Chairman Park Hee-Tae, Fellow Distinguished Legislators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

      It is a great honor and privilege to be here today representing my colleagues in the Congress of the United States at this international gathering of leaders of legislative bodies.  All of us, I am sure, have attended international conferences in the past, but this opportunity for us to converse about problems that transcend national boundaries and the solutions to them is unique.

     Clearly, we live in troubled times.  But the very fact that we, as parliamentarians from around the world, are gathered here in Seoul, Korea to discuss ways we can coordinate policy to address the global financial crisis, poverty, climate change, food shortages and terrorism is an indication that we also live in hopeful times.

     Our collaborative approach to these challenges reminds me of a Samoan proverb which relates so well to the theme which has been chosen for this Consultation – that of “Development and Growth for Common Prosperity.”  The proverb is based on how we make fish nets.  

     In Samoa, a big fish net is made by joining together many smaller parts.  The small parts, known as a tulavae, are made by individuals from varying villages.  Many tulavae are joined together to make a fata, or a complete net.  Because the net is made by many, we have a proverb that states, Ua ‘ou seuseu ma le fata, or I am fishing because I have helped to make a fata.

     In many ways, I believe this is how the world is supposed to be and the business we should be about, especially since G-20 nations account for 85% of global gross national product as well as 80% of world trade.  In 2009, the G-20 nations, which include, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union, announced that it will replace the G8 as the main economic council of wealthy nations.

With this kind of success, I believe we should recognize that it has only come about because we have joined together for the common good of making a fata, or a big net, that all can use to fish.  We must also recognize the contributions of all the villages which make the fata, regardless of whether or not they are associated with the G-20.

     As for my part, I am proud to represent the United States at this Consultation but I also am thankful to represent the people of American Samoa who sacrifice so much so that others may also live in peace.  Like you, Samoans also add their tulavae to the making of the fata.

     In 2005 and again in 2009, USA Today reported that the sacrifice of American Samoa in the Iraq war was disproportionate to the territory’s small size, as residents of the territory were 15 times more likely to be killed in action in Iraq than residents of the United States as a whole.  In honor of American Samoa’s veterans and their service in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, and every war since WWII, I want to pay tribute to them this day and publicly acknowledge all of they have done to secure peace, freedom and liberty for others, including the people of South Korea.

     I am also pleased to share this platform this morning with my distinguished colleagues from Turkey, India, and Indonesia, and I thank them for their thought-provoking presentations during the first session of this Consultation entitled, “Strategies for inter-parliamentary collaboration for world peace and anti-terrorism.”

     We are here today to talk about the challenges we face in parliamentary bodies -- challenges that harm peace, challenges of international terrorism, challenges of trends that could weaken democracy, and challenges that help us find ways to diffuse tension and mitigate conflict.

     I suggest that efforts to enhance stability – economic, social, and political stability – and efforts to strengthen democracy are the best means to meet these challenges head-on.  These efforts need not be the same from one country to another, but each of our countries can learn from the experiences of others and can apply those lessons in ways that adapt to our own individual circumstances and that fit our parliamentary customs and traditions.

     I mentioned the experience of our host country, the Republic of Korea, as being particularly relevant to the theme of our deliberations.  In 50 years, Korea has moved from being the recipient of billions of dollars in economic assistance from the developed countries of Europe and North America to being a donor to less-developed countries in other parts of the world.

     In those five decades, Korea transformed itself from a war-ravaged, largely agricultural, impoverished country into a world leader in manufacturing, high-technology, and export-driven business.

     In 1980 – barely thirty years ago -- the South Korean gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was $2,300, about one-third of nearby developed Asian economies such as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Japan. Since then, South Korea has advanced into a developed economy that had a GDP per capita of $30,000 in 2010, almost thirteen times the figure thirty years earlier. The whole country's GDP increased from $88 billion to $1,460 billion in the same period.

     Moreover, as I noted, in 2009, South Korea became the first major recipient of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to have graduated to the status of a major donor of ODA, a noteworthy accomplishment. In just two years, 2008 and 2009, South Korea contributed economic aid of $1.7 billion to other countries.

This transformation has been called “the miracle on the Han River,” but I can tell you, there was nothing miraculous about it.  There was nothing supernatural about it.  There was nothing magical about it.  Korea’s economic growth and the prosperity it enjoys in the 21st century are the result of human action, deliberate decisions made not just by the government here in Seoul – whose prudent judgments about public policy laid much of the groundwork for this economic expansion – but also the decisions made by individual businesses and consumers, whose choices propelled Korea’s economic growth so that it is now the world’s 11th largest economy.

With that economic growth came political stability and a parallel transformation into a democracy that has seen regular elections that have resulted in the government’s changing hands several times between different political parties, with a robust, free press, a vibrant civil society, and respect for individual rights and the dignity of the human person.

     The example of Korea’s development does not entail the only path to political and economic stability.  But it does enlighten us and it does give hope to those countries around the world whose people continue to struggle with poverty, continue to struggle with autocratic governance, and continue to struggle with fears of conflict and injustice.

     The importance of political stability in a democratic system of governance is underscored by the well-known research of political scientist R. J. Rummel, who taught for many years at the University of Hawaii and is now an emeritus professor.  One of Professor Rummel’s most famous articles is called “Democracies Don’t Fight Democracies.”  If you want to look it up on your smartphones during the upcoming break, you can find it on line in the archives of the appropriately-titled Peace Magazine, where it was published in 1999.

     Professor Rummel studied hundreds of conflicts going back several centuries and found that, in his words, “Democracy is a general cure for political or collective violence of any kind - it is a method of nonviolence.”  I do not want to appear too optimistic about this.  We still live in an age where conflicts transcend borders, where wars and even genocide exist within the boundaries of nation-states, and where the threat of conflict to cross borders continues to exist even in regions that seem superficially peaceful and stable.  Still, I think we should find some hope in various current trends that deserve brief mentions.

     I noted that Korea has now become a donor nation.  Its Official Development Assistance has gone to such various places as Afghanistan, Ecuador, Morocco, Nicaragua, and Vietnam.  Its projects include building houses and health clinics, cleaning up after natural disasters, training workers in the IT sector, helping to conserve forests, and many, many more.  These are good and admirable things.
What is equally good and admirable is that businesses from countries like Korea are also investing in the developing world, bringing capital to Africa, Latin America, and South and Southeast Asia so that manufacturing can expand, commodities can be traded, and jobs can be created.  For example, Korea, Japan, Taiwan, China, and India are rushing to invest in countries all over the continent of Africa -- buying minerals, building railroads, setting up telecommunications networks, opening new businesses, helping expand agriculture beyond the subsistence level, investing in job training.  The list goes on.  One could say they are sowing the seeds of free enterprise in fertile ground that has for too long been ignored.

     All this activity contributes, in the long haul, to the kinds of economic and political stability that are preconditions for lasting peace and the mitigation of conflict.  This is happening all over the world and our job as legislators and policymakers is to create the laws that support human endeavors that result in economic growth so that any individual who wants to seek success can achieve success.  Decisions that we make about tax policy, about immigration policy, about banking laws, about health-care regulations – all of these and the dozens (or hundreds) of decisions we make as elected officials have profound effects on economic and social outcomes.

     I am not here today to prescribe particular policies in any of these fields.  Each of us comes from a place with unique circumstances and traditions, with bodies of law that guide and instruct us.  Yet each of us also has stories to tell about programs that succeeded and programs that failed to achieve their goals, and each of us has questions to ask of the others in this room about what they have done that succeeded or failed.

     Mr. Chairman, thank you for granting me this time today.  I applaud your leadership and look forward to a vigorous discussion at this session and in the remaining sessions of this 2011 Speakers’ Consultation.