Leshchenko said that the perception by some in the West that the war is “unwinnable” is inaccurate when viewed through a historical lens. “We are in 1941. We don't know what the result will be in the end. But we have to fight because if you don’t fight, the result will be horrible.”

Ustinova added, "Poland, or another country, will be next, and it may be a NATO country. And then the Americans would need to put boots on the ground and fight a European war again and lose thousands of your people.”

Russia has created a false narrative about Ukrainian corruption, she said. “What Ukraine was ten years ago and what Ukraine is now are two different countries. We have created very efficient new anti-corruption institutions, like our National Anti-Corruption Bureau, that are supported and highly admired by our international partners, including the United States. We have more than 600 cases in court against former state officials or existent state officials.”

‘Our fight for freedom’

Matviichuk said delays in U.S. military aid are a major concern in Ukraine. “In this difficult situation, we have no other choice. Our people in Ukraine will continue our fight for freedom and democracy because if we stop fighting, there will be no more Ukrainians.”

Leshchenko said he had recently been in the Donetsk region, where he visited two Ukrainian brigades. He urged the continuation of American military assistance as the lack of support was affecting their troops.

“The general mood is quite uncertain,” he said. “The soldiers are really disappointed with the lack of ammunition for vehicles and artillery, which they need to attack Russian positions. Unfortunately, they cannot do so now — this lack of ammunition is crucial.” But he added, “We will keep fighting.”

Ustinova said the world has grown too comfortable in believing that Ukraine would prevail without ongoing support. 

“A year ago, when I was speaking on this same panel, I was very enthusiastic because we were planning the counteroffensive. We had been successful in getting some territories back, and I think the world was really clapping and standing behind Ukrainians for winning the war within the last year. It is very sad for me to say now from Kyiv that everything has changed,” she said.

Russia was the only country that ramped up its ammunition and weapons production over the past couple of years, she added. “Last year, they tripled the production of their ballistic and ultrasonic missiles.” 

Noting that Russia has kidnapped more than 20,000 Ukrainian children, Ustinova said, “This is not just a Ukrainian conflict. This is a much bigger deal we are looking at right now. We have Iran. We have North Korea. We have Russia standing on one side, and we have the Western world and democracy standing on the other side. I’m so sorry to say, but the first group is so far more efficient than the second one.”

She explained, “It’s much easier for autocracies and those regimes to be united and take the decisions to ramp up their production lines than for the Western democracies who have to debate and negotiate.”

Technology race, Ukrainian efficiencies

Honcharuk said the war has crystalized Ukraine’s focus on military efficiency. Last year, his teams completed about 2,000 combat missions and destroyed over 700 units of enemy military equipment. This year, they are planning for 20,000 combat missions.

“I believe Ukraine is already a trendsetter,” he said. “The technology race is very fast when you have a war. Day by day, you are trying to compete with the enemy, and Ukraine is forced to maintain this very high pace to survive. There is only one country that currently has the same high pace, and it may be even higher — that is Russia.”

He said that Russia already understands that Ukraine will not give up “I believe now Russia is trying to find other weak spots on democratic camp … It’s very sad if they are right. The whole free world is in a very dangerous situation because Russia learned their lessons very fast, and they are much more dangerous than they were a year or two ago.”

Yet Honcharuk described the Ukrainian army as the best army in the world to fight against Russia. “We understand both systems, NATO systems and post-Soviet systems, at the same time, and we can destroy and damage Russian forces with very few resources.”

Ustinova noted the grim irony of Russia chairing the United Nations Security Council. “The United Nations was invented to prevent the wars in the world. Russia is the number one terrorist in the world, and they are the chair of the Security Council of the United Nations?! Everybody pretends this to be okay?!”

‘A hard war’

Stoner said that the Russian invasion has wrought significant damage on Ukraine as a country. “The World Bank estimated last year that it would cost over $411 billion for Ukrainian reconstruction, and I’m sure that number has increased rather dramatically in the last six or so months.”

In closing, McFaul told the panelists, “A lot of your friends are here in the audience. We miss you. We want you to come back. We want to celebrate victory. But we’re also worried about you. This is a hard war, and you are all very involved in everything in your own ways. I cannot believe you’re being so generous with your time with us as late as it is there.”

Stoner added, “This is not just a Ukrainian fight, it is. It is a fight for everyone, and thank you all for everything that you’re doing.”

You can view a recording of the panel and discussion below and read more about the event in the Stanford Daily.

In February 1986, Scot Marciel was driving home after midnight and went past what he assumed was just another protest near military facilities in downtown Manila. The gathering, less than a year into his first overseas assignment with the Foreign Service, turned out to be the early days of the Philippine People Power revolution, leading to the end of the Ferdinand Marcos regime. This was just one of several times during his 35-year career in the State Department that Marciel would find himself witnessing historic moments in Southeast Asia and in the U.S. relationship with the countries of the region.

That illustrious career includes being the first U.S. diplomat to work in Hanoi since the end of the Vietnam War and serving as the first U.S. ambassador for ASEAN Affairs and as U.S. ambassador to Indonesia and Myanmar.

Marciel, Oksenberg-Rohlen Fellow at FSI and affiliated with APARC, has distilled his experiences and observations into his new book, Imperfect Partners: The United States and Southeast Asia (Shorenstein APARC/ Rowman & Littlefield, 2023). In it, he offers his on-the-ground account of the ups and downs of critical U.S. relationships in the region — focusing on the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Indonesia — and examines the role of ASEAN and China’s influence in Southeast Asia.

To mark the book’s release, we talked with Marciel about recent events in the region and his views on how the United States should approach Southeast Asian countries in the context of China’s efforts to sow closer ties with them. Watch the conversation:

A Return to the Philippines

The Philippines under President Ferdinand “Bong Bong” Marcos, Jr. is now allowing U.S. forces expanded access to four of its bases. Marciel, who first met Marcos, Jr. as the provincial governor of Ilocos Norte in 1985, expressed some surprise at the Philippine president’s rapid shift to strengthen the country’s alliance with the United States. He noted, however, that even in the last year of the Duterte presidency, which frequently was at odds with the United States, there was some recognition in the Philippines that the relationship with China wasn’t bearing the fruit that had been anticipated. Marciel also pointed out that the deal with the United States does not mean Marcos has abandoned China: he is still working on keeping the relationship with Beijing healthy and visiting Japan, another important partner.

Although there is some Philippine civil opposition to the renewed presence of U.S. forces, Marciel believes that the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) will provide an opportunity for a “more modern and equal partnership,” and hopefully one that can supplant memories of the U.S. colonial history in the Philippines.

Southeast Asian Charm Competition?

As concern continues to rise about a possible invasion of Taiwan by the People’s Republic of China, some have questioned the effectiveness of the U.S. capability to compete with China, particularly in terms of a diplomatic offensive. Marciel responded to a recent New York Times article on U.S. and Chinese efforts to “woo” Indonesia. As China continues to seal trade deals in Southeast Asia, some of which are part of its Belt and Road Initiative, we asked whether the United States can compete with China’s free-flowing cash.

Marciel, taking a step back, cautions that “Indonesia is not a prize to be won,” and that we should not be “scoring diplomatic relations like a sporting event” when we look at improving ties with the countries of Southeast Asia. Indonesia, for example, has a long history with the Non-Aligned Movement, so while it attempts to attract foreign investment, it will resist aligning with any one major power. China tends to offer attractive investment packages with minimal conditions, but “you can’t always count on those investments to happen,” notes Marciel, and even when they do, there can be issues with corruption, as well as social and environmental consequences. The United States tries to put together investments that consider issues like labor and the environment, but Marciel believes that “sometimes we aim a little high” and the conditions make U.S. offerings less attractive.

The Continuing Crisis in Myanmar

We spoke with Marciel just after the second anniversary of the 2021 coup in Myanmar. He began his term as U.S. ambassador to that country in 2016, just before Aung Sang Suu Kyi’s new government was about to take office. As he puts it, it was a time of “euphoria,” not only in Myanmar but also in terms of U.S. hopes for democracy there. It turned out to be a difficult four years for Myanmar and Marciel, as the Rohingya crisis repeatedly erupted and the Myanmar military reacted with violent operations that drove hundreds of thousands of Rohingya out of Myanmar. As Marciel relates in his book, he soon found that even using the word “Rohingya” in U.S. embassy statements could create a diplomatic crisis.

Even with the horrific Rohingya genocide, Marciel cautiously notes that by 2020, when he left the country, most people in Myanmar had more opportunity and freedom under four years of a democratically elected government—the Rohingya themselves being the obvious exception. But in 2021, the “military coup basically eliminated that hope and opportunity.”

Marciel doesn’t hold much hope for an end to the coup anytime soon, but he does see at least one “positive development” over the last two years. During the worst of the Rohingya crisis, many in the majority Bamar community did not believe the reports of massacres, or even worse, did not care. But now, after two years of military rule, “more and more Myanmar people are explicitly recognizing the legitimate grievances and the suffering of many of the ethnic minority populations, including the Rohingya, over the past years, and [there is] some recognition that they were fed a lot of propaganda for a long time about what was really happening.”

Establishing Relations with Vietnam

One of Marciel’s great success stories is the normalization of U.S. ties with Vietnam. It was an improbable success with any number of obstacles likely to prevent it from happening, not the least being the debate about the fate of U.S. prisoners of war and servicemen reported as missing in action. Saigon fell in 1975, and yet in 1995, just 20 years later, diplomatic relations were restored and the U.S. embassy opened in Hanoi.

According to Marciel, it took patience, pragmatism, but also the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. No longer able to rely on Soviet help for their economy, the Vietnamese became more open to work with the United States, particularly on POW-MIA issues, allowing Vietnamese imprisoned in re-education camps to flee the country, and withdrawing Vietnamese forces from Cambodia.

Marciel sees the U.S.-Vietnam relationship today as a “good-news story” that shows the degree of progress that can be attained when two countries are willing to be rational and work together. The United States still has significant concerns about human rights in Vietnam yet “both sides have agreed to talk about that issue, but not let it define or limit the relationship excessively.”

How the United States Can Improve Relations in Southeast Asia

When pressed for a prescription on what the United States can do to further improve its relationships with the countries in the region, Marciel said, “In brief, show up and engage consistently, with humility, and with a focus on the countries that we’re talking to, not on China, because what they’re looking for, for the most part is, ‘Can we count on the United States being a long-term partner?’”

By ensuring the reliability of the partnership, countries in Southeast Asia have more freedom of maneuver, and they can, if necessary, be more capable to “make decisions China might not like.” The flip side of that—the failure to show up at presidential and high governmental levels, like what happened during the Trump administration—means “you’ve undone all the good that you had done in previous years by investing in those relationships.” The price of isolationism, of neglecting U.S. diplomatic relations in Southeast Asia, is that those countries lose confidence in the United States as a reliable partner. 

Education is widely considered one of the greatest investments a government can make into its citizens and economic prosperity. At the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), government officials are working with partner countries to improve the quality and reach of their education systems. The agency recently stood up the Center for Education, charged with achieving sustained, measurable improvements in students’ learning outcomes and skills development. In addition, education teams are embedded within regional bureaus and are responsible for assisting with country-level education programming. 

Over the summer, I had the opportunity to intern with USAID’s Africa Bureau, where I learned how the U.S. Government (USG) foreign assistance is programmed to support children and youth’s educational development. During my internship, I participated in numerous working groups that deepened my understanding of what education has the power to do for children and youth, particularly the most vulnerable and marginalized.

One of my most meaningful assignments was helping to lead the USG’s Working Group on Education in Crisis and Conflict Settings. Through this experience, I learned that schooling is important for a myriad of reasons beyond learning outcomes and job placement. In conflict and crises zones, for instance, schools can provide children with physical and emotional protection as well as a greater sense of normalcy. 

For this group, I was responsible for encouraging participant engagement and organizing monthly meetings. I secured additional members, solicited member feedback, and crafted agendas based on participant input and events on the ground. Through this group, I was able to see first-hand how the USG is ensuring the continuity of education programming in some of the most difficult humanitarian crises zones—from Haiti to Afghanistan.

I was also able to take part in several joint research projects that USAID funded in collaboration with external partners. These research projects included: 1) a review of social and emotional learning outcomes for students in Africa, 2) an analysis of how education contributes to resiliency in Africa (and vice-versa), and 3) an examination of how violence against children is perpetrated within school systems and recommendations for prevention. I coordinated workflow between USAID and external partners for these research projects, compiled feedback, participated in working sessions on key findings, and observed field interviews. 

Most significantly, I distilled each of the final research papers into three two-page summary sheets for ease of reference for our team and future collaborators. Of the three research topics, I found the insight into social and emotional learning outcomes to be the most interesting. While I had conceptualized learning outcomes solely in terms of curriculum content, schooling is also paramount for developing students’ social and emotional competencies – from peer-to-peer dynamics to emotional self-regulation. These competencies, which schools, directly and indirectly, teach their students, are critical for helping individuals to manage shocks and stressors into adulthood.

Lastly, I helped to roll out two new initiatives within my team for USAID writ large. First, I helped launch a new USAID working group on promoting resiliency within the education system in Africa.  I worked with the lead organizer to finalize the participant list, develop the kickoff meeting agenda, and review the group’s statement of work and overall mission. Second, I assisted with developing an online training module designed to assist officers with safeguarding and protecting children’s rights within education programs. I coordinated with external partners to organize a two-week pilot testing of the training module – securing expert USAID officers to help pilot, creating and reviewing feedback forms, and taking the training myself.

From this training, I learned that schools are not always safe spaces that positively impact the lives of children.  At times, schools are the site of violence and abuse, particularly in crisis and conflict-affected areas and among the most marginalized. The training taught me how to identify signs of abuse and respond to and report situations of abuse. 

At the conclusion of my internship, I not only gained greater insight into education programming but also into my future career trajectory. I applied to the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Program (MIP) at the the Freeman Spogli Institute with the intention to focus on international security from a humanitarian, development, and human rights perspective. I envision my next job within USAID, the U.S. Department of State, or the United States Institute of Peace. Now that I have interned with USAID, I am certain that this is still the path I see for myself. Following my internship, I plan to apply to the Presidential Management Fellows Program, as well as directly to USG hiring agencies. I am confident that my time spent at USAID has prepared me well for this new chapter.

[Subscribe to APARC’s newsletters to receive our experts' latest updates.]

The Role of the Special Envoy

As the Biden administration begins to review policy towards North Korea in earnest, King’s book and perspectives are particularly timely. Drawing on over a decade of experience, King explains how the role of the special envoy provides a unique opportunity to influence the policy agenda on human rights. As a senior member within the U.S. State Department, the envoy is in a position to both elevate the importance of rights violations to policymakers in Washington and provide feedback on how policy decisions impact the situation on the ground.     

King outlines several avenues where U.S. policymakers can increase pressure on North Korea to address the ongoing human rights crisis in the country. Predominantly among them is the recommendation to support the work on human rights already done by the UN and UN agencies, such as the reporting of Special Rapporteur Tomás Quintana.

“North Korea is very sensitive about its international legitimacy,” King notes. “Working through the UN and with UN agencies gives greater validity and acceptability to the human rights issues and puts greater pressure on North Korea to follow international norms.”

King’s other recommendations center more directly on the people of North Korea. He urges ongoing support for initiatives and agreements that foster access to information and proper distribution of resources and aid for North Koreans within the country along with freedom of movement for those who are attempting to leave and face crossing hostile borders into China. 

Responsibilities in Seoul

Speaking as King’s counterpart and colleague in South Korea, Jung-Hoon Lee echoed the need for visibility and accountability — both globally and in South Korea — for the DPRK's human rights crisis. “In the public eye and the global context, the human rights condition in North Korea is not very familiar. Why? There’s no access. The North Korean society is completely cocooned. There are terrible human rights conditions in other parts of the world, but there is access in those cases to see what is going on. In North Korea, there are only testimonials. There are no pictures or documentaries of the gulags and atrocities. That’s why it is so important that we keep raising this issue.”

For Lee, this means working with and through many of the same channels that King points to, such as the UN, and recognizing as a global community the scale of the crimes against humanity being committed.

But it also means accepting responsibilities closer to home. Lee firmly rejects the opinion raised by the South Korean Foreign Minister that refocusing on North Korean human rights and reappointing an ambassador to fill Lee’s now-vacant position is “useless.” Such indifference towards human rights issues in North Korea is damaging, warns Lee, citing the scrutiny South Korea suffered during the recent Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearings before the U.S. Congress.

The Road Towards Accountability

Human rights are only one facet of U.S. policy toward North Korea, but we undermine the overall relationship with the North if the United States abandons human rights in pursuit of security or economic goals, writes King in his book. "Policy toward North Korea involves interrelated issues that we frequently separate for analytical purposes or because they are dealt with in different ways or by different means. But these issues are interconnected, and they are not really separable."

Ultimately, any meaningful action to address North Korea's human rights violations will require coordinated efforts from international organizations, national governments, and civic organizations. In the third and final part of the Korea Program’s spring 2021 series on human rights in North Korea, forthcoming on May 20, leaders from the private sector will discuss the challenges of bringing together independent actors and organizations to raise awareness and call for accountability in North Korea. Registration for the event is open to the public.