Hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - The Nomination of Kurt Campbell to be Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs

Statement

Chaired By: Senator Jim Webb (
Witness: Kurt Campbell, CEO, Center for a New American Security

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

SEN. WEBB: Good morning, everyone, and the hearing will come to order.

Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considers the nomination of Dr. Kurt Campbell to be assistant secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

Dr. Campbell, we'd like to welcome you and your family. And I'd like to also point out that Dr. Campbell's father-in-law journeyed here for the hearing, Mr. Albert Brainard, a Korean War veteran and long-time State Department employee. Pleased to have you here, sir. Plus Dr. Brainard's wife and Dr. Campbell's family -- (sound of child talking) -- including that particular child. (Laughs, laughter.) And welcome, all of you. We look forward to hearing your testimony, Dr. Campbell.

As chairman of the East Asia Subcommittee and someone who has been involved in East Asia for an overwhelming majority of my adult life, I have an acute appreciation for the challenges that face this committee and our country with respect to articulating a comprehensive policy and a strategy toward Asia. It's the world's largest, most populous continent, with approximately 4 billion people. Asia accounts for 60 percent of the world's human population. Three out of the 10 largest economies are located in Asia: China, Japan and India. And if you include Russia and the United States as Asian nations, which most of us would, that means five of the largest 10. My staff pointed out that there are now more than 657 million Internet users in Asia.

It's a region of vital importance to our country diplomatically, economically and in terms of national security. Three of our top 10 trade partners are located in Asia: China, Japan and Korea. We have nearly 70,000 American servicemen and women stationed and afloat in the region. And emphatically, as most of the people in this room I think fully appreciate, the United States is an Asian nation. We are an Asian nation culturally, economically, ethnically in many ways, and in terms of our long-term interactions and interests.

A multitude of challenges confront the United States in this region. On everyone's mind at the present moment is a situation with North Korea, but many others face us, including China's military modernization, our growing strategic vulnerability to that country with respect to our trade imbalance there, what approaches we might take in countries such as Burma, the development and maintenance of meaningful alliances and relationships throughout the region, and the consolidation of democratic reforms.

Developing a comprehensive long-term strategy for our policy in Asia is actually the predominant focus of this committee and the subcommittee that I will now chair. And it will be the focus of our relationship with the State Department as well.

Dr. Campbell's immediate predecessor, Chris Hill, I think deserves a tremendous amount of respect and gratitude for the service he has given our country, and we look forward to a continued level of quality of service in the future.

The assistant secretary of State should be at the forefront of developing and implementing our policy in East Asia. This office requires a person to deal not only with the immediate concerns that face us on a daily basis, but also to take the long view on Asia. This position requires noting regional trends and balancing American relationships to ensure that American diplomacy in the region is not diminished and that its influence in the region is not pushed eastward, especially with respect to an evolving China on the mainland of East Asia. In addition, it requires one who is willing to promote a standard for human rights and democracy in the region and to implement American policy accordingly. The president has nominated Dr. Campbell as his selection to address this complex region. I look forward to discussing his views on the region this morning.

And I would note at the outset that the record for this hearing will remain open until the close of business today, for the submission of questions for the record. And at this time, I would like to recognize the distinguished ranking Republican and former chairman -- (audio break).

(In progress following audio break) -- in my private capacity with our Japanese interlocutors. I will raise this in my first meetings with my Japanese colleagues going forward.

SEN. WEBB: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Senator Lugar, I would suggest we do 10-minute rounds. Okay.

Let me begin by thanking you for your comprehensive testimony. And I want to give you the opportunity to clarify a couple of matters that came up during your vetting process, questions that were raised, give you a chance for the record to address them.

One is, as you might imagine, with the work that I've done in veterans' law over the years, when people mention their military service, we always run down the nature of military service. There are a lot of people who abuse that. We all know that.

We had asked for a DD214 as a statement of service from you, and the answer was that since there was not 90 days of active-duty service, a DD214 was not the appropriate statement of service.

But you do mention, for instance, in your testimony today, that you were serving in Yokosuka, and the materials that we got didn't have that in it. Could you explain your service in Yokosuka, Japan?

MR. CAMPBELL: I'd be happy to, Senator. In fact, in my short statement on my service to you, submitted about three weeks ago, there is actually a brief mention of my time in Yokosuka.

I was in the Navy Reserves. I was on a ship, the USS Princeton, that was about to depart from Yokosuka to Vladivostok as part of -- at the time it -- today it probably doesn't seem like that big a deal, but at the time, when we were beginning mil-to-mil contacts between the United States and the Soviet Union, it was a very big deal.

I was, as part of a group of officers, put on board that ship as we sailed into Vladivostok, and we were given some specific assignments.

This was right in the run-up to the Gulf War, and there was some question about whether the USS Princeton would need to curtail this visit and then head directly to support the flotilla that was being assembled in the Gulf.

And so we were all flown to Yokosuka. For me, it was my first trip to Japan. It was wondrous, interesting, and we were there for about two weeks as we were waiting to see whether we would deploy or not.

With very little to do during that time, I became very interested in Japanese naval history, got to walk around. And then the decision was made that the ship would go to Vladivostok. We got on board, deployed, and then we were in Vladivostok for a period.

SEN. WEBB: So you were part of a delegation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff that was assigned to the ship that was in Yokosuka?

MR. CAMPBELL: No. Actually, no. Senator, as part of my Navy Reserve duty, I was an interpreter or classified as an interpreter. Normally when the ships would deploy to Soviet harbors, we'd be there for three or four days, and there would, as you can imagine, be an enormous communication problem -- wouldn't know how to get lines ashore --

SEN. WEBB: And so your parent command, though, was where?

MR. CAMPBELL: My gaining command at that time --

SEN. WEBB: As a Naval Reservist, your parent command was where?

MR. CAMPBELL: For that assignment, it was a specific intelligence group within the Pentagon, within -- at Suitland that no longer exists.

SEN. WEBB: Yes. Thank you.

There has been a question with respect to the Center for a New American Security and its relationship with StratAsia, and I'd like to again give you a chance to clarify that. The question really revolves around the creation of the Center for a New American Security in '07 being heavily funded by defense contractors in government contracts.

And then from staff notes 11, former CNAS employees then migrating into the president's administration, and whether there are appropriate firewalls between the formation of that.

This isn't the same situation as, I know you would appreciate, as a Heritage or an AEI or a Brookings that had been in existence, for a long period of time, and had resident scholars. The viewpoint here is that it was created just before an election cycle, with these contracts moving into it, and then so many of the principals or employees moving into the administration.

Would you care to comment on that?

MR. CAMPBELL: I'd be happy to, Senator.

Let me first say that I've done a lot of things in my career. There's nothing that I'm prouder of than the formation, with my colleagues, of the Center for a New American Security.

I'd worked in think tanks before. I'd seen some things that I thought were less effective. I thought it would be possible to put together a bipartisan civil military organization that would really focus on the most important issues confronting the nation.

It is true that several of the key players have gone into the Obama administration. But it is also the case that several of our people that we work closely with, that are on our staff, were closely associated with advising Senator McCain as well. And they would have probably gone in or at least had the opportunity to.

I would simply say that if you look at the Center for a New American Security today, we have over 100 funders, a very small budget roughly, compared to the mammoth institutions associated, like the ones that you've mentioned. I think our reports have all won extraordinarily critical acclaim.

You will note, Senator, you should look at all of them. We never talked about weapons systems. We do not talk about defense systems. We instead try to always talk at a very high level, on policy issues associated with national security. And we've tried to broaden the definition of national security, to things like climate change, going forward.

Many of the people on our board are deeply involved in day-to-day events. There is not a thing that takes place, in our organization, that is not vetted closely.

It is true that a number of firms, both commercial firms and defense firms, have supported CNAS but not nearly at the level they have supported other institutions around Washington. And the truth is, I think, even those institutions can also be interested in strong defense and want to work closely with people who care about it.

So I'm very comfortable with this. I think that --

SEN. WEBB: But for the record, at a level --

MR. CAMPBELL: Pardon?

SEN. WEBB: For the record, at a level somewhere between a hundred thousand (dollars) and a million (dollars) per company --

MR. CAMPBELL: I wouldn't want to go into specifics, but most of the companies that you refer to are very much at the lower end of that level, yes.

SEN. WEBB: Well, I mean, there's no reason not to go into specifics. It's a 501(c)(3) company, is it not?

MR. CAMPBELL: That's fine.

SEN. WEBB: Correct?

MR. CAMPBELL: Absolutely happy to, sir.

SEN. WEBB: You stated in a letter -- which was very helpful, actually -- that CNAS, as a matter of policy, does not conduct public advocacy, your -- you just -- and with respect to defense procurement, which you just said, and also that CNAS by its bylaws allows senior officeholders to engage in outside consulting. Was there any overlap between the companies that have donated money to CNAS and outside consulting with StratAsia?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. As you referred to, Senator, there are a few companies that I've specified to you in your letter that have been -- that I have worked for as part of my duties as a principal in StratAsia. But they have also contributed to the Center for a New American Security. I alert the board to those relationships. We've kept a very clear line. Not one of our publications, not one of our public advocacies ever touches on anything that these companies worked on.

SEN. WEBB: Since the confirmation of Michele Flournoy as undersecretary of Defense for Policy, has CNAS acquired any new contracts with the Department of Defense?

MR. CAMPBELL: Since she has been --

SEN. WEBB: Confirmed as undersecretary.

MR. CAMPBELL: No, Senator, none.

SEN. WEBB: If confirmed as assistant secretary, what will your relationship be with CNAS?

MR. CAMPBELL: My strictures are very clear here. In my government ethics statement, I have to keep an arm's-length distance. I cannot assist in any way with fundraising. Any appearance for a lunch or a public engagement, I need to clear with the legal staff at the Department of State, and I would -- I will do so.

SEN. WEBB: Okay. Thank you very much.

Senator Lugar.

SEN. RICHARD LUGAR (R-IN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Campbell, clearly at the forefront of current interest is the future of our relationship with North Korea, especially in view of the nuclear test and the missile tests, and really the reports, or perhaps threats, of additional activity of that variety.

Now, we've all read comment that there is a certain unease in the leadership echelons of North Korea that perhaps these external developments are a part of that internal battle. We've also had advocacy of some that the six-power talks have not worked particularly well, and that we ought to think of some new strategy or organization for our North Korea diplomacy.

What comment do you have as to how you plan to proceed in that area?

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Senator Lugar. Let me just give you a sense of what the administration is doing right now. And I have to -- and I'm sure you'll understand -- speak at a fairly broad-brush level: The diplomacy is on a minute-by-minute basis; I am not at the Department of State. And so I can only give you a general sense of what's transpiring as we speak. And then I can tell you a little bit about what I anticipate my role to be.

The first, as you know, senior delegation of deputies, including Jim Steinberg and others, just returned from a very quiet set of deliberations around Asia. Number one on our list is trying to make sure that we're together with our allies, particularly Japan and Korea. I think there have -- been some space developing in the past. We're going to do everything possible, both in diplomacy and in defense steps, to ensure that we are together going forward. And so those consultations are at the top of the list.

Second, we've also had deliberations with both Russia and China, specifically on what's transpiring, the provocations in North Korea, and to get their views about -- how to deal with these issues, both directly with North Korea and in the multilateral context.

Third, we're actively engaged at the United Nations, Secretary -- Ambassador Rice and others, on Security Council resolutions that will sharpen aspects of 1718. We're looking at various steps associated with financial sanctions. We're also looking at some issues associated with what can be done on the high seas. I think it's also the case that we think that the best approach in this regard is in a multilateral sense.

And the last thing I would just say is that in a very real sense, Senator, something that you appreciate deeply, North Korea really is the land of lousy options. And one of the things that we have to do going forward, given all that's transpired over the course of the last couple of weeks, is still keep the door ajar. We've got to make clear to the North Koreans, as Steve Bosworth -- Ambassador Bosworth -- said last night, that should they return -- decide to return to the table for negotiations in a multilateral context, we'd be prepared to do that.

We've also been very clear that we cannot accept a nuclear North Korea. And I think Ambassador Bosworth made some very helpful comments last night, at his address at the Korea Society, that in our diplomacy with North Korea, we must look more at irreversible steps, if North Korea is to come back, and not simply impermanent ones.

I don't want to handicap what the chances of this are going forward. You've heard comments from the president and the secretary to this respect. All I can tell you is that senior officials inside government take it very seriously. They're extremely concerned. And I as assistant secretary of State, if I'm confirmed, will be actively involved in these engagements.

Ambassador Bosworth, Sung Kim, my colleague at the State Department, Jim Steinberg, all of us, have to work as a team to try to get the best possible outcome, from what is obviously a very difficult situation.

SEN. LUGAR: Well, I appreciate that comment. Likewise your earlier statement that you would stay close to this committee, as things progress not only in North Korea but really across the broad gamut of issues. And I think this is one we will have to work on together, for the foreseeable future, as is the next topic I wanted to ask about.

We had a good hearing of the committee on the climate change issue, with regard to Chinese-American relations. Our Chairman, Senator Kerry, has been to China the week of recess, as has the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and others.

And they of course were looking toward the Copenhagen conference later on, at which there are some hopes of some type of agreement that would involve the United States and China and India and, for that matter, others in Asia who have a very important role to play in this.

Now, one outcome of our hearing was the thought that, to say the least, the data, the metrics, the Chinese measurement of what is occurring, with regard to CO2 in the atmosphere, are not necessarily suspect. Just simply the basis, what's called a baseline by one of our witnesses, don't exist.

So as we begin talking about an increase of 10 percent or a decrease of 20 percent, what have you, the question will be raised, not just by members of the committee but by the American public. From what? And I can conceive that as difficult as our debate is proceeding on climate change, here in this Congress, the debate will be equally difficult in China.

How do you believe we should proceed, from a broad diplomatic standpoint? Should climate change and the CO2 be combined with our talks about banking, about trade, about democracy, about a number of issues? Or is this a separate topic that is so important, and given the Copenhagen conference and other international observers, that we try to deal with that one separately?

MR. CAMPBELL: It's an excellent question, Senator, and probably -- in terms of the ranking and the hierarchy, probably a little bit above my pay grade. My own personal sense is that all of those issues that you discussed have to be part of the bilateral relationship between the United States and China. And climate change is now an incredibly important issue, not just in our bilateral relationship but in a larger diplomatic setting.

Todd Stern, the president's -- Secretary Clinton's climate negotiator, is in Beijing for tough talks right now. I would commit to you going forward to come in, keep you and your staff well appraised of these issues.

All I can tell you is that, from my view, unless the United States and China together take climate change issues seriously, it's very difficult to imagine much success in an international forum.

SEN. LUGAR: On a third topic, I would hope that you would be helpful in advocating Chinese membership in the International Energy Agency. Now, I raise that situation because it's not just simply climate change and CO2 that surround our interests in energy in China, but it's rather the Chinese understandably have been aggressive in attempting to find sources of oil and other resources all over the Earth. So have other countries, for that matter.

This is bound to bring a certain amount of international conflict or misunderstanding, as the case may be. And the IEA has been one organization that has tried to sort these things out, to bring some transparency to the negotiations of all major countries.

One dilemma of this, which was pointed out, is that the IEA was essentially a European organization, and there is not unanimity in Europe as to whether the Chinese should be allowed to be a member of this. But Secretary Clinton has pledged that she would take up the cause of China with regard to that membership, if the Chinese were agreeable.

Do you have a comment about the IEA situation? And if you don't, I know from your previous pledges you will attempt to work with us in the understanding of how Secretary Clinton, you and others begin to work out the transparency issue and these disputes that aggressive search for energy brings in the world.

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Senator Lugar. It just so happens that this is one of the issues that Secretary Clinton indicated that, if I were to be confirmed, she would like me to work on; thought it was a great suggestion; wasn't aware of the internal politics inside the IEA, and so thinks it's important to have a dialogue not only with the founders, but also with Chinese interlocutors to get their sense. I think there's a lot of merit to the suggestion that extends even beyond those areas that you underscored.

So I'll take this on. I'll be back in touch with Keith and other members of your staff going forward.

SEN. LUGAR: Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WEBB: Thank you, Senator Lugar.

We're pleased that Senator Kaufman has joined us. While he is looking through some materials, I will take a more substantive round than the last time.

Let me begin by offering a bit of a comment on Senator Lugar's question about climate change. We had Mr. Stern here before the committee. I pointed out to him that this administration is going to have a very difficult time getting a climate change bill through if China is not a committed signatory. If you look at Kyoto and the other proposals that are coming down the line, China is treated as a developing nation with goals, rather than concrete obligations. And when they're in the situation to which they have now progressed economically and otherwise, that doesn't make sense to a lot of people.

I quite frankly don't think there are the votes here in the United States to pass climate change legislation without concrete obligations from China.

I would actually like to turn to the situation in Burma. As you may know, I for a number of years advocated a different approach. I've had some good discussions with Secretary Clinton about this over the past couple of years, before she became secretary of State and afterwards. Aung San Suu Kyi's ongoing trial is the latest incident in a cycle that's been virtually unchanged for 60 years, actually, not 20, as some people comment.

And in that time, particularly over the past 10 years, the United States' ability to influence events in Burma has steadily waned. Businesses, NGOs, government groups have been ousted.

Meanwhile, other countries, not only China but most notably China, are more engaged than ever, with infrastructure projects, mineral resources. China just signed a large oil deal. And on the one hand -- and I'd like to say very clearly, as someone who has advocated a different approach, the situation presently with Aung San Suu Kyi is unacceptable to any of us -- any of us -- who have advocated varying approaches with respect to Burma. But on the other, we need to look at a different way of doing things.

Have you been able to examine Burma's proposed constitution?

MR. CAMPBELL: I have, Senator, and let me just say I've had very extensive consultations and discussions with Secretary Clinton about her conversations with you. What she said out in the region stands for itself. I think she was very clear about what -- the approach the administration has taken. And as a general practice, we're prepared to reach out, not just in Burma but in other situations as well.

That being said, I must say I agree with everything you've said. The recent events with Aung San Suu Kyi are just deeply, deeply concerning, and it makes it very difficult going forward. We're in the midst of a very sensitive review. We are looking at the situation of the trial and what the junta is considering going forward. It will play into our review. And I'd like to commit to you that if confirmed, I will be back up in touch with you directly about what is our strategy going forward.

SEN. WEBB: Assuming we -- or assuming they -- resolve the Aung San Suu Kyi situation in a way that is acceptable to the United States, have you been able to examine Burma's proposed constitution?

MR. CAMPBELL: I've had a chance to review it generally, Senator. I don't think I could describe myself as an expert on it. I probably want to take a question for the record and get back to you on that, if that might be --

SEN. WEBB: But what is your view of the elections being discussed in Burma?

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, some of the discussions that we've had to date surround whether recent actions of the junta are designed to create a different domestic context for the upcoming 2010 elections. The truth is that we have an embassy there, we have sources of information.

I think at the current juncture, given that I'm unconfirmed and that I am not privy to some of the most sensitive deliberations, I would simply say that we've -- we're looking closely at all developments inside Burma, and this is very high on Senator Clinton's list of issues in Southeast Asia.

SEN. WEBB: Assuming that Burma would honor the items that are in its proposed constitution, which move, however imperfectly, toward a multi-party system and elections -- open elections, I assume that would be supported.

MR. CAMPBELL: Senator, I'd prefer not to answer a hypothetical at this juncture. Clearly, the developments inside Burma have implications for Aung San Suu Kyi's party. I think for me to go beyond what I've already said would be inappropriate. All I can tell you is that I think in the past there has been a determination that not much could be done; let's -- you know, let's live with our sanctions. I think there is a very high-level degree of interest in seeing what's possible going forward and a deep sense of disappointment in the recent steps that the junta's taken towards Aung San Suu Kyi.

SEN. WEBB: Well, we would certainly want to encourage substantive notions of free elections and a movement toward some sort of democracy, would we not?

MR. CAMPBELL: I don't think I want to go directly into the -- all the issues associated -- the internal issues associated with the review. But I can commit to you, Senator, that the specific things that you have described both have been conveyed directly by you to the key architects of the ongoing review and they are reflected so-in.

SEN. WEBB: Senator Obama said in Egypt last week, "You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion. You must respect the rights of minorities and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise. You must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party." As a statement -- general statement of principle of government, you would agree with that?

MR. CAMPBELL: I would, sir.

SEN. WEBB: You would agree that if we were able to foster those sorts of governmental approaches in Asia, it would be healthy?

MR. CAMPBELL: Absolutely.

SEN. WEBB: Whether it is Burma or Vietnam or China.

MR. CAMPBELL: I would. I -- you know, I think there's no doubt which system of government, which manner of governance that we would choose in the United States. And it's difficult to compare and contrast authoritarian regimes, obviously. But I would also say that the character of our engagement in Vietnam has been very different than our character with Burma.

Now, obviously, there are a lot of reasons for that. But I think if you look at the progress that Vietnam has made with the United States in recent years -- and that's in no small part due to your own engagement -- I see some very real signs and hope for progress. It may not be the system that we choose, but there are some very real changes under way: respecting religious freedoms, the issues associated with trade and investment, a deeper economic and strategic and military dialogue. And that's to be encouraged.

SEN. WEBB: Well, let me suggest a couple of thoughts to you in that regard.

When I first went back to Vietnam in 1991, it was basically a Stalinist state. It was harsh to its own people. It had isolated itself from the outside world. It relied on the Soviet Union to prop it up, and the Soviet Union having begun to dissolve, it was in a different situation in terms of its economy.

But the bottom line -- and it took people like myself, who had fought there, a while to accept it -- was that affirmative engagement, bringing these people out, the second-tier people who would at some point, as with today, be making the decisions, letting them see what was out in the rest of the world was vital in terms of bringing about the changes that we're seeing in Vietnam. And I'm, you know, very, very pleased with the progress that the Vietnamese government has made. It's not perfect, but it's a long way from where it was in 1991.

And when I visited Burma in '01, I spent a good bit of time there with an American businessman who was preparing to get shut down because of sanctions. His comment to me in '01 was, you know, we're going to cut our engagement away from these people, and they're going to go further into retreat and further into the hands of China. And the street on Burma in '01 was a less restricted place than the streets in Vietnam in '91, quite frankly.

So we are in a situation right now where I think what they have recently done with Aung San Suu Kyi has dramatically hurt their ability to reach out and perhaps see a different type of treatment from the United States. But the notion of engagement, of affirmatively engaging on an appropriate level, is the best way out; wouldn't you say?

MR. CAMPBELL: Senator, all I can say is that, after your conversations and others with Senator (sic) Clinton, I don't think she could have been clearer on her trip to Southeast Asia. And I would just underscore again that this is a two-way street, and we are busy in dialogue with friends and other countries that have engagement.

SEN. WEBB: Fully agree with you, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, but here's -- one of the concerns that I have from this committee perspective, which, hopefully, we can start to address, is that we seem to have different standards that we apply to different countries in this region with respect to their governmental systems. And we need to reach toward an understandable approach, in terms of what we'll accept and what we will not, from different governmental systems.

MR. CAMPBELL: Senator, I accept that point, and I would just go one step further. I'm a firm believer that diplomacy and engagement is not a -- is not a gift; it's a tool. And if confirmed, I would intend to use it in Asia, and I'm going to work closely with the administration. Nothing can be done on Burma unless there is an incredibly close consultation with Congress. There's more expertise, there's more commitment to this issue than just about anything else.

And so all I can tell you is that I've spent an enormous amount of time thinking about it, working on it. Most of my conversations with Senator (sic) Clinton -- I don't feel like this in any way is a violation of trust -- have been about how to think about this critical issue. And she was very much influenced by her discussions with you going forward.

All that being said is that we are right now at a critical juncture. How the junta responds over the course of the next couple of weeks will be watched carefully.

SEN. WEBB: Do not disagree with you on that. And this -- the question is larger than Burma. I will come back to it.

But Senator Kaufman.

SEN. TED KAUFMAN (D-DE): Thank you very much.

And thank you for making the decision to serve, and for your family to make the decision to let you serve, because you know how important that is.

China. I mean, you know, there are so many issues that come back to China, and kind of -- you talked about some of them. You talked about climate changes and others. Kind of -- what are the kind of top priorities when it comes to China? There are so many things that we deal with China on. Kind of, when you think about China, what are your top priorities?

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you very much. And Senator, thank you for coming today.

First of all, let me just say that there are some basic issues that the American people expect us to raise and engage with our Chinese interlocutors, and we will do so, and that's obviously on democracy, on human rights, on issues associated with Tibet, on the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. Those go with the job, and they are part of our diplomatic engagement historically with China.

There is also a very broad array of issues that we need to work more closely with China on: climate change, North Korea -- clearly China is examining the situation there, I think, privately expressing their own consternation and concern. We need to work with China closely on North Korea.

But regional issues don't stop there. They have an important role to play in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Ambassador Holbrooke is engaged on them. They are engaged much further afield in a variety of energy and natural resources plays in the Third World and elsewhere. We need a broader dialogue with them on energy. We need to work with them on Darfur.

One of the things that Senator Webb meant -- said in his opening statement, I agree with. China's military build-up is an issue that China needs to be more transparent about. We need a deeper engagement. We have mechanisms in place that allow us to develop greater trust and confidence with our Chinese interlocutors in the PLA. Those have to be -- those have to be activated to a greater extent.

And so it is an extraordinarily full agenda. And so one of the challenges is, is how you fit this together, what kind of hierarchy you come up with, and how do you proceed with Chinese interlocutors, who are still feeling their way in the international system.

So I would say it's an important, consequential time. The challenges could not be greater.

SEN. KAUFMAN: How do you -- where do you put freedom of the press? In other words, encouraging them to engage in freedom of the press --

MR. CAMPBELL: Important. I would put it at the top. The freedoms that we discuss, democracy and issues along those lines, the growth of civil society in China, all issues associated with China's engagement domestically, are things that we have to raise with them. And they expect it.

SEN. KAUFMAN: What -- this is extraordinarily difficult, though, because when you give the list of things that we're talking about, and you haven't even mentioned the economic issues --

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

SEN. KAUFMAN: -- which clearly are, you know, right at the top of the list (they control ?) -- but I find the Chinese very -- they follow very closely what we talk about and what we don't talk about. And so the issues that we don't talk about, they basically feel that they are kind of free to act any way that they would like to act with regard to that, without being concerned about the United States, and operate in their own interest.

And freedom of the press is one of those issues.

We have a situation where they broadcast in the United States, on CCTV, on cable right here in Washington, D.C. Their radio stations broadcast in the United States. But they jam broadcasts by Voice of America and Radio Free Asia into China. And just the lack of freedom is so complete in the country. They've done such an incredible job.

What concerns me is that, you know, China is going to be a superpower. And if the people in China do not believe that the American people care about them, which they presently don't -- (inaudible) -- 68 percent of them said that they thought America was their enemy. And based on what -- if they do not get access to a free press, we're going to be in a situation that's just going to get worse and worse and worse.

Do you have any thoughts on that, kind of?

MR. CAMPBELL: Generally I think that the most important area where mistrust permeates our relationship, between the United States and China, are our attitudes about each other. And Chinese interlocutors sometimes do harbor views about the United States that one would like to see improved over time.

I think there are a variety of steps that the United States should take and have taken historically. I think raising them in diplomatic settings is important. The Chinese respect, understand faiths. They understand how to go about doing diplomacy.

I think everything we've seen to date suggests that they want to get off to a very good start with President Obama and the administration. And I think as importantly as anything else, we need to engage China with a respect, with an appreciation that we accept their dramatic, important rise in global politics. And we encourage it in many respects.

And with the rise to great power status comes not only fruits but responsibilities. And some of those responsibilities are not just international behavior but domestic behavior as well.

SEN. KAUFMAN: And I'd just say, when you make up your list and you go to speak to them, you know, I just think that obviously we all have our own little prejudices. But I just think that the extent that they get better information about the United States and what's going on in America -- same thing; we get more information about them -- it really helps move the ball forward. And to the extent that we make this part of our discussion, at some point in the discussion, it really affects their behavior in my opinion.

So again I don't envy you having to juggle what is an incredible list of issues that we have with China, which you just mentioned some of them. There's even more. It's something to consider, that if we're going to move this relationship forward, the Chinese people are going to have a better understanding of the United States. And we have to have a better understanding of China.

MR. CAMPBELL: I accept that, Senator. Thank you.

SEN. KAUFMAN: Good.

Can you -- how about -- how do we base -- you know, kind of balance -- one of the other things: How do we balance our relationship with Japan with having a new relationship with China?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah, a very important question, Senator. And I would just say that I don't think -- some people describe this complicated sort of geometry is essentially and fundamentally a zero- sum game. I don't accept that.

In fact, I think, one of the things that the administration want to explore, and we're already in the beginning stages, is to try to think, what kind of diplomacy could be conducted in a trilateral context?

China's rise has enormous implications for the United States but more directly and more urgently, in the short term, for Japan. And I think that's sometimes been difficult for our Japanese friends, as it has been for the United States.

My approach to this is that the best way to engage China is with the strongest possible partnership with Japan and for Japanese friends to know that we are behind them. We support their democracy. We support their strong role not only in the region but globally, but also to underscore to them that they share similar goals about what we look for, in terms of China's evolution into a great power.

I'm hopeful. I see signs, after a period of some concern, perhaps a focus on history, a little bit backward-looking. I see signs in both societies, an appreciation, that they need each other right now and that there are many areas where the United States, Japan, Korea and China can work together in Asia going forward.

So I think it's non-negotiable, a strong partnership with Japan.

That's just our foundation. And if we don't have that foundation, then virtually nothing else is possible in Asia. Chinese friends appreciate that.

I think that the point that you made -- or I think Senator Webb made about, you know, the absence, if it's not seen -- if the Chinese -- if our Chinese interlocutors don't see our commitment to our allies, they will read something into it that we do not want them to do. And so one of the things I'm very appreciative of is the fact that the secretary and the president first -- the diplomatic engagements were with Japanese interlocutors. It's very important.

SEN. KAUFMAN: Can you talk a little about how we prevent nuclear proliferation out of North Korea and how we -- the spread of nuclear weapons?

MR. CAMPBELL: It's a very important question. I think the first step obviously is to make very clear that the United States and its allies will not accept a nuclear North Korea, and that's just going to be the basis of American policy going forward.

Secondly, I think it's extremely important that our allies and friends appreciate the nature of the enduring American commitment to extended deterrence. That is a foundation of our strategy. It will continue to be. And we need to reassure and be very clear with our interlocutors in Japan and South Korea.

And then lastly, I think taking an active role in multilateral diplomacy and the nuclear proliferation treaty going forward, making clear that we're taking steps to attempt to diminish the role of nuclear weapons in global politics -- these are all important steps, but at the heart of this is dealing with North Korea.

SEN. KAUFMAN: Well, I just want to say the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." You are surely going to live in interesting times. And I appreciate what you're doing.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's an honor to be chosen for this position, sir.

SEN. KAUFMAN: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SEN. WEBB: Thank you, Senator Kaufman.

First we're going to continue this discussion that I began. I want to emphasize that it -- this is not a Burma issue. It's an issue of concern about a uniform standard that our country can be seen as implementing with respect to how we approach governmental systems.

And on the one hand, if the Burmese would legitimately offer free elections and a multi-party system, that's something we're not seeing or even advocating for other countries in a region as, for instance, China wouldn't -- it'd -- what I see up here, by the way, is we have -- we tend to take these country by country, without a clear articulation of what the aspirations of the United States might be in the region. Would you have a comment on that?

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, if I could make a general point, if you look at the path and progress of democratization in Asia over the last 30 years, basically at the -- since the end of the Vietnam War, it's been a truly profound accomplishment. And we can't take credit for this. I mean, this is a domestic set of developments across the region. But the United States has played a role.

And so I would say the overall direction of politics in Asia has been very important. And the fact that the United States supports values and democratization and the development of civil society not just on a state-by-state basis but regionally and globally is important.

I hear very clearly what you're saying, Senator, and I think there was, at the outset of this administration, a very clear understanding that the previous strategy, particularly towards Burma, had not borne fruit, and that other forms of engagement, frankly, had not succeeded either, and that what the United States needed to do was work more closely with ASEAN friends and others in the region to see if we could come up with a more constructive approach. That does not mean removing sanctions; that means figuring out a way forward involving diplomacy and engagement.

SEN. WEBB: I appreciate your saying that. And I don't want to -- again, I don't want to make this simply a Burma question. It's a question of how we might work together in this administration in order to create the right level of understanding in terms of what the United States really stands for.

But first I would say, I think that the growth in openness in Asia, particularly east Asia, over the past 30 years has been, in many ways, a direct consequence of the United States, not simply an indirect consequence. And you can go with -- even Lee Quan Yew comments --

MR. CAMPBELL (?): I agree.

SEN. WEBB: -- I had the pleasure of meeting with him last December for an hour, and he's very clear that the United States attempt, for lack of a better term, in Vietnam actually brought stability to the region that allowed some of these smaller countries to more aggressively grow their systems that have been paying off economically and in terms of basic freedoms.

My concern really has been more in terms of governmental policy, where we sort of stumble from one situation to another. And you can go all the way back to the Vietnamese pulling out of Cambodia many years ago, where one of the requirements, ironically, that we placed on that situation was that Cambodia hold free elections, when Vietnam had agreed in 1973, as I recall, to hold free elections.

And I'm not saying here today, "Vietnam needs to hold free elections." I'm saying, when we look at these different countries, we need to create an understandable policy of what the United States stands for. We can't -- obviously we can't apply those every -- in every case in the same way, but people sure need to know where we're going.

Let me switch, if I may, to the situation in Thailand. Actually, it fits into this dialogue, because, on the one hand, we see reported in the United States the confrontations and in some cases the worry that Thailand is becoming unstable; and yet, on the other hand, many people would observe that Thailand's the most open society in Southeast Asia. They have strong freedom of the press. They have -- even during the coup, they had elections -- local elections and these sorts of things.

To what extent do you see the recent turmoil in Thailand as instability, and to what extent do you see it perhaps as positioning for the political future with the demise of the king at some point?

MR. CAMPBELL: Senator, it's a great question. You have to begin with the basics, that Thailand is one of our oldest security partners, trusted colleague, has been with us both in front of the cameras and behind them in many situations, military and otherwise. They are facing a variety of challenges. We talked a little bit about developments in Burma; they obviously have some problems on the border with the Karen right now.

They have some problems in the south, some very real challenges. I think we all saw the tragedy in the mosque yesterday. These are sources of concern.

At a larger level, a very substantial set of challenges domestically, which I think are probably both. There is positioning for the future, Senator Webb. But there's also very real risks of problems in the here and now.

Just a few months ago, I think, as you know, an ASEAN meeting was disrupted. And I think it has triggered a level of anxiety by others in the region. The United States is in a delicate position. It -- we have a very strong relationship with Thailand. I'd like to actually see it stronger.

We play a private role in urging dialogue, urging parties to respect constitutional processes. We want to see more engagement between these various groups inside Thailand. But we also want to stand firmly behind the maintenance of peace and stability going forward.

I would simply say that to be more open and more public right now could very well backfire. And you might find yourself in a situation where you're promoting things that could play very badly, not just among the elite in Thai society but elsewhere, going forward.

I will say, I thought the question that you were going to ask is, do you think -- you know, some of the recent press in the United States suggests that, well, you know, the problems have died down. I don't think that's the case.

I think we've seen, there's going to be an ebb and flow to this. And I think the truth is, the United States has to get in and engage and have a much deeper, quiet dialogue not just with the government but other aspects inside Thai society.

Secretary Clinton is planning, I think, as you know -- you've discussed this with her -- to go to Thailand later in July. And in addition to her multilateral discussions, I know, she's going to have bilateral contacts with her interlocutors as well.

SEN. WEBB: Thank you.

Your comment to Senator Kaufman about the need for a trilateral context -- in which to address issues among China, Japan and the United States -- you've actually written about this in the past. And there was some concern articulated to me, by representatives of some of the smaller nations in the region, that that might end up working to their detriment.

Would you have a rejoinder for them?

MR. CAMPBELL: First of all, it's a great question, Senator. And the initial steps that have been taken, at a trilateral basis, are at a lower level. And they're an attempt to develop sort of some general areas of discussion going forward.

There are a few things that we have to be very attuned to in Asia. One is, at a delicate time, we can take no steps that in any way cause concern in Seoul, particularly in South Korea. And that for me is the biggest issue here.

We want to have a close relationship with the government. We want a deeper set of ties between the United States and South Korea. I'd like to be involved in that going forward. And so we can't -- we have to be very cautious and mindful of the kind of diplomacy that we might seek in a trilateral context.

As a general matter, Asia is full of these meetings, both multilateral and minilateral. And my general view is that, at least in my private capacity, is that, you know, diplomacy in Asia is a good thing, to have as many forums and venues for engagement as possible.

And so what I'm more focused on is not the events themselves but Americans showing up at those events. I've been concerned in recent years sometimes that the picture of the American empty seat, at the important meeting, has been what a lot of Asians have seen from the United States.

And so my hope is that we'll have a very good attendance record. You know, there's a lot of big, creative, strategic ideas. But a lot of life is just showing up. And if we can show up to a lot of these meetings, I think, it will be important.

It is incumbent on any administration that any diplomatic initiative cannot undermine the confidence of other countries, in the region, or set back diplomatic efforts.

I would say, though, at a larger level I think the countries of Asia appreciate that if the United States, Japan and China are getting along, or at least have a way of doing business, I think at a very strategic level that's in their interests.

SEN. WEBB: Are you familiar with the approach being floated by the Australians for a regional grouping in a larger context that might perform that same function?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah, I had a chance to meet with Prime Minister Rudd's representatives when they were through town. I've had a chance to talk with them about it. You know, everyone's got these -- you know, we've got ASEAN Plus Three, we've got APEC, we've got the ASEAN Regional Forum.

My concern is not in the multiplicity, the almost exponential rise in these venues, but more what these organizations are asked to do. And I know Asians hate to be contrasted with Europe, and it's a very different set of circumstances. And I appreciate that. But the diplomacy in Asia of a multilateral sort is still very shallow. And if it's to be successful, it has to have deeper roots.

The Australian proposal, I'm -- you know, I'm out of government, I can't comment on it generally. I think the fact that there is a greater interest in finding appropriate forums, not just in Australia, but in China, Japan, the United States, is a healthy thing, and the key role of the United States is to harness that energy and to direct it in appropriate ways.

SEN. WEBB: You've mentioned many times and also today about -- and I happen to agree with you -- the danger of our having lost our strategic focus in Asia with respect to, or because of, our national focus on the Middle East, with the Iraq, Afghanistan, now Af-Pak situation.

You also have commented that we must have a new approach with clear metrics. What would those metrics be with respect to the relationship with China?

MR. CAMPBELL: First of all, at the basic part of your question, Senator, you know, I thought -- I think it was possible more in the past to choose that you're going to work on other regions and that you can take a timeout and then maybe return. It's just not possible in Asia, and so Asia will not allow us to play a less significant role. There will constantly be issues that will draw us back in. And so I think that it is understood at high levels in a bipartisan way that we cannot afford to ignore Asia and that we have to step up our game. So I believe that very generally.

I think that the overall policy of the United States of engagement is the right approach with China. But I do think that we haven't looked at the full scope of our relationship. So we have elements of an engagement strategy. We have elements of a hedging strategy. These strategies, in many respects, are not well- integrated. They are often -- sometimes they have in the past been run by different aspects of the American government.

I think the key for our diplomacy going forward with China is to remind China of their responsibilities as a great power. So -- countries in Asia have very high expectations of what they expect from the United States, both in terms of our openness and transparency on military issues.

China needs to step up more on this.

And it cannot simply be the United States asking. Other countries in Asia have to find their voice on some of these issues. And that's one of the other reasons why we need a strong and engaged American presence, because it provides assurance and confidence for our interlocutors in Asia that they know that we're going to be around going forward.

On all the issues that we've raised today, China's going to play a key role, and it's going to be very difficult to have progress on the Korean Peninsula, in Central Asia, on climate change, unless Chinese is an active, deep participant and collaborator, not just with the United States but with the global community.

So really, the course of the next several years, we'll have a very good chance to see the kind of player that China will be in global politics going forward.

SEN. WEBB: So would you suggest specific metrics or --

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, I think I've tried to lay out, in terms of transparency --

SEN. WEBB: -- measurable end results that we can look toward?

MR. CAMPBELL: I would like to see China to be much more transparent on both economic and military issues. I'd like them to be actively engaged in diplomacy on climate change. I'd like to see them playing a role in helping North Korea come back to the -- to the six- party talks. I'd like to see them engaged on very difficult challenges in Pakistan. And I think those are the areas that we have to look for clear signs of Chinese engagement and progress.

And by the way, I will say we have seen -- just as you underscore the progress in Vietnam, there are many areas that China has played a much more important role than they did just 10 years ago. And behind the scenes, they have been generally quite helpful on North Korea. Now, going forward remains to be seen, but we hope very much for a close diplomacy and a coordination on policies going forward.

SEN. WEBB: You've, I'm sure, been following these incidents at sea?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes.

SEN. WEBB: The Senkaku Islands, the Paracels, the Spratlys. There seems to be a tendency among American policymakers to view these incidents as essentially tactical difficulties, tactical challenges to be resolved. I think that's particularly been true from our military leadership. Others see them as clear evidence of strategic thought on the part of the Chinese, where you can connect the dots and look at them as sovereignty issues. What would your comment be on that?

MR. CAMPBELL: Well, there are two sets of issues that you raise, Senator, and I just -- one is going to be on the issues associated -- the important energy, Law of the Sea, transportation issues in the South China Seas and the Spratlys.

I think, as a general approach, the United States encourages that China engage Southeast Asia together. I think more recently they tried to do this sort of in a -- ad seriam way, almost to sort of negotiate a quid pro quo in each context. And I think the United States has general principles here, but we would like to see diplomacy conducted in a more multilateral context going forward.

On the specific incidents that you're referring to, in terms of American military, both EP-3 and other ships both oceanographic and Navy in international waters, I had the good fortune, when I was in the Pentagon, to help negotiate the Military Maritime Agreement. In recent deliberations, the Chinese have indicated that they're prepared to reengage on a set of diplomacy associated with the rules of the road on the high seas. And it's been communicated at a very high level that if -- that these steps, these actions are deeply concerning, and that they have the potential to create a very significant backlash in terms of cooperation between the United States and China.

The issue for the United States and China is on -- particularly on military issues, we need a deeper meeting of the minds, a careful dialogue between our military players and theirs, between our senior civilians and theirs, so that we are able to communicate our national goals and aspirations, and theirs.

China's a rising power. History tells us that this kind of challenge is often difficult. But it -- the challenges can be facilitated. They can be eased by more dialogue. And I'm -- since the -- some of the recent events, we've seen some signs that Chinese friends are prepared for greater dialogue going forward, particularly on some of these maritime issues.

SEN. WEBB: Well, I would suggest to you that there are actually three issues in play. The first are rights of passage issues, you know, issues of law of the sea, which you address. The second are how these types of situations impact on United States-China relations. But the third issue, which I don't think we spend enough time focusing on, is the impact on the region writ large and other countries in the region.

MR. CAMPBELL: Yeah.

SEN. WEBB: And those are clearly sovereignty issues that will be played out over a long period of time. You can look at the Spratlys as a clear example of that.

When I was working as a journalist in the Philippines in 1996, 1997, there were some -- there was a small group of people in the Philippines who were concerned about the situation with Chinese encroachment in the Spratlys, and I believe there was one structure, and if you look at the same area today, there are multiple structures. And these things happened over a period of time. And they are not being fully addressed with respect to their potential long-term implications, the Senkakus being another example of this. Wouldn't you agree?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, Senator. I think one of the responsibilities of both this office and others is to ensure very clear stated American principles about conduct of issues associated with navigation, about peaceful prospecting for energy and other resources, and a very clear sense of how diplomacy should be conducted on these issues going forward.

SEN. WEBB: Do you have a position on the outstanding request for arms sales to Taiwan, including design assistance for diesel-electric submarines and Black Hawk helicopters? Do you support the sale of F- 16 fighters to Taiwan?

MR. CAMPBELL: Thank you, Senator. Let me make a sort of a general approach. I think the American commitment to the maintenance of peace across the Taiwan Strait between China and Taiwan is very strong. And I think that's a bipartisan commitment. Sometimes there's to-ing and fro-ing, but if you look over the course of many administrations, there's been a very clear determination to follow strictly and carefully the guidelines set forth in the Taiwan Relations Act. And that is to provide the appropriate defense articles to Taiwan, to consult closely with Congress and to ensure that the Taiwanese have the confidence of the United States as they embark upon diplomacy with China.

There are specifics -- discussions under way right now. I'm not in the Department of -- Department of State, so I'm not going to comment on them. I will say that the United States stands firmly and very clearly that we will abide by the Taiwan Relations Act and the three communiques.

I must say that in -- you know, in a world in which there are a lot of very real concerns, there occasionally are some signs of hope. And one of the things that we've seen over the course of the last several months, last couple of years, is an active diplomacy emerging between China and Taiwan. I think the United States encourages that diplomacy. We want to make sure that it continues in a peaceful way; and that we think we can provide the best context for that by both engaging China and also committing to Taiwan that we will meet their essential defensive needs.

And remember -- I know you understand this better than anyone, Senator -- the ultimate point in the Taiwan Relations Act -- Taiwan's -- Relations Act is the American role. And that continues to be very firm in terms of our response to any potential provocation -- of which, right now, we don't see any. We see a very important process that's under way that we support.

SEN. WEBB: Do you have any -- you mentioned this in passing, but you -- would you have any further comment on China's relationship with Pakistan, particularly as it relates to their nuclear program?

MR. CAMPBELL: Senator, most of the information I've seen on that is at a classified level. And I don't feel I'm at -- haven't really studied it enough; I've been out of government for many years. I'd request, if possible, to study up on this, if confirmed, and then come back and either talk with a member of your staff or have discussions with you -- or, if you'd prefer, I could have -- this is an issue that both Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy and Ambassador Holbrooke are deeply engaged upon.

SEN. WEBB: Okay. I thank you very much for all of your very thoughtful responses today. This can be a painful process.

I remember when I went for confirmation as secretary of the Navy, one of the things I had to do was -- ended up being a half-inch-thick folder on why I had written an article for Parade magazine about when my son was born and received $5,000 for it.

MR. CAMPBELL: (Chuckles.)

SEN. WEBB: So these -- you know, these processes are useful, but not always enjoyable.

We will leave the record open until close of business today for the submission of questions for the record. And Dr. Campbell, I think you've done a terrific job today, and I intend to support you. (Gavels.)

END.

Source