American Thought Leaders - EXCLUSIVE: How My Nation Was Targeted by the CCP—Former Micronesian President David Panuelo

Episode Date: December 7, 2023

The Chinese communist regime has been aggressively seeking to expand its control of the Pacific Islands through political warfare, bribery, and “gray-zone” activities, says David Panuelo, the former president of the Federated States of Micronesia.During his tenure, which lasted from 2019 to 2023, he penned a number of letters to other leaders in the region to raise awareness about the Chinese regime’s belligerent tactics.“I wasn't doing it because I wanted to be bold. I wanted to do it to protect our citizens and the sovereignty of our nation,” Mr. Panuelo says.So why is this region so important? It’s part of the “Second Island Chain” of defense in America’s military strategy, and is critical to deterring a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

From when I walk in, the Chinese ambassador will be constantly following me, whispering in my ears to be careful about, because they heard I was going to be going to Palau, for example, and they don't like it because Palau is sympathetic to Taiwan, for example, those kind of things. And I warned him not to ever do that again because we're a sovereign nation. In this episode, I sit down with former president of the Federated States of Micronesia, David Penuelo, who served from 2019 to 2023. He's unusual in having been highly vocal about

the Chinese regime's aggressive efforts to expand its control in the Pacific Islands through political warfare and gray zone activities. I wasn't doing it because I wanted to be bold. I wanted to do it to protect our citizens and the sovereignty of our nation. Why is this region so important? It's part of the second island chain of defense in America's military strategy against China and would become critical if the CCP were to invade Taiwan. This is American Thought Leaders, and I'm Jan Jekielek. President David Paniuelo, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Jan, thank you for having me on your program, The Epoch Times in Washington, D.C. It's a pleasure to be here, and I'm a fan of your Epoch Times. Well, thank you so much. And of course, welcome to America. Of course, I've been watching what you've been doing over the past several years in the Federated States of Micronesia, where you were the president, standing up to communist China. Very uncharacteristic behavior, I might add, from the region and something I think a lot of people could learn from. It wasn't always like that. And so I'm just thinking over the course of a few years, I've been reading recently, kind of recapping several

letters that you wrote. And at the beginning of these letters, you're extremely cordial in this sort of Pacific Islander way that we love and cherish. And by the end of maybe a one or two year period, you're very direct and very pointed and pointing out some very egregious behavior on the side of the Chinese regime. So tell me how this all happened. Well, Jan, thank you. You know, our country, I want to set it very clear and upfront that we are, our foreign policies, that we're friends to all and enemies to none, really. And so based on that premise, we have, you know, good relations with every country around the world. And so United States being our entouring partner, the treaty that we have is very important. We're going to go and do that.

But on your question in terms of China, China is a beautiful country, beautiful culture, tradition. People are friendly. But it's the government that over time, as the president of our country, I felt I need to take a strong stance to make sure that the sovereignty of our nation is protected. I was invited by President Xi to go to China, and all the treatments that were given to me is appreciated how the head of state is treated in China. But overall, over the course of time, I learned that I must take some bold actions to make sure that the sovereignty of our nation is protected and also for the Pacific region as a whole because security is very important. And so I did write several letters, one when Prime Minister

Sogavare signed the security agreement with China. That's of course the president of the Solomon Islands. The Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, yes, and because we shared the region when that happened, of course, as a Pacific leader, I wrote to Prime Minister Sogovara in a very friendly manner because he's like a brother to me. And as family, we share what we're concerned about. And so I did share about the concern, what we see around the world, that it can potentially happen in Solomon Islands and escalate tensions. And so, you know, the letter elicited the prime minister to also share with the Pacific Islands Forum

is promised that China will not militarize the Solomon Islands, which can make a harmonious region become less secure, it raises the level of escalation. Do you think that anything has changed since that time? Do you feel like that promise has been kept? We have to monitor that carefully because, as you can see in recent events, with the support of China into Solomon Islands for the Pacific Games, for example, has postponed a very important democratic process, the elections, for example.

But what I think we Pacific leaders must be very cautious about is when foreign influence comes into the country and upset the system of government that can have infighting happen. And I think Solomon Islands have that history in the past where other Pacific nations send in police forces to help settle the escalation of a conflict in the Solomon Islands. So I think those are important. And the Pacific Islands Forum is the premier regional organization that can also serve that purpose to make sure that the Pacific works together, you know, strength in numbers to make sure that we keep it as peaceful as possible. Of course, you're saying that, as we know, in the Solomon Islands, the Chinese did provide some security support, so to speak. That reminds me, the Federated States of Micronesia has

a very deep relationship with the U.S. Correct. Namely, it relies by treaty on all its protection, essentially, right? Explain that relationship to me. And I want to talk a little bit about also, you know, why? Why did that deal get struck, do you think? Well, I must emphasize and, you know, cannot overemphasize enough the importance of the compact of free association between the FSM and the U.S. And similarly with Palau and the Marshall Islands, we call it the freely associated states or the compact nations. comprised of the main pillars of economic cooperation, political, and security or defense cooperation which is embedded in that treaty. And it serves as

the cornerstone policy for the bigger Pacific region. That cooperation gives the U.S. certain rights, the federal powers when it comes to security, and the very big exclusive economic zone and airspace of the three countries combined is a very important strategic part of U.S. operations in the Pacific. It gives U.S., for example, from California to Hawaii to the Marshall Islands and FSM Balao, a very uninterrupted, contiguous space, open space where U.S. can cross to the U.S. leaders that that's very important,

and we look forward to the approval of the comeback in the U.S. Congress. Well, and I think, and maybe I'll get you to speak to this, I mean, World War II tells us how important it was, right? Yes. But maybe if you can speak to that briefly. There were a number of key battles in the Pacific. Well, in Solomon Islands, you can talk about the Guadalcanal Battle in Belilu in the Truk Lagoon during the Second World War. These were among the very, very biggest wars that broke out in our Pacific region. So we know what war is when we

talk about war, how our ancestors, our grandfathers lived through the war. So those are things that we don't want repeated in the Pacific, let alone in Micronesia. And I'm just going to highlight for everybody how strategically important for U.S. naval operations that region is. And that, let's say, a change in the balance of power there has a profound impact on the U.S.'s ability to project power west. It is very important. The United States military bases in Guam and in Hawaii is well known. The fact that our population combined in Hawaii and Guam is larger than two of our states in the Federated States of Micronesia. And that unique relationship allows our nation,

young men and women, to also serve in the U.S. Armed Forces in higher per capita than any of the states in the United States. So you see how unique that is. That's fascinating. I had no idea about that. That's an incredible statistic. Yes, it is an incredible statistic. Let's talk about, you know, what did the Chinese Communist Party do throughout your tenure, right, that made you change your view or feel like you have to step out of the, you know, becoming very, very pointed with your criticisms of what you saw the CCP doing and how different leaders were reacting, because I'm talking about a few of your comments here.

Well, my first letter to Sogovar was prompted by the security agreement. We shared that Pacific region. The second letter was directed to the leaders of the Pacific, my brothers and sisters of the Pacific, regarding the Common Development Agreement, which China was proposing to be signed by all the Pacific leaders during a meeting in Fiji. So when we reviewed that Common Development Agreement and learned that by signing that, we will have given away and compromised our sovereignty. And so through TDA's review, that would allow Chinese to come in and also look at the minerals of our exclusive economic zone.

It will give them access into knowing who's entering our country, who's getting out of our country through electronic means, through customs and immigration, among other things. And so we wrote, I wrote to the Pacific leaders, brothers and sisters, to warn them about the Common Development Agreement. And upon review, leaders did find out that that can cause a problem of compromising our sovereignty. And so

from that time the agreement was sort of shelved and I think now, until now, I have not seen that coming about. But we have other examples, you know, examples of direct agreements on the blue economy that I didn't give agreement to or authorize it to be signed. And here, Chinese diplomats in the embassy locally working with our Secretary of Foreign Affairs, with our officials, to insist that they must sign it, even though they've heard it from our top cabinet, to say president doesn't authorize this to be signed, and they kept going at it.

So I can cite many examples, but we have to stand up strong and bold and drawing the line in the sand to say if this encroaches on our sovereignty, then it's not good for the sovereign interests of our nation and collectively for the Pacific Island countries. I just wanted to comment on the Common Development Agreement. I mean, thank goodness that got shelved. So I often think of what the CCP is doing in the Pacific as a kind of a model of how they infiltrate and influence and cajole and buy all sorts of other places.

And it's powerful to hear. Maybe you've given a couple of examples, but maybe you can give me a few of the other sort of egregious things that you noticed that really got you thinking and changing your mind. Well, the Common Development Agreement, the letter that I wrote out, that's picked up some of that steam in a way, so to speak. And then I issued the third letter to our leaders of the FSM. I targeted entire leadership because we're comprised of a federation, four states, municipal governments, state governments,

and two federal governments. So I targeted the entire leadership to warn them of some of these activities that can be subtle in nature, you won't see it coming, or it could be aggressive in some ways because we've experienced some of that, you know, what they call wolf diplomacy, depending on the personality of the diplomats who are there. Some are subtle and some are very aggressive, and we've experienced all of that during my administration. As a president, I'd go to, say, a Japan function to celebrate the birthday of the emperor, for example. They would hold a very big event, and

how I would walk in, and from when I walk in, the Chinese ambassador, Duda FSM, would be constantly following me, whispering in my ears to be careful about how I, because they heard I was going to be going to Palau, for example, and they don't like it because Palau is sympathetic to Taiwan, for example, those kind of things. Until the point, I mean, so persistent that I had to stop and talk to the ambassador and say, Ambassador, don't ever, don't ever treat me like, you know, I'm a, you know, like how we persistently be warning to a head of state, something like that. And I warned him not to ever do that again because we're a sovereign nation and he can say what he wants, but he cannot be, you know, directing it in that way. And I've come out by being very focal one-on-one with them, whether folks were listening to it. That kind of example, when we come together to meet Balao and Marshall Islands, because they recognize Taiwan, how they'd be warning, you know, and as a sovereign country, how do you take it that diplomat who's

like consistently, persistently, you know, telling you that and you're here? I just had to stop and really point at him and warn him not to ever do that ever again to me. And my third letter, which I send out, there's also direct evidence of one of the governors coming to me from the state of Koshy to tell me that there were agents from China who went and saw him to try to go against my letter. And so the governor confided in me and he said, Mr. President, of course I told them no, because that would be treason, you know. It's so outrageous, right? I mean, I'm just, I'm I'm smiling because this is of course what the CCP does. It's modus operandi almost. It's so outrageous and blatant. I think your example is very interesting of insisting that something that's already been decided be changed. right? Because, presumably because, you know,

you have the backing of the whole, you know, Chinese regime behind you, so you feel like you can do that. Yeah, and, you know, I don't think the Pacific leaders, and especially in Micronesia, I don't think we should feel like we're walking on eggshells, that when we have to take strong positions

because we're in defense of our own sovereignty, our national interest that is best for the security of our citizens, we shouldn't be dissuaded just by thinking, oh, you know, this is going to be bad because we're going to get, you know, repercussions of criticism or some kind of, you know of action to come back. We need to stand up strong as sovereign nations to defend the interests of our country in every way that we can. And so I think that message is very important to demonstrate.

You just reminded me that you're actually, you know, basically prevented, or at least as long as you were president, prevented one of the appointees for ambassador. Yes. So tell me about that and why. Yes. And what happened actually. When China presented their ambassador to succeed, the ambassador I was talking about, who's always using wolf diplomacy.

And we reviewed the background of the proposed ambassador through what they call agreement. And we noticed and did some background check that there's been very strong security background of that ambassador. And that's just common sense and also looking ahead in the cooperation we have with China. And this is the point that I've always made, that our relationship with China is always and will always be only on economic and technical terms and cannot be strategic. But China always take the opportunity to unilaterally come out with the press releases

that calls our relationship strategic partnership, even though we've said, no, it's not a strategic relationship. But they've always done that, and they're good with the propaganda of getting out that message. So to the point where I was a president, I also shared with our government that they cannot sign any joint agreement that says strategic partnership. You have to differentiate that in your alliance with countries. And I think if we do that, it's not going to be the kind of policy or agreement that you want, especially that we have a compact treaty with the U.S.

with the pillar of economic, political, and security cooperation. Well, and there's also examples, if I recall, when you opted not to sign some sort of agreement and then the PRC diplomats said that FSM is on board. Yes. I mean, that just seems incredibly egregious, but tell me about that. It is. It is very. And it's documented in emails that's been exchanged where our Secretary of Foreign Affairs was fuming how we could be doing that to when he already know that head of state says no to any agreement, but he keeps pushing that he signs it anyway. So those are the kind of examples that I think is important to understand. And so even to the point where as a president I had to be very cautious on the kind of recommendations that's coming out of our embassy in Beijing of our diplomats because it's almost filled with the content that China wants to push it on to the government,

for example, like the trade agreement that we're talking about. And so, you know, when that happens, then, you know, maybe it's good intention by our diplomats, but they must know that, you know, first and foremost, they represent our interests, not the interests of China. And so that fine line has to be determined and that it is in the best interest of our nation when we're signing these documents that are being recommended from our industry. I just want to highlight this. This seems like an incredible amount of pressure when you have this second largest economy in the world, aggressive superpower, communist China doing this. That's a huge pressure on anybody, right, in my mind. You know, fortunately, I love my country so much. Representing our country was a passion that I took on.

And so, yes, I'm sure that is going to be pressure on anyone who's leading a nation. But I view it as something that is a very sacred crown that I have to defend our nation and make sure that I make the decisions that are in the best interest of our country, even if it disappoints that superpower. Because after all, who am I serving? It's our nation and our citizens. So you put it right, but I think leaders must know these elements, even to the point where I went ahead and also put a moratorium on the research vessels coming into our exclusive economic zone, We learned that it's not only doing, conducting research, but other elements that is not in the best interest of our nation. What you just said makes perfect sense to me. But it seems to be a rare position. And I'm not just talking about the Pacific. I'm talking about anywhere.

Yes. You know, other examples, for example, I know I've warmed up to Taiwan also because they're a China was running around meeting all our leaders to try to reverse that. And of course, one China policy our country signed 33 odd years ago. But the landscape of the evolution of the political scene has changed. The world is changing. And so that quickly had Chinese officials meeting our government to co-aggress my actions, I believe, to the point where they had to work in a resolution to state that our government still oppose the one China policy. And I know U.S. does that, also restates the one China policy for that. But, you know, I think we need to be bold and open to scenarios that can work for our respective, you know respective Pacific Island nations. I know that your critics, of course the CCP itself, but back home and so forth will say,

well, you might be endangering the whole country or the whole region by what you're doing. How do you react to that? I think, first of all, as leaders, we're serving the interests of our nation and serving the interests of our citizens. And then working with the broader allies that have shared values. And I think that's important to remember all of the time as a leader. And so working together with allies to preserve the rules-based international order, the shared values that we have, is something we need to be strong about because every country, especially the superpowers, I know U.S., China,

see influence as important so that they can make sure that their interests are strong in the Pacific Island countries. But when you talk about democracy versus authoritarianism and you look at the events that's happening in the world, we need to be strong about it. An example that I want to also share is how China also persistently worked with countries to try to tone down human rights issues, for example. And recent example is late October, I think our country was persuaded to abstain from the vote on that resolution on the Uyghur human rights issue. But I think the more that countries can stand up and be strong about these issues, to advocate for the treatment of all people equally about their human rights,

it's important for the collective world to be strong in their voice and especially at the multilateral center of the world, at the United Nations. We need to have clear conscience in my view. And so you see the change in my administration during the time I was president. I think we used a softer approach to say we respect the internal affairs of your country and encourage them to treat everyone with the same human rights, you know, but you know we see overall events that that has not changed that behavior. So sometimes when the world comes together

to condemn human rights treatment as such, I think we need to stand together strong without feeling like we're walking on eggshells because the truth is the truth. We need to do that with a strong feeling that we are leaders advocating these shared values that are universal. I agree with you, and especially when what's actually happening is kind of the worst things, some of the worst things that humans can do to each other.

Genocide and crimes against humanity is kind of an egregious, extreme violation that the CCP somehow is regularly involved in. I want to get a little, tell me a little bit about you. You know, this, again, I wish every leader was, you know, viewing things as you do, frankly. Tell me a little bit about how you came about, you know, your way of thinking. What's it influenced by? Well, I grew up under parents that are very, you know, strong in their belief. And I think my parents growing up with many siblings and growing up in the migrant nation culture of respect, I think that's important. And I went to school. I'm one of the leaders who was educated in the United States at Eastern Oregon University. But at an early age, I remember being in university and I was already writing to the second president

at the time in the mid-80s, I believe, to one of our president asking them to start the FSM Trust Fund, for example. So I was clearly already thinking out already for the future of our nation. And so, you know, immediately when I finished university, getting my career course, getting me in that direction. I started as a young person, as a diplomat and then serving in our embassies in Fiji where we were a young nation, coming out as a young nation to be integrated with the Pacific Island

countries. I worked with the United Nations trained and I think, you know, when I was ready and became a member of Congress, I started my career in public office and're representing the best interests of your country, you listen to your heart and you listen to information that comes to you to make the best sense of it in guiding and helping the decision-making. And so in the presidency, information is very important. And so we created the Cybersecurity Bureau in our Department of Justice to help with that. We also, I think in the history of our nation, for the first time, the Office of the President also established through executive order, the Information and Intelligent Services Bureau

to guide decisions so that when Pacific Island nations being limited with the information to work with allies then make sure that information you get help in the decision making. So you can see through the compact, we have a very strong and touring partnership with the U.S. and that's important for the Indo-Pacific region and the overall security of our nation. So we consider ourselves as part of the homeland security when it comes to defense.

That's how strong the touring partnership it is with the United States. Well, I remember, again, I'm thinking back to these letters that you wrote. At least in the first one, you highlight how China is our friend, the U.S. is our friend. Then as time goes on, you're highlighting more China as a kind of a threat. So there's this desire to not have to choose. That's kind of the status quo is I don't have to choose. What do you think about that? Well, I've been asked the question a few times by the media whether as a small island country I feel like I'm sandwiched between two superpowers and my pointed question was no because I definitely know the best interest of our nation

and I think if you know that it makes it easier because we know you know our partners. We know our trusted partners and who to work with to advance the overall security of the Pacific and the entire world together. And that question that was asked of me, I never felt once that I was sandwiched between two superpowers. Thinking about your third letter, which was to the various FSM leaders, how did people react to your expose on the CCP? I genuinely put out a letter that I thought would be good for leaders as I was coming to the end of tail end of my administration based on the insight and experience that I underwent as a president of our country, highlighting important things. I got a letter from one of our governors in response to that to highlight how important the letter was during that time. And he also shared his fears and concerns about the escalation of tension in Micronesia and in the Pacific region.

But overall, it's almost like silence from the rest of the leaders. And so there was another letter that I sent to the then speaker, who is now the President Simina, regarding the resolution on the one China policy because it was cancelled. The hearing was cancelled when we were preparing to go to the hearing to help explain the foreign policy decisions that I've taken. And they cancelled, then went ahead and adopted the resolution. I felt it was necessary to document the chain of events that was happening because as a president, I'm trying to demonstrate that not only China, it was necessary to document the chain of events that was happening. Because as a president, I'm trying to demonstrate that not only China,

that I was very focal about in the things that I do. Everything, we must work together to make sure. I was focal when the constitutional crisis was happening in Samoa with the transition of government from one prime minister to the next. So I stood up and wrote a letter to advocate that the Constitution must prevail. On the issue of Ukraine, we were the first country to sever diplomatic relations with Russia when they invaded Ukraine. So I was trying to demonstrate that as a nation, even though we're small, our voices are very strong when we work together with our Pacific leaders.

And I have strong confidence in the leaders of the Pacific that working together on these issues will make our region a harmonious and a peaceful region. You highlighted the obvious special relationship, very special relationship that the U.S. has with these three states and, of course, FSM. What would you like to see the U.S. do at this point? Do you feel like the U.S. is fulfilling its part? Do you feel that there's other things it can do? Well, you know, as a former president looking from the outside into the brism of the U.S. bureaucracy, I get worried and concerned when the kind of non-cooperation to the extent

that it paralyzes the functioning of government happens in, for example, the House of Representatives. And we watch it because the rest of the world also will be impacted by actions. And so clearly, in the context of the FSM and the Freely Associated States of Palau and Marshall Islands, our compacts are bending in the U.S. Congress. We went through the very tedious efforts of negotiations and completed that. And so U.S. leadership promised us that there's bipartisan support. And so now the most important thing that I see as a former president to speak very truly, we believe that the United States must approve the funding for the comeback, funding for the three comeback nations because it underpins the security of the Pacific, the Indo-Pacific region.

And so, you know, I hope that the U.S. can see this importance and not offsetting. I think they must put it on the front burner and approve these comeback fundings because a lot of things, you know, hinges upon the success of the funding. And we're beyond the fiscal year where the old compact has expired, waiting for the approval of these funds to help with the security of Micronesia and overall larger Pacific region. Well, help with the security of Micronesia and the U.S.

And the U.S. Right. It is. So it's a mutual security relationship that must, as I have emphasized, that it is a strategically important location our compact nations hold with the United States. And so yes, it is important for our security and U.S. security and the collective security of the Indo-Pacific region. I'm going to read something you wrote and get you to comment. China's intent is to, quote, shift those of us with diplomatic relations with China very close into Beijing's orbit,

intrinsically tying the whole of our economies and societies to them. The practical impacts, however, of Chinese control over our communications infrastructure, our ocean territory and the resources within them and our security space, aside from impacts on our sovereignty, is that it increases the chances of China getting into conflict with Australia, Japan, the United States, and New Zealand on the day when Beijing decides to invade Taiwan. Yes. I mean, overall, if you look at, in the context of the Common Development Agreement, it has those elements in there.

And the trade agreements, the blue economy agreements that they were pushing on to us, where a president says no and they're going at it to have it signed by a cabinet member. And so that's where we look at the overall region to see how this is happening. What has been the impact on you and your family of all this? Well, you know, I don't get my family involved in this. If I carry the burden myself, then I must carry it myself because I served as the ninth president of our country

and protecting our interests and our sovereignty is first and foremost. So the personal cost, of course, it is there because we read the news around the world, what happens to people who does these kinds of things and especially the kind of retaliations that comes about. I try not to think about these things and not worry about it. I did talk about you know the security of former presidents that our Department of Justice you know forwarded the travel legislation to our Congress and I knew it was not going to be acted upon because I don't think there's been any president in our history who has taken on these types of

decisions that are difficult, maybe challenging and probably bold. But I wasn't doing it because I wanted to be bold. I wanted to do it to protect our citizens and the sovereignty of our nation. So it wasn't hard for me to do it. The impacts and what the implications may be, I try not to think about it, Jan, because the bigger good is what I believe must be the outcome of public servants and presidents like myself when I had the opportunity to serve our nation. And I thank our citizens for the confidence they have in me. And for the period I have, four years and maybe shorter, because COVID took away two normal sort of years of the covenants that I had running and being the president of our nation to serve the best interest of our country.

So I hear your passion and I am inspired by your passion. Yet, you know, few world leaders seem to share that level of passion when it comes to facing the Chinese regime. What would you say to them? Well, you know, it might not be an easy decision, but for me, you know, it might not be an easy decision, but for me, you know, it might not be an easy decision for world leaders, but for me, it wasn't difficult because we have to of seeking out the truth and I think collectively we have to do that because in the complexity of this climate we have today, it's a rarity to come out and speak honestly and boldly of what is good for your country and for the

at large, you know, the community at large. The truth and transparency is important to come out and advocate and that's what I did as a president and I don't think that's a difficult thing to do. And at the end of the day I think we will be happy with the outcome of our decisions. If it has to be bold, then be bold about it because we want to make sure that the truth comes out. Well, President David Penuelo, it's such a pleasure to have had you on. Likewise, Jan. I thank you for having me on your program. Thank you.

Thank you all for joining President David Penuelo and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.