Showing posts with label Japan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Japan. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

(My latest for Jane's Defence Weekly) Obama and Noda commit to improving space co-operation

ASIA PACIFIC
Date Posted: 02-May-2012


Jane's Defence Weekly


Obama and Noda commit to improving space co-operation

Kosuke Takahashi JDW Correspondent
Tokyo

The joint development of GPS capabilities and cyber-security co-operation were the notable outcomes of Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda's first official visit to Washington DC.

Noda, the first Japanese leader to meet US President Barack Obama in Washington since his Democratic Party of Japan took power in September 2009, arrived days after the two countries agreed on a revised realignment plan for US forces in Japan.

Speaking at the White House, Obama reiterated that "the US-Japan alliance will remain the foundation of the security and prosperity of our two nations [and] also a cornerstone of regional peace and security". A joint statement added: "We must also work to protect and develop the tremendous potential of critical areas such as the high seas, space, and cyberspace, ensuring their use is responsible and rule-based."     


Although the statement was short on details on how the two countries would achieve this, Obama and Noda did announce plans to enhance space co-operation through the US's GPS and Japan's Quasi-Zenith Satellite System (QZSS), which is designed to improve GPS-based navigation in the Asia-Pacific region.

The US has about 30 GPS satellites in orbit. Japan launched its first QZSS satellite in September 2010.

Copyright © IHS Global Limited, 2012

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

(My latest story for Asia Times Online): Japan sets sights on Pyongyang's launch

North Korea’s erratic behavior is now part of the East Asian landscape. It is widely taken as almost like a daily occurrence in the region. In Japan, since Pyongyang’s belligerent and proactive behavior is too familiar, ordinary people are not at all surprised to see it.

Then, why are Japanese and United States forces taking the launch so seriously? That's partly because it presents a perfect opportunity to simulate a Chinese missile attack. Please go over my story. Cheers, Kosuke

Asia Times Online :: Japan sets sights on Pyongyang's launch

Japan sets sights on Pyongyang's launch
Japan has prepared land-based missile interceptors and dispatched three Aegis-equipped destroyers in preparation for North Korea's launch of an "earth-observation satellite", prompting accusations that Tokyo is overreacting. However, part of the reason Japanese and United States forces are taking the launch so seriously is because it presents a perfect opportunity to simulate a Chinese missile attack. - Kosuke Takahashi (Apr 3, '12)

Japan sets sights on Pyongyang's launch
By Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - As North Korea ramps up preparations for its planned mid-April launch of an "earth-observation satellite", Japan, South Korea and the United States are rushing to prepare weapons that could shoot it down.

The Japanese government is deploying warships and a missile shield to destroy any long-range missile that threatens its territory. "We must take all possible measures to protect Japanese lives and property," Defense Minister Naoki Tanaka said in response to North Korean missile launch plans, at the Ministry of Defense initiation ceremony on April 2.

To activate Japan's missile defense system and intercept the missile or any debris from it, the minister has ordered the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) to deploy land-based PAC-3 interceptors to a total of seven locations in the Tokyo metropolitan area as well as on the Okinawa, Ishigaki and Miyako islands in southwestern Japan.

In addition, three Kongo-class Aegis-equipped destroyers fitted with Standard SM-3 Block IA missiles, namely, Chokai, Kirishima and Myoko, are being deployed to the East China Sea and the Sea of Japan to track the launch.

"Although some people say Japan is overreacting this time, I do not think so," Japanese military analyst Toshiyuki Shikata told Asia Times Online. "It would be too late once the damage is done. It's normal counter-measures as a nation."

Hideshi Takesada, a professor of international relations at South Korea's Yonsei University, takes a similar view: "Compared with Seoul's counter-measures, Japan is not overreacting. There is not much difference between the two nations."

With the assistance of the US Forces Korea, the South Korean government also plans to shoot down the North Korean rocket should it veer off course, causing the first stage booster to fall on its territory.

"Looking back at history, one Chinese rocket strayed off course, causing hundreds of casualties," said Takesada, a former executive director of the National Institute for Defense Studies in Tokyo, the Japanese Ministry of Defense's think-tank. In 1996, a Long March 3 rocket flew off course and crashed into a village, with estimates of deaths reaching over 100.

"It's necessary to expend all possible means to protect the lives and property of the people from a missile or any falling objects," said Takesada.

Pyongyang announced on March 16 that it would launch an Unha-3 rocket carrying an earth-observation satellite called Kwangmyongsong-3 between April 12 and 16, dates that coincide with celebrations for the 100th anniversary of the birth of founding father Kim Il-sung.

North Korea claims the impending launch is of a satellite launch vehicle (SLV) as opposed to a ballistic missile, as it claimed during a similar test in April 2009. But they are effectively the same technology. Even the launch of an SLV would strengthen North Korea's ballistic missile capabilities.

US-Japan military rehearsal
Another reason Japan and the US Forces Japan (USFJ) are taking North Korea's launch plan so seriously is that this presents a golden opportunity to simulate a missile attack from China. For the US and Japan, the preparation for the North's upcoming rocket launch are as good as joint exercises against a mock Chinese assault.

Those Chinese missiles that would be used in such an attack include its solid-fuelled intermediate-range ballistic missiles and the Dong Feng (DF)-21 family of medium-range ballistic missiles. The DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, known as the "aircraft carrier killer", has caused serious concern in US intelligence circles as it would boost Beijing's "anti-access/area denial" capability in the West Pacific. US officials believe it could limit the movements of the US Seventh Fleet region should conflict erupt there.

How to deal with a rising China is the biggest common interest of the US and Japan. China's growing naval power and its enhanced strike capabilities are reshaping the security dynamic in the region. This has caused the US to shift its security pivot toward the Asia-Pacific by expanding its military footprint in Australia, the Philippines and Singapore. With the Pentagon well aware of China's "anti-access/area denial" strategy and focused on the so-called AirSea battle concept, it aims to move US Marines currently stationed on Japan's Okinawa Island to other areas out of from China's missile strike range.

Japan, meanwhile, has also been strengthening security around the Nansei (Southwestern) Islands in Okinawa Prefecture by adopting a new concept called "Dynamic Defense Force" - a move that is apparently aimed at countering China's growing activities in the East China Sea. Under this new guideline, Tokyo aims to enhance the SDF presence in those islands.

"China cannot voice objections to an integrated US-Japan ballistic missile defense capability this time, as long as North Korea is a cause of the problem," Shikata, a professor at Teikyo University in Tokyo and retired lieutenant general of the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Forces. "North Korea's missile launch provides the US and Japan a good opportunity to go through a rehearsal against China's missile."

Closer integration of US and Japanese forces
A recent move to integrate the Japan Air Self-Defense Force's main command with the US Yokota Air Base, which is home to USFJ headquarters and the US 5th Air Force, suggest an increase in bilateral military cooperation is planned.

The move is part of a 2006 agreement on the realignment of USFJ. The new command center could soon have its first test if Pyongyang goes ahead with its planned satellite launch in mid-April. The center is expected to instruct Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) destroyers equipped with the Aegis system and the PAC-3 air Defense missile interceptor units.

The JMSDF has also already relocated its command centre to Yokosuka Naval Base: also home to the US Navy's 7th Fleet. The Japan Ground Self-Defense Force's Central Readiness Force, which is currently based at Camp Asaka in Saitama Prefecture, is also scheduled to move to Camp Zama, the home of US Army Japan, in March 2013. These moves are highly likely to strengthen the two nations' defense collaboration further against China and North Korea.

North Korea on March 27 reaffirmed its plan to launch a "satellite" despite the mounting international pressure. Experts expect this will be a serious blow to recent diplomatic recent progress between the North and the US. In response to Pyongyang's planned "satellite" launch, the US has suspended food aid to Pyongyang, saying it has broken the terms of a February 29 agreement to halt its nuclear activities.

Similarly in May 2008, the US announced it would resume food assistance to North Korea. But just a few months later Pyongyang refused to receive the US food assistance and kicked out American non-governmental organizations. This was followed by a missile launch in April 2009 and a second nuclear test in May 2009.

The US can share part of the blame for today's confusion concerning North Korea. The Barack Obama administration seems to have rushed towards negotiations with Pyongyang, eager for a foreign-policy success ahead of November's presidential election. Obama also likely believed he could take advantage of the leadership change following Dear Leader Kim Jong-il's death last December. President Bill Clinton tried to do the same in the wake of Kim Il-sung's death in 1994, but the subsequent agreements collapsed.

"The US was fooled again by Pyongyang," Shikata said. "It will maintain a cautious distance from North Korea from now on."

"The Obama administration underestimated North Korea," added Takesada. "It was put to shame in public."

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. Besides Asia Times Online, he also writes for Jane's Defence Weekly as Tokyo correspondent. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Saturday, January 14, 2012

(My latest for JDW) Japanese PM replaces defence minister

Japanese PM replaces defence minister


Kosuke Takahashi JDW Correspondent
Tokyo

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda sacked Yasuo Ichikawa as defence minister on 13 January after a series of gaffes led to his censure in Japan's upper house.

Noda appointed veteran lawmaker Naoki Tanaka to replace Ichikawa as part of a wider Cabinet reshuffle. Tanaka, 71, is expected to draw on his experience as chairman of the committee on foreign affairs and defence in the House of Councillors and as a parliamentary vice-minister for foreign affairs in addressing defence issues such as the deadlocked relocation of the US' Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Futenma in Okinawa.

Noda told reporters that Tanaka's "abundant political experience" was the key factor in his appointment. Outside policy circles, Tanaka is best known as the husband of Makiko Tanaka, a former foreign minister and the daughter of former Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka.     


Ichikawa was censured in the opposition-controlled House of Councillors on 9 December after he made a series of gaffes, including one relating to the 1995 rape of a 12-year-old girl by three US servicemen in Okinawa.

Copyright © IHS Global Limited, 2012

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Rethink U.S. military base plans for Japan

This is one option to solve the Futenma problem, which has reached a deadlock. Hope Panetta-san will read this. Cheers, Kosuke

Rethink U.S. military base plans for Japan
Editor's Note: Mike Mochizuki is Associate Dean, Professor, and Sigur Chair at George Washington University specializing in U.S.-Japan relations; Michael O'Hanlon is senior fellow at Brookings and author of The Wounded Giant: America's Armed Forces in an Age of Austerity.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon.

By Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon – Special to CNN

On his inaugural trip to Asia as secretary of defense, Leon Panetta offered reassuring words throughout the region that America’s presence in the Western Pacific will not decline as a result of the ongoing military budget reduction process in the United States.

The current U.S. strength of almost 30,000 soldiers in South Korea, closer to 40,000 in Japan, and several thousand more sailors and Marines typically aboard ships patrolling the area’s huge waters will remain as is, according to the Pentagon’s new leader. At a time when “sequestration” threatens to cut up to one trillion dollars from the Pentagon’s previous ten-year spending plan, such words of resolve and continuity are understandable, and mostly right on.

But they are not completely correct. Mr. Panetta should seek to honor their spirit rather than their letter in the crucial months ahead.

Troop numbers should not be confused with capability or commitment. American officials make a mistake by unnecessarily constraining their options when making such statements. Sustaining, and indeed increasing, American capability should be the leitmotif guiding future defense policy decisions. In some cases that may mean more numbers, and in other cases less.

The specific area where current American basing arrangements should in fact be thoroughly revisited is in regards to the presence of nearly 20,000 U.S. Marines on Okinawa. In fact, due to ongoing war efforts in Afghanistan, the actual number of Marines in this Japanese island prefecture has been typically much less than that figure - which American officials should seize on as an opportunity to downsize without in fact downsizing.

Keeping 5,000 to 10,000 Marines on Okinawa while relocating the rest makes the most strategic sense. Right now, Japanese and American officials in Tokyo and Washington agree; and they have a plan to relocate about 8,000 of the Marines to Guam in the coming years. But a better approach would be to bring those Marines home to California where the inevitable downsizing of the broader U.S. Marine Corps will create space for them at existing bases.

American capabilities in East Asia - the crucial matter - can then be sustained (if not actually enhanced) if Japan and the United States purchase extra equipment for those Marines and place it on maritime prepositioning vessels in Japanese waters where it can be quickly put to sea in the event of conflict and sailed to where forces are needed. Equipment could then be quickly unloaded and the Marines in California could fly over to meet needs even faster than they could currently reach regional hotspots in a place like Korea or Southeast Asia.

The Guam relocation plan is a complex relocation of Marine assets. Not only would almost half the Marines move to American territory about 1,000 miles away, but the remaining Okinawa Marines would use a brand new airfield. The existing site at Futenma Marine Air Station in southern Okinawa, which has over the years become even more surrounded by Japanese urban dwellers than has LaGuardia in New York or National Airport in DC, would close and be replaced by V-shaped airfield constructed on the shore of Henoko Bay near Nago City.

There are however two major problems with the existing plan. First, Okinawan politics will not tolerate it. Not only did voters in Nago City elect in January 2010 a mayor who is adamantly against this new airfield, but also every head of Okinawa’s cities, towns and villages are also opposed. Okinawan Governor Hirokazu Nakaima was re-elected in November 2010 on a platform opposing the current relocation plan; and he is almost certain to reject the upcoming application for a landfill, which is necessary to build the new airfield.

If the Japanese government were to force the construction of proposed Henoko facility, this is likely to provoke a physical clash with anti-base activists and erode the willingness of Okinawans to host more important U.S. bases on Okinawa, such as Kadena Air Force Base.

Second, and just as importantly in the era of American budgetary austerity, the Guam/Henoko plan is way too expensive. Lots of costly construction would be needed to make it happen - about $15 billion for each of the two countries. Keeping U.S. forces at existing bases in Japan is in fact a bargain, since Japan pays most of their local costs and since having Navy and Air Force capabilities in particular in forward-deployed locations is a big net positive for the United States.

They can operate in the region from existing facilities on Okinawa and Japan’s main islands, with aircraft within combat radius of North Korea and the Taiwan Straits and ships within a couple days’ sail of each place. But moving Marines to different places in the region costs big money - money that Washington in particular does not now have.

A better policy would bring much if not most of the Marine combat capability back to America, where the added forces could partly counter what appear to be pending cuts of up to 30,000 in total Marine Corps uniformed strength in the years ahead. If Tokyo and Washington shared in the costs, equipment for the relocating Marines and ships to hold it in Japanese ports until needed could be purchased for around $5 billion, far less than the costs of the new construction projects.

The incorrect perception that the United States was weakening its commitment to the Western Pacific with such a move could be countered in several ways. First, more attack submarines could be located on Guam, as could more unmanned aerial vehicles and various other assets. Second, the capabilities of the maritime prepositioned ships could be widely advertised. Third, America’s potential access to Japanese military and civilian facilities on Okinawa and other Japanese prefectures, already legally permitted, could be beefed up with pre-stationing of more supplies and with a gradual hardening of fuel depots and the like in such places. Fourth, U.S. Marine units could fly from California to Japan on a regular basis to participate in exercises - and many of them could be conducted jointly with Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Other steps are surely possible as well.

It is time that Tokyo and Washington break out of the Okinawa Marine Corps policy swamp, where they have been enmeshed and entrapped far too long. And there is a better way that can save each side around $10 billion in the process. That would make for a meaningful dent in the coming budget reduction process, and make for good strategy and good alliance politics as well.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon.

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

(My latest story for Asia Times) Fighters duel for Japan air defense contract

Here is my latest story for Asia Times. I wrote about Japan's multibillion dollar contract on its next fighter jets. If you have time, please go over this. Cheers, Kosuke

Fighters duel for Japan air defense contractBy Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - Across the globe, defense industry players, military experts and potential adversaries are eagerly watching Japan's decision on its next mainstay fighter jet.

While Japan is still in the final selection process for a state-of-the-art combat plane for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF), United States defense contractor Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is already seen as a clear front-runner, mainly due to its high-tech stealth capabilities.

Aiming to strengthen its efforts to win the multibillion-dollar contract, Lockheed Martin last week made a strong public appeal in Tokyo, saying it would license Japanese companies to perform engine assembly and manufacture major components if the F-35 were to be selected.

The F-35 has been developed jointly by nine nations: the US, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey. Potential buyers of this stealth fighter currently include Israel, Singapore, Japan and South Korea.

"We received US government approval to offer Japan, the first country outside the partnership, a very robust industrial opportunity," John Balderston, the director for Lockheed's Japan F-35 Campaign, told reporters on October 6 in a Tokyo hotel where the company was displaying a one-seater flight simulator of the warplane for media.

Asked about what the company could offer Japanese firms, Balderston said, "Final assembly and checkout of the airplane, manufacture of major components, engine assembly, integration and test, depot-level sustain, modification, repair and overhaul, and upgrade capabilities."

Japan has been worried that delays in the F-35's development would jeopardize its planned 2016 introduction. But company officials were upbeat. "We are confident that we will meet Japan's requirements, including delivery," Lockheed's Balderston said.

Tokyo could get the F-35 fighter jets at an average cost of US$65 million each, he added.

Japan's delayed F-X procurement
Japan's Ministry of Defense (MoD) aims to procure its first jet as early as fiscal year 2016, with plans to acquire a total of 40-50 aircraft at a cost of around US$4 billion.

It will choose the next mainstay fighter jet for the JASDF by the end of next month. This procurement will replace JASDF's aging fleet of 67 Mitsubishi/McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ fighters, which entered service in the early 1970s during the Vietnam War and are scheduled to be retired from 2013.

The MoD originally scheduled replacement of its F-4 fleet for fiscal year 2009. Tokyo had long made clear its preference for Lockheed's F-22 Raptor.

But the October 2009 decision by US President Barack Obama to halt F-22 production due to budgetary constraints officially ended any Japanese hopes of obtaining the aircraft, which while costly is seen as the world's most advanced air-superiority fighter.

Critics say the MoD's obsession with the F-22 caused years of delay in the next-generation fighter program, called the F-X in Japan.

The MoD will buy 12 fighters in the next five years, according to the new mid-term defense program for fiscal 2011-2015. The MoD on September 30 requested 55.1 billion yen (US$718 million) in fiscal 2012 budget appropriations to acquire four new fighter jets to replace the F-4.

Four selection criteria
Lockheed, Boeing and BAE Systems have met a September 26 deadline to submit bids for Japan's F-X fighter competition.

BAE Systems is leading the Typhoon bid for the Eurofighter consortium, with support from the British government and Japan's Sumitomo Corporation, while Boeing is offering its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II in conjunction with the US Navy.

The MoD has identified four selection criteria: the performance of the aircraft and its weapons, maintenance costs, level of participation of domestic firms and after-sales support. Regarding performance criteria, the MoD is focusing on stealth, kinematic performance and information-processing capabilities.

On October 5, Japanese Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa stressed the need to protect the domestic fighter-jet-related industry.

All three bidders have pledged to allow fighters to be built under license in Japan. The question is how much production they will allow. Boeing says 70-80% could be done in Japan.

The JASDF has 202 Mitsubishi-Boeing F-15Js, 93 Mitsubishi F-2s and 67 Mitsubishi-McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ Kai Phantoms, according to the MoD's 2011 White Paper.

Aside from domestic production, other factors loom large. Firstly, the March 11 tsunami damaged 18 F-2s at the JASDF Matsushima Air Base in Miyagi prefecture, forcing the MoD to scrap 12 of them. The F-2 cost about 12 billion yen, or US$156 million, per unit.

While the F-4s have been in service since the early 1970s, the F-15Js have been a part of the fleet since the early 1980s, making both difficult and expensive for the JASDF to maintain.

In addition, on September 27, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd handed over its last F-2 fighter to the MoD at the Komaki Minami plant in Aichi prefecture, ending more than five decades of fighter-jet production since 1956. The Japanese media reported about two dozen parts suppliers and manufacturers had exited from the fighter-jet market.

As if to illustrate Japan's strains in air defense, a F-15J Eagle based at Naha Air Base in Okinawa prefecture crashed in the East China Sea on July 5 during combat training. More recently, an F-15 fighter lost an empty auxiliary fuel tank and part of a mock missile on October 7 during a training flight over Ishikawa prefecture.

Russia and China appear to have exploited the weaknesses in Japan's air defense. The number of scrambles the JASDF had to launch increased dramatically in recent years to intercept intruders, as Russian and Chinese military aircraft toyed with Japanese airspace. Japan scrambled fighters 386 times in fiscal year 2010, the highest number since 1991.

Russia is jointly developing a fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA) with India, while China is developing its own new fifth-generation multi-purpose fighter, the J-20. For Japan, the threat from the air is increasing.

Japan has never procured European fighters. More than a few experts have pointed out the Eurofighter may lack full interoperability with US military equipment, which Japan relies on. However, British ambassador David Warren has stressed that this is not the case.

Maintenance and repair is another worry for the Eurofighter since Japan is accustomed to US equipment.

As for Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, it is little more than the F-2, or Japan's most advanced 4th-generation multirole fighter based on the F-16. The stealth capabilities of the Eurofighter and Super Hornet are weaker than the F-35.

"Considering all the various factors together such as the state of the domestic fighter-jet-related defense industry, the interoperability with US equipment and China's air capabilities, which Japan needs to be most aware of, the F-35 is the most likely winner," said Hideshi Takesada, a professor at Yonsei University of South Korea.

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Friday, July 22, 2011

(My latest story for Asia Times) Japan-South Korea ties hit turbulence

Japan-South Korea ties hit turbulence
Japan has banned diplomats from using South Korea's Korean Air after the airline directed the maiden flight of an Airbus A380 service over disputed islands called Takeshima by Japanese and Dokdo by Koreans. The flare-up of the long-simmering East Asian island feud impacts on the nations' united front against North Korea's military ambitions and benefits China's muscle-flexing in the Pacific. - Kosuke Takahashi (Jul 15, '11)



Japan-South Korea ties hit turbulence
By Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - The flaring up of a long-simmering territorial dispute between Japan and South Korea over a group of small rocky islets threatens to roll back recent rapprochement between the neighbors seen in economic deals and cross-cultural exchanges.

The Japanese Foreign Ministry on July 11 instructed ministry officials to boycott Korean Air flights for one month in protest at the airline's demonstration flight last month above disputed islets called Takeshima by Japanese and Dokdo by Koreans that are located in the Sea of Japan (known in Korea as the East Sea).

The controversy could damage a culture boom in Tokyo called the Han-Ryu (Korean wave). Young Korean idol groups such as Girls' Generation and KARA are very popular in Japan. More importantly it could cause a significant geopolitical split.

The united front Tokyo and Seoul present against North Korea's nuclear and missile ambitions could be impacted, with China muscle-flexing in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea also benefiting from the East Asian feud.

This was Japan's first-ever step against a private airline in connection with the territorial dispute. The islets are claimed by both Japan and South Korea, but have been occupied by South Korea since 1954.

Korean Air was testing its new Airbus A380 - the world's largest passenger plane - and entered airspace above the contested islets on June 16, or a day before it went into service between Seoul Incheon International Airport and Tokyo Narita International Airport. The jet carried executives of the airline as well as South Korean and foreign reporters and photographers such as Reuters.

On Thursday, Japan's State Foreign Secretary Chiaki Takahashi said at a press conference that the ministry would not invite Korean Air officials to events it will host. He described the June 16 test flight as "a violation of Japan's airspace".

Ukeru Magosaki, the former chief of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's international intelligence bureau, criticized the ministry's sanctions against Korean Air.

"The boycott makes it more difficult to solve the territorial dispute," Magosaki, the former diplomat told Asia Times Online on Friday. "For the ministry, reducing tensions is more important than any other. The ministry is, in an opposite manner, escalating the problem."

The Asahi Shimbun, which first reported this issue on Wednesday, said Japan's conservative opposition had pressured the ministry to take further action, resulting in the move to boycott the airline.

This ministry has confirmed the boycott does not violate the Agreement on Government Procurement of the World Trade Organization, commonly known as the GPA, focusing on the subject of government procurement.

The gesture is purely symbolic, as Japanese diplomats use domestic airlines such as All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines.


South Korea's reaction
As expected, the harshest reaction has come from the South Korean government.

"The Japanese measure, regarded as a sort of sanction against a private company, can hardly be understood," Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho Byung Jae on Thursday told reporters, demanding an immediate withdrawal of the Japanese foreign ministry's measure.

Cho said the South Korean government will take "stern" measures regarding the issue, but did not specify what measures it would take. "We will watch what measures Japan will take," the spokesman said.

Seoul also sent a message of protest against the measure on Tuesday to Kanehara Nobukatsu, minister for general affairs at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul and urged its cancelation.

The prelude of the recent flare-up first occurred in March when Seoul strongly protested against Tokyo's approval of history textbooks containing territorial claims to South Korean-controlled islets.

Then, in early April, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported construction work on a 2,700-square-meter maritime science facility on the disputed islets was expected to start later that month and set to be complete by December next year. Tokyo on April 5 lodged a protest with South Korea over Seoul's plans to build the facility.

More than 10 South Korean lawmakers, including several ministers, have visited the disputed territories since April.

Furthermore, three South Korean lawmakers on May 24 visited Kunashiri island, one of four islands off the coast of Hokkaido controlled by Russia but claimed by Japan - to the fury of Tokyo. It was the first time members of the South Korean National Assembly had set foot on the islands, which are known as the Northern Territories, called the Southern Kurils by Russians.

Given the saga that erupted from Japan's arrest of a Chinese fishing captain last year, Tokyo's reaction to the Korean Air flight may reflect internal wrangling over foreign policy. South Korean politicians also cannot make major concessions to Japan ahead of upcoming key elections in 2012 for parliament and the presidency.

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Friday, June 24, 2011

(My latest story) Asia Times Online : Mage Island another tinderbox for Japan


A Japanese-United States plan to use a small island in Kagoshima prefecture for carrier-borne landing practice suggests the allies have learnt little from the US presence on Okinawa. While entrenched local opposition to the militarization of Mage Island is mobilizing in earnest, there are good military reasons - such as the island's vulnerability - to find a better realignment strategy for US forces. - Kosuke Takahashi (Jun 24, '11)





Mage Island another tinderbox for Japan

By Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - Across the globe, bureaucrats tend to make up fascinating armchair plans. But without regard to local input, that's just a castle in the air - however ingeniously conceived. Without regard for the environment or consideration of local people, no mere desk plan will do.

A very good example is the long-standing controversial relocation issue of the United States Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) at Futenma in Okinawa prefecture in Japan's south.

But now, foreign and defense policymakers of the US and Japan are about to repeat the same failure, as they have caused another friction with local governments over a small island of western Japan called Mage Island.


Although it's hard to spot in news headlines, the US and Japan on June 21 for the first time named Mage Island - or an uninhabited island in Nishinoomote City of Kagoshima prefecture - as the candidate site for US carrier-borne aircraft landing drills.

The joint statement, issued by four foreign and defense ministers of the US and Japan after the so-called two-plus-two security meeting in Washington, for the first time specifically mentioned the name of Mage Island for the "use by US forces as a permanent field carrier landing practice site".

Yet another Futenma?
"Mage Island could be yet another Futenma," Japanese military analyst Toshiyuki Shikata told Asia Times Online. "The government, led by the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, has made no serious efforts to convince local people of the plan. They ignored democratic process."

Mage Island covers about 800 hectares and is located around 12 kilometers west of Tanegashima between Kyushu and Okinawa. It was picked as the permanent site for the so-called Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) of the US Navy's Carrier Air Wing 5 (CVW-5) based at Naval Air Facility Atsugi of Kanagawa prefecture, southwest of Tokyo, or the largest US Naval Air Facility in the Pacific. Most of the island is privately owned by a land developer headquartered in Tokyo. Permission from this company is required to land on the island as a general rule.

Under the 2006 bilateral road map agreement on the realignment of US forces in Japan, CVW-5 squadrons, together with their 59 US carrier-borne jet fighters such as the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, are set to be transferred from the Atsugi naval base to the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi prefecture.


The two nations plan to replace Iwo Island, under the jurisdiction of Tokyo, where the FCLP by CVW-5 is provisionally conducted, with Mage Island. The 2006 bilateral realignment road map said that a permanent location would be picked by 2009 - a delay that Japanese officials can catch a lot of heat for, as they face strong pressure from the US.

Mage Island is only about 400 kilometers from MCAS Iwakuni, while Iwo Island is around 1,200 kilometers away from the Atsugi naval base, thus making flight drills on Mage Island more convenient for the US Navy.

Local opposition
Just as Okinawans have opposed the relocation of the Futenma base to a new helicopter base scheduled for construction off the shores of the beautiful Henoko bay, local officials and residents in Nishinoomote City are beginning to protest the plan to transfer the drills to Mage Island in earnest.

Chikara Nagano, mayor of Nishinoomote City, has said, "We harbor strong resentment against the government's high-handed tactics ignoring local communities' will, and we will never permit it."

Kagoshima governor Yuichiro Ito also voiced his opposition, by saying "it's needed to protest against the plan, together with local people".

Eleven groups such as civic, tourist and medical associations in Nishinoomote City on June 22 jointly issued a letter of protest, under which they pledged to remain adamantly against the plan.

Under the plan, the Japanese Ministry of Defense plans to build a Self-Defense Forces (SDF) facility on Mage Island and conduct the landing practice as part of its efforts to boost security around the Nansei Islands in Okinawa prefecture, and in the East China Sea near China and Taiwan, a move that is apparently aimed at countering China's growing naval power.

In the meantime, the US also plans to conduct the field carrier landing practice there.


Talk of Mage Island as a candidate site for the envisaged flight drill facility arose in 2007 under the administration of the Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner the New Komeito party.

But it disappeared soon due to strong local opposition from the Nishinoomote and nearby municipalities. Then, in December 2009 under the former Yukio Hatoyama administration, the island was even considered as a candidate for the Futenma transfer. But again this idea was scrapped because of strong local protest.

Japanese military analyst Shikata said it is militarily nonsense to build the drill site on an uninhabited island such as Mage Island.

"Small islands are vulnerable to external attacks," Shikata said. "Terrorists can easily attack them. Moreover, the US needs the SDF troops for their own safety, just as the US forces in Okinawa are protected by the SDF troops there. You cannot easily build the drill site for the US in such an uninhabited island without SDF personnel."

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Friday, June 10, 2011

(My latest story for Asia Times) Ten reasons for Japan's revolving door

Asia Times Online published my latest story about Japanese politics. If you get time, pls go over
Ten reasons for Japan's revolving door As seen above, I made an image of Japan's revolving door. (^^)


As Naoto Kan pledges to step down as Japan's fifth prime minister in five years, many voters wonder if the short tenures suggest a systemic problem with the country's politics, or just a crop of poor leaders. Here are 10 reasons why Japan's door to the top job keeps on revolving - and why his successor will need unwavering guts. - Kosuke Takahashi (Jun 10, '11)



Ten reasons for Japan's revolving door
By Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - Going by the revolving door of prime ministers who keep resigning after very short tenures, the top job in Japan should be the world's hardest post.

A year since he took office, Naoto Kan has been forced to pledge to step down once the nation has recovered from the worst of a triple whammy: earthquake, tsunami and nuclear meltdown.

Kan will be the fifth prime minister in five years, should he quit by late September. Why does Japan politics play musical chairs with a new prime minister every year? Is there any systemic problem with Japan politics? Or has the nation just had poor leaders?

Many wonder.

Here are 10 reasons for the revolving door.

1. Economic doldrums
Poorer economies weaken already vulnerable governments anytime and anywhere. This was especially true during Japan's post-bubble "lost decades" since early 1990s. The country headed into a downward deflationary spiral, which is far worse than an inflation spiral because there is no way to break the flight from borrowing and spending until it bottoms out and consumers begin to consume again.

With the national economy and budget shrinking, Japanese politicians became more and more inward-looking and began to engage in internal fighting. They always get in each other's way. Japan has had 14 prime ministers in the past 20 years of post-bubble downturn.

2. Very short primary election campaigns with no fierce battles
The Japanese political system is unique in that, unlike the United States, the party that gains a majority of seats in a general election produces the next prime minister under a parliamentary cabinet system. Thus, the majority party's presidential election is quite significant, as the outcome of that race will essentially decide Japan's next leader.

But the election time of the party presidential race tends to be very short. For example, following the former prime minister Yukio Hatoyama's resignation announcement on June 2, 2010, the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) had just a two-day election campaign for presidency before selecting Kan as the next party leader on June 4. This is in contrast to the US presidential campaign, which spans around one year including primary elections.

Without enough election time, voters cannot sort out any good politician from multi-candidates. Candidates also cannot be tempered by trials and tribulations such as money scandals.

3. The twisted Diet
In recent years, many prime ministers such as Yasuo Fukuda resigned because of a political deadlock called "the twisted Diet (parliament)", where the ruling party has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives (lower chamber) while opposition parties maintain a majority of parliamentary seats in the House of Councilors (upper chamber).

This makes it almost impossible for any prime minister to get key bills through. Unlike the US, Japanese political parties' headquarters order their lawmakers on whether to support or vote against bills. Lawmakers who don't follow their party's decision are punished. Cross-party voting is not permitted.

Japanese politicians act in a group, not as individuals. They form political factions and usually don't vote on the basis of personal convictions.

4. No lawmaking in the Diet
The Japanese constitution says the Diet is the only legislative authority and the cabinet is a policy-implementation organization. But in reality, Japanese lawmakers usually do not make laws. Central government bureaucrats make laws.

The misnomer is heightened by the sense that all lawmakers do is criticize the cabinet, which is evident in current attacks on the Kan administration by opposition parties and some ruling Diet members. This has sunk Japanese politics to new depths.

5. Hereditary politicians
Japanese political cycles are full of hereditary politicians. In one account, nearly 20% of lower house members are hereditary politicians, whose family members used to be national lawmakers. This hereditary ratio is especially high in the opposition Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Nearly 40% of LDP members are hereditary politicians.

This well-entrenched hereditary system works negatively, especially at the time of disaster. Preppy Japanese politicians fail to understand the public mindset and have little grasp of the tasks that disaster victims at evacuation centers most expect the government to fulfill.

Public perceptions that their politicians spinelessly relinquish the reins of government when times get tough have provoked anger. Ordinary Japanese cannot abandon their jobs and are forced to tighten their belts.

6. No civic journalism
Japanese media have exacerbated domestic problems by concentrating on what central ministries and agencies announce passively. Rather than going out into the town and pouring into the streets, many reporters heavily plump onto seats and sofas at the in-famous press club, or Kisha club in Japanese.

Central ministries and agencies, as well as local cities, prefectural polices and economic organizations, provide plenty of space for the benefits of those exclusive media clubs, along with facilities such as phone and faxes. This system causes Tokyo-oriented reporting and authority-focused journalism, rather than "man-on-the-street" journalism.

Moreover, control of the national daily newspapers, commercial television and most radio stations is in the hands of several Japanese media conglomerates. With media power so concentrated and strong, politicians who are not liked by reporters find it hard to get the air time needed to raise their popularity among voters.

7. US pressure
Japanese premiers of the post-World War II period with long tenures were those who preserved the golden era of US-Japan relations. Among them were Yasuhiro Nakasone, who was best known for his strong relationship with president Ronald Reagan, popularly called the "Ron-Yasu" friendship, and Junichiro Koizumi, who nurtured a close personal accord with George W Bush.

In sharp contrast, the late prime minister Kakuei Tanaka, who signed the Japan-China joint communique and achieved the normalization of diplomatic relations with China in 1972, was kicked out of office because of the so-called Lockheed bribery scandal. Japanese political analysts believe many allegations of bribery over Lockheed originated from the US administration, because Tanaka put relations with China ahead of the US-Japan alliance.

Most recently, former prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, who tried to move the controversial US Futenma Marine air base from Okinawa prefecture and campaigned for an East Asia community involving China, had a tenure of less than nine months.

8. National treacheries by bureaucrats
The WikiLeaks documents have shown high-ranking officials in Japan's foreign and defense ministries were very critical of the ruling DPJ-led administration, which originally called for a more equal partnership with the US.

A WikiLeaks document revealed the views of Akitaka Saiki, director general of the Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau of the Foreign Ministry at the time:

Saiki theorized that the DPJ, as an inexperienced ruling party, felt the need to project an image of power and confidence by showing it had Japan's powerful bureaucrats under control and was in charge of a new and bold foreign policy that challenged the US. Saiki called this way of thinking "stupid" and said "they will learn".

Moreover, sentiments of the then-Defense Ministry's defense policy bureau director general Nobushige Takamizawa were reported as suggesting, "The US delegation ought not to take [Akihisa] Nagashima's assessment of current realignment plans at face value" and that Takamizawa had "cautioned against premature demonstration of flexibility in adjusting the realignment package to be more palatable to the DPJ Government."

Nagashima was then vice minister of defense. Takamizawa spoke to a US delegation in a lunch meeting when Nagashima was absent.

Japanese voters last August ended the one-party domination of the LDP by giving a massive victory to the DPJ. Should national bureaucrats not follow the orders of politicians, who were chosen by historical national elections, for whom are bureaucrats working for? In Washington, it is said around 3,000 bureaucrats are moved from office once voters eject a government. In Tokyo, bureaucrats stay on-site, where they neutralize nationally elected politicians.


9. The nail that sticks out gets banged down
Japanese society cherishes groupism and tends to beat those who break from traditional social rules. This social norm works negatively on such politicians as Ichiro Ozawa, who boldly try to address national problems through strong-arm tactics and risk-taking to confront and rein in the bloated bureaucracy. More than a few political analysts, along with the mainstream mass media, say that in the arrest of his aides over political donations, Ozawa is the real target.

10. Japanese people quick to catch a trend
Japanese people are prone to follow the trend of the times and to try to make sure "I'm one of the guys". Thus, once a political and economic climate changes, they tend to follow the new fashion by throwing out the old. The popularity of politicians is also usually short-lived.

Political leaders of true merit are difficult to find at any time and anywhere. This is a universal, not Japanese problem. However, as the hard times roll in Japan anyone seeking the top job needs iron-clad political mettle, extra special spiritual strength and unwavering guts.

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Monday, April 4, 2011

(My latest story for Asia Times) Fukushima marks a 'nuclear ice age'

Hello my friends. Here is my latest story for Asia Times Online. Please go over this, if you get time.
Thanks and regards, Kosuke

Fukushima marks a 'nuclear ice age'

While workers are still battling the crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, it may be too late to save global confidence in nuclear power, with safety reviews, suspensions and closures underway around the world. The only positive is that the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant was spared - if ruptured it is huge enough to spread deadly fallout around the world.
- Kosuke Takahashi (Apr 4, '11)

Fukushima marks a 'nuclear ice age'
By Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - The era of nuclear renaissance is over. The Fukushima shock marks the beginning of the "nuclear ice age".

The ongoing nuclear crisis at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant following an earthquake and tsunami is stirring up energy policy of almost all countries that use nuclear power. The repercussions from Fukushima are being strongly being felt at home and abroad, just as aftershocks are still being felt in northern Japan, including Tokyo.

There are 432 nuclear plants operating in 30 countries across the globe, with 66 reactors under construction. Prime Minister Naoto Kan said last Thursday he will rethink from bottom up the government's plan to build at least 14 more nuclear reactors by 2030, as Japan scrambles to overcome its worst nuclear crisis.

In the United States, President Barack Obama's pro-nuclear stance is coming under fire. His plans to go ahead with more nuclear plants in the US are facing mounting opposition.

The US has 104 commercial nuclear reactors, the most in the world. Of these, 23 were built to an identical design as the crippled Fukushima nuclear reactors. Each uses the "Mark I containment system", designed by General Electric decades ago.

ABC News and the New York Times, among other media, reported last month that experts had long criticized the ability of this containment system to withstand the events that cascade from what nuclear experts call a "station blackout" - where the loss of power cripples the reactor's cooling system. This "station blackout" scenario was unfortunately realized when a massive tsunami destroyed all emergency power systems at the Fukushima.

In Germany, the Fukushima shock has forced Chancellor Angela Merkel to change a pro-nuclear position. She suspended government plans to extend the lives of the nation's 17 nuclear plants until the completion of a thorough three-month investigation into reactor safety. She also ordered the closure of all seven plants that began operating before 1980.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is also facing a predicament. France has 59 nuclear reactors, five more than Japan. Due to both public and private sector support, nuclear energy currently contributes nearly 80% of electric power supply. This is the world's highest dependency on nuclear energy surpassing Japan's 29%, the US's 20% and the United Kingdom's 18%. For France, nuclear reactors, fuel products and services are a major export.

This is why Sarkozy and French nuclear energy giant Areva NC are stepping up assistance to cool Fukushima's reactors, and find a solution for the contaminated water seeping out of the troubled nuclear facility. Besides a humanitarian standpoint, this is damage control for French business.

Sarkozy and Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan said last Thursday that the upcoming meeting of the Group of Eight industrialized countries on May 26-27 will take up the issue of global nuclear safety and discuss the need for a global safety standard for nuclear plants.

The Fukushima shock has also sparked foreign interference in domestic affairs. Greek President Karolos Papoulias last month urged neighboring Turkey to reconsider plans to build its first atomic power stations.

In South Korea, the debate has focused on a "nuclear cooperation agreement" with the US - set to expire in 2014 - that forbids South Korea from possessing spent fuel reprocessing facilities. South Korea has 20 nuclear reactors at present and nuclear energy produces about 40% of the country's electricity.

Seoul's biggest problem is that its nuclear power plants are running out of space to store spent nuclear fuel. Sources say South Korea will likely establish interim storage facilities as a stop-gap measure, but this will become a big issue again as the deal's end draws near.

The list goes on. Nuclear power plant exporters such as the US, France, Canada, Russia, Japan and South Korea are caught in a major backdraft.

The "nuclear renaissance will diminish," Tetsuya Endo, former governor of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) told Asia Times Online on Friday. "Should any nuclear accident happen somewhere in the world, it becomes an accident of the whole globe."

Sweeping overhaul of Japan's nuclear fuel cycle
Japan is experiencing a big irony of history. The only country in the world that has suffered from atomic bombs is now fighting a nuclear disaster caused by nature. The situation at the nuclear plant remains precarious, as plant engineers, Self-Defense Forces (SDF) members, firefighters and the police continue desperate efforts to cool down the overheating reactors and spent fuel.

Even if the country gets the plant under control, an emotional public will be wary of nuclear power forever.

Japanese people were already extremely sensitive about anything nuclear as the only country in human history to have ever been attacked with nuclear weapons. Older generations especially have a "nuclear allergy" over the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their memories of the "A-bombs" are still raw.

Despite this resentment towards nuclear technology, Japan was forced to expand nuclear power generation after the two oil shocks in the 1970s, which exposed Japan's heavy reliance on the Middle East for energy resources.

Petroleum provided about 60% of the whole nation's electricity in 1970, but now it only provides about 10%. Japan imports 99% of its oil from abroad. Although Japan aimed to reduce the dependency rate on petroleum from the Middle East after the oil shocks, it still imports nearly 90% of oil from the Middle East.

The Fukushima plant will be decommissioned and no local government or community is likely to accept the building of a new nuclear power plant in their area now.

The Fukushima incident will be a severe setback for Japan's nuclear fuel cycle, Endo said. The nuclear fuel cycle starts with the mining of uranium and ends with the disposal of nuclear waste. With the reprocessing of used fuel, the stages form a true cycle. Japan has been implemented this program since 1956, according to Endo.

However, the nation has been unable to locate a site for a second nuclear reprocessing plant after the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant of Aomori Prefecture, which managed to escape damage from the March 11 earthquake.

Takashi Hirose, a well-noted Japanese writer on nuclear problems, has pointed out there are about 3,000 tons of highly radioactive used nuclear fuel stored in Rokkasho that could overheat and catch fire if the cooling systems fail. This amount could spread nuclear fallout or "ashes of death" to the whole world, he said.

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Chile's Que Pasa magazine published my story on the 3/11 earthquake

My story on the 3/11 earthquake appeared in Chile's Que Pasa magazine.


OPINIÓN & POSTEOS
Mundo: Crecer en un país nuclear
Sufrimos con las bombas atómicas, pero nos hicimos independientes con la energía nuclear. Hoy tenemos miedo a la radiactividad de Fukushima. Nuestra historia sigue escribiéndose con ironías.
Por Kosuke Takahashi, desde Tokio
Periodista japonés
31/03/2011

This became my first article in Spanish http://t.co/YiRkN6H

Cheers,

Kosuke

My latest story for JDW: Pentagon despatches marines nuclear team to Japan

Here is my latest story for Jane's Defence Weekly. Sorry, only subscribers can read the whole story.

Pentagon despatches marines nuclear team to Japan
The US Department of Defense (DoD) on 30 March ordered a US Marine Corps unit specialising in emergency nuclear response to deploy to Japan, ...
01-Apr-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon spokeswoman Navy Commander Leslie Hullryde sent reporters the following email the other day. You might be interested in this. Just FYI. Although Pentagon announced 155 members would be dispatched to Japan, Japanese media have said around 140 members would be dispatched. They just followed the MoD announcement as always.

  On March 30, a 155-person Initial Response Force (IRF) comprised of Marines from Naval Support Facility, Indian Head, Md., was directed to deploy to Yokota, Japan. As a smaller element of the Chemical, Biological, and Incident Response Force, the IRF is specifically trained in the areas of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high yield explosion operations.
  The IRF will support the U.S. on-scene commander by providing a rapid response capability, and if requested, can assist and advise Japanese authorities. The IRF can provide capabilities for monitoring support for agent detection and identification; casualty search, rescue, and personnel decontamination; and emergency medical care and stabilization of contaminated personnel. The IRF is expected to arrive in Japan as early as April 1.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also closely read Kurt M. Campbell's recent testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. I highlighted some parts, which I thought interesting. Cheers, Kosuke

Kurt M. Campbell

Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Testimony Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific

Washington, DC

March 31, 2011
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting me here today to testify about the vital importance of Asia-Pacific countries to the United States and for the opportunity to underscore key aspects of our engagement strategy for the region.

I want to also use this opportunity to underscore the United States’ unwavering commitment to Japan. Twenty days ago today, Japan experienced a “triple blow” from an earthquake, tsunami, and the subsequent challenges associated with the Fukashima Daichi nuclear reactors. By themselves, any of these incidents would have been enough to bring a country to its knees. In Japan, we have seen the opposite. The Government and people have responded bravely and, with the help of the United States and the international community, committed to building an even stronger Japan in the future. Japan is the cornerstone of our strategic engagement in East Asia, and we are committed to standing side-by-side with our ally in its time of need.

It is clear that America’s success in the 21st century is tied to the success of the dynamic Asia-Pacific region. As Secretary Clinton has noted, much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia. There is no question that the region’s influence is growing and holds the key to our shared future. Asian nations are vital to the life-blood of the global economy. Their opinions and decisions have profound influence from Latin American to the Middle East and Africa on addressing complex and emerging transnational challenges, like climate change.

Despite the Asia-Pacific region’s tremendous growth, the region still faces some of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. North Korea and Burma remain outliers to the region’s prosperity and continue to be sources for insecurity and instability. Many of today’s most critical issues -- military competition, nuclear proliferation, violent extremism, financial crises, poverty, weak and ineffective governments, unresolved territorial disputes, growing competition over energy and natural resources, climate change, and disease -- transcend national borders and pose a common risk in the region. The rapid emergence of transnational security risks and threats demands collective action, and it is critical for the United States to work with our allies and partners in the region to address and meet these significant challenges.

Essential to our long-term national interests is to make sure that the United States remains true to its identity as a Pacific power. The Obama Administration, following a long history of bipartisan commitment to Asia, has articulated a five-part framework for our engagement in the Asia-Pacific:

First, deepen and modernize our alliances with Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia, Thailand and the Philippines.

Second, broaden our engagement with increasingly important partners like Indonesia, Vietnam, Mongolia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, and most notably India.

Third, develop a predictable, stable, and comprehensive relationship with China.

Fourth, engage and invest in the region’s burgeoning multilateral architecture.

And, fifth pursue a confident and aggressive trade and economic strategy.

Underpinning our strategy is a steadfast commitment to our belief in the universality of democracy and our respect for human rights. The U.S. commitment to these values defines the unique aspect of U.S. relations with Asia-Pacific nations and is an intrinsic and indispensable aspect of our character as a nation. It is one of the best and most important contributions that we can offer the region. We are working to promote fundamental human rights in the region and support the region’s own efforts to promote and protect human rights, democratic principles, and freedom of religion and of expression.

In order to ensure that the promotion of human rights and the rule of law as well as the development of civil society remain strong pillars of our engagement, we will continue to adopt new and creative approaches that seize the opportunities presented by advances created in our dynamic information age. The freedom to speak one’s mind and to choose one’s leaders, the ability to access information and worship how one pleases are the bases of stability. The United States will continue to speak for those on the margins of society, encouraging countries in the region to respect the internationally recognized human rights of their people while undertaking policies to further liberalize and open their states. We will continue to work with countries to combat the scourge of trafficking in persons, to promote the rights of women and children, and foster greater religious dialogue among the many communities of faith in the region. We continue to press for the restoration of democracy in Fiji, as well as to promote good governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights in Vietnam and China. We have already seen positive signs reflecting greater internalization of human rights with the recent establishment of such institutions as Indonesia’s Bali Democracy Forum and the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), which we welcomed for an official visit to the United States last November. In Burma, we have intensified efforts to promote human rights and democracy both through diplomatic engagement with key stakeholders in Southeast Asia and by delivering our message to the Burmese government via direct engagement. At the same time, we maintain extensive financial, trade, and visa sanctions that target regime authorities and their cronies who thwart democracy and disrespect human rights. Our message remains clear and consistent: absent concrete progress in key areas of democracy and human rights, our sanctions will remain in place.

I will use the remainder of my testimony to describe how we are implementing this strategy through an aggressive “forward-deployed diplomacy,” and the steps we are taking to ensure U.S. leadership in the Asia-Pacific.

U.S. Strategic Framework for Engagement in the Asia-Pacific Region – The pace of our engagement in this critical region signals the renewed emphasis we place on developing and deepening partnerships. As Secretary Clinton has articulated, our forward-deployed diplomacy in Asia seeks to leverage these relationships to underwrite regional security, heighten prosperity, and support stronger democratic institutions and the spread of universal human rights in the Asia-Pacific region. The region offers the United States tremendous opportunities in a number of areas, including expanding markets for U.S. economic interests and forming new strategic partnerships.

First, our alliances remain the foundation for our strategic engagement in the region, and the Obama Administration is committed to strengthening and modernizing our alliances to address both continuing and emerging challenges. Also, we must recognize that those alliances are, at their core, security alliances. . Our alliances have underwritten peace and stability for over a half-century and continue to provide a context for the region’s tremendous economic growth and vitality.

Our treaty alliance with Japan remains a cornerstone of our strategic engagement in Asia. The U.S.-Japan relationship is both strong and comprehensive; it links two of the world’s three largest economies and is supported by our people-to-people exchanges and our shared commitment to democracy and human rights. The cooperation between the Government of Japan and the United States in the aftermath of the March 11 events demonstrates the value of our security alliance with Japan. The United States stands resolved to assist Japan in its reconstruction efforts and to taking steps to further strengthen our alliance relationship. The pictures on the front-pages of Japanese newspapers that show U.S. military forces and Japanese soldiers working hand-in-hand to assist those in need is a potent symbol of the importance of this relationship. As we help Japan in its time of need, our two governments will continue to conduct open and direct discussions on a number of important strategic and alliance issues, including the roadmap for realigning U.S. forces in Japan. In addition, we are working to create a durable and forward-looking vision for the alliance that builds upon Japan’s important global role in several areas, including climate change, non-proliferation, and humanitarian and development assistance programs. We have intensified high-level engagement between our two governments to address regional and global security challenges, and Japan is a lead contributor to the efforts to bring reconciliation and reconstruction to Afghanistan. Secretaries Clinton and Gates look forward to hosting their Japanese counterparts this year for an important “2+2” meeting where both sides will issue a detailed framework statement for the alliance going forward.

We are also working vigorously with our other critical ally in Northeast Asia, the Republic of Korea (ROK), both to modernize our defense alliance and to achieve a partnership that is truly global and comprehensive. The United States remains steadfastly committed to the defense of the ROK and to an enduring military presence on the Peninsula. The relationship continues to evolve from one solely focused on peninsular challenges to an ever more global and dynamic partnership that builds on our shared values and strategic interests. The ROK now has forces deployed overseas in over a dozen countries, with 200-to-300-person peacekeeping and reconstruction contingents in Haiti, Afghanistan, and Lebanon. The ROK understands that global challenges such as counter-piracy, nuclear nonproliferation, and development fundamentally affect Korea’s interests and involve an obligation to be actively engaged around the world.

Our respective alliances with the ROK and Japan, as well as increasing trilateral coordination, play an essential role in maintaining peace and stability in Northeast Asia, including responding to the destabilizing policies and provocations of North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK). The DPRK’s sinking of the ROK corvette Cheonan in March 2010, its November 2010 disclosure of a uranium enrichment program, and its November 2010 shelling of Yeonpyong Island underscore the threat that the DPRK’s misguided policies and provocations, including its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and proliferation activities, pose to regional stability and global security. Effective trilateral engagement in the wake of these provocations demonstrated to North Korea that its belligerent actions will be met with collective resolve. During an important U.S.-Japan-ROK Trilateral Ministerial meeting in December 2010, the three countries jointly declared that the DPRK’s belligerent actions threaten all three countries and will be met with solidarity. The three countries jointly condemned the DPRK’s uranium enrichment program as a violation of the DPRK’s commitments under the September 2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and its obligations under UNSCR 1718 and 1874.

We have also worked closely with Japan, the ROK, and our other partners in the Six-Party Talks to achieve the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. We are working closely with our partners and allies to make clear to the DPRK that its uranium enrichment program violates its commitments and obligations. We continue to urge the international community to fully and transparently implement UNSCR 1718 and 1874 to curb the DPRK’s conventional and WMD-related proliferation efforts, as well as its illicit activities.

Australia remains a strategic anchor for regional stability and plays an incredibly important role in maintaining global security. U.S. and Australian forces fight side-by-side, extending a legacy of cooperation that goes back a century, and Australia is the largest non-NATO contributor to the coalition effort in Afghanistan. The U.S. commitment to Australia was on clear display during the visit of Prime Minister Gillard to Washington last month. Prime Minister Gillard had a very productive meeting with President Obama, in which they reviewed the many areas in Asia and around the world in which our two countries work together. She demonstrated Australia’s respect for our past joint efforts through a generous contribution to the new Vietnam Veterans Memorial education center here in Washington. In addition, Secretaries Clinton and Gates visited Australia for the 25th Australia-U.S. Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) in November. That meeting was essential to our objective of modernizing and deepening our alliance, and our two governments announced the launch of the Australia-U.S. Force Posture Review Working Group, which is now exploring the potential for expanded U.S.-Australia military cooperation to optimize our U.S. force posture in the Asia-Pacific region.

We are also working to invigorate the Trilateral Strategic Dialogue with Japan and Australia, as well as to deepen security partnerships throughout the region. Our alliances with the Philippines and Thailand, our long-time Southeast Asian treaty allies, continue to evolve to meet modern challenges from violent extremism to infectious disease. We are working closely with our Philippine partners to improve maritime security and disaster response capabilities. In January of this year, we launched the first ever joint State-DOD strategic dialogue with the Government of the Philippines to help create a framework to enhance our alliance partnership. In Thailand, our oldest treaty ally in East Asia, we partnered to deploy Thai naval vessels, with U.S. Navy personnel aboard, to join Combined Task Force-151 to combat piracy off the Horn of Africa. Thailand has also provided a full battalion of peacekeepers to Darfur to assist with UN humanitarian relief operations. Our robust and mutually beneficial military relationships with both allies include joint exercises, ship visits, information sharing, logistics assistance, and a broad slate of training and capacity-building activities in such areas as peacekeeping and anti-piracy operations.

Second, the Obama Administration is committed to broadening our relations with growing powers like Indonesia, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Singapore, Vietnam, and most notably India.

- India: The Administration has taken significant steps to enhance our engagement with India, which is playing a key role in the Asia-Pacific. We have launched a dialogue on Asia-Pacific strategic issues, and I will travel to New Delhi next week to have further discussions and consultations. As a growing international player, engagement with India on a wide array of global issues is increasingly in the strategic interests of the United States.

- Indonesia: Our engagement with Indonesia continues to mature. The President’s historic trip to Jakarta last fall highlighted the broadening and deepening of the U.S.-Indonesia relationship. The launch of the Comprehensive Partnership by President Obama and President Yudhoyono will further boost our growing partnership on bilateral, regional, and global issues. We look forward to working with Indonesia this year in its role as ASEAN chair and host of the East Asia Summit and value its emerging, positive voice on global topics, such as democracy and climate change.

- Malaysia: In addition, the Administration is working hard to enhance our bilateral relationship with Malaysia. We are in the process of launching a major English-language initiative that will place more young Americans in Malaysia to teach English and expose primarily rural Malay students to American culture. The Malaysian government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Najib, has also taken a number of steps to create more stringent export controls and play a constructive role in the international non-proliferation regime. Medical personnel from the Malaysian Armed Forces are currently deployed to Afghanistan. Our two countries are also working together closely in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.

- Mongolia: Recently, I visited Mongolia, an ancient country yet a relatively young democracy on the verge of an economic boom that offers opportunities for American companies. According to some estimates, Mongolia has about $400 billion worth of minerals in the ground. Mongolia provides 190 troops to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and hosts training for peacekeeping operations. Mongolia also cooperates closely with us in international organizations such as the UN and International Atomic Energy Agency. And, Mongolia will chair the Community of Democracies starting this year. Mongolia is a reliable, democratic partner with a bright future.

- Vietnam: Over the last several years, we have broadened and deepened our engagement with Vietnam on a wide ranges of issues, including trade, security, nonproliferation, health, education, and the environment. Vietnam is also among our eight negotiating partners in the TPP talks. During their meetings in Hanoi last year, Secretary Clinton and Prime Minister Dung agreed to elevate the relationship further by moving toward a strategic partnership. However, we remain deeply concerned about the lack of progress in the human rights front. We continue to make it very clear to the Vietnamese government that political freedoms are not a source of instability but of strength.

- New Zealand: Last fall, Secretary Clinton visited New Zealand where she launched the Wellington Declaration. This visit effectively culminated the thaw in our relationship with New Zealand, after a 25-year freeze since the mid-1980s. New Zealand is an important friend and partner of the United States, especially in the South Pacific, and the Wellington Declaration establishes a framework for a new United States-New Zealand strategic partnership that will enhance our practical cooperation and political dialogue. Likewise, the United States and New Zealand are working to deepen our economic relationship through the TPP negotiations. In response to the tragic earthquake that struck New Zealand earlier this year, the United States deployed a USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) that included the Los Angeles County and the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue teams (USAR), transferred equipment and supplies, and committed more than $1 million for humanitarian assistance to support relief and recovery efforts.

- Singapore: The Administration is also taking steps to enhance our bilateral engagement with Singapore. In addition to being a strong partner on non-proliferation and other regional security matters, Singapore has participated in global security operations, including in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gulf of Aden counter-piracy efforts for which Singapore will chair the International Contact Group in July. Singapore is hosting the sixth round of TPP negotiations this week.

Third, an important component of our efforts in the Asia Pacific is an approach to China that is grounded in reality, focused on results, and true to our principles and interests. Through this approach, we are pursuing a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with China. As Secretary Clinton has said, the U.S.-China relationship is at a critical juncture; how we manage the relationship today – with its elements of both competition and cooperation – will have a large impact on the future of the region.

Over the past year, we have taken solid, tangible steps to translate these words into action. Through steady diplomacy, we worked with Beijing to move the relationship in a positive direction, with President Hu attending the Nuclear Security Summit in April and China voting in favor of strengthened sanctions on Iran at the UN Security Council in June. The success of our approach is most clearly illustrated by President Hu’s January state visit to Washington. Through that visit, China for the first time expressed concern about the DPRK’s uranium enrichment program; we also gained Chinese agreement to respect the results of the referendum in southern Sudan, and strengthened cooperation with the Chinese on Iran through both the P5+1 process and enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions. We also held firm to the principles that are important to us as Americans, making strong statements in both public and private about our concerns on China’s human rights record. President Hu’s visit was a success in large part because of our concerted effort since the beginning of the Administration to get this relationship right – in a manner that ensures U.S. interests are protected and advanced.

Related to our interactions with China is our consistent approach to Taiwan. As Secretary Clinton has noted, we are encouraged by the greater dialogue and economic cooperation between the Mainland and Taiwan – as witnessed by the historic completion of the Cross-Strait Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement last year. Our approach continues to be guided by our One China policy based on the three joint communiqués and the Taiwan Relations Act. In the period ahead, we seek to encourage more dialogue and exchanges between the two sides, as well as reduced military tensions and deployments, and we have and will continue to meet our responsibilities under the TRA.

We will continue to make clear our views on the principles of freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Recent events in China, including the forced disappearances of rights lawyers and crackdowns on Chinese and foreign journalists, have only further increased our concerns about human rights. And we continue to press China for further action on the DPRK’s actions in violation of the September 2005 Joint Statement and UN Security Council Resolutions, as well as the need to more tightly enforce sanctions on Iran.

On the economic front, we continue to make lowering trade barriers a high priority in all our engagements with China, including the Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), and the G-20. Our embassy in Beijing and consulates throughout China reinforce the importance of maintaining a level playing field for U.S. companies on a regular basis and at all levels of the Chinese government. The State Department also works closely with other federal agencies to monitor China's compliance with U.S. and international trade rules. In 2010, the Department of Commerce initiated six investigations against imports from China (three antidumping and three countervailing duty) in order to provide relief for U.S. companies from unfair trade practices. Moreover, following consultations with the State Department and other Executive Branch agencies, USTR initiated WTO dispute settlement proceedings against China in three separate cases.

As a result of these efforts, during the December 2010 meeting of the JCCT and the January visit of President Hu, China made significant commitments on key trade issues, agreeing to ensure that Chinese government agencies use legitimate software, delink innovation policies from government procurement preferences, and include sub-central entities in its revised offer to join the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. China is a key export market for U.S. goods and services and a focus of President Obama’s National Export Initiative that calls for doubling U.S. exports in five years to support millions of American jobs. In 2010, exports from the United States to China approached $92 billion, an increase of 32 percent from 2009.

An important element of our engagement with China is the S&ED(=Strategic and Economic Dialogue), which brings together cabinet members and agency heads across both of our governments, not only to discuss a range of issues critical to our bilateral relationship, but also to inculcate the habit of cooperation across our two governments. Secretaries Clinton and Geithner will host the third S&ED in Washington in May and will build on the successes of the second S&ED last May, including cooperation in addressing the global economic crisis in the framework of the G20. In our preparation for the next S&ED, the U.S. Government will continue to press China for demonstrable progress on economic issues, including further advancements on trade and investment and full implementation of commitments it made during President Hu’s visit on trade, investment, and economic rebalancing, including exchange rate reform.


Fourth, the Obama Administration is committed to enhancing engagement in Asia-Pacific multilateral organizations. In her speech in Hawaii in January 2010, Secretary Clinton highlighted the importance of the United States’ involvement in the development of the regional institutions and architecture. APEC remains the premier economic organization in the Asia-Pacific region, and the United States remains committed to it. We have also taken a series of steps to deepen U.S. engagement in regional institutions such as ASEAN, which the Secretary Clinton calls “the fulcrum” for the region’s emerging architecture, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting (Plus), the East Asia Summit (EAS), and the Pacific Island Forum (PIF).

U.S. membership in the EAS will allow us to work with ASEAN and other EAS members to foster engagement on pressing strategic and political issues of mutual concern, including nuclear nonproliferation, maritime security, and disaster assistance. Last year, Secretary Clinton attended the EAS as the first-ever U.S. representative to the organization. This year, President Obama will attend the EAS in Indonesia and will focus on steps the organization can take to advance regional maritime security, capacity of countries to respond to humanitarian and natural disasters, and non-proliferation. In addition, we will seek to work with ASEAN to identify ways we can supports its Plan of Action. The President will also co-host the third U.S.-ASEAN summit, a regularized feature of our bilateral engagement with ASEAN.

Regional engagement can also be an effective way to enhance our efforts to deal with transnational security challenges such as climate change, pandemics, or environmental degradation, and disaster management. Humanitarian assistance and disaster preparedness will continue to play a role in the region’s economic well-being. With the cooperation of the ARF, we supported the ARF Disaster Exercise in Indonesia earlier this month. We are looking at ways for the ARF to strengthen its capacity in managing crises, which is critically important in light of the spate of recent natural disasters that have battered the region. Another regional effort is the Lower Mekong Initiative (LMI), one of Secretary Clinton's signature priorities for U.S. engagement in Southeast Asia. Over the last year, the Secretary convened several meetings of the LMI with her counterparts from Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam to chart the way forward to advance shared goals for the region in environment, education, health, and infrastructure.

In August 2010, I led the largest-ever U.S. delegation to the Pacific Islands Forum Post-Forum Dialogue in Vanuatu. The delegation included not only Department of State officials, but also key defense and development personnel. We plan to take an even larger delegation to the 2011 meeting this September in Auckland to demonstrate our whole-of-government approach to addressing shared concerns in the Pacific. Building on the urgent request for support from the Pacific Small Island States, we have committed funds specifically for climate adaptation projects and related programs in Pacific Island countries. To help administer these new programs, USAID is finalizing plans for a new office in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea this year. Funding to address climate adaptation will be an essential component of our strategy – and a critical element in the regional effort both to meet increasingly severe climate-related challenges and to maintain American pre-eminence in a region wooed by other suitors with deep pockets.

In this regard, the Compact of Free Association between the United States and Palau is a vital component of our growing presence and engagement in the Western Pacific. Our existing defense arrangement with Palau makes a valuable contribution to U.S. and international security. The Administration has submitted to the Congress legislation covering the results of the recently concluded fifteen-year review of the Compact. Enacting the proposed legislation will uphold our partnership under the Compact, underscore the United States’ renewed commitment to the region, and keep Palau allied with the United States at a time when other, international interests are aggressively courting Pacific Island countries.

Fifth, we are pursuing an aggressive economic and trade agenda in Asia. 2011 is a year of consequence for the United States to demonstrate economic leadership in the region and shape the agenda for future years to accelerate regional economic integration. We are taking a three-pronged approach to driving successful engagement with the region: securing ratification of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement, achieving milestone progress on the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, and concluding a successful APEC host year.

Today, the 21 APEC economies, with approximately 2.7 billion consumers, purchase almost 60 percent of U.S. goods exports. Seven of the United States’ top fifteen trading partners are in APEC. Strong Asian participation in APEC, the WTO, and the G-20 reflects the increasing importance of Asian economies and their centrality to strengthening the multilateral trading system and sustaining our own economic recovery. We must ensure our competitiveness in this vital region and promote continued integration of the U.S. economy with APEC economies, which will benefit workers, consumers, and businesses in the region and create jobs back here in the United States.

The region is essential to the success of President Obama’s National Export Initiative, and our goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2015 to create new American jobs. In the first year of the National Export Initiative, U.S. exports to APEC members grew much faster than U.S. exports to the rest of the world (non-APEC member economies). U.S exports to APEC economies last year totaled $774 billion, up 25 percent from 2009, while U.S. exports to non-APEC member economies grew only about 15 percent to reach $503 billion. We are working with governments in the region to ensure an environment in which this trend can continue.

As we seek to achieve the President’s goal of doubling exports over the next five years, a tremendously important concrete step toward reaching this goal is the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS). In December the Administration achieved important new commitments from the Koreans on outstanding issues that will level the playing field for U.S. automakers and autoworkers, and the Administration will submit the agreement to Congress soon. This agreement represents a major accomplishment for both countries and is an historic opportunity to boost exports, create jobs, and bolster our economy. It eliminates tariffs on 95 percent of U.S. consumer and industrial exports to Korea within five years and significantly reduces tariffs on our agricultural exports to Korea. KORUS is expected to increase exports of American goods by up to $11 billion based on the tariff cuts alone of KORUS and to support at least 70,000 additional jobs on the U.S. side alone. In addition, this agreement will support many more American jobs by opening Korea’s $580 billion services market to U.S. companies in express delivery, telecommunications, insurance, and other services industries. The economic benefits for the ROK are also considerable. This trade agreement will deliver immediate, significant economic benefits, but will also deepen our engagement and strengthen our partnership with a central ally in a volatile and rapidly growing region. In strategic terms, it will underscore our commitment to prosperity and security in the Asia Pacific and fortify our leadership role and influence in the region.

Another important pathway to expanding U.S. economic engagement in Asia, and increasing U.S. exports to dynamic Asian markets, is the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, or TPP. The nine APEC economies involved – Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States – represent almost 40 percent of APEC’s total goods and services exports. With these economies we are negotiating a new template for a high-quality, high ambition, 21st century trade agreement. This is a strategic agreement that is central to enhancing the 21st century supply chain and new economies of IT and green growth, and one that supports high labor standards and the environment. We have now had a number of rounds of TPP negotiations, and we look forward to working in partnership with Congress as we continue towards realizing this important agreement.

And, in 2011, the United States is hosting APEC for the first time in 18 years, providing us with unique opportunities to demonstrate our commitment to and engagement in the region and to shape the organization’s agenda in ways that reflect our values, promote regional economic integration, and create opportunities for U.S. businesses and workers in this dynamic region. The first round of Senior Officials Meetings took place here in Washington earlier this month, and we will have a busy APEC schedule as we build to the APEC Leaders Meeting, which President Obama will host in Hawaii in November. We have set an ambitious agenda that challenges APEC to maximize tangible, practical results, particularly in the area of removing trade barriers, promoting green growth, and building regulatory convergence among APEC economies. To that end, the President has laid out three priority areas to guide APEC’s agenda in 2011 to build towards a seamless regional economy: (1) strengthening regional economic integration and expanding trade; (2) promoting green growth; and (3) expanding regulatory cooperation and advancing regulatory convergence. We are looking to conclude specific and ambitious initiatives in each of these three priority areas this year. We want to ensure that APEC will continue to benefit American businesses, especially small and medium size enterprises, and will remain focused on specific, practical outcomes. Through APEC, we can continue to advance regional economic integration, and by reducing barriers to trade and investment in the region, we can increase U.S. exports and support jobs at home at the same time.

Conclusion

American leadership in the Asia-Pacific is essential to our long-term national interests. The Administration is committed to investing in and playing an engaged and active role in the region. The shift of geopolitical forces from the West to the East is a defining feature of the 21st century’s international landscape – and Asia will be the main stage for these transformations. These changes will present both tremendous challenges and opportunities for the United States. We are committed to meeting these challenges and seizing opportunities through high-intensity and comprehensive engagement. We have demonstrated to the region that as a global power, we can “walk and chew gum at the same time.” We can, and will continue to be forced to, juggle multiple challenges at once. We are committed to taking steps to further strengthen our linkages to the Asia-Pacific region to ensure the preservation and promotion of our interests.

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and with Members of this Subcommittee and Congress to seek opportunities to influence positively the future direction of the region to deliver more benefit to more of our people. Thank you for extending this opportunity to me to testify today on this vitally important issue. I am happy to respond to any questions you may have.