPRK has not accepted the invitation of the Chinese government to attend the next session.  And that is the problem.  And I think we should stay vigilant on that problem, that the DPRK is essentially boycotting the next round of talks.

Question:  Ambassador Hill, I am focusing back to North Korea.  First of all, there are some quarters that are saying the Six-Party Talks are not going to resume until the Bush Administration ends, so can I have your views on that?  Secondly, today in the Financial Times there are some reports saying that there seems to be a widening of different views between South Korea and the U.S. on how to deal with this North Korea problem.  Can I also have your comments on that?  Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Well, we are prepared -- the United States is prepared, the Russian Federation is ready, Japan is ready, the Republic of Korea is ready, China is certainly ready to start the Six-Party Talks.  But if you add that up, you will see there are only five countries.  We need number six to be there; so why the DPRK is not coming to the talks is something you are going to have to ask them.  I believe that these talks, the implementation of this agreement is very important to the DPRK, but it’s not for me to tell them that.  They can just come to that conclusion on their own.  They are not going to get a better deal two years, three years from now.  This is a proposal put together by six countries, and the notion that somehow waiting around for two or three years is going to give them some benefits is something I find hard to understand.  DPRK needs to get on with things.  They need to get going, opening their economy; they need to start to deal with some problems that I think have bedeviled them for years and the best time to get going with that is now.  Their nuclear programs have done a lot of damage to their economy and, the logic of the situation is for them to get moving on this now.  Why they haven’t come, I think you going to have to ask them.

Moderator:  (inaudible) there are differences between the United States and South Korea…

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Well, you know that we work very closely with the Republic of Korea.  In fact, I will be there later this week.  I think we have really a unanimous view on the need of the DPRK to get rid of these nuclear programs as soon as possible in context of this agreement.  If you look at the agreement that was reached, the statement in Gyeongju last November after the meeting with President Bush and President Roh Moo-hyun,  you’ll see an awfully lot of similarities in our views.  Obviously, as a country right up on the border with the DPRK, the ROK has a broad policy toward the DPRK, a policy that is at times quite apart from the nuclear issues.  There is a North-South Dialogue and we have greatly supported that dialogue.  So, I think, our issues with the ROK – we work very well with them.  I think what’s important for people to understand is that our problem is not the ROK, our problem is the DPRK.  Again, I feel we have an excellent relationship with our friend and ally, the ROK and I think what we need to do is to keep the focus on the DPRK, the country that is refusing to come to the talks.

Question:  I would like nothing better than China to have a good relationship with its neighbors.  And yet – was it last year – that the U.S. and Japan acknowledged Taiwan as a joint security concern.  Now, knowing what happened during the Second World War when Taiwan was a part of Japan and the Chinese feel that there has been no acceptable official apology, how does that help China mend its relations with its neighbors?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Well, first of all, I think you misstated what was the statement that was made last year.  I don’t recall this being a joint concern.  I think obviously we have had concerns.  Many countries have concerns about cross-straits relations.  Many countries have concerns about the Chinese military build-ups, specifically missiles on the Chinese side of the cross straits.  So, I think, many countries have had this concern.  At the time of that statement back in 2005, there was a lot of concern about the direction of the PRC-Taiwan dialogue, the lack of dialogue.  There had been the anti-secession legislation from Beijing earlier in the year.  So there was a lot of concern, and we continue to have that concern.  And Japan also has a right to express its concerns about what is going on in the region.  So I don’t think that statement – or the fact that we have consultations with Japan to discuss issues, not only in East Asia, but all over the world – in any way should be construed as something that would prevent China from trying to reach some sort of dialogue or some sort of process with the government in Taipei.

Question:  My question regards the approaches the international community is taking to facilitate positive change in Burma.  The United States is currently using economic sanctions as one of the tools to change the behavior of the Burmese generals.  I think Burma needs an infusion of U.S. technology and management and capital investment to develop the economy and join the club of Asian Tigers.  What are the other strategies or approaches the U.S. government can take – besides economic sanctions – to facilitate positive change in Burma?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Thank you very much.  Clearly, we’re very concerned about the direction of political events in Burma.  We’re very concerned about the fact that the government has – to date – not shown an interest in trying to reach out to a broad opposition and to try to find a way to develop some sort of political consensus on the way forward.  We cannot be more concerned about Burma than Burma is.   We cannot be more concerned more about its future than the people in Burma are.  We need to see from the leadership there a willingness to reach out.  As I said in my prepared remarks, we are prepared to respond if they reach out and begin to do the right thing.  We are prepared to meet them with a response.  But we have a situation where a Nobel Peace laureate has been kept under house arrest for years.  The Burmese junta simply puts us in a position where there is not a lot we can do with them.  They have come up with this so-called ‘constitutional process’ which is simply not going to develop the broad consensus necessary to move forward.  We need to see some movement from the authorities there.  We see on the one hand they refuse to have an ASEAN emissary see Aung San Suu Kyi, but then they allow the UN emissary to see Aung San Suu Kyi.  It is clear that they have a sort of tactical notion of how to proceed, but do not want to proceed with a strategic notion.  I think it is difficult to look for us to be changing our policy, when in fact what we need from them is some statement of interest, some indication, that they are in fact interested in joining the international community.  I don’t think it’s in Burma’s interests just to have relations with China and India.  If they are really interested in opening up, they need to open up to the rest of us.  So I think they know what they need to do, the question is whether they are prepared to do that.

Question:  My question is that U.S. is, of course we understand that the U.S. is using economic sanctions as a leverage to --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Our economic leverage is very small in Burma.  We have very little economic trade.  Investment levels from U.S. companies would be very small in Burma, so I would not look to the economic measures that we’ve taken as being measures that are that fundamental to the regime there.

Question:  In this case, because since the amount is small, and maybe the Myanmar generals think they can survive with India and China, and they may not take positive steps that the U.S. would like to see.  So, in light of that, I was wondering if there any more or any others approaches that U.S. is thinking of taking?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Well, first of all, we are working very actively with partners.  We are working very actively within ASEAN.  We are working very actively with the Chinese and the Indians, and we have also, back in December, actually taken the issue to the U.N.  So there is a lot of discussion going on, but, ultimately, we have to have Burmese authorities who really want to make some changes.  And, that has been the problem.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI:  Before we end, I hope you don’t mind if I pose to you one more question on Southeast Asia, because I think it’s important to ensure that to remind us that we are in Southeast Asia here.  The big question I will say for the American policy in Southeast Asia, is how successful China has been in its foreign policy in Southeast Asia.  There used to be time when America was far ahead of China in terms of regional influence.  But now the Chinese have been remarkably imaginative, proposing a free trade agreement.  Trade links within China and Southeast Asian countries have grown by leaps and bounds.  I wonder whether anybody in Washington, D.C. is thinking of some big bold American initiative, in a sense to regain maybe some political ground by either proposing a free trade agreement or a U.S.-ASEAN summit, or something equally bold as China.  Is that being thought about in Washington, D.C.?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Well, I’m not sure what we really need is big and bold.  I know that’s very un-American of me to say we don’t need big and bold.  But I think, really, what we need is what I tried to describe, which is a long-standing U.S. interest in the region.  And I think we’ve got that.  Now, with respect to summits, in fact, as I mentioned, my president met with ASEAN leaders who are members of APEC in Pusan in November.  We would anticipate a similar type of get-together coming up in Vietnam in November.  We have an on-going U.S. dialogue with ASEAN.  In fact, the reason I’m going to Bangkok tonight is to do my part in that dialogue.  Secretary Rice will be coming to Kuala Lumpur for the ASEAN Post Ministerial in July.  And, with respect to free trade agreements, which are important, what’s equally important is free trade agreements be real.  And so, the first was with Singapore.  And as we had hoped, that Free Trade Agreement with Singapore has begun to open up some thinking about free trade agreements elsewhere.  And, as I mentioned, we will begin to have negotiations with the Malaysians and we hope to do the same with Thailand.  So, I think what you see from us is that we are prepared to work on a long-term basis in Southeast Asia to ensure that we continue to have what I think has been a very special relationship with Southeast Asia.  But, what I want to caution against is an implication that somehow we are in some sort of competition with China for the hearts and souls of Southeast Asia.  In fact, we want Southeast Asia to have a good relationship with China.  We do not see this at all as opposed to our interests.  China is an engine of development for Southeast Asia.  I think a very welcome engine of development.  And much of the good economic news in Southeast Asia can in fact be traced to the strong Chinese growth.  So we have no problem with this.  And, as I said, I think having more China does not mean less U.S. in Southeast Asia.  So, I don’t look at it as a competition, rather, I think we look at as an area of the world where we work on together.  The one area I must say is of concern deals with the previous question in Burma.  Because we see a lot of problems in Burma.  And we see a China willing to deal with Burma without maybe seeking to work with other countries in the world, without working with countries in the United Nations or countries in ASEAN on trying to affect some sort of change for the better in Burma’s political situation.  And by the way, it’s entirely appropriate that China have a good relationship with its neighbor Burma.  But we’d like to see some effort by China to work more with us in trying to effect positive change in Burma to put Burma on a stronger platform for growth in the future.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI:  Thank you.  I must say that’s a very nice optimistic note on which to end our discussions:  to say that more China does not mean less United States.  Most of the journalists’ speculation is that if one wins the other loses, so your win-win approach is very encouraging for all of us.  I must say it is a great privilege to have Ambassador Hill here with us.  You can tell how great it is a privilege, by the way, by the amount of media coverage.  We’ve had many good speakers here, Tom Friedman, Mayor Ma of Taipei, but we’ve never had this kind of media coverage.  It shows how much weight your words carry.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  About North Korea, though.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI:  Well, maybe some, they might pick up some things about Southeast Asia and also report that.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY HILL:  Thank you very much.