 Yeah, we're going to start the next session. My name is Marie Hebert. I work on the CIMITRO chair for Southeast Asia Asian Studies here at CSIS. We're one of the co-sponsors of the conference today with the health team here at CSIS. I'm honored to be able to introduce our luncheon speaker. It is Danny Russell, who is the assistant secretary for East Asia and the Pacific at the State Department. Prior to taking this job earlier this year, Danny was the senior director for Asia in the White House. And in that role, he also played very important responsibilities in what we regularly call the Rebalance to Asia of the United States, which has given us a lot more focus on that part of the world. And especially those of us that work on Southeast Asia are delighted that Southeast Asia is getting more focused. Danny, thank you very much for coming and please. Join me in welcoming him. Thank you. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Marie. And I'm delighted to see Ambassador Gong of Vietnam and some other diplomatic colleagues, as well as US government colleagues here as well. And I've come armed with my asset and ally, Mike Fuchs, the deputy assistant secretary. It's Marie and to CSIS. I'm glad that you're giving me an opportunity to talk a little bit about the importance that the United States places on the Mekong region in Southeast Asia more broadly. And I think CSIS and all the people here today who are responsible for initiating this Greater Mekong Health Security Partnership and for sustaining the initiative since the release of the Task Force Report, I guess it was just in July. I should stipulate up front, I'm not a health expert. And frankly, there are others on the team, including Mike, who have greater depth and grasp of the details on our lower Mekong initiative, the LMI project. But it was important for me to be here today, notwithstanding the tragic events in the Philippines, which is taking up a great deal of our time. It's important for us to be here in part because we want to share with you the emphasis that we place on LMI as an initiative and its place in our overall policy. As Murray alluded to, and as I think all of you know well, the rebalance, our intensified and sustained engagement in the Asia Pacific region is a major element of U.S. foreign policy and a big part of the priorities of the Obama administration. And what sometimes gets lost in the mix is the fact that we have a diversity of interests that are reflected in the wide-ranging engagement that we have in the region that go well beyond our important and traditional role as a guarantor of regional security and regional stability. So for example, my colleagues in the State Department and in other agencies in the U.S. government and I are regularly and deeply involved in promoting trade and economic growth in expanding educational opportunities and forging connections among educational institutions in the U.S. and in the region. In building up the multilateral fora and the institutions that give structure and consistency to problem-solving in the Asia Pacific region and supporting democracy and human rights directly as a bilateral diplomatic effort but also by nurturing civil society, by promoting good governance and by defending the rule of law. Dealing with the threats of communicable diseases, public health, of combating pandemics, this is a big part of what we are doing. Our support for public health programs is an important component of our overall strategy in the region and this is not mere altruism. At the core of all the things we're doing is the recognition that working together with partners to protect and to improve the lives of the people in this region is very much in the interests of the United States, particularly given Southeast Asia's tremendous potential for growth. Now clearly anyone who has experienced Southeast Asia in the last decade recognizes that the quality of life in the region has risen dramatically but of course there's still millions of people who are living in poverty in Southeast Asia and there are many countries in the region that are still struggling to build the capacity necessary to cope with a range of development related challenges. In terms of the countries in the sub region, the lower Mekong, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, I think that it is utterly fair to say that each of these countries is moving markedly in the right direction, whether it's the tremendous economic opening and reform in Vietnam, whether it is the extraordinary political opening in Myanmar, there are really tremendous and positive developments that I'd like to talk a little bit about but we are entirely mindful of the challenges, the development related and other challenges that each of these countries in the region face. On the positive side of the ledger, one of the drivers of growth and connectivity and development in this part of the world is ASEAN and the development and the evolution of ASEAN as an important center and even driver of the region's multilateral work and its architecture. I just came back recently from Bali and Brunei with Secretary Kerry who took the president's seat in the U.S. ASEAN meetings in the East Asia Summit in July, Secretary Kerry traveled to Brunei for the ASEAN regional forum and so on. These are venues and these are now institutions that increasingly allow us to tackle both the tough political and security issues on the one hand but also to coordinate and to build out programs on sustainable development, food and energy, security and the other issues that really directly affect the lives of the citizens and the prospects for growth in the region. And one of ASEAN's own top goals in the effort to build an economic community is bridging the development gap that within ASEAN separates the wealthier states of maritime Southeast Asia and the states of the Mekong sub-region. So again on the positive side of the ledger I think we see tremendous opportunities. If you take a moment to think about the alignment of forces right now, there really is a significant window of opportunity. ASEAN itself has set the ambitious goal of economic integration by 2015 and as ambitious as it is is really working with determination toward that objective. The U.S. is deeply committed to the region as a presidential priority and there's no turning back. We are serious and determined and committed because as I said this is in the best interests of the U.S. in terms of our economic and our security future. Japan is re-emerging as a major player again in the Asia Pacific and has significantly intensified its engagement and its support and its investment in Southeast Asia. China's phenomenal growth has created big new markets and huge economic and commercial opportunities for the countries. As I mentioned among the countries themselves Myanmar has undergone a really extraordinary transformation that ended its isolation and has opened the door to possibilities that were really unthinkable just two years ago. Vietnam as Ambassador Quong and I have often discussed is opening in an extremely positive way including through the very important negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP. And we're seeing Cambodia and Laos also growing economically and looking for ways to create more opportunity and a better quality of life for their own citizens. So these are a lot of the positive factors in play now in the region and it's behind the thinking in the United States that sustained and serious effort collectively now can have a downstream impact that will make a lasting difference. In terms of the lower Mekong initiative itself the US plays a significant role in supporting development in the sub-region including through annual assistance, funding, something on the order of almost a quarter billion dollars a year. A large part of which, maybe two thirds of which is dedicated to three priorities, health, education and the environment. And LMI is a major component now of this engagement and we see it frankly as a good new model for tackling many of the challenges both because it is multilateral but also because it integrates the US government in what we call a whole of government approach, coordinated approach. And what we're trying to do in LMI and through LMI is to create a multiplier effect of capacity building so that we are working with governments to boost their own capacity to tackle specific development challenges. And at the same time we are complimenting it by efforts that will strengthen policy making within the countries themselves. And we think that this convergence of effort has a positive impact on the lives of people in the region. And we see LMI as a model program for this approach for a couple of reasons. One that it has high level political buy-in and leadership. Secretary Kerry chairs an annual ministerial meeting with other LMI foreign ministers as well as with the friends of LMI and the last meeting that we held chaired by Secretary Kerry in Brunei in July was tremendously positive. It was a genuine give and take. It was interactive, it was substantive. There was nothing pro forma about this, it was for real. In the previous year, in 2012 in November, President Obama himself brought together the LMI leaders and on the margins of the East Asia Summit in Nampan had a chance to get together with them and put their support and imprimatur on the project. Second, as I mentioned, LMI is a whole of government enterprise, many different parts just of the State Department itself. And USAID and other agencies, whether it's the Department of Commerce or the Defense or the US Geological Survey or XIM Bank and so on. Many other elements of the US government work, coordinate closely with us through LMI to engage in the region. The third attribute I'd point to is the fact that the initiative has so much partner country buy-in. This is not an American template that's being imposed on or sold to other countries. Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, Vietnam, at the risk of speaking for my colleagues here. These countries are co-owners of LMI. They're fully engaged in it. And each of them co-chairs, at least one of the so-called pillars, the areas of specialization and work, health education, connectivity, food and agricultural security, energy security and water in the environment. This is a collaborative effort. And as you can tell, it's an effort that focuses on issues that genuinely matter to the governments and to the citizens in the region. And then the last attribute I'd point to is the degree to which LMI also has broader international participation, donor participation, and that's reflected in the creation of the sister organization, the quote-unquote Friends of the Lower Mekong Initiative, something that was initiated based on the good advice of the LMI partners that brings together not only the LMI countries, but also the major donor countries, those countries and organizations that are already engaged have a role to play and for whom coordination means greater efficiency, greater impact, like countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, but also the EU and the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank. So this Friends of the Lower Mekong gives us a framework to collaborate and to coordinate that has paid significant dividends, I think, and given a lift to LMI itself. Now in terms of health, I realize this has been a subject of discussion today, this morning and this afternoon. In the LMI context, we're working with our partner countries on a number of priorities, such as building capacity, coordinating responses to diseases like malaria, tuberculosis, HIV-AIDS, and preventing, for example, the use of counterfeit and substandard medications. The CSIS Task Force Report does a great job, I think, of underscoring how vital health security is for this region, and I will be interested in getting some of the results and the feedback from the conference that you're having today to inform our thinking. I know that one of the topics under discussion is the serious concerns about drug-resistant malaria in parts of Southeast Asia, and that's a great example of the kind of challenge that requires us to coordinate and to collaborate in order to deal with it. From our point of view in the State Department, it is very important to us to address health issues here because they relate so directly to a range of other issues that are important to attaining the kind of broad-based growth and development that the subregion, in particular in Southeast Asia, more broadly needs and that the United States benefits from. One aspect is effective cross-border management, important in its own right, but equally important in preventing the spread of diseases, including pandemics. Food and water security, as I mentioned, an area of real focus for the United States and something that Brunei and its host here of ASEAN have put great mind-share and effort into. This is essential for health in the subregion, particularly in preventing malnutrition. And third area of focus for us is energy security. Energy security in the region is important for in its own right and for any number of reasons, but it's also absolutely essential for so many of the health-related programs, efforts and activities. Health service providers need power, need electricity. And this and other examples really bring home the connectivity and the interplay between health-related and our other ongoing priorities. LMI, therefore, is especially valuable because it creates a forum and a mechanism for addressing all of these issues in a cross-cutting way and in a mutually reinforcing way. And I would ask you in your deliberations and your work to make sure that you're also addressing the interconnected nature of health and the other development challenges in the region. I wanna leave time for some discussion and some questions, and I'd very much like to hear back from you all. But I would just say this, the bottom line is that improving the health of the millions of people in Southeast Asia is a priority for the United States because it's in the interests of the United States and it's an important objective in our overall strategy. I think that U.S. Health programs in East Asia and in Southeast Asia in particular have a role in our diplomacy. They have an impact in terms of the attitudes and the perspectives of citizens and governments to the United States who we are and what we're doing. And they also help us build a strong foundation for expanding global health capabilities going forward. We are convinced, as I said, that the countries in the Mekong sub-region are ready for and are working for greater economic growth for an expansion that's gonna allow them to share fully in the tide of prosperity in the Asia Pacific region. We're gonna keep working this, particularly through mechanisms like the LMI and continue to find ways to support our partner countries in addressing challenges and in improving public health, which plays such a big role in narrowing the development gap in Southeast Asia. So Marie, why don't I stop there and in the time we have, and I have to apologize in advance that because of the Philippines' management issues, I'm gonna need to get back roughly on time. Let me ask you to moderate and open. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for that very insightful overview of how health fits into the larger U.S. policy in the lower Mekong countries. It was very helpful. And before Assistant Secretary Russell said already that he's willing to take a few questions, but I forgot to, sorry, Michael, I forgot to introduce Michael before. Michael Fuchs, who's a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic and Multilateral Affairs in the East Asia Bureau working with Danny, is also here to help with answering questions. We have a few senior diplomats from several ASEAN countries. I don't know if you have any, Ambassador Kuang, you would like to ask a question or make a comment, please? Thank you, and thank you. Yeah. So I just want to offer you some perspective from a country in the region, the LMAG country. So I have two points to make and one question for you. Point number one, I think I agree on almost all what the Honorable Daniel Russell just mentioned about the importance of LMAG. I see, you know, the LMAG initiative is very important, at least in three aspects. The first, it's, as you just mentioned, is a major component of the rebalancing. And we countries in the region, we believe and we expect that they're on the, for the sustainability of the rebalancing. And LMAG perfectly fits in that sense. And second reason for the importance of the LMAG is that the substance of the LMAG issue. In LMAG, we have six pillars here, as I recall, from the Water Environment pillar, which co-chair by Vietnam, the Energy Education pillars co-chair by Thailand, Agriculture and Food Security pillar by Myanmar, health by Cambodia and connectivity by Laos. So you look at the substance, I think that's very important issues. The critical, the LMAG issue is addressing the critical issues of the region. And it comes to the third point, you know, the third reason of the importance of the LMAG that because it helps reach out to the least developed areas of the region in ASEAN, as you just mentioned. So it's very important project to narrow the gap, the development gap between among ASEAN countries themselves. So given that importance of the LMAG issue that it comes to my second point, Vietnam, we think that we have the political commitment to work with United States and other LMAG countries and other partners for the success of the LMAG. We have the, as I've been briefed about this morning, the distinguished representative Vietnam, Professor Winton here just mentioned, we have resources and we have the expertise to work with you on all these kind of issues, not only on the Water Environment pillar, but on the issues that we had issue that our representative just mentioned this morning. And now the question for you. The honorable assistant secretary just mentioned about the coordination work. And I think that's the important issue, the coordination and how to improve the efficiency, you know, the, there are a lot of countries, you know, donors countries trying to help. But I think that the issue should be more or more probably down to it. So my question for you is that should and can the US lead that coordination effort? Thank you. Sharjah DeFair from Thailand, do you want to maybe let you both make a comment or ask a question and then we'll let Danny and Michael answer. Thank you very much. Sharod from ROTI MSE and the Charges Affairs. First of all, I would like to express my appreciation for CSIS organizing this very important topic. And thanks to the assistant secretary to come in on that. And the Thailand as a co-owner of MI, we also attach a great important of the role of United States into region. This is not the question, but then I just want to to chat some views on that. As I am I, Thailand also one of the active members and then we also have a lot of cooperation with the United States, particularly in the areas of the drug resistance of malaria, which is the, we are in the regions that training the personnel and also we would try to cooperate with this program with United States. And that's as I, I would like to also mention that the first program under the MOU of trial of cooperation signed between the Thailand is International Cooperation Agency with the USAID. Last number, this is also would be one of the framework that we will work with the United States regarding the drug resistance of malaria. This is the, just to give some thought on that. Thank you very much. Great. Yeah, well, thanks to both of you. I'd like to, before turning the floor over to Mike to talk a little more about donor coordination and the U.S. role in there, the question that Ambassador Gong mentioned. I'd just like to pick up on one point, important point that he mentioned and expand on it. The fact that the countries in the region, the LMI, the lower Mekong countries themselves have resources, have expertise, and I'd add to that list, have incentive. Real is powerful incentives to focus on making progress here. That's one of the hallmarks of the LMI initiative in my experience, that this is not the developing world bringing answers or simply bringing resources. This is an interaction among peers, all of whom have something to offer. And frankly, I think that we, the United States, consider that we have gotten as much as we've given. We have learned a tremendous amount and there is much more work that lies ahead of us in tapping into the resources and the expertise of the countries in the region. Well, on donor coordination, I think this is obviously one of the key challenges we face in the region. Is anyone who's attempted development assistance anywhere in the world and then to try to coordinate that assistance knows it's a pretty tough challenge. But obviously this is one of the things, as Danny mentioned earlier, that after we created LMI, the LMI countries asked for, to create the Friends of the Lower Mekong as a platform for attempting that coordination. And LMI itself is new, Friends of the Lower Mekong is even newer, and so it is really just getting going. But as Danny said, I think it has already produced some tangible results, some real substantive discussions amongst the major donor countries in the lower Mekong sub-region. And if you look at the other countries in the region are doing the ones that Danny mentioned before that are part of FLM, in addition to United States, Japan, South Korea, others have their own Mekong, lower Mekong initiatives already going. And so what we do through the Friends of the Lower Mekong is attempting to bring together those various streams of work and make sure that they are not redundant and that they are as inline as possible with the priorities of the LMI countries themselves. Again, as is the case with development coordination anywhere in the world, this is a very long-term task. But what we've done in the last few years alone is really create the platform to allow that coordination to happen. And you can see it beginning to happen already. So please, we're going to get a microphone over there, but identify yourself and keep the question or comment short, please. Thank you. Very quick. Jill Gay, What Works Association. I'm just returned from Laos, PDR, where one of the major health issues are the unexploded ordinances we dropped during, I can see you, you're from the same generation I am, that were dropped during the Vietnam War. And as an Australian colleague of mine from there said, you guys dropped them, what are you going to do to pick them up because it's having huge health impacts. And at the rate we're going, it's going to take 100 years. Could we take maybe another one or two questions? Please come back, Paramp. Paramp is from Radio Free Asia. Just before we arrived, there was a panel discussion on malaria and most of the participants, and there was near consensus that there was serious lack of coordination in battling malaria, especially drug-resistant malaria. And if I would quote one participant who said, it was too much action, too many words, less action. And this comes against the backdrop of a flurry of programs actually. There is actually an overcrowded field there in terms of donors and participants. Fresh from your visit from the region, I remember the East Asia Summit, the leaders themselves addressed this malaria problem and how they're going to come up with an initiative with the ADB to resolve this. What feedback did you get from the participants there in relation to this poor coordination and how to resolve this? Yeah, why don't I start there? I'll make two basic comments and then turn it over to Mike. One is that we should remember that the LMI is a tool. It's a platform that we can utilize to increase focus, to galvanize interest in action, and to de-conflict and to the maximum extent, coordinate in ways that not only avoid redundancies but enhance the efficiencies and the synergies of the programs. But at the end of the day, it's nothing more than that. It's a format and a platform that we can use and we have to bring to it good and practical ideas. It is not an exclusive venue and part of what LMI does and can do. And for that matter, part of what FORA, like the East Asia Summit, do and can do is to generate a political commitment to share information about national or multinational projects and to allow diplomats and experts to ask themselves the questions, how is this going to fit together? And that's particularly true in addressing challenges like drug-resistant malaria. And I would say changing the ratio of words to action is an objective in all of our enterprises, not only here. With respect to unexploded ordinances in Laos in Cambodia and Vietnam, I accompanied Secretary Clinton to Laos in 2012 and visited with her a number of projects funded by the United States, getting both at both the actual recovery disposition and neutralization of the ordinance itself, but also programs and projects that deal with the victims who have been injured by mines throughout the country and frankly throughout the region. This is a bilateral enterprise. This is a responsibility that the United States takes seriously. There is no question that there are formidable hurdles there and that progress is far slower than anyone wants to see, but our programs are underway. We have protected the funding for them and this is an area of close cooperation between the United States government and the relevant governments, including the government of Laos, as well as an area of cooperation with a large number of non-governmental actors who play an important and very valued role. I guess I'll just make one quick comment to reinforce what Danny was saying earlier about addressing the malaria challenge. Suffice it to say again, on any development issue, coordination is of the utmost importance but is also incredibly difficult. And so I think that what we are beginning to try to do is address it on multiple different levels. One, obviously there are bilateral programs that we engage in to try to address the issue in multiple different countries. Two is through fora like the LMI with many of the key countries that are affected involved in trying to bring together some bilateral programs, frankly like we do through USAID and other mechanisms and expand them into the multilateral forum to make sure that all of the countries potentially affected are actually talking with one another about how they can benefit from programs that we're engaged in on this issue. And the third to Danny's point for is finding where we can get broader political buy-in and support for addressing the collaboration issue. And I think that the announcement of the new initiative through the ADB at the East Asia Summit this year is a prime example of that. And we're working with the ADB and Australia and other key donor countries through Friends of the Lower Mekong but through other venues as well to again engage in that effort and try to figure out how best we can coordinate efforts. But we're doing it at multiple different levels. It's not just sort of one mechanism through which we're engaged in this effort. We're almost out of time, but are there any questions on this quadrant? Please, sir. Suley Panwong from Promoting the Quality of Medicine United States from a Coopier. I tried to put myself in the boot of the countries in the Mekong region. Since the establishment of the LMI, those people that we interacted with, they usually pose the question. From United States, we have at least for example, three programs now, USID programs, PMI programs, and now Lower Mekong initiatives. Is there a way that these programs that represent United States to come to the region with a very clear and non-confusing to the country in the region, so that they can report and implement in a more effective way to the region? That's my thought. How these three between USID, PMI, Lower Mekong initiative can effectively coordinate. I'd like to hear from the panel. Thank you. So there's one more question. Please keep it short. We can get our speakers to answer. Lisa White from the Mahidol Oxford Research Unit. I'm a mathematician working on malaria elimination strategy. My question is, what is border management from a healthcare perspective and how is that different from typical border management? Well, let me start it again and turn it over to Mike if I may. To the first question, the point I stress is that we are in the business of seeking balance. And one of the balances that we need to achieve is maximizing the rationalization of efforts on the one hand while avoiding the bureaucratization of efforts on the other. And so there is room for flexibility. There is room for variation. USAID is an organization. It's an agency of government with a range of programs and a funding stream. LMI is a very different creature. It's a collaborative forum and set of programs, not an agency. We do strive for clarity to the extent we can achieve it, but the North Star that we steer by is effectiveness. And we use those programs that we have, including through AID and including, as Mike said, other nations programs, but we use LMI and other mechanisms to try to deconflict and to promote coordination. With the response to border management, the point I was making is that effective border management is one element in preventing the uncontrolled movement of communicable diseases. And that you can't solve a problem like pandemics and health-related risks in isolation from what I would call the infrastructure of good governance and good crisis management. So we're not talking about reinforced concrete at checkpoints. We're not talking about ID cards with 3D holograms, but we are talking about the ability of the nations in the lower Mekong to understand and to be able to control the flow of people because as people flow, so do viruses, bacteria and diseases. And just to add to that, I think that the two points I see in the two questions that we just had to focus on is the sort of coordination at different places, right? So one is the coordination of what we're doing ourselves. And I think to Danny's point, LMI has a specific focus, one of which is really to take some of the programs that we are doing, some of the efforts that we may be focused on bilaterally with particular countries and that countries themselves are prioritizing and find ways to make sure that all five countries or all six countries, including us, are engaged in that conversation or benefiting from it. And so if there's some particular program that's going on in the health realm or the environment realm, one of the things we're trying to do is make sure that we actually invite participants from all six of the countries so that they're benefiting from what are inherently transnational challenges and from whatever work that we're doing in that area. And I think that that speaks to the second issue, which Danny was talking about earlier, which is how overlapping many of the challenges are in the region, right? From anything, you talk about health, to food, to energy, to water, whatever it may be. If you're talking about hydropower development in the region, that's gonna affect obviously energy security, but it's also gonna affect water and food security and other issues as well. And so it's making sure that everyone is together at the same table, having a discussion about the interconnected nature of those issues. And LMI in its foundation, its goal, is to provide a venue and a platform to bring those different conversations together, I think, to your original point about how are we trying to coordinate it. Thank you. Danny, Michael, thank you very much, and we all want to wish you all the best as you tackle the tragedy and try to be helpful in the Philippines. So please join me in thanking our guests over here. Thank you.