 Good evening. My name is Paul Hutchcroft. I'm director of the School of International Political and Strategic Studies here in the ANU College of Asia in the Pacific, and I'd like to begin this evening by acknowledging and celebrating the first Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and paying our respects to the elders of the Nenomal people past and present. It's my great pleasure to welcome and to introduce US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Edgar D. Kagan to the ANU and also to welcome our distinguished guests from the US Embassy here in Canberra as well as other distinguished guests from the diplomatic community. Since July, Mr. Kagan has held the post of Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the US Department of State, in which capacity he focuses on US relations with Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands. Mr. Kagan graduated from Yale University in 1989 and then worked with the New York City Bureau of Bridges for a couple of years before moving into a more figurative type of bridge building and bridge repairing, namely by joining the US Foreign Service in 1991. His diplomatic bridge building career has taken him from Côte d'Ivoire to Hungary to the policy planning staff in Washington to Israel, where he worked on Middle East peace process as well as reported on Israeli domestic policies and human rights issues. Beginning in 2000, perhaps before, but this is what I understand, he started working on this part of the world, first with the State Department's China desk and later with the political section of the Embassy in Beijing. His work in China included serving as the North Korea Watcher and the external unit chief. But it's in 2007 that things really started to get exciting because that's when he moved to Canberra to take up a posting at the US Embassy here. In his three-year stint in Canberra, he served as economic and then political economic counselor. I met him at that point in this building and it's a pleasure to have you back in town. Post Canberra, Mr. Kagan took up the post of director of Korean affairs from 2000 to 2012, including serving as Acting Deputy Secretary, Secretary, Acting Assistant Secretary, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, excuse me, for Japan and Korea. His focus today is on the dramatic changes in the Pacific region in recent years and the unique opportunities and challenges for the countries of the region. Please join me in welcoming Edgar Kagan and we look forward to his public lecture this evening on US engagement with the Pacific Islands and the region. Well thank you very much. It is a great pleasure to be back in Canberra and to be back at ANU and I really am humbled that so many people would think that this was attending and very appreciative. I had a great time in Canberra and one of the things that I really learned is how valuable the research and the people at ANU are to understanding what's happening in the region and I'm very very grateful for the sustained focus on the Asia Pacific but particularly on the Pacific that is taking place at this university. What I would suggest is my goals I'll try and have remarks but what I really think is helpful is we can have some questions afterwards and I can try and address as many concerns and issues that people might have. I think the first thing and obviously the critical one is the United States has been part of this region and has been engaged in the Asia Pacific for a very very long time and that we value our relationships in the region. We value the close partnerships that we have with many countries and that we are very focused on expanding and enhancing our relations with the Asia Pacific as a whole and with the and as a part of that recognizing that our engagement to be really effective our engagement with the Asia Pacific region has to include focus on the Pacific as well as East Asia. We believe that we've been part of the region. We've been very engaged. This goes back to trade in first U.S. contacts with East Asia took place in the late 18th century driven by trade. We've been involved politically in the region for a very long time and in many ways you know the sort of one of the seminal things our modern engagement has been things that happened 70 years ago and as we go through the 70th anniversaries of the Battle of the Coral Sea and of the U.S. Landing on Guadalcanal as well as the Battle of Midway it's been very humbling to realize that you know many in many ways this is the beginning of the modern U.S. engagement in the region as well as obviously the partnership alliance with Australia. We see ourselves as having been engaged bringing you know having a history that is one that is built in partnership with the countries in the region. We have very strong strategic interests in the region but we also believe that we have a very strong moral as well as historical role that in engagement that we see as being very critical as we move forward. One of the things that we have heard is that you know the U.S. engagement in the region is something that people believe that we had perhaps let go that we had lost some of our focus on Pacific and that one of the messages that we heard very strongly it was that we needed to ramp this up that we needed to be born engaged we need to be more present we needed to have you know more dialogue but also do more tangible activities and so we've tried to heed that message and we've tried to step this up. You know the U.S. engagement in the region is interesting it's somewhat complicated by the fact that we have a number of different strands that create the mosaic that we have now including our very unique relationships with the three compact states with fulfilling trust territories which means that some of the traditional measures that we have of our engagement don't quite work because for instance you know we have the U.S. spends about 330 million dollars a year on activities in the Pacific but much of that doesn't fall in the traditional baskets of official development assistance because it's done with the compact states to a variety of U.S. government departments which are engaged as part of the legacy that we have as well in the specific legal obligations we have in the compacts. We have sought to significantly expand our dialogue with Australia and with New Zealand on the Pacific one of the things that we recognize is that you know we have a great deal of expertise but it is very much in our interest to try and take advantage of the extraordinary expertise that Australia has as well as New Zealand and then obviously to work directly with the countries in the region and we very much value the relationships that we have in the expansion of dialogues taking place the last few years. We see our involvement in the region through a number of prisms and I think it's very important to sort of recognize that this is and what we're doing in the Pacific is part of a broader strategy and that includes engaging with traditional allies and working on our traditional alliance relationships which is obviously always very important in the United States and important part of what we do. Another is enhancing our relationships with emerging partners and if you look at our relations with China it is quite extraordinary the breadth and depth of the relationship and how much we've expanded the range of issues that we talk about the number of formal and informal dialogues that we have the very close consultation that we have on a wide range of issues the greater resilience that that has built into the relationship which was obviously highlighted in May at the time of strategic and economic dialogue when we had another issue that emerged that we were able to manage in the without disrupting our other relationships and other exchanges and we think that's a real testament to the investment that we've made and that China has made it to have a better relationship. We've also sought and this is perhaps one of the departures the last few years we've sought to increase and strengthen our engagement with regional institutions and so you see us formalizing a relationship with ASEAN and sending the first non ASEAN country to have an accredited resident ambassador. We have also sought to increase engagement with bodies like the Pacific Islands Forum which we see as a very important regional institution that plays a role in the in the Pacific region that we recognize that we should be doing more with and so you can see that you know we starting and this actually predates this administration where there's starting to be more engagement in the immediate immediately proceeding this administration. This administration has really sought to enhance by having more regular exchanges the leader level with the Pacific and I should in that regard I should note President Obama met with Pacific Island leaders in Honolulu in November of last year. Secretary Clinton has met with Pacific leaders on the margins of the UN General Assembly for several years. Last year 2011 our Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides attended the Pacific Islands Forum and obviously this year Secretary Clinton attended the post-form dialogue and met with the leaders in Rotonga which was for us very significant. I mean you know we recognize that the attendance of the US Secretary of State sent in our view an important signal of our desire to engage with the region and to do it in a very substantive and meaningful way and you know this was something that it was the first time it's ever happened and which we believe was a very successful engagement which was you know we hope the region appreciated it but we certainly appreciated what we learned and the value of our discussions. We've also tried to institutionalize greater engagement at the next level down and so the last two years of the our Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell has traveled with the commander of the US Navy's Pacific fleet to do a Pacific tour and this year we went to seven countries and you know to try and have a sustained engagement with an interagency team on our side about representing both the state department their military USAID and the White House as part of trying to highlight that we really do want to have serious discussions we want to learn we want to make sure that we're coordinating these effective as we can. We have tried to sustain this by also looking for broader ways to cooperate and one of the things that we heard from the region was that you know there was a great deal of frustration about the lack of a USAID presence, the US Agency for National Development and so last year we opened the US Agency for National Development Office in Port Moresby that has a regional focus. We are trying to look at things that we do so we can enhance our effectiveness by coordinating with key donors which is obviously Australia, New Zealand but also the European Union, Japan, you know multilateral development banks, other regional institutions. We also have tried very hard to look for areas where we can work cooperatively with China. We as Secretary Clinton said in our tanga we welcome new partners for the region. This is a region that clearly can benefit from additional partners that are willing to provide valuable and important assistance. We think this has to be done in close coordination with the country's concern so that the whatever new assistance that flows meets the needs and supports the development objectives of the countries involved. But we very much believe as Secretary Clinton said that the you know Pacific is big enough for everybody and that there are real benefits that come to all of us if there are more partners for the region. We have recognized that one of the key things that we need to do in the region is very important region is fisheries management and protection and we have long been involved through the US Pacific tuna treaty in trying to provide some regional flows of money that are linked to this but also something that we believe is critical because it is very transparent mechanism that show for fisheries management where there's very clear benchmarks and that we believe has led to the US tuna fleet being you know extremely proactive extremely good at management and sustainability and we think this is something that is very important for the region. We're in the process of negotiating extension of this and we believe we've made some significant progress we still have a ways to go but we've really focused on the importance to the region of enhanced returns from obviously one of its critical assets. We've also focused on the importance of transparency and its clarity and improved and enhanced management and we believe that this is something that if we can bring this to closure we'll support US interests in the region but which we like to think is good for the region as well. I think one of the things that we try and do in this vein is we have a number of programs and they try and support fisheries management we are so a member of some of the agencies and organizations that work on this we also try very hard to take advantage of some of the things that we bring to the table that we believe you know help reinforce our role and support the region and one of them is the ship rider program which people may be familiar with. This is something where we sign ship ride agreements with countries that then allow when we have Coast Guard vessels transit or operate in the region they can a country which we have a ship ride agreement can have representatives that go on board the vessel which can then help to enforce their laws and their EEZs. So this is something that has been welcomed and we which we're looking to try and expand and enhance because we do believe that while you know it's not a panacea it's not a silver bullet it does support the broader objective of helping countries manage their their fisheries resources and at the same time help preserve and promote sustainable fisheries management. We have tried to take advantage of our ability to sort of engage with a number of donors trying to enhance coordination we strongly support the Australian government's efforts through the cans compact to enhance donor effectiveness we think this is really critical we are working very hard to try and make sure that we are able to bring the right kinds of resources to bear in an atmosphere that you know very constrained for us but which we think ramping off assistance linked to addressing some of the impacts of climate change is very important we also are seeking to you know support efforts by others and to enhance the status of women and empower women in the region we believe this is clearly something the region can benefit from and it supports both the goal of improving the status of women but also sustainable development we welcome the Australian government's initiative to a very significant initiative in this regard we also have tried to put some of our own resources in play and to highlight this issue in the engagements that we've had in particular I should note that when Secretary Clinton went to of course more recently 2010 this was something that she really focused on and she did again in Rotonga we I think also want to try and make sure that what we're doing is sustainable that it empowers people at the community level that we try and build the sort of the human capital that will help the region and we recognize obviously there's huge challenges in that regard but we are very proud of what we've managed to do in that regard you know I think the long-standing presence of the US Peace Corps is something that we are very gratified by the warm reception they receive the this you know that's one of the things that countries almost every country in the region that we engage with wants Peace Corps if they don't have it or wants more Peace Corps if they do and we believe that the you know the vitality the energy these volunteers is really critical plays a very valuable role um I think that we want to try and make sure that what we do addresses the needs of a very diverse and disparate region and all too often you know we and you know we in government and others I think somehow you know sort of talk about the Pacific as if it's one cohesive region with common objectives and you know common challenges and obviously there are really significant differences between you know Micronesia Polynesia and Melanesia there are very significant differences between countries and we're trying very hard to be as sensitive to that as we can and to work with other partners on this so that we can try and target what we do so it's as effective as possible but I think that you know if you take a step back that the key thing for us is that we recognize that to be effective in the Asia Pacific we have to be effective in the Pacific that this is an area where we have some strategic interests we have historical interests we have moral interests and that we are very grateful for the cooperation and partnership that we have with Pacific countries we have obviously large Pacific populations in the United States and you know that we feel are extremely extremely helpful they're good for us and we like to think that it's good for the countries involved as well we want to try and expand the relationships expand the partnerships we recognize that you know we need to listen and learn from people who know more than us and we're very focused on trying to do that we want to recognize we need to operate as partners and as friends that we you know we are not in a position to say this is how it's supposed to be done because you know region places very challenging circumstances at the same time we're very excited by a lot of things that are happening and you know one of the things obviously is in Papua New Guinea the the LNG investment which you know is a very very significant US stake in the region we believe that this is something that we has tremendous potential for Papua New Guinea and you know at the same time we want to work very closely with the PNG government in terms of how it will be how the effects and some of the challenges that come with resource windfalls will be managed we also want to try and work closely with other countries as they face some of their own challenges and at the same time coordinate closely with our traditional allies and partners in Australia and New Zealand you know this is sort of in a nutshell and I'm sense that I could obviously go on a greater length but I think that the key things for us are the long-term importance of this the strategic importance of this and the desire to work with with the region and work closely so with that I would throat open to questions and happy to answer as much as whatever I can. I just want to really focus on that fear and fear and fear society and they are over 50 years West Papua people have been suffering and they are suffering now and they are not feeling total intimidation and neglect that the world buys me about in West Papua and as it is all real suffering continuously and the US and Australia are funding their detachment IDI which involve a lot of feelings of innocent West Papuans at the moment and I just would like to ask you questions how do you see the West Papuan people will benefit from your terror and sort of fear society engagement in the regions because as you are fully aware that the one of the biggest mankind object you can see on that Western half of the UNI island is that the whole in the middle of the island of the land is the whole that dug up by the your company US company pre-port and it is a tragic side effect of the local people at the moment so just can you please explain what your sort of role in the regions and how you see the West Papuan people will benefit from this terror and sort of a terror and fear sort of society that you sort of are trying to hold in the Pacific region or you mentioned me talking about the moral responsibility and how many in the name of moral responsibility and how you see that the West Papua issue is morally acceptable over the 50 years over the last 50 years and we have been suffering in the hands of immunization literally a brutal rule so can you please just explain briefly your position in the case of West Papua? Certainly you know obviously what you raise is something that can take quite seriously and we understand your concerns and your frustration I think that you know from our standpoint we have been very pleased with the steps that have been taken by Indonesia and the strengthening of our relationship with Indonesia in the in recent years we believe that one of the things that is very important is we've had a very good dialogue with Indonesia on a number of issues including the importance of human rights and development you know obviously you know there's a long history to this and you know this is something that is a challenge for the people in Papua as well as in Indonesia but we think that the way forward on this is the strengthening of democratic institutions in Indonesia which we believe has happened that better development brings the benefits of development to the people throughout the country and so we think this is something that there has been progress on now obviously you know there's challenges and we believe that the way to address those by continuing to work on this and make clear our values make clear what we stand for make clear that we are looking at this as one of the issues in the relationship but at the same time I think it's very clear from our standpoint we were very satisfied we believe there's been extraordinary progress in Indonesia we believe our relationship with the Indonesian government has grown much stronger and that we have seen real progress on a whole range of issues you know or the things that we discussed with Indonesia so obviously you know there are things that we want to take very seriously that we want to continue working on but we do in the context of great deal satisfaction about where the relationship with Indonesia has gone in terms of the broader engagement in the region I think it's important you know human rights is something that is very critical to us we have been champions of human rights around the world for many many years we've raised human rights with countries when you know often the others wouldn't we've tried to address this this is an important part of our dialogue with countries around the world and I should note that you know in addition to having the fact that we regularly have discussions with some countries in Asia and we were expanding this we recently had a very productive human rights dialogue with Burma Myanmar and so this is something that we take seriously and that we believe is important moral obligation for us to undertake as part of our values as we engage with the world so I think that you know in the Pacific one of the things that we see is that there is a culture that is respectful of human rights I mean I think that you know they're obviously exceptions they're obviously challenges but we do believe that this is something where we have some important shared values in the region and so we will try and keep building on that expanding that and making sure that that's a subject of our discussion for countries throughout the region around the world. Thanks very much. Yes, in this case a couple of themes you had to give me were addressed with cooperation between the US, the United Nations, China, and deepening and and also the need to cooperatively deliver a development assistance in the region. It seems to me to be a a renaissance of China to to engage the donors to coordinate this they prefer to do the you know actually for whatever reason and also they're obviously what the right outcomes is. Is that a concern to the United States and what if he's working on that doing to address that? Certainly we believe that donor coordination is vital around the world I mean I think it's very clear that in most countries where there are multiple donors how you coordinate assistance how you coordinate activities is very important for a bunch of reasons one of them is obviously more trying to be as effective as possible the other is that you know on a very basic level you want to make sure that people who should be involved with helping develop their countries aren't involved with trying to fill out like 27 different you know forms for you know they're slightly different for similar projects I mean so coordination is very important. I think this is something that we would like to expand our cooperation with China and we're not alone I think there are other donors who are interested in doing this I think that it's important to recognize that China has a unique history and a unique vision for its role and how it does assistance and you know China has a great deal of pride in their the steps that they've been able to take to develop their own country and believe they have something to offer that at the same time I think you know it's fair to say that you know donor coordination is not something that is necessarily more their top concerns we think the way to address it is to just address it to continue making clear to China that we are interested in expanding our cooperation we're interested in working cooperatively we are not seeking to compete in the provision of assistance but rather we think that both of our interests are served if we're better able to coordinate and not just both of ours but bilaterally but also with other donors and you know with the countries that we're trying to assist this is a long process I mean I've worked on China on and off for a fairly significant chunk of my career and I think that what you see is that China's diplomatic engagement around the world has changed quite dramatically as China's own circumstances have changed and we are able today to talk to China about issues that were been unimaginable 15 years ago so I'm an optimist that we will be able to enhance our ability to work together in this that we did because I think that China understands that this is something that's in its interest as well and so this is going to be a process and I believe that we will get to the right place and I think that it's important because but we have a very complex relationship with China and I mean there's no two ways about it we are very very proud of the steps that the United States has taken over a very long period of time and and regardless of you know politics and if you look there's been a tremendous amount of consistency regardless of which party has been in the White House with its US-China policy we have sought to engage China and encourage China to play a greater role in the world we welcome this at the same time can obviously we believe China's role in the world needs to be one that supports global interests including peace stability prosperity and this is an appropriate subject to discussion so I think that we're going to get there like that if you look at the last 30 years and change in China's global role as well as the kinds of discussions that we've had and are able to have that I'm confident that we have grounds for optimism that we're going to get there so you know will the process be easy you know and you know I think that if you look back a lot of things that we do as a matter of course now we're very hard to get off the ground but I do think we'll get that yes my name is large I was 200 years old public servant my question is basically most of the Pacific Island has they they have a view that the US has lost focus towards the Pacific Island region and you know it's more focused on its war against Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. Would you be in a position to tell us out of your total aid budget what percentage is going towards the Pacific Island unfortunately I don't know off the top of my head and I don't want to give I don't want to make a number off and give something that's wrong I mean it's small it's presented for our public budget I think that it is something that it's worth remembering that if you that it's given our unique relationships with the compacts it's not completely it's not completely accurate to just look at the official development assistance because we do a tremendous amount of assistance in the region through a number of mechanisms that are linked to the compacts and they're but don't fall under RODA accounts I think that the important thing for us is that you know we recognize that you know first of all we've been engaged we continue to be engaged in the region for a long time and you know one of the things is that the you know different elements of US government particularly the US Navy the US Coast Guard have been very important players in the region throughout this period I think that it's fair to say that we are trying to enhance our diplomatic engagement and at the same time expand the areas which we cooperate in recognition in part of the fact it's an honor to do but also the region is looking for us to do this I think that the question of what is our focus is an appropriate one I mean at the same time it is I think fair to say that we've devoted a pre you know we've had seen an increase in the senior level engagement with the Pacific in the last few years which we think does address the concerns I mean what we hear the messaging that we hear and obviously you know we have to be a little cautious because you know people are polite don't necessarily want to give this bad news to our face but what we we've gone from hearing you're not doing enough to can you sustain it now you know do we need to do more I think that we have to look for ways in which we can be effective as in sustainable but I also think that the fact that the question now is okay can you sustain it is a sign that there is a recognition that we have stepped up our efforts and that the real question is is this something that's going to become a future of how we enter the region we believe that it should be because we believe it's our interest we believe that this is something that supports our broader Asia Pacific strategy and so you know I'm confident that you will see that and I think it's worth noting this is something our you know rebalancing towards the Asia Pacific is something that has really broad support across the political spectrum in the United States you don't see a lot of people saying oh you shouldn't be focusing on the Asia Pacific region there's some legitimate questions about how this is best done but I think that this is something where there is very clearly a recognition in the US that the extraordinary changes in the Asia Pacific region and in that regard I would note that you know we really consider this to be a broader region including South Asia that this is something that is going to have an extraordinary impact on the world that we live in it's already doing that you know the changes in you know global income and distribution and global patterns global trade that we see are just extraordinary so I think that what we believe is that this engagement with the Pacific is part of that broader framework it's in the US interest and second question is that's an excellent question I mean the first part is our relationship with Fiji obviously is has been strained as has the rest of the Pacific regions as a result of what has happened there we are very supportive of transition to democracy restoration democracy this includes the constitutional commission which we provided support for we believe that it is very very important that this process goes on as the government has committed to and you know we will be watching very closely to to see if the government's deeds matches words in terms of how the constitutional commission process goes then the subsequent steps of navigating the constitution and the movement towards elections there have been some positive steps I mean I think that we we are encouraged by them we're at the same time cautious we believe that what matters is that the deeds match the rhetoric and so we but if that happens we believe that there is room for improvement the relationship not just with the United States but I think it's very clear that the region is committed to this as well that said I think that you know this is a process that's going to be complicated I mean we're very realistic about the challenges that are involved but we believe that it's important that the government of Fiji goes through and does with what it said it's going to do on the issue of the Arab world Israel as I said we believe this is a region that can benefit from new partners and enhanced partnerships so you know we believe that this is something that is positive provided the assistance and that it becomes is something that serves the region I think that's really the critical question we do not have formal coordination mechanisms right now that's certainly something that we should be doing we believe that you know the cans compact framework is something that's potentially very valuable we encourage other countries that are seeking to play a role in the region to take part in that to try and use that and in part of that it's very simply put if you want to be a player in the region if you want to provide assistance if you want to be a partner it helps to know what others are doing to try to benefit from lessons learned so they can things can be assistance can be in support can be as effective as possible so we think there's a strong interest in doing that I think what we are cautious about is the idea of competition I mean you know what we don't want to see is the kind of competition that historically has sometimes led to very bad outcomes where you know they've been in that regard you know obviously the competition between China and Taiwan for recognition used to be a feature of the region we believe that the fact that this is no longer speaking issue is extremely positive and we welcome the steps that both China and Taiwan have taken to try and make sure that they their assistance is much more focused on development outcomes rather than this kind of competition that used to be a feature of what the political landscape we believe that what matters is that whatever is done in the region supports the region supports the goals and objectives the countries involved people's is respectful of the different circumstances in different countries and is something that really does advance the broader welfare of the countries involved also Hi I'm a student here thanks for your broad comments I have a couple specific questions I hope that they're going to answer about migration communities in the United States I hope so too I hope so I know hopefully I won't be too specific for you but I know with a lot of migration communities migrants towards the United States where they have you know free access to the United States for the compact but don't necessarily have the same access towards medical assistance medical treatments welfare even though they are allowed food stamps I know in certain states there's been quite a pushback such as Hawaii, Arkansas, Oklahoma not wanting to pay for in particular I think of Marshallese patients not wanting to take on that bill and putting pressure asking saying that it's a federal level so I'm wondering if you know if this is at all on the US federal government's sort of lines to think about covering microdusions because certainly there's going to be larger and larger amounts of of migrants from microdusion and then as a corollary question I'm wondering if you can talk about if you have any information about the US's stance on the United Nations Human Rights Council looking further into the nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands Look I mean the first question is part something that we're starting to focus on this is to be honest pretty far off the state department of where it's about but obviously to the extent that this starts to become an issue in our bilateral relationships it's something that we do recognize is important then it's important to put this into context and that is that you know this is part of the broader challenge coming from non-communicable diseases which is a challenge both in countries of all as well as obviously you know when people come to the United States and the critical thing for us is that we need to work with the countries to take steps to address the challenges of non-communicable diseases this includes prevention obviously as well as some degree improving intensive treatment I mean you know I think that there's a there's some definitional issues about you know when talking about people who reside more or less permanently in the United States or you know they're from a center of time of people who come essentially just to the state of treatment and so these are challenges and look it's a real issue I mean we were very sympathetic to the concerns of the people in the complex states and at the same time you know I think it's important to note the core issue is the fact that when people show up at an American hospital emergency room they get treated and they do not get turned away even if it's you know very expensive complex treatments they get that kind of treatment that then obviously creates financial pressures for the hospitals involved and so you know this is something that we believe is a reflection of the on one hand the positives in terms of the values of making sure everyone becomes its treatment and who needs it at the same time you know recognizing that there's a broader issue of impact that has on other services that can be ordered by other people as well this is a complex issue there's no easy solution non-communicable diseases are a huge challenge in virtually every developed country you know this is not something that is a silver bullet it's obviously going to require a really sustained and effective effort to try and address prevention treatment and you know this is something also creates some challenges in terms of how the federal government and state governments get along in animal financing so this is not easy I think that there's a recognition it's a problem there's what we're going to keep working on it and ultimately you know this is something that state departments roll somewhat limited because you know we care about it to the extent it's a vital issue but the real solutions in many ways is something that's out of our purview on the marshals we cooperated with the special rapporteur we look you know the nuclear legacy in the marshals is very complicated the US has acknowledged our responsibility we have sought to address the you know needs of the people involved it is fully as complete as possible we've devoted hundreds of millions of dollars to try and address this you know we recognize this continues to be a very complex and you know short point in the relationship with our peoples so this is something where we've tried to be as transparent as possible we recognize that there are continuing concerns about what happened we're trying to address them we don't we believe that at this point you know we don't have we don't have the ability to answer every single question at the circuit there are always going to be people who need to satisfy we've tried very very hard to be as transparent as possible and we do provide long-term very sustained medical treatment to people who are directly involved and who are victims you know we've tried to address the tribunal try to address the compact we try to do everything that we can with the marshals we also recognize that it's understandable that people aren't completely satisfied this is going to be a challenge in a relationship for a long time to come we think that the way to deal with it is by being as transparent as possible being as straightforward as possible I think from the American perspective we do believe that we have done the things that we have been asked to do that we've tried to address the concerns and that we will keep trying to do everything we can within the constraints that we have the fact that we're never going to be able to do everything that everybody wants yes you mentioned some priorities for US foreign policy and for their insistence delivery one of those you mentioned is climate change can you give us a little bit of detail about what the US is doing to reiterate because of climate change in the Pacific region yeah that's one of the things that was announced in North Tonga was I think $25 million to address some to help mitigate some of the impacts when you recognize this is you know small but a very small amount in comparison to your well need but we recognize that you know you got to start somewhere and that what we want to try and do is help address some of the challenges and help mitigate some of it and also work on adaptation I think that the specific details is frankly if I you know that they're in the hands of our the USAID mission in Port Moresby and I'm not that familiar with it so I'm you know very reluctant to make a bigger fool of myself and I already have I'm trying to address it but I would say that you know it is a recognition of fact this is a critical thing for the region and we totally understand that we understand this is something where you know on a certain level we're never going to be able to fully address the concerns we're never going to be able to solve all the problems but again we think it's important to start and that this is part of reinforcing our commitment to working with the region to really be a part of this thank you very much for your presentation I actually had a question I'm very interested in your focus on the rebalance towards the age specific and the emphasis on the age specific following from that I know also that you highlighted a number of continuities in US engagement in the Asia more broadly and in the Pacific such as working with allies coordinating with emerging partners in strengthening institutions I guess what I'm interested is how do you see US engagement in the Pacific as distinguished from other areas in the region such as Southeast Asia in that context what are US priorities for engagement in the Pacific and in the context of the challenges that exist I think the you know there's a couple of things I think the first is that you know we see this we see great deal continuity because it's part of our strategy of engaging with you know enhancing our engagement across the board with the region also engaging with key regional institutions in the case of Southeast Asia ASEAN in the case of the Pacific Pacific Islands Forum and of looking for ways in which we can step up our engagement by you know through dialogues through enhanced discussion and to try and address some of the concerns we know there's the reality that the major challenges are significant differences not just between different parts of the Asia Pacific region but within those regions and you know country by country I think that our priority is first of all to be a good partner to be a good partner to countries in the region as well as to our traditional friends and partners in such as Australia and New Zealand and then there are other countries as well I should know Japan and the EU and France are all very important players in the region and you know these are countries which were obviously there in the case of the EU institutions with which we have long-standing partnerships and we work very closely together so that's something where we think we bring a little bit to the table we also are you know major we have major roles in the Asia Development Bank and the World Bank and the IMF and other multilateral development banks so that's something where we think that we can bring something to the table I think our priority is to enhance what we're doing to be an effective partner to try and support the aspirations the goals the countries in the region including obviously development but also regional integration and perhaps trade you know developing capital and to look for ways in which we can do that recognizing that our means are limited you know we we are trying to increase them but there's still you know small fraction the overall inflows the region yes um following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 the whole of the Russian Far East sort of went into serious decline it appears from the last experience the last year or two that Russia has changed its attitude towards the development of the Far Eastern to put a lot more resources in there to both the economic and the world. This raises the question of the relationship with Russia with the Asian Pacific and indeed of course with the United States and President Farnes took about resetting the relationship that doesn't seem to have had much response from the Russians so it seems to be good and bad sequence coming out of the relationship there I wonder if you'd like to comment on this because pretty easily that we talked about it it wouldn't be the very first question not probably the last question that's right uh look I mean first of all I think you know I challenge one thing which is the relationship with Russia we think has made some significant strides you know and I think it's also worth noting that you know it's a complex relationship there are a lot of different issues we were able to work together effectively and quite a few and one of the points where I think we've had real progress in improvement has been on Iran the unity of the security council and the the P5 plus 1 process has been very very important and it's put extraordinary you know it doesn't seem extraordinary improvement in increase in the economic impact of sanctions on Iran which we think has been very positive so you know I would challenge the assertion that the relationship hasn't improved there are many other areas one of them is we've managed to expand our ability to talk about the Asia Pacific region we welcome Russia playing a greater role in the region obviously Russia is a part of the region I mean the Russian Far East is very important for a number of reasons one of which is as a conduit for very significant flows of energy we believe this is very very good for the region and we believe Russia playing a greater role in the region is something incredibly positive you know so I think it's important to recognize that we see this as a positive development we see this also as a return to you know normalcy in some degree and Russia has historically going back to you know the 1780 1790s been a feature in the area and this is something that we think you know it's not something that threatens us interests rather that he can support and enhance the broader engagement in the region in that regard I should note that the U.S. and Russia both join the East Asia summit at the same time that we've knew the Russians are very valuable partners in APEC as well as the AAS these are things where we think we can work together to promote both of our interests in a peaceful and prosperous and growing and effective Asia Pacific region so I think that's that's something that we see as a positive we we see as you know cross one it's important to know when the U.S. you know talks about rebalancing we talk about greater emphasis on the Asia Pacific region I mean I think that it's worth knowing we're not unique in this in virtually every country in the world is seeking to expand and enhance its relationships with the Asia Pacific and that's not because of some you know it's not because of some sort of foreign policy theology or anything it's because they're very very sound economic as well as diplomatic and political reasons for doings and so we think this is good and we recognize that across the board countries want to improve their relations with China we think it's important that they look beyond China and this is where to some degree you know me I don't want to say we need disagreements we think it's important for countries to look strategically and recognize that the rise of the Asia Pacific is not just a China story and I think that sometimes gets missed perhaps and we obviously are very very appreciative of the extraordinary development that's taking place in China and China's going well we welcome this I mean this is a framework again that in many ways has been helped to be set by you know long sustained U.S. engagement under a very steady U.S. policy but I think that the Asia Pacific story is one that encompasses the extraordinary growth in ASEAN the you know continued importance of Japan and the growth in Korea as well as the the fact that India's growth historically India has been a part of Asia in many ways Southeast Asia's where you know India sort of Indian influence and Chinese influence kind of met and overlapped this we recognize India is going to be more part of the region and we welcome that we have worked very hard to try and ensure that we're talking to India sharing perspectives and making clear that we think this is a positive for the region a positive for the United States so this is something and at the same time in European countries you know there's been some concern I think one of the things that you see we sometimes pick up from Asia say well yeah this is great but are you traditional European friends annoyed by this well our response is you know countries around the world including in Europe are all trying to do the same thing we have everyone recognizes that there is a very strong interest in enhancing engagement and relationships in the Asia Pacific and this is something that you know we've talked to the Europeans about for many years we have very good dialogues with them across a range of issues and we think that this is something where again we there's no conflict between our interests this is rather something where we help reinforce each other and support each other and we think that it's good for the region as well talk for a few more questions yes you spoke of meaningful sorry for a student here you spoke of meaningful engagement with the Pacific when do you see that the United States will need to bilateral engagement the rhetoric is very interesting how how are you and one of the challenges something you aspire to do well I first of all I don't think that we're challenged with basic premise you know obviously it's a little bit different because we're not represented in every specific country we have embassies in the compact states we also have regional embassies the cover you know Melanesia and we've done an emcee in suba the covers five countries they are very active and you know I think it's worth noting that we are very we're working closely with the government we have expanded our presence and our relationships with uh in the solvents and you know we have an emcee in in some more you know we do try and stay engaged we're talking bilateral in a range of different issues I think that one of the things that's worth noting is that this isn't just about assistance man one of the things that we believe is very important is that you know our gauges with the region are not just about here's you know what we've done for you late you know this is because we the relationships are more complex we think a much beyond assistance obviously assistance is important but you know I think that it is a little into the region to suggest that the only thing that matters is you know how much assistance you give you know how it's done and we think that there are some strategic issues that we talk about we have broad cooperation and a lot of things around the world you know we recognize that they're you know countries are dealing with our own challenges but we at the same time we think that it's very important that we discuss our range of issues ranging from security issues you know countries that their countries are becoming more active in a variety of international fora and as well as cooperation UN and by our world cooperation a variety of issues dealing with like transnational past crime you know illegal unlicensed or unregulated fishing and things like that so we do have bilateral dialogues I think they're important obviously we like to enhance them and expand them um it is a challenge doing that where we're not present in every country in by and large you know we do try and make sure that our embassies are active and I think that you know there's a great deal of travel by our ambassadors and other embassy staff to make sure that we're engaging with countries it's a challenge we don't let's not care ourselves as you know distances are big you know flights are few it's very expensive to do but we think it's important we continue to study what we can do to try and make what we do with a region more effective both region and also bilateral so this is something that I think you know clearly we have to keep working at this and we can and hopefully we'll do better but at the same time we're very proud of the engagement we've had the kind of cooperation that we have with you you know PNG with Tonga with Samoa you know so these are things that we do and fairly effectively and that are part and parcel of our engagement with the region. Now with just about out of time I wonder if I could just finish with the question of my own and that is we're going to know in a couple of weeks time whether the same administration stays or a new administration comes in in your view is this pivot to the age of the city in its specific islands aspect is this an sort of embedded shift in this in American foreign policy that would survive a change of administration or something that belongs pretty much to the president? I think that you know it is very unwise for uh career officials there's actually too much about what happens for this election um and you know I think that you know very clearly we're very proud of the fact we think that there is a long-standing bipartisan strain in the U.S. policy of those nations and in China is of course the best example but if you look at this I mean administrations regardless of both parties have supported our long-standing security engagements in the region that you know administrations from both parties have been involved in expanding trade in the region so this is something that we think you know there's clear evidence that there is a sustained bipartisan view of the region the exact way in which this plays out obviously very hard to make any you know concrete statements on other than the fact I don't know but you don't see a lot of criticism of the idea that we need to be more engaged more focused in broader Asia-Pacific region or of the engagement with the Pacific um you know I think how exactly that plays out how much of it is you know does it change and I think it's worth noting that you know almost certainly regardless of the results there will be some changes in personnel um but I think that you know how that plays out is something that's very hard to speculate on now we believe that there's a very strong strategic case to be made for why the U.S. needs to be engaged in the region why we need to continue to enhance what we do and why the region matters the United States and as a result we believe that there is you know some reason to be confident that this is going to be sustained but at the same time I would not want to mislead anyone and will speculate and say anything definite because honestly I don't think it's possible to know so it just leaves me to thank Edgar Cayden for a very broad analysis of the region from Pacific Islands bringing in some questions that deal with his expertise in Northeast Asia and other places as well and we're grateful to him for coming around to the ANU this evening to deliver this address thanks very much