Sea Control - Sea Control 310 - The Lion & The Mouse with LTC Laura Keenan

Episode Date: January 16, 2022

Links1. Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project. In the South Pacific War Zone (1943).2. United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform. Kiribati.3. “Soft Power,” by Joseph S. Nye, Foreign Policy, No. 80, Autumn, 1990.4. The Climate Reality Project.5. U.S. House of Representatives. The Strategic Importance of the Pacific Islands.6. U.S. Department of Defense. DOD Climate Assessment Tool (DCAT).7. U.S. Department of Defense. Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Request.8. “The Pacific Deterrence Initiative: Peace through Strength in the Indo-Pacific,” by Sen. Jim Inhofe and Sen. Jack Reed, War on the Rocks, May 28, 2020.9. Secretary Hillary Clinton. “Remarks at the Pacific Islands Forum Post-Forum Dialogue,”  U.S. Department of State, August 31, 2012.

Hey folks, Jared here. Today we're introducing a new host, Marie Williams. She'll be interviewing Laura Keenan regarding Laura's prize-winning article for StrategyBridge, The Lion and the Mouse, The Need for Greater U.S. Focus on the Pacific Islands. Of note, you'll hear these two use the phrase earlier this year in one or two places. This was recorded in December, so the year in question is 2021. Marie also edited and produced this episode. Speaking of audio editors, we are looking to add to our team, so if you're interested, please email us at ccontrol at simsec.org with your resume.

Finally, I want to take the opportunity to recommend our partners in the SimSec Podcast Network, The Bilge Pumps. You can find Alex, Jamie, Drack, and a pile of iron brew bottles wherever you download your podcasts. On that note, I'll turn it over to Kimbersman. You're listening to Sea Control, hosted by the Center for International Maritime Security. I'm Mary Williams. Today I'm talking to Lieutenant Colonel Ulrich Heenan. We're talking about his Strategy Bridge Contest winning article, The Lion and the Mouse, the need for greater U.S. focus in the Pacific Islands,

and his strategy for the United States to build meaningful partner capacity in the Pacific Island countries. Lieutenant Colonel, thank you for being here. It's a real pleasure to have you on the podcast. Before we start, can you tell our listeners about yourself, your background, and perhaps a word on what led you to write in the Pacific Theater? Yes, thank you for having me. As you mentioned, my name is Lieutenant Colonel Laura Keenan. I'm a career military officer. I served on active duty, and I'm currently in the Army National Guard. However, I'm mobilized to Cyber National Mission Force, where I'm serving as the Division Chief for Strategy and Plans. and I focused on the Pacific theater as a student at the National War College. That was one of the areas that I chose to write about and became very passionate about the region because it is so

important and of note our partners Australia and New Zealand they also have the same appreciation and influence in the region that we do. So before we start talking I just want to also clarify for the listeners that all the opinions that I share today are my own, and they are not reflective of any institution that I might be associated with. Thank you. Let's start with the title, The Line in the Mouse, the famous Aesop fable. I found it a great use of the fable as a catalyst for strategic thought. And so my question is, why did you choose this particular fable to think about strategy in the U.S. specific relationship? Yeah I'm a big fan of Aesop's fables and I think it's always helpful to think of imagery and storytelling and you know taking a complex

situation and maybe simplifying it and for those that are not familiar with Aesop's fable particularly this tale of the lion and the mouse I personally saw parallels of the U.S. who is symbolized as the lion who has advantage over the mouse, the Pacific Islands. And the expectation is that the mouse might not ever be able to reciprocate the goodwill that the lion could offer. But what ends up happening is that the lion ends up being trapped. And it's the small mouse who offers its sharp teeth to free the lion from the ropes. And when we think back into history, we saw the Pacific Islands in World War II were very critical to the U.S. strategy at that time of leapfrogging through the islands to gain a geographic advantage over our adversary. And as we move forward,

we would be remiss if we didn't remember those contributions that the small but mighty islands offered us, very similar to the mouse with the lion and the fable. Indeed, the Pacific Islands were critical to U.S. military planners in World War II and remain so to this day. Can you give us a little more insight into that strategic importance? Yeah, absolutely. The islands offered the capacity then and the capacity now to support crisis and contingency operations. And Eleanor Roosevelt during World War II, she actually conducted in 1943 a goodwill visit to the pacific islands to visit american troops and she shared with them then that president roosevelt went down to the map room in the white house and he looked every

day at the troop presence in the pacific islands and that was because the u.s was focused on the first island chain and that runs japan taiwan and the philippines and then the pacific islands were the second island chain, which is the farther west and includes Guam. And the U.S. was able to mount the first major amphibious landing in World War II at Guadalcanal, and that halted the Japanese efforts to disrupt supply routes to Australia and New Zealand. And the U.S. was able to isolate Japanese forces from their supply lines, and in doing so, when those strongholds were isolated, ultimately they weakened and at that time that's really when the bonds between the islands and the U.S. were really fortified and the Marshall and Mariner Islands they fell to the U.S. Army and

Marines and as a result the proximity of those islands allowed U.S. aircraft bombers to reach the mainland so again all of that history but really the most important point is that the islands, then and now, will offer the ability to support crisis and contingency operations in Asia. What do you see changing now geopolitically, geo-economically, that demands a greater U.S. focus? Right now, the U.S. is in a very different situation than it was in the last 30, even 50 years. When the U.S. was engaged in the Cold War, our interest in the region was really unmatched. And that is changing. Now that China is focused on becoming the regional hegemon in the region, they're valuing the Pacific Islands for the same reasons that we do. You know, they

see the value in the military access, refueling ships, military basing, the potential for space operations, sea lanes, shipping, and all of those opportunities that exist for us. China also sees them as opportunities and wants to position itself. And there's even some speculation that China could move its borders by having influence in the region. So one really good example of that is Kiribati. And Kiribati recently has received an infusion of Chinese economic support. And in exchange for that economic support, there has been speculation, there has been discussion about having China have military basing in Kiribati and that is concerning because we saw during the Cuban Missile Crisis the value of geographic proximity. It was Cuba's proximity

to the United States that escalated that situation. So having Kiribati have Chinese influence on the island could potentially put the United States in a very precarious situation if that means our geographic proximity, because of Hawaii, is getting closer to Carabas and vice versa. Yes, Carabas is some 1,500 miles from Hawaii, and according to the United Nations, it is one of the most eight dependent countries in the world and one of the most remote. Yes, so Carabas is one of the most remote and geographically dispersed countries in the world. That being said, it does cover an area larger than India. And it really does connect Hawaii, Australia, and New Zealand. Despite its size, Kiribati has no military. And its population, it's about one sixth the size of Washington, D.C., just to give you context, and a gross domestic product that's less than $200 million. dollars. So all of those factors can be considered. That means that China does have the ability to

influence Kiribati. And that influence might change China's access to the countries in the area such as our country and Australia and New Zealand. And so that's one of the concerns with China is that it actually could, in essence, shift its own borders closer to ours. So in terms of why the greater U.S. focus now, we can't be complacent. Although there is not a specific example in the Pacific Islands, there is an example in Sri Lanka where China offered economic support in terms of loans. And Sri Lanka put up one of their ports as collateral. And when they defaulted on that loan, China did take over the port. And we know that some of the islands right now, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic are in a state where their economies are very fragile. So we want to make

sure that the U.S. focus is allowing the Pacific Islands to maintain their self-sovereignty so that they are not inclined to put up their geography as collateral. And even if they're not putting up their geography explicitly as collateral, just as China is engaging in economic colonization and having more of a presence on the islands that can also be a concern. So we saw with Vanuatu that they were discussing military basing as well with the Chinese, or there was speculation that they were. And what that might allow the Chinese to do is to also engage in surveillance. So the United States does conduct ballistic missile testing in the region. And so having the Chinese so close would definitely allow us to be vulnerable to surveillance. So

that's why right now it's very important that the U.S. shift its focus to the Pacific. I want to back up to what you said there, that China is engaging in economic colonization. That to me implicates issues of sovereignty. Can you explain what you mean by economic colonization? When we talk about economic colonization, if you think back, John Adams said there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword and the other is by debt. And it is concerning that right now China is offering loans, whereas countries like the United States and New Zealand and Australia will offer grants to the Pacific Islands. And again, the concern is that that monetary infusion might not be able to be paid back in the timeline, and what will be offered in exchange will be geographic resources.

We're also seeing the weaponization of tourism in the region. So there are a few industries that keep the Pacific Islands afloat, and tourism is one of them. And a really good example of this was Palau. So China was responsible for over half of the tourism in Palau. And as a result, the tourism industry flourished in terms of hotels, restaurants, voting for tourism. When Palau did not recognize Beijing and continued to recognize Taiwan, China ceased allowing tourism to Palau. And that absolutely made a terrible impact on the economy of Palau. So we're seeing where the economies are intertwined, but there is now dependency on the Chinese economy for the Pacific Islands to be able to survive.

and that in itself can make the Pacific Islands very susceptible to corruption and Chinese influence. There is a lot of poverty in the Pacific Islands and when we think about China and we think about the Pacific Islands they do have similarities and one of them is that they are collective cultures, collective societies and we saw China has been propelled from poverty to prosperity and that is compelling that is an inspirational narrative and that is a narrative that the chinese can wield in terms of having empathy for the islands so when we talk about economic colonization it's really creating interdependence but more of a dependency on the islands on china how has that dependency impacted sovereignty in the pacific island

countries in terms of diplomacy and diplomatic norm shifting. You mentioned Palau and the weaponization of tourism. And you talked about Chinese political pressure on the countries to shift diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Beijing. What are some other examples? The Palau is an excellent example. But there are also other examples of China and how it is trying to shape and inspire the Pacific Islands to consider its position in the international community. And then also just showing its influence and its power. And another good example of that is the Chinese government refused to vacate a private residence that was rented by the Chinese consulate in Tahiti. So what we saw there was that when the Chinese government was

not vacating this private residence, the local government really was unable to apply pressure to counter China. And again, the situation was resolved, but it shows that in terms of diplomatic norms, China was, you know, exercising its dominance over the islands and their self sovereignty. You offer a strategy for the United States to build any full partner capacity in the Pacific Island countries to enable them to withstand that dominance. Talk us through your strategy and its timeliness. The strategy is not significantly different than the strategy that we've had in the past. However, there have been some recent developments that allow for some quick wins. So the strategy is multi-pronged and it's a proactive strategy. And it's important to note

that it's not a military strategy. Because what we really want to do is balance military and security, along with diplomatic and informational instruments of power. And that's to show that the US is not just motivated by security, but by regional stability, and by prosperity and partnerships. And so the first two areas that I focused on, and I'll actually add a third that was not in the article, is climate change diplomacy. So with the change in administration from the Trump administration to the Biden administration, there was an immediate return to the Paris Agreement. And that was very important to the Pacific Islands. It was symbolism that we recognized just how much the Pacific Islands have been affected by climate change. And so in terms

of climate change diplomacy, this is a huge opportunity for the U.S. to show that our values align with the Pacific Islands and that we're working towards the same goals and the same end states. And the second is vaccine diplomacy. And vaccine diplomacy is very important right now because I had mentioned that the Pacific Islands, part of their key facets of their economy is tourism. So the sooner that they can reopen their borders safely and attract back tourists, that's going to help their unemployment, their economic growth, their entrepreneurship, and it's going to allow them to have that resiliency and that self-reliance. And also the vaccine diplomacy approach is a great opportunity for the U.S. to leverage our prestige in terms of the vaccines,

The industries that we have in terms of the pharmaceutical industry, the research, all the STEM, that's an opportunity for the U.S. to really make an impact and showcase what we're capable of doing on a global scale. the one thing that I didn't put in the article but I think is really important is the U.S. specific relationship was solidified during World War II and as members of the greatest generation the World War II generation pass away and that legacy starts to fade and we don't have that connective tissue what are some other ways that we can create intergenerational legacies and where generations can be impacted. And one of those ways is the student exchange program. So we are very fortunate that we share a common language with most of the Pacific Islands in terms of English and allowing students from the Pacific Islands to receive their education

in the United States. That allows for them to experience American democracy, our values, our culture, and it also invests in their human capital. So those individuals can actually go back to their countries in the Pacific Islands and become future leaders, become entrepreneurs, reinvest in their community, and create those human-to-human ties as they've created relationships. So our strategy is anchored on the people-to-people ties, whether that's through USAID or the Peace core that allow us to humanize the mission of the United States and our values, but student exchanges will amplify that and accelerate it. So that is fundamentally a soft power approach. Why is that important? As we think of the U.S. soft power approach, I think we need to really

focus on what is our comparative advantage, and that is not the same as China, and that's okay. China, with the Belt and Road initiatives, they're really focused on infrastructure developments. And we are not matching China dollar for dollar in terms of monetary infusion. But what is important and what will be advantageous in the long term is our shared values, religion, culture, patriotism. Many of the Pacific Islanders serve in the U.S. military and we can focus on our strengths. So I mentioned earlier opportunities like higher education. That is something that the United States, the international arena is known for is our higher education. So how can we promote in terms of our soft power, higher education, our public health, our commitment to climate change? And in doing so, in terms of soft power, we have the opportunity to listen and respond accordingly to the Pacific Islands. And a great example of how this went sideways at one point was New Zealand in 2017.

In 2017, New Zealand, recognizing the impact of climate change, did a pilot program for climate refugees. However, the Pacific Islanders did not want that. They saw refugee status as a last resort, and they would have preferred more of an incremental approach, such as partners working on reducing emissions, supporting geographic adaptations to make sure that during bad weather, the islands were protected, allowing for legal migration pathways. And then if all of those things didn't work, then the Pacific Islanders wanted to pursue refugee status. Leaving their homes is a last resort for them. And so New Zealand thought by offering climate change refugee status, that would be welcomed, but they failed to really do the discovery with the islands. And that's where our soft power can come to our advantage, is not only recognizing what our strengths are, but recognizing the preference of the islands and how can we work with them to build that capacity for self-reliance. And in having self-reliance, they will be able to avoid foreign intervention from countries that might be predatory like China. In the article, you called out strategic leadership. Explain. So when we think about strategic leadership, one of the tenets of that, particularly with climate change, is the value of patience. and a courageous leader who's going to stay committed to climate change policy.

And despite economic pressure, whether that be from industry or other facets of the government, consistency is going to be very important to this region. And we have to also show empathy. And I think that's another key aspect of the strategic leadership, is showing empathy for what is going on in the Pacific Islands and how the change in climate is affecting their posterity. We, as the United States, we are a Pacific nation too. And although we have not endured the same effects

from rising sea levels and climate change, this is an issue that is of utmost importance to us as well. And we need to understand that right now, the islanders depend, many of them, on the ocean, not only for their livelihood, but for their way of life. And climate change is disrupting potable water, food security, the coral reefs, access to fishing. And so when we think about climate change and strategic leadership, it's not just participating in the international forums, but showing through our diplomatic channels that we understand and emphasize and that we will stay the course no matter what administration is at the helm.

One of the strongest ways to demonstrate that consistency, that commitment, is by legislative action. But this is not always immediately doable for domestic political reasons. Absent legislative action for now. What areas of opportunity do you see for congressional engagement that can help to signal some of that U.S. commitment on climate action? so although the pacific island countries um do not have a presence in the legislative branch specifically and i'll just start there um there is a lot of influence in the region you know as we have uh territories they have delegates um who can participate uh in caucuses um and then also the presence of industry is very important. So this is crucial because as key members represent

industry, whether that is the airline or fishing or the tourism, those industries can also lobby for the economic interests of the Pacific. And, you know, in addition, as I mentioned to the Delegates that represent American Samoa and Guam and the Northern Mariner Islands. All of this activity can influence and shape some of that congressional engagement on issues that are affecting the region. Let's talk about implementation and outcomes. What will be the role of the interagency in the implementation of your strategy? What are some key challenges? So one of the challenges of the implementation of the strategy is absolutely how can the Indo-Pacific Command and the State Department work together to ensure that there is a cohesive and consistent degree of engagement and making sure that other interagency partners that would be involved in addressing climate change and vaccine diplomacy are all working in concert together. And so, you know, one of the opportunities, again, is the Department of Defense. They developed a climate assessment tool. And recently, in October, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities, she testified, Marissa Dalton, in front of Congress alongside State Department and USAID, explaining that the DOD understands climate change and the impact to the region.

And they're going to be using that tool for the strategy and planning and investment and activities that go on. So how can the Department of Defense and the other agencies information share so that they can predict response and do prepared efforts in terms of climate change? I think the other area of opportunity in terms of the interagency and the implementation of strategy is to recognize as we work towards getting the islands with vaccine diplomacy to a state where they can then use that to be part of their economic, change the economics in the region, is that we can be creative. So another project is in Timor, actually China and the USAID and the United States work together on an agricultural project to improve food security and to improve farming practices. And I call that out because it's a really unique opportunity for the U.S. to show its cooperation and that our interest truly is in the Pacific Islands. And it's not to counter China. It's to make them more resilient. Now, as we think about key challenges and obstacles, we understand that the Pacific Island countries have gravitated toward China. And that's been born out of a desire to diversify their partnership.

And in some ways, it might be because of lack of engagement by the U.S. So as we think about economic and development initiatives, as well with the military. So as you know, the Nevada State Partnership Program through the Army National Guard goes over to the Pacific Islands as well and teaches them and works with them and partners with them for that resiliency. And that is a security cooperation element. So we need to make sure that the economic and the development and the security are just very balanced. So that's definitely going to be an obstacle and a challenge is making sure that the strategy at no point becomes security top heavy, that we really also focus on balancing out the Pacific Islands. And also, the pandemic has really shifted our domestic priorities. As we looked inward, as the United States now focus on our economy and making sure that we weather the pandemic, there's going to be competition for financial priorities. So that's also going to be another challenge in terms of gaining congressional support.

And the last challenge is that although climate change has affected the United States, the Pacific Islands are living and experiencing it every day in a way that we in the continental U.S. just do not feel. So that sense of urgency is not the same for us as it is for the Pacific Island. And so we can't be complacent. We can't be overconfident that the Pacific Island's relationship with the U.S. will stay the same if we don't increase our attention and investment. And we need to make sure no matter what that we just stay interest driven and that we're not just a reaction to China's influence and presence in the region. So what does success look like?

Success looks like the islands, as I mentioned, having that self-sovereignty. So for us, and what we want is not to corner the Pacific Island countries, but rather, you know, to create conditions in which they can choose us to be the partner of choice. and also that we recognize the capacity and the capability of the Pacific Island countries and give them the projects that they desire and that we do show that strategic leadership and that empathy to allow them to partner with us so that we can understand what it is that they're going to need in the future and what they would be able to maintain in the future. As we've mentioned, we've had that shared interest, the values, the histories, but we

cannot let that atrophied. And now with the infusion of China in the region, we need to accelerate and up level, which is, as we discussed in congressional involvement and additional funding. Right now, we're, you know, taking the approach, which I think is the right approach, which is to use our diplomatic and economic instruments as carrots. You know, we want to incentivize the Pacific Island countries to elevate themselves and then also allow our economic support to help us build those relationships that we've had in the past and make them a continuum. You mentioned funding, so let's talk about that. The current NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, includes funding for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative.

This funding is, of course, targeted more to platforms and capabilities, and your strategy is more about enabling. But as the Biden administration noted in its budget request earlier this year, the funding provides a broad military foundation to advance other policy priorities and activities, including strengthening alliances and partnerships in the region. So my question is, what do you see mattering in this funding for the purposes of your strategy? the pacific deterrence initiative um we saw with the ndaa initially the request was five billion dollars and actually it was approved to be over seven billion dollars so i think that really is a sign uh how important right now the pacific is especially the pacific deterrence initiative and what that funding is going to do is it is going to improve our posture our readiness in the region. Most of it will be allocated to ships and aircrafts. And the distinction about the

funding is that it is about platforms versus enablers. I would note that my strategy is focused more on enabling. And part of what we want to do with the Pacific Deterrence Initiative is that we really want to work hand in hand with our partners, such as Australia and New Zealand. And part of that reason is because Australia and New Zealand have that proximity, you know, they're in the backyard of the Pacific Islands, and they also have a very deep culture and history that is intertwined, and they have invested very, very much in the diplomacy in the region. And I think that's an opportunity that the United States can really advertise is that with our presence, you also have the presence of Australia and New Zealand. And although it's not interchangeable, and it is a partnership, a collective partnership, and what Australia and New Zealand is able to do right now is offer the advantage of having diplomatic embassies in the region. In fact, right now, it's Australia that has over, I think, 19 embassies in the Pacific. And so in terms of security cooperation, investment, cultural programs, educational exchanges, three is definitely mightier than one. And no matter what our gaps are, there is an opportunity for New Zealand and Australia to cover down and for us to work collectively to make sure that the Pacific Island countries have what they need. And so we need to stay present, but we also need to create balance where we recognize with the Pacific to Turn initiative that we can work with New Zealand and Australia as we infuse platforms, but not lose sight of the ability to be enablers as well.

And why is that important for the larger U.S. posture in the region? how we interact with the Pacific Island countries will be noticed by the rest of the world. And I think it is important to think about our brand. Who are we? What are our values? How do we as the United States present to the global community that we are strong partners? How do other partners perceive us by the way that we behave. And right now, I think it's incredibly important that with the switch to the Biden administration, a key priority has been to focus on climate change. At the recent UN climate change conference, it was the United States on the international stage, really showcasing diplomatically and financially how we will be

taking responsibility. And that's a powerful message that we are sending to the Pacific Island countries and to the world. So we're seeing Secretary Perry on the global stage. He is focusing on how the U.S. can shape and improve climate change. And what are we doing in the Pacific Island countries? This is sending a message of empathy and trying to understand what the needs are. There have been examples in the past where the United States arguably has been paternalistic and has prioritized some of our needs. If you think of the initial story about the lion and the mouse and the United States being the lion and the Pacific Islands being the mouse, we have in the past particularly with some of our nuclear bomb testing near the Marshall Islands

put our needs before the Pacific Island countries and we didn't have empathy for what they were going through some of our military testing in the region caused environmental degradation it compromised agriculture there is evidence that there was lasting medical complications and you know the united states was ordered to pay over 2.3 billion dollars by the nuclear claims tribunal and we haven't compensated the pacific island countries as we were ordered to and so the pacific island countries they they accepted this because as the mouse they felt that the lion was shaping the relationship and we took it for granted that we could be paternalistic and make decisions for the Pacific Island countries.

But what I think we see now with the Pacific Island countries, with the infusion of China in the region, is that they have competitive options with the Chinese. And we have to understand now, and climate change is really an area of opportunity where we can come together and understand what it is that the Pacific Island countries need to improve and have their land be enduring. So we need to move forward with them and recognize what capacity that they have, what we can actually help with. And then from there, we can layer on now that we have this common issue that we both are passionate about climate change. And we can also find other areas of opportunity in terms of security and space exploration and

sea lanes, maintaining the free flow of goods in the region. But we have to remember the Pacific Island countries, they have choice, and they might be willing to leverage other partners if we are not having empathy for the situations that are most important to them. Going forward, what will be the U.S. role in the Pacific Islands? And what will it mean for the U.S.-Pacific relationship? So the United States has been and will continue to be collaborative and cooperative with the Pacific Islands. And back when Secretary Hillary Clinton visited the region, she was Secretary of State, and she emphasized in many public speeches that the United States has the Pacific Islands in our best interest and their best interest. We are also a Pacific country, a Pacific Island

country ourselves. And I'm going to paraphrase what Secretary Clinton said. She said that the Pacific Islands is big enough for all of us, meaning that there is a place for the United States, for China, for New Zealand, because ultimately it's important that the Pacific Island countries have good relationships with as many partners as possible. It doesn't have to be binary. It doesn't have to be the United States or China. We can all participate and contribute to the betterment of the Pacific Islands. Because where we, the United States, want to get is we want to get to the point where the Pacific Island countries are self-resilient, they have self-sovereignty. And in terms of our presence and our role in the region as a partner, we want

be the type of partner that the Pacific Islands can predict that we're invested in their success because it is bi-directional. When the Pacific Islands are successful, the United States is successful as well. Lieutenant Colonel Keenan, thank you for talking to us. Fariga, can you tell our listeners where they can find you online and what you're working on next? Yes, absolutely. They can always find me on LinkedIn. And then also right now, As I mentioned, I'm at Cyber National Mission Force, and so I'm working on ransomware, and I am in the process of writing a paper with my colleague, Major Jason Kikda, on ransomware, so that should be coming out soon. We'll definitely look out for that. To our listeners, Lieutenant Colonel Laura Keenan's article, The Lion and the Mask, The Need for Greater U.S. Focus in the Pacific Islands, is linked in the show notes below, as are all of the sources discussed. Thank you again for joining Sea Control. Till next time.

© transcript Emily Beynon © transcript Emily Beynon